To release Samba 4.0 'as is'

[Andrew Bartlett]

On Thu, 2011-11-24 at 07:37 +0100, Luk Claes wrote:

> It seems everyone agrees that integrating the file (and print?) server
> with the AD server is the most important missing item. So why not choose
> a way to do that, implement it, release it as a beta and work out the
> details of other blockers during and after the work for the beta?

Luk,

What may not be clear is that I've been working on this task for about
18 months now.  I can assure you that while we have a demo of how it
might work, as they say 'the devil is in the details'.  In this case,
the details of changing from one CIFS implementation to another, and the
harmonising of two large, similar but subtly different code-bases has
been an incredible challenge.  

I have not worked alone on this task - the steps to even get to the demo
stage took the blood, sweat and tears of many others - but I have put in
a large part of that effort in the last 18 months.  A demo of what we
have achieved so far is available as the 'plugin_s4_dc' environment in
'make test'. 

Sadly a large part of the challenge remains, and my work so far has show
just how much effort it does take to even make a small amount of
progress in this area.  As just one example, we still do not have
compatible loadparm systems (they even take different sets of
parameters).

I am not deaf to those who wish to see the integration completed - I
have personally invested myself in that work too, and am passionate to
see it finished.  But I also want us to hear our users, and it is our
users who are crying out for a release of the Samba 4.0 AD server. 

How can we achieve both sets of requirements?  

Perhaps this thread will encourage others of the team to take on or
continue their work on some of the tasks, to try out Samba as an AD DC
and to see how well it does or does not integrate.  That would be a very
positive outcome.  

Have you tried out Samba as an Active Directory DC?  Assuming that the
file server switch is invisible (as I hope to make it), is there
anything else that sticks out as being 'not right'?

Thanks,

Andrew Bartlett

-- 
Andrew Bartlett                                http://samba.org/~abartlet/
Authentication Developer, Samba Team           http://samba.org