Re: Object Class Violation

El mar, 02-08-2005 a las 16:22 -0700, Neil Schneider escribi=C3=B3:
> Mike Jackson said:
> > Neil Schneider wrote:
> >
> >>
> >>>Thus you intend to move the responsibility of deciding which object
> >>>class to go in an object to the user, when DA is actually in a much
> >>>better position to determine the optimum array of needed object
> >>>classes.
> >>
> >>
> >> No offense, but this sounds arrogant to me. To my ear this sounds
> >> like
> >> the software is smarter than the administrator at determining what
> >> objectclasses are required. Granted, this is often the case, however
> >> the assumption is flawed.
> >
> > Take a look at the user interface and theme. DA is not intended for an
> > LDAP guru. It's target audience is for mostly clueless help-desk
> > personnel. Now, we can certainly discuss changing the target audience.
> > But we also have to imagine how much the support load will increase if
> > we create a complicated tool, and clueless people are trying to use
> > it...
>=20
> I understand that, and that's precisely why I was investigating it. I
> make my living as a consultant. After I get the system set up I often
> need to leave the day-to-day administrator with a tool that lets them
> do simple things themselves. That's precisely why I was looking at
> diradmin.

Maybe you could divert some funding to the improvement of DA =3D)

(okay, that was half joke, half serious.  For a time I supported some of
my treats with DA development.)

>=20
> I just want everything. :-)
> A simple, easy to use interface and a flexible configuration that
> allows me to change the "template" for whatever cusom requirements I
> have.
>=20
> > BTW, for the OL fanboys on the list: This is not any more arrogant
> > than
> > OL all of the sudden deciding to enforce structural integrity in the
> > 2.2-> series, with no method of disabling it. Something which no
> > commercial LDAPv3 server does, btw. OL is the only one, in the entire
> > world...
>=20
> I'm not a fan, one way or the other, but OL is the standard
> open-source ldap implimentation, like it or not.
>=20
> > For the record, I am not a big OL fan. And the current DA works
> > perfectly with RedHat DS/Netscape DS/Sun One DS/Fedora DS... I just
> > made
> > a test adding groups and users, against RedHat DS on RHEL4.
>=20
> How does it work with AD? :-) Fedora is OL, btw. That's precisely what
> I was setting up. Probably works perfectly if you don't change from
> their default configuration and just start adding users, groups, etc.
>=20
--=20
                Rudd-O          <[email protected]>
                http://www.amautacorp.com/staff/Rudd-O/