[PC-BSD Testing] samba module

Mike Bybee mbybee at dometrilogy.com
Tue Jan 12 02:12:25 PST 2010

On Tue, Jan 12, 2010 at 2:30 AM, Stephan Assmus <superstippi at gmx.de> wrote:

> Hi,
> On 2010-01-11 at 22:49:34 [+0100], Kris Moore <kris at pcbsd.org> wrote:
> > On Mon, 11 Jan 2010, Mike Bybee wrote:
> > > On Mon, Jan 11, 2010 at 1:37 PM, Kris Moore <kris at pcbsd.com> wrote: On
> > > 01/10/2010 17:53, Dru Lavigne wrote:
> > > > system settings ->  samba: needs to prompt for admin password or else
> > > > everything is greyed out
> > > >
> > > > none of the buttons work in samba ->  printers when it is started
> > > > with kdesu kcmshell4
> > > kcmsambaconf (users tab is also still empty)--I will tell readers that
> > > these two tabs will work in a future version of PC-BSD as this is most
> > > likely a KDE issue that won't be solved soon
> > >
> > > The missing "administrator mode" button for system settings will be
> > > added in KDE 4.4. it sounds like :)
> > >
> > > However, in the meantime, users can run samba config by going to start
> > > -> system -> Samba Manager, where I've created an icon to run it with
> > > kdesu :P
> > >
> > > There are several 'patches' of this sort in PC-BSD, and I'm wondering;
> > > is this normal for KDE? I'm typically not a KDE user (I use it only on
> > > PC-BSD), but it seems that it lacks a lot of polish. KDE 3.5 seemed
> > > more 'finished' than 4 does.
> >
> > In the past it hasn't been so normal, but this particular bug just took
> > them a LONG time to get fixed, not sure what the deal with that was. Even
> > OpenSUSE and others we're having to do workarounds like this to make it
> > functional :(
> >
> > At least its going into 4.4 now, so going forward we can expect this to
> > be fixed finally.
> Hopyfully this doesn't come across the wrong way, I don't mean this to be
> discouraging, it's just an observation: When I have been installing various
> operating systems these past days, I noticed many faults, broken stuff and
> missing features. FreeBSD was an especially mixed experience. I installed
> all these operating systems to perform a specific benchmark. FreeBSD was
> great in that it was the best performer. It kicked Linux butt by being
> about 13% faster. What I also liked about FreeBSD was that the porters of
> Gnome left most of the default configuration intact so I could see Gnome as
> it was intended to work. Unfortunately, a lot of stuff is either missing or
> not working in Gnome on FreeBSD. For example, the users/group
> administration is simply not working at all. Since I was ignorant of what
> the "wheel" group means in FreeBSD and somehow managed to not have my
> regular user be part of this, this was especially annoying for me. In fact,
> if there would have been no #freebsd on freenode, I would have been totally
> lost facing most problems. A second computer browsing documentation was
> also a necessity.
> I've also used PC-BSD 7.1.1 and openSUSE 11.2 as KDE 4 systems. So far, I
> am pretty disappointed in KDE. The technology underneath it may be great.
> I've been programming with the Qt toolkit a bit to know it's quite a decent
> framework. However, while I've read great things about the innovativeness
> of KDE 4, I cannot *at all* see what's innovative about it in terms of
> end-user experience. I find the Gnome experience much smoother and much
> more geared towards putting the user in control.
> In any case, I am digressing, since I don't want these observations to be
> about Gnome versus KDE... instead I want to make a point about
> "distributions". From my observations, what seems to be the case is that
> distribution makers are somewhat detached from the projects that they use
> to put their distribution together. If something is broken in the software,
> complete features are being turned off, as was suggested already several
> times in the short time I've been subsribed to this list. On the FreeBSD
> platform, there seems to be this additional layer of the "port".
> As a result, the quality of the platforms/distributions I have tried, seems
> to be a direct reflection of how good the ability of the team to actually
> fix issues in the used software (or to extend the software with some much
> needed tools, for example KDE4 on openSUSE is so much more useful thanks to
> YAST2). I don't expect that line of thought to be a revelation to any of
> you, but I would urge you guys to take your time with the PC-BSD 8.0
> release. Try to fix not only mis-configurations, but also real problems in
> the software you are putting together and your OS will be so much better.
> And send the patches back upstream. :-) It may be a totally wrong
> impression I have got, but to me it seems like there is too little working
> together between various projects.
> Best regards,
> -Stephan
> _______________________________________________
> Testing mailing list
> Testing at lists.pcbsd.org
> http://lists.pcbsd.org/mailman/listinfo/testing
I think that the push to achieve a 'release' with modern features (and avoid
the feeling of stagnation that some projects like Debian are accused of)
leads distros to attempt to get a model shipped that works 90% rather than
95% or 100%. Part of the issue with this is that not everything ends up
being properly polished.
PC-BSD 7 had a lot of these issues, and I was extremely frustrated with it.
Many problems have been fixed in 8 that were serious complaints in 7, but I
agree that it does seem like the answer is often "ok, that's broken, turn it
off". This team can't spend all their time fixing KDE or Arc bugs and still
maintain their distro. Likewise, the upstream providers of tools often sit
on bug reports for quite a while (xine comes to mind).
The solution is money and manpower, of course - and nobody has much of those
right now.

PC-BSD 8 is a huge step above 7, and I think that we're going in the right
direction. If you look at Ubuntu 9, you'll see that the distro has actually
gone retrograde in a lot ways while they try to stay cutting edge.

It's easy to say "well, we're not going to ship it unless it's perfect", but
then users end up leaving it for flashier (less stable) systems. PC-BSD
tries, in my opinion, to walk the line between flashy and solid. FreeBSD is
very solid and slow moving. PC-BSD moves a lot quicker, trying to keep users
updated with features like Compiz, KDE 4, and auto-detecting video cards.

That's my 2 cents

Mike Bybee
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.pcbsd.org/pipermail/testing/attachments/20100112/2320a230/attachment.html>

More information about the Testing mailing list