4 ms·

>allowed_users You can pay someone to implement this, as well as any other missing AD features, then open source it so no-one has to implement it again. The o

>allowed_users You can pay someone to implement this, as well as any other missing AD features, then open source it so no-one has to implement it again. The original devs that did much of the reverse-engineering work on Samba have since moved on to much more rewarding work. That work will essentially never be done again, nor be improved upon until financial incentives are introduced. Much of the work on Samba since has been bug fixes and pushing your food around on your plate. We are not your servants, we are people. Give value, get value. Open source is not your custom-fit panacea. >"So build your own version."..."Why are you reinventing the wheel? That's already been done." Probably two different groups of the people, the latter group is likely harried contributors to a project you're asking for help from who doesn't have the benefit of the context for the work you're doing. It's a common thing in mailing lists and IRC. >So Western Digital's backup software interferes with Outlook in funny ways? We're dipping into two different pools of shitware for examples of bad software now. >So everybody's decided to abandon sane software versioning altogether and make the support end of things even more nuts? It's gotten more standard in some respects, thanks to SemVer. I can't speak for companies that have decided to treat it like a high score, much like the Linux distributions of the late 90s and early 00s. >Software used to be fun. Still fun for me, after ~15 years of coding, 5 of them professionally. Sounds like you're just grumpy and unwilling to invest in swatting any of the gnats flying in your face. That or you should take up buddhism, seriously. I'm an atheist but there's some benefit to learning when you should and should not care about things.

thaumaturgy 15y ago
Thank you (seriously) for demonstrating the part where I said, "but they'd rather tell you why you're wrong rather than really listen to why you're frustrated." > ...as well as any other missing AD features... This isn't exactly a feature, it's a core part of AD permissions. Samba 4 was developed for the purpose of taking on server roles in an AD environment. > We are not your servants, we are people. Give value, get value. Open source is not your custom-fit panacea. OK, I hear that a lot. And it's a fair criticism. Now, here's the other half of it: support people are not your janitors. Quit expecting us to spend hours digging through arcane documentation, followed by further hours troubleshooting things that you left half-finished, and then turn around and tell us to write it our own damn selves. Because, seriously, there just aren't enough hours in the day. I'd love to contribute more to open source, but first I have to get enough revenue in my business to support that, and before I can do that, I have to figure out how to fix my clients' technical issues without raping their pocketbooks. The harder my job gets, the less likely I am to contribute. For example, I might be writing a Jooma migration tool right now to fix the stupid 1.5->1.7 issues, and I'd be happy to release it and even support it for as long as people need it, but first I have to figure out what the hell is wrong with the wireless drivers in Linux on the new laptop... > We're dipping into two different pools of shitware for examples of bad software now. Yeah, that was the point: examples of bad software cross all disciplines, all companies, all environments. If it was just one company that consistently produced crap software, it would be easy to say that there's probably something broken at that company. But when there are so many companies, and so many freelancers, and so many open source developers producing crap software -- there's probably some issue with software development itself. > That or you should take up buddhism, seriously. Eh, I appreciate that, really, but I don't want to stop caring. I want it to be better.
- jebblue 15y ago
  > support people are not your janitors. Quit expecting us to spend hours digging through arcane documentation, followed by further hours troubleshooting things that you left half-finished, and then turn around and tell us to write it our own damn selves. Because, seriously, there just aren't enough hours in the day. Unless I'm missing something, if software were perfect then there wouldn't be a need for support people?
  - deleted 15y ago
    [deleted]
  - thaumaturgy 15y ago
    Yeah, and I think that would be OK. I'm not certain about it, but I think that a lot of the time and energy that goes into support could go into development instead, and most people would be happier. For example, clients that are paying me to fix things might pay me instead to make new things for them that would better fit their needs. I'm not under any illusion that it would work that way for everyone. But, I can't think of a single support-level person (whether consultant, phone, on-site, or otherwise) that's been doing it for more than a few years that's really happy with it. It can be exceptionally frustrating to be the go-between between users and fluky systems. So, at the very least, it would eliminate a necessary evil that makes a lot of people unhappy. It might also result in fewer jobs to go around. But I don't think so.
    - alnayyir 15y ago
      >It might also result in fewer jobs to go around. But I don't think so. It would result in more wealth and efficiency, not more jobs. Capitalism says nothing about jobs, only wealth. We don't really (in western society) have a mechanism for transferring wealth beyond trade, labor, and government fiat. In the absence of busywork created by government fiat, we're going to have a hard time socially speaking midwifing an increasingly efficient world where redundant jobs get replaced with technology and processes. This will continue the trend of increasing wealth stratification as whomever has control over the means of production will be subject to the will of others less and less, and be able to keep more of their profits. Incidentally, this means it'll be fantastic to be a programmer, and terrible to be a laborer. If a novel solution isn't found, the best many could hope for is a service job or medieval-style patronage of arts as production and maintenance of product pipelines requires fewer humans.
TheoLib 15y ago
>> Still fun for me, after ~15 years of coding, 5 of them professionally. Lots of us did coding as a hobby for 10 years before gettting out into the professional world. With 5 years under your belt, you're still a junior programmer and the world's your oyster. Let us know how much fun it is 15-20 years or more from now. (And when you do have to care about things more important than programming: family, health, aging parents, job security, etc., etc.)

thaumaturgy 15y ago

Thank you (seriously) for demonstrating the part where I said, "but they'd rather tell you why you're wrong rather than really listen to why you're frustrated." > ...as well as any other missing AD features... This isn't exactly a feature, it's a core part of AD permissions. Samba 4 was developed for the purpose of taking on server roles in an AD environment. > We are not your servants, we are people. Give value, get value. Open source is not your custom-fit panacea. OK, I hear that a lot. And it's a fair criticism. Now, here's the other half of it: support people are not your janitors. Quit expecting us to spend hours digging through arcane documentation, followed by further hours troubleshooting things that you left half-finished, and then turn around and tell us to write it our own damn selves. Because, seriously, there just aren't enough hours in the day. I'd love to contribute more to open source, but first I have to get enough revenue in my business to support that, and before I can do that, I have to figure out how to fix my clients' technical issues without raping their pocketbooks. The harder my job gets, the less likely I am to contribute. For example, I might be writing a Jooma migration tool right now to fix the stupid 1.5->1.7 issues, and I'd be happy to release it and even support it for as long as people need it, but first I have to figure out what the hell is wrong with the wireless drivers in Linux on the new laptop... > We're dipping into two different pools of shitware for examples of bad software now. Yeah, that was the point: examples of bad software cross all disciplines, all companies, all environments. If it was just one company that consistently produced crap software, it would be easy to say that there's probably something broken at that company. But when there are so many companies, and so many freelancers, and so many open source developers producing crap software -- there's probably some issue with software development itself. > That or you should take up buddhism, seriously. Eh, I appreciate that, really, but I don't want to stop caring. I want it to be better.

jebblue 15y ago
> support people are not your janitors. Quit expecting us to spend hours digging through arcane documentation, followed by further hours troubleshooting things that you left half-finished, and then turn around and tell us to write it our own damn selves. Because, seriously, there just aren't enough hours in the day. Unless I'm missing something, if software were perfect then there wouldn't be a need for support people?
- deleted 15y ago
  [deleted]
- thaumaturgy 15y ago
  Yeah, and I think that would be OK. I'm not certain about it, but I think that a lot of the time and energy that goes into support could go into development instead, and most people would be happier. For example, clients that are paying me to fix things might pay me instead to make new things for them that would better fit their needs. I'm not under any illusion that it would work that way for everyone. But, I can't think of a single support-level person (whether consultant, phone, on-site, or otherwise) that's been doing it for more than a few years that's really happy with it. It can be exceptionally frustrating to be the go-between between users and fluky systems. So, at the very least, it would eliminate a necessary evil that makes a lot of people unhappy. It might also result in fewer jobs to go around. But I don't think so.
  - alnayyir 15y ago
    >It might also result in fewer jobs to go around. But I don't think so. It would result in more wealth and efficiency, not more jobs. Capitalism says nothing about jobs, only wealth. We don't really (in western society) have a mechanism for transferring wealth beyond trade, labor, and government fiat. In the absence of busywork created by government fiat, we're going to have a hard time socially speaking midwifing an increasingly efficient world where redundant jobs get replaced with technology and processes. This will continue the trend of increasing wealth stratification as whomever has control over the means of production will be subject to the will of others less and less, and be able to keep more of their profits. Incidentally, this means it'll be fantastic to be a programmer, and terrible to be a laborer. If a novel solution isn't found, the best many could hope for is a service job or medieval-style patronage of arts as production and maintenance of product pipelines requires fewer humans.

TheoLib 15y ago

>> Still fun for me, after ~15 years of coding, 5 of them professionally. Lots of us did coding as a hobby for 10 years before gettting out into the professional world. With 5 years under your belt, you're still a junior programmer and the world's your oyster. Let us know how much fun it is 15-20 years or more from now. (And when you do have to care about things more important than programming: family, health, aging parents, job security, etc., etc.)