[Date Prev][Date Next]
Re: large ldap server recommendation
That was a great explation.Simple and Succinct.Too bad it did not come
from stupid RH folks.I am sorry I did not get it. What exactly you
mean by "RH is not building OpenLADP for running as a server"? I feel
like I am being cheated by RH for duping me to buy expensive RH boxes.
Red Hat support is terrible as far as LDAP is concerd.I wish there
will be a update only subscription available for RHEL.
On 2/2/08, Quanah Gibson-Mount <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> --On February 1, 2008 7:56:03 PM -0200 Andreas Hasenack
> <email@example.com> wrote:
> > I'm curious: why do all these people who purchased (expensive) RH server
> > licenses don't open bug reports with Redhat about their openldap
> > packages?
> RH is not building OpenLDAP for running as a server. RH is building
> OpenLDAP for providing client libraries. They spend months testing that
> all of the things that link to these libraries work. To upgrade/change the
> versions of those libraries would take many months of testing and cost lots
> of money. There are basically two very different sets of goals at work.
> (1) The goal of RH to provide a set of stable client libraries and (2) the
> goal of LDAP server admins to have a stable LDAP server.
> Those desiring (2) need to build and maintain their own packages, or rely
> on the packages of another who has the same goal as they do. This
> situation is not unique to RH, either. It just happens that its wide-scale
> usage brings this problem up with their packages more than other vendors.
> Quanah Gibson-Mount
> Principal Software Engineer
> Zimbra, Inc
> Zimbra :: the leader in open source messaging and collaboration