SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Technology Stocks : Novell (NOVL) dirt cheap, good buy?
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: Scott C. Lemon who wrote (30043)1/24/2000 4:20:00 PM
From: PJ Strifas  Read Replies (1) of 42771
 
True - in the scenario you illustrate, the inconsistant management of objects within the same organization by more than one person can have adverse effects on either system.

Of course, I feel that in the case of this type of activity having at least one systematic and logical way to manage the changes will in the end provide a more stable environment. In the case of NDS, the timestamp becomes the governing entity on change management within the datastore. In AD, there is no one single entity entitled to manage over the changes to objects in the datastore (from the way I read the literature). Instead there's a series of tie-breakers and if-and-buts that lead to AD determining the correct sequence of changes to an object.

Tell me, which system do you think the possibility of corruption is greater with SIMPLE data changes? If 2 admins on an NDS system make changes to the same attribute of the same object, there will be one definable value for that attribute in the end (of course there's a chance the end result is not the intended or needed result). In Active Directory, there's an inconsistant value for that attribute after all is said and done because the process to track the changes is not consistant.

Of course if you take your example and move it up in scale - from simple object changes to complex changes (say creating partitions or placing replicas) it does not matter WHICH system you are using - one plays with fire when they get "click happy".

I've seen inexperienced Administrators click NDS to death in a matter of minutes. It's not impossible to do either especially the manner in which some of the NDS tools handle the views of the NDS tree (such as NWADMIN or NDS Manager). Even Novell explains in very exacting ways that administration of NDS should be carefully monitored and carefully planned out.

Basically the way I see this shaping out - right now we're splitting hairs in discussing which system is better and why when in fact, we may find that there is good in both systems. I don't see Active Directory becoming robust and scalable to the terms of NDSv8 any time soon no matter how many applications people write for it. To me, I can't give Active Directory that much credit until it shows me something. All this discussing is great for intellitual exercise - just go out there and implement this MSFT product and show me how it's better.

What I find amazingly hilarious is that people can actually DISMISS a developed and successful product like NDS just because MSFT decided it was going to produce it's own directory product. History WILL repeat itself yet again...people will blindly follow MSFT just like millions followed Big Blue.

Regards,
Peter J Strifas
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  

HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQAdvertise on SI
© 2025 Knight Sac Media.  Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News