Mike Gerdts Michael.Gerdts at
Wed Jan 30 12:00:26 GMT 2002

On Wed, 2002-01-30 at 13:12, Garry J. Garrett wrote:
> PAM module?  Are we knee deep in Linux here?  Some Unicies lack
> PAM altogether - Solaris (my background) as PAM, but it's PAM
> is considerably less functional than (and pretty much incompatible
> with) Linux's PAM.  If you implement something in PAM, Linux's PAM,
> I have my doubts that it will work on anything but Linux.

Your Solaris comments are quite acurrate for Solaris 2.5.1 and earlier.
I have, however, had relatively little trouble getting Linux-PAM modules
to work on Solaris 2.6 - 9beta and HP-UX 11.00.  I think I have had the
ones that I cared about working on HP-UX 10.20 as well, but I forget.

BUT... That does not mean that PAM is portable.  As one person on the
list points out from time to time, his platform has no support for PAM,
shared libraries, etc.


More information about the samba-technical mailing list