Date: Sun, 14 Dec 2008 17:59:06 +0700 From: "Outback Dingo" <outbackdingo@gmail.com> To: "Da Rock" <rock_on_the_web@comcen.com.au> Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Centralized DB of "system" users Message-ID: <5635aa0d0812140259y18712a55xb6efbb69fa48f86@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <1229231755.18610.102.camel@laptop2.herveybayaustralia.com.au> References: <20081213090822.GA97581@lpthe.jussieu.fr> <1229231755.18610.102.camel@laptop2.herveybayaustralia.com.au>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> Wouldn't kerberos be a better alternative? One server (maybe a > replicated backup), and all services authenticate with that. Saves > shadow on the wire... > I think the ulitimate question is going to be at what level of pain does the person wish to suffer to achieve his goals there are numerous ways to do it, though some can be painful, if not experienced. I struggle to get my brain around an environment with mulitple OSes in it, where i would lean towards the LDAP method, though you raise a valid point where kerberos could fit nicely, though Im not sure we are aware of the long term goals or the project where one might be adding in other types of Operating Systems. Then we have the discussion of interoperability. If it stays as in his game plan and doesnt encounter scope creep (not like it doesnt happen) at some time, he might wish to choose the best overall design to implement, again my vote would be LDAP. it is the most globally scaable, relocable and interoperable once its deployed allowing for future growth without a serious amount of pain.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?5635aa0d0812140259y18712a55xb6efbb69fa48f86>