[Samba] 3.6.0 winbind issues
esiotrot at gmail.com
Wed Aug 17 00:57:00 MDT 2011
On 17 August 2011 06:11, Linda Walsh <samba at tlinx.org> wrote:
> ..Michael Wood wrote:
>> Personally, reading through and replying to a message like this takes
>> me a lot of time. As I said I can't speak for the Samba developers,
>> but perhaps trying to keep your messages shorter will produce better
> In some cases, certainly, in other cases, doing so would only
> require more questions about details I'd left out and, in some cases,
> annoyance that I hadn't included such in the initial report. Thus I tend to
> put in more detail, figuring that the extra few seconds
> to read an addition bit of detail they didn't need, will be more than
> offset by the time savings to any who actually looked at the problem
> in understanding the problem and it's context -- as WAY too often,
> especially in the computer world, the context is what may allow,
> enable or even cause the bug to occur.
> Generally, I've more often found that for someone looking to uncover
> a problem, giving more information, on the average, is more helpful
> in eventual solving or finding the core of the problem.
I agree that context is important and providing too little information
might be annoying, but there's a balance. I can't say I am any better
at getting that right than you. Just saying that having to wade
through a huge e-mail might make someone slightly less likely to take
the time to respond, all other things being equal. Anyway, it is very
difficult providing the right amount of detail without being too
>> Yes, as I said it depends on the circumstances.
>> If this message has annoyed you, I apologise.
> Nothing, really, bothered me until your asked the question embedded
> in that statement. That got me to wondering _why_ you might have
> cause for concern that I might be annoyed at anything you said -- you
Whoops! :) OK, that was clearly a mistake. Thanks for pointing that out.
I suppose I was being overly sensitive to what may rub someone up the
wrong way. Mostly because I think that people may be offended by
someone telling them their e-mails might be too long.
> appeared to be thorough and attentive to detail, why would someone be
> annoyed about that?
I'm glad you felt that, although I could obviously have been more
thorough. e.g. I did not find out exactly what that winbind parameter
was for and why you may or may not need it. Did it help at all, by
> Thus, I began to look for the possibility of Nth-order messages conveyed
> through means other than the meanings of the words themselves.
> Only in looking for such did I generate possible interpretations that
> some might take offense to. However, as all such interpretations are
> generated by the receiver, based not upon what was being said but upon
> creative interpretation of the actual content. It's like people hearing
> meaning in songs played backwards when no such meaning or words were
> actually designed into the recording.
> Such is an example of the mind's automatically looking for messages
> against a background of noise. But it's like trying to recover information
> after having lost pieces of the original: you may stumble upon the
> original message, but given the permutations, there's usually no way
> to verify if the message you [re]constructed was actually the real message
> or if there ever had been
> (presuming there was a real message encoded in the fragment to begin with:
> that is,
> (i.e. it may if they have any resemblance to the orignal or given the
> permutations, , with enough creativity, many
> false interpretations can created, and it's possible that ore often than
> not, though, such messages really are
> created from the 'noise', and were not meant or actually sent by the
Yes, any messages you may find from reading my e-mails backwards are
entirely due to the reader's overactive imagination ;) I was
definitely not trying to hide any offensive subliminal messages in my
> ability to create (or discern), such
> that , did I realize that you'd been
> thorough to details, which I had appreciate, but wondered *if*, that was
> how I was supposed to have taken it -- i.e. that you expected
> most people wouldn't appreciate such and if that might not be part
> of that which you were subtly trying to say.
As mentioned it was just the feeling that someone might not like
someone else suggesting that they send shorter e-mails. Again, I'm
glad you appreciated my "thoroughness" :)
> I will consider that possibility, but, I've noted there can be an infinite
> variety of meta messages that a receiver can impart to a message the actual
> presence of which, is less than transparent. It is also the case, that
I did not mean to be opaque.
> a receiver can't, _really_, know which, if any, of such interpretations
> might have been intended, and which are illusory. Thus I usually try to
> avoid meta interpretation, as presuming that such exist, is more
> likely to lead to unseemly consequences, than taking the messages at face
> value, at least in the eyes of most people, though not considering
> the possibility of such can be equally, though differently, disadvantageous.
> Thus...more food for thought. ;-)
P.S. Sorry for the mostly off-topic post.
Michael Wood <esiotrot at gmail.com>
More information about the samba