--- "Greg A. Woods" <woods@weird.com> wrote:
> [ On Sunday, September 22, 2002 at 19:22:50 (-0400),
> Gary Thorpe wrote: ]
> > Subject: Re: PAM
> >
> > What about systems that CANNOT be rebooted every
> time
> > you want to add capabilities? Reconfigure and
> > reboot...sounds like Windows, not UNIX (at least
> not
> > modern UNIX).
> 
> I'm sorry, but that's so bogus it barely deserves an
> answer.
> 
> If you can't plan for scheduled _and_ unscheduled
> downtime of your
> systems then you've got way larger problems than PAM
> can ever solve!
> 
> Changing authentication schemes is not something you
> should be ever
> allowed to do lightly and without very deep
> consideration and planning.
> 
> Besides, who the heck said you have to reboot just
> to re-install some
> simple static-linked software.  "Sounds more like
> Windows to me!"
> 
> It's not even impossible to consider restarting
> 'init' from a new
> executable in a high availability scenario!  Just
> signal it to save its
> state and re-exec!  Why would you even dream that a
> reboot would be
> needed on a unix system to change static-linked
> software!?!?!?
> 
> -- 
> 								Greg A. Woods
> 
> +1 416 218-0098;            <g.a.woods@ieee.org>;   
>        <woods@robohack.ca>
> Planix, Inc. <woods@planix.com>; VE3TCP; Secrets of
> the Weird <woods@weird.com>

You're right, I was thinking more of kernel modules
(which are even more EviL and BaD). Regardless, PAM is
easier: build/download new modules, copy new modules
to a directory. No recompile, no restarting. Which is
less time-consuming?


______________________________________________________________________ 
Post your free ad now! http://personals.yahoo.ca