Re: general question : why keeping it so hard ?

[Dan Shriver <dshriver@sharemedia.com>]

> > You all know what I'm talking about : Schema.
> Ummm, the schema is not tough to understand. Its the
documentation that
> sucks, but I still haven't been able to figure out better
> documentation, so I guess I can't complain.

I agree completely.  I can't bash those who documented openLDAP
(or for that matter the commercial implementations like Netscape
which seem better documented (no surprise- they have a staff of
PAID people to do documentation), but still in my opinion is
pretty bad (it takes a lot of searching to find what you need)),
because what they wrote is fairly good (there just isn't enough
of it- one needs an openLDAP BOOK covering all the points...).

> You should know what I'm talking about: Documentation is like
> sex,

Hmmm. I'd never have though of this analogy.

> > As long as you use normal schema...

Schema is the one part I'm not really having trouble with (well
a little in netscape since they I can't seem to find how they
define their .schema's...).  I have A LOT of trouble configuring
LDAP to replicate, partition... as I want it to.

> Documentation on why you need OIDs isn't easy to come by.

Aren't OID's there so one directory can deal with another
(everyone can have a uid (OID#) so they can build their own
objects while not conflicting with someone else's object)?

> and the basic conecpts that is lacking.

It doesn't help that the terminology is a bit ideomatic (having
multiple masters is NOT mutli-master LDAP unless the masters are
in the same partition....)