Bug 26546 - pls add feature: authentication NT Domain
Summary: pls add feature: authentication NT Domain
Status: CLOSED DUPLICATE of bug 26545
Alias: None
Product: Red Hat Linux
Classification: Retired
Component: samba
Version: 7.1
Hardware: i386
OS: Linux
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Trond Eivind Glomsrxd
QA Contact: David Lawrence
Keywords: FutureFeature
Depends On:
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
Reported: 2001-02-07 22:06 UTC by stephan schutter
Modified: 2007-04-18 16:31 UTC (History)
0 users

Clone Of:
Last Closed: 2001-02-07 22:06:03 UTC

Attachments (Terms of Use)

Description stephan schutter 2001-02-07 22:06:00 UTC
From Bugzilla Helper:
User-Agent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 5.01; Windows NT 5.0; MSN 6.0)

A neat feature during RH 7.x setup is that you may choose method of 
authentication (NIS, LDAP (cool!), Hesiod (????).

Reproducible: Always
Steps to Reproduce:
1.Just run RH setup on version greater than 6.2

Actual Results:  You may choose method of authentication (NIS, LDAP 
(cool!), Hesiod (????).

Expected Results:  NT 4.0 Domain authentication would be an extremely 
usefull choice, not to mention an Active Directory choice (LDAP really but 
slightly modified by MS).

Atleast 98% of all networks that I have seen so far use either NT Domain 
Authentication or Active Directory (60+ Small businesses in the Twin 
Citties Area, Rainier Tech., Anderen Windows, NSP, NRG, Target). In fact 
most of these organizations use NT or AD only. However, in light of 
Microsoft's recent Licensing and the fact that upgrades will now be forced 
every 4 years, since a new windows will hit the market every 24 months, 
and they only support n -1 versions, the cost of MS software is becoming 
prohibitive. This has caused several of these aforementioned organizations 
to take a closer look at OpenSource alternatives... Including mine. Now 
why not make it easy to include LINUX? Some of these organisations have 40 
000 or more users... Being able to use the existing authentication model 
is a significant leverage in to an organisation....

Comment 1 Bill Nottingham 2001-02-08 01:47:38 UTC

*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 26545 ***

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.