samba netbios / namedpipes domination: a comparison with linux having a proprietary web server built-in

Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton lkcl at
Tue Jan 8 12:20:23 GMT 2002

On Tue, Jan 08, 2002 at 08:25:06PM +0000, Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton wrote:

i missed this paragraph by simo altogether, earlier.

by the way, simo: i am replying to your message, simo, because
your statements show such a total lack of understanding of the
issues involved that it is actually very very useful for you,
for me, and for anyone else reading this thread.

your message provides a counterpoint for you and others to
learn what the issues _really_ are, and also for me to learn
how to speak out and explain them.

so, thanks for the opportunity.

i'll answer that missed paragraph now.

> > 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.


- was not needed

- is failed to be recognised as needed

- is being deliberately undermined through massive-scale
conspiracy-level manipulation by people with access to
far too much money, who have concluded
that it is not in their interests for people to discover
what the security flaws are in the world's only [proprietary]

- is dependent upon other projects where the technical level
of expertise required to appreciate the project's necessity
(or even to see the interdependence on the other projects!)
is _way_ beyond most people's ability to comprehend.

and, from the statements you have been making, simo,
it looks like that includes you.

so, there are a large number of possible reasons why a project
may fail, and you should not limit your thinking or your
reasoning to just two reasons, and then draw a conclusion that
suits your own position.


> > 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?

the answer to this question i have addressed in part, already.

i will refer you to my messages over the last few hours.

unfortunately, you have already dismissed some of them.

so i will conclude that you have already made up your mind,
and i will answer this - again - not for your benefit, but
for the benefit of anyone who may read your rhetorical question
and conclude that such work is unnecessary.

a summary of the issues, before i answer the question.

- windows nt is complex.  it is multi-level inter-dependent on
protocols and services.  it is also a proprietary implementation
of those protocols.  the amount of time to properly implement
everything from scratch is about one hundred man-years of
development, work which has been carried out over the last fifteen
or more years.

- there is a program called samba which has grown up out of
necessity, providing and mirroring the windows nt project
in about 20 to 30 man-years of development over the last ten
years.  it provides a sufficient subset of the same multi-level
inter-dependent protocols and services as windows nt.

- samba implements the protocols and services in such a
way as to exclude any possibility of anyone else from
implementing their own subset of such protocols and or
services, reducing consumer choice [in the same way that
microsoft has], reducing developer options [in a way that
microsoft has not!!!]

so, to answer your question, it is the responsibility of
the samba team, as maintainers and self-styled controllers of
samba's development, to address these issues in a way that does
not place massive burdens on developers and totally unnecesarry
restrictions on ignorant users.

these are the issues that the samba team faces, as maintainers of
the only viable alternative to windows nt.

and as the install base goes up, the responsibility goes up.

and as the complexity and restrictive practices implied
by samba's "WE DON'T CARE" implementation gets larger, 
the amount by which the samba team is failing in their
responsibilities, and the more drastic the action required
to correct their failures.


More information about the samba-technical mailing list