> You're learning a new technology, it should come with > some new terms to label things, so that you have to > understand the paradigm completely, and don't bring > misconceptions.
Which part is the new technology part? The LDAP, the use of DNS, or the Kerberos? ;o) To Jose... As for who to blame for LDAP, I think you will find that University of Michigan can shoulder a good portion of that blame. One of the few good things to come out of that school. They call it maize, we call it corn. Go Green. joe -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Brett Shirley Sent: Friday, August 05, 2005 8:34 PM To: [email protected] Cc: Send - AD mailing list Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] OT - The downfall of Novell and NetWare (was- Biggest AD Gripes) Wow, I said "brain-dean" and I meant "brain-dead", I'm having trouble typing today. Sorry, Dean. Most of the external msft references I've seen, help files, command line help, etc says partition .... you probably don't read those anymore, you've moved onto literature about AD that is not consumeable by mere mortals. The internal stuff said NC, b/c it knew what it was talking about ... While I may not be very PC, in general I'm a Nazi when it comes to overloading terms. Disk partition, CPU partition (like on high end Sun systems), Partitioned memory ... no, no, partition is one of those useless words now ... I collect a list of such words, that I now loathe, because people made them useless ... While you may find Partition immediately approachable, that is the wrong way to do it. You're learning a new technology, it should come with some new terms to label things, so that you have to understand the paradigm completely, and don't bring misconceptions. And finally, I mean what is partitioned about a Naming Context? A partition usually implies a strong physical boundary, the DNTs / objects are interleaved, meaning it is nothing like partitioned? It does however serve as the boundary for replication ... that's _sorta_ partitioned. It also is the boundary from which referrals can bounce from one to the other, so in that sense it is like a namespace partition. There are several concepts around this that are like partitions, and not like partitions. BTW, was the Naming Context the partition boundary for replication in NDS? Cheers, BrettSh [msft] Ex-AD Dev Dean Wells, indemnifies this message against any issues arrising from usage of its information. If you need to sue, please see Dean Wells. See now I'm just making shtuff up. This is fun, I've clearly been less creative than I need to be with my legal disclaimers ... On Fri, 5 Aug 2005, Dean Wells wrote: > 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: [email protected] > 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: [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/ 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/
