[Samba] Heimdal or MIT kerberos comparison

[Andrew Bartlett]

On Fri, 2006-12-22 at 10:23 -0600, James A. Dinkel wrote:
> What is the difference between Heimdal and MIT as far usability goes?
> MIT seems to be the default on major linux distrobutions, but I here a
> lot about people preferring Heimdal, but I can't find any reasons why.
> Is one generally more stable/faster/reliable than the other?

The biggest thing users will notice is that the error message system
returns contextual errors, with the actual reason for the failure, not
just the translated code.  It often includes the vital clues that help
fix up the inevitable kerberos issues.

I've use Heimdal in Samba4, particularly because of the close working
relationship I have with it's primary maintainer.

Andrew Bartlett

-- 
Andrew Bartlett                                http://samba.org/~abartlet/
Authentication Developer, Samba Team           http://samba.org
Samba Developer, Red Hat Inc.                  http://redhat.com
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : http://lists.samba.org/archive/samba/attachments/20061224/4c19f5dd/attachment.bin