5 ms·

While for a laptop many of those problems he describes are non issues. I.e. configuration via LDAP doesn't happen on a laptop. That said: Integration with encr

While for a laptop many of those problems he describes are non issues. I.e. configuration via LDAP doesn't happen on a laptop. That said: Integration with encryption and so on is definitely good. So maybe this goes too far in some direction, but too little I. The other?

db48x 7y ago
Millions of laptops are configured via LDAP and Active Directory every day.
- jacquesm 7y ago
  Windows laptops.
  - diffeomorphism 7y ago
    Which is exactly the point. Enterprise deploys windows machines because there are established tools and mechanisms to manage them. If you want more deployments of linux laptops, you need ...(see the first few slides).
    - jacquesm 7y ago
      Google managed to do what RedHat failed at: to distribute Linux en masse for device usage. They also replaced the whole userland with either Android or ChromeOS, and they managed to do all that without breaking Linux for the rest of us. If RedHat wanted to they could simply rename it RhOS or something like that and leave the rest of Linux alone. Now we are getting this false-flag enterprise borne push to replace all of the Linux userland with something that I could have very much done without all in an attempt to let RedHat try once more to go for that elusive enterprise desktop market that they have so far failed to attract.
      - db48x 7y ago
        There's a reason they call it "Redhat Enterprise Linux" and not just "Linux", and there's no reason you have to use it. Besides, any complaint about LDAP is a red herring here: he mentioned LDAP not because he wants to force you to use it, but because of the way people sometimes use LDAP to allocate UIDs across many systems. He wants to entirely eliminate the need for that allocation to happen, whether you use LDAP or not.
        jacquesm 7y ago
        If RedHat would keep their code to themselves that would be great news. Unfortunately everybody and their brother can't stop themselves from tripping over their own feet to adopt whatever RH cooks up. Mind you, I'm all for less fragmentation in the Linux space, I'm just not for having that dictated by the likes of RH just because of their tendency to optimize for their own intended use cases and their never ending dreams of being allowed to play on the enterprise desktop.
        db48x 7y ago
        Redhat certainly didn't force systemd on anybody. People liked it enough that they started using it in their distros too.
        jraph 7y ago
        I don't use a Red Hat distribution, but I am pretty happy that their technology is used on the distributions I use. Maybe they are optimizing things for their own use cases, but they definitely work for me. And this presentation on this new management of home directories sounds like good news for me. Problems I have noticed are being solved now. Frankly, thanks to Red Hat for making my laptop and my servers work. I have a sound management that works and is nice to use, an init system that I can understand and use (just a few lines to write in a file to add a custom service) and makes my computers boot fast, a log that is readable, network management that is dead simple to use (and that can easily be disabled to restore the former behavior), a network discovery service that just works and makes printing (among other things) easier and probably other things. Those things are not perfect but nothing is. So how do we do? There will always be some people happy with some change and other, not happy with it.
lorenzhs 7y ago
Enterprise-managed laptops need this just as much as my personal machine, they are woefully underserved by current user management.
- jacquesm 7y ago
  Enterprise managed laptops typically run Windows or OS/X. I haven't seen a Linux laptop in the wild at the enterprise level for years. Which companies use those?
  - diffeomorphism 7y ago
    > Enterprise managed laptops typically run Windows or OS/X. I haven't seen a Linux laptop in the wild at the enterprise level for years. Chicken-egg. If you don't have appropriate management features (like the ones introduced here), then you don't get enterprise deployments.
    - jacquesm 7y ago
      That's RedHat's wishful thinking at work. Linux on the desktop is called 'Chromebooks', not 'RedHat'. They missed that boat by a couple of years and it is not coming back.
      - diffeomorphism 7y ago
        So which is it? - This is going to be so awesome that "everybody and their brother can't stop themselves from tripping over their own feet to adopt". or - Wishful thinking, doesn't matter.
        jacquesm 7y ago
        Package managers and distro maintainers are not typically the end-users I have in mind. But if you can't see these groups as different then that's fine, but lets just leave it at that I, an end user was forced to adopt a set of system changes that I had no influence over because of RedHat's continued aspiration to put 'Linux on the desktop' when that had in fact happened ages ago. That you feel that adoption only happens because something is 'so awesome' is putting the horse behind the cart, stuff gets adopted all the time when better alternatives are available, all it takes is enough clout behind the push and it's a done deal. If technical merits were the deciding factor DR-Dos and OS/2 would still be around today instead of their lesser alternatives.

db48x 7y ago

Millions of laptops are configured via LDAP and Active Directory every day.

jacquesm 7y ago
Windows laptops.
- diffeomorphism 7y ago
  Which is exactly the point. Enterprise deploys windows machines because there are established tools and mechanisms to manage them. If you want more deployments of linux laptops, you need ...(see the first few slides).
  - jacquesm 7y ago
    Google managed to do what RedHat failed at: to distribute Linux en masse for device usage. They also replaced the whole userland with either Android or ChromeOS, and they managed to do all that without breaking Linux for the rest of us. If RedHat wanted to they could simply rename it RhOS or something like that and leave the rest of Linux alone. Now we are getting this false-flag enterprise borne push to replace all of the Linux userland with something that I could have very much done without all in an attempt to let RedHat try once more to go for that elusive enterprise desktop market that they have so far failed to attract.
    - db48x 7y ago
      There's a reason they call it "Redhat Enterprise Linux" and not just "Linux", and there's no reason you have to use it. Besides, any complaint about LDAP is a red herring here: he mentioned LDAP not because he wants to force you to use it, but because of the way people sometimes use LDAP to allocate UIDs across many systems. He wants to entirely eliminate the need for that allocation to happen, whether you use LDAP or not.
      - jacquesm 7y ago
        If RedHat would keep their code to themselves that would be great news. Unfortunately everybody and their brother can't stop themselves from tripping over their own feet to adopt whatever RH cooks up. Mind you, I'm all for less fragmentation in the Linux space, I'm just not for having that dictated by the likes of RH just because of their tendency to optimize for their own intended use cases and their never ending dreams of being allowed to play on the enterprise desktop.
        db48x 7y ago
        Redhat certainly didn't force systemd on anybody. People liked it enough that they started using it in their distros too.
        jraph 7y ago
        I don't use a Red Hat distribution, but I am pretty happy that their technology is used on the distributions I use. Maybe they are optimizing things for their own use cases, but they definitely work for me. And this presentation on this new management of home directories sounds like good news for me. Problems I have noticed are being solved now. Frankly, thanks to Red Hat for making my laptop and my servers work. I have a sound management that works and is nice to use, an init system that I can understand and use (just a few lines to write in a file to add a custom service) and makes my computers boot fast, a log that is readable, network management that is dead simple to use (and that can easily be disabled to restore the former behavior), a network discovery service that just works and makes printing (among other things) easier and probably other things. Those things are not perfect but nothing is. So how do we do? There will always be some people happy with some change and other, not happy with it.

lorenzhs 7y ago

Enterprise-managed laptops need this just as much as my personal machine, they are woefully underserved by current user management.

jacquesm 7y ago
Enterprise managed laptops typically run Windows or OS/X. I haven't seen a Linux laptop in the wild at the enterprise level for years. Which companies use those?
- diffeomorphism 7y ago
  > Enterprise managed laptops typically run Windows or OS/X. I haven't seen a Linux laptop in the wild at the enterprise level for years. Chicken-egg. If you don't have appropriate management features (like the ones introduced here), then you don't get enterprise deployments.
  - jacquesm 7y ago
    That's RedHat's wishful thinking at work. Linux on the desktop is called 'Chromebooks', not 'RedHat'. They missed that boat by a couple of years and it is not coming back.
    - diffeomorphism 7y ago
      So which is it? - This is going to be so awesome that "everybody and their brother can't stop themselves from tripping over their own feet to adopt". or - Wishful thinking, doesn't matter.
      - jacquesm 7y ago
        Package managers and distro maintainers are not typically the end-users I have in mind. But if you can't see these groups as different then that's fine, but lets just leave it at that I, an end user was forced to adopt a set of system changes that I had no influence over because of RedHat's continued aspiration to put 'Linux on the desktop' when that had in fact happened ages ago. That you feel that adoption only happens because something is 'so awesome' is putting the horse behind the cart, stuff gets adopted all the time when better alternatives are available, all it takes is enough clout behind the push and it's a done deal. If technical merits were the deciding factor DR-Dos and OS/2 would still be around today instead of their lesser alternatives.