On Thu, 19 Feb 2004 21:50:01 +1300 Steve Holdoway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, 19 Feb 2004 21:18:01 +1300, you wrote: > > >On Thu, 19 Feb 2004 21:08:45 +1300 > >Steve Holdoway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > >> On Thu, 19 Feb 2004 20:10:40 +1300, you wrote: > >> > >> >On Thu, 19 Feb 2004 18:26, Steve Holdoway wrote: > >> >> However, you may not have swat available, as it's quite new. You > >> >can> download the latest source from www.samba.org, or learn to > >edit> >> smb.conf manually (: > >> > > >> >absolute rubbish, swat has been around for ages and ages. At least > >> >since 1999! > >> > >> Well, 2.0.2x kernels were early 2000, and i don't think swat was > >> included as standard in Debian kernels of that age. Samba was a > >mature> product at that time, but ... > >> > >> There were a lot of security issues with the early versions, too. > >> > > > >swat has nothing to do with the kernel. it is part of the samba > >suite, it means "samba web administration tool". It runs a server on > >port 901 and configures and controls samba, and provides easy access > >to the documentation. A quick look at the samba source and the samba > >website could not locate a CHANGELOG, but > >http://samba.mirror.aarnet.edu.au/samba/whatsnew/ shows reference to > >this in 1999: > > Having been using samba for over 10 years under HP-UX, Solaris and > Dynix/ptx as well as Linux, I do know what the acronym stands for, and > also the problems when SWAT first came out, as I was teaching clients > how to use it at the time. IIRC it came out as a part of Samba 2, > which was about '99. Even to this day, there are potential security > hazards, which is why the xinetd default install is to only accept > requests from the localhost. People were even more security conscious > then than they are now ( IMHO complacency is setting in ). But at > least now it compiles and runs reliably, and you can install it in any > directory you want (: > OK, I thought you knew better, and was surprised at your posts! > If you refer to the OP, you'll find he was using a 2.2.something > kernel (sorry, finger trouble there, dates are for 2.2 not 2.0 > kernels). I was using the kernel version to date the release of debian > he used. > I see the connection to the kernel now, sorry about that. Actually I presume the reason he is using kernel 2.2 is that he is on debian, which still does 2.2 by default doesn't it? > > > >"(11th November) O'Reilly have released their new book Using Samba > >under an open content license! The book has been adopted by the Samba > >Team as the "official" Samba book and we will strive to keep it up to > >date. O'Reilly have sent us the full sources for the book and we will > >be making it available online as soon as we can, we just need to work > >out some formatting and conversion issues. We also plan to make it > >directly accessible from SWAT. A huge thanks to O'Reilly for this > >great step forward in the documentation of Samba!" > > > >clearly swat was a part of samba already at that stage. > > Like the smiley said on the post you took exception to, the > alternative was a manual edit of smb.conf. Not much of an option to > the M$ administrators I was teaching, so I would have jumped at it if > it was safe. > Yes, I have done it manually too, not too nice, too many options to remember, which is why swat is nice, with its direct links to the man pages etc. Sorry to diss you so, I misunderstood your post to the point of thinking you were having a temporary bout of stupidity, but you can send that hat back to me. Nick. > Steve > > > >> Steve > >> > >> > > > > >
