FC2 and general LDAP Support

[Roland Käser]

Nobody said that we should make a bad copy of the windows registry! 
Think beyond the bad implementation of the windows registry. It was 
never my opinion to bring the windows crap to linux. And its seriously 
not my idea to make linux configuration store that complex as it is on 
windows. Are we not more creative to just make a cheap copy of the 
registry? And to this idea that the file configuration is that easy can 
i only say that to work on a sendmail.cf and loosing it by an automatic 
configuration engine, such as yast, after it worked is also really 
horrorable.
So, lets think about our own ideas to create a such configuration 
instance. The main goals from my point of view are only:

1: Centralized configuration and change management
2: Easy to extend the concept to network wide configuration store.

Think also about the benefits of this idea. No more ssh nightmares to 
configure ten diffrent systems to support one single service. And 
specially the administration of useraccounts in a network with 10-50 
servers is nearly impossible without ldap. And at least think that the 
success of linux specially the one of the fedora release is also based 
on the acceptance of  the business. And from the business point of view, 
the TCO is an important factor. To edit a directory with config settings 
and user records is FASTER than edit a lot of files! That's important 
for the ones who maks the decision about windows or linux or even fedora.

Roland

Nicolas Mailhot schrieb:

>Le mer 26/11/2003 à 16:41, =?ISO-8859-1?Q? Nils O. Sel=E5sdal?= a
>écrit :
>  
>
>>On Wed, 2003-11-26 at 16:12, =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Roland K=E4ser?= wrote:
>>    
>>
>>>Look at the mail from Nicolas Mailhot. This is one of my points.
>>>      
>>>
>
>[...]
>
>  
>
>>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. 
>>>      
>>>
>
>Please do not read what I didn't put into my mail.
>
>I agree ldap has a place. I agree it's under-used. I agree there is some
>info like user descriptions, contacts... that should be moved into
>openldap if only because the current setup just does not cut it (the
>user system is inadequate for networks/samba, contact handling is a mess
>right now...). I also think we won't have a solid ldap setup till it's a
>Fedora default, and it's needed for lots of things *now*.
>
>However this won't happen if openldap is too heavy for single-box
>systems, and above all this is not an endorsement of "let's do a binary
>registry now".)
>
>There is a ton of cleanly defined hierarchical info that could be put
>into ldap now and improve user experience. There is also a ton of stuff
>that does not belong in there like Windows demonstrates every day.
>
>  
>
>>We also have gconf, which might be extended to this concept.
>>    
>>
>
>gconf might use a ldap backend someday (not sure it's a good idea).
>Switching to it now before ldap is solid/manageable would be a terrible
>mistake however. Let's do clearly understood stuff first.
>
>Cheers,
>
>  
>

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

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