On Wed, Oct 06, 2010 at 06:35:14PM +0200, Mathieu Baudier wrote:
>
> IMHO, the comments in /etc/ldap.conf could be a bit more explicit on
> the 'on' value:
IMNSHO most docmentation on LDAP is laughable, and perhaps one of the
main reasons Active Directory has become so much more popular. Say what
you want about MS, but it does seem to me, that at least on the syadmin
and user side that their documentation is usually quite good, at least
since Windows 2000.
RH in particular has some really poor docs--as mentioned earlier, they
didn't feel it necessary to mention that they'd broken SSL and
TLS.
As the authors of the excellent ldap for rocket scientists page say.
"The bad news is that IOHO never has so much been written so
incomprehensibly about a single topic with the possible exceptions of
BIND."
(That page is at http://www.zytrax.com/books/ldap/)
Might as well spam my own page while at it. :)
http://home.roadrunner.com/~computertaijutsu/ldap.html
Grouchily yours (and REALLY sick of the low quality of so much Linux
documentation)
--
Scott Robbins
PGP keyID EB3467D6
( 1B48 077D 66F6 9DB0 FDC2 A409 FA54 EB34 67D6 )
gpg --keyserver pgp.mit.edu --recv-keys EB3467D6
Gunn: Fair Cordelia. You still savin' my life?
Cordelia: Every minute.
Gunn: How's that workin' out?
Cordelia: You're alive aren't you?
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@xxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
