What I mean here is the difference between the two. In an attempt to get it working I installed KUbuntu 22.04 in a VM. Right out of the box, right click, I can share. No muss, no fuss. That is where the hot mess statement comes from.
Also, I did follow those directions. I did reboot after thinking I needed to do that. No change. I then thought, tāhell with this, letās just pull the KUbuntu smb.conf over since clearly something there is working. Hence the VM. Pulled that smb.conf over, copied into place, rebooted, no change. Still cannot right click and share.
Because VLC does not view videos over that? VLC, on android, connecting to my main machine. Iām not sharing files from my tablet to my machine.
Explain to me how installing Samba in a useless state is somehow better? Ubuntu does not ship Samba installed by default. I had to opt to install it. But you would think, having decided to install it, I might just, you know, want to have it functional?
That depends on oneās use case. I have the package samba installed, and it is completely functional at what I need it to do: sit there and do nothing, while satisfying a silly dependency for Dolphin. Having the service enabled out of the box in my case would be a pain.
If you want further functionality, you can enable it yourself.
As a general philosophy on Arch, services are not enabled behind the userās back. I see that as a good thing.
Plasma breaks this philosophy by having Baloo enabled by default, and EndeavourOS breaks this philosophy with its stupid little update notifier timer. That is something Iāve always criticised. But since it also does this with Network Manager, and firewalld, itās not a big deal.
On the other hand, CUPS is properly handled.
So there is no need to do the same mistake with Samba.
I find it is often easier to easily disable something from defaults, than to have something installed in a broken state and then try to fix it.
Apparently not because following the directions from the Arch wiki and pulling configs from a working system have failed to enable this simple feature.
Bull. I didnāt installed, nor configure, nor enable Pipewaire and yetā¦
ā¦there it is, enabled behind my back. Same with SDDM, X11,SystemD, a slew of XDG portals, and I believe SSH was installed by defaults as I donāt recall installing it on my laptop but I could be wrong. Even if I were wrong and I installed SSH I sure didnāt have to configure and enable it to get it running.
Forgot about Network Manager in the aboveā¦
Yeah, brokenly.
I disagree. The moment I hit yay -Syu samba there is no ābehind my backā about it. I accepted the defaults. The difference here is that unlike the slew of examples above, this one is shipped with broken defaults, instead of sensible ones. I happen to expect packages to ship with sensible defaults for the distro at hand. And contrary to what you think, most do. This isnāt LFS.
Your premise that Samba is installed in a broken state is plain wrong. Just because it is not preconfigured in a way that it does what you want does not mean it is broken.
If you find following the simple instructions from the Arch wiki too difficult, you should maybe consider using a simpler distro, like 'Buntu. Of course the downside is that it is bloated, but this is exactly what you want EndeavourOS to be.
If I wanted a distro that I have to spend hours to manually debloat after installation, Iād use Manjaro.
In the bloat vs. minimalism dilemma, itās always better to err on the side of minimalism. Otherwise, it gets out of hand really, really quickly.
Uh-huh. And yet I gave several other examples of services installed that come with a sensible set of defaults to actually work, and you called 0 of them ābloatedā for being so installed.
Youāve also not explained the point of installing a file sharing protocol and have it completely non-functional as a sensible default. Of course, if you did, I would then ask why Pipewire works out of the box as a sensible default.
Oh, I donāt find them hard to follow at all. In case you missed the implication, I think theyāre broken.
You definition of bloat and everyone elseās definition of bloat are wildly different. Functional is not bloated. Having things installed by default that donāt need to be there, thatās bloat.
Thereās a difference between minimalism, and non-functional.
Samba is not installed by default. So, please explain how in your warped sense of reality when a user explicitly commands the system to install a file-sharing protocol having it installed in a broken state is preferred to a functional state. Please also explain how that differs from the slew of other services that EndeavourOS installs by default, and in a functional state? Because I have this tub of popcorn ready and I really want to see your gymnastics on why I need to configure Samba to work, but not Pipewire, X11, Network Manager, SSH, nearly all of KDE, XDG portals and literally dozens of more examples that I could come up with.
Yes I have, as a dependency for another package, which is how most users āuseā it. You canāt have Dolphin installed without Samba, even if you donāt use it. Itās a stupid dependency, but it is how it is.
In general, Samba is a fairly useless protocol, which only Micro$oft and Android users need. Having it enabled just exposes the system to vulnerabilities and ransomware. Why would anyone want that crap actively running is beyond me.
Given these two points, it is perfectly reasonable not to have Samba enabled by default.
But just in case somebody does want it enabled, there are instructions on the wiki for how to do it.
Sounds like a Dolphin problem, not a Samba problem. Considering that you can install Samba without Dolphin (probably the larger use case) that is what the defaults should be geared for.
In your opinion.
Yes, which is why it isnāt installed by default.
To interoperate with their other devices? Just because you donāt have a use case does not mean use cases do not exist.
Given the slew of other services which are enabled by default, youāre objectively wrong.
Given that you clearly havenāt tried them, and I have, how can you be so sure? I mean I followed them exactly. Installed it, created the group, added by user to the group, does not work. That means something is missing. Before calling it PEBCAK Iād ask you to try and point out what I am missing. Because until then, youāre just being insulting to cover up your lack of responses.
No, Iām not. If your claim is that I failed to follow the directions, and I am claiming that I did and it is not working, the least you can do is attempt a replication. Until you do you cannot claim that I am failing to follow the directions properly.
Well, did you manage to follow the instructions to the successful resolution? Nope.
What is more probable: that the wiki is entry wrong, or that you made a mistake? Definitely the latter. Either that, or youāre the only person wanting to use Samba on Arch and nobody else noticed the wiki being wrong.
How many of those people are looking for the share dialog in KDEās folder properties to work? Wikiās are wrong all the time; that is why they are Wikiās. The Wiki philosophy is to make correcting mistakes easy because mistakes, or, more likely, a drift in how things used to work and how they now work, are common.