On Tue, Mar 16, 1999 at 09:23:37PM -0800, dustin sallings wrote:
> On Tue, 16 Mar 1999 seebs@plethora.net wrote:
> 
> // Personally, I continue to *much* prefer "BSD Authentication".  We
> // can get source, and it has *significant* advantages.  (e.g., a
> // non-suid program can do a setuid authentication scheme - if you want
> // to let it.  You don't have to, but you *can.*)  It also comes with
> // free support for the magic needed to let root have a different
> // datasize limit than other users, and some of those users get even
> // smaller limits, etc.
> 
> 	The last time this came up, someone pointed out that it's very
> easy to emulate BSD auth via PAM, but not vice versa.  IMO, PAM should be
> implemented with a BSD auth module.  Then you can choose to do BSD auth
> via the PAM config.  They both look pretty good, but many applications are
> PAM aware these days.

I don't think a whole lot of people disagree with you.  But there's clearly
a point where it's senseless to discuss much more unless somebody's going
to write the code!  If you want PAM so much -- write it!  You may end up
having to revise it somewhat, but certainly it's not just going to get
ignored.

What _do_ tend to get ignored are people saying "_X_ should be implemented."
"_Y_ should be implemented." where nobody steps up to the plate to implement
either.  This is a volunteer project, after all!

Thor