web server in Samba4
farrar at parc.com
Wed Jun 1 21:44:38 GMT 2005
Deryck Hodge wrote:
> I'm aware of the advantages of text browsers in keeping sites
> accessible... see my comments above. Perhaps I wasn't clear in what I'm
> Is this all people are concerned about -- accessibility? Or are people
> trying to use a text-based SWAT as a console admin tool? What I am
> trying to imply is that a console tool and a GUI are two different
> things and trying to design one to be the other will be a frustrating
> and/or futile exercise.
I'm simply asking that accessibility not be sacrificed in favor of
as a side effect, tend to work well over low bandwidth connections
(e.g. SSH over a dial up link) for those administrators who are
unfortunate enough to use one (though I probably should leave my
laptop behind on my future vacations :).
Also, in the absence of an integrated console (text mode) interface,
the web interface is the integrated administrative interface. It
would be a kindness to administrators if that interface was made as
accessible as possible, while retaining the ability to effectively
Disclaimer and Tangent:
Personally, I cannot use the current SWAT - I put lots of (multi-line)
comments in my Samba configuration files (to document the intent of
configuration directives and shares), which SWAT would not preserve.
I also keep them under revision control. People make mistakes,
especially sleep-deprived, overloaded people. Human-readable configuration
files (or utilities to generate them human-readable text from a binary
configuration), a human-readable history of configuration changes, and
the ability to view recent changes in the configuration reduce the
effort required to correct mistakes. Having a quick undo helps an
administrator correct mistakes when under time pressure to "fix" things.
I would like to be able to use SWAT, as that could simplify handing off
responsibility to a junior administrator when I'm out of the office.
More information about the samba-technical