Re: Samba 4.16 usefulness

On 6/20/26 19:24, Daniel Engberg wrote:

> Hi,

Thanks for answering.



> To my knowledge it's the last version that's "fully" or close to fully 
> working and/or somewhat "validated" to work all others are considered 
> WIP .

I guess "validated" doesn't really have an "official" meaning here :)
Personally I've been using only 4.22/4.23 for a long time with 
satisfaction. Of course my use cases can't possibly cover the myriad of 
options, ways of using it, interactions with other softwares, etc...
I wonder, however, if these newer versions are "WIP" just because they 
weren't tested by enough people (so eventual bugs were not reported and 
not solved).

IMVVVVHO we should move forward and are very late at it.
Is there a list of what doesn't work in later versions?

Looking into bugzilla, I see #284603: that's against 4.20 however, which 
is already obsolete. It's not clear if that's also bugging 4.22/4.23, 
and, frankly, I doubt it works with 4.16 (I haven't tried it in a long 
time, but I remember having had that problem in the past).

Then there's #281312, but it only lists a few ports that pinpoint 
samba416, possibly just because that's the default. No indication of 
whether that's an hard requirement or if someone tried them with a newer 
version.



> Personally I would be happy with ksmbd

Didn't even know about this.
I guess we won't see it anytime soon.



> but that's not really portable at least in its current form.

<rant>
Samba is also less and less portable...
</rant>
:)



  bye
	av.