If you choose to distribute BSD licensed code, your stuff doesn't become less free because you chose to allow those distribution terms. You are only a 'prisoner,' as you said, of your own right to choose how to distribute some code. The GPL has numerous restrictions placed upon how you can use GPL software that the BSD license doesn't, therefore it grants far more freedom to everyone. The GPL is not a magic bullet and is not suitable for all situations, and simply having a 500 page license behind your software does not make it any better then anything else or guarantee that it will 'out evolve' anything else.
BTW, care to explain how MS locks me in by using BSD code that I can go and pick up just about anywhere else.
If Microsoft does not support running these patches and apps under anything but real Windows, it is in the best intrest of their suport department to activly check if this is being installed on an unsupported platform. Did you think that the listing of Windows as a required componant on the box was just a suggestion? Do you whine when Windows doesn't run on an UltraSPARC?
Do you expect Nintendo to support your emulator? Also you are talking about running something that requires aging hardware which may or may not be easy to find. This is people whining that they can't have a free Windows environment because they're too cheap to buy it.
Or actually run a legal copy of Windows. Let me tell you, its a whole lot easier. Wine is just a crutch for people runing Linux because they want to 'stick it to the man' while still using everything from this entity that they claim to hate. Linux and Windows are jsut OS's not religions.
If X is slow its more then likely your setup and not X its self. Don't belive me? Run Fluxbox instead of Gnome or KDE and see how responsive it becomes. Now run a Gnome or KDE that was compiled for a more sane arch, ie i686 instead of i386 and see how much more responsive it becomes. Now run RDC and XDMCP side by side and see how well the Xprotocol works. X is not slow. I run KDE 3.4b2 on a dual p2 with 768 mb ram with a lot of eye candy turned on, I run an XDMCP session to a Sun box running Solaris 8 and right next to it, XP on a Sempron 2500+. I see no UI responsiveness difference until the systems become busy, and then its often XP that first slows.
You mean names like Solaris, Maya, Bryce, and Jam? Its just a name, and the creators can name it whatever they want. A name isn't used to describe something, it is used to differenciate something from someone else. Does the name Toronto tell you anything about the city, or can you tell what type of person someone is when you hear the name Bob Smith?
This isn't insightful, they have no obligation to you to sell systems without Windows. Go to a car dealership and ask them where are their models without engines are. Then when they look at you strange say, "sorry, in the market for a cheap new car, but want my own engine and not paying you extra for it when I am not going to use it." Makes you sound crazy now doesn't it. You sound just as crazy when you say that about a little computer, especially considering you already know they don't a configuration like that and you know exactly where you can get one.
They don't care if you don't buy from them, you just make yourself look like an idiot.
What would be the default realm? What is the LDAP domain? Will the root user be stored in the LDAP directory or not? What kerberos principles will be created by default? Will your mail alias information be stored in LDAP or not? What do you do if the LDAP server can not be contacted? How will you handle applications that do not talk to LDAP, PAM or Kerberos? Do you really want a DNS server running on every host you install this distro on?
There is a reason that Windows 2000/2003 Server is not a domain controller by default, or that you can't make it one during the install. There are just too many things that need to be known and working. Now its true you could make an application that will ask as many questions as it needs to and then it could go ahead and set it all up, something like DCPROMO, but a 'LDAP based' distro seems to me a silly idea.
The Active Directory and NDS are both LDAP directories. If you have been on any large centralized network, then undoubtably you have used a directory. NT had a flat directory for their domains and Unix has had NIS/NIS+ for some time, but they are still directory services. Directory services like this make centralizing all account information for the network possible and easier to manage and are almost required for any large deployment. All LDAP is is a standard for talking to a type of directory, and standards are good.
Its always the admins fault. Remember, home users are the admin of their home machine and a computer is a complex thing. If you fail to learn how to use it properly, its your own fault when things go wrong.
Your free to choose a BSD licence or not. No one is forcing you to use a BSD licence so it can not take any of your freedoms away. Anything that is 'free with the following restrictions that you use it within our ideals,' as in the GPL, is not free. You won't get much freer then a BSD licence.
How does this relate to Kerberos? Included with most major Kerberos 5
distributions is a GSSAPI implementation. Thus, if a particular application
or protocol says that it supports the GSSAPI, then that means that it
supports Kerberos, by virtue of Kerberos including a GSSAPI implementation.
So whether you used Kerberos directly or used GSSAPI or SASL would simply depend upon your needs and how you intended to use advanced authentication. OpenLDAP uses KerberosV via SASL because SASL allows it to plug into other auth methods if needed, OpenSSH can use KerberosV via GSSAPI included with both Heimdal's and MIT's KerberosV implimentations.
Kerberos and LDAP serve very different purposes. LDAP is a directory, it can store usernames, passwords, and a whole lot of other junk. in AAA it handles Authorization (usernames/UID's), and Auditing. Kerberos only provides Authentication, with a little auditing thrown in. Kerberos still requires there to be something else to provide that said username, identified by a ticket, is allowed to use a paticular resource. LDAP does have its own authentcation method, but for most things it is not used in favor of the more mature and tested kerberos authentication. In this manner LDAP provides the same functionality as your passwd file, and kerberos your shadow file. Using LDAP auth, to extend this analogy, would be like not using shadow passwords and simply keeping the password hash in the passwd file.
Both the LDAP administration book and the Kerberos book mentioned here do work well together, I picked them both up when I kerberised/LDAPified my network at home. I haven't got my Solaris box up and running yet, so I don't know how difficult that will be.
Without a central account database you (the admin) would still need to create on each system that same account, name and possibly UID. In a large environment where SSO makes the most sence, using Kerberos without a central account database, either an LDAP directory or NIS, makes no sence.
Incidentally SSH, FTP, mozilla and so forth need to be told to use Kerberos, they will not use it simply because you have a valid ticket.
Perhaps this is a move to distence themselves from being associated with long-haired tree-hugging OSS hippies. Ok that description is a joke, but the idea is valid. Why would a maker of Enterprise software want themselves associated with a group that is vocally opposed to pretty much everything in the Enterprise market, and show that they can take the exact same thing and simply rebrand it. Not only do they want to compete with Sun, IBM and MS, but they need to look like them to management types as well.
Personally I hate RPM's so I don't care what they say to the hobbiest community.
The consumer market won't care, when was the last time you paid per-core for software? A corporation on the other hand does, but when dual core chips become common licensing will change to reflect that.
That the OS does it allows older systems to be much more useful. By ignoring whatever crap the BIOS says, my FreeBSD system can use a >8gb drive in a system with motherboard that does not support large drives. However, with a bios still there, the system can be used by a system that relies on it.
Slashdot Mirror
If you choose to distribute BSD licensed code, your stuff doesn't become less free because you chose to allow those distribution terms. You are only a 'prisoner,' as you said, of your own right to choose how to distribute some code. The GPL has numerous restrictions placed upon how you can use GPL software that the BSD license doesn't, therefore it grants far more freedom to everyone. The GPL is not a magic bullet and is not suitable for all situations, and simply having a 500 page license behind your software does not make it any better then anything else or guarantee that it will 'out evolve' anything else.
BTW, care to explain how MS locks me in by using BSD code that I can go and pick up just about anywhere else.
If Microsoft does not support running these patches and apps under anything but real Windows, it is in the best intrest of their suport department to activly check if this is being installed on an unsupported platform. Did you think that the listing of Windows as a required componant on the box was just a suggestion? Do you whine when Windows doesn't run on an UltraSPARC?
Do you expect Nintendo to support your emulator?
Also you are talking about running something that requires aging hardware which may or may not be easy to find. This is people whining that they can't have a free Windows environment because they're too cheap to buy it.
Or actually run a legal copy of Windows. Let me tell you, its a whole lot easier. Wine is just a crutch for people runing Linux because they want to 'stick it to the man' while still using everything from this entity that they claim to hate. Linux and Windows are jsut OS's not religions.
What does LFS teach you other then ./configure && make && make install?
Why do you want a raised floor if your not setting up a datacenter? It's not worth the trouble.
What on earth were you doing with 140 domains?
If X is slow its more then likely your setup and not X its self. Don't belive me? Run Fluxbox instead of Gnome or KDE and see how responsive it becomes. Now run a Gnome or KDE that was compiled for a more sane arch, ie i686 instead of i386 and see how much more responsive it becomes. Now run RDC and XDMCP side by side and see how well the Xprotocol works. X is not slow. I run KDE 3.4b2 on a dual p2 with 768 mb ram with a lot of eye candy turned on, I run an XDMCP session to a Sun box running Solaris 8 and right next to it, XP on a Sempron 2500+. I see no UI responsiveness difference until the systems become busy, and then its often XP that first slows.
Search your feelings, you know it to be true.
You mean names like Solaris, Maya, Bryce, and Jam? Its just a name, and the creators can name it whatever they want. A name isn't used to describe something, it is used to differenciate something from someone else. Does the name Toronto tell you anything about the city, or can you tell what type of person someone is when you hear the name Bob Smith?
Most Technology workers aren't worth what they're paid anyway. They should consider themselves very lucky to get paid that much.
I chose to use the engine because the car would be useless without it , just like without a OS, a desktop is essentially simply a paperweight.
This isn't insightful, they have no obligation to you to sell systems without Windows. Go to a car dealership and ask them where are their models without engines are. Then when they look at you strange say, "sorry, in the market for a cheap new car, but want my own engine and not paying you extra for it when I am not going to use it." Makes you sound crazy now doesn't it. You sound just as crazy when you say that about a little computer, especially considering you already know they don't a configuration like that and you know exactly where you can get one.
They don't care if you don't buy from them, you just make yourself look like an idiot.
What would be the default realm? What is the LDAP domain? Will the root user be stored in the LDAP directory or not? What kerberos principles will be created by default? Will your mail alias information be stored in LDAP or not? What do you do if the LDAP server can not be contacted? How will you handle applications that do not talk to LDAP, PAM or Kerberos? Do you really want a DNS server running on every host you install this distro on?
There is a reason that Windows 2000/2003 Server is not a domain controller by default, or that you can't make it one during the install. There are just too many things that need to be known and working. Now its true you could make an application that will ask as many questions as it needs to and then it could go ahead and set it all up, something like DCPROMO, but a 'LDAP based' distro seems to me a silly idea.
The Active Directory and NDS are both LDAP directories. If you have been on any large centralized network, then undoubtably you have used a directory. NT had a flat directory for their domains and Unix has had NIS/NIS+ for some time, but they are still directory services. Directory services like this make centralizing all account information for the network possible and easier to manage and are almost required for any large deployment. All LDAP is is a standard for talking to a type of directory, and standards are good.
Its always the admins fault. Remember, home users are the admin of their home machine and a computer is a complex thing. If you fail to learn how to use it properly, its your own fault when things go wrong.
Your free to choose a BSD licence or not. No one is forcing you to use a BSD licence so it can not take any of your freedoms away. Anything that is 'free with the following restrictions that you use it within our ideals,' as in the GPL, is not free. You won't get much freer then a BSD licence.
So whether you used Kerberos directly or used GSSAPI or SASL would simply depend upon your needs and how you intended to use advanced authentication. OpenLDAP uses KerberosV via SASL because SASL allows it to plug into other auth methods if needed, OpenSSH can use KerberosV via GSSAPI included with both Heimdal's and MIT's KerberosV implimentations.
how does one 'kerberize' a client
It has to be written to talk to kerberos.
Programmers Guide for Heimdal Kerberos.
Kerberized Kermit FTP Client
There are probably others.
Kerberos and LDAP serve very different purposes. LDAP is a directory, it can store usernames, passwords, and a whole lot of other junk. in AAA it handles Authorization (usernames/UID's), and Auditing. Kerberos only provides Authentication, with a little auditing thrown in. Kerberos still requires there to be something else to provide that said username, identified by a ticket, is allowed to use a paticular resource. LDAP does have its own authentcation method, but for most things it is not used in favor of the more mature and tested kerberos authentication. In this manner LDAP provides the same functionality as your passwd file, and kerberos your shadow file. Using LDAP auth, to extend this analogy, would be like not using shadow passwords and simply keeping the password hash in the passwd file.
Both the LDAP administration book and the Kerberos book mentioned here do work well together, I picked them both up when I kerberised/LDAPified my network at home. I haven't got my Solaris box up and running yet, so I don't know how difficult that will be.
Something like this?
Without a central account database you (the admin) would still need to create on each system that same account, name and possibly UID. In a large environment where SSO makes the most sence, using Kerberos without a central account database, either an LDAP directory or NIS, makes no sence.
Incidentally SSH, FTP, mozilla and so forth need to be told to use Kerberos, they will not use it simply because you have a valid ticket.
Perhaps this is a move to distence themselves from being associated with long-haired tree-hugging OSS hippies. Ok that description is a joke, but the idea is valid. Why would a maker of Enterprise software want themselves associated with a group that is vocally opposed to pretty much everything in the Enterprise market, and show that they can take the exact same thing and simply rebrand it. Not only do they want to compete with Sun, IBM and MS, but they need to look like them to management types as well.
Personally I hate RPM's so I don't care what they say to the hobbiest community.
The consumer market won't care, when was the last time you paid per-core for software? A corporation on the other hand does, but when dual core chips become common licensing will change to reflect that.
That the OS does it allows older systems to be much more useful. By ignoring whatever crap the BIOS says, my FreeBSD system can use a >8gb drive in a system with motherboard that does not support large drives. However, with a bios still there, the system can be used by a system that relies on it.