> >> ... Why would we reject a piece of useful functionality based on a
> >> published standard?
> >
> > Well, size and maintainability of the proposed patch are certainly
> > factors in any such decision. As a closely related example, I bet
> > we'd have rejected the original Kerberos-support patch if
> we'd known
> > then what we know now. It's been a constant source of bugs
> ever since
> > it went in, and with so few users of the feature, it takes
> a long time
> > to find the problems.
>
> To be honest, I have often wondered *why* we support kerberos
> outside of the uber l33t geek factor. I have not once in a
> commercial deployment had a business requirement for the
> beast. LDAP? Now that is a whole other issue :)
Single sign-on in a Windows/AD environment (I'm talking clients on
windows, servers on linux here - at least in my case). I know several
people who use it, most just don't post here ;-)
Now, it would likely be a lot *easier* to do this with GSSAPI than the
pure kerberos stuff we have now, given that the Windows native APIs
support GSSAPI compatible stuff, but not the stuff we have now.
//Magnus