Re: Samba 4.16 usefulness

On 6/21/26 09:51, Daniel Engberg wrote:

> At least I got the impression of later iterations that they were 
> ~testing/beta quality with the "maybe this will work" approach.

Possibly; but they'll always be, if nobody tests them.
To be clear, I'm not blaming you, but I think moving default to a new 
version would be a "gentle invite" to people to move on and report any 
failure. (And it would be better than keeping a "latest-8" version, that 
was abandoned upstream some years ago).



> We still carry a lot of patches in more recent versions, have there been 
> or are there any attempts of upstreaming?

I don't know.
I find it somehow hard to work with upstream, but that's probably me.



> To clarify, ksmbd apart from being tied to the Linux kernel focuses on 
> file transferring (and performance but I think that would be secondary 
> in our case at least initially), which probably is what most use it for 
> including myself without the other functionality.

I'd be happy to see ksmbd coming (although I don't think it will happen 
any time soon), but that wouldn't fit all my needs alone (as I also use 
Samba for AD DC and PAM authentication); so it wouldn't replace Samba.



  bye
	av.