nothing personal: pleased to see your efforts

Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton lkcl at
Sun Mar 10 03:02:31 GMT 2002

On Sun, Mar 10, 2002 at 09:35:42PM +1100, Andrew Bartlett wrote:
> Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton wrote:
> > 
> > andrew,
> > 
> > thanks for your comments.  they do, however, make me feel
> > even more disappointed and distressed.
> > 
> > i am sitting here absolutely shaking and almost in tears
> > i am that upset by the content of your message.
> > 
> > please therefore, and i really really have to emphasise
> > this: please refrain from researching the TNG lists
> > for information on how things work in TNG.
> may I ask when you feel I last did this?   
> While I reserve the right to
> do so, its not something I have made a habit of doing.
 it's okay: don't worry, i unsubscribed.

 not that you need my permission, but do what thou wilst,
 safe in the knowledge that it will not have any adverse
 effect upon me.

> I will continue to work with any developer interested in the integration
> of Samba-TNG services into a HEAD infrastructure, because without this I
> am convinced that Samba-TNG will die.

well, it's too late.

i have no money, have not had enough money, for too long.

> Little to none of TNGs work is being duplicated.  A lot of work is being
> extended, but there is no corporate interest in the areas in which TNG
> has any significant lead.  This has been the case for the last 9 months
> I believe, when winbind and samsync made it into HEAD.  

 9 months???  that means that it took two years to get there, andrew!

 over two years!

 due to their employment agreement, i stopped research and
 development [of any intellectual property] work on TNG in
 february 1999 when i went to work for linuxcare, whilst
 waiting for them to produce a less restrictive intellectual
 property agreement, and have never really returned to it since.

 so of _course_ there is plenty of time to develop "significant leads"
 and of _course_ there is plenty of time to develop "other areas".

> That said, I am at a loss to find many areas in which TNG has any
> significant lead.  Given this, why would companies want to fund TNG
> development?

 the TNG architecture goes beyond samba.

 samba is actually a very small part of TNG.  it is a transport,
 and nothing more.

 TNG is the means by which Windows networked development may be
 moved to unix (and vice-versa) without significant porting costs.

 Win32 API.  Exchange.  MSSQL.  NT Domains.  DCOM.

 all of these are very obviously achievable and worth-while
 strategic projects.

 any company with more than one hundred employees could fund
 one TNG developer to work on equivalent products with the
 money that they save from not having to pay license fees
 to microsoft for the same product. 

 and once developed to equivalent "cash cow" product status,
 they wouldn't need to pay _any_ money out.

 that's real no-brainer maths.

 i think the issue is really that people are afraid to tackle
 microsoft, and they are afraid to play in a strategic arena
 where there are apparently no real monetary benefits.

> > especially as i know that i can make and have made a significant
> > difference to the speed at which development takes place - an
> > order of magnitude increase.
> You make this claim often, but I have not seen the evidence to back it
> up.
 that is because you have known me only _after_ i stopped working
 on samba.

 i no longer do work "for free" so you will not see any evidence
 until such time as i receive money.

 sorry andrew, i can't continue this conversation any longer.

 i wish that things were different from the way they are.


More information about the samba-technical mailing list