Comments on: LDAP vs. DBMS (or migrating to fedora directory server) http://www.bytebot.net/blog/archives/2008/02/18/ldap-vs-dbms-or-migrating-to-fedora-directory-server A permanent record for what's interesting today - this is my live journal Wed, 10 Mar 2010 10:35:48 -0500 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: Gavin Henry http://www.bytebot.net/blog/archives/2008/02/18/ldap-vs-dbms-or-migrating-to-fedora-directory-server/comment-page-1#comment-138917 Gavin Henry Tue, 06 Oct 2009 05:19:02 +0000 http://www.bytebot.net/blog/archives/2008/02/18/ldap-vs-dbms-or-migrating-to-fedora-directory-server#comment-138917 @James: Yeah, totally agree.<br><br>Shame they won't even use their own software:<br><br><a href="http://blog.suretecsystems.com/archives/87-Fedora-Directory-Server-not-good-enough-for-Red-Hat.html" rel="nofollow">http://blog.suretecsystems.com/archives/87-Fedo...</a> @James: Yeah, totally agree.

Shame they won't even use their own software:

http://blog.suretecsystems.com/archives/87-Fedo...

]]> By: Gavin Henry http://www.bytebot.net/blog/archives/2008/02/18/ldap-vs-dbms-or-migrating-to-fedora-directory-server/comment-page-1#comment-131820 Gavin Henry Tue, 19 Feb 2008 10:56:58 +0000 http://www.bytebot.net/blog/archives/2008/02/18/ldap-vs-dbms-or-migrating-to-fedora-directory-server#comment-131820 @James: Yeah, totally agree. Shame they won't even use their own software: http://blog.suretecsystems.com/archives/87-Fedora-Directory-Server-not-good-enough-for-Red-Hat.html @James: Yeah, totally agree.

Shame they won’t even use their own software:

http://blog.suretecsystems.com/archives/87-Fedora-Directory-Server-not-good-enough-for-Red-Hat.html

]]> By: James http://www.bytebot.net/blog/archives/2008/02/18/ldap-vs-dbms-or-migrating-to-fedora-directory-server/comment-page-1#comment-131809 James Mon, 18 Feb 2008 22:59:48 +0000 http://www.bytebot.net/blog/archives/2008/02/18/ldap-vs-dbms-or-migrating-to-fedora-directory-server#comment-131809 It's a pity it's got some inaccuracies about OpenLDAP. Let's see - it does multimaster in 2.4, has done schema replication since 2.3 (as part of in-directory config replication - FDS doesn't do that). And there's no mention of <a href="http://www.connexitor.com/blog/pivot/entry.php?id=130" rel="nofollow">benchmarks</a>. Admittedly I'm in the camp that can't understand why RH bought NDS instead of contributing to OpenLDAP - sure, I've got nostalgia for the Netscape server products, but that doesn't make them good code. It’s a pity it’s got some inaccuracies about OpenLDAP. Let’s see – it does multimaster in 2.4, has done schema replication since 2.3 (as part of in-directory config replication – FDS doesn’t do that). And there’s no mention of benchmarks. Admittedly I’m in the camp that can’t understand why RH bought NDS instead of contributing to OpenLDAP – sure, I’ve got nostalgia for the Netscape server products, but that doesn’t make them good code.

]]>