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

Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton lkcl at
Wed Jan 9 17:14:23 GMT 2002

On Tue, Jan 08, 2002 at 03:36:55PM -0500, David Brodbeck wrote:
> While I understand that you feel Samba could be rewritten to make extensions
> easier (hardly a point I'd argue against), aren't you overstating your case
> a little?  You make it sound like they're in league with Microsoft in an
> effort to undermine open-source development, or something.  

no, it's worse than that: by not providing an independent
"Named Pipes" API for independent programs to get data proxied
and channeled through to IPC$, the situation is _worse_ than
that provided by microsoft.

at least microsoft _provides_ a NamedPipe API, and better yet,
they bloody document it!  search for "CreateNamedPipe" on the
MSDN, and you'll find it, instantly!

> No one is
> stopping anyone from forking off a seperate version if they think they can
> do better.
 see other messages that refute this hypothesis / statement.

> I'm sure you realize that while you may see Samba as an Important Political
> Weapon against the Great Satan Of Redmond, to many (probably most!) people
> it's simply a useful software package for getting work done.
 yes, it is.  and it's a useful software package that is, as it
 stands, _stopping_ a lot of other work from getting done - as
 described in a lot of other emails.

 all best,


More information about the samba-technical mailing list