On Fri, 2006-12-22 at 10:23 -0600, James A. Dinkel wrote: > What is the difference between Heimdal and MIT as far usability goes? > MIT seems to be the default on major linux distrobutions, but I here a > lot about people preferring Heimdal, but I can't find any reasons why. > Is one generally more stable/faster/reliable than the other?
The biggest thing users will notice is that the error message system returns contextual errors, with the actual reason for the failure, not just the translated code. It often includes the vital clues that help fix up the inevitable kerberos issues. I've use Heimdal in Samba4, particularly because of the close working relationship I have with it's primary maintainer. Andrew Bartlett -- Andrew Bartlett http://samba.org/~abartlet/ Authentication Developer, Samba Team http://samba.org Samba Developer, Red Hat Inc. http://redhat.com
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
-- To unsubscribe from this list go to the following URL and read the instructions: https://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/samba
