On Sat, 2012-04-28 at 12:31 +0200, steve wrote: > Hi > How about calling s3fs, s4fs? > Cheers, > Steve
Steve, The 's3fs' proposal you refer to is documented at https://wiki.samba.org/index.php/Samba4/s3fs I hope I've clarified it with this comment in the wiki: Why is this called s3fs? There isn't a very good reason for the name, except that the original proponents needed a name, and the linker-tricks needed by the previous effort codenamed s3compat are no longer required. It was therefore desired to have a name that communicated that this is about using the smbd file server from the Samba 3.x release stream. For a number of years now, two file servers have been developed in parallel in the Samba project. The Samba 3.x releases produced the smbd file server, while the Samba 4.x alpha series had the ntvfs file server. Therefore, s3fs simply indicates that, integrated into the samba process used by the AD DC is the file server refined in the Samba 3.x release series. It is hoped that this detail and name would not need to be exposed to users by the time that Samba 4.x is released, while we continue to refine the development and implementation details of this process. In terms of a codename s4fs, that would imply a DC based on the ntvfs file server, which is what we have agreed to change to be the non-default option. I hope this clarifies things, Andrew Bartlett -- Andrew Bartlett http://samba.org/~abartlet/ Authentication Developer, Samba Team http://samba.org -- To unsubscribe from this list go to the following URL and read the instructions: https://lists.samba.org/mailman/options/samba
