Date: Wed, 26 Nov 2003 07:04:02 -0600 From: "Jacques A. Vidrine" <nectar@FreeBSD.org> To: Matthias Andree <ma@dt.e-technik.uni-dortmund.de> Cc: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: NSS and PAM, dynamic vs. static (was: 40% slowdown with dynamic /bin/sh) Message-ID: <20031126130402.GB57523@madman.celabo.org> In-Reply-To: <m37k1ox7tz.fsf_-_@merlin.emma.line.org> References: <20031125025621.453732A8FC@canning.wemm.org> <200311250311.hAP3BTCO075916@apollo.backplane.com> <20031125150700.GA48007@madman.celabo.org> <20031125201421.GB54467@madman.celabo.org> <200311252039.hAPKdBfq080963@apollo.backplane.com> <m37k1ox7tz.fsf_-_@merlin.emma.line.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wed, Nov 26, 2003 at 02:00:08AM +0100, Matthias Andree wrote: > Matthew Dillon <dillon@apollo.backplane.com> writes: > > > How much do you intend to use NSS for? I mean, what's the point of > > adopting this cool infrastructure if all you are going to do with it > > is make a better PAM out of it? > > The important thing is that NSS allows to plug modules such as LDAP or > PostgreSQL for user base management. PAM is only halfway there and > doesn't give libc et al. a notion of a user or group context (in spite > of its "account" context), NSS does. One might discuss if PAM is really > needed with NSS in place, but it's hard to think of a system without > NSS and removing PAM now doesn't look right. NSS and PAM do not overlap. They are complimentary and one cannot do the job of the other. Cheers, -- Jacques Vidrine NTT/Verio SME FreeBSD UNIX Heimdal nectar@celabo.org jvidrine@verio.net nectar@freebsd.org nectar@kth.se
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20031126130402.GB57523>