|
|
| Samba's Andrew Tridgell Joins OSDL |
 |
|
Monday, January 17 2005 @ 02:20 PM EST
|
OSDL has named Andrew Tridgell, creator of Samba, as the OSDL's second appointed Fellow, so he, like Linus, can work full time on coding. Here is part of the press release.
*******************************
Samba Creator Andrew Tridgell Joins OSDL
Tridgell to focus on leading development work for Samba project that provides popular drop in Linux replacement for Windows file and print servers
BEAVERTON, Ore. - January 17, 2005 - The Open Source Development Labs (OSDL), a global consortium dedicated to accelerating the adoption of Linux® in the enterprise, today named Samba creator Andrew Tridgell, PhD, as the Lab's second appointed Fellow. Tridgell joins Linux creator Linus Torvalds as an OSDL Fellow, positions created by the Lab to allow strategic developers to focus exclusively on their development and coding contributions to the open source community.
As an OSDL Fellow, Tridgell will continue to lead global development work for the open source Samba project. Licensed under the GPL, Samba is a suite of programs that allow WindowsR clients to access a server's filespace and printers via the SMB (Server Message Block) CIFS (Common Internet File System) protocols. Tridgell first released Samba in January 1992 as an SMB server for UNIX. Samba, used by millions of people around the world, runs on Linux and most enterprise operating systems.
''Samba has long been one of the most important open source projects and it is recognized as a critical component for Linux in business,'' said Stuart Cohen, CEO of OSDL. ''We're pleased to have a developer of Andrew's stature join the Lab and that we can dedicate our resources to helping him continue his contributions to the Samba project.''
Tridgell is currently working on the next major release of Samba, version 4, that has five goals: protocol completeness, extreme testability, non-POSIX backends, fully asynchronous internals and flexible process models.
''Samba4 is reaching an important milestone as a complete re-write of the old Samba code with the ambitious goal to be able to become an Active Directory Domain Controller,'' Tridgell said. ''I'm excited about my new role with OSDL and being free to dedicate my energies full-time to Samba.''
Tridgell comes to OSDL after working in research and engineering roles at IBM, VA Software, Linuxcare, Quantum. He is also a visiting fellow at Australian National University.
|
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, January 17 2005 @ 02:51 PM EST |
please and thanks.
sum.zero[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, January 17 2005 @ 02:53 PM EST |
please provide links where appropriate.
sum.zero[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- MOG and astroturfing - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, January 17 2005 @ 04:20 PM EST
- Samba is great... - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, January 17 2005 @ 04:47 PM EST
- OT - Still Waiting - Authored by: Steve Martin on Monday, January 17 2005 @ 06:30 PM EST
- Tech. opinion needed. - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, January 17 2005 @ 07:42 PM EST
- Another FUD attack? - Authored by: SpaceLifeForm on Monday, January 17 2005 @ 09:05 PM EST
- LinuxWorld, an article called "Why FOSS World Domination is taking too long" and advertisers - Authored by: fudisbad on Tuesday, January 18 2005 @ 12:13 AM EST
- OT - off topic here... - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, January 18 2005 @ 06:12 AM EST
- More FUD - must be astroturfing day - Authored by: fudisbad on Tuesday, January 18 2005 @ 09:01 AM EST
- Sam Varghese -- Linux Kernel Rewrite "Nonsense" - Authored by: Steve Martin on Tuesday, January 18 2005 @ 09:17 AM EST
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, January 17 2005 @ 03:14 PM EST |
I'd sure like to know if IBM's opening of some patents helped out Samba. I'd
expect that they specifically would have aimed at those patents, among others,
but I don't know.
I hope so.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- IBM & Samba - Authored by: hanzie on Monday, January 17 2005 @ 03:15 PM EST
- IBM & Samba - Authored by: star-dot-h on Monday, January 17 2005 @ 03:42 PM EST
- IBM & Samba - Authored by: fb on Monday, January 17 2005 @ 03:46 PM EST
- IBM & Samba - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, January 17 2005 @ 03:47 PM EST
- IBM & Samba - Authored by: MathFox on Monday, January 17 2005 @ 04:42 PM EST
- IBM & Samba - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, January 17 2005 @ 05:45 PM EST
- IBM & Samba - Authored by: PJ on Monday, January 17 2005 @ 07:40 PM EST
- IBM, Microsoft & Samba - Authored by: rsteinmetz70112 on Monday, January 17 2005 @ 04:38 PM EST
- IBM & Samba - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, January 17 2005 @ 06:56 PM EST
| |
| Authored by: eamacnaghten on Monday, January 17 2005 @ 05:54 PM EST |
| Samba sucks.
Well - that is not right, Samba is an excellent piece of
software and does the best it can. The problem is that it implements the SMB
protocol, and it is that which sucks. It is a direct descendant of the
NetBIOS, a protocol designed around NetBEUI - a non-scaleable protocol for
connected at most half-a-dozen computers together so they could share documents
and printers. As it has grown it has had more and more "features" were bolted
on ad-hoc and I believe it is now a mess.
I am not the only one who thinks
that. I have heard first hand from members of the Samba team on this.
Unfortunately - Microsoft seems to have embraced this and have kept with it
- probably for legacy reasons. As still approximately 95%(?) of desktop
machines run Microsoft for anyone else to have a look in an implementation of
SMB is required - and Samba is the best I know (even, IMHO and experience,
better than the MS offerings).
Therefore it is good, for that reason, that
SAMBA will be looked after by the OSDL. However, I would love it if
SAMBA and SMB were droopped to be replaced by a better protocol....
Also we
may witness a few discussions from the OSDL. The SAMBA team would like to push
the Linux FS layer to be able to incorporate more meta-data (NTFS has a lot more
meta data per file than Linux - and it can be difficult to map permissions due
to the different models). Linus has gone on record as saying that he does not
want to go down that route. I am sure things will not turn naty there - but
things may get interesting.... The question is - What is more important?
System interopability using a Microsoft model, or a technically correct simpler
model? Discuss...
.:-)
Web Sig: Eddy
Currents
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Neccessary Evil.... - Authored by: Steve Martin on Monday, January 17 2005 @ 06:13 PM EST
- Neccessary Evil.... - Authored by: Dr.Dubious DDQ on Monday, January 17 2005 @ 06:59 PM EST
- Neccessary Evil.... - Authored by: spodula on Monday, January 17 2005 @ 07:05 PM EST
- Options - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, January 17 2005 @ 10:45 PM EST
- Options - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, January 18 2005 @ 04:36 AM EST
- Options - Authored by: pscottdv on Tuesday, January 18 2005 @ 10:44 AM EST
- I don't think you fully appreciate the issues... - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, January 17 2005 @ 07:47 PM EST
- Neccessary Evil.... - Authored by: PJP on Monday, January 17 2005 @ 11:18 PM EST
- Neccessary Evil.... - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, January 17 2005 @ 11:40 PM EST
- Not at all - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, January 18 2005 @ 02:10 AM EST
- Neccessary Evil.... - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, January 18 2005 @ 01:10 PM EST
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, January 17 2005 @ 07:05 PM EST |
Has anyone noticed that the IBM 500 patent anouncement has made "open
source" code viral?
I the past, it was ok to take some open source code proprietary (eg. BSD
licence). On the other hand, GPL code stays GPL'ed. Some people have referred
to this "stickyness" of GPL'ed code as viral.
Well, now that IBM has said 500 patents are ok to use in open source, what
happens when someone wants to close that formerly open source code?
In order to close it, you have to ensure that it doesn't infringe a patent, and
lets face it, what *won't* infringe one or another of the 500 patents?
Hence, you have to leave open source stuff open, or risk the nazgul showing up
on your doorstep.
cute huh?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: rsteinmetz70112 on Tuesday, January 18 2005 @ 12:47 AM EST |
I think many of the posts have missed the point. Microsoft Networking is the de
facto Network Standard. As long as it is SMB, cannot be abandoned. While
Microsoft is still a dominate player it is necessary to support the installed
base. When Linux moves to parity and dominance, then its possible to make other
protocols the primary protocols.
Microsoft capitulated to TCP/IP only when it was obvious no one was going to
accept any other result, and coincidentally, the Internet was based on TCP/IP.
---
Rsteinmetz
"I could be wrong now, but I don't think so."
Randy Newman - The Title Theme from Monk[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Installed Base - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, January 18 2005 @ 02:23 AM EST
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, January 18 2005 @ 01:40 AM EST |
when he gave a talk at our LUG , we gave him a prize for his efforts... a mug
that says "No , I won't fix your windows system". Well , he seemed to
like it :)[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: igb on Tuesday, January 18 2005 @ 04:01 AM EST |
| It is an unfortunate reflection on the `me too' nature
of Open Source that the
(by implication) second most
important project after the kernel is the pure
cloning
of a protocol that's not very good in the first place.
Sun Open Sourced
avant les mots what they then called
ONC (NFS, RPC, YP, etc) in the
mid-80s (yes, eighties),
and SMB (and therefore Samba) does little that
protocol
stack didn't do nearly twenty years ago.
Where is the innovation?
Where is the exciting, Bazaar
style interplay of ideas? If the Linux community
had the
confidence it espouses in flame wars, it'd shrug its
shoulders and say
``no, we don't do SMB, and if the Win32
space wants to cut itself off from us,
that's their
lookout. What to interwork? Get NFS and YP for your PC.''
As
things stand, the Linux community invests vast amounts
of effort into tracking a
proprietory protocol that no-one
in their right mind would argue was technically
superior to
(for example) NFSv4. And Microsoft can change the rules at
the drop
of a hat, leaving no recourse other than to the
courts (and look how much good
that did Netscape).
The right way for the Linux community to proceed would
be
to operate with IETF-standardised, technically reviewed,
open standards, and
force Windows to catch up. As things
stand, Samba can only ever be second to
market. By admitting
there is no choice but to use Microsoft protocols, we
cede
Microsoft the aura of being the technical innovators.
Don't even get me
started on people who use SMB to file
share between peer Unix/Linux
boxen.
ian
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, January 18 2005 @ 07:52 AM EST |
Is there some kind of Linux Native client that I can use to connect my Windows
destop PC to Linux (Novel provide one for Netware).[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: jbn on Wednesday, January 19 2005 @ 12:48 AM EST |
From the looks of what's
coming in GNOME 2.10, Samba will become easier to set up via a GUI
configuration panel to set up disk shares (note the
GNOME shared folders configuration panel. I'm guessing Debian and its
derivatives will pick this up immediately (if it's not already there). [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, January 19 2005 @ 03:13 AM EST |
Congrats Tridge!! You earned every bloody bit of it young
man!
~WsW~ Daemons @ Santa Fe
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
