CVS update: samba/source/include (fwd)

Guy Sotomayor ggs at
Sat Dec 18 03:35:09 GMT 1999

> 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...

I can see the point of view from many tradional unix users/admins about
not wanting to let NT folks administer a unix box.  However, this assumes
a "general perpose" unix system.  There seems to be a growing trend where
unix (specifically linux) is used as an embedded OS in a "server
appliance".  If that appliance happens to offer SMB services, it is
natural for the class of users using that appliance to want to administer
it in a manner that they're used to (ie NT).  Many of these appliances
now rely on some sort of Web interface to administer it.  As easy as they
are to administer through the Web interface, it is different from what
the end users are used to.  Also, because it is an appliance type of device
the folks that will be administering it are potentially not as tech-savy
as the normal run of the mill admin.  This is part of the attractiveness
of these appliance devices.

Just my $0.02 worth...

TTFN - Guy

More information about the samba-ntdom mailing list