Reaper, that's bullshit and you know it...

Do you have evidence to say otherwise? Please DO POST IT and prove me wrong (I honestly don't mind being proven wrong, but in this case Slackware's track record can speak for itself without my intrusion). Otherwise do tell us more about the sky falling.

1 members found this post helpful.

Is it about enough of this now, or will I need to make up some insulting nicknames for you as well?

13 members found this post helpful.

you do not mind be proven wrong, indeed, if this happens you simply ignore it and repeat your agenda, over and over again, and as this PAM threads shows and prove, you can do this over years. If proves become to strong you come with something like 'at the end its PV who decide'... and than, after a short break, you restart to repeat and ignore and repeat and ignore .....

now since you like repetitions I have one for you, it's even recursive, it goes like this:
If you need PAM its a pain that it does not exist in Slackware, you can do it yourself, but that's a useless time eater. It has no technical advantage to be missing in a distribution so if it has an effect than just a negative one. Some existing solutions solve special needs but non in that way that you do not need to adopt it to your needs, it violates therefore the DRY principle.
Well meant tips like putting it optional to somewhere do also not work because existing stuff would also need to be reworked, therefore, either invest a lot of time to re-construct the wheel or leaf Slackware and you are back at the begin, if you need PAM its a pain that it does not exist ....

Again... Provide proof that stable with PAM tested to security concerns is more or less stable than without PAM tested to general usage. You're comparing two different standards as if they are on equal levels. Other than rambling on, provide proof other than apple vs. orange.

I could care less if PAM is a pain to add, that's not the point.

So let me ask you something to your claims:

Is package "shadow" more or less stable built with or without PAM, and why, and how can you test for it accurately?

2 members found this post helpful.

I don't think the problem is with "shadow", but other things such as PolicyKit.

1 members found this post helpful.

well, this again shows how you turn reality into something that fits to your believes.
you take a small aspect that fits, and put it for the whole picture, not even notice that the aspect never was a topic.
which prove for the shadow packet should I bring and why should I do this when I never talked about that?
does not matter for you, hm.
but being a nice guy I give you the following to think, since about more than a decade the distribution for PAM vs non PAM installation is about 99:1 , in best case for the non PAM systems.
So applying simple statistics, what code has more execution time, developer times, testing times, ....the PAM or the non PAM one?
of course feel free to tell me now why reality does not matter for you.

You should try again without using Argumentum ad populum. The ratio of which is used more by well known distributions is not relevant, like reaper said they are different standards and if you want to use a valid argument you are going to have to show specific ways that one is more or less stable than the other. Prevalence of use doesn't cut it.

of course also you, orbea, sitting on your windows box, of course not needing central authentication, are free to tell me why reality does not matter for you

Does it really matter what OS a person uses to post here? Why is that even being discussed? Last I knew, that was not the argument and you are only avoiding the question so I'm going to take it as you can't accurately compare both standards, tests, and use cases respectively. That's the reality here which you need to come back to. In fact, anyone with common sense could tell you comparing the stability of security standards to general purpose is asinine and pointless. All you keep arguing is how hard PAM is to add. Sorry, but life is hard for everyone and there are no shortcuts.

Nice strawman. I don't use windows, you should probably stop posting altogether at this point before you embarrass yourself further.

Edit: Also, I feel like I should point out that windows 2000 and later apparently use kereberos as the default authentication method so that if I was using windows (Which I don't) it very well would matter to me...

I believe that he was looking at the OS icon by your posting; the one he replied to had the windows 7 icon. The one that I'm quoting above shows OSX.

I use Windows Phone 8.1 but it shows up as Android... I feel sad because of that.

I have no idea...my user agent should be showing Net Positive 2.1 on Beos...