[Samba] Re: Coming round to SURS...

[Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton]

On Tue, Oct 22, 2002 at 06:07:21PM +0000, jra at dp.samba.org wrote:

> On Tue, Oct 22, 2002 at 06:02:35PM +0000, Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton wrote:
> > i have a question for the people who sponsor the samba team.
> 
> Rantings and dribble deleted....
> 
> > i'm specifically referring to you - andrew - and you - jeremy.
> 
> > > here's a proposal for the idmap api;
> 
> I take it by this message you didn't actually read or understand
> what this API is meant to do :-).
 
 1) if you could kindly include in your message a convenient
 url reference to such discussions, i would be happy to correct
 your incorrect assumption that i do not understand this API.

 2) the API, from what arguments it takes and returns, is
 pretty indicative of a couple of things: one is that the
 SURS issue, even after you still think for three years that
 you know better than i, _still_ hasn't been resolved let
 alone correctly resolved; the other is that it's pretty
 much identical to the SURS api i proposed over three years ago.

 3) reviewing the samba technical archives, i cannot find
 any clear subject lines outlining this issue, and there is
 only one message under a subject "idmap api".

 finding a subject line by volker of
 "[PATCH] rid allocator in passdb backend" i conclude the
 following:

 a) the idapi _is_ SURS, the patch by volker does less than
    SURS, is what i added into TNG well over four years ago,
	found to be problematic, and devised and designed SURS
	as a result, to replace and centralise the mess that
	such patches result in.

 b) careful consideration and thought demonstrates that
    the only place where SURS is required is in fact in
	any location where access to files is needed.

	i.e. in smbd for file read/write access etc. and likely
	in _some_ implementations of a spoolss server.

	therefore, placing the idmap API, or any equivalent
	that is not SURS, into the passdb backend, is TOTALLY
	the wrong location, and demonstrates a lack of understanding
	of the issues involved.



> Never mind, wouldn't be the first time (and sadly, probably not
> the last... :-).

 yet again you demonstrate your ignorance, arrogance and pride.


 you just don't get it, do you?

 you just _never_ give up trying to make yourself always
 in the right.

 you are so proud that you just cannot even look at what
 i have achieved, cannot admit that i achieved it, cannot
 bring yourself to consider that i might beright.

 the sad fact is that you and andrew just simply couldn't - and
 still can't - cope with my being able to understand things
 much faster than you.

 the sooner you are able to admit - even just once - that you
 might be wrong, and that someone else might be right,
 the better off you are going to be.

 l.