Diskussion:Samba-TNG

Letzter Kommentar: vor 1 Jahr von 188.15.61.91 in Abschnitt samba project study
Bearbeiten

Bei mehreren automatisierten Botläufen wurde der folgende Weblink als nicht verfügbar erkannt. Bitte überprüfe, ob der Link tatsächlich down ist, und korrigiere oder entferne ihn in diesem Fall!

--Zwobot 04:31, 27. Nov. 2006 (CET)Beantworten

NMB ist die Abkürzung für?

Bearbeiten

Joa, das ist auch schon meine Frage. Wäre schön, wenn man das noch hinzufügen und von NMB hierher linken könnte. Irgendwie konnte ich dazu gar nichts finden; wenn es nicht mal so ein Namenspiel, wie Names Samba Service, ist. --84.188.248.69 15:30, 22. Okt. 2007 (CEST)Beantworten

Hallo 84.188.248.69, NMB heisst NetBIOS Message Block Gruß --NooN 01:15, 23. Okt. 2007 (CEST)Beantworten

Bearbeiten

GiftBot (Diskussion) 05:46, 23. Dez. 2015 (CET)Beantworten

reactos

Bearbeiten

should be mentioned

https://reactos.org/wiki/Samba --80.187.98.163 13:07, 3. Feb. 2023 (CET)Beantworten

samba project study

Bearbeiten

also a thing that's missing in this article is a link to the sociology study on OSS projects that was run with / on the Samba project around the time of the TNG split. IIRC it gave a rather unbiased view of the dynamics around the fork; single developers with visionary ideas can sometimes be driven out from an OSS community that is focussed on conservative choices - the impacts are very long term; often the projects take 5-10 years to achieve those goals. what we look at is the friction and interia caused by tackling flaws in the overarching designs, and the OSS way is very wasteful in this, as the community will need to try many small changes, different approaches, partial rewrites to wiggle itself free before then having enough flexibility to build something that addresses the flaws while yet matching the tastes of the community. (Those tastes, aka design styles / system architecture, were slowly adjusted by the past limited changes. The waste and fallout mostly concern the end-users who sometimes get stuck in odd misconfigured setups that were viable workaround at the time of setup. They might not have the resources to follow the changes of taste, or be put in no-win scenarios when they use configurations that are hit by regressions.

A clear redesign years prior would have allowed for faster improvements and more stable development, and as such might (possibly) have been better for the users and the dev community, but it do to sociological constraints that could not be achieved. Compare to Linux kernel security where the same thing happened, along with (largely failed or notably limited) efforts to reimplement the disgraced security frameworks.

--188.15.61.91 17:23, 4. Feb. 2023 (CET)Beantworten