Comment 14 for bug 1915674

> It would then tell the user "I'm not going to send this request to samba as it will complain about the share name games already being a valid system user name".

You wouldn't tell the user that. If the desired result is possible by avoiding using `net usershare` then by "isolate" I mean "perform the operation (create the share) another way". I don't mean "isolate" as in "artificially roadblock the user by choosing to perform the requested task with the specific tool that fails".

Here's the way that presumably would not fail according to an earlier comment:

> I think you *can* setup a share named "games" by setting it up in smb.conf

If that is possible then there's no need to inconvenience the user here. Just apply the workaround, asking for confirmation/authentication if needed.

And you wouldn't block any later additions in samba, since you only perform the alternative solution if the first one returned this error.