Re: fds vs. samba4?

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On 1/25/06, Les Mikesell <les@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Is anyone following the Active Directory services in samba4
> (http://www.zdnet.com.au/news/software/soa/New_Samba_targets_Active_Directory/0,2000061733,39234687,00.htm)
> enough to comment on how it would compare to FDS for network
> authentication purposes?
>
> --
>  Les Mikesell
>    lesmikesell@xxxxxxxxx
>
>
> --
> Fedora-directory-users mailing list
> Fedora-directory-users@xxxxxxxxxx
> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-directory-users
>

Well at least I think you could still use FDS as a meta directory
server that has to play with a M$ ADS. On the other hand SMB 4
features a new mini ldap inside, let alone the kerberos. So ther are
chances you could play that way too. Please list correct me if I am
stupid.;-)
--
########################################3
Zaharioudakis Nikos
mob: +30 6947204063
A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?
A: Top-posting.
Q: What is the most annoying thing on usenet and in e-mail?

--
Fedora-directory-users mailing list
Fedora-directory-users@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-directory-users

[Index of Archives]     [Fedora Directory Users]     [Fedora Directory Devel]     [Fedora Announce]     [Fedora Legacy Announce]     [Kernel]     [Fedora Legacy]     [Share Photos]     [Fedora Desktop]     [PAM]     [Red Hat Watch]     [Red Hat Development]     [Big List of Linux Books]     [Gimp]     [Yosemite News]

  Powered by Linux