Subject: Re: PAM
To: None <netbsd99@sudog.com>
From: Paul Goyette <paul@whooppee.com>
List: current-users
Date: 09/26/2002 13:20:15
On Thu, 26 Sep 2002 netbsd99@sudog.com wrote:
> I would like to make a suggestion for those who are anti-PAM ...
I would like to make a suggestion for those who are pro-PAM! ...
Why not go ahead and implement PAM, and have a completely default
installation work _just_like_ the old, pre-PAM installs do, nsswitch
and all?
I really don't care about PAM one way or the other, but the old method
nsswitch works just fine for me. Please don't make me have to learn a
whole new (and apparently, rather convoluted and not necessarily self-
consistent) configuration mechanism just to stay with what I already
have and understand.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
| Paul Goyette | PGP DSS Key fingerprint: | E-mail addresses: |
| Network Engineer | 9DC5 05CF 1AE7 DC42 CCC6 | paul@whooppee.com |
| & World Cruiser | 6858 051E 7AD2 A6B2 4954 | pgoyette@juniper.net |
----------------------------------------------------------------------