utilities for active directory and smbpasswd

[Jim McDonough]

I think this is a great idea.  We had planned on some expansion of the
"net" command, and the first thing that came to mind was adding RPC calls
instead of just RAP calls (you know, the old OS/2 bias is hard to get rid
of).  We planned also on doing better language support in the help and
messages area, as demonstrated by having all text constants in one
area...it was a primitive first step, but we wanted to be careful to not
using them directly in the code (debug statements excepted).  I was kind of
waiting to see how things shook out with the other internationalization
code.

----------------------------
Jim McDonough
IBM Linux Technology Center
Samba Team
6 Minuteman Drive
Scarborough, ME 04074
USA

jmcd at us.ibm.com
jmcd at samba.org

Phone: (207) 885-5565
IBM tie-line: 776-9984


Andrew Tridgell <tridge at samba.org> on 10/30/2001 02:07:41 AM

Please respond to tridge at samba.org

To:   jmcd at samba.org
cc:   samba-technical at samba.org
Subject:  utilities for active directory and smbpasswd



Jim,

I've been thinking about the "netjoin" command that I have been
working on for joining a kerberos realm. I think a better approach
might be to extend your new "net" command to have a "net join"
option. I'm also thinking we could use "net password" to replace the
current smbpasswd command and maybe replace smbtree with "net view".

In general I think we have too many badly written and badly documented
little utilities. By consolidating some of them into "net" and
expanding on the builtin help for the net command I think we will end
up with something that is more useful and consistent.

I think a first step would be to split net.c up a bit, with a separate
file per command. eg. utils/net_session.c containing the code for just
the "net session" command. Then we can start adding a few more
commands like "net password" and I can add "net join". We would need
options to say what sort of domain we are joining (NT4 or ADS).

What do you think? Right approach, or should we stick to lots of
little utils?

Cheers, Tridge