donmccall1 at yahoo.com
Mon Aug 22 11:45:58 GMT 2005
Me too (not using swat...) - if I'm working a samba issue, I'm generally already telnetted or ssh'ed into the box, and it's just easier and more convenient to hack the smb.conf file. Unless I'm specifically WORKING a problem on SWAT, I rarely see it... But I HAVE had customers tell me that they REQUIRE swat to be there and working...
The folks I talk to typically are on the Unix side of the house - there expectations seem to be much more focused around being able to DO what they need to do, rather than the packaging.
But I can tell you from a support standpoint, being able to manage/examine a MS Windows server from Swat would be a godsend. A lot of these folks are NOT MS savvy, esp on the server/domain admin tools, and being able to talk/walk them thru a web/java/etc interface WE own to get info about a user/group/domain while working an issue, as opposed to them tracking down an MS admin, or finding a pc with the admin tools installed (or typing in a long net or ldap search command at the command prompt), I think would save a good bit of time and confusion.
I also like the idea that one of you mentioned about wizards, and having some of the more common configurations setup in the background, based on answers to a FEW critical questions. We do that with a 'setup_samba' script in HP-UX, for simple user/domain member/ads domain member/domain controller. It's nice for folks just 'opening the box'.
AND it gives those of us in a support role a common place to start from.
a couple of cents worth....
Tim Potter <tpot at samba.org> wrote:
On Sat, 2005-08-20 at 16:43 +1000, tridge at samba.org wrote:
> Anyone else have any comments on this? How important is it to keep
> SWAT 'web-like'? Or should we fully embrace the new age of 'desktop
> apps in a browser' ?
Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page
More information about the samba-technical