3 ms·
It’s not a shame at all. This is fair and square competition. Contrary to Martin’s (Symas) statements, openldap is a rapidly aging product. No one without an op
by jiveturkey 8y ago
It’s not a shame at all. This is fair and square competition. Contrary to Martin’s (Symas) statements, openldap is a rapidly aging product. No one without an openldap legacy wants to deploy this beast today (no one in their right mind). Many of the 2.5 changes are misguided. Performance sounds great, but no, the right place for directory configuration is not in fact inside the directory itself. etc.
The blog probably directly tells us the motivation for a response at all: external pressure to Symas.
- reqa 8y agoSee https://lwn.net/Articles/755674/ https://lwn.net/Articles/755674/ and https://lwn.net/Articles/755673/ https://lwn.net/Articles/755673/ . Having cn=config is very useful for config parameter changes without downtime (e.g. log level) and for replication. But I agree that file based config is more convenient for boot strapping.
- amaccuish 8y agoConfiguration can be find in the DIT, Active Directory does it quite well. But you're right, even say with Active Directory, certain key knobs are outside of the DIT. The problem I had with OpenLDAP was that if you fucked up, and it wouldn't start, how are you supposed to be able to fix it if the config requires the service to be running. It wasn't very well thought through...
- reqa 8y agoThis is on the road map to 2.5, as stated e.g. in https://lwn.net/Articles/755207/ https://lwn.net/Articles/755207/