Subject: Re: PAM
To: None <email@example.com>
From: Dan Melomedman <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 09/26/2002 20:26:28
> On Thursday 26 September 2002 11:26, Greg A. Woods wrote:
> > LDAP support can be almost trivially added to NetBSD's nsswitch,
> I would like to make a suggestion for those who are anti-PAM (which I myself
> am, just not quite so vocal about it these days.) If the various alternatives
> are easier or trivial, write the integrations and try to have the code
> committed. If they are easier (and better!) people such as myself will simply
> use them instead of that obnoxious hell-spawn named PAM.
> Arguing about how easy it would be or wouldn't be, without actually proving it
> with something that people can test just gets into the realm of the
> theoretical arm-waving. Seems to me that all that effort yelling at each
> other could be better served writing something useful. :-)
> Course I really think PAM is a pile of doggy doo, but then I'm not going to
> argue the fine points of it because I'm not prepared to write an alternative.
Simple frameworks which work already exist. It's just a matter of
adding them in, or if they're unsatisfactory designing something new.