On Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at 1:00 AM, Mark Clarke <m...@jumpingbean.co.za> wrote:

> I get it you think IPA is the best technology ever
>

Thank you for justifying why someone like myself is around.  ;)

Again, re-quoting myself ...

    o  Short version ...

  SSSD support of Policy Objects is well proliferated.

    o  In bullets ...

  _If_ we are going to include 'Policy Objects' ...
   - Start with the IPA ones, specifically where ...
   - SSSD**, w/o IPA, supports them so not only ...
   - All Linux distros** support them, but ...
   - Any LDAP server (OpenLDAP, 389, etc... ) does too

The _context_ of my _entire_ response has been under "Policy Objects,"
after someone suggested coverage of "GPO" (Group Policy Objects).

and everybody else is ignorant for not adopting it sooner
>

No, again, re-quoting myself ...

    o  Case-in-point ...

  **This assumption is the the most frustrating reality I
    deal with day-in, day out:
     "the only distro that supports it is Fedora,
      and is largely unsupported in the rest of them.
      Seems like a distro specific feature?"

I do a _lot_ of Debian and Ubuntu as well.  It has SSSD, so it can support
Policy Objects as well.  Newer Debian builds even have IPA, including the
Server portion, thanx to the hard work of one Canonical employee.  But he's
not well served by even Ubuntu users because of things said ... exactly
what you're saying here.

Furthermore, you also said ...

  "I wouldn't say NSS/389/Dogtag has
   been widely adopted outside RedHat yet
   it very well might be an emerging technology
   but its not something every sys admin needs
   to know. If its included  at an "awareness level"
   then ok - but until it gets wide spread adoption,
   and mind share, I can't agree that it should be
   covered in any more details. To be frank I think
   there the coverage in 303 is overboard."

This ^^^ is an example of ignorance.

It's like saying, _literally_, Mozilla Firefox is an "emerging technology"
in browsers.  Because just like some of the NCSA team, a lot of the
Michigan LDAP team directly created the code lineage!  It's not only in
_major_ installations, but with Oracle dropping support this decade, it's
become the defacto standard.

but I don't think the purpose of LPI is to push what we think
>
is the next big thing but to see what is actually out there in use.
>

You mean no one uses SSSD, 389/Dogtag, et al., and that lineage, right?
It's an "emerging technology" that no one uses, right?

So those Policy Objects are useless.  No one uses them.  No one manages
anything.  So we shouldn't look at what 389 does, and especially not IPA.

>From you own anecdotal evidence
>

Oooookkkkaaaaayyyy, my "ancedotal evidence."

of the use of IPA it is a technology that may be in the process of
>
being slowly adopted.
>

Again, I'll requote myself ...

    o  Short version ...

  SSSD support of Policy Objects is well proliferated.

    o  In bullets ...

  _If_ we are going to include 'Policy Objects' ...
   - Start with the IPA ones, specifically where ...
   - SSSD**, w/o IPA, supports them so not only ...
   - All Linux distros** support them, but ...
   - Any LDAP server (OpenLDAP, 389, etc... ) does too

The _context_ of my _entire_ response has been under "Policy Objects,"
after someone suggested coverage of "GPO" (Group Policy Objects).

So is BTRFS, ZFS,
>

Well, ZFS, at least from Oracle.  It gets weird outside of Oracle.  But
that's anoterhs tory.

Linux capabilities, name spaces etc.
>

Nope.  I don't know anything about modern DevOps with CloudFoundry,
OpenShift, et al.


> If it use continues to grow we have a process to review the level of
> coverage - and if something else ends up replacing it then we can swap it
> out.
>
There are plenty of technologies people are passionate about but have not
> yet been widely adopted
>

Well, all I have is my "ancedotal evidence."  Not that I'm here to actually
talk about what corporate are using.  I mean, I'm Mr. "ancedotal evidence."
 I'm just passionate, and have no basis for what I say.  Yep.


> - I don't see people using LPI objectives to push these agendas.
> Upstart/Systemd is a case in point.
>

Nope.  Corporations don't use SMF under Solaris, and don't expect
equivalent service management under Linux (e.g., Upstart), much more
dynamic service, resource and system state capabilities (e.g., the *d/*ctl
solutions).  The latter isn't required for dynamic, software defined
networking (SDN) and storage (SDS) in things libvirt, such as for things
like OpenStack.   Nope.

I'm just a passionate guy.  Have nothing to do with leading any
professional services or enablement at anyone pushing Debian and
Fedora-based distros, integrating some of the first or largest
installations int he past, or writing any of the first sets of
documentation.

Don't listen to me.  I'm a guy that is only passionate about Fedora-only
stuff.  ;)


-- 
Bryan J Smith  -  http://www.linkedin.com/in/bjsmith
E-mail:  b.j.smith at ieee.org  or  me at bjsmith.me
_______________________________________________
lpi-examdev mailing list
lpi-examdev@lpi.org
http://list.lpi.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lpi-examdev

Reply via email to