Martin Hejl wrote:
> Hi bino,
>
>> I see that it's not just me that see BuC is to hot to just positioned as
>> "router/firewall"
>> I see BuC as "Platform" that we can "build" anything on top of it.
>>
> one _can_ - but it doesn't mean that the people working of LEAF should
> necessarily spend their time on working on things like that (as opposed
> to making the core product better/more stable/more versatile for what
> Bering uClibc was meant to do).
>
Well, on one hand one can propose that there is no more and no less a
good reason to assemble Samba 3 versus Samba 2 - whatever was the
impetus for Samba 2 can well apply to Samba 3.
But as was pointed out, Samba 3 is significantly larger. That may make
the possible userbase of Samba 3 smaller than Samba 2 thus reducing the
justification for assembling it.
However storage available to an "embedded" device has probably increased
some fair amount over the time of Samba 2 to Samba 3, meaning that a
larger package might be not so unattractive to users nowadays.
(Naturally I, for one, can attest to that :) RAM is big & cheap, CD's
are big & cheap, CF/USB drives are big & cheap, etc.
And I agree that someone else providing an assembled package is an
option but it's not something I see in my own near future, and since
- Samba was an already-provided package,
- the provided Samba version (v2) is officially unsupported by the
Samba people
- Samba /4/ is in beta and looks to be soon released
- a supported SMB service would seem to be standard/requisite
functionality for something like LEA... i.e. an embedded appliance that
is not a firewall
- LEAF is otherwise such a good candidate for the OS of a NAS device!
- LEAF is otherwise such a good candidate for the OS of /many/
embedded applications
I felt that it could/would justify some effort to assemble an updated
Samba 3 package.
I understand that LEAF is primarily a Firewall project and so the effort
to put together an updated SMB service should not be extraordinary of
course, but I have to admit that I feel sad that it looks like Samba
would not get updated simply due to the result being a large package.
>> One more thing ... Flash Storage is easier to get than RAM ... at this point
>> .. i also thinking of CRamFS.
>>
> Sure. And soon enough, LEAF will be just one more "not quite as bloated
> as the rest" distro.
LEAF might have a unique advantage and difference though, in that the
default product is tiny and one then adds-on whatever functionality one
desires ... so it's impossible for an end-user to have a bloated system
.... unless they *want* a bloated system. And FWICT the massive
collection of all-optional packages (in excess of a hundred) is a
'selling point' for LEAF. So I don't think that bloat is really concern
here.
If it's expected that Samba 3 would be a good chunk of work to get
working then I totally agree that it's not necessarily a good
expenditure of time given LEAF's primary purpose as a firewall but I'd
plead that large size alone not be a package killer.
In any case thanks everyone for your work on LEAF!
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by DB2 Express
Download DB2 Express C - the FREE version of DB2 express and take
control of your XML. No limits. Just data. Click to get it now.
http://sourceforge.net/powerbar/db2/
------------------------------------------------------------------------
leaf-user mailing list: [email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/leaf-user
Support Request -- http://leaf-project.org/
