[lpi-discuss] General comments on LPI levels (Openldap)

[Bryan J. Smith]

Matt Benjamin <matt at linuxbox.com> wrote:
> 1. No, MS has not "won" and the more Linux/Unix/OSX there
> is out there, the more obvious that is, so I certainly
> agree with _that_...

Okay, thanx.

> 2. I hadn't taken the original point about
> ADS-Schema--while I certainly am in the LDAP camp,

LDAP is only the network directory component.  There are
still the network authentication, file and naming services as
well.  LDAP _can_ do some of those, but often in conjuction
with others.

> I'm not sure that for more Microsoft-centric shops, where
> MS has for local purposes won, the right answer isn't
> Samba3/4 or ADS-Schema, so aren't these peers, too?

Samba is _not_ a per to ADS!

Windows Server is an unified network authentication,
directory, file and naming approach.

Samba is only a subset of the authentication and naming
services, an elementary addition for directory schema and is
_largely_ the network file services.  These Samba services
are _not_ designed for UNIX systems, but for _elementary_
interaction with Windows.

Samba is _not_ designed in the least bit to be a UNIX-to-UNIX
set of services.  The only time Samba is refered to a
Distributed Computing Environment (DCE) implementation is for
"prior art" (i.e., legal) purposes.  It is clearly _not_ a
DCE solution for UNIX-to-UNIX, and it is rather incomplete
for UNIX-to-UNIX.

The #1 reason why I see Open Source projects _fail_ is
because consultants believe Samba does more than it does. 
That's because they have often only implemented a few Linux
servers and virtually no Linux desktops/workstations -- or at
least no mission critical Linux desktops/workstations in a
Linux environment.

Anyone who has knows that Samba is _not_ designed for
UNIX-to-UNIX, and the project's focus has not been to
re-invent such.  In fact, from what I've read on Samba v4,
they are not addressing it either -- only the UNIX-to-Windows
components.


-- 
Bryan J. Smith                | Sent from Yahoo Mail
mailto:b.j.smith at ieee.org     |  (please excuse any
http://thebs413.blogspot.com/ |   missing headers)