Le mer 01/10/2003 à 22:32, Bill Anderson a écrit : > I'd say Kerberos is a lot less prevalent than one would expect from > reading what happens when someone suggest we not make everything depend > on it. I've been an admin at HP, overseeing thousands and thousands of > HPUX and Linux machines. No Kerberos whatsoever. In fact, of the dozens > of companies, dozens of no-profs, and hundreds of people I've been > involved with on a Linux level, not a single one of them is using > Kerberos, or has any positive response in favor of doing that. And why ? Because it's a PITA to setup. And it shouldn't have to. Really if people could remove all the nis/hesiod legacy and focus on making the "best" techs easy to use we wouldn't be there. It's very close to pre-HIG Gnome on that point : do everything, and do nothing good. Right now a RH/Fedora box can plug into lots of different networks but can drive none of them (easily) which kind of restricts its usage as a fringe tech in greater wholes managed by something else (and makes in a no-go fro small networks) (at least someone dumped the Novell integration at one point) -- Nicolas Mailhot
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Ceci est une partie de message=?ISO-8859-1?Q?num=E9riquement?= =?ISO-8859-1?Q?_sign=E9e=2E?=