pam_ntdom subset of TNG = bad idea

[Peter Samuelson]

[Edward Schernau <ed at schernau.com>]
> Why should one need to CVS the whole TNG setup stuff, and run a
> couple of daemons, just to use pam_ntdom??  You didn't before....

Code sharing.  In Luke's split-daemon architecture, code is shared via
IPC rather than via libraries.

If anyone noticed that this seems similar to a microkernel
architecture, well, there's a reason for that.  Luke modeled it after
Windows NT, which is of course a microkernel architecture.  (Although
NTOSKRNL + HAL do perhaps stretch the meaning of the "micro-" prefix.)

> Argh, how annoying.  What was broken about it before?

Did it *exist* and/or *work* before?  I was under the impression that
the TNG pam_ntdom is Luke's adaptation of Dave Airlie's pam_smb.  Was
there in fact a pre-existing pam_ntdom, as opposed to just pam_smb?

Peter