[ Date Index ] [ Thread Index ] [ <= Previous by date / thread ] [ Next by date / thread => ]
On 26/09/11 21:23, Simon Waters wrote:
And it should also be remembered that Lightweight in this case was (IIRC) really meant to mean the minimum required to do the job. You'll find that most things that are 'too complicated' are actually barely sufficient in a real-world sense. Windows makes things easy at a VSE* and as a result things seem to become more complicated at even SME levels. Making things 'easy' never solves the problem it just paints it into a corner an makes it a lot harder to solve later.On 26/09/11 17:48, Gordon Henderson wrote:However, struggling with LDAP and it's requirements - I'm not convinced at all that the "L" in LDAP is 'light' at all, however...The lightweight bit is relative to X.500 on some historical protocol stack that no one ever actually used (well possibly someone somewhere, but I never did).I've always managed to look at what I needed to do with LDAP and discover I could use Postgres instead, although I've always had that feeling that some aspect of the zen of programming was lost in my approach here, I've never pinned down what exactly. PAM can hide a multitude of sins.However I suspect integrating Windows client might have forced me to do something differently, possibly switch careers.
Tom te tom te tom -- The Mailing List for the Devon & Cornwall LUG http://mailman.dclug.org.uk/listinfo/list FAQ: http://www.dcglug.org.uk/listfaq