Plans for pdb_ads and auth_netlogond?

[Andrew Bartlett]

On Wed, 2012-06-20 at 07:48 +0200, Volker Lendecke wrote:
> > > Sorry, but with that argument we need to remove the S4
> > > fileserver immediately. It is duplicate and it is nothing
> > > anybody wants to support.
> > 
> > There is a critical difference, and that is that has real-world users
> > and it is tested by an extensive test-suite. 
> 
> Ok, so it will be you who will fix bugs in that component
> when they are reported, or will you tell people to switch
> once the hit problems?

I'm not entirely sure what your questions is, but I'll try and answer:

We have had surprisingly few issues with the ntvfs file server, but for
those that we will have, I suspect that unless it was a simple fix, I
would suggest that the users try s3fs, as it simply has more hands to
maintain it.  

As to issues with s3fs, I would generally try and resolve the issues
with you and the other smbd maintainers.  I don't imagine referring
users to the ntvfs server in the general case, because the ACL
implementation is a one-way path - ntvfs can't read the newer format
security.NTACL.  I've been working for the past year almost exclusively
on making the s3fs experience as seamless as possible for our users, so
if our users have problems, we need to work out what they are and solve
them. 

Indeed, that is why I've worked so hard on what is now our production
design for s3fs/the plugin DC, because I fully expect to be supporting
the result. 

I hope this clarifies why I'm so passionate about creating and
maintaining only complete, tested and working solutions in this area. 

Thanks,

Andrew Bartlett

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