mrmazda at ij.net
Mon May 7 17:36:26 GMT 2007
On 2007/05/07 10:44 (GMT-0500) Gerald (Jerry) Carter apparently typed:
>> On 2007/05/07 13:46 (GMT+0100) John G Walker apparently typed:
>> I think SUSE is saying the same thing as other distros. They
>> prefer to give you maintained but dysfunctional CIFS over
>> functional but unmaintained networking support. NAICT,
>> the kernel developers are the root of the problem, not Novell.
> This entire smbfs vs. cifs ongoing discussion is not helpful.
> And frankly, it is just a little silly. Old code goes away
> and is replaced by new code. Are you willing to maintain
> the smbfs code? No? Neither was anyone else. So it's not
> kernel developers that are the problem. But simply disinterest
> or lack of time from the community of people using and/or
> developing kernel code.
That's all well and good to say, but the fact is my old distro had
networking that worked just fine for me, but fell out of support, so I had
to upgrade to a newer distro in order to maintain access to security fixes.
Now that I've upgraded, I have broken networking, unless I recompile to
include the "unsupported" module that actually works to replace the
"supported" module that is known to not work for everyone. I really don't
care what's "supported", only that my networking actually works.
> If you have bugs, then please file them at https://bugzilla.samba.org/
> under the "CIFS VFS" component. Tell Steve French about them.
"I" don't file bugs on samba because it's all over my head. I'm not a
developer. When I find something that doesn't work, as has routinely been
the case trying to network Linux released distros with OS/2 since the first
release of samba version 3, I go to various forums to try to find current
solutions, and try to apprise those who do understand so that they can find
existing or file new bugs as they deem appropriate. See e.g.
https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=4090 and the other bugs in
http://tinyurl.com/3xbcp9 where there are open bugs dating back as long as 3
years. With bugs there and relevant to me going so long unfixed, there seems
little point in filing any more.
Waiting on Steve French seems to be something that once started seems never
to end. If anything deserves a rant, it should be about virtually total
dependance of a component on one person whose work stays in a private tree
for weeks or more on end (which is my limited and possibly broken
understanding of the state of the relationship between CIFS and SF).
> The smbfs code was good in its time but has long since suffered
> from bit rot.
All I know is if I recompile to reenable SMBFS I have networking that is no
worse than it was before upgrading the OS to a supported version, quite
unlike networking with CIFS.
"The path of the righteous is like the first gleam of dawn, shining
ever brighter till the full light of day." Proverbs 4:18 NIV
Team OS/2 ** Reg. Linux User #211409
Felix Miata *** http://mrmazda.no-ip.com/
More information about the samba