Article:
  Unfinished Business Part 2: Closing the Circle
Subject:   Off-Topic
Date:   2003-07-14 18:36:54
From:   chromatic
Response to: So why...

I delete off topic and impolite posts. Questions and comments about the article are welcome. Personal disagreements with the author are not.
Full Threads Oldest First

Showing messages 1 through 13 of 13.

  • Off-Topic
    2003-07-15 06:03:55  anonymous2 [View]

    "I delete off topic and impolite posts. Questions and comments about the article are welcome. Personal disagreements with the author are not."

    This is not off-topic, impolite or due to a "personal" disagreement.

    The reference to his other work is not off-topic because it reflects that this is not the first time the author's expertise has been questioned through reader response to his work. Many of the statements in these two articles are blatantly false and should not attempted to be passed along as anything else.

    I guess a new question comes to mind...how many times will oreillynet.com support articles/books from a particular author whose expertise is continually questioned by readers before it is suggested that he be a little more professional?
    • Off-Topic
      2003-07-15 09:15:49  chromatic | O'Reilly AuthorO'Reilly Blogger [View]

      These two articles aren't really about Active Directory or eDirectory. They're about the challenges people face while migrating large business networks to Linux. That said, I've asked David to explore eDirectory in his next article. If it solves the problems he brings up in these two articles, it's well-worth an article.

      As to questioning an author's research or conclusions, that's one reason we have talkbacks enabled. That goes for any author. If you have hard numbers as to deployment rates of one product versus the other, by all means please post them -- but I'm going to need something stronger than opinion.
      • Off-Topic
        2003-07-16 16:50:53  anonymous2 [View]

        "That said, I've asked David to explore eDirectory in his next article"

        His first two articles on Enterprise Directory Services contained numerous generalizations, assumptions and technical inaccuracies. How is he going to learn and then effectively evaluate something that is obviously foreign to him?

        Is the article due before or after he corrects his mistakes (or backs up his assumptions) in these first two articles? You took to task your *readers* to provide backup for their comments, but you don't hold an author with a negative track record to the same standards?

        I would suggest that you get an experienced CDE to write the article. It only seems appropriate to have someone who is already integrating Netware, Windows and Linux servers within their environment to write the article as opposed to someone who wrote an article on "Enterprise Directory Services and Linux" when they were supposed to write about the "challenges" that a company faces when integrating Linux.
        • Off-Topic
          2003-07-16 17:45:34  chromatic | O'Reilly AuthorO'Reilly Blogger [View]

          I don't care to discuss my business or editorial dealings with an author with anyone besides the author or in public. If David wishes to respond, he's welcome to do so. If you have general questions about my editorial policies, please feel free to send me an e-mail.

          David's agreed to tackle eDirectory and I'm looking forward to that article. At that point, if you'd like to write a rebuttal, please send me an e-mail and we can discuss the process.

          I do appreciate your concerns about the facts of these two articles. Part of the blame rests with me -- I don't have the time at the moment to give every article the attention it deserves. We've done peer review of articles in the past, though it's mostly been instigated by authors themselves. I'll bring up the idea in our next editorial meeting.

          Reading through some of the links provided in other messages, I don't reach the same conclusions you do. There may be a big perceptual issue here. While Novell's been doing fine, fine work for years, Microsoft's the 800-pound gorilla and as NT 4.0 finally slouches off into the sunset, the upgrade path from NT domains seems to point to AD. Whether that's fair or right is not a question I want to answer.
          • David HM Spector - follow up
            2005-06-12 14:25:44  tom_sawyer70 [View]

            "David's agreed to tackle eDirectory and I'm looking forward to that article."

            So...it's been a couple of *years* now. Is David going to tackle the article?

            It's still posted on his site that he's an active "expert" for this site...http://www.zeitgeist.com/, but curiously, he has never posted a follow up. Is this the type of technical drivel you accept?



          • Off-Topic
            2003-07-19 10:21:23  anonymous2 [View]

            "Microsoft's the 800-pound gorilla and as NT 4.0 finally slouches off into the sunset, the upgrade path from NT domains seems to point to AD.'

            Then you would be incorrect in your assumptions as much as the author of the "article" was in his technical review of directory services.

            As someone who has migrated from Windows NT Domain system to Windows 2000, I can tell you that the NT world may be moving (albeit, slowly) to Windows 200x, it is most certainly not making the transition from the NT Domain model to ActiveDirectory at the same rate. AD still lags a great deal behind in the migration path and many Windows-shops are still using the NT Domain model instead.

            Part of your perception that is flawed is that Windows 2000 requires AD. This is far from the truth. Indeed, Windows 2000 will happily function using a Windows NT Server as a Primary Domain Controller and that Windows 2000 server will be content as a member server within that NT Domain.

            In other words, just because you have Microsoft's latest server OS does not automatically mean you must use Microsoft "directory" service to run it.

            "Whether that's fair or right is not a question I want to answer."

            Then you should not have made the statement if you are not willing (or more rightly so, incapable) to back it up.

          • Off-Topic
            2003-07-17 17:02:46  anonymous2 [View]

            "David's agreed to tackle eDirectory and I'm looking forward to that article. At that point, if you'd like to write a rebuttal, please send me an e-mail and we can discuss the process."

            I'm bored with this argument, so let's simply agree to disagree at this point.

            I simply don't care for being *asked* to supply responses to an article, to point out discrepancies and then to be held to a higher standard than your so-called "expert" who can seemingly state whatever he pleases without such scrutiny. I'm sure the other posters do not either.

            I, too, am anxious for the eDirectory article and we can go from there. Maybe the third time will be a charm. Heck, I'm not even really "into" Linux, and while I came here to read the article, I initially thought that I could use the site as a reference when I decide to take the plunge. After reading the article, though, not only did my perception of the site change, but I took exception to someone passing off the MS shill routine and voiced my opinion...which is based on experience and a network of colleague administrators/managers.

            I don't have anything personal against you or David and I hope to see something a little more tangible that we all can use in the next article.

            Dave
          • Off-Topic
            2003-07-16 19:46:32  anonymous2 [View]

            You don't have to air your policies here, but after repeated issues with an author, you have to wonder how long your reputation can absorb such issues.

            "Part of the blame rests with me -- I don't have the time at the moment to give every article the attention it deserves. "

            You shouldn't have to...that's why you should have authors with credibility (see above).

            "Reading through some of the links provided in other messages, I don't reach the same conclusions you do. There may be a big perceptual issue here. While Novell's been doing fine, fine work for years, Microsoft's the 800-pound gorilla and as NT 4.0 finally slouches off into the sunset, the upgrade path from NT domains seems to point to AD. Whether that's fair or right is not a question I want to answer."

            It's not a question of what is "right." We all know that MS is a convicted monopolist and would love the public to "perceive" that everyone is moving to AD.

            As for the perception of Novell eDirectory, I guess a question I would raise is...what more would you like to see? You had an author devote two articles to issues dealing with AD's lack of functionality with Linux integration and he made generalizations about its market share...at the same time, you've had multiple replies that pertain to how people have already implemented multi-platform solutions with eDirectory. You also had someone post reference links to large company implementations. Do you think those companies are all one platform?

            NT upgrades may "seem to point" to AD, but the issues with compatibility with multi-platform systems (while techically incorrect, you may refer to David's articles for more on this subject as it pertains to Linux) deem it to be improbable.

            In addition, there were posted references to independent reports regarding the slow adoption of AD.

            The only "perception" issue that I have seen in visiting this site is a continual denial of the prominence of eDirectory.

            If nothing else, MS has repeatedly pushed the support date for NT4 back, which reflects that the majority of their customers do not want to rewrite their apps for W2k, and now W2003, much less attempt to implement AD.

            Dave
      • Off-Topic
        2003-07-15 18:31:09  anonymous2 [View]

        'These two articles aren't really about Active Directory or eDirectory. They're about the challenges people face while migrating large business networks to Linux.'

        That is blatently false. The first article was nothing BUT praise for ActiveDirectory and both articles concentrated specifically on ActiveDirectory and how "Linux can't run AD". At best, it only began to scratch the surface of the Linux authentication process and a few select services that Linux offers that are requirements of an ActiveDirectory installation.

        If this was a true comparison of migrating from Microsoft Windows to Linux, then the author should have explored more than just the "directory services" component of both OS's. The author neglected to mention critical components such as automatic software updating, security protocols and services, web services, etc. As such, this was strictly an "AD vs. LDAP or Lack of AD on Linux" article.

        'That said, I've asked David to explore eDirectory in his next article. If it solves the problems he brings up in these two articles, it's well-worth an article.'

        Not attempting to be insulting, I doubt David could do it justice. There are already serious technical errors in his articles on AD and he apparently doesn't understand eDirectory. Do you honestly expect an unbiased and educated review of Novell eDirectory? I, for one, do not. I do not believe the author would write one in as much so as I do not believe he is capable of writing one.

        But, I will admit, I would enjoy watching him fall flat on his face in his attempt to write such an article.

        At that point, could we call upon his termination for lack of credible journalism?
      • Off-Topic
        2003-07-15 14:34:08  anonymous2 [View]

        Chromatic...
        "that's one reason we have talkbacks enabled."

        So then why strip out a post reflecting a precedent?

        "If you have hard numbers as to deployment rates of one product versus the other, by all means please post them -- but I'm going to need something stronger than opinion."

        Well, I guess that means that the author, the person who supposedly did research, does not have to back up his claims?

        So, let me see if I can come up with eDirectory implementations...that is, in addition to the other people who have posted...

        "BASF uses eDirectory to simplify administration of more than 40,000 users."
        http://www.novell.com/success/basf.html

        British Telecom..."The solution is powered by Novell SecureLogin and Novell eDirectory™."
        http://www.novell.com/news/press/archive/2002/05/pr02041.html

        Lufthansa...
        "As part of the contract, Novell's directory and network services will be used to consolidate user data for approximately 70,000 employees, and create a secure and structured access to the company Intranet."
        http://www.novell.com/news/press/archive/2002/01/pr02009.html
        http://www.infosecuritymag.com/2003/may/lufthansaid.shtml
        http://www.vnunet.com/News/1140320

        French Tax Authority...
        "Novell, Inc.®, a leader in eBusiness solutions and Net services software, today made public details of its largest European eGovernment project; a directory solution for the Direction Générale des Impôts (DGI), the French Tax Authority, that will be used by 35 million French taxpayers"
        http://www.novell.com/news/press/archive/2001/12/pr01117.html

        "Novell initially estimated that they would attract 40 to 50 customers over the entire life of the promotion. They guessed wrong. In the first month, they had 1,700 customers sign up."
        http://www.integratedmar.com/ECL.cfm?item=DLY121102-03

        Although they claim 1.4 billion licenses, they state they have "734 million active eDirectory user licenses"
        http://www.novell.com/products/edirectory/

        As for the adoption of (In)active Directory...

        "Following slow adoption of Active Directory after its release as part of Windows 2000 three years ago"
        http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,3959,667380,00.asp

        "the slow adoption of AD has been a frustration for Microsoft. "
        http://techupdate.zdnet.com/techupdate/stories/main/0,14179,2895694,00.html

        You can't really run AD on an old platform...now can you...

        "A recent ENT survey of 800 enterprise Windows sites finds that 64 percent still run Windows NT 4.0"
        http://www.entmag.com/news/article.asp?EditorialsID=5723

        "According to some industry estimates, between 35 and 45 percent of Windows server customers still run Windows NT 4.0,"
        http://www.internetnews.com/ent-news/article.php/2196381

        Enough?


        • Off-Topic
          2003-07-16 16:45:18  anonymous2 [View]

          Almost forgot...

          "Internet company Yahoo tightened its relationship with software maker Novell this week, agreeing to promote the company's directory-services technology as the default in its corporate portal service."
          http://news.com.com/2100-1023-273037.html

          How about website development with eDirectory on Solaris?
          http://developer.novell.com/research/devnotes/2000/february/03/dpv.htm

          And from today...
          "Novell eDirectory is by far the more mature, established directory service on the market," said Rod Carney, manager of IT infrastructure at Huntington National Bank. "Novell consultants established an LDAP authentication using eDirectory and began integrating applications within six weeks, more than a month ahead of schedule."
          http://www.novell.com/success/huntington.html

      • On topic...
        2003-07-15 14:03:42  anonymous2 [View]

        "These two articles aren't really about Active Directory or eDirectory. They're about the challenges people face while migrating large business networks to Linux."

        To pick up the conversation...in the first sentence of this article, David states "the first part of this discussion about Enterprise Directory Services and Linux," but the discussion only centers around AD. I guess that is a "challenge"...to try to get something that doesn't work to work. Maybe someone could follow up with "the challenges of getting a Linux box to product a BSOD"...MS *definitely* has the "de facto" monopolistic market share there? Heck, Linux doesn't even have a "screen of death," much less a *blue* one. ;-)

        On the other hand, if this is about "Enterprise Directory Services," then why wouldn't he discuss Novell or Sun products (among others) in addition to AD?




        • On topic...
          2003-07-15 14:04:27  anonymous2 [View]

          oops...should have been "to produce a BSOD".