On Fri, 2005-03-25 at 11:36 -0600, Les Mikesell wrote: > On Fri, 2005-03-25 at 08:33, Craig White wrote: > > > I'm sort of through with this topic since you ask all these questions > > without taking the time to understand the technology - but are focused > > in on what you think you want and what you think that you know. > > The *how* of the technology isn't the point - I can make a server > start and add and search records. The question you haven't > answered is *why* anyone would ever want to make their system > unique and unworkable with any others, and the related question > of why, given one system configured for linux and windows > authentication you can't just duplicate that setup for any > number of similar networks? > > > there isn't a bizarre syntax for searching...there is only the syntax. > > In the way that computer languages look bizarre until I learn them, then > > I guess this is bizarre. > > OK, it's a religious issue I guess. But I am not interested in > inventing any new attributes and searches - I just want something > that answers the already-done query that you get if you pick ldap > in authconfig and the already-done queries that are included with > samba. > > > and yes, it does tell you why what the 'clients' are going to request > > but I suppose you would have to understand the technology to understand > > the technology. How does someone tell Postfix which filters to use if > > they can't run a search from the command line? > > How do I tell the kernel what drivers to load when it boots? There > is a remarkable amount of technology in the distribution that > you don't need to understand to use. If your argument is that > LDAP isn't ready for prime time, just say so. > > > If I am setting DSA up to be a samba domain controller, that changes my > > DSA substantially from those instances where I don't. Samba has this > > need to find 'Computers' as people and I don't want 'Computers' in with > > my 'People'. > > There are lots of things I don't like to see. If that's what it takes > to make it work, I just won't look there. It doesn't have to be > pretty. > > > Windows has an entirely different concept of Groups, where > > one group can contain another group (aka nested groups) but Posix > > doesn't have a clue what that is about. Windows has 'domain' groups and > > 'local' groups but Posix has only 'local' groups. So the answer to your > > question about why your setup might be different than mine or one setup > > might be different than another should be evident. > > No. If yours is going to work with windows and linux and mine is going > to work with windows and linux (and I think I said that was a > requirement long ago), then the schema has to include both Posix and > samba stuff. If that isn't true, please clarify what the other > workable choices would be. > > > Lastly - and it's obvious that I haven't made this point clear but I > > will try one last time... > > > > LDAP is entirely flexible - it is a database with teeth. It has been > > given other tools to make it useful for things like authentication > > systems. > > Now you are sounding like a database admin that insists that all > programming tasks have to be re-invented as stored procedures > just because it is possible to do in his favorite language (and > it gives him a lot of job security). My goal is to avoid doing > anything unique or that would not work in any mixed linux/ > windows network. Given that the client queries are already > built into the distribution I still don't see why that is > impossible. > > > If some distribution or project comes up with an LDAP turnkey > > facility, it will be an entirely limiting, their concept, their > > implementation, their vision. > > Yes, that's exactly what I want. Something that provides the > functionality to make the distribution work, and to whatever > extent other distributions follow the same standards, include > them. > > > You will find it useful while you have no > > concept, little understanding of the implementation and no vision of > > your own. The only thing that will let you escape from that concept, > > that implementation and that vision is to learn the technology. > > Yes, useful is what I want. There are plenty of other databases > for visions. Postgresql would probably be my first choice. ---- OK then, I guess you are good to go Craig
