On Wed, 2006-01-25 at 14:19 -0800, Pete Rowley wrote: > Les Mikesell 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? > > > > > > > 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. > > 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. ---- It is the only way they can really provide a complete turnkey type solution as an AD alternative. The samba list is replete of examples of people trying to obtain a samba integration with LDAP and for these people, an integrated - even if simplistic adaptation of LDAP and kerberos server should be more accommodating. Craig -- Fedora-directory-users mailing list Fedora-directory-users@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-directory-users
