Brett @Google wrote:
Yes their extreme details are lacking, but at an introductory level,
explain things very well for newcomers that all the grizzled old timers could
not be bothered explaining. I think they should avoid the extreme detail
(which can change over time) and stick to general ldap principals. LDAP is a
odd beast, if you have not already been doing it for a decade or so.
So they provide some value. But perhaps not to grizzled old timers (present
company excluded of course).
It would be fine if their "value-added" content was correct. But in fact, the
only content that is correct is the material they plagiarized from the
OpenLDAP Admin Guide. Whenever they wander off into their own explanations of
how things work they're always far off the mark.
On Fri, May 23, 2014 at 2:01 AM, Quanah Gibson-Mount <quanah(a)zimbra.com
> On May 22, 2014, at 5:23 AM, Mike Jackson <mj(a)netauth.com
> Quoting Artur Nike <opalsie(a)gmail.com <mailto:email@example.com>>:
>> Hi all,
>> Is the suffix dc=example,dc=com in tree is a valid rdn ?
> A suffix is an RDN of it's own entry because it sits at the root and is
relative to itself. However, if your suffix was dc=com, and you created a
subentry called dc=example, then it's a different story. So, it just
depends on how you construct your suffix.
>> and whether the drawing
> All in all, everything I have seen in zytrax is high quality info
Then you must not read their LDAP bits very closely. They are quite often
dead wrong in what they have online and the best thing for everyone would
be for their site to go offline.
Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause
- Mark Twain
-- Howard Chu
CTO, Symas Corp. http://www.symas.com
Director, Highland Sun http://highlandsun.com/hyc/
Chief Architect, OpenLDAP http://www.openldap.org/project/