PAM-NTDOM: Compile Errors
gcarter at valinux.com
Sat Jul 8 18:48:22 GMT 2000
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,
> 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
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
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
Finally, releasing a version that does not even compile
is in bad form, considering that the README file in the
same directory make no mention of the changes we have
http://www.samba.org jerry at samba.org
"...a hundred billion castaways looking for a home."
- Sting "Message in a Bottle" ( 1979 )
More information about the samba-ntdom