Ubuntu Domain Server

[Christopher Chan]

Derek Broughton wrote:
> Dotan Cohen wrote:
>
>   
>>>> My arguments are against making a dangerous tool accessible to the
>>>> masses. Assessible in this context meaning "seemingly designed for".
>>>>         
>>> I understand that - but the problem is the dangerous tool IS already
>>> accessible to the masses.  They can set up completely bollixed servers
>>> with MS tools.  So arguing that Ubuntu shouldn't even consider creating a
>>> better, more secure, solution isn't going to help.
>>>
>>>       
>> Just because one circle of money-greedy idiots is willing to sacrifice
>> their customer's security, reputation, and business does not mean that
>> Ubuntu has to do the same.
>>     
>
> That's what we're suggesting - that Ubuntu don't do the same.  Really, it's 
> insulting to tell someone with an idea that he can't do it because it can't 
> be done.
>
>   

No, that is not what we are suggesting. Not with that uber list of 
capabilities outlined in the beginning.

>> The problem is that most business will use the tool to _replace_
>> proper IT professionals, not to supplement them. 
>>     
>
> Duh.  That's what I've been saying all along.  So we desperately need tools 
> that can limit the hazards.
>   

Which translates to limited functionality tools that enable a 'share 
folder' with share level security only or simple predefined configurations.