Mailing-List: contact users-help@directory.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: users@directory.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: domain of elecharny@gmail.com
 designates 66.249.92.169 as permitted sender)
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws;
        d=gmail.com; s=gamma;
        h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding;
        b=d2r0lX5V/U1K6C7jBeooi9kWZ1vgXwO8t8oYiTxnz8Q2EH1PvwsPVXKJ8dqCO+cgzl4xrhK/386ZVBaNQ08z6yuCfWLuglKYmtjdzDfORCF7fgILbqDlT3G92h8qTRKICsMLUPgoU5qHFHby2DtNliZwV3cHUopBJctw849CKb8=
Message-ID: <47974284.2020601@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2008 14:35:00 +0100
From: Emmanuel Lecharny <elecharny@gmail.com>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.14pre (X11/20071023)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: users@directory.apache.org
Subject: Re: [Feedback needed] ADS pros and cons  ?
References: <47824C87.8030909@gmail.com> <fn6vrs$9lt$1@ger.gmane.org>
 <47970BF8.2030700@tranquil-it-systems.fr> <47971E3C.1050801@gmail.com>
 <47973ABB.90301@tranquil-it-systems.fr>
In-Reply-To: <47973ABB.90301@tranquil-it-systems.fr>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

Hi Denis !


> My fault, I have only been looking at the ldap part of apache 
> directory... 
No problem at all ! At least, it demonstrates that we need to improve a 
lot the documentation :)

> I defininitly shall try the kerberos/dns/dhcp part of ApacheDS. 
> Currently I'm using heimdal, bind and isc dhcp server on ldap backend 
> (openldap), and looking for better solution, that's why I'm following 
> this list. I didn't realized I could already get all of it bundled in 
> ApacheDS! I'll try to accomodate for a few hours to roll out a test 
> bench.
Don't blame me if you have problems while doing such an experiment ;) 
This is a very early bird, and it needs a lot of work to be able to use 
it smoothly... Any feedback will help, of course !
>
>> And when it comes to LDAP server compliance, please just read this : 
>> http://www.symas.com/documents/Adam-Eval1-0.pdf
>>
>> So we think that ADS could stands for an active directory 
>> replacement. Even if you just need the ldap part.
>
> Sorry I think I misrepresented my point. I don't claim that ActiveDS 
> is a good, bad or better LDAP server. I just wanted to point out that 
> ActiveDS is not just an ldap server. 
I dodn't want to say that AD is a bad piece of techno either. I just 
wanted to point to this very interesting paper written by our friends at 
OpenLdap (which is a really good LDAP server btw!)

Anyway, replacing AD by another LDAP server is not that easy, if you 
consider that AD is a major element of the Window$(tm) system.
> The fact that it is much more than an ldap server makes it one of the 
> most difficult part of proprietary stuff to get out of a IT 
> infrastructure... What a pain !
indeed :)


Thanks Denis !


-- 
--
cordialement, regards,
Emmanuel L�charny
www.iktek.com
directory.apache.org