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

Re: FC2 and general LDAP Support

Look at the mail from Nicolas Mailhot. This is one of my points. Now, we have all the configuration stuff spread over a lot of configuration files. This structure is matured since the first version of Unix. But to maintain all this files become more worse over the time. Yet the KDE comes with a lot of new configuration files so on with every other application on the whole system. The redmond bill hat not that many good ideas but the one with the registry was a good one. If we wanna make linux become a more professional operating system and feels in a more homogeneous way. We need to replace all this fragments of configuration spread nearly over the whole file system by an more professional way of an configuration concept. It doesn't needs all to be changed by the next fedora release but I strongly think that to store all the configuration settings inside a centralized configuration store whould anymore enhance the release. And nicolas has right; if we are the first ones who forces this concept it probably becomes a standard in the linux distributions.
And for an other benefit, think about the possibilities of hanging a centrailized configuration store for all workstations an servers on big network. All the workstation configurations are stored in one single place (with backup servers of corse) and needs only to be maintaind at this place. I can imagine the next TCO studies from all the business analysts for comparing windows with linux. The TCO of linux whould come extremly down by using a such concept.
Was that enough arguments for establishing a ldap server for the user records.


Nils O. Selåsdal schrieb:

On Wed, 2003-11-26 at 15:24, =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Roland K=E4ser?= wrote:

Yeah but what i ment is that fc2 should come with a fully initialized ldap server. It's also possible that in a first step only the users and groups are saved in the ldap. As i said in the first mail, Samba ships command line tools for adding, modifying and deleting users from a bash shell. The only thing needed to change is to replace the "normal" useradd, usermod, userdel, groupadd, groupmod and groupdel by the ones shipped with samba. For the normal user it wouldn't make any changes in the "feeling" of the administration. From my point of view, a GUI admin tool doesn't needs to support all the complete ldap features, it should only be a easy to use administration interface - excuse this analogy - like the active directory frontend.

My point also. Though due to nss, it is not needed, it might complicate
things, it's yet-another-really-not-needed-daemon, overkill for most
users. Using something like libuser, it would be easy to have a unified
userinterface for users/groups regarless of wether they are in text file
or an ldap server.

The question is ofcourse, _why_ should ldap be used as a backend for
this, for _all_ users ?

-- Roland Käser Bocksrietstr. 54 8200 Schaffhausen Webmaster www.Israel-Jugendtag.ch

** Schon vom Israel-Jugendtag gehört? **

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