Subject: Re: integrating PAM
To: None <email@example.com>
From: Jason R Thorpe <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 01/23/2003 11:52:28
On Thu, Jan 23, 2003 at 01:56:18PM -0500, Dan Melomedman wrote:
> > "Religious" in this sense means, "Having nothing to do with reason".
> > (E.g., I have yet to see a coherent reason why having PAM in the OS
> > could ever harm you, unless you went out of your way to hose it up).
> > --Ken
> Reread the above sentence again. If it doesn't make a logical sense to
> you, I can't help you.
I've been trying to avoid getting involved with this thread because, well,
threads like this end up being a complete waste of time.
But in any case...
Whichever system NetBSD ends up adopting for pluggable authentication
schemes, be it BSD Auth, PAM, or TimbuktuAuthSchemeDeluxeKRadHellaSecure,
the decision will be based on its technical merits, after careful
consideration of the plusses and minuses of each scheme being considered.
Arguments like "I DON'T LIKE PAM BECAUSE I DON'T LIKE IT!" will not be
considered just like "I LOVE PAM BECAUSE IT'S SO K001!!@#!" will not be
In general, this is the way decisions have been made in NetBSD in the past,
which is one reason why we're all flaming away on this mailing list -- we
use NetBSD because we like the way the NetBSD Project does things (well, for
the most part ;-)
-- Jason R. Thorpe <email@example.com>