I live in hope that that was in no way Freudian. That aside, the term "naming context" ... seriously! ;o) In and of itself, I found it to be meaningless -- "partition" made sense and is immediately understood ... at least to me. As for MS' definition, I'd say partition comes a distant second to NC in its colloquial use, at least in the MS tech. literature I find myself reading.
-- Dean Wells MSEtechnology * Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://msetechnology.com -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Brett Shirley Sent: Friday, August 05, 2005 7:24 PM To: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] OT - The downfall of Novell and NetWare (was- Biggest AD Gripes) I wouldn't say the msft marking machine paid zero attention, some brain-dean PM or marketing schuckster, decided we should call LDAP Naming Contexts, Partitions, instead because of Novell. Cheers, -BrettSh [msft] Ex-AD Dev This posting is NOT "AS IS". It comes with all rights and warranties it implies. I wonder if I'll get in trouble now. On Fri, 5 Aug 2005, Rick Kingslan wrote: > Heh.... From a pure technical view, quite right. > > However - that's where I started - NetWare 2.0 (I mean the FIRST > NetWare 2.0). I still remember the proprietary servers that they used > to manufacture. > > However, what really killed Novell was not the brilliant technical > ideas of Drew Majors (who, I still respect as a guy with real vision), > but the Megalomania and obsessive behavior or Ray Noorda. > > Ray so envied Bill Gates that he was going to do anything to better Gates. > This meant that Ray effectively lost focus of what Novell was all > about in the interest of buying up products that he thought would better Microsoft. > Hence, absolutely ridiculous amounts of money (OK, for that time it > was > ridiculous...) were spent for WordPerfect and ATT Unix, as well as > other pieces that were picked up. > > But, the focus was lost, NT 4.0 caught on, and the Microsoft marketing > machine paid no attention (outwardly, at least) to Noorda. They just > went after the customers who had lost patience with the very badly off > track NetWare. > > What was once a major player - and owned greater than 80% of the > server market all but became a bit player overnight. > > Rick > > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Dean Wells > Sent: Friday, August 05, 2005 8:01 AM > To: Send - AD mailing list > Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] Biggest AD Gripes > > All great points, lets not forget the less than well-thought-out > client they produced (current versions are better but still remain > lesser integrated than that of Windows' native ability) ... utterly, utterly pathetic attempt. > Arrogance and a distinct lack of marketing (when compared to the > competition) was also a contributing factor IMO. > > > -- > Dean Wells > MSEtechnology > * Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://msetechnology.com > > > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Darren > Mar-Elia > Sent: Friday, August 05, 2005 7:22 AM > To: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org > Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] Biggest AD Gripes > > I think there were a few very important reasons why Netware lost the battle. > I remember when NT first shipped the mantra was, "Netware is great for > file and print and NT is great for applications". Netware NLMs were > impossible to develop and that meant that folks either developed apps > on NT or more likely Unix (at the time). Apps are sticky, file and > print is not. Over time, as Windows ruled the desktop and people > realized that file and print was commodity and that arguing about > whether Netware was a better file and print server than NT became > meaningless compared to better desktop/server integration, Novell lost > out. Novell failed to keep up, in my opinion. The market was theirs to > lose...and they lost it. Proof once again that great technology coupled with bad management is just as bad as bad technology. > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Ruston, Neil > Sent: Friday, August 05, 2005 5:05 AM > To: 'ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org' > Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] Biggest AD Gripes > > IMHO Novell lost out to MS due to the fact that Netware 3 was so > clunky (ultra stable but diff to manage once you deployed more than ~100 servers). > Netware 4/NDS had issues in its first version and quickly lost > traction, leaving MS and NT to pick up the thread. > > It was for this reason that very few orgs deployed NDS across a large > env - NDS was more than capable of supporting 100K users and the > management/maintenance/support would have far simpler that it was for NT. > > Once NT gained the upper hand, momentum took over and led us to where > we are today. > > neil > > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of joe > Sent: 05 August 2005 00:35 > To: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org > Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] Biggest AD Gripes > > > Yeah, ADAM scared some folks in the widget factory as well. On the > positive side, it can register in AD so you can chase them down that > way via their SCPs. If they don't register, well then that will be fun > to chase as it will be like trying to find rogue AD's, network > scanning but even worse, any port can be used... If all machines are > part of a domain or forest, you could set up policies to block the running of the ADAM binaries I guess. > > I like AD/AM more from the standpoint that I think it can hint as to > where AD will go. > > What is the largest Enterprise deployment of NDS that anyone has seen? > I haven't seen anything larger than say 5000 or so users, it seems > that the management got too difficult even at that level, but then I > never looked really close at it, so possibly the admins and designers > involved weren't that great. I certainly have never heard of any 100k > globally distributed NDS implementations. > > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Ruston, Neil > Sent: Thursday, August 04, 2005 11:16 AM > To: 'ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org' > Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] Biggest AD Gripes > > Re ADAM: > I am unsure about this technology. I can handle multiple instances of > an AD database which all provide a common service, but ADAM *could* > lead to anarchy, where anyone can fire up an instance of their own > home grown directory. That thought scares me and right now I do not > know how a large org would manage such a scenario. I'd prefer to keep > control, but have a more elegant and modular way to patch the various > components which exist throughout the infra. > > Re your last para: > 1. NDS was simpler to design IMHO and thus never attracted large > design rates 2. AD has greater penetration, as you say and so demand > is thus greater. > 3. Directories themselves have a much larger scope today than they ever did. > Compare NT and what we did with it vs AD and what we do with that. > A good architect who can "juggle" all the necessary directory "balls" > can demand a better rate than someone who merely installs a few NT > domains and WINS servers [no disrespect intended - I was once in the > latter category myself] 4. I haven't supported Netware/NDS for 10 > years, so cannot reap those benefits that the admins may realise one > day :) [I doubt that day will ever come, however.] > > neil > > > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of joe > Sent: 04 August 2005 15:01 > To: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org > Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] Biggest AD Gripes > > > No worries, probably the fault of my reading versus your writing. I > have been known to have trouble reading English which is why I tend to > write more than read. :o) > > Yes absolutely on the modular piece. I completely agree on this > direction as well and exactly what I argued for with them. Personally, > I look at AD/AM with great hope as to what it can eventually become, > it could be the way to get to that without having to drag everyone there. > People just jump to some AD/AM like system at some point when they > want to and leave legacy behind but still have AD for some time > available to anyone not ready. > > Agreed on well worth it. > > The last comment I find interesting. Is the earnings based on the > relatively low penetration of NDS or simply NDS folks are just payed > less? I would expect, if NDS marketshare gets to even lower points, > that NDS admins would start to fetch bonus pay. > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Ruston, Neil > Sent: Thursday, August 04, 2005 4:41 AM > To: 'ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org' > Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] Biggest AD Gripes > > What you state in the first para is what I was trying to say, but > obviously not eloquently enough :) I am aware that many of the ppl > here have never used NDS so have no clue what it can offer. Hence the > irony, that we/they ask for features that Novell offered 12 years ago in Netware 4. > > Re the second para - I guess I'm asking that AD be considered a > modular, independent app that runs on Windows. As you say, that may > "scare" MS somewhat, but it would make AD a lot more palatable and > attractive to those who have yet to deploy. > > Local SAM - large changes needed yes, but I think they are *well* > worth it > :) > > I have yet to find any good reasons for giving up NDS (except that AD > architects earn more than NDS equivalents :)) > > neil > > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of joe > Sent: 04 August 2005 02:05 > To: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org > Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] Biggest AD Gripes > > > I am not sure it is a people wanting NDS/Netware features as much as > it is people wanting certain features that would make their lives > easier and it just so happens Novelle had come to some of the same > conclusions previously on what to add or were bugged for them. A lot > of the things being asked for would probably be asked for on other > directories as well unless they were already there. And then on the > others, people could be asking for features that AD already has > implemented, but not necessarily because they have used AD. > > Yeah I also like the idea of upgrading AD outside of the OS. I really > tried to push for that in April 2004 at Redmond. There was a mixed > response of that will never happen and never say never, that is an > interesting idea followed up by would I be willing to pay for AD as a > separate product. My response to that was if the price of the OS > product went down in a similar way. Of course it also opens up MS to > more competition there. Someone else just may come out with an AD like > product to run on Windows if it was sold separately and someone knew > they had to buy it from someone. Now who could that be? > > I like the last one too... A machine becomes part of a domain, its > local SAM no longer functions. That would be some pretty massive > changes though I expect. > > So what reasons did you come up with to remind yourself why you left NDS? > > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Ruston, Neil > Sent: Wednesday, August 03, 2005 4:31 AM > To: 'ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org' > Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] Biggest AD Gripes > > I always find it quite ironic that those who have never used > NDS/Netware always seem to want NDS/Netware features, once they've > worked with AD for a period of time :) > > I have to remind myself why I booted NDS out in preference to NT/AD > years ago... > > Novell have been offering the vast majority of what is being proposed > here for many years and even started to support the equivalent of GPO > to Windows devices around 10 years ago too! > > I would add a new gripe (which Novell do support and have done since > Netware > 4) and that is the ability to upgrade the AD (or any other component > for that matter) across an enterprise. Naturally, this means that > these components need to be more modular, but it would be great if I > could upgrade AD from version n to n+1 by simply deploying a > file/files across all my DCs and then re-starting AD out of hours (not > a server re-start, just a component re-start). > > Another gripe (if I may) would be my hate for local accounts. Why do > we have / need an AD database and another database on each member server? > Again, NDS/eDIR has a better architecture, in that all SPs exist > within the directory and none exist on the servers themselves. TCO > diminished immediately :) > > neil > > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Kern, Tom > Sent: 02 August 2005 23:02 > To: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org > Subject: Re: [ActiveDir] Biggest AD Gripes > > > I think what a lot of the stuff people are asking for is to take some > of the stuff that NDS and eDir already use. Rights and login scripts > at ou's and divivding AD as an admin sees fit. As least that's what it > seems like to me but I haven't worked with Novell in about 4yrs. > -------------------------- > Sent from my BlackBerry Wireless Handheld (www.BlackBerry.net) > > List info : http://www.activedir.org/List.aspx > List FAQ : http://www.activedir.org/ListFAQ.aspx > List archive: > http://www.mail-archive.com/activedir%40mail.activedir.org/ > > ====================================================================== > == > ==== > == > Please access the attached hyperlink for an important electronic > communications disclaimer: > > http://www.csfb.com/legal_terms/disclaimer_external_email.shtml > > ====================================================================== > == > ==== > == > > List info : http://www.activedir.org/List.aspx > List FAQ : http://www.activedir.org/ListFAQ.aspx > List archive: > http://www.mail-archive.com/activedir%40mail.activedir.org/ > > List info : http://www.activedir.org/List.aspx > List FAQ : http://www.activedir.org/ListFAQ.aspx > List archive: > http://www.mail-archive.com/activedir%40mail.activedir.org/ > > ====================================================================== > == > ==== > == > Please access the attached hyperlink for an important electronic > communications disclaimer: > > http://www.csfb.com/legal_terms/disclaimer_external_email.shtml > > ====================================================================== > == > ==== > == > > List info : http://www.activedir.org/List.aspx > List FAQ : http://www.activedir.org/ListFAQ.aspx > List archive: > http://www.mail-archive.com/activedir%40mail.activedir.org/ > > List info : http://www.activedir.org/List.aspx > List FAQ : http://www.activedir.org/ListFAQ.aspx > List archive: > http://www.mail-archive.com/activedir%40mail.activedir.org/ > > ====================================================================== > == > ==== > == > Please access the attached hyperlink for an important electronic > communications disclaimer: > > http://www.csfb.com/legal_terms/disclaimer_external_email.shtml > > ====================================================================== > == > ==== > == > > List info : http://www.activedir.org/List.aspx > List FAQ : http://www.activedir.org/ListFAQ.aspx > List archive: > http://www.mail-archive.com/activedir%40mail.activedir.org/ > > List info : http://www.activedir.org/List.aspx > List FAQ : http://www.activedir.org/ListFAQ.aspx > List archive: > http://www.mail-archive.com/activedir%40mail.activedir.org/ > > ====================================================================== > == > ====== > Please access the attached hyperlink for an important electronic > communications disclaimer: > > http://www.csfb.com/legal_terms/disclaimer_external_email.shtml > > ====================================================================== > == > ====== > > List info : http://www.activedir.org/List.aspx > List FAQ : http://www.activedir.org/ListFAQ.aspx > List archive: > http://www.mail-archive.com/activedir%40mail.activedir.org/ > List info : http://www.activedir.org/List.aspx > List FAQ : http://www.activedir.org/ListFAQ.aspx > List archive: > http://www.mail-archive.com/activedir%40mail.activedir.org/ > > > List info : http://www.activedir.org/List.aspx > List FAQ : http://www.activedir.org/ListFAQ.aspx > List archive: > http://www.mail-archive.com/activedir%40mail.activedir.org/ > > List info : http://www.activedir.org/List.aspx > List FAQ : http://www.activedir.org/ListFAQ.aspx > List archive: > http://www.mail-archive.com/activedir%40mail.activedir.org/ > List info : http://www.activedir.org/List.aspx List FAQ : http://www.activedir.org/ListFAQ.aspx List archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/activedir%40mail.activedir.org/ List info : http://www.activedir.org/List.aspx List FAQ : http://www.activedir.org/ListFAQ.aspx List archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/activedir%40mail.activedir.org/
