On Sun, Mar 28, 2004 at 12:03:10AM +0200, Noam Meltzer wrote: > Oded Arbel wrote: > > >On Friday 26 March 2004 20:29, Noam Meltzer wrote: > > > > > >>2. AFS looks very secure by basic design, but it's too much for my > >>network. I won't go the specific details here, but security costs in > >>comfortability. AFS design is for networks that are not residing on the > >>same phsycial location, and is not comfortable for users. > >> > >> > > > >I don't understand why you say its not comfortable to users. once the > >system is set up, users shouldn't be required to do anything except access > >the correct files paths. > > > > > As I understood from the AFS faq, users need to login to the local > machine, and then they need to login to the AFS, get a "ticket" for > their current session, and then they're process (and its childs) will > have permissions to the AFS. This is not automatic?
It can be done automatically, via having the login process go through an AFS pam module. This breaks horribly when you aren't connected to the network, i.e. laptops. > what will happen in > crons? for crons there's a special command to edit crons for AFS. There's also a perl AFS API, but I haven't been quite desperate enough to use it yet. Cheers, Muli -- Muli Ben-Yehuda http://www.mulix.org | http://mulix.livejournal.com/
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
