[Samba] Samba documentation team

[Stuart Naylor]

I think the problem lies due to a monopoly which is probably bigger than the server lock in.

The desktop market of M$ is huge and its install base is massive.

With vista and above you could authenticate to an NT4 network but it is much worse. You can't elevate logon script permissions and group policies what are they.

So for a windows administrator who has been pushed and bullied to give up XP and below, even with the best efforts administration of any centralised polices is a forget it affair.

This doesn't mean windows administrators have a monopoly on the dictates of what type of domain will be used or continue to be used.

Also the samba3 code base and users shouldn't be abandoned and generally forced obsolescence is one of the reasons I switched from M$ commercial offerings to OpenSource Linux.

Part of the reason NT4 didn't have USB support was because it would kill that OS and all the other things M$ do when they want to bury a product to switch to what is all new and shiny.

So the samba3 and NT4 documentation is very valid but the vast differences in NT4 and AD mean that in terms of product, consideration and roll-out there is no comparison.

Yes there are a lot of shared origins but samba3 is not samba4 and any attempt to make them look like part of a suite will just cause confusion and actually detract from the product.



The harsh market realities for many of us is that NT4 domains are a dead duck, a technology shadow from the past that should be supported.
There are books on Samba3, huge amounts of resources and guys its super that you are putting in so much effort.

Currently for Samba4 there is practically no good documentation, absolutely zero publications and a hell of a lot of junk legacy from beta and previous versions.

I have to admit when there is such a need for Samba4 documentation and its importance at this stage with landmark European anti-trust court cases.

My small and limited mind has a simple thought and its WTF?

Much of the reason Samba4 can exist is because of documented "lock in" and for me the "lock out" of linux and other desktop's from the workplace.

There is a time frame here as the co-operation M$ gave was up and to 2008R2 and if you are not careful the importance of Samba4 could be greatly diminished.

I see samba4 as a great way to provide heterogeneous environments where the infrastructure barriers of closed M$ product means we have a quick way in.

I can start employing linux and other desktops into that existing infrastructure and a huge part of this is the ability to use RFC2307.

With samba4 being open source there can be many ways that extendible and heterogeneous methods will be offered and utilised.


So to cut a long story short from the point of a Samba4 user can we have some fairly comprehensive documentation pretty quickly.
I used to provide Samba3 Linux solutions for SMB, the market is dead and that is just reality.

I write the above as I hope Samba4 doesn't follow the same footsteps as Samba3 as all this absolute stella work and effort will miss out on a hugely important market need.

http://www.catb.org/esr/writings/homesteading/homesteading/ar01s06.html

Dunno if any of you have read the above but the page I posted is relevant and I am not saying we have anything bad in the samba team that isn't purely human nature.

Irrespective of what we post here, we are going to get what the documentation think is relevant.  Much work has already been done and they are going to want to use that effort.

Erics words "The simplest way is the command hierarchy" and its true and what he talks about is human nature, not any subversive effort to control.

Everybody is doing there best in absolutely good faith.

Problem is Eric is right as the documentation currently being forwarded isn't need. It was conceived in a command hierarchy that is based on what they could write and not what is needed.

I am not criticising as how do you provide a wiki on a rapidly developing product that isn't finished.

The first logical step of human nature is OK we will start with the known. What about NT4 domain documentation...

I am not a fan of formalised wiki's, command hierarchies and titles of any kind.

I believe firmly in the principles of the many heads rule and the basic fundamentals of open source that where laid out in documents such as the Cathedral and the Bazaar and Noosphere.

Please continue with a formalised site and wiki and command hierarchies but please bear in mind that Opensource is and could be much more than just code.

We need an non formal site that is official but officially non formal where quick and easy contributions can be provided and its called a Bazaar.

So documentation can be quickly available to the community and users and is of worth to the community and users.

Stuart.

Apols.
      


 
 
-----Original message-----
> From:Chan Min Wai <dcmwai at gmail.com>
> Sent: Thursday 3rd April 2014 23:48
> To: Jonathan Buzzard <jonathan at buzzard.me.uk>
> Cc: samba at lists.samba.org
> Subject: Re: [Samba] Samba documentation team
> 
> Hi Jonathan,
> 
> The NT4 docs are mostly completed. 
> I'm not sure why we should remove it as the code or the function are still there.  
> 
> I believes that docs should include everything even that is a temporary. hack or patch. As that patch might be a round for a long long time. 
> 
> Docs removal should only be done as flagged.
> Beta--> active-->Obsolete --> deprecated. 
> 
> Also, we have not move the default to SMB2 yet. Our max client are still default to nt1.
> 
> We are on the way. 
> 
> But we need to kept it. 
> 
> Thank you. 
> 
> 
> Regards, 
> Chan Min Wai 
> 
> > Jonathan Buzzard <jonathan at buzzard.me.uk> 於 04/04/2014 6:13 PG 寫道：
> > 
> >> On 03/04/14 11:49, Klaus Hartnegg wrote:
> >> 
> >>> How about removing anything to do with setting up a NT4 domain and
> >>> restricting mention of it to migrating from an NT4 domain to an AD
> >>> domain.
> >> 
> >> The documentation should document the product. A large part of the
> >> product is non-AD, for very good reasons. The AD part is not even
> >> complete yet. It is unrealistic to assume that a large fraction of
> >> the users will switch to AD mode anytime soon.
> > 
> > It is unrealistic of users to continue to expect NT4 domains to work properly in Windows 7 onwards. You have to roll out nasty registry hacks that degrade security in order to do so for starters. For all we know Microsoft may (and really should) pull it completely from the next version of Windows.
> > 
> > The primary reason as I see it for the NT4 domain stuff in Samba is to smooth the migration to a Samba AD.
> > 
> > At the very least any section on setting up a NT4 domain should come with prominent and repeated warnings not to start down the path of a new one, and you should be migrating to a AD based domain as soon as possible.
> > 
> > JAB.
> > 
> > -- 
> > Jonathan A. Buzzard                 Email: jonathan (at) buzzard.me.uk
> > Fife, United Kingdom.
> > -- 
> > To unsubscribe from this list go to the following URL and read the
> > instructions:  https://lists.samba.org/mailman/options/samba
> 
>