Since Fedora is not aimed at enterpise/business ..

[Derek P. Moore]

> Kerberos does not do X11-forwarding, for example.

True that.

> Nor does Kerberos provide remote file copying (such
> as sftp and scp).

Kerberos provides those features with Kerberized ftp,
rcp, etc.

> The main feature of SSH is that I can establish a
> secure connection from point a to point b, more than
> just secure authorization but having the entire
> session encrypted. Kerberos does not do that.

Yes, it does.

> It was not designed to.

Yes, it was.

> As I've said, Kerberos can be used to provide the
> authentication mechanism for SSH.

True.

> This should be a hint that they are not replacements
> for each other.

Not true.

> Indeed, one could have an SSH kerberized intranet
> that uses SSH as the remote login facility!

Not true.

> I'd argue that SSH would be a massive need in that
> environment.

Not really true.  With Kerberos: telnet, ftp, rsh,
rcp, etc., etc., automagically become secure.  Not
only in terms of authentication, but also in terms of
strong encryption of sessions.

> To compare them is to compare apples to buffets.

Not true.

> My point was that K and SSH are *not* replacements
> for each other. It still stands. They are different
> things with different purposes.

Actually, K is really /more/ than just a replacement
for SSH.

Peace out,

Derek