On Mon, Sep 15, 2003 at 11:11:47PM -0400, Michael Richardson wrote:
> 
>   I give this example metaphorically :-)
> 

 :)

> 
>   But, we still share code with them: X, KDE, GNOME. At least they were
> optional. That's why I don't want PAM in my /bin/login. I don't want to
> share that incompetence!
> 

Ah - now we get to implementation issues...I cannot recall if the
proposed PAM implementation was an import of other code or a NetBSD
specific implementation.  Rejecting PAM out of hand because other
implementations suck (versus the API/specification) is not really
valid.

>   The fact that I don't need it for anything I do, while BSD auth provides
> some things that I've found useful also sways me. 
> 

Having no personal interest in any of the approaches it seems to me
that _if_ BSD auth can be layered over the top of PAM then we will
have a good thing.  We cannot ignore the direction most other vendors
are going because we will just be left as a lone voice in the
wilderness... another reason not to use NetBSD, something we must
avoid.

-- 
Brett Lymn