Re: Ubuntu 8.04

Discussion in 'NZ Computing' started by Enkidu, Aug 21, 2008.

  1. Enkidu

    Enkidu Guest

    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.
     
    Enkidu, Aug 21, 2008
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Enkidu

    EMB Guest

    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).
     
    EMB, Aug 21, 2008
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Enkidu

    EMB Guest

    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, Aug 21, 2008
    #3
  4. Enkidu

    Enkidu Guest

    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.
     
    Enkidu, Aug 22, 2008
    #4
  5. Enkidu

    Enkidu Guest

    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.
     
    Enkidu, Aug 22, 2008
    #5
  6. Enkidu

    Enkidu Guest

    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.
     
    Enkidu, Aug 22, 2008
    #6
  7. Enkidu

    Dave Doe Guest

    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
     
    Dave Doe, Aug 22, 2008
    #7
  8. Enkidu

    EMB Guest

    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.
     
    EMB, Aug 22, 2008
    #8
  9. Enkidu

    Dave Doe Guest

    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, Aug 23, 2008
    #9
  10. Enkidu

    Enkidu Guest

    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.
     
    Enkidu, Aug 23, 2008
    #10
  11. Enkidu

    Enkidu Guest

    Carnations wrote:
    > 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
    > servers
    >

    No, it means that you don't have to do anything special when rebooting a DC.

    Cheers,

    Cliff

    --

    "I LOVE IT!!" - my biggest fan and follower, on a newsgroup, somewhere.
     
    Enkidu, Aug 23, 2008
    #11
  12. Enkidu

    EMB Guest

    Carnations wrote:
    > 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


    No it stems from overcoming connectivity issues. One of my clients
    recently lost all connectivity into the building housing their primary
    DC. Their backup DC running at a physically separate site meant that AD
    continued uninterrupted - which was just as well given that the
    connectivity outage stretched over 3 working days.
     
    EMB, Aug 23, 2008
    #12
  13. Enkidu

    EMB Guest

    Carnations wrote:
    > On Sat, 23 Aug 2008 19:53:08 +1200, EMB wrote:
    >
    >>>> Failover - AD just keeps going.
    >>> I suppose that stems from the need to have it running on Winders
    >>> swervers

    >> No it stems from overcoming connectivity issues. One of my clients
    >> recently lost all connectivity into the building housing their primary
    >> DC.
    >> Their backup DC running at a physically separate site meant that AD
    >> continued uninterrupted - which was just as well given that the
    >> connectivity outage stretched over 3 working days.

    >
    > That is the joy of not having redundant network connectivity to important
    > infrastructure.
    >
    >

    That is the reality of NZ.
     
    EMB, Aug 24, 2008
    #13
  14. Enkidu

    Enkidu Guest

    Carnations wrote:
    > On Sat, 23 Aug 2008 12:01:13 +1200, Dave Doe wrote:
    >
    >> 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?).

    >
    > And neither will it stop "the network" - but it MAY stop
    > authentication.
    >

    If you can authentication you can't access network resources to which
    you would be entitled. This effectively 'stops' the network. Don't
    quibble, Lennier.

    Cheers,

    Cliff

    --

    "I LOVE IT!!" - my biggest fan and follower, on a newsgroup, somewhere.
     
    Enkidu, Aug 24, 2008
    #14
  15. Enkidu

    Enkidu Guest

    Carnations wrote:
    > On Sat, 23 Aug 2008 14:32:27 +1200, Enkidu wrote:
    >
    >> No, it means that you don't have to do anything special when
    >> rebooting a DC.

    >
    > you mean just like ANY other clustered system?
    >

    Active Directory does not use any form of clustering per se. Individual
    DCs may be clustered, but AD does not depend on clustering.

    Cheers,

    Cliff

    --

    "I LOVE IT!!" - my biggest fan and follower, on a newsgroup, somewhere.
     
    Enkidu, Aug 24, 2008
    #15
  16. Enkidu

    Enkidu Guest

    Carnations wrote:
    > On Sat, 23 Aug 2008 14:30:42 +1200, Enkidu wrote:
    >
    >>>> 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.

    >
    > Surely you would only need to cluster a MS windows Active Directory
    > Domain Controller if you were wanting to do more work than what one
    > Micro $oft Windows box is capable of doing.
    >

    It is not a cluster and I did say that load is not usually a problem.

    You might have a DC in a remote site so that the remote site to main
    site traffic is reduced. You might have two DCs in a remote site for
    redundancy. Generally the load goes up more slowly than the need for
    additional DCs for other reasons rises.

    Good AD network design is not usually hard, and many of the constraints
    are external (ie how many remote sites, bandwidth to remote sites and so
    on).

    Cheers,

    Cliff

    --

    "I LOVE IT!!" - my biggest fan and follower, on a newsgroup, somewhere.
     
    Enkidu, Aug 24, 2008
    #16
  17. Enkidu

    Enkidu Guest

    Carnations wrote:
    > On Sun, 24 Aug 2008 13:30:53 +1200, EMB wrote:
    >
    >> That is the reality of NZ.

    >
    > That is the reality of your particular corporation.
    >

    Worm.

    Cheers,

    Cliff

    --

    "I LOVE IT!!" - my biggest fan and follower, on a newsgroup, somewhere.
     
    Enkidu, Aug 24, 2008
    #17
  18. Enkidu

    EMB Guest

    Carnations wrote:
    > On Sun, 24 Aug 2008 13:30:53 +1200, EMB wrote:
    >
    >> That is the reality of NZ.

    >
    > That is the reality of your particular corporation.


    No, it is a reality of data communications in NZ that in many locations
    it is not possible to get service from multiple providers, and when
    service is available it is very expensive by international standards.
     
    EMB, Aug 24, 2008
    #18
  19. Enkidu

    Enkidu Guest

    Carnations wrote:
    > On Sun, 24 Aug 2008 17:33:03 +1200, Enkidu wrote:
    >
    >> Good AD network design is not usually hard, and many of the constraints
    >> are external (ie how many remote sites, bandwidth to remote sites and so
    >> on).

    >
    > You do not need to use MSAD in order to operate a centralized single-
    > signon authentication system.
    >

    Do you think that that is all AD does? Hehehehehe!
    >
    > Moreover, why would you want to when there are Free alternatives that are
    > just as good if not better?
    >

    Name one.

    Cheers,

    Cliff

    --

    "I LOVE IT!!" - my biggest fan and follower, on a newsgroup, somewhere.
     
    Enkidu, Aug 25, 2008
    #19
  20. Enkidu

    Enkidu Guest

    Carnations wrote:
    > On Mon, 25 Aug 2008 23:19:47 +1200, Enkidu wrote:
    >
    >>> You do not need to use MSAD in order to operate a centralized single-
    >>> signon authentication system.
    >>>

    >> Do you think that that is all AD does? Hehehehehe!

    >
    > No, but that is its primary purpose.
    >

    No, it is *one* of its primary purposes. Think about it. I sign on and
    I'm authenticated to AD. It knows who I am. What happens next.

    Cheers,

    Cliff

    --

    "I LOVE IT!!" - my biggest fan and follower, on a newsgroup, somewhere.
     
    Enkidu, Aug 26, 2008
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Colyn

    Ubuntu linux firefox users

    Colyn, Jun 25, 2005, in forum: Firefox
    Replies:
    7
    Views:
    763
    schrodinger's cat
    Jul 7, 2005
  2. Silverstrand

    "What is it About Ubuntu?" at XYZ Computing

    Silverstrand, Dec 12, 2005, in forum: Front Page News
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    679
    Silverstrand
    Dec 12, 2005
  3. Marek Williams

    64-bit Ubuntu, Firefox 1.07, and RealPlayer

    Marek Williams, Jan 8, 2006, in forum: Firefox
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    6,858
    Jedi Fans
    Jan 8, 2006
  4. bdeditch

    Ubuntu Linux Question for boot up

    bdeditch, Sep 13, 2005, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    369
  5. Clogwog
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    661
    Clogwog
    Apr 29, 2010
Loading...

Share This Page