«

thing wrote:
> Carnations wrote:
>> On Tue, 19 Aug 2008 19:08:44 +1200, thingy wrote:
>>
>>> If I was based in Europe I might be inclined to swap in SUSE for Red Hat
>>> on the server, but not in NZ.
>>
>> Why? (Curious)
>>
>> It's a solid system.
>>
>>
>
> Yep nothing wrong with SUSE in itself, Novell is a bit of a vampire /
> leech though...their proprietry stuff on top can price them as bad if
> not worse than MS in NZ IMHO....
>
> Also the good guys at SUSE seem to have all left and been replaced with
> Novell corporate hacks...clash of cultures does not bode well IMHO.
>
> SUSE has a bigger following in Europe than in NZ...so I guess a user
> base thing...no real specific reason.
>
> Also 3rd party support for SUSE was poorer than RH, but that has
> improved very substantially in the last 4 years.
>
> If I had to decide between say Red Hat / SUSE and MS it would be based
> on what the application was and the experience with that particular
> version of Linux..
>
> eg., we have been looking at some LDAP/identity products and Red Hat is
> weak in this area....Sun and SUSE/Novell very strong... but from bitter
> experience I know trying to run Sun's ID system on Red Hat is just a no
> show they are clueless when it comes to support "well it works on
> Solaris"...gee thanks...So I would have to seriously consider Novell's
> solution on top of SUSE....I'd be reluctant to go Novell's ID on top of
> RH, I know RH well but the Sun experience ikky...or continue go the MS
> solution route, but we have that now and its <shudder>...
>
> So in this scenario I'm pretty much "forced" to go the SUSE route with
> Novell's ID....Red Hat cant do it in house, Sun's is, well awful and
> MS's is worse...
>
You don't mean (shudder) eDirectory?

Cheers,

Cliff

--

"I LOVE IT!!" - my biggest fan and follower, on a newsgroup, somewhere.

Carnations wrote:
> On Thu, 21 Aug 2008 22:10:56 +1200, Enkidu wrote:
>
>> You don't mean (shudder) eDirectory?
>
> Surely eDirectory is much easier to use than Active Directory. At least
> that has been my experience of it.

IME they are both equally good (or bad depending recent reliability).

Carnations wrote:
> On Thu, 21 Aug 2008 23:14:38 +1200, EMB wrote:
>
>> Carnations wrote:
>>> On Thu, 21 Aug 2008 22:10:56 +1200, Enkidu wrote:
>>>
>>>> You don't mean (shudder) eDirectory?
>>> Surely eDirectory is much easier to use than Active Directory. At least
>>> that has been my experience of it.
>> IME they are both equally good (or bad depending recent reliability).
>
> I suppose it all depends on how the particular installations have been
> set up.

Carefully, properly and by someone who understands what they are doing
is the preferable (and sadly not universal) way.

EMB wrote:
> Carnations wrote:
>> On Thu, 21 Aug 2008 22:10:56 +1200, Enkidu wrote:
>>
>>> You don't mean (shudder) eDirectory?
>>
>> Surely eDirectory is much easier to use than Active Directory. At
>> least that has been my experience of it.
>
> IME they are both equally good (or bad depending recent reliability).
>
Well, I've only been an end user of eDirectory and my experience was NOT
good,

Cheers,

Cliff

--

"I LOVE IT!!" - my biggest fan and follower, on a newsgroup, somewhere.

Carnations wrote:
> On Fri, 22 Aug 2008 00:29:33 +1200, EMB wrote:
>
>>>>> Surely eDirectory is much easier to use than Active Directory. At
>>>>> least that has been my experience of it.
>>>> IME they are both equally good (or bad depending recent reliability).
>>> I suppose it all depends on how the particular installations have been
>>> set up.
>> Carefully, properly and by someone who understands what they are doing
>> is the preferable (and sadly not universal) way.
>
> Curious: In your 20+ years of experience, what percentage of
> installations of AD and/or eDir were not set up in what you would
> consider to be an optimal way?
>
In my experience eDir 0%, AD 100%. But then, AD *was* my field and I
never set up eDir. There is not really a bad way to set up AD. The
default is not bad, but you really need two DCs and I came around to the
idea of Integrated DNS servers in spite of not liking the idea. To the
extent of keeping seperate ones for a long time.

Cheers,

Cliff

--

"I LOVE IT!!" - my biggest fan and follower, on a newsgroup, somewhere.

Carnations wrote:
> On Fri, 22 Aug 2008 22:24:11 +1200, Enkidu wrote:
>
>>> Curious: In your 20+ years of experience, what percentage of
>>> installations of AD and/or eDir were not set up in what you would
>>> consider to be an optimal way?
>>>
>> In my experience eDir 0%, AD 100%. But then, AD *was* my field and I
>> never set up eDir. There is not really a bad way to set up AD. The
>> default is not bad, but you really need two DCs and I came around to the
>> idea of Integrated DNS servers in spite of not liking the idea. To the
>> extent of keeping seperate ones for a long time.
>
> Why would you want to employ a Windows based DNS solution when there is a
> perfectly good and solidly reliable solution in the form of Bind?
>
Well, Bind didn't at first support DDNS and SRV records which AD needed.
And the standalone MS DNS wasn't *that* shabby. But it was the sheer
convenience of Integrated that won me over.

Cheers,

Cliff

--

"I LOVE IT!!" - my biggest fan and follower, on a newsgroup, somewhere.

In article <>,
says...
> On Fri, 22 Aug 2008 22:24:11 +1200, Enkidu wrote:
>
> > In my experience eDir 0%, AD 100%. But then, AD *was* my field and I
> > never set up eDir. There is not really a bad way to set up AD. The
> > default is not bad, but you really need two DCs
>
> Firstly, in my experience of eDir and AD from a user-admin perspective
> I'd have to say that Console One is much easier to use than the Microsoft
> equivalent, which is quite unfriendly and quite uncustomisable in
> comparison.
>
> Secondly, why would you need to use two domain controllers?

Failover - AD just keeps going.

--
Duncan

Carnations wrote:
> On Fri, 22 Aug 2008 00:29:33 +1200, EMB wrote:
>
>>>>> Surely eDirectory is much easier to use than Active Directory. At
>>>>> least that has been my experience of it.
>>>> IME they are both equally good (or bad depending recent reliability).
>>> I suppose it all depends on how the particular installations have been
>>> set up.
>> Carefully, properly and by someone who understands what they are doing
>> is the preferable (and sadly not universal) way.
>
> Curious: In your 20+ years of experience, what percentage of
> installations of AD and/or eDir were not set up in what you would
> consider to be an optimal way?

It's hard to quantify, but enough to have been a nusiance. It's less a
technical problem and more a business problem that is the cause where
the directory structure fails to match the busniess structure which
reduces it's usefulness and makes it hard to administer in a useful or
meaningful way. The worst examples are the ones that have congealed
over time (one of my current clients has 2 AD forests across the
enterprise which causes no end of fun) with no overall direction applied
to changes that are made.

In article <>,
says...
> On Fri, 22 Aug 2008 23:50:12 +1200, Dave Doe wrote:
>
> >> Firstly, in my experience of eDir and AD from a user-admin perspective
> >> I'd have to say that Console One is much easier to use than the
> >> Microsoft equivalent, which is quite unfriendly and quite
> >> uncustomisable in comparison.
> >>
> >> Secondly, why would you need to use two domain controllers?
> >
> > Failover - AD just keeps going.
>
> I suppose that stems from the need to have it running on Winders swervers

What a silly comment - that stems from the simple fact that computers
don't go or last forever. And in a large multi-domain environment, a
single server should not "stop" the entire network (should it?).

--
Duncan

Dave Doe wrote:
> In article <>,
> says...
>> On Fri, 22 Aug 2008 22:24:11 +1200, Enkidu wrote:
>>
>>> In my experience eDir 0%, AD 100%. But then, AD *was* my field
>>> and I never set up eDir. There is not really a bad way to set up
>>> AD. The default is not bad, but you really need two DCs
>> Firstly, in my experience of eDir and AD from a user-admin
>> perspective I'd have to say that Console One is much easier to use
>> than the Microsoft equivalent, which is quite unfriendly and quite
>> uncustomisable in comparison.
>>
>> Secondly, why would you need to use two domain controllers?
>
> Failover - AD just keeps going.
>
And load distribution, though load is not usually a problem.

Cheers,

Cliff

--

"I LOVE IT!!" - my biggest fan and follower, on a newsgroup, somewhere.