[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       gnome-devel-list
Subject:    Re: GDM and alternate authentication methods
From:       "Brandon S. Allbery KF8NH" <allbery () ece ! cmu ! edu>
Date:       2001-05-31 19:04:55
Message-ID: 74310000.991335895 () vpn97 ! ece ! cmu ! edu
[Download RAW message or body]

On Thursday, May 31, 2001 11:48:30 -0700, Alan <alan@ufies.org> wrote:
+-----
| Maybe I didn't read/understand your original post, and probably should
| have either responded to the original authors post, or stuck a big
| [offtopic] in the subject, and for that I appologize, however before
| blasting *me* for being  a redhat bigot, please ensure that you're
| understand what I was trying to get  across :)
+--->8

Now that my point is guaranteed to be buried under irrelevancies so that 
the hail-Linux status quo can be maintained:

No, I didn't intend to attack you.  I just get REALLY REALLY FRUSTRATED 
when a project that *used* to pride itself on its portability to so many 
systems takes the attitude that "it works on Linux, that's good enough".  I 
inferred Red Hat from the fact that I pointed out that Kerberos and AFS 
support in PAM is iffy *even on Linux* and it was completely ignored --- 
after all, it "works fine" in Red Hat 7 if you only care about Red Hat's 
Kerberos 5 support... (and I've been following the Kerberos situation in 
Debian and it's slightly better but AFAIK {kth-krb,MIT 
krb5,heimdal}+{OpenAFS,Arla} via PAM is still difficult to get right in all 
cases).

-- 
brandon s. allbery     [os/2][linux][solaris][japh]   allbery@kf8nh.apk.net
system administrator        [WAY too many hats]         allbery@ece.cmu.edu
electrical and computer engineering                                   KF8NH
carnegie mellon university     ["better check the oblivious first" -ke6sls]



[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]