[Fedora-directory-users] fds vs. samba4?

[Craig White]

On Wed, 2006-01-25 at 14:19 -0800, Pete Rowley wrote:
> Les Mikesell wrote:
> 
> >Is anyone following the Active Directory services in samba4
> >(http://www.zdnet.com.au/news/software/soa/New_Samba_targets_Active_Directory/0,2000061733,39234687,00.htm)
> >enough to comment on how it would compare to FDS for network
> >authentication purposes?
> >
> >  
> >
> It isn't really a case of versus.  There is a high likelyhood that in 
> any large deployment you will want FDS as the backend server to SAMBA.  
> Indeed, the SAMBA team appear to realise that writing it all themselves 
> is not the best idea when there are perfectly good existing, scalable 
> open source solutions available for the components they need.  The 
> standalone LDAP services for instance will likely not be intended to 
> replace an existing LDAP deployment or indeed to displace the need for 
> one - rather I suspect the internal LDAP functionality is intended for 
> cases where a directory server is overkill and the additional services 
> of directory servers are unrequired, and what is really required is an 
> even lighter LDAP sufficient to get the job done in these cases.  Ditto 
> Kerberos.
> 
> So to sum up, if you have a need now that is best filled by a fully 
> fledged directory server, you should probably not expect that to change 
> when SAMBA4 releases.
> 
> This all of course, IMO.
----
It is the only way they can really provide a complete turnkey type
solution as an AD alternative. The samba list is replete of examples of
people trying to obtain a samba integration with LDAP and for these
people, an integrated - even if simplistic adaptation of LDAP and
kerberos server should be more accommodating.

Craig