Francesco Talamona schrieb: > On Sunday 20 November 2005 12:27, Alexander Skwar wrote: >> What kind of nonsense is that? I suppose, that you'd find >> it appropriate to use LDAP for a 1 user machine? Sorry, >> but that's absolute bullshit. > > I don't think it's a good example: you can set up a Samba box, with a > LDAP backend with just 2 or 3 *unix* (administrative) users and > hundreds user into LDAP database. Nscd and PAM do the rest of > "collage".
Yes, for such a scenario, I'd of course use PAM as some sort of layer - no doubt at all! > So PAM can be of much use for a "few user" machine (ok, acting as a > server...). We're talking about a non-server machine: | What do you need PAM for, when there's basically just one | (human) user on the system and the system acts as a "consumer" | (ie. no servers)? Why add the complexity of PAM? Where's | the gain - in *THAT* scenario? See what's in the 2nd ()? > That said I'm quite neutral about PAM, maybe it's just overkill for a > desktop, maybe it's simply too complex to get rid of it for a standard > user... No, it's not too complex to get rid off - if you leave it away from the beginning. I totally agree, that it's hard to convert a non-PAM system to PAM - and the other way is also hard. Alexander Skwar -- gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list
