[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: PAM, When?

On Fri, 23 Oct 1998, Jim Hebert wrote:

!Sorry if this is a stupid question, but why does ithave to be 1.0 to do an
!article about it? Red Hat Linux uses pam quite sucessfully and has for
!quite some time now with almost no changes in the code, right? Admittedly,
!Red Hat's uses of it aren't some of the bright shining examples of the
!idea PAM situtation (see recent list traffic re: how most apps are have
!crappy pam support that assumes username/password type authentication and
!bails whenever a module would like to do more than that). But I don't
!think progress in the PAM code itself is what needs to happen to solve
!that observation. Perhaps movement along the lines of the recently
!mentioned non-interactive stuff, or other things...

I would imagine that "1.0" is more of a description of readiness in terms of
a usable, widely compatible and well-implemented authentication scheme
rather than a particular release number.  Lots of code is runnable and
usable, but your comments about the somewhat kludgy implementation of PAM
are indicitive of something philosophically "pre-1.0".

At least that's my take on it.  Although I would hasten to add that it's a
worthwhile subject to write about, even if it's pre-alpha ELISP prototype

Shawn Barnhart swb@mercury.campbell-mithun.com 
I knew one thing: as soon as anyone said you didn't need a gun, you'd better
take one along that worked.  --Raymond Chandler

[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index] []