pointless, very sad "justifications". microsoft must be laughing their heads off.
Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton
lkcl at samba-tng.org
Sat Jan 12 03:14:12 GMT 2002
here is the reply that i sent to andrew from a message
on this subject.
i wrote it originally, thinking that it was cc'd to mailing
lists, without checking the dist. at the top.
anyway, here it is.
... you know, i'd have thought by now that there would
be room for people to stop being afraid, stop being so
nasty.
it seems to me that all of us are caught in some trap
to ensure that samba never makes it beyond its current
confines.
microsoft employees reading this here must be goggle-eyed
and laughing their heads off.
On Fri, Jan 11, 2002 at 04:40:27PM -0800, Andrew Tridgell wrote:
> Luke,
>
> Using Elronds posting as "evidence" you have now had the gall to claim
> that:
>
> most of the really useful architectural decisons they make
> are MINE
>
> this is so completely false it is laughable. Off the top of my head I
> can't think of *any* major piece of the architecture in the Samba HEAD
> branch that came from you.
yes.
i know you can't.
remember 1995-6? 1.9.15p8? 12 months of research into wins,
network neighbourhood and browsing?
remember the 1.9.17p2 fiasco, which i advised you not to
release at the time, and when you did i couldn't help you with
it because the company i was working for had said, "if you
can spend 7am to 9:30am and 5:pm to 10pm on extra-curricular
activities, you can spend that extra time on getting the
product out the door, deadline in two months. yes?"
so i had to stop.
jeremy had to be the one to do the third rewrite.
> As to 20% or 30% being copyright you (which you also just claimed on
> advogato) that is also crap. I put up with you making 5 line changes
> to a file and adding your copyright at the top,
i'm sorry????
> but to now go back and
> say you have 20-30% copyright is a complete fantasy.
you're forgetting the second rewrite of nmbd, andrew.
you're also forgetting the dce/rpc code from 1997, which
jeremy cut over from BRANCH_NTDOM to 2.0.x, did a lot of
cleanups which never made it back into BRANCH_NTDOM [i
was moving way too fast for that into completely unknown
territory. i've hate branches ever since].
the basis for 2.0.x and now 3.0 dce/rpc code is _my_ work,
andrew.
the only bit that you are right about is whether my statement
applied to samba-TNG or to samba. as applied to samba-tng,
my statement is correct. as applied to samba, it's incorrect.
i would estimate as a really rough guess that only about...
15%? is my copyright material, in head.
the only reason i mention this is because i'm fed up with
people like that one saying "oo, andrew and jeremy did all
the hard work, therefore they deserve all the credit, why
don't you go off and do your own project, and you can get
some real credit for some real work, too".
hmm...
> [p.s. if you spot anything that i say that's not factually correct, or you disagree
> with it, please _say_ so, and why!!!]
>
> well, if I pointed out every time you said something false then that
> would be a full time job. Just finding anything accurate that you have
> written on a mailing list in the last few months would be pretty
> hard. Listing the incorrect stuff would fill a large book.
you're out of line.
when i was asking people to correct any factual mistakes i make,
i was expecting them to point out things like, "your statement
is correct if applied to samba-tng only", and "the difference
between tcp/ip and udp is, ...", and "your Named Pipe RFC doesn't
include a close function", or "a NamedPipe Transact function
cannot be implemented on top of BSD socket semantics", which is
wrong, btw :)
i wasn't expecting people - especially yourself, the leader
of the samba development group - to cross the line from seeing
me honest into seeing me destroyed.
be very, very careful, andrew.
lkcl
On Fri, Jan 11, 2002 at 10:33:27PM -0800, Andrew Tridgell wrote:
> > SAMBA 3 was 340,000 lines of code, last time i checked, 2 years
> > ago. it's probably more like 380,000 by now, i guess.
>
> The bit I find really intriguing is Lukes latest claims on
> advogato. Lets look at the claims:
>
> .. additionally, you should be aware that the work on which they have "earned
> their position" - is about 25% to 30% Copyright ME, with failures to
> acknowledge or credit that very commonplace. most of the really _useful_
> architectural decisions they make are MINE
>
> wow! I had no idea Luke was so prolific!
>
> As a reality check I thought I'd ask the cvs tree who had written
> what. Obviously it was all written by Luke, but why not just
> check. You never know what you might find!
>
> In the current samba.org HEAD branch we have:
>
> tridge 81208 29%
> jra 78793 28%
> jfm 19859 7%
> tpot 19071 6%
> lkcl 15336 5%
> abartlet 11112 4%
> jerry 9469 3%
> samba-bu 8371 3%
> crh 7777 2%
> sharpe 5835 2%
> jmcd 4488 1%
> idra 4189 1%
> herb 1720 0%
> jht 1544 0%
> dmo 1474 0%
> mbp 1366 0%
> kalele 893 0%
> vlendec 560 0%
> matty 198 0%
> monyo 162 0%
> sfrench 158 0%
> jdblair 157 0%
> mhw 135 0%
> oliva 74 0%
> anton 44 0%
> ictinus 12 0%
>
> oh oh, somethings wrong. Where did the rest of Lukes code go?
>
> Oh, I know. It was in the SAMBA_TNG branch that he spent 6 years on
> between 1998 and 2000 (a miracle of modern science in itself). Lets
> check the stats for SAMBA_TNG, after all, he was virtually the sole
> committer on that branch for a long long time.
>
> In the SAMBA_TNG branch of samba.org we have:
>
> jra 135233 42%
> tridge 77289 24%
> lkcl 40356 12%
> tpot 12939 4%
> jfm 12134 3%
> samba-bu 9231 2%
> jerry 8638 2%
> crh 7445 2%
> idra 3438 1%
> abartlet 2285 0%
> matty 1845 0%
> herb 1538 0%
> kalele 1373 0%
> sharpe 981 0%
> mbp 834 0%
> dmo 767 0%
> vlendec 548 0%
> jmcd 230 0%
> jdblair 157 0%
> mhw 135 0%
> monyo 130 0%
> oliva 75 0%
> anton 46 0%
> jht 29 0%
> ictinus 12 0%
> sfrench 6 0%
>
> oh well, maybe that could have something to do with the fact that
> jeremy had to fix just about every line of code he committed to make
> it actually compile and work? Naah, that couldn't be it. Luke is
> infallible.
>
> For completeness here is the 2.2 branch:
>
> jra 86295 32%
> tridge 81036 30%
> tpot 18508 6%
> jfm 18286 6%
> lkcl 16701 6%
> samba-bu 9209 3%
> jerry 8161 3%
> crh 7782 2%
> sharpe 4577 1%
> idra 4177 1%
> abartlet 3842 1%
> herb 1787 0%
> jht 1601 0%
> dmo 1477 0%
> mbp 1022 0%
> kalele 898 0%
> jmcd 721 0%
> vlendec 560 0%
> matty 192 0%
> jdblair 157 0%
> mhw 135 0%
> monyo 130 0%
> oliva 74 0%
> anton 46 0%
> sfrench 32 0%
> ictinus 12 0%
>
>
> Well, I can only assume that aliens or the CIA broke into our CVS
> server and changed the logs. Yeah, that must be it.
>
> Cheers, Tridge
>
> PS: All numbers to be taken with large spoonfulls of salt of
> course. See Lukes page for the really accurate numbers.
> _______________________________________________
> freedce-dev mailing list
> freedce-dev at dcerpc.net
> http://lists.dcerpc.net/mailman/listinfo/freedce-dev
More information about the samba-technical
mailing list