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

[Simo Sorce]

I was aware I had not to enter this discussion ...

On Tue, Jan 08, 2002 at 08:25:06PM +0000, Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 08, 2002 at 08:14:32AM -0800, Simo Sorce wrote:
> > Well, I generally tend not to answer to these threads, but here my thoughts
> > on a few things:
> > 
> > how it happened that jeremy has the power to do so is totally unknown to me.

This was an ironic statement, not a question.

>  now, unfortunately, jeremy and andrew are failing to provide
>  suitable leadership and a suitable development environment,
>  and have - and are - actively _dis_couraging people - not just
>  myself - from being able to participate in samba development.

Strange, I never feel that way in my collaboration with other members and so I think the other members that joined after me the team recently.

>  and one of the simplest reasons for this is that they are only
>  two people, and do not have enough time: the infrastructure
>  under which they are operating simply cannot cope with the
>  demands of such a massive project.
> 
>  and they are well aware of this, and losing ground all the time.

you have been off too much on my opinion, I've followed samba development since 1997 and things are going really fast lately compared to the first period I followed the development.

> > 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!
> 
> that is so obviously untrue that i can only surmise that
> you do not realise what you are saying, and have made a
> mistake.

I thiunk not, but you are free to think another way obviously, till now I always decribed samba as a print & file sharing application and not an RPC server.
The fact that the rpc had been a necessary evil or that you find them challenging to study and implent is a totally different thing.

> > 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 
> 
> them?  them?  _they_ didn't write the dce/rpc code, _i_ did!
> 
> and _i_ fully intended that code to evolve into a full dce/rpc
> implementation!
> 
> > (and lately ldap) to maintain compatibility, this is the only reason why rpc made it's way into samba I think.
>  
>  no, you are incorrect.
> 
>  it was _Me_ that has developed the foundation for samba's dce/rpc code.
> 
>  the samba 2.0 dce/rpc code and all subsequent versions is on MY
>  initiative, not theirs.
> 
>  please get your facts right, simo.

i got my facts, you instead should get new glasses.
1. I never said them, I said theN in the meaning that MS suddendly started using more and more rpc and samba had to implement them to be compatible.
2. I know perfectly your merits, and think you made a great research work, but do not abuse your reputation by sayng you made it ALL, or that you are the only capable of that, you have the great merit that you were really capable at decoding them and you was the "right man in the right place", but you are not _the only one_ even if you deserve a great merit and I fully recognize it as I have read much of your code.

> > keeping control on what?
> > Samba is free software you may adapt it to your needs if you want to.
> 
> oh purleeze, be a little more realistic and a little less naive.
> 
> it's bluntly obvious to me that samba is being controlled by
> a small minority of people who are unsuited to and "DON'T CARE"
> about moving the future of unix and linux forward, using samba
> as a tool to end microsoft's anti-competitive practices.

well I am one that does not care, even more I eretically affirm that I think samba is not the future of unix, the real future would be to exit the MS catch on trap, develop a better designed and featured and DOCUMENTED sharing protocol and let MS finally die.

> or at least, to bridge the _yawning_ technological gap of about
> two to three man-centuries of development work that microsoft
> has on the unix world.

quntity and quality are not interchangeable.

> you also miss the point.

no, really I understand your point, you do not instead understead people and the free software development model.

> > Now you should analyze that and stop to blame at people.
> 
> you miss the point, so please try to get your facts right
> before making any assumptions or statements that i have
> no idea why you are making.

because I'm tired of your blatant rants, this is a techinical list and I'm yet depressed I have little time to spent on hacking on samba, having to read your rants depress me more as I loose time in reading (and now answering me idiot) at your accusation when I clearly see that are in large false, as I'm in contact with the rest team for many months now and never had the minimal sense of what you say against jeremy andrew and the team in general.

> 
> i've never met you, i've only seen your name once or twice,
> and i am very confused as to why you are responding on this
> thread when you have no idea who i am, what i do, what i am
> capable of, what i have done, what my aims are, or basically
> anything.

It my seem incredibile, but instead I know you, only from the mailing list and from your code that I've read in many parts. I admired you at the start, but your rants only degraded my opinion in time, I'm sorry of that because I think you are a good programmer.

> which is a pity, because by getting yourself involved you
> probably think i am some complete idiot, which is even _more_
> of a pity because i've never met you _ever_, and haven't even
> a chance to know if i _like_ or dislike you.

I do not think you are idiot, code speak by itself, but your ego should be moderated.

> please, be more careful in future.

> > the project had problems or most probably there was no interest in
> > dce/rpc. 
> 
> the project is not samba, and we have no time.
> 
> additionally, there are factors that you are unaware of that
> relate to US government agency manipulation, which have had
> a seriously detrimental influence in my involvement with samba.
> 
> > 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.
> 
> really.
> 
> i will say whatever i please, for whatever effect i choose,
> and i will accept the consequences.
> 
> i thank you for your advice, now will you please keep out
> of harm's way because if i ever meet you, i might wish to
> hold a reasonable conversation with you, and i don't want one
> mistake on your part [replying inappropriately on this thread]
> to cloud that.
> 
> 
> > >  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 say that as much as you wish, it doesn't write the
> code that gets into a mainstream release that ends samba's
> domination of ports 137, 138, 139 and 445.
> 
> 
> > you can change it if you want, 
> 
> yes i can change it.  so what?
> 
> what good will that do a hundred thousand or a million-strong
> userbase?
> 
> > 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!
> 
> if you think this, you do not understand, and should not be
> posting statements that refute what i can conclude from a
> [to me] simple analysis of people's statements, behaviours,
> and combine that with the results of their labour.
> 
> > 
> > > 
> > >  - the Win32 project can't do an implementation of the win32
> > >  CreateNamedPipe without this API.
> > 
> > If they need it they will build it.
> 
> "if you build it, he will come".
> 
> *laugh* ;)
> 
> yes, they need a NamedPipe API.
> 
> and the developer responsible for it has contacted me.
> 
> i've explained what he will need, and he went away
> because he realised that it would be dependent on
> too much work.
> 
> > >  - 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??)
> 
> okay.  you have drawn an analogy, and that analogy is flawed,
> in two ways.
> 
> the first way is:
> 
> that http and smtp are both simple, well-documented
> protocols that people can provide their own implementation, from
> the RFCs, in extremely short periods of time.
> 
> the result is, as proven by the number of http and smtp client
> and server implementations, that lots of people write web and email
> clients and servers, the world over.
> 
> perl probably has thirty or forty such implementations, _alone_.
> 
> whereas, windows nt is layered, one transport upon another,
> with.  there are various well-known "breakout" points that
> have allowed microsoft to develop such a strategy, which anyone
> else has to follow.
> 
> technically, therefore, anyone following in their footsteps ends
> up in a dominant position of strength and control, simply by
> sheer volume of lines of code and technical expertise required
> to understand that code.

no, the only means they are in dominat position is lack of documentation and this is the same reason why instead well documented protocols have lot of implementations.

> _regardless_ of whether the code is available or _not_.
> 
> the point about reverse-engineering binaries is that it is
> time-consuming.  and it is this investment of time that
> leads people to conclude that binaries are "proprietary".
> 
> where the source code itself is so massive and complex that it is so
> time consuming to understand or work with, i conclude that
> any such implementation - regardless of whether it is available
> publicly or not (remember sendmail?) - is "technically"
> proprietary.
> 
> _unless_ it provides well-known and well documented interfaces
> that, in the case at hand, conform to the microsoft ones and 
> provide the same functionality.
> 
> 
> the second way is:
> 
> an expansion on the fact that samba (and windows nt) provide
> an implementation of a couple of transports.  these transports
> are:
> 
> - netbios
> 
> - named pipes
> 
> now, i wish to make a parallel analogy for you.
> 
> if:
> 
> - the linux _kernel_ provided an implementation of a web server,
> dominating port 80, making it completely pointless for anyone
> to even think about _writing_ their own web server
> 
> - all linux vendors shipped the linux kernel with this
> web server implementation enabled by default.
> 
> would you consider this to be acceptable?
> 
> because this is what you are saying to me, w.r.t samba running
> on ports 137,138,139 and 445 (being the kernel) and stopping
> anyone from implementing NamedPipes (being the internal
> implementation of a web server).  and you (the linux
> vendors) tell me that i may "roll my own".
> 
> what, i am supposed to implement my own linux kernel?  are
> you mad???  i am supposed to implement my own web server?
> what's the point???

well seem that a man called Linus was mad enough, another called tridgell was too, they both started their projects from zero and with no documentation.
you have a yet ready codebase to use. The fact you do not have time is not a problem of mine, I do not have the time either and I wish I have as I love very much coding and find the samba project challenging, but that's life, things will not change crying in public.

> in the above scenario, the existing one dominates it and
> is in a monopoly situation, so there's no point in competing.
> 
> and of _course_ this is unacceptable.  people would be
> _outraged_.

people would patch the kernel or change distribution.

> and samba (and windows NT) both do this _not just once_, but
> _twice_!!!!

no one is forced to use samba and no one is force to use Nt either if they really do not want to, you should get a breath and look out the windows and understand informatics is not the only thing that matter in the world and that we can live without it.

> first on the netbios transport, and second on the
> namedpipes transport.
> 
> 
> _now_ do you understand why i am so pissed off?

frankly, no.

> > the rest is just bullshit.
> 
> ah.  i am disappointed to hear you say this.
> 
> up until now, you had kept to your own advice.
> 
> simo, if you wish people to listen to you, you must follow
> your own advice.
> 
> alternatively, feel free to stoop to my level of language,
> which you find so offensive to receive.
> 
> good luck,

You too, please understand that I have nothing against you, but please keep this list free of rants, they are simply Off Topic and will get you nowhere.

I see the only way to get something is that you take what other offers and not pretend more if they can't or won't give you, you have been offered a way to do your dce/rpc project connect to samba a certain way (the glue loadable module) if you want to be costructive, just start with that even if it is not the best solution for you there is always time to make things better once started.

/Simo who should not answer this kind of messages.

-- 
Simo Sorce       idra at samba.org
-------------------------------
Samba Team http://www.samba.org