On Tue, 27 May 2003, Buchan Milne wrote: > How about samba-server requiring samba-client (so that people can still > install samba-client standalone for use with linnieghborhood, kio_smb, > GNOME-VFS smb support, smbmount etc ...). I see Simo Sorce has the same > suggestion. I will try it on cooker and see if anyone complains ... > > BTW, after seeing way too many users lost with an empty smb.conf (asking > about features that are an uncomment away in our default smb.conf file), > I really am considering making samba-swat an optional (ie not in the > distro) in favour of something like ksambaplugin. SWAT causes way too > many bad configurations, which require lots of assistance to fix, > whereas a quick look in /etc/samba/smb.conf with a text editor of choice > would usually get the user to a better solution than the one they were > attempting with SWAT.
Throwing away SWAT is a bad option. SWAT is a source of access to documentation as well as a means of configuring the system. You will have a big job on your hands to convince an MS Windows network admin who is not versed in Unix to use a text editor like vi. A better solution is to fix the defects in SWAT. Have you looked at the wizard feature in SWAT? What can we do to make SWAT a better tool? The use of tools that do not know the config parameters of the current version of Samba will bite your hand also. I am not trying to convince you to use SWAT, I jsut want to get a sane resolution on the matter. It seems that your solution is to throw the baby out with the bath water just because it soils it's diaper once in a while. :) - John T. -- John H Terpstra Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
