Windows future

[Derrick Brashear]

On Thu, Sep 30, 2010 at 9:55 AM, Thomas Hardjono <hardjono at mit.edu> wrote:
>
> Hi Jeff,
>
> IMHO, at the end of the day if the Kerberos user community wants
> to see an on-going development of KfW as a true open-source project
> then folks will need to contribute dev cycles and/or resources.
> By that I mean cycles on Windows development for KfW.

Given that the dev cycles (by which I mean code) already contributed seems to be
being studiously ignored, I don't think anything is being done to
actually encourage that
to happen. Certainly I wouldn't waste development cycles if I knew my
code was never
going to go anywhere.

>>> Secure Endpoints believes that it could bring KFW current in about four
>>> calendar months with a better than full time effort.  However, it would
>>> all be for naught if the Consortium didn't have its own in-house
>>> resource to maintain the code going forward and perform interop testing
>>> with future Microsoft releases while they are in early beta.  We
>>> estimate the cost of development and maintenance would be approximately
>>> $280,000 for the first year with an on-going cost of $120,000 for each
>>> subsequent year.  This is assuming that the efforts Secure Endpoints has
>>> already put into KFW and NIM are accepted as a starting point.
>
> I personally do not think MIT, the MIT-KC board and Members would
> like to see us spend the amount of money that Secure Endpoints is asking for
> on a single vendor.

I don't think it was a proposal, so much as an estimate of the costs
that would be entailed. Let's ignore that.
You've told us what you personally believe should not be done, thus
implicitly not speaking for the Consortium.
Jeff asked for the Consortium's response. I also would like to see
that answer as it surely helps answer questions
OpenAFS has about direction for its Kerberos needs.


Derrick


-- 
Derrick