Or, Rick.... 007.... Pathetic....
;op -r -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Dean Wells Sent: Monday, August 08, 2005 9:11 AM To: Send - AD mailing list Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] Biggest AD Gripes Not at all my young Jedi, my MCNI # is 7 (would have been 5 IIRC but I wanted to be able to write is as 007 -- how sad :o). The first version of NetWare I ran was 4.7 I believe, it supported only dumb terminals as clients and the server ran on a Motorola proc. ... at that time they were known as Innovative Systems. When the Intel product came out (v2.0 I believe), the shell and the server-side kernel were both monolithic binaries; ANET2.exe and NET$OS.EXE methinks. Believe me, I'm old .. but still not as old as Joe :o) -- Dean Wells MSEtechnology * Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://msetechnology.com -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Ruston, Neil Sent: Monday, August 08, 2005 4:11 AM To: 'ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org' Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] Biggest AD Gripes You're obviously too young to remember: LSL NE3200 IPXODI NETX :) VLMs made life a whole lot easier. neil -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Dean Wells Sent: 05 August 2005 16:59 To: Send - AD mailing list Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] Biggest AD Gripes Grin ... you're right of course, I think you're referring to compiling an ANET3 EXE, but don't misunderstand me, I loved some of the older shells or requestors like the VLMs, for nostalgic purposes - LSL NE3200 IPXODI VLM C:\>F: F:\LOGIN> ... ah, even now I get a gooey comfortable feeling. :o) It's the Windows NT/2000 client I was referring to that used to create a new and different local SAM account each time you logged on as a NetWare account ... garbage! -- 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 11:47 AM To: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] Biggest AD Gripes I don't know Dean--I kinda liked the old Netware client. I mean, what great job security. No one who didn't know any better couldn't possibly figure out the right combination of ODI drivers, VLMs and client shells to bind together to actually get access to Netware. The best was the Netware 2.x client, where you had to run something equivalent to a compiler to actually create a client. After that, VLMs seemed like going to the moon... -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Dean Wells Sent: Friday, August 05, 2005 9:01 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/ ============================================================================ == 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/
