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

Re: PAM, When?

On Fri, 23 Oct 1998, Shawn Barnhart wrote:

> 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".

Well, what you're really talking about is something that has recently
begun to be discussed onthe list, which is that the PAM api feels
fundamentally broken in certain ways, some aspects of which lead to the
kludgy stuff, and that perhaps Linux-PAM should break from the published
spec and go beyond it.

Once that happens, you won't be writing about PAM anymore, you'll be
writing about Linux-PAM, the superset/partially compatible implementation
of the PAM that Sun and HP implement per published spec. =)

So, hopefully that topic won't have died out on this list. Me, not being
someone who has ever coded apps for PAM (ok, coded apps in C for Unix at
all, beyond undergrad course stuff), I can't offer anything to make the
ball roll, but am hoping someone will post with their thoughts about what
directions the code currently known as Linux-PAM can be taken to make it
cooler. =)


[L]inux has an installed base conservatively estimated at around 3 million
users.... [V]endors say that most of the top companies in the US have bought
the OS - but that few will readily admit to running their multimillion-dollar
corporations on code put together by a band of software idealists. -- _Wired_

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