Les Mikesell wrote:
It isn't really a case of versus. There is a high likelyhood that in any large deployment you will want FDS as the backend server to SAMBA. Indeed, the SAMBA team appear to realise that writing it all themselves is not the best idea when there are perfectly good existing, scalable open source solutions available for the components they need. The standalone LDAP services for instance will likely not be intended to replace an existing LDAP deployment or indeed to displace the need for one - rather I suspect the internal LDAP functionality is intended for cases where a directory server is overkill and the additional services of directory servers are unrequired, and what is really required is an even lighter LDAP sufficient to get the job done in these cases. Ditto Kerberos.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?
So to sum up, if you have a need now that is best filled by a fully fledged directory server, you should probably not expect that to change when SAMBA4 releases.
This all of course, IMO. -- Pete
Attachment:
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
-- Fedora-directory-users mailing list Fedora-directory-users@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-directory-users
