> > > AD is solid, scalable, and well supported. There *are* some gotchas if > > > you are looking for 100% LDAP compatibility, but for authc/authz (login, > > > groups, etc.) nothing else performs quite as well. (I do hope that Open > > > LDAP catches up!) > > What is the advantage of going ldap against AD vs. using kerberos ? > OpenLDAP/kerberos works swimmingly on Linux and Mac, and has > cheap failover options; I've not gotten a non-AD LDAP/kerberos > type system working to auth windows clients, so I guess the advantage > of AD is that you can use it on windows clients as well as Linux > clients.
Yep, if you have Windows, and want a domain, you need AD. Windows does not support Kerberos or LDAP [not in any real-world usable way]. -- OpenGroupware developer: [email protected] <http://whitemiceconsulting.blogspot.com/> OpenGroupare & Cyrus IMAPd documenation @ <http://docs.opengroupware.org/Members/whitemice/wmogag/file_view> _______________________________________________ Tech mailing list [email protected] http://lopsa.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tech This list provided by the League of Professional System Administrators http://lopsa.org/
