On Wednesday 07 March 2007 21:27, Russell Jones wrote: > John Summerfield wrote: > > On Tuesday 27 February 2007 23:58, Russell Jones wrote: > >> Well, not as tidy as AD (nor, I suspect, as difficult to diagnose when > >> it goes wrong) is to use something like AutoYaST to roll out software > >> and configuration packages (which you roll yourself). Far more powerful > >> than the MS mandated and controlled policy system, though you can do > >> similar things with MSIs and the MS package distribution system (SMS is > >> it?). > > > > At this point, the battle's over. One can control pretty much every > > aspect of > > I guess you'd better stop using Linux-based systems then. What an odd > thing to say... I'm sure there's room for improvement, but there is no > reason why windows cannot be displaced. Granted, it may be hard (though > I don't think it is in many cases), but it's far from impossible, > especially if Linux-based systems are being used on the desktop. Which > is what we're talking about AFAIAA.
I've been using Linux extensively for around a decade - not SuSE to be sure, but other distros. "hard" means error-prone. Windows 2000 Professional and Windows Xp are designed to work with AD, and by now it's pretty solid and fairly easily scales to cover a world-wide network, with bridgehead servers to cache settings and distribute them round servers in the local office, and the ability to establish trust relationships between forests (think a hierarchy of domains == a forest). Implementing the controls available in AD on Linux isn't possible in any reasonable time. First, you need the schema. Then the tools to ad the information. And the tools to distribute the information. And, if it doesn't work with your XP clients, where do you go for help? (I don;t know the answer here) What about when you deploy Windows Vista: likely there will be additional data required in the schema, and maybe again when Windows 2003 Server's successor arrives. > > As for institutions not rolling out FF, that's not true. > http://wiki.mozilla.org/Firefox:2.0_Institutional_Deployment That is very recent then, in the past month I spent quite some time reading through extensive discussion of the question. Like Windows Vistam FF2 is a little young for extensive deployments. > Again, it may be harder (I'd say less convenient in this case), but it's > far from impossible. Of course, rolling out to Windows desktops, they > use AD. But AD being a requirement to fully utilise windows desktops was > an inevitable and predictable part of MS' server and lock-in strategies. > If the roll out were to Linux desktops the same functionality is > certainly possible, though probably harder. And "harder" mitigates against "free licences." I'm on the Linux/390 list, mostly because I used to be an MVS systems programmer, and so I know a bit about those machines, even though they're far-descended from what I used. I hear about people running their webservers and web applications on the zSeries, and they share files with Windows systems using Samba, and they run their databases on zLinux, but I don't recall anyone considering replicating AD functionality there, and a few years ago someone found he could run 42000 virtual penguins on one, and someone did manage to run Windows on one. More likely, they will want to authenticate Linux users using AD. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
