Man. Redhat-DS got like 500 million settings. LOL<br><br>I am going to go with redhat-ds or centos-ds<br><br>Thanks,<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Tue, Apr 7, 2009 at 11:31 AM, Scott McBrien <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:smcbrien@gmail.com">smcbrien@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;"><br>
<br>
On Apr 7, 2009, at 11:17 AM, Brandon Colbert<br>
<div class="im"><<a href="mailto:colbert.brandon@gmail.com">colbert.brandon@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br>
<br>
</div><div><div></div><div class="h5">> All,<br>
><br>
> I been tasked to setup a fail-over ldap solution at work. We have<br>
> one running openldap. I wanted to get everyone opinion on the<br>
> difference between OpenLDAP, CentOS-DS, Fedora-DS, and Redhat-DS.<br>
><br>
> If you had your choice, which one will you use?<br>
><br>
><br>
> FYI: In the near future we will tie samba and radius with ldap.<br>
<br>
</div></div>Do you want support? Red Hat DS<br>
Do you want the stability of RH DS, but no support? CentOS DS, it's<br>
built from the Red Hat sources like the distro.<br>
Do you want no support, no cost, and the latest and greatest<br>
improvements? Fedora DS, it's the upstream for RH DS, and therefore<br>
also CentOS DS.<br>
<br>
I know a guy on IRC (freenode #rhel) who is using samba + freeradius<br>
for a fairly sizable deployment. If no one else gives you some<br>
pointers, you might ask him about it. His nick is rigeld2.<br>
<font color="#888888"><br>
-Scott<br>
</font><div><div></div><div class="h5">_______________________________________________<br>
Ale mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Ale@ale.org">Ale@ale.org</a><br>
<a href="http://mail.ale.org/mailman/listinfo/ale" target="_blank">http://mail.ale.org/mailman/listinfo/ale</a><br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br>