[Fedora-directory-users] fds vs. samba4?

[Pete Rowley]

Les Mikesell wrote:

>Is anyone following the Active Directory services in samba4
>(http://www.zdnet.com.au/news/software/soa/New_Samba_targets_Active_Directory/0,2000061733,39234687,00.htm)
>enough to comment on how it would compare to FDS for network
>authentication purposes?
>
>  
>
It isn't really a case of versus.  There is a high likelyhood that in 
any large deployment you will want FDS as the backend server to SAMBA.  
Indeed, the SAMBA team appear to realise that writing it all themselves 
is not the best idea when there are perfectly good existing, scalable 
open source solutions available for the components they need.  The 
standalone LDAP services for instance will likely not be intended to 
replace an existing LDAP deployment or indeed to displace the need for 
one - rather I suspect the internal LDAP functionality is intended for 
cases where a directory server is overkill and the additional services 
of directory servers are unrequired, and what is really required is an 
even lighter LDAP sufficient to get the job done in these cases.  Ditto 
Kerberos.

So to sum up, if you have a need now that is best filled by a fully 
fledged directory server, you should probably not expect that to change 
when SAMBA4 releases.

This all of course, IMO.

-- 
Pete

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature
Size: 3241 bytes
Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/fedora-directory-users/attachments/20060125/a204acc1/attachment.bin>