Change Password Utility

If it will be useful to anyone else (i.e. >= 2 people), I'm all for adding it.

 Also, the LDAP plugin seems to be stabilizing in terms of the necessary
features and the number of bugs being reported. I'm starting to think about
what plugin should be implemented next. I had started working on flat file
support, however I think this may be redundant. The list of possible plugins
for a backend are:

  NIS/NIS+
  SQL (highly dependant on SQL schema and SQL server)
  Flatfile (OS dependant)
  Radius (slightly dependant on radius implementation)
  NTLM

There are obviously others, but these are the few that came to mind. The goal
with each module implementation would be that in addition to the
user{add,mod,del}, group{add,mod,del}, cat features, one can import users from
one backend and import them into another as can be done from flatfile to LDAP
currently. What do people think?

-Blake

Whatchu talkin' 'bout, Willis?
> Hello!
> 
> May it be possible to implement that accounts, whose names do not
> conform to posix, get their own uid-space? e.g. 1000-10000 for normal
> users and 10001-20000 for users, like e.g. tigris$? 
> Would it be worth it?
> 
> Just an Idea ... what do you think?
> 
> -- 
> bye
>   Lukas
> 
> 
> 
> -------------------------------------------------------
> This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek
> Welcome to geek heaven.
> http://thinkgeek.com/sf
> _______________________________________________
> Cpu-users mailing list
> Cpu-users@...
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/cpu-users

-- 
Blake Matheny           "... one of the main causes of the fall of the
bmatheny@...      Roman Empire was that, lacking zero, they had
http://www.mkfifo.net    no way to indicate successful termination of
http://ovmj.org/GNUnet/  their C programs." --Robert Firth

Am Sa, 2003-09-20 um 21.53 schrieb Blake Matheny:
> If it will be useful to anyone else (i.e. >= 2 people), I'm all for adding it.

That was my intention, to open a 'discussion'. For me at least, it would
be particularily useful to seperate Samba-Users from System-Users. But,
otherwise, it would also be possible to just use two different
configfiles for this job.


>   NIS/NIS+
>   SQL (highly dependant on SQL schema and SQL server)
>   Flatfile (OS dependant)
>   Radius (slightly dependant on radius implementation)
>   NTLM

I think it would really make cpu to a swiss army knife for user
administration. it would be possible to, e.g., take the whole userbase
when converting from Windows-based networking to Unix-based-networking. 
I would then suggest to start with NTLM, though I have no idea how this
all works ... and my coding-skills are not very high. But I would like
to help where possible :)

> -Blake
> 

-- 
bye
  Lukas

On Sat, 2003-09-20 at 21:53, Blake Matheny wrote:
> If it will be useful to anyone else (i.e. >= 2 people), I'm all for adding it.
> 
>  Also, the LDAP plugin seems to be stabilizing in terms of the necessary
> features and the number of bugs being reported. I'm starting to think about
> what plugin should be implemented next. I had started working on flat file
> support, however I think this may be redundant. The list of possible plugins
> for a backend are:
> 
>   NIS/NIS+
>   SQL (highly dependant on SQL schema and SQL server)
>   Flatfile (OS dependant)
>   Radius (slightly dependant on radius implementation)
>   NTLM

Does CPU work with samba [2|3] ldapentries now? 

For me at least that would be the best place to start. I.e. continue
where CPU is best :-)

As to NTLM I think that is very hard, but ask the samba folks, they
might give some nice hints.

Tarjei
> 
> There are obviously others, but these are the few that came to mind. The goal
> with each module implementation would be that in addition to the
> user{add,mod,del}, group{add,mod,del}, cat features, one can import users from
> one backend and import them into another as can be done from flatfile to LDAP
> currently. What do people think?
> 
> -Blake
> 
> Whatchu talkin' 'bout, Willis?
> > Hello!
> > 
> > May it be possible to implement that accounts, whose names do not
> > conform to posix, get their own uid-space? e.g. 1000-10000 for normal
> > users and 10001-20000 for users, like e.g. tigris$? 
> > Would it be worth it?
> > 
> > Just an Idea ... what do you think?
> > 
> > -- 
> > bye
> >   Lukas
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > -------------------------------------------------------
> > This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek
> > Welcome to geek heaven.
> > http://thinkgeek.com/sf
> > _______________________________________________
> > Cpu-users mailing list
> > Cpu-users@...
> > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/cpu-users