Re: Recap

On Fri, 26 Aug 2005, Sylvain Robitaille wrote:

> Gregory thanks for being so open about where you're at.  I had been
> wondering what had happened to what I had found to otherwise be a rather
> active development team.

Ditto, and I think all would agree that we wish you a speedy and healthy 
recovery.

>> My feelings on Version 3 are that it should:
>> ...
>>   * support win32 (2000, XP Home and Pro, and, eventually,  Longhorn).
>>     There has been some objection to supporting Windows.  This is an
>>     open issue.
>
> I think if there's developper interest, those who are interested in it
> should certainly go ahead and work on it.  My own reaction to it is "why
> would anyone want to setup an FTP server on Windows," but I don't expect
> that this is a popular reaction.

You're not alone in that as I have also expressed this sentiment.  What 
would be interesting to see is the confusion that could arise between 
wu-ftpd and wftpd, which is a commercial Windows FTP server 
(http://www.wftpd.com/)

> I certainly would be concerned about how this would affect Unix versions
> of the code base, but you've already indicated that you'd like to see it
> be very modular, so if done right, the effect should be minimal if
> visible at all.

The grossest way to accomplish this would be to #ifdef certain codes.

>>   * have a GUI.  I suggest Qt because of market share.  ... There has
>>     been little discussion on this other than some agreement that a
>>     GUI is needed.
>
> I'm assuming that you mean this to be a GUI interface to the
> configuration files?  If so, the only request I would make of it is that
> it not result in configuration files that can't be otherwise editted in
> the "normal" fashion.

Agreed.

> I would question whether a GUI is actually needed, but I don't feel it's
> my place to resist work others want to do.

My gut reaction to a GUI, especially Qt is to shudder over the ensuing 
bloat.  If there is to be a GUI of some sort, it should be optional via 
./configure, not mandatory.  A GUI more than anything will have the 
greatest impact, not just win32 support.

>>   * use XML for the internal configuration file formats.
>
> I'm not sure I agree with that, though it likely would result in a
> configuration that's easily front-ended with a GUI and still satisfies
> my request above, so I would have very little to base any objection on
> (other than I've worked very little with XML and don't feel comfortable
> with it ...  does that even count?)

I like my ftpaccess.  In fact, an XML version would balloon my 375KB 
ftpaccess file, since I have things like this:

## Begin OttIX ACL
class   anon-ottix      anonymous               64.26.128.0/18
class   anon-ottix      anonymous               64.26.176.0/24
class   anon-ottix      anonymous               64.86.0.0/22
class   anon-ottix      anonymous               66.6.48.0/20

Now, how much more simple and elegant can I state that?

And my patch, adds this:

timeout idle 1200 anon-ottix

Gotta love that. :-)

One thing that I'd like to point out is that wu-ftpd shouldn't change to 
adhere to the current fashion:  As someone who is always out of step with 
the times, it would be of paramount importance that technical excellence 
in code not be equated to what's in fashion.

>> 4) I think patches, bug reports, feature requests and improvements
>> from the past few years should go into the Version 2 code base,
>> possibly leading to version 2.7.0.
>
> I definitely would be interested in participating at this level.  I'm
> not really a programmer, not very comfortable with object-oriented
> programming, and have no formal experience with C++ (except perhaps
> small amounts of troubleshooting done for work), so I'm not sure I would
> be able to contribute all that much to the version 3 code base, if it
> goes in that direction.

Coding no, testing possibly.  Since I run ftp.nrc.ca, and it's a 'big' 
site, my testing would have to be restricted to a back-ward compatible 
subset of whatever version 3 would do.

> Still, if I can contribute to closing off the version 2 stuff, and even
> a little to version 3, I'll certainly want to do what I can.

I think we would need to be prepared to continue supporting version 2 for 
a time, for those that aren't ready to move to version 3, for one reason 
or another.

>> 6) I would very much like to have a "conference" or "convention" for
>>    wu-ftpd.
>
> If it happens, I'd very much like to attend.  My employer might even be
> willing to send me, but even if they don't I'll certainly try and see
> what I can do to get there.

I think one of the best secondary venues would be a USENIX (anyone remember 
those? ;-) ) or an IETF, in case not everyone can make it.

One further suggestion about hosting environment:  Since I have access to 
sourceforge (I'm a user and project admin already) I noticed they also 
have compile farms.  Greg, since you're low on locally accessible 
hardware, this may give you the vehicle you're looking for (I know that as 
soon as smart electric meters are installed in my province, my home lab 
will probably cease to exist and I'll be moving to sourceforge just for 
the farms).

wfms