From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

How does PAM relate to SASL, GSS API, JAAS? Yaron 23:03, May 17, 2004 (UTC)

JAAS is a Java implementation of PAM. PAM provides low-level authentication functions and wouldn't be used on the protocol level like SASL, although some SASL libraries (Cyrus) use PAM for the underlying authentication. ElBenevolente 00:47, 18 May 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Requested Additional Info

Can some more information on the individual PAM modules be presented? Or should a sub page be created for the Linux PAM Modules?

Personally I would love to see more discussion about stacking modules, as in explanations for the use_authtok, and other similar stacking friendly directives. As well as a sufficient/required/optional discussion.

[edit] Requested move

• Oppose. Unless a term is only used as a plural (i.e. you would never have just one Christmas light, it's always Christmas lights), then it should always have a singular article title.   –radiojon 01:45, 2005 Jun 5 (UTC)
  • You never have just one Pluggable Authentication Module either, you always have a set of them... just as a single christmas light isn't remotely useful, neither is a single PAM module; your system wouldn't function at all. Also, PAM literally refers to the plural form, it's never referred to in the singular. Biot 13:52, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)
    • Okay, if there is an actual protocol named "Pluggable Authentication Modules" then it needs to be moved to that properly-capitalized name instead. If it is just a concept of how something works, then it should remain at pluggable authentication module.   –radiojon 17:10, 2005 Jun 6 (UTC)
      • If you have no idea what PAM is, what possesses you to spout opinions on it? Biot 17:55, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. The terms "pluggable authentication module framework" and "pluggable authentication module library" are acceptable, and thus I don't see the need to go against the usual "singular" convention. violet/riga (t) 20:44, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• For. The convention is always the plural, 'Pluggable Authentication Modules'. The standard Sun submitted to X/Open is 'Pluggable Authentication Modules' (plural). All of the major documentation refers to it in plural. Why is this such a big deal? This entry is obviously about the UNIX standard, so change the name. Alexander Guy 00:30, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It was requested that this article be renamed but there was no consensus for it to be moved. violet/riga (t) 20:44, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This article is about the family of modules, not the singular. silsor 15:39, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)

Sorry but I still don't see why that makes a difference. The term can be (and frequently is) used as a singular and it's standard naming convention to have the article at such a name. violet/riga (t) 18:51, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• For the same reason it's not "Microsoft Window." That isn't the name of the piece of software under discussion (though now I review this it should be "Pluggable Authentication Modules" (capitalized). Demi ^T/_C 19:03, 2005 Jun 8 (UTC)
  • I understand what you're saying, but the term is also commonly used as a singular – even in the external links of the article. My argument is that it should not be at Pluggable Authentication Modules when people may wish to use the singular (as in "the Pluggable Authentication Module framework"). However, there is clearly support for the plural naming, so I've moved it. violet/riga (t) 19:43, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • I understand the confusion, but it is not just a difference between singular and plural. "Pluggable Authentication Modules" can be used as the plural of "Pluggable Authentication Module", but it is also the name of a system of which those modules are a component. This article is about the system. silsor 01:25, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC)