CVS update: samba/source/include (fwd)

[S. Striker]

My opion: let unix/linux be unix/linux and let them provide services to
the outer world. They are stable platforms which are hard to be bring
down if they are up and runnning. Why give someone a tool which breaks
this robustness? I want people to think before they do. If you have to
stop a service from a command prompt by typing something you have to think.
If you just have to hit a button that says stop, you're not thinking, you
are experimenting. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't. The people
used to the MS platforms have a tendency to restart/reboot their machines.
I'm afraid this tendency will continue with services. What's more annoying
than an ignorant admin who is constantly restarting services.
No thanks Luke. The idea is good; supporting the grand total of NT. But in
this case we can state that poison is the cure. Make sure this dies...

Greetings and keep up the good work, I like the split of the daemons !

Sander Striker



> -----Original Message-----
> From: samba-ntdom at samba.org [mailto:samba-ntdom at samba.org]On Behalf Of
> Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton
> Sent: vrijdag 17 december 1999 22:57
> To: Multiple recipients of list SAMBA-NTDOM
> Subject: Re: CVS update: samba/source/include (fwd)
> 
> 
> On Fri, 17 Dec 1999, Gerald Carter wrote:
> 
> > Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton wrote:
> > > 
> > > if you don't speak up in favour, start/stop services as remote
> > > administrator certainly won't ever get added.  if you are just
> > > a unix admin and do not touch NT or do not use any remote unix
> > > administrative tools with the similar capability [to start/stop
> > > services], please say so, and your opinion will be noted but 
> > > given less weight.
> > 
> > Luke,
> > 
> > I've stated this before, but I've really got to agree with 
> > Andrew.  I think this is a bad idea in production.  This is 
> > a gut feeling.  Just for the record, bad idea....
> 
> thx jerry.
> 
> so far, that's two against, and two "why not"s.
> 
> 
>