+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

Reply via email to