Subject: Re: integrating PAM
To: Dan Melomedman <>
From: Bill Studenmund <>
List: current-users
Date: 01/23/2003 16:37:28
On Thu, 23 Jan 2003, Dan Melomedman wrote:

> Ken Hornstein wrote:
> > >> Sure sounds like a religious argument to me.
> > >
> > >What's so religious about this? If I don't want to use the PAM library,
> > >I don't want my software to be linked against it.
> >
> > "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.

Reread your sentence again. You aren't reasoning that PAM is bad (or good)
for this or that reason, you are saying you don't like PAM. That's a
religeous reason.

Take care,