PAM-NTDOM: Compile Errors

[Gerald Carter]

Paul,

I appreciate you even tone throughout your 
messages.  I apologize if I sounded rude or short
in my previous mails. :-)

Paul J Collins wrote:
> 
> In this scenario, login is similar to WINLOGON.EXE, 
<snip>

Nice analogies.

> Fine, but the architecture of NT's security systems 
> in not automatically bad and invalid, just because 
> it happens to belong to NT.

I never meant to imply that it was.  Let me give a 
bit of history here.  Luke and I (and others) have over 
the months and years had discussions over issues 
similar to this.  Luke has in the past wanted to make 
UNIX into NT in every aspect.  Not necessarily from a
services point of view, but from an architectural 
point of view.  

I disagree.  Not that I think one is better than the 
other.  I simply think Samba is an interoperability tool,
and not an operating system.

This is probably capped off with having to merge 
rpcclient from TNG into HEAD at the moment has 
rather irratated me. ;-)

> NT and Unix have many features in common; too many to 
> list here.  They also have plenty of differences.  
> Not everything in Unix is good, and not everything in 
> NT is bad.  Very general, I know, but so was your
> statement.

My previous statements led to misinterpretation.  I 
have never said NT is bad.  I apologize. :-)

>     Gerald> If you didn't need netlogond and lsarpcd before,
>     Gerald> someone give me a **technical** reason why you
>     Gerald> need them now.
> 
> I'm sure Luke could do that; I know very little 
> about pam_ntdom.

Here is what it comes down to.  I think this was 
a non necessary change that had no basis in technical 
issues.  

Please, someone jump in and correct me if I'm an 
wrong.  I have no pride.  If I'm wrong, then I'm wrong.

> Looks like administrators will have to learn 
> something new, something they do every day of 
> their lives.

ok.  Let's ask the admins.  How many people think 
that having to run netlogond and lsarpcd in order
to use pam_ntdom is a good idea?  Please send 
me private mails and I will tally the results.
No need to clutter the list.

IMO these are the two important issues to focus on:

- top priority: was the changed needed in order 
  to provide a higher or enhanced level of 
  service or quality?

- do sysadmins care about having to install another
  running service in order to use pam_ntdom
  (which was previously unnecessary)?  If those people
  who use it frequently don't care, why should I 
  raise the issue.

arguments about "That is the way NT does it" do 
not count.

Finally, releasing a version that does not even compile
(ftp://ftp.samba.org/pub/samba/pam_ntdom/pam_ntdom-0.23.tar.gz)
is in bad form, considering that the README file in the 
same directory make no mention of the changes we have 
been discussing.  







jerry
----------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.samba.org                                   jerry at samba.org

       "...a hundred billion castaways looking for a home."
                                - Sting "Message in a Bottle" ( 1979 )