On Thu, 2005-03-24 at 14:29, Craig White wrote: > > That's the odd part. All the pieces are there, but they are still > > useless unless someone puts them together in a standard way. > ---- > OK - I'll byte - what is the standard way? I certainly don't see a > standard way defined by openldap.org > ---- It will be the way that the most popular distribution decides to ship it. > > Most people need just what the clients > > included in their distribution know how to query plus perhaps a > > replacement for their ancient windows NT domain controller. All > > easily canned stuff. > ---- > I've been doing exactly that - replacing WinNT 4 domain > controllers...damn if I see it as 'easily canned stuff' - I'm obviously > not as bright as you. > ---- Not me - I haven't made it all work yet because as soon as a popular distribution ships something, everything else will be obsolete. However the discussion on the k12ltsp list leads me to believe that a scripted setup works for a lot of people, and they end up with linux accounts with automounted home dirs and an idealx based domain controller. If a few more people succeed with the setup it will probably be included in the distribution which is basically fedora plus ltsp and a few other extras. > ---- > of course the 'good default' of IDEALX doesn't do anything with > automounted home directories - in fact - I haven't spent the time, but > Red Hat's autofs.schema doesn't work at all with openldap-2.2.24 > > One of these days, I'm gonna play with it and find out why - haven't had > the time. > ---- If you poke through recent k12ltsp list archives you should find the script setup. > ---- > open source - knock yourself out - or leave it to others to do it but it > hardly seems to be a valid complaint if you expect others to do that for > you. > ---- But it is of marginal use if it won't work automatically with the next box I install. That won't happen until a big player sets the standard. > > > > But there are clients already in the distribution - just no server to > > match. > ---- > some clients yes...but many clients no > ---- Authentication, samba, addressbooks, maybe sendmail - I'll settle for all of those working network-wide. > I know that the only 'simple' implementation is one that isn't that > simple when you start to flesh it out. The kernel isn't simple - apache isn't simple - sendmail isn't simple. Things that are already done don't have to be simple to work. > And by the way...'the most popular distribution DOES ship a working > server based upon standards' - at least as they interpret them and that > includes kerberos, dns, dhcp, account management, authentication > services and ldap - it's called Windows Server. Seems to have worked out OK for them. -- Les Mikesell les@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
