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

Re: FC2 and general LDAP Support

Nobody said that we should make a bad copy of the windows registry! Think beyond the bad implementation of the windows registry. It was never my opinion to bring the windows crap to linux. And its seriously not my idea to make linux configuration store that complex as it is on windows. Are we not more creative to just make a cheap copy of the registry? And to this idea that the file configuration is that easy can i only say that to work on a sendmail.cf and loosing it by an automatic configuration engine, such as yast, after it worked is also really horrorable.
So, lets think about our own ideas to create a such configuration instance. The main goals from my point of view are only:

1: Centralized configuration and change management
2: Easy to extend the concept to network wide configuration store.

Think also about the benefits of this idea. No more ssh nightmares to configure ten diffrent systems to support one single service. And specially the administration of useraccounts in a network with 10-50 servers is nearly impossible without ldap. And at least think that the success of linux specially the one of the fedora release is also based on the acceptance of the business. And from the business point of view, the TCO is an important factor. To edit a directory with config settings and user records is FASTER than edit a lot of files! That's important for the ones who maks the decision about windows or linux or even fedora.


Nicolas Mailhot schrieb:

Le mer 26/11/2003 à 16:41, =?ISO-8859-1?Q? Nils O. Sel=E5sdal?= a
écrit :

On Wed, 2003-11-26 at 16:12, =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Roland K=E4ser?= wrote:

Look at the mail from Nicolas Mailhot. This is one of my points.


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.

Please do not read what I didn't put into my mail.

I agree ldap has a place. I agree it's under-used. I agree there is some
info like user descriptions, contacts... that should be moved into
openldap if only because the current setup just does not cut it (the
user system is inadequate for networks/samba, contact handling is a mess
right now...). I also think we won't have a solid ldap setup till it's a
Fedora default, and it's needed for lots of things *now*.

However this won't happen if openldap is too heavy for single-box
systems, and above all this is not an endorsement of "let's do a binary
registry now".)

There is a ton of cleanly defined hierarchical info that could be put
into ldap now and improve user experience. There is also a ton of stuff
that does not belong in there like Windows demonstrates every day.

We also have gconf, which might be extended to this concept.

gconf might use a ldap backend someday (not sure it's a good idea). Switching to it now before ldap is solid/manageable would be a terrible mistake however. Let's do clearly understood stuff first.


-- 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]