What SMB filesystem does Apple OSX use?
tlambert2 at mindspring.com
Thu Oct 16 22:11:24 GMT 2003
On Thursday, October 16, 2003, at 01:57 PM, Conrad Minshall wrote:
At 5:35 PM +0000 10/16/03, Jeremy Allison wrote:
Don't suppose you'd care to donate those changes back to
FreeBSD would you ? If the official corporate Apple answer
is "No", please tell Terry Lambert "I told you so" from
me next time you see him :-).
Just had lunch with Terry (and Guy Harris.) I think "I told you so" is not what you want to say :) All my changes to smbfs make their way onto the web in the "Darwin" source code releases, with just the original BSD copyrights from Boris. But don't ever confuse my words with an official corporate statement... I'm only saying that my personal preference was to add no encumbrances to the BSD source, and thus far I think I've gotten that result (IANAL, etc).
Conrad Minshall ... conrad at mac.com
What Conrad said.
Apple does Darwin drops when they do major releases. There's
a lot of good reasons for this, starting with people using unstable
APIs in code if they get a beta release of the sources, read them,
and then depend on the interfaces/kernel structures/etc. not
being different in the final release.
As for your allusion (your "Allision"?, your "Allison"? 8-) 8-))
to our long-running GPL-vs.-BSD license disagreement...
FWIW: It's not really necessary to coercively license code in
the BSD world, because, as far as I can tell, everyone who uses
BSD licensed code that's tactical would just as soon offload
their maintenance of all tactical code onto the Open Source
community and avoid the patch integration headache that would
otherwise ensue everytime you are they did a new release, and
the customer complaints about the version being x.y.z.0 instead
of x.y.z.1beta, etc..
It's a matter of being, as you might put it, "greedy bastards!"; it
costs more to keep tactical code proprietary than to donate it,
and a "proper greedy bastard!" will realize this, and his greed
will make him donate the tactical code back to the project.
I'm pretty sure almost everyone agrees that SAMBA is tactical,
not strategic, from a business perspective, and so doesn't have
any intellectual property associated with it that needs to be
kept proprietary (you support it because you acknowledge the
Windows monopoly, and you need interoperability to sell your
product to customers).
>From my perspective, the main problem appears to be that there's
no one who works on FreeBSD who tracks this sort of thing out of
Darwin (and they seem to have problems tracking OpenBSD and
NetBSD changes, too).
I think it boils down to FreeBSD's manpower. They tend to limit who
is allowed to contribute code because they don't have a full time
contribution integration engineer, like some projects, and so you
have to be a committer.
Now if you want to argue about something I think is really silly,
let's talk about people who declare GPL'ed projects with no
working code, and expect developers to magically appear and write
the code for them over night, like the elves and the shoemaker or,
say, Mozilla for several years, or like 90% of the projects hosted
on Source Forge.
More information about the samba-technical