deryck at samba.org
Wed Jun 21 14:34:12 GMT 2006
On 6/21/06, Gerald (Jerry) Carter <jerry at samba.org> wrote:
> > Love or hate it but we still need GUI management for
> > Samba bundled. Every other attempt to build it separately
> > as open source sucked so far.
> But no on uses SWAT because it sucks. So what's the point?
> EJS won't change the fact that we neithyer have the desire
> nor the resources to do a good GUI. Providing a bad one
> is really not better than one at all. Apachae doesn't provide
> a GUI for httpd.conf and it seems to be doing ok.
I agree with Jerry here. We don't need GUI management in Samba
itself. It's a nice addon but not essential. And in fact, GUI
management would be better if it were decoupled it from Samba.
> > The trouble is that we'll hardly have an UI for Samba management bundled
> > with Samba itself if it is in so hard need by vendors to differentiate.
> > I understand the value of making usable perl/python/whatever language is
> > used
> > by external management software but we already have ejs in samba4 and
> > will be using it for initial configuration there as well. Make a librpc
> script anyways based on my understanding. It's an interesting
> scripting language for developers but it is another scripting
> language to learn.
designed to be an embedded language. It has no use apart from the
consists of the base language -- Spidermonkey in the case of
Mozilla-based browsers -- and the objects specific to the embedded
environment -- the window and document objects, for the browser. EJS
is just the base language, and not as complete a base as Spidermonkey.
And there really hasn't been any effort in Samba4 to create a
consistent samba (or server) object analogous to the window or
document objects in the browser.
"Aimless days, uncool ways of decathecting" --Mike Doughty (2005)
More information about the samba-technical