[Samba] Books of Samba 4
davortvusir at gmail.com
Thu Mar 6 04:41:34 MST 2014
Nor the support given by developers and others.
** Skickat från mobilusken! **
Den 6 mar 2014 10:40 skrev "Davor Vusir" <davortvusir at gmail.com>:
> On 2014-03-06 01:25, Tony Hain wrote:
> > Rowland Penny wrote:
> >> On 05/03/14 21:36, Gregory Sloop wrote:
> >>> ---MASSIVE SNIP---
> >>> P> This is the last that I will say on this subject.
> >>> RP> Yes, samba4 was started out as a totally separate entity, but they
> >>> RP> folded samba3 into samba4 to get the fileserver components etc.
> >>> RP> You can set up samba 4 as either an AD DC, OR as anything a samba
> >>> RP> 3.6 could do, it all depends on how you set it up.
> >>> RP> Yes, samba 3 will come to end of life sometime around end of
> >>> RP> August, but it will live on in samba 4.
> > Your responses waffle between 'it is architecturally split' and 'it is a
> > unified system'. In any case that doesn't matter because the
> architecture of
> > the backend daemon is irrelevant to entirely separate process of creating
> > the single .conf file that any approach is reading.
> >>> RP> If you want to get help, then I suggest you calm down, stop
> >>> RP> complaining about what samba cannot do yet and concentrate on what
> >>> RP> samba can do. If you stop and think about it, it is amazing just
> >>> RP> what the samba devs have managed to do so far and it just keeps
> >> getting better.
> > I have never complained about what samba cannot do. I agree it is a very
> > valuable collection of work. The issues I have are with the state of the
> > documentation, and the lack of someone taking what appears to be an
> > inconsequential amount of time to have the one item 'samba-tool' emit a
> > clone of the wiki text for the role=member situation. If samba 3 is
> > going to be dead in August, then someone will need to fix this before
> > because lots of people will be guided into using saba-tool as THE
> > for configuring samba 4 by all kinds of blogs, and all the role=member
> > instances will stumble over this. As a project management issue, it would
> > appear to make sense to get that done ASAP so there is time to shake out
> > issues before the real uptake in samba 4 migrations start. Then again, if
> > the goal is a busy mail list, not fixing it will assure lots of
> >>> RP> Rowland
> >>> I have to say, having been a poster, offering occasional help, and as
> >>> someone following along on the list for more than a year...
> >>> I've seen Steve, Marc, and Rowland, Andrew and many others offer a lot
> >>> of help. Marc Steve and Rowland do it out of the goodness of their
> >>> hearts and I see they must spend a LOT of time doing so.
> >>> To take such a strident tone when they offer help and/or opinion
> >>> really seems both counter-productive and offensive.
> >>> I've read this thread over the last few days and if *I* were the one
> >>> responding, it would have gotten PLONK'ed a LONG time ago. I don't
> >>> have free time to dole out to people who want to bite the hand that
> >>> feeds them.
> >>> IMO, the tolerance for what seems like whining, at least to me, has
> >>> been pretty forbearing.
> > I don't believe I have been whining. If anything you are hearing a
> > frustration from what appears to be a lack of listening to what was said,
> > then just sending a canned response that 'if I only understood how the
> > is architected I would know not to ask the question to begin with'. The
> > point of documentation is to avoid the need for everyone to "read the
> > and figure it out". With the current inconsistent state of the
> > documentation, reading the source might be faster.
> > I understand completely how maintaining documentation during a version
> > transition can be a lot of work. I also understand that more eyes
> looking at
> > it with different perspectives will find more issues. If anything,
> > my voice to be on behalf of those who don't even bother to send in
> > when they can't find what they need, then turn to google in hopes they
> > stumble across an answer that seems to solve their current issue.
> >>> Just my two little cents.
> >>> -Greg
> >> I did say that I wouldn't post again on this, but I did an internet
> > on this
> >> guy and found this:
> >> http://www.tndh.net/~tony/tony.htm
> >> If this is the guy who is posting, then heaven help ipv6 in the USA, he
> > cannot
> >> even set up samba ;-) ;-)
> > Yes that is me. As I said in the part that was snipped off, I did have
> > samba 4 member server working and sharing files for AD accounts before I
> > joined the mail list (though it did take a fair amount of
> > research before I got there). I also have several other NT4-style
> > stand-alone servers, including one that is acting as an IPv6 proxy to an
> > IPv4-only nas appliance. The only reason I posted was to find out if
> > was something to stop the log file spew other than:
> > load printers = no
> > printing = bsd
> > printcap name = /dev/null
> > disable spoolss = yes
> > that I had found in random email, because there is nothing on the wiki,
> > those statements are not working (looks like I will have to install cups
> > just to get it to shut up). I probably should have just unsubscribed as
> > as I got a 'that works here' response, but thought I could do a little to
> > contribute to the effort by pointing out how the wiki looks to someone
> > doesn't do this on a daily basis. Clearly some here would rather be the
> > center of attention as Q/A responders than fix the documentation for
> > inclined toward self-help.
> > Tony
> >> Rowland
> >> --
> >> To unsubscribe from this list go to the following URL and read the
> >> instructions: https://lists.samba.org/mailman/options/samba
> I think you are right, Tony. At its best, the wiki is an embryo. But as
> the rest of us leechers (or is it leacher?) you have got no right to
> complain about the state of the wiki.
More information about the samba