To release Samba 4.0 'as is'

[Denis Cardon]

Hi Andrew,

> I would like to propose that we proceed to making a pre-release of Samba
> 4.0 in the next month (ie, before Christmas), and that we propose to
> release Samba 4.0 'as is' regarding major features.
>
> To be clear, I propose that the DNS server work continue, and we seek a
> resolution of the best approach here over the time between now and a
> release, but we do not block a release on this point.  (I am confident
> however that those involved will have a good solution, and even the
> current flat file is clearly good enough for our many users).
>
> I also propose that we do not make the major architectural changes
> between now and the release to change file server or winbind
> implementations for the AD DC.  Instead, we continue to build on the
> massive efforts already made here over the next few months, but we will
> not change the default behaviour for a 4.0 release.
>
> This will give the vendors (Univention and Resara) and our numerous
> users who are building on top of Samba 4.0 alpha releases a stable
> release to move to, based on the current architecture, before we make
> the change to a common file server for Samba 4.1.
>
> This will mean we continue to ship smbd, nmbd, winbindd, samba etc as
> found in the current alpha releases.
>
> With this plan, and with the quality brought about by our continuous
> integration approach, I think we can make a Samba 4.0 release in a
> reasonable time-frame, perhaps with a final release in about three
> months time.
>
> I do wish to be clear that I'm certainly not abandoning the idea of a
> single file server, and I know many others on the team have also
> invested great amounts of their own time in this effort.  It is
> important not only for NAS vendors who wish to add AD to the NAS (an
> idea I raise with every NAS vendor I get the chance to speak to), but
> also our users who still regularly ask for a combined release with the
> AD server, file server and print server all present in the same runtime
> installation.
>
> What do others think?

+1 from a system integrator point a view

 From a system integrator point of view, the fact that the code is 
tagged as alpha is show stopper for almost every client. I'm not 
speaking about code quality here, but perceived maturity from a non 
technical buyer.

We have deployed samba4 DC in house, because we will assume the 
consequences of this choice in case of a problem, and in two primary 
schools (40 desktops), because the network is not (yet) mission critical.

Nowaday every server is virtualized and it allows to have samba3 next to 
samba4 for file and print stuff. So samba3/samba4 integration is not an 
issue from a system integrator point of view. Yet I agree with the 
appliance vendors point of view in the thread, but integration could be 
targeted for 4.1.

The bind_dlz part is required but is getting mature. FRS and Schema 
Extension  would be a nice to have but not a show stopper. Forest is not 
a requirement in hundreds of thousands of SMBs. MSFU would be great but 
one can do without it. SMBs will be early adopters and the DC part is 
ready for those early adopters.

I think that having a release of samba4 DC would trigger a huge increase 
of the install base. If the release notes are clear about the fact that 
the 4.0 release is about Active Directory replacement, file and print 
service coming later, it should not be much of a problem on the 
communication point of view.

just my 2 cents

Cheers,

Denis



-- 
Denis Cardon
Tranquil IT Systems
44 bvd des pas enchantés
44230 Saint Sébastien sur Loire
tel : +33 (0) 2.40.97.57.57
http://www.tranquil-it-systems.fr