Slashdot Mirror
How Linux Beats Windows in ID Management Ease
Amy Kucharik writes "Fed up with Windows systems management? A Linux conversion may be your ticket away from the daily hassles of managing and licensing domain controllers and related software devices. In this tip, Paul Murphy discusses the evolution of LDAP and how using it, along with Linux, can make an administrator's job easier."
dn: uid=anonymous, ou=linux, o=slashdot.org
changetype: add
slashComment: First Post!
slashModLevel: +5 Funny
That would be break
Duh. =)
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
So how's user management via LDAP on Linux different from using Window's Active Directory?
There's nothing concrete in the article.
I read the link. It sounded like a good introduction to an interesting article. Then it abruptly stopped. Where, if I may ask, is the actual article describing how one might use LDAP effectively for user management?
Now I know somebody is going to say ARE YOU TOO STUPID TO USE GOOGLE!! No, I'm not. I'm simply saying that the article could have been much better, had they simply put actual information in instead of simply writing an introduction to the history of LDAP. As it stands, the article is exceedingly pointless.
I wish that Windows NT included some easy interface to LDAP for large corporations to manage all of their workstations ... like a directory. It could be used for logins, privileges, login scripts, mapping drives, controlling group policy, and even integrate with the mail and calendaring system. It would be one big active directory. That would be nice.
Video for Online Dating Profiles
I don't really get much from this article. Just that LDAP is out there, and that there are online manuals to help you get started. I figured that much out already. I'm not seeing much of a comparison between LDAP and AD/etc here. Anyone got some in-depth experience to share?
perl -e 'foreach(values %SIG){$_="IGNORE";}while(){}'
I am pretty sure I am not the only Linux veteran irritated by the increase in its user-friendliness, and mourning the loss of the good olde Linux, accessible only to those who enjoy kernel debugging. This is why I have decided to launch a new GNU/Linux distribution which requires extensive knowledge of Linux and of the computer system's internals.
The distribution shall be available in the combination of a floppy and a CD-ROM image. Why not only a CD-ROM image? I thought it would be a little too easy, and know you think that too; the CD-ROM is only accessible if you can read it, and this is why I provide a floppy: it contains an assembler and a linker, all you need to write a CD-ROM file system driver (and a partition driver to install the files). Here, I'll give you a head start: ISO 9660 specification. Don't expect every task to be so simple, I won't be giving the answers each time.
The distribution is somewhat minimalistic, but can do pretty much everything one demands from a modern computer.
Obviously, all tasks are accomplished through the command line interface (no GUI is provided).
A Web browser isn't included (as if you expected one to be anyway), just telnet to port 80 of the Web sites to surf the Internet.
As for an email client, telnet to port 25 and learn how to use your email server.
For FTP capabilities, you may telnet to port 21 and use the standard commands.
As I have demonstrated, this is a very versatile and capable GNU/Linux distribution, meanwhile staying available only to real men who back up to FTP and not to tape (to ensure this, legacy support for tape drives is excluded).
Since potential users may have varying levels of experience, I am hence providing different versions of the distribution:
Your suggestions are welcome, and I hope you enjoy using my GNU/Linux distribution.
That's a very nice little starting point, but the article has no depth. A little meat, even a mention of connecting Windows 2k/XP desktops to an OpenLDAP system via SAMBA for authentication, rather than relying on an Active Directory, for example, would be welcome.
And for the record: Active Directory design isn't, IMHO, harder than the design of any other well-administered LDAP-based authentication system. Further, I'll say that Microsoft has done a fantastic job of making the administration tools transparent and easy-to-use, and the integration of Exchange mail servers & NIS authentication via Services For Unix into the same tool is icing on the cake. Sure, the per-server licensing fees aren't cheap, but you do get what you pay for in this instance.
Even Jesus hates listening to Creed.
Exactly. I was expecting to see something like, "In a test implementation using ThisDistro, a complete mult-server LDAP solution using ThatLDAP covered 90% of the functionality of Windows user management, but at a fraction of the cost. You can use ThoseLDAPTools 2.2.8 to administer from Windows or Linux, or if you're willing to allow for a slower client, OtherLDAPUtils 1.0.4 runs in any Sun JVM."
This is an elegant version of "If you don't like Windows, try LDAP on Linux!" It may well trigger something useful here, though. One can hope.
You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.
The article just says "Windows ID management is bad. LDAP is better. Why is Windows' ID management bad? I'm not telling. Why is LDAP better? I'm not telling." It does nothing explain the position the title purposes.
This isn't to say I disagree but calling this article "news" is like calling the OpenLDAP FAQ news.
Free of Flash! Free of Flash!
ID management's biggest problem will never be solved by Linux. Nor will it be solved by Windows.
As long as we have people putting passwords on post-its attached to their screens, as long as we have people clueless enough to fall for even the most simple of social engineering, there's no real thing as a proper ID on a computer system.
In my (amazingly wonderful) opinion, no system deserves the name ID management unless it has a genuinely good chance of doing so. Physical tokens or biometrics (aka built-in physical tokens) are a minimum.
Well, unless you're after the account ID, but I think admins are normally more concerned about the ID of the person using the account.
We need to stop barricading the windows when people are walking merrily through the doors.
OpenLDAP is a snap! Its so easy to use, even a 10-year unix veteran can get it integrated with some systems assuming everything is setup properly and has been designed for integrating in this manner!
Thanks SearchEnterpriseLinux.com!
Sure, Linux is one way.
However, I'm very impressed by Novell NSure.
Do not overlook this product if you're looking for a solid LDAP based Identity Management solution.
Pretty thin article- if you were expecting a detailed argument for why OpenLDAP is better/easier to manage than ActiveDirectory, you'll have to look somewhere else.
He basically just summarized the history of NIS and OpenLDAP, then gave us a link to some documentation for setting up OpenLDAP. Have fun editing slapd.conf, kids!
I was expecting that he'd at least mention Redhat Directory Server, which is the most interesting recent development as far as easy-to-manage Linux identity servers go.
pi = 3.141592653589793helpimtrappedinauniversefactory7
I don't even know what Linux is, I just come here for the pretty colours.
There's nothing better in ID management the eDirectory, either running on Linux, NetWare, or yes.... even Windows. MS always promises that the *next* Active Directory version will have the features that eDirectory had 15 years ago. True container based security and delegation, partitioning, replication, all with the greatest of use. Yes, it's more expensive that OpenLDAP, but WAY better.
please excuse my apathy
I just hope they aren't using any of Excel's statistical functions. Or if they are, I hope they don't care about accuracy. There are so many problems with Excel's statistical functions (even the latest-and-greatest version) that it has been repeatedly ruled "unsuitable for serious statistical analysis". That's fine if "a large majority of people in my area need Excel to function" just be aware of its shortcomings (which are many). Gnumeric (and I think KSpread and StarCalc) is significantly better than Excel in this area (and many others, but I digress).
Of course, both this post, the parent and the parent's parent are "-1 Off Topic".
The title of the story is "How Linux Beats Windows in ID Management." Okay, I read the TFA, and all I read was an introduction to LDAP. Where's the comparison that shows "Linux Beats Windows?" The article is not even about linux; it's about LDAP solutions that can be run on *nix systems. For the love of God please please don't run stupid stories like this again.
The article incorrectly states that PAM (Pluggable Authentication Modules) came out of Project Athena.
However, it was actually invented by Sun, and was eventually adopted as RFC 86.0 by the Open Software Foundation in 1995.
I know for a fact that OS X 10.3 (Panther) Server included OpenLDAP, not sure if it was there earlier. The whole package, with OpenLDAP, Kerberos, the GUI admin and such, is called Open Directory.
More info here.
NetInfo is now pretty much relegated to storing info for the local machine only.
The author obviously has never dealt with any real IdM issues at a large company. With mergers and divestitures constantly happening, you end up with a patchwork of HR systems, facilities management systems, access request systems, application data stores and authentication systems. Saying "use OpenLDAP for IdM" is like saying "this paper airplane flies well - if you throw it hard enough, you can get it to the moon."
This is not to say it couldn't be part of the solution, but the end state is going to have a bunch of different components.
And MS's out-of-the-box tools (e.g. AD Users & Computers) are deeply pathetic for anything other than casual directory browsing. Third party tools are needed for the variety of different tasks involved in managing an AD-based NOS.
That being said, some of the cool new work being done with Samba taken with a Kerberos KDC for authorization and OpenLDAP for authentication could be a good place to start in building out an IdM system. Unfortunately, you would really need to be starting from scratch to have this be feasible....
Left shift 1 for e-mail...
- Why did it take me 2 hours to configure xorg.conf to get my laptop working in 1400x1050 properly when Knoppix did it in 30 seconds?
- Why did I have to spend 3 hours writing bash scripts to make power management work?
- Why did I have to use fdisk when Mandriva has graphical partition manager?
- Why does Gentoo not detect my DVD drive when I use it in my other laptop?
- Why doesn't my mouse work automatically when I plug it into the USB port?
- Why do I have to install and configure alsa when Knoppix sets it up automatically?
Face it folks, linux has a long way to go before it makes desktop inroads. Sure you can put Mandriva on a PC and it'll work fine forever for office stuff, listening to music etc. But if the user want flexibility and ease of use? We want to update device drivers quickly to take advantage of new features, but without reading manpages. We want to change resolutions without fixing a text file. We want plug-and-play devices to perform as described. We want to print to different printers without referring to CUPS docs or learning to set up a Samba server.When will linux combine usability with power and flexibility? They're not mutually exclusive.
Since the article didn't really say anything about managing LDAP or playing with OpenLDAP, I thought I would share a useful utility my team has recently started using for LDAP management and administration.
Have a look at JXplorer (or alternate Sourceforge link).
It's a really nice open source LDAP administration and management utility that not only lets you do the easy entry editing stuff but a lot of the more complex tree management operations. It also has some really nice search building interfaces. I'm in no way connected with this project but it has replaced a number of free and commercial utilities we used to use.
It also lets you play with populating an OpenLDAP installation so you can begin to understand some of its real power and tuning potential.
One of the really tragic points is that although NDS and eDirectory were already ahead of what MS-Active Directory (AD) is now *ten* years ago. AD is suddenly what all the MS fanbois talk about to the exclusion of the more mature, secure, flexible, and compatible options like either eDirectory or plain ol' Kerberos + LDAP.
Actually, most AD articles don't cover many facts or even how to operate in a multi-platform environment. Plus there are a lot of short comings *still* in AD like scalability, performance and interoperability with non-MS systems. These are problems that you don't get with eDirectory or plain LDAP/Kerberos.
I'm sure part of it can be explained by the fanboi mentality where anything and everything from Redmond is great, especially the next version which is just over the horizon, etc. And that MS "valued" partners are more or less forbidden from looking at competing technology. Maybe other parts can be explained by MS' standard marketing methods, like the smear campaign against Novell.
I guess more of it makes sense if one looks at MS like a marketing company, as other posters have pointed out, rather than a software company. Though to me that's a bit 90's. MS is now heavily into lobbying and is bordering more on a political movement than a technology. Talk of AD is then a way of signaling membership in the movement/ideology. That would be another way of explaining fanbois who ignore LDAP+Kerberos or products like eDirectory, not even doing shoot outs against these competitors. doesn't make sense.
I miss the days the product comparisons actually compared useful tools and brought up the good and bad points of the ones examined rather than going over pre-approved 'talking points' I guess even Consumer Reports is no longer unaffected.
Beta is broken and the link to classic doesn't work. Stop wasting our time or there won't be anybody left here.
Since it isn't possible for one article to explain how to configure identification, authentication, and authorization for all systems, the article contained links to more information.
Even so, the article was really weak compared with the blurb that they submitted to Slashdot. At 650 words, the article is barely an introduction to the topic. The links were a minor plus, but the article didn't really fulfill the promise of the title, let alone that breathy 50-word blurb.
I would have been perfectly fine with the article if they had submitted it by saying, "LDAP has a neat history, and if you try it, you might learn something. But we won't tell you what or how, and we certainly won't show you how to solve any problems you actually have."
First it is not LDAP, but LAPD. Everybody knows that it is the LAPD that beats on others. So now, Paul is haveing the LAPD help Linux beat Windows. Cool. Can not wait until the law suit.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Not only is the article light on content, but it is rather meaningless to argue that LDAP is better than Active Directory, since AD is an implementation of LDAP (featuring Kerberos authentication and the LDAP data stored in a multimaster replicated database).
Of course, it has taken MS a while to catch up with the features Novell's NDIS directory offerings, but they are finally getting it right with 2003, and it is arguably the easiest to manage enterprise-scale LDAP implementation around. It isn't perfect mind you (we dig up plenty of bugs), but does seem to be the best thing going. Furthermore, Group Policy Objects are a seriously kick-butt feature. Besides, nothing else can properly issue authorization tokens (SID keychains) for Windows clients.
Now if only they would fix the huge heaping piles of Exchange integration bugs in Entourage...
(No, I'm not a MS apologist. They piss me off on a regular basis, both in terms of product quality, or lack thereof in many cases, and in terms of business practices; however, folks are barking up the wrong tree where these criticisms of AD are concerned. In a short time it has matured into a quality product.)
*** Quantum Mechanics: The Dreams of Which Stuff is Made ***
I've looked into using Linux with OpenLDAP, SAMBA and Kerberos before and in it's current state it simply isn't going to work as a replacement Windows domain controller.
All the key components exist, but none of them are well enough integrated to provide a convincing solution. Notably, Windows machines that log onto a domain use a microsofti[sz]ed version of the LDAP standard, CLDAP (Connectionless LDAP) which from my understanding OpenLDAP doesn't want to support because it's non-standard. This makes it's unsuitable for a Linux-based domain controller but suitable for most other tasks. Also, SAMBA 3 doesn't support Kerberos as an authentication backend, and so password synchronisation and single signon is difficult in a mixed windows and *nix environment.
The up and coming SAMBA 4 is promising to fix these shortfalls, with an inbuilt implementation of CLDAP, support for Kerberos authentication, etc. Until this happens, SAMBA and LDAP aren't going to meet the requirements of most medium size businesses as a replacement domain controller.
The lesson I learnt from my research is that a Windows server currently makes more sense for a Windows environment for things other than relatively simple implementations that a Linux one.
Graham
Is that open source?
Yes
The page makes it look like it isn't.
You're correct, RH's page is pretty misleading (maybe because they want you to buy a support contract from them?) - I had to hunt around for quite awhile before I found the source.
Is this the reincarnation of Netscape Directory Server?
Yes, although it's now known as "Fedora Directory Server"
They have a wiki for the project here
WindowsAD(Win2k3) + SQL Server + Exchange + .Net or VBS WMI = Extremely simple administration.
LDAP is like 5% of what AD provides. Remember that AD offers authentication as well as OS level authroization. I don't know of anything in the Linux world that offers that just by running through a wizzard (ever set up AD?). You don't have to type anything if you don't want too, and for the programming heads, WMI/ADSI can do what isn't in the tools. There are also a lot of 3rd party products that can plug into AD.
True they bastardized the Kerberos implemention and you are locked into windows but without an enterprise wide OS level authentication/authorization Kerberos SSO model available you'll never convince a CIO to go linux with 20,000 desktops. IMO it's the reason that linux fails as a desktop. You simply can't sell it to corporations, even though it's free. Plus windows does much better to protect your system files than Linux, where any admin could use root to read any file without knowing it was done. In windows, you own your files and can restrict even domain admins access, unless they take ownership, but then they can't give it back.
You can linux vs windows all you want but Windows kicks the sh** out of linux when it comes to managing and administrating large environments. I also feel that windows has a much better security model and short of being the #1 target for hackers, has the potential to be much more secure than any Linux I've seen, short of SE Linux which does NOT make administration eaier at ALL. In fact I'll say that Windows is too easy to administrate. It still takes thinking like an admin to do it well but the truth is you could train someone who worked at Jewel's to administrate AD in about two weeks (it happened at my old gig). After using linux(Gentoo) for 6 months now I've determined that linux is the best system to work on and Windows is the best system to work in.
Flame on.
Ever done a `man` on `top` ?