[Fedora-directory-users] FDS and RHDS : Are there any differences between them ?

[André Luís Lopes]

Hi,

    Currently, I'm doing all my lab testing using Fedora Directory
Server 1.0.4 under RHES4 Advanced Server, but once all the lab tests are
done we are going to purchase RHDS (it's too expensive to buy a RHDS
copy only to do lab testing right now).

    Does someone knows if there are any technnical differences between
FDS and RHDS ? Are there know technnical limitations in RHDS that FDS
doesn't have or vice-versa ?

Regards,

-- 
André Luís Lopes
andrelop(a)aw2net.com.br

[Bliss, Aaron]

Andre,
I was told by an rhce from RedHat (we were in the same boat that your in almost 1 year
ago) that there is not any difference between fds and rds, other than the redhat logos
have been removed from the fds version.

Aaron

-----Original Message-----
From: fedora-directory-users-bounces(a)redhat.com
[mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of André Luís Lopes
Sent: Tuesday, May 22, 2007 2:00 PM
To: fedora-directory-users(a)redhat.com
Subject: [Fedora-directory-users] FDS and RHDS : Are there any differences between them ?

Hi,

    Currently, I'm doing all my lab testing using Fedora Directory
Server 1.0.4 under RHES4 Advanced Server, but once all the lab tests are
done we are going to purchase RHDS (it's too expensive to buy a RHDS
copy only to do lab testing right now).

    Does someone knows if there are any technnical differences between
FDS and RHDS ? Are there know technnical limitations in RHDS that FDS
doesn't have or vice-versa ?

Regards,

-- 
André Luís Lopes
andrelop(a)aw2net.com.br

--
Fedora-directory-users mailing list
Fedora-directory-users(a)redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-directory-users

Confidentiality Notice:
The information contained in this electronic message is intended for the exclusive use of
the individual or entity named above and may contain privileged or confidential
information.  If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient or the employee
or agent responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that
dissemination, distribution or copying of this information is prohibited.  If you have
received this communication in error, please notify the sender immediately by telephone
and destroy the copies you received.

[André Luís Lopes]

Hello Aaron,

Bliss, Aaron escreveu:
>  Andre,
>  I was told by an rhce from RedHat (we were in the same boat that your in almost 1 year
> ago) that there is not any difference between fds and rds, other than the redhat logos
> have been removed from the fds version. 
    First of all, sorry for replying so late, I was really very busy 
these days. Nice to know that someone from Red Hat confirmed that bot 
FDS and RHDS are technnically identical.

    I would like to ask you something : You wrote that you was in the 
same boat I'm now almost one year ago. Since then, have you deployed 
RHDS already ? Does it worked exactly as you tought it would work based 
on your tests using FDS ?

    What I'm most concerned with is some potential feature lacking  in 
RHDS (as FDS seems to be updated more frequently than RHDS and I'm 
testing using the latest FDS version, 1.0.4) compared to FDS, as I'm 
testing with FDS and would like to deploy RHDS later.

    Also, if someone from Red Hat is reading this message and would like 
to comment on this, please, be welcome to give your comments.

Regards,

-- 
André Luís Lopes
andrelop(a)aw2net.com.br

[Rich Megginson]

André Luís Lopes wrote:
>  Hello Aaron,
>
>  Bliss, Aaron escreveu:
> > Andre,
> > I was told by an rhce from RedHat (we were in the same boat that your 
> > in almost 1 year ago) that there is not any difference between fds 
> > and rds, other than the redhat logos have been removed from the fds 
> > version.
>
>     First of all, sorry for replying so late, I was really very busy 
>  these days. Nice to know that someone from Red Hat confirmed that bot 
>  FDS and RHDS are technnically identical.
>
>     I would like to ask you something : You wrote that you was in the 
>  same boat I'm now almost one year ago. Since then, have you deployed 
>  RHDS already ? Does it worked exactly as you tought it would work 
>  based on your tests using FDS ?
>
>     What I'm most concerned with is some potential feature lacking  in 
>  RHDS (as FDS seems to be updated more frequently than RHDS and I'm 
>  testing using the latest FDS version, 1.0.4) compared to FDS, as I'm 
>  testing with FDS and would like to deploy RHDS later. 
The biggest difference right
now is that FDS 1.0.x uses Apache for the 
Admin Server (http engine) instead of NES used in RHDS 7.1.  Aside from 
that, all of the major features are the same.
>     Also, if someone from Red Hat is reading this message and would 
>  like to comment on this, please, be welcome to give your comments.
>
>  Regards,
>

[Bliss, Aaron]

>     I would like to ask you something : You wrote that you was in the
>
>  same boat I'm now almost one year ago. Since then, have you deployed 
>  RHDS already ? Does it worked exactly as you tought it would work 
>  based on your tests using FDS ? 
No, fds turned out to be very solid, and the community support is great, as such, we
couldn't justify the cost of rds, especially since to date we still would not have
taken advantage of the paid for support...

Aaron

-----Original Message-----
From: Richard Megginson [mailto:[e-mail]] 
Sent: Thursday, May 24, 2007 10:19 AM
To: General discussion list for the Fedora Directory server project.
Cc: Bliss, Aaron
Subject: Re: [Fedora-directory-users] FDS and RHDS : Are there any differences between
them ?

André Luís Lopes wrote:
> Hello Aaron,
>
> Bliss, Aaron escreveu:
>> Andre,
>> I was told by an rhce from RedHat (we were in the same boat that your 
>> in almost 1 year ago) that there is not any difference between fds 
>> and rds, other than the redhat logos have been removed from the fds 
>> version.
>
>    First of all, sorry for replying so late, I was really very busy 
> these days. Nice to know that someone from Red Hat confirmed that bot 
> FDS and RHDS are technnically identical.
>
>     I would like to ask you something : You wrote that you was in the
>
>  same boat I'm now almost one year ago. Since then, have you deployed 
>  RHDS already ? Does it worked exactly as you tought it would work 
>  based on your tests using FDS ? 
>
>    What I'm most concerned with is some potential feature lacking  in 
> RHDS (as FDS seems to be updated more frequently than RHDS and I'm 
> testing using the latest FDS version, 1.0.4) compared to FDS, as I'm 
> testing with FDS and would like to deploy RHDS later.
The biggest difference right now is that FDS 1.0.x uses Apache for the 
Admin Server (http engine) instead of NES used in RHDS 7.1.  Aside from 
that, all of the major features are the same.
>     Also, if someone from Red Hat is reading this message and would 
>  like to comment on this, please, be welcome to give your comments.
>
>  Regards,
>  
Confidentiality Notice:
The information contained in this electronic message is intended for the exclusive use of
the individual or entity named above and may contain privileged or confidential
information.  If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient or the employee
or agent responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that
dissemination, distribution or copying of this information is prohibited.  If you have
received this communication in error, please notify the sender immediately by telephone
and destroy the copies you received.

[André Luís Lopes]

Hello Aaron,

Bliss, Aaron escreveu:
> >    I would like to ask you something : You wrote that you was in
> the 
> > same boat I'm now almost one year ago. Since then, have you deployed 
> > RHDS already ? Does it worked exactly as you tought it would work 
> > based on your tests using FDS ?
>  
>  No, fds turned out to be very solid, and the community support is great, as such, we
> couldn't justify the cost of rds, especially since to date we still would not have
> taken advantage of the paid for support... 
    Ok, understood. Good to know that FDS is a solid solution :-) Thanks 
for your answers.

Regards,

-- 
André Luís Lopes
andrelop(a)aw2net.com.br

[André Luís Lopes]

Hello Richard,

Richard Megginson escreveu:
>  The biggest difference right now is that FDS 1.0.x uses Apache for
> the 
>  Admin Server (http engine) instead of NES used in RHDS 7.1.  Aside from 
>  that, all of the major features are the same. 
    Ok, that's fine. When you say the "biggest difference" does that 
mean that there are others differences other than the one you have 
mentioned above ?

    Also, do you know if there's some place (a website, a wiki, 
whatever) where I could find a list of these differences, if any ?

Regards,

-- 
André Luís Lopes
andrelop(a)aw2net.com.br

[Rich Megginson]

André Luís Lopes wrote:
>  Hello Richard,
>
>  Richard Megginson escreveu:
> > The biggest difference right now is that FDS 1.0.x uses Apache for 
> > the Admin Server (http engine) instead of NES used in RHDS 7.1.  
> > Aside from that, all of the major features are the same.
>
>     Ok, that's fine. When you say the "biggest difference" does that 
>  mean that there are others differences other than the one you have 
>  mentioned above ? 
Mostly bug fixes.  Another difference is that FDS 1.0.4 includes

mozldap6, which provides SASL client functionality for the mozldap 
ldapsearch, ldapmodify, etc.  But SASL functionality is already provided 
by the openldap command line tools in /usr/bin.  So that will probably 
not be an important distinction.
>     Also, do you know if there's some place (a website, a wiki, 
>  whatever) where I could find a list of these differences, if any ? 
There is no such
list AFAIK.  From the end user and admin point of view, 
RHDS is identical to FDS.

The only way to know for sure would be to do a cvs diff between the RHDS 
branch and the FDS 1.0.4 release tag.
>  Regards,
>

[Fedora-directory-users] Questions regarding the Alias Attribute for OU's and ldapsearch

[Anderson, Cary]

I am trying to get a handle on using the alias attribute for OU's to set
up something like this:

  ou=posixacct, ou=account, dc=calpers, dc=ca, dc=gov
And have the following ou be an alias to the one I have above
  ou=people, dc=calpers, dc=ca, dc=gov

I thought that if I included ou=posixacct, ou=account, dc=calpers,
dc=ca, dc=gov in the alias attribute of the ou=people this would be
correct.

However I don't seem to be able to find any users when I do an
ldapsearch of the ou people.  Am I not setting up my ldapsearch
correctly? ldapsearch -x "(&(ou=people)(uid=*))"

I actually think I may not be using the correct syntax for ldapsearch
because a search using ldapsearch -x "(&(ou=posixacct)(uid=*)" also does
not return any of my uid's, the most basic ldapsearch does work,
ldapsearch -x uid=*, but that is searching the entire tree...

I could use some assistance in if I setup the alias correctly and what
may be wrong with how I am using ldapsearch.

Thanks

[Fedora-directory-users] Questions regarding the Alias Attribute for OU's and ldapsearch

[Rich Megginson]

Anderson, Cary wrote:
>  I am trying to get a handle on using the alias attribute for OU's
> to set
>  up something like this:
>
>    ou=posixacct, ou=account, dc=calpers, dc=ca, dc=gov
>  And have the following ou be an alias to the one I have above
>    ou=people, dc=calpers, dc=ca, dc=gov
>
>  I thought that if I included ou=posixacct, ou=account, dc=calpers,
>  dc=ca, dc=gov in the alias attribute of the ou=people this would be
>  correct.
>
>  However I don't seem to be able to find any users when I do an
>  ldapsearch of the ou people.  Am I not setting up my ldapsearch
>  correctly? ldapsearch -x "(&(ou=people)(uid=*))"
>
>  I actually think I may not be using the correct syntax for ldapsearch
>  because a search using ldapsearch -x "(&(ou=posixacct)(uid=*)" also does
>  not return any of my uid's, the most basic ldapsearch does work,
>  ldapsearch -x uid=*, but that is searching the entire tree...
>
>  I could use some assistance in if I setup the alias correctly and what
>  may be wrong with how I am using ldapsearch.
>     
Fedora DS does not support LDAP aliases.  You might want to investigate 
using Virtual Views or smart referrals instead.
>  Thanks
>
>
>  --
>  Fedora-directory-users mailing list
>  Fedora-directory-users(a)redhat.com
>  https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-directory-users
>

[Fedora-directory-users] Questions regarding the Alias Attribute for OU's and ldapsearch

[J. Hartman]

On 5/25/07, Anderson, Cary <Cary_Anderson(a)calpers.ca.gov&gt; wrote:
>  I am trying to get a handle on using the alias attribute for OU's
> to set
>  up something like this:
>
>    ou=posixacct, ou=account, dc=calpers, dc=ca, dc=gov
>  And have the following ou be an alias to the one I have above
>    ou=people, dc=calpers, dc=ca, dc=gov
>
>  I thought that if I included ou=posixacct, ou=account, dc=calpers,
>  dc=ca, dc=gov in the alias attribute of the ou=people this would be
>  correct.
>
>  However I don't seem to be able to find any users when I do an
>  ldapsearch of the ou people.  Am I not setting up my ldapsearch
>  correctly? ldapsearch -x "(&(ou=people)(uid=*))"
>
>  I actually think I may not be using the correct syntax for ldapsearch
>  because a search using ldapsearch -x "(&(ou=posixacct)(uid=*)" also does
>  not return any of my uid's, the most basic ldapsearch does work,
>  ldapsearch -x uid=*, but that is searching the entire tree...
>
>  I could use some assistance in if I setup the alias correctly and what
>  may be wrong with how I am using ldapsearch. 
Both your searches are semantically wrong. They are looking for
objects that have attributes ou=something and uid="anything". What you
want to achieve I guess is to look for objects that are under
ou=people branch. You can do that by using extensible matching:
(ou:dn:=people) or (ou:dn:=posixacct). The other (simple) way of doing
this is to set the search base: ldapsearch -x -b "ou=account,
dc=calpers, dc=ca, dc=gov" "(uid=*)"


>  Thanks
>
>
>  --
>  Fedora-directory-users mailing list
>  Fedora-directory-users(a)redhat.com
>  https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-directory-users
>