IIRC ... and I could be wrong ... the first directory (although maybe it qualifies as a precursor?) was an academic project called, Grapevine. It is an interesting read, historically, b/c I found out later that AD when it was Exchange's DS, made many of the same mistakes that caused some of Grapevine's early meltdowns. I think the moral to remember, is "People as a species learn nothing, though individual members may." Wow am I have a cynical day or what?
Cheers, BrettSh Microsoft Building 7, Garage Door Operator, part of Operation and Support Services ... On Fri, 5 Aug 2005, Medeiros, Jose wrote: > Okay.. Banyan, hmm.. what dose this all mean, I'll tell you. It all > started with some thing called X.500 invented by a small little > company called " Big Blue ", or IBM. The others just put a nice Gui > and made much easier to manage ( Thank you Novell and Microsoft ). > Much of LDAP is also based on X.500. > > And I started on Netware 3.12, but made the switch to 3.51 when all my > friends stated back then that Microsoft needs MCSE's and their was > only 3000 of them and growing. > > All of these Server Operating Systems have forced each vendor to > improve their products and eventually adopt the innovations that they > each develop. > > Peace, > > Jose :-) > > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Free, Bob > Sent: Friday, August 05, 2005 5:11 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] OT - The downfall of Novell and NetWare (was- > Biggest AD Gripes) > > > Novell Schmovell, Banyan had their own hardware then too and they even > had had a _directory_. A real one, the 2x & 3x Novell guys used to > wonder how the servers talked to each other :-] > > I bet Gil has an old Banyan CNS in his museum... > > Besides, Novell couldn't touch Banyan in the "Our-Marketing-Sucks" > department > > http://web.mit.edu/redelson/www/media/banad.pdf > > > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Rick Kingslan > Sent: Friday, August 05, 2005 4:12 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] OT - The downfall of Novell and NetWare (was- > Biggest AD Gripes) > > 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: [email protected] > 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: '[email protected]' > 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: [email protected] > 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: '[email protected]' > 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: [email protected] > 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: '[email protected]' > 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: [email protected] > 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: '[email protected]' > 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: [email protected] > 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/ > 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/
