RE: [Fsfe-uk] An ignorant question?

[Chris Puttick]

At risk of getting involved in a potentially nasty battle, I
setup/administer big networks on both Linux and NT/2k authentication (and
previously Novell, sigh...), and once you know what you are doing, neither
is harder/easier than the other. Users login, get authenticated and access
parts of network storage they need/are intended to without difficulty. NT
permissions are absolutely idiotic, lack of ootb login scripts in Linux
takes a bit of getting your head round. Swings and roundabouts, as people
are said to say.

Now the other side of the coin; in networks where the client machines need
securing against inappropriate user behaviour, Linux is so much easier, it
hurts...

Cheers

Chris

-----Original Message-----
From: Alex Hudson
To: Simon Waters
Cc: Association for Free Software List
Sent: 6/12/03 1:22 PM
Subject: Re: [Fsfe-uk] An ignorant question?

On Thu, Jun 12, 2003 at 11:15:35AM +0100, Simon Waters wrote:
> Single sign-on in Unix/Linux is pretty easy, more so in these days of
> PAM, what are you blathering about.

I'm sorry, it's not. Most distros are not setup to do it, the PAM ldap
auth module is not obvious to setup, etc. It requires special utilities,
and I don't know many people who have one setup. 

> Have to say I'm not up on file systems, NFS was always adequate for
> properly secured networks, since NFS is virtually transparent, I'm not
> sure what features of Windows networking you are referring to.

Flexibility. The ability to use a network share without having to mount
it.
NFS with Kerberos is also another dark art.

> By all means point out where Free Software is worse, but I think you
> don't have much experience of deploying big Unix networks

And on what basis do you say that?

Cheers,

Alex.


_______________________________________________
Fsfe-uk mailing list
address@hidden
http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/fsfe-uk