Is there a reason to have source4 in 3.4 releases?

[John H Terpstra - Samba Team]

Adam Tauno Williams wrote:
> On Wed, 2009-07-15 at 10:00 -0500, John H Terpstra - Samba Team wrote:
>> Does it matter in the least what the samba4 directory is called?
>> I urge you all to consider the real issue.  Our problem is fundamentally
>> one of lack of clarity in respect of our roadmap.
>> Network managers and administrators want to know:
>> 	1) What is ready for use?
>> 	2) How do I use it?
>> 	3) What benefits do I get?
>> Can we not provide a roadmap? One that spells out:
>> 	a) Which parts of the currently stable parts of Samba live in
>>            each directory
>> 	b) What the "current" development schedule is for each WIP
>>             (WIP == Work in progress) and projected "ready date"
>>         c) A list of future projects and a current ranking of importance
> 
> As a mere network administrator who runs an almost entirely Open Source
> stack for ~500 users I can only say "Ditto!".  At this point I am pretty
> confused regarding the state of things;  I lurk this list to try and
> keep track of what is going on.  With all the other admin related things
> calling to me 24/7 it is hard to dedicate the [not inconsequential] time
> required to keep track of what is going on.
> 
> I really do not mean this as a complaint or gripe;  Samba has been great
> since the first time I installed it on AIX 3.2.  But at least from my
> trench Mr. Terpstra's comment(s) look spot on.

Adam,

While it is true that there has been attrition of the Samba user-base in
terms of direct large server installations, let's not lose sight of the
fact that many of the NAS units that are increasingly being used
actually run Samba.  Over-all the use of Samba could well be in growth,
not decline.

I may have painted too-dark a picture.  Never-the-less, we need to
re-present and re-position Samba, and that will require a roadmap and a
whole lot more.

>> Somehow, some way, we need to re-present Samba to the user world in a
>> more cohesive and tangible way.  We are losing ground.  We are losing
>> users.  We are losing support.
>> ...
>> Too many corporate sites have moved away from Samba because they could
>> not see a roadmap, failed to understand our direction, could no longer
>> wait for AD server support, and had too many problems.  Each time a
>> problem was has been raised I have been able to point them to the fix,
>> but they had already abandoned Samba.  The problem is not technical - it
>> is a communication challenge.
> 
> Yes.  Of the more than a dozen local sys-admins I talk to pretty
> regularly - all of which ran Samba, and most Samba PDCs, at one point -
> I'm the last Samba PDC shop and the second to last Samba [at all] shop. 
> 
>> We need clarity and unity in direction.
> 
> That would be a good thing, IM-veryH-O.

You can help by communicating what is important to you as a user and as
a network admin.   This discussion is really just starting. ;-)


- John T.