Women in Technology

Hear us Roar



Article:
  Unfinished Business Part 2: Closing the Circle
Subject:   Off-Topic
Date:   2003-07-16 17:45:34
From:   chromatic
Response to: Off-Topic

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.

Full Threads Oldest First

Showing messages 1 through 4 of 4.

  • 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