[Gllug] More Microsoft FUD

[Richard Hillesley]

>
> Actually, I have to agree with MS about that - Linux support for Kerberos
> is woeful. MS Kerberos is also better than the 'standard', and I wish that
> they had submitted their extension as a real extension rather than just
> proprietizing it. RedHat comes pretty close to decent Kerberos support, but
> setting up a Linux Kerberos domain is _damn_ _tough_.
 
Surely, the whole point is that they have proprietised their "extensions" to 
Kerberos, therefore preventing interoperability.  Being "better than the 
standard" means "not following standards". We can all see nice ways to subtly 
improve the standards, but the point of standard protocols is that they are 
open, and that they are the same for everyone. Otherwise, no talk ...  

Which is what they intended anyway.

>
> > By contrast, all OS and security patches are
> > immediately posted to the Microsoft Website-much better than Linux-,
> > which would require having to get the fixes from any number of vendors
> > who are providing the various pieces of a Linux deployment".
>
> Again, they have something of a point if you roll your own. However - this
> is a far weaker argument than their previous one, since most people get
> their 'Linux' from one vendor (RedHat, SuSE) and only need to go to one
> place. Generally, people get their apps from the same vendor too, so in
> some ways the Linux way is better than the MS way.
>

I can't remember MS security patches being "immediately posted" to their 
website. This is something that the Linux vendors do much better.

Best,
Richard

-- 
Gllug mailing list  -  Gllug at linux.co.uk
http://list.ftech.net/mailman/listinfo/gllug