[CentOS] LDAP Implementations

[Johnny Hughes]

On Thu, 2005-12-01 at 20:33 -0700, Craig White wrote:
> On Thu, 2005-12-01 at 16:38 -0800, Bryan J. Smith wrote:
> > "William (Bill) E. T." <wtriest at chemistry.ohio-state.edu>
> > wrote:
> > > One of our strategic goals for this year is to switch from
> > > NIS to LDAP (which hasn't happened so far due to some
> > ancient
> > > Unix boxes).  Which should I investigate first OpenLDAP or
> > FDS?
> > > Can some one point me to pro's and cons?  (links very much
> > > appreciated)
> > 
> > FDS is NsDS, which has been a _long_time_ and is well
> > trusted.  It's synchronization with ADS is much, much better,
> > and removes the need to deal with a set of "glue together"
> > services just to get such.  The included certificate server
> > is a nice touch, although being truly open, you can still use
> > Kerberos and other authentication systems as well.
> > 
> > But probably the biggest boost to why NsDS is more viable for
> > most enterprises than OpenLDAP is Red Hat's license of it. 
> > Red Hat really tried to make OpenLDAP work in its enterprise
> > services model, but in the end, it was well worth their
> > bother to pay $20M to open source NsDS.  Red Hat is behind it
> > 100%, and that includes charging $15,000/server for what is
> > free in the same FDS you can download.
> ----
> OK - I'm intrigued...I just signed up for their mail list to see what
> the questions/problems are.
> 

I think FDS (RH Directory Services) will certainly be the answer in the
long run ... at least for PNAELV source based distros like CentOS.  We
will provide it once it is released by the upstream vendor in it's final
form for the enterprise.  For now, OpenLDAP works OK ... as least for
me.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos/attachments/20051202/fe65f51d/attachment.sig>