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