Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton
2002-Jan-07 14:34 UTC
why more discussion of samba development?
On Sun, Jan 06, 2002 at 03:58:46PM +0100, Volker Lendecke wrote:> Hi, Luke!hi there volker, you ready for this? please remember, this is _not_ directed at you, but you _are_ asking some hard-ball questions, and you know i answer truthfully and without reserve, so i'm presuming that you [and andrew b.] are prepared [psychologically!] for the answers... deep breath...> On Sun, Jan 06, 2002 at 12:15:27PM +0000, Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton wrote: > > > take out the -L option that stupid tridgell added to rpcclient. > > Why do you emphasize what you think about Andrew in every single posting where > you have to mention 'the other samba'?if you read below, and the other message i sent to andrew b., you can guage the answer to this one.> This does not help anybody.i could not care less, i am sorry to say.> And everyone > now knows that you do not like him.i liked and respected andrew a _great deal_. his actions managed to destroy any respect that i had for him, which is very sad. if andrew wishes regain my respect for him, he will take on board and act upon what i have been recommending for the last two, two and a half years. if andrew does not _care_ what i think, then that's very sad to hear, but there's nothing i can do about that.> I can really understand that you are > annoyed, and I always read tng-technical with great interest, but your comments > sometimes make it hard to enjoy it.well i am sitting here wondering where i am going to get enough money to pay my mortgage next month. in that context, reading things that make it very clear to me that people are making money from my work and research and that i am not just _really_ gets under my skin. i explained each piece of the architecture to andrew and he got more and more out of his depth. he didn't want to admit it or lose control over the code. in particular, he didn't want to accept technically "inferior" solutions or "inferior" code. his response was to fob me off, requiring removal of pieces of functionality that he could not understand, or to have me do _anything_ that meant that the code would not meet his standards. if andrew had not raised the technical bar higher and higher and higher in order to, ultimately, block TNG code from going mainstream, then i would be in a much more stable financial situation than i am now. i am working extremely long hours on a building site, earning approximately one quarter to one half of the amount of money that i need to pay for everything, and i come home to read my email once every three days, and find messages that remind me that some extremely good code that i wrote OVER TWO YEARS AGO and spent FOUR YEARS WRITING still hasn't made it into main-stream samba. that's insane and ridiculous. and you are asking me to stop making comments about this? you want me to stop sending comments that spoil _your_ day? okay, well i'll tell you how you can do that. you can take a look at the samba-tng source code, take a look at the dcerpc.net web site, read the articles there, implement a portable, root-accessible-only inter-process-communication interface that allows for - an NT security context to be transferred over it. - a complete NT user profile including the 16-byte user session key plus the 8-byte NTLMSSP information [see fields in NET_USER_INFO_3, basically]. - plus allows some NetBIOS context information to be transferred [to fake up a NetBIOS-equivalent of gethostname() - it must be possible for get_client_addr(), get_client_name(), get_remote_name() and get_global_myname() to all work] - plus allow arbitrary-sized message passing with functionality equivalent to that offered by file descriptors (read, write, open, close). _when_ you can come back to me with such an implementation of the above, that allows independently linking programs to use the above API and nothing BUT the above API, and still expect the independent program to receive DCE/RPC and NT user-context info on port 139 whilst Samba [or any _other_ SMB server that conforms to the server-side of the same API] is running, then i will stop making you "not enjoy" reading tng-technical. if things get too bad for me, i will just unsubscribe from tng-technical and all other samba and samba-tng mailing lists. the open source community has already lost out on a golden opportunity by not ensuring that i remain involved in tracking and making up for microsoft's anti-competitive practices. there are _very_ few people in this world who are capable of doing what i can [catch up with microsoft man-decades development in a tenth to one hundredth of the time], and andrew tridgell has demonstrated by his behaviour whilst we were at linuxcare, and by management since of samba's development, that he is _not_ such a person. the deployment of TNG mainstream and its subsequent hardening and the rough edges cut off in a mainstream development / release cycle would have achieved in under four [probably painful!] months what andrew tridgell and jeremy allison wanted to see _me_ do [on my own] over a further development period of one or two years]. that would result in accelerated development the likes of which we [painfully!] saw with nmbd. bugs, bugs, galore _and fixed_ galore. we _learned_ from 1.9.17's nmbd [very bad] implementation and deployment. the result was another rapid rewrite and a very stable implementation. broken code released into the wild encourages other programmers to get involved and to see if they can fix it. if it ain't broke, they won't fix it! WHEN will you _get_ this, tridgell? WHEN will you _get_ this, allison? you can't do everything on your own. there is about TWO TO THREE ***HUNDRED*** man-years of development to catch up on. you've _got_ to take advantage of every development and man-management technique and strategy there is. and _you_ lot out there - users - reading this. yes, you, the ones bitching about microsoft all the time. if you can't get off your arses and support samba development, and instead are willing to pay thousands of dollars in license fees, then don't go crying to the US government or the European Commission about anti-competitive practices. if you are a company that has more than four hundred employees, the license fees that you pay in server / upgrade costs each year could fund two to three samba developers to replace and then maintain, at a quarter of the price, the server software you keep paying for. lkcl
> i explained each piece of the architecture to andrew > and he got more and more out of his depth. > > he didn't want to admit it or lose control over the code.Quick translation for those who haven't tried to code with Luke. When Luke says "X was getting out of his depth" it means "X didn't agree with Luke".> in particular, he didn't want to accept technically "inferior" > solutions or "inferior" code.right, I don't.> his response was to fob me off, requiring removal of pieces > of functionality that he could not understand, or to have > me do _anything_ that meant that the code would not meet > his standards.oh I understood your code all too well. Your checkins almost invariably were extremely buggy as hell and you had by far the highest rate of checkins that don't compile of any team member. I have spent months of my life fixing the bugs in your code, or patiently explaining to you how unix memory management works, or how pipes and sockets work etc etc. Usually you end up coming back to me a few weeks or months later and start claiming that you were the one who had some idea for the code, and I go "yes Luke", because taking the time to point out that your "new idea" is something I explained to you months before is just not worth it. When you finally left the team it was such a relief to wake up each morning and not have to fix the dozens of compilation errors or portability bugs you had introduced overnight. Of course, your attitude was that such a brilliant programmer as yourself shouldn't need to worry about such niceties as the code actually working or not having gaping security holes. Those details are for lesser mortals like Jeremy, Tim, JF and myself to fix. Your grand plans should never be sullied by such details.> if andrew had not raised the technical bar higher and > higher and higher in order to, ultimately, block TNG code from > going mainstream, then i would be in a much more stable financial > situation than i am now.Your very first emails to me way way back in 1996 were already complaining about your terrible financial situation. You were in terrible shape then and you are in terrible shape now. The only difference now is that you blame me for it. and yes, I did raise the technical bar in Samba. I've been steadily rasing it ever since I started Samba. It was rising well before you started work on Samba and it has continued rising after you left. As projects get bigger the bar *must* rise. Just look at the state of the code in the early versions of Samba and you will see why this is essential. A good project leader will spend a large proportion of their time reviewing the basic infrastructure of the project and deciding when that infrastructure needs improving in order to support new functionality. I've been doing that constantly since Samba started.> i am working extremely long hours on a building site, earning > approximately one quarter to one half of the amount of money > that i need to pay for everything, and i come home to read > my email once every three days, and find messages that remind > me that some extremely good code that i wrote OVER TWO YEARS > AGO and spent FOUR YEARS WRITING still hasn't made it into > main-stream samba.If you are looking for sympathy from me then you won't get it. When you started writing the code I very clearly told you that it would not be accepted in the form you were doing it. You went ahead anyway. Jeremy and I spent a long time explaining in great detail how you would need to write the code in order for it to be accepted. You ignored us. We rewote the first couple of versions of your code (replacing a very large proportion of it) and managed to get it to actually work. That's whats used in Samba now. As for your timelines, they are (as usual) complete crap. You seem to pluck numbers and dates out of the air like so many flies.> you can take a look at the samba-tng source codeoh, don't worry, I do look at the tng code. I'm not so proud that I don't find the tng code useful and I often find good solutions there. It has some good code. Could I just replace the current Samba code with the tng code? No. It would set us back by more than a year. We have *greatly* improved upon many aspects of that code, rewritten large parts of it and extended it in many areas. Does it have every feature tng has? No, of course not. Does tng have every feature that the head branch has? No, not by a long shot.> if things get too bad for me, i will just unsubscribe from > tng-technical and all other samba and samba-tng mailing lists.don't let me stop you The time when your useful contributions outweighed your inane commentry has long since past. A final note for those of you who don't know some of the history here. Luke's CVS access on samba.org was finally revoked when he announced that he intended to implement a "scorched earth" policy with regard to Samba. He actually announced to the world that he planned on trying to destroy Samba. For me that was an unforgiveable action. It meant I could never trust him again. He also started to blackmail Linux vendors, threatening that he would destroy Samba. Remember this when Luke goes on about me not being worthy as an open source project leader. Why did Luke do this? Because Luke's primary motivation for his involvement in open source is money. Lots of it. A lot of his design changes in Samba were aimed to allowing him to sell pieces of the code without having to abide by the GPL. I don't mind changes that help someone make money, as long as the changes can be justified technically rather than just on financial grounds. I am not anti-profit, and I don't mind companies or individuals making money off my work, but when I have my "team leader" hat on I draw the line at making changes which hurt the project in order to profit an individual contributor, no matter how financially hard up they are or how much they have contributed. So, Luke will have to find some other way to make his fortune. Maybe he can sell his memoirs. Cheers, Tridge
i agree with this guy whoever he is (for the most part). if there is good
code f-ing use it. the reason companies pay such insane fees to microshit
and their software nazi techniques is their shit works and works fairly
well. what support for active directory is there??? when is samba going to
be flexible enough to compete with NT on a real scale (business). well,
when 95% of the world runs microshit and you want us to use your software
it better be totally compatible. i tried samba a couple years ago and still
follow the project (it is just that, a project). i have seen it do
wonderful things however, technology is changing faster than i think samba
is keeping up....bottom line, if this luke guy can make this shit happen,
hire his ass.....and luke, since you are such a god, when is all this going
to be working in tng?
Hayden Wimmer
LWB Refractories
hayden.wimmer@lwbref.com
717.771.3903
Luke Kenneth Casson
Leighton To:
tng-technical@lists.dcerpc.org
<lkcl@samba-tng.org> cc:
samba-technical@samba.org, samba-ntdom@samba.org, samba@samba.org
Sent by: Subject: why more
discussion of samba development?
samba-ntdom-admin@lists
.samba.org
01/07/2002 06:29 PM
On Sun, Jan 06, 2002 at 03:58:46PM +0100, Volker Lendecke
wrote:> Hi, Luke!
hi there volker,
you ready for this? please remember, this is _not_ directed
at you, but you _are_ asking some hard-ball questions, and
you know i answer truthfully and without reserve, so i'm
presuming that you [and andrew b.] are prepared [psychologically!]
for the answers...
deep breath...
> On Sun, Jan 06, 2002 at 12:15:27PM +0000, Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton
wrote:>
> > take out the -L option that stupid tridgell added to rpcclient.
>
> Why do you emphasize what you think about Andrew in every single posting
where> you have to mention 'the other samba'?
if you read below, and the other message i sent to andrew b.,
you can guage the answer to this one.
> This does not help anybody.
i could not care less, i am sorry to say.
> And everyone
> now knows that you do not like him.
i liked and respected andrew a _great deal_.
his actions managed to destroy any respect that i had for
him, which is very sad.
if andrew wishes regain my respect for him, he will take
on board and act upon what i have been recommending for
the last two, two and a half years.
if andrew does not _care_ what i think, then that's very
sad to hear, but there's nothing i can do about that.
> I can really understand that you are
> annoyed, and I always read tng-technical with great interest, but your
comments> sometimes make it hard to enjoy it.
well i am sitting here wondering where i am going to get
enough money to pay my mortgage next month. in that
context, reading things that make it very clear to me that
people are making money from my work and research and
that i am not just _really_ gets under my skin.
i explained each piece of the architecture to andrew
and he got more and more out of his depth.
he didn't want to admit it or lose control over the code.
in particular, he didn't want to accept technically "inferior"
solutions or "inferior" code.
his response was to fob me off, requiring removal of pieces
of functionality that he could not understand, or to have
me do _anything_ that meant that the code would not meet
his standards.
if andrew had not raised the technical bar higher and
higher and higher in order to, ultimately, block TNG code from
going mainstream, then i would be in a much more stable financial
situation than i am now.
i am working extremely long hours on a building site, earning
approximately one quarter to one half of the amount of money
that i need to pay for everything, and i come home to read
my email once every three days, and find messages that remind
me that some extremely good code that i wrote OVER TWO YEARS
AGO and spent FOUR YEARS WRITING still hasn't made it into
main-stream samba.
that's insane and ridiculous.
and you are asking me to stop making comments about this?
you want me to stop sending comments that spoil _your_ day?
okay, well i'll tell you how you can do that.
you can take a look at the samba-tng source code, take
a look at the dcerpc.net web site, read the articles there,
implement a portable, root-accessible-only
inter-process-communication interface that allows for
- an NT security context to be transferred over it.
- a complete NT user profile including the 16-byte user
session key plus the 8-byte NTLMSSP information
[see fields in NET_USER_INFO_3, basically].
- plus allows some NetBIOS context information to be
transferred [to fake up a NetBIOS-equivalent of
gethostname() - it must be possible for get_client_addr(),
get_client_name(), get_remote_name() and get_global_myname()
to all work]
- plus allow arbitrary-sized message passing with functionality
equivalent to that offered by file descriptors (read, write,
open, close).
_when_ you can come back to me with such an implementation
of the above, that allows independently linking programs
to use the above API and nothing BUT the above API, and
still expect the independent program to receive DCE/RPC
and NT user-context info on port 139 whilst Samba [or any
_other_ SMB server that conforms to the server-side
of the same API] is running, then i will stop making you
"not enjoy" reading tng-technical.
if things get too bad for me, i will just unsubscribe from
tng-technical and all other samba and samba-tng mailing lists.
the open source community has already lost out on a golden
opportunity by not ensuring that i remain involved in tracking
and making up for microsoft's anti-competitive practices.
there are _very_ few people in this world who are capable of
doing what i can [catch up with microsoft man-decades development
in a tenth to one hundredth of the time], and andrew tridgell has
demonstrated by
his behaviour whilst we were at linuxcare, and by management
since of samba's development, that he is _not_ such a person.
the deployment of TNG mainstream and its subsequent hardening
and the rough edges cut off in a mainstream development /
release cycle would have achieved in under four [probably
painful!] months what andrew tridgell and jeremy allison
wanted to see _me_ do [on my own] over a further development
period of one or two years].
that would result in accelerated development the likes of
which we [painfully!] saw with nmbd. bugs, bugs, galore
_and fixed_ galore.
we _learned_ from 1.9.17's nmbd [very bad] implementation
and deployment.
the result was another rapid rewrite and a very stable
implementation.
broken code released into the wild encourages other programmers
to get involved and to see if they can fix it.
if it ain't broke, they won't fix it!
WHEN will you _get_ this, tridgell?
WHEN will you _get_ this, allison?
you can't do everything on your own.
there is about TWO TO THREE ***HUNDRED*** man-years of development
to catch up on.
you've _got_ to take advantage of every development and
man-management technique and strategy there is.
and _you_ lot out there - users - reading this.
yes, you, the ones bitching about microsoft all the
time.
if you can't get off your arses and support samba development,
and instead are willing to pay thousands of dollars in
license fees, then don't go crying to the US government
or the European Commission about anti-competitive practices.
if you are a company that has more than four hundred employees,
the license fees that you pay in server / upgrade costs each
year could fund two to three samba developers to replace and
then maintain, at a quarter of the price, the server software
you keep paying for.
lkcl