Bug 270 - Naming issues: net
Summary: Naming issues: net
Alias: None
Product: Samba 3.0
Classification: Unclassified
Component: net utility (show other bugs)
Version: 3.0.0preX
Hardware: Other other
: P5 minor
Target Milestone: none
Assignee: Jim McDonough
QA Contact:
Depends on:
Reported: 2003-08-04 13:13 UTC by Jonathan Paton
Modified: 2005-02-07 08:41 UTC (History)
0 users

See Also:


Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.
Description Jonathan Paton 2003-08-04 13:13:04 UTC
Upon discovering the intended name of the future samba management tool 
as ‘net’, it struck me that a naming conflict could exist.  Even if a conflict 
didn’t currently exist, a potential user would assume that it was about general 
network configuration – not Samba.

Unfortunately, I have discovered potential conflicts that make this name 

Sun uses this name for its “NetLink” product: http://docs.sun.com/db/doc/806-

IBM may already use this name under AIX 4, although my source reads like it 
might be the samba ‘net’ command: 

Of course, perhaps I am completely wrong and no supported (or likely to be 
supported) operating system has a command named ‘net’ – but it would be worth 
verifying in advance.  My preference would be for the command to be 
called ‘smbtool’, which more clearly indicates its purpose.

Thanks for your consideration.
Comment 1 Jim McDonough 2003-08-04 14:07:15 UTC
The IBM AIX product is called FastConnect, and it serves the same purpose as Samba.

This issue is exactly why we chose 'net'...it serves the same purpose (and you
may have noticed, similar syntax) as the OS/2, windows, and AIX FastConnect
(which was modeled after OS/2, btw) 'net' commands.

And...Hey! The Netlink command serves the same purpose...and shares similar syntax.

I'm going to poll the the list and see if anyone is likely to use samba as well
as these other products on the same system.  It seems unlikely to me, as all 3
perform the same function, and while they could coexist, it would be a very
bizarre setup to have multiple smb servers functioning at the same time.

I'm also changing the severity and priority, since I think it won't be an issue.
 If someone says they intend to use both, then I'll raise it back up.
Comment 2 Jim McDonough 2003-09-03 05:49:10 UTC
Jonathan, have I convinced you that it's ok to leave it as net?  So far the
commands I've found are all the same function on other products...
Comment 3 Jim McDonough 2003-09-15 07:16:20 UTC
Comment 4 Gerald (Jerry) Carter (dead mail address) 2005-02-07 08:41:36 UTC
originally reported against 3.0.0beta3.  CLeaning out 
non-production release versions.