[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: PAM in lsb?

Joseph Malicki wrote:
> On Fri, 28 May 1999, Stuart Anderson wrote:
> > On Fri, 28 May 1999, Burchard Steinbild wrote:
> >
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > >
> > > what do you think about PAM?  Should this be part of an LSB system?
> >
> > Is it's functionallity hidden behind an existing API?
> >
> > Are any apps using a PAM specific API?
> >
> > If the anwers are Yes, No, then I'd be inclined to not specify it.

PAM is definitly the right way to go as it offers an 
authentication API to applications independent of the
actual authentication methods in effect on a system.

It offers advantages to the application writer because
he/she now doesn't have to support plain-passwords/shadow-
passwords/NIS/whatever but can just implement PAM. Even
if new authentication methods come along the application
can remain as is.

It offers advantages to the system administrator because
he/she can now make changes to the authentication methods
without needing to recompile each and every application
which needs authentication. Something which is simply 
impossible if one of these applications is a closed source
commercial application. 

In my opinion PAM is The Right Way to go and I would very
much like to see it included in the lsb.

Waldo Bastian
KDE Core Developer
KDE, Making The Future of Computing Available Today     http://www.kde.org

Reply to: