Deleting parameters.

[Sean Elble]

No, we most certainly can't count on RPM to solve the migration problem,
especially when you have those infernal Solaris users who refuse to use
Linux. :-) My idea there was to include a migration script with Samba that
could be called from each individual UNIX's package manager, like Solaris'
pkgadd, or IRIX's tardist packages, or the aforementioned RPM packages. If a
UNIX doesn't support post installation script execution, then the user could
execute the migration script by him/herself. I just used RPM as an example,
because it is what I am most familar with. (havn't had Solaris on my
SPARCstation 5 since I got it, and havn't used my Indigo2 for a couple weeks
. . . have to upgrade Samba on both of them. ;-)

> > branch). The only thing I could disagree with you on is if there's a
> > parameter in Samba that probably should be removed, even if there are
> > vocal users who object to it being removed. What if that one
> > parameter, like the security parameter, is holding back Samba from
> > becoming better as a whole (at least in the 2.2 branch)? Users,
>
> I'm not convinced that "security" is holding anything back.
> That's really the point of this debate.

The security modes may not be holding anything back in the actual Samba code
(I wouldn't know obviously, but it sounds as though it may be), but it might
actually be clearer for _new_ Samba users if we make things simplier, and
more concise, even if that means getting rid of parameters that aren't what
you'd say "well described". :-) Auth order makes a whole lot more sense when
you step back and look at things from the view of a Samba newbie, just
getting their feet wet from the dry world of Windows NT/2000. Maybe security
isn't holding anything back, but potential Samba users? Again, just a
hypothetical point, but something to take into consideration. We aren't just
supporting exisiting Samba users, we're looking to get more. :-)

> Let's be clear here.  We are not debating on whether or not
> old, crafty, outdate code should be rewritten to make Samba better.
> We are talking about changing interfaces.  Changing a interface
> in a module (and I'm referring to smb.conf as the module with the
> interface being used by the sysadmin) means that all consumers
> will have to be rewritten.
>
> I'm am not against changing parameters (everyone know how much
> I hate "read only/writeable/writable"), I'm just not convinced yet
> and want to be enough of a pain that we think before we act. :-)

This again references upon my comment about making smb.conf options more
concise; sure, you might confuse an administrator who has been using Samba
forever, and didn't read up on what he/she was doing, but you might make
life a hell of a lot easier for a new administrator who isn't very
experienced with Samba. Yes, users will have to be filled in on the changes,
but it may be more of a time-saver, in terms of handling "tech support"
questions, later on in the future. I certainly have nothing against thinking
before we act; I just like my way of thinking. :-) I think that's why 8
cents worth now . . . :-)

-----------------------------------------------
Sean P. Elble
Editor, Writer, Co-Webmaster
ReactiveLinux.com (Formerly MaximumLinux.org)
http://www.reactivelinux.com/
elbles at reactivelinux.com
-----------------------------------------------

----- Original Message -----
From: "Gerald (Jerry) Carter" <jerry at samba.org>
To: "Sean Elble" <S_Elble at yahoo.com>
Cc: "Jeremy Allison" <jra at samba.org>; "Andrew Bartlett"
<abartlet at pcug.org.au>; <samba-technical at lists.samba.org>
Sent: Monday, November 12, 2001 1:16 AM
Subject: Re: Deleting parameters.


> On Mon, 12 Nov 2001, Sean Elble wrote:
>
> > My point here was that RPM offers the capability to run a script adter
> > the installation; a migration script would be a perfect example for
> > that "post install" script. Yes, someone would have to write that
> > (ideally not me, since I can barely program Hello world in Perl :-),
> > but I'm sure someone handy with Perl could put one of them out in less
> > than a day. Could be wrong though, but it is definitely a capability
> > worth investigating.
>
> Right.  And i understood what you were getting at.  The problem
> here is that we cannot rely on RPM to solve our problem
> because then the migration path break when you use Solaris
> (which I hear a few people still do :) )
>
> > Here's the biggest point with which I agree on with you; any broken
> > features have to be fixed or removed, PERIOD. No ifs, ands, or buts.
>
> This follows the "Path of least surprise" principle.
>
> > branch). The only thing I could disagree with you on is if there's a
> > parameter in Samba that probably should be removed, even if there are
> > vocal users who object to it being removed. What if that one
> > parameter, like the security parameter, is holding back Samba from
> > becoming better as a whole (at least in the 2.2 branch)? Users,
>
> I'm not convinced that "security" is holding anything back.
> That's really the point of this debate.
>
> > Same basic concept, but taken a little further to include replacing
> > out-of-date code with improved code, even if it does mean
> > changing/deleting parameters. Just my (little more than) 2 cents . . .
>
> Let's be clear here.  We are not debating on whether or not
> old, crafty, outdate code should be rewritten to make Samba better.
> We are talking about changing interfaces.  Changing a interface
> in a module (and I'm referring to smb.conf as the module with the
> interface being used by the sysadmin) means that all consumers
> will have to be rewritten.
>
> I'm am not against changing parameters (everyone know how much
> I hate "read only/writeable/writable"), I'm just not convinced yet
> and want to be enough of a pain that we think before we act. :-)
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> cheers, jerry
>  ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>  www.samba.org              SAMBA  Team             jerry_at_samba.org
>  www.plainjoe.org                                jerry_at_plainjoe.org
>  http://www.hp.com        Hewlett-Packard
>  --"I never saved anything for the swim back." Ethan Hawk in Gattaca--