CVS update: tng/source/passdb

Simo Sorce idra at
Tue Jan 8 08:15:35 GMT 2002

Well, I generally tend not to answer to these threads, but here my thoughts
on a few things:

On Tue, Jan 08, 2002 at 03:25:25PM +0000, Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 07, 2002 at 04:38:49PM -0800, Jeremy Allison wrote:
> > On Tue, Jan 08, 2002 at 12:35:27AM +0000, Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton wrote:

>  however, the fact that you do not care [about allowing
>  other people and other vendors to interoperate with ncacn_np]
>  is totally unacceptable, and i will explain why, below.

how it happened that jeremy has the power to do so is totally unknown to me.

> > Samba is not a mechanism for running arbitrary dce/rpc code.
>  this blaze statement is not acceptable.  with under
>  four hours work using an IDL file that, when i find the time
>  i will write for you, you will _have_ a mechanism for 
>  running arbitrart dce/rpc code, you damn fool.

Well, probably you do not understand what Jeremy is trying to say you:
Samba has not been made to run dce/rps code, full stop!
It has been created as a file and print sharing tool, where MS forced then
to add support of a little amount of dce/rpc (and lately ldap) to maintain compatibility, this is the only reason why rpc made it's way into samba I think.

>  please do not attempt to mislead other people or use your own
>  misinformation in order to justify keeping control over samba.

keeping control on what?
Samba is free software you may adapt it to your needs if you want to.
Oh, OPS, you already tried that way and you did not succeded.

Now you should analyze that and stop to blame at people.
the project had problems or most probably there was no interest in
dce/rpc. In Free Software world things go this way, you raise interest
or you make it your self, if both fail it means the project simply was
not needed by you or by any other else.
Why should the samba team be forced to change things break our code and
put so much effort in a thing nobody really care of, for purposes that 
are not port of the program objectives?

>  read the other messages i sent, you damn idiot.

And please keep offending words for you or write them in a private mail
this is not the language to be used on a technical list.

>  samba _dominates_ port 139 [and 445] and it is the ONLY accepted,
>  established [and therefore effectively proprietary] project
>  that provides access to ncacn_np, netbios session and LANMAN
>  functionality.  [it also dominates ports 137 and 139 which
>  rule out netbios datagram access by other programs, too].

samba does not dominates anything, you can change it if you want, stop it if you do not need it and want to use dce/rpc, use what andrew and jeremy offered you (a dinamically loadable module), or even simply set up another interface and run samba on one and you dce/rpc thing on another.
No one "dominates" anything!

>  - the Win32 project can't do an implementation of the win32
>  CreateNamedPipe without this API.

If they need it they will build it.

>  - the freedce project can't offer the ncacn_np transport
>  without this API, and therefore there is no point in
>  proceeding with the project [you are technically inaccurate
>  regarding what you think can be achieved with just tcp and
>  udp in freedce: read the other email i sent, that you replied
>  to martin].
>  - no other vendor [for example as sun's cascade / pc-netlink]
>  may provide better NT services but still using smbd's
>  better filesharing capabilities without this API.

you are free to add it, no one will prohibit you to do so ... again.

>  samba is in a MONOPOLY situation on port 139 and 
>  it is technically IMPRACTICAL for any other open source
>  project to compete with it.

No it is not impractical isimply unneded as proved by lack of interest and there's no monopoly (or do you call that of apache a monopoly over port 80 because when it is running it keeps the port 80 busy?, or sendmail with port 25? or any other server program??)

the rest is just bullshit.

>  lkcl

Simo Sorce       idra at
Samba Team

More information about the samba-technical mailing list