but as for the reasons for LDAP, some of
us need fully networkable and redundant directory information
And if you don't need these things why no use the TDB backend?
Good question. A lot of people seem to be biting off a lot more than
they need to using ldap on single server setups, etc. and no plans to
add servers to need the distributed nature. Also, others seem to be
trying to go the other way to use nfs when something distributed (like
ldap) is needed very much.
I've seen the complaints about berkely-db being shoddy, that should take it
out of the equation.
Berkeley Db is very stable. We've been using OpenLDAP since 1.2.x and
ONCE had a corrupted database; probably my fault.
As have I ... not seen it... er... bad is my grammer. Anyway, I was
merely trying to say to those that seem to favor overly complex
solutions (sql) 'go ahead, here's the door, don't forget to write, I'm
sure your trip will be lovely' The great thing is that somebody
apparently had the same hangup with berkeley and did their own thing.
Feel free to try it out and let us know how it goes. Maybe if it's good
enough the rest of the world will follow, but for ldap it seems like
killing a cockroach with a nuke. (which wouldn't work very well, if
we're to believe the old saying about nuclear holocaust and cockroaches)
--
Paul Gienger Office: 701-281-1884
Applied Engineering Inc. Cell: 701-306-6254
Information Systems Consultant Fax: 701-281-1322
URL: www.ae-solutions.com mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
To unsubscribe from this list go to the following URL and read the
instructions: http://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/samba
