Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

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? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Spartex who wrote (30027)	1/23/2000 8:17:00 PM
From: jwright	Respond to of 42771

I pulled this from Microsoft's response that Quad-K posted. >> With regard to Microsoft?s DNS implementation, it is important to understand that Windows 2000 domain names are based on DNS names. Because domains have a one-to-one relationship with Active Directory partitions, Active Directory name spaces can be located directly via DNS. Further, an Active Directory object's fully distinguished name contains the DNS name of its partition, is globally unique, and completely describes how to find the object in a company's Intranet or across the entire Internet, providing complete DNS namespace integration. In contrast, the object naming style used by NDS does not incorporate DNS names and is not integrated. To locate an object in NDS, users need to know how to first find the appropriate NDS server. In addition, because NDS and LDAP use different naming syntaxes, intranet applications written to access NDS directly will use different object names than Internet applications that use LDAP. << This kind of ties in with Toy's post about the demos he saw at conference. It's crucial for Novell to solve this problem. E-Directory can't really inter-operate and manage the Internet if you can't find it. This kind of stuff drove me crazy. Anyway last post for a while just too busy trying to get my servers setup in ISP center. Good luck with Novell they really do have great technology. Let's hope the ICS sales kick in soon. Nice post Paul. Later Jimmy

To: Spartex who wrote (30027)	1/23/2000 8:34:00 PM
From: PJ Strifas	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 42771

MSFT Directory FUD - It appears that they will work to trivialize the Directory with all their efforts. I think MSFT's goal is to make the Directory akin to the file system FAT or something else insignificant. HOW MSFT Answers the questions: Does Active Directory Disable Disk Caching When Installed? Yes but it's no big deal and won't affect the servers performance (they why enable it on other disks or partitions?) in fact, Novell's NDS has the same problem too and probably disables disk caching too. Does Microsoft Recommend That No More Than 5,000 Users Be in an Active Directory Group? Actually give MSFT credit here - they admit to Novell's claim then go on to explain that you can "nest" groups as a way to acheive higher group memberships. I'm not sure exactly how this is done yet (haven't put Active Directory through the same paces I've put NDS through) or how it impacts user performance.... Their use of Novell guidelines takes a certain example of using Groups to Associate an Application with users based on a specific Job Function - not a bad example to prove their point. It's taken out of context though...that's an opinion. Let's face it, 1000 users within a group gets VERY general in administration no matter HOW large your organization no? Does Microsoft Recommend Against Distributed Group Management? The issue that MSFT can not dance around is the way in which Active Directory manages changes to the information it stores. In NDS, the information is timestamped by the system - every server on the network agrees to a pre-specified "network" time. This becomes the basis of prioritizing changes to the data in NDS. Thus if 2 or more people make changes, the changes happen in the order they occurred according to the time on the network. This is a rather fool-proof system. In Active Directory, there's a versioning system where depending on which Domian Controller you are logged into and the type of change made to the object and the syncrhronization process between the two server - the outcome is not guaranteed. MSFT "thinks this outcome is highly unlikely" - but what if?? Also, MSFT doesn't focus on the overall problem of tracking changes to ANY and ALL objects - just group memberships in their response. Something that's far less important that say -- security? Does the Active Directory Service in Windows 2000 Require Customers to Change an Existing DNS Infrastructure? Good question - great dance around - I've read more than one book on this subject (One from a very noted MSFT reseller/consultant) that state you MUST change your DNS structure to fully incorporate Active Directory into your network. The ONLY workaround is to manage 2 (TWO) domain namespaces - one that is private (or internal) and the other that is public (or external). So again, MSFT's response is not incorrect but it's not completely truthful. You can have one of 2 worlds: a) let Active Directory manage your DNS b) Manage 2 distinctly different namespaces (Active Directory on the inside, "legacy" DNS service on the outside) Does the Windows 2000 DNS Server Crash Non-Microsoft DNS Servers? Does it Only Support the Latest Versions of BIND? If you read MSFT's response closely it doesn't state any Non-MSFT servers it tested - but rather it's own products: - Active Directory with BIND 8.1.2 - Microsoft DNS (client & server) with BIND 4.9.7, 8.1.2 and 8.2 So we don't really know if they do or don't work with others. They then go on to state that EVERYONE should be UPGRADING their existing DNS servers to the more update AND what they claim "compatible" version of BIND. Another thing that's completely from LEFT FIELD - you do not need to know which server an NDS object is on to access it. In fact, an NDS object can be found on any number of servers that hold a "replica" of that portion of NDS. Replicas are actual copies of the NDS information, broken up into smaller, more manageable pieces and strategically positioned throughout your network for many reasons (increasing user peformance and fault tolerance are 2). Therefore I do not need to know what server holds the NDS information but rather that from my position in NDS, I have enough information to find that object through NDS itself. There's a slew of technical reasons that MSFT boldly passes over that in reality make their claim rather misleading. Does Only Windows 2000 Support Active Directory? Here MSFT makes a claim that more people are supporting AD and it's the obvious choice in Directory services - they then go on to state that people want a propreitary solution and not something that is flexible and works with their current network.