Like I stated: the analysis is based on searches in G. Hence why some lines are so low.
But I agree with earlier assertions made in this thread and elsewhere: functionality is key! Main driver for adoption. ;-) Best regards, Pierre Smits *ORRTIZ.COM <http://www.orrtiz.com>* Services & Solutions for Cloud- Based Manufacturing, Professional Services and Retail & Trade http://www.orrtiz.com On Tue, Jul 14, 2015 at 2:35 PM, Emmanuel Lécharny <[email protected]> wrote: > Le 14/07/15 14:14, Pierre Smits a écrit : > > The list of competing ldap servers can be found here: > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_LDAP_software > > > > When doing a GTrend analysis of the top competing open source variants, > > Apache Directory Server is in the top, but the level of the name we know > > (and don't speak ;-) as it counts for them) is a goal to strive for. See > > > http://www.google.com/trends/explore#q=%22389%20Directory%20Server%22%2C%20%22Apache%20Directory%20Server%22%2C%20%22Red%20Hat%20Directory%20Server%22%2C%20OpenLDAP%2C%20apacheds&date=1%2F2010%2066m&cmpt=q&tz=Etc%2FGMT-2 > > . > > This trend analysis is based on G searches. > > Don't trust GTrend. I can tell you one thing here : AD coms first, with > around 80% of the market, then OpenLDAP is really the second contended. > Every other LDAP servers count for a few percent. > > It's simply because AD is installed in every Windows Domain server, and > OpenLDAP is widely spread on Linux. Even Sun Directory never countd for > more than a few thousands installations. > > But anyway, this is irrelevant : Radovan is spot on here. We have two > modes in the API, a strict mode and a relaxed mode, now, it's us to > provide the fioxes in teh API so that the relaxed mode works well for > the most frequently used servers, and also for the ones that are likely > to be used in the neear future (here, I'm talking about OpenDS/J). >
