Craig White wrote:
>>> At that point, using OpenLDAP or CentOS-DS or Fedora-DS is more or less
>>> a matter of implementation details and utility. None of them are better
>>> than the other for most purposes and even things like the consoles in
>>> Fedora-DS aren't going to make it any easier for you to use LDAP if you
>>> don't understand how it works. In short, there really aren't decent
>>> shortcuts to using LDAP if you don't care to actually understand how and
>>> why it works.
>> I think the standards bodies have failed us badly on this front. People
>> don't want to understand LDAP any more than they want to understand the
>> bits in a TCP packet header. They just want systems to interoperate.
> ----
> I suppose I don't understand what you are saying. Are you saying that
> some of the LDAP servers are not compliant with RFC's for LDAP? Which
> ones? how?
No, I'm saying that there should have been standardized schemas eons ago
for the things that everyone needs to store and all implementations
should interoperate at that level.
> As for people not wanting to understand LDAP, that's their choice and I
> wish them luck. If you want a pre-configured LDAP that's always the same
> for every installation, check out Active Directory. It doesn't get any
> easier to implement LDAP on Active Directory if you don't understand it.
Can you ship something pre-configured to work with Active Directory?
Why should more than one person have to 'implement' it? If it works in
one place, won't the same implementation work elsewhere?
--
Les Mikesell
lesmikesell at gmail.com