FC2 and general LDAP Support

[Roland Käser]

Look at the mail from Nicolas Mailhot. This is one of my points. Now, we 
have all the configuration stuff spread over a lot of configuration 
files. This structure is matured since the first version of Unix. But to 
maintain all this files become more worse over the time. Yet the KDE 
comes with a lot of new configuration files so on with every other 
application on the whole system. The redmond bill hat not that many good 
ideas but the one with the registry was a good one. If we wanna make 
linux become a more professional operating system and feels in a more 
homogeneous way. We need to replace all this fragments of configuration 
spread nearly over the whole file system by an more professional way of 
an configuration concept. It doesn't needs all to be changed by the next 
fedora release but I strongly think that to store all the configuration 
settings inside a centralized configuration store whould  anymore 
enhance the release.  And nicolas has right; if we are the first ones 
who forces this concept it probably becomes a standard in the linux 
distributions.
And for an other benefit, think about the possibilities of hanging a 
centrailized configuration store for all workstations an servers on big 
network. All the workstation configurations are stored in one single 
place (with backup servers of corse) and needs only to be maintaind at 
this place. I can imagine the next TCO studies from all the business 
analysts for comparing windows with linux. The TCO of linux whould come 
extremly down by using a such concept.
Was that enough arguments for establishing a ldap server for the user 
records.

Roland

Nils O. Selåsdal schrieb:

>On Wed, 2003-11-26 at 15:24, =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Roland K=E4ser?= wrote:
>  
>
>>Yeah but what i ment is that fc2 should come with a fully initialized 
>>ldap server. It's also possible that in a first step only the users and 
>>groups are saved in the ldap. As i said in the first mail, Samba ships 
>>command line tools for adding, modifying and deleting users from a bash 
>>shell. The only thing needed to change is to replace the "normal" 
>>useradd, usermod, userdel, groupadd, groupmod and groupdel by the ones 
>>shipped with samba. For the normal user it wouldn't make any changes in 
>>the "feeling" of  the administration. From my point of view, a GUI admin 
>>tool doesn't needs to support all the complete ldap features, it should 
>>only be a easy to use administration interface - excuse this analogy - 
>>like the active directory frontend.
>>    
>>
>My point also. Though due to nss, it is not needed, it might complicate
>things, it's yet-another-really-not-needed-daemon, overkill for most
>users. 
>Using something like libuser, it would be easy to have a unified
>userinterface for users/groups regarless of wether they are in text file
>or an ldap server.
>
>The question is ofcourse, _why_ should ldap be used as a backend for
>this, for _all_ users ?
>
>  
>

-- 
Roland Käser
Bocksrietstr. 54
8200 Schaffhausen
Webmaster www.Israel-Jugendtag.ch

******************************************
 ** Schon vom Israel-Jugendtag gehört? **
******************************************
                   www.israel-jugendtag.ch