Subject: WU-FTPD

From: Kent Landfield <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 10 May 1998 00:58:49 -0500 (CDT)

Well... I have been quiet up until now because it was Stan's place to 
respond initially.  He has so I have no problem jumping in... ;)

The term hijacked, used here earlier, was an appropriate one. That is what 
was attempted here. Plain and simple. While the intention might have been
good, the way that this was executed showed a total lack of understanding 
of the community that they wanted so much to support...  Let's look at it.

First was the declaration to us that they had the only acceptable way 
to improve wu-ftpd.  They didn't discuss it here, they just said wu-ftpd
2.6 was THE WU-FTPD. Sorry, but most people (especially those who have been 
spending many years with wu-ftpd development) would much rather see actions 
that are positive for the wu-ftpd installed community than grandstanding.

Second was the depiction that they had no qualms leaving a large number 
of sites high and dry functionality-wise; that their way was the only 
way and it did not matter what the community was currently using. It was 
their patch or no patch.  

Third, they showed a real lack of understanding about what it takes
to manage large sets of virtual domains. 

Andy wrote:
# What I don't like about your patch is that it adds yet another 
# configuration file, and requires a separate directory for each
# v-host.  

Oh, let's not talk about the added functionality that it provides, (like
independent support for all wu-ftpd configuration files which their patch
does not) let's count configuration files. This must have been said with 
little understanding about the newvirt patch. It DOES require an additional
ftpservers file but beyond that everything can be done in the master 
ftpaccess file.  If a site then needs to have extra support, they can by 
creating a separate area (while not affecting any or the other virtual 
domains specified in the master ftpaccess file).  

The newvirt patch has had over 3500 sites download it, over 300 in April 
alone.  It is being used because it supports ALL config files and it is 
easy to admin.  Andy and crowd would have us (the sites that really need 
newvirt) go back to the minimal virtual support of the baselined wu-ftpd 
functionality simply because it requires another config file ?  I really 
do not care if it requires additional config files as long as it provides 
the functionality needed and it is easy to administer. Both are the case
in the existing newvirt patch.

The biggest problem I have with all that has transpired is one of trust.
I have seen grandstanding, a deliberate attempt to hijack development,
no attempt made to talk this out with the community and being told that 
they really don't care about the installed base... This is not the group 
that I'd throw my hat in with. Who knows what direction we would be yanked
next month........

Now let's look at the reasons behind why they felt they needed to make 
this ill attempt at "rescuing wu-ftpd development".  There is no doubt 
that wu-ftpd development could move much faster. 

There are some risks with moving it REALLY fast.  First is the installed 
base and upgrading. It is hard enough to get sites to take the time to 
upgrade their installations.  Moving too fast will not matter to a large 
segment of the community that can't or won't keep playing the "weekly 
upgrade game". Second is the potential for introduction of bugs and 
security problems due to minimal testing.  We need to be very careful 
about wu-ftpd and it's security.  It is a program that provides access 
to our systems and it would be easy enough to drop the ball, open a hole 
and sink wu-ftpd into the muck of Internet bad-press. (Not counting the 
loss of business due to lack of customer confidence in our facilities.)

That said, I too have been frustrated at times with the pace of development.
That is not a secret. I floated ideas of an Apache development in December
and for all the grumblings that I heard, (except for one person) no one was 
willing to be able to spend the amount of time and money that it takes to 
get an effort (as organized as Apache's) set up and running.  I wanted to 
see a set of people, i.e. 10+ active developers, and thought that would 
happen. It didn't and while Stan has been slow at times, replacing one
stable and steady for another (seeming unknown) didn't make sense EVEN
when it was I who was the unknown.  And now we have Andy. Sorry...

If there is to be the type of improvement that Andy and others have
wanted then it needs to be done right if it is expected to be called
wu-ftpd. What we just saw was not the right way.  What needs to be setup 
is an Apache-style development with resources and commitment from an 
active set of developers. 

I have no problem with anyone going off and improving wu-ftpd. Look at me.
I did the newvirt patches and have been supporting them. Someday I expect
them to be merged into the baseline sources. Until then I'll support them.
I went off and improved wu-ftpd but I did it within the structure of the
community. I have tried to get an Apache-style development going and would 
be willing to participate in one. It WOULD NOT be a dictatorship, it WOULD 
BE a real group effort. 

Andy, if you want to develop BeroFTPD, do so, but don't change its name 
to wu-ftpd just to gain user acceptance.  Maybe when/if an Apache-type 
development gets started you can come back constructively and contribute 
your sources to the effort.  Until then, don't call it WU-FTPD because
it ain't.

And to all the NEWVIRT sites... I WILL keep supporting the NEWVIRT
version and as soon as Beta-17 is up I'll make a patch available for it.
(Virtual Passwd file support is coming as well. :))

-- 
Kent Landfield                        Phone: 1-817-545-2502             
Email: [email-masked]             http://www.landfield.com/
Email: [email-masked]                   http://www.nfr.net/
Please send comp.sources.misc related mail to [email-masked]
Search the Usenet Hypertext FAQ Archive at http://www.faqs.org/faqs/

---

From: Marcus Eric Harris <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 10 May 1998 02:02:10 +0000 (EST)

Kent,

    As a very happy user of the wu-ftpd software, I wanted to say 'Thanks,
Man' for your comments about the ill-will that's been flying back and forth
in regarding Stan's development efforts.

    And Stan, if you're reading this -- hang in there!  Not all of us are
nearly as quick to condemn the efforts you've given in support of this
software, and please continue to do what you have to do to make this
package something that the whole wu-ftpd user community can have confidence
in.

    Good luck with the Apache development arrangement!  I think it would be
of great benefit, also!

    Regards,

    Marcus E. Harris
    (Content wu-ftpd user/admin)

--- 
Marcus E. Harris                   Software Developer/Process Engineer
Lucent Technologies -- Bell Labs   Work Phone:  919.380.4555
2000 Regency Park, Suite #500      Facsimile :  919.380.4640
Cary, North Carolina 27511         E-Mail: [email-masked]
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Never let the bad things stop you.  Otherwise, you won't be around to
 enjoy the good things.  Be resilient, stay focused, and play to win..."