On Fri, 12 Sep 2003, Greywolf wrote:

greywo> Thus spake Jason Thorpe ("JT> ") sometime Today...
greywo>
greywo> JT> On Friday, September 12, 2003, at 06:37  PM, Greg A. Woods wrote:
greywo> JT>
greywo> JT> > First off, how in heck can anything I, Peter, or anyone else have said
greywo> JT> > possibly ever prevent someone from using PAM!?!?!?!?  Do we somehow
greywo> JT> > have
greywo> JT>
greywo> JT> Ok, my wording was poor.  My point is, if the people who want BSD Auth
greywo> JT> "win", then people who want to use PAM "lose", because PAM cannot be
greywo> JT> implemented using BSD Auth as the back-end.
greywo>
greywo> I think the concept is being missed.  What is desired is not that either
greywo> side "win", as in "if PAM goes in, then BSD Auth doesn't" (or vice versa),
greywo> but rather that there is a choice as to which the person doing the
greywo> administration of the system in question might use.
greywo>

I'm not sure, but if PAM is more flexible than BSD Auth, then why don't we
use PAM?  Doesn't it fit in the design of NetBSD?
Or is BSD Auth cleaner and easier to implement and use?

---
NetBSD: ``divide et impera''