On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 12:15 PM, Pat Barron <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:pat@lectroid.com" target="_blank">pat@lectroid.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
Following up a bit on a discussion that took place at the GUM on Saturday...<br>I went looking yesterday for a different LDAP server that was easier<br>
than OpenLDAP and/or ApacheDS to set up and configure.</blockquote><div><br></div><div>Never tried 389?</div><div>How about "canned" IPA (389, Kerberos, Dogtag, DNS, NTP, etc...)?</div><div><br></div><div>I can understand if you'd want to avoid the latter, given its more "fixed" schema just like most AD admins treat theirs, but just curious why 389 wasn't mentioned? Especially given ...</div>
<div><br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">I did get it working under OpenJDK on Fedora 18<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>You're running Fedora. 389 is built-in. ;)</div>
<div><br></div><div>It's the upstream for some of the biggest LDAP deployments in major enterprises, government ... heck, military.</div><div><br></div><div>--</div></div>Bryan J Smith - Professional, Technical Annoyance<br>
b.j.smith at <a href="http://ieee.org" target="_blank">ieee.org</a> - <a href="http://www.linkedin.com/in/bjsmith" target="_blank">http://www.linkedin.com/in/bjsmith</a><br><br>