3 ms·
> Active Directory. Running Windows Server for the purposes of just AD is ridiculous IMO. > I wanted to hang myself with just about every option except AD. I
by stephenr 8y ago
> Active Directory.
Running Windows Server for the purposes of just AD is ridiculous IMO.
> I wanted to hang myself with just about every option except AD.
I've worked with (then) Novell eDir, OpenLDAP and a little with AD. I found OpenLDAP to be by far the nicest to use.
The moral of this story is: anecdotal evidence is anecdotal.
> Fortunately, I think we are in or near a post-LDAP world.
That's not a good thing.
- Samon 8y agoSAMBA 4 AD is a valid alternative if your requirements are relatively simple. You still need a third party product (or build one) to provide a web interface if you need that.
- stephenr 8y agoBut OP doesn't need AD semantics: he wants centralised auth for a bunch of apps hosted on linux. This is ridiculously simple with OpenLDAP. The only part that's 'missing' is a self-service web UI.
- runjake 8y ago> Running Windows Server for the purposes of just AD is ridiculous IMO. I disagree. The pain of running Windows Server is outweighed by the excellence, stability, effortless scalability, and programmability of AD. > I found OpenLDAP to be by far the nicest to use. I've implemented all the same (and others such as Netscape/Sun Directory Server). I strongly disagree. Hell, I even come from a UNIX/C background. > The moral of this story is: anecdotal evidence is anecdotal. Pot. Kettle. > That's not a good thing. I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree across the board, then. Although I am well used to it now, I find LDAP programming is obtuse and thoroughly not a good setup for modern networks and APIs. There are much better, more naturally scalable ways to do things. Lightweight Directory Access Protocol is anything but lightweight.
- stephenr 8y ago> Pot. Kettle. That was my point. You have one view I have another.