Joseph Malicki wrote: > > On Fri, 28 May 1999, Stuart Anderson wrote: > > On Fri, 28 May 1999, Burchard Steinbild wrote: > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > > > > what do you think about PAM? Should this be part of an LSB system? > > > > Is it's functionallity hidden behind an existing API? > > > > Are any apps using a PAM specific API? > > > > If the anwers are Yes, No, then I'd be inclined to not specify it.
PAM is definitly the right way to go as it offers an authentication API to applications independent of the actual authentication methods in effect on a system. It offers advantages to the application writer because he/she now doesn't have to support plain-passwords/shadow- passwords/NIS/whatever but can just implement PAM. Even if new authentication methods come along the application can remain as is. It offers advantages to the system administrator because he/she can now make changes to the authentication methods without needing to recompile each and every application which needs authentication. Something which is simply impossible if one of these applications is a closed source commercial application. In my opinion PAM is The Right Way to go and I would very much like to see it included in the lsb. Cheers, Waldo Bastian KDE Core Developer [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- KDE, Making The Future of Computing Available Today http://www.kde.org
