+1. After maintaining these components separately for years, getting everything as a single package with tested integration between them from release-to-release is huge.
If you are worried about the complexity, take a look at any good Windows Server documentation set. It's thousands of pages. RH IPA doesn't have this advantage, but the fact that it's gaining traction without that all that says a lot of good things to me. Sent from my iPhone > On Jun 25, 2015, at 07:40, Petr Spacek <pspa...@redhat.com> wrote: > >> On 24.6.2015 09:06, Harald Dunkel wrote: >> Hi folks, >> >> I have a general problem with freeipa: It is *highly* complex >> and depends upon too many systems working together correctly >> (IMHO). >> >> My concern is, if there is a problem, then the usual tools >> following the Unix paradigm (do one thing and do it well) >> don't help anymore. I can speak only for my own stomach, but >> it turns upside down when I think about this. >> >> Your thoughts on this? > > Yes, FreeIPA is complex. On the other hand, you will get the same complexity > when you try to integrate the same services yourself + you will get all the > maintenance cost as a bonus. > > I can speak from my own sysadmin experience :-) > > -- > Petr^2 Spacek > > -- > Manage your subscription for the Freeipa-users mailing list: > https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/freeipa-users > Go to http://freeipa.org for more info on the project -- Manage your subscription for the Freeipa-users mailing list: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/freeipa-users Go to http://freeipa.org for more info on the project