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

Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton lkcl at
Wed Jan 9 17:15:30 GMT 2002

On Tue, Jan 08, 2002 at 05:24:32PM -0800, Simo Sorce wrote:
> > > how it happened that jeremy has the power to do so is totally unknown to me.
> This was an ironic statement, not a question.
 i know.

 given that i have never met you or talked to you before in my
 life, i deliberately took your statement at face-value,
 giving you a chance to pretend likewise.

 i'm disappointed to see that you didn't notice this.

 ah well.

> >  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.

that's okay.  i now know where you stand, and what role you play.
[i'm just "categorising" you here: remember, i know nothing
about you].  that's very clumsy way to put it, but it's what i do.
don't worry about it :)

> >  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.
 fast... in which direction??

 and fast... but in which [metaphorical] gear?

 see, whenever and whatever projects i get involved in,
 it ends up in overdrive.

 it's a great pity that andrew and jeremy cannot see past
 my limitations and utilise my potential fully.

> > > 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, 

ah, you misunderstand me: i will spell it out to avoid further
misunderstanding: i don't know what you are saying here, and
am asking you to clarify your statement.

> till now I always decribed samba as a print & file sharing application and not an RPC server.

hey guess what, simo?

SO DO I!  and i have been repeatedly saying EXACTLY THIS
for the last THREE YEARS [it took me two years to catch on
to this concept :)]

which brings me back, via another route, to the point i wish
to get across: Samba is a file/print sharing application.
it also provides an entry-point to Inter-process communication.

that entry point is "Named Pipes".  any implementation of
SMB that also implements IPC _must_ communicate to processes,
otherwise it's not IPC.

if you want samba to _remain_ "just a file and print sharer",
then it _must_ out-source its "Named Pipes" data, and act
purely as an unadulterated proxy service, w.r.t. IPC.

end of story.

i hear you on your other points, simo, and they are very
good ones.  like you, i have limited time, so i would
love to answer them, but it will have to wait.

call me out on them again if these issues are important
enough to you to discuss further... when we both have
more time.

all best,


More information about the samba-technical mailing list