On Wed, 1 Oct 2003, Bill Anderson wrote:
Sure, because we all know that all of us enthusiasts and hobbyists have fifty-machine networks in our homes that we are running these things on.
My home network is 8 boxes, and I use them there. Things like centralized address books are nice even on smaller networks.
I'd say Kerberos is a lot less prevalent than one would expect from reading what happens when someone suggest we not make everything depend on it. I've been an admin at HP, overseeing thousands and thousands of HPUX and Linux machines. No Kerberos whatsoever. In fact, of the dozens of companies, dozens of no-profs, and hundreds of people I've been involved with on a Linux level, not a single one of them is using Kerberos, or has any positive response in favor of doing that.
Just because you don't encounter it in your experience doesn't mean its not widely used. As a counter-example, every organization I've ever worked for in the past decade now uses Kerberos to some extent. Heck, even my bank uses Kerberos (though they had to get MS to supply a custom build of 2000 for the AD realm once they got cross-realm authentication with their Unix realm going ;-)
The bottom line, at least for me, is that removing it would inconvenience a lot of users who either now use it or might use it in the future, for very little gain
later, chris