[Date Prev][Date Next] [Chronological] [Thread] [Top]

Re: LDAP authenticaton against PAM how-to

On Sun, Feb 11, 2007 at 09:48:19PM -0500, Adam Tauno Williams wrote:
> > But we know there are problems with this approach. First, using the
> > google hunt-and-peck method does very little to give one a coherent
> > picture of the workings of OpenLDAP. Second, we all know that there is
> > an abundance of BAD information about OpenLDAP out there (owing, in
> > part, to the fact that the vast majority of OpenLDAP installations are
> > still on version 2.2, thanks to the reluctance of several mainstream
> > Linux distributions).
> > Emmanuel's point is worth noting: it is very difficult to learn the
> > OpenLDAP  jargon, and the official documentation (the admin guide plus
> > the FAQ, plus the man pages) quite simply don't cut it. They are
> > steeped through and through with LDAP technical jargon (often used
> > inconsistently, like "slave","shadow," "replica," and "subordinate"
> > all referring to the server receiving replication by SLURPD or
> > SyncRepl).
> Sorry, but this is rubbish.  Is the Samba documentation expected to
> explain how Windows works or serve as an introduction to SMB/CIFS
> networking?  Half the terms above are generic LDAP terms;  is someone
> wants to use LDAP then start with reading up on *LDAP*.  Seems
> reasonable to become familiar with a technology before moving on to a
> specific implementation.  If you think this applies only to OpenLDAP pop
> over to the Samba, Sendmail, Cyrus, etc... lists for people asking
> questions that are really about CIFS, SMTP, IMAP, etc...

I think the proof of the matter is that there are quite a few people who have
suggested that the documentation might not be the best.


Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature