Searching for a Directory Service Solution?

kumulan wonders: "I've got the responsibility to set up directory services as well as a messaging/groupware system for my organization of app. 100 employees spread out over three locations. We are a startup that is merging three existing smaller companies and, given the state of existing IS infrastructure at each of these locations, the decision has already been made that we are better off starting from scratch. It would be great to hear from Slashdot readers concerning which option is 'better' and why." "For me, the choices are stark and clear:

1. MS Exchange/Active Directory
2. A cobbled-together solution based as much as possible on OSS (as no direct equivalent exists).

For (2) we have evaluated, and are strongly considering, the following:

• Samba/OpenLDAP/Kerberos
• Bynari Insight Server for messaging/groupware.
• Nitrobit Group Policy for, you guessed it, group policy management.

Of course, Samba 4 will address some of this 'cobbling', but we can't wait for that."

Comments

Easy.

[XorNand]

So, the question seems to be: OSS vs. Microsoft. Am I right? If so, the answer is easy: Which platform are the people who will be managaging the stuff have the most experience with? It may be sacrilege to say it here, but if you've a crew of MCSEs on staff who've never touched Linux, it's going to be more expensive and a bigger hastle go the OSS route.

I forget who said it but "OSS is free like a puppy is free". You need to have the staff to tend to the care and feeding. In the Detroit area at least, Windows guys are a dime a dozen. Competent Windows guys, while a bit more rare, are still easier to find than experienced Linux admins. (Of course, I'm looking at your question from a business consulting standpoint. If you're looking more for a technical recommendation, there's a lot more people here better qualified than me.)

Re:Easy.

[ndansmith]

You may be underestimating just how much is actually costs to get a Microsoft enterprise solution off the ground. You have to pay for the Server 2003 software, Exchange, XP Pro (volume), Office, Terminal Services licenses, and don't forget server CALs. Plus, you have to worry about Microsoft "obsoleting" your software via Vista, Longhorn Server, Blackcomb, and beyond; another round of licensing (and by extension of Vista's hardware requirements: another round of hardware updates / replacements).

Sure, it may require a fine tooth comb and/or training to get some qualified Linux guys on board, but I doubt that compares with the expense of purchasing the Microsoft solution.

Re:Easy.

[zulux]

if you've a crew of MCSEs on staff who've never touched Linux, it's going to be more expensive and a bigger hastle go the OSS route.

MS's newest/latest/greatest has a large learning curve as well. You old MCSE who knows Windows Domains will have just as much trouble learning Active Directory as he would have learning Samba 3.

I've trained MCSEs in open source technology - about 50% do just fine. The otheres were paper MCSEs and sucked at Windows too.

Re:Easy.

[Tadrith]

This is definitely true. I've found it much easier, if instead of thinking of people as Windows techs, or Linux techs, you simply think of them as techs.

A good tech should not be afraid of discovering and learning any system he or she might put their hands on, because part of being a good tech is learning how to keep your mind open and troubleshoot a problem. It doesn't matter if the problem is Windows, Linux, or a coffee maker -- you use the tools that you have to do the best job you can.

I am a programmer for a living, but I also do double time as a technician. I am just as comfortable configuring Windows Server 2003 as I am with Novell Netware 6.5, or any flavor of Linux. I don't see it as my job, or my passion, to devote myself to one platform. My job is to help people with computers and give them advice on what solution works best for them. Of course, I have a primary area of expertise, but that doesn't stop me from learning on my own.

3. Mac OS X Server

[dgatwood]

Considered Open Directory?

STOP....

[ellem]

just save yourself the trouble

W2K3.

Just shut up, buy it and be done with it. It'll hook up with whatever you're running and it is fine as long as you take the same precautions any decent Sys Admin would.

Another Consideration

[joelleo]

What exactly is the newly merged company doing? Is it supposed to be geeky-cool? Is it doing something totally unrelated to computers or technology? Is the IT infrastructure just a means to an end - users getting their work done?

If the company is trying to do something geeky-cool, you may be best served by using a "cobbled-together" open source architecture. It'll show your boy's and girl's prowess on the console and could be used as a Hercules-on-a-pedestal showcase for your talents.

On the other hand, in either of the other two cases, you're most likely going to be using MS on the desktop and your people aren't going to care that you've implemented OpenLDAP as long as their Word, Excel and Outlook work. In this situation, as has already been noted, you'd probably be best served by implementing Windows Server 2003 + Active Directory. An additional benefit is the expertise is relatively cheap and available, and may already be in-house with your amalgamated IT staff.

Good luck!

Do you have Windows desktops ?

[drsmithy]

If you do, AD is your only realistic choice. Group Policy alone justifies using it.

Added to that, it's not especially difficult getting Unix machines to talk to AD for authentication and other information (it's just LDAP, after all).

It's a hell of a lot easier to integrate and manage a handful of unix machines in a Windows environment than it is to integrate and manage a hundred Windows desktops in a unix environment. IME, that's typically the scenario (unix servers for mail, fileserving, DB, etc and Windows desktops).

Active Directory and Exchange

[mrscott]

Before I write, I should say that I'm in no way opposed to open source and use it where appropriate.

If you want something very well supported, not horribly difficult to administer in a simple environment and tried and true, just go with Active Directory and Exchange, especially if your company's focus is on something other than providing unique technology solutions. (i.e. you sell baskets)

While the open source solution might cost less up front, there is nothing in open sourece land at present that can touch the Exchange/Outlook combination. Sure, there are products such as OpenExchange, but, let's assume that you want the option to easily add other services later on, such as true handheld synchronization (i.e. www.good.com)

I know it can be sacrilege on Slashdot to not promote an open source solution every time, but sometimes, the business side of the house is more important than a cool technology solution.

Easy: Novell

[ImaLamer]

Novell - well if you are a Novell shop, you will use NDS. You will use everything else Novell has. It is sort of like joining a secret cult.

Not true, you can use Novell's NDS (eDirectory, the LDAP server software) right on top of Linux, Unix, or Windows. The admin tools are almost all Java based or otherwise accessible so you aren't locked in there (clients and management tools for Linux, Unix and Windows). Novell can manage the rights, er permissions, er privileges for clients of any flavor (because a directory services solution is about managing the resources on the network) - and has less bloat and more security than Active Directory.

Novell is my choice hands down. It isn't the nightmare product it used to be. Quite flexable, scalable and for all intents and purposes "open". This product actually follows standards! In my experience it also prices cheaper for clients than Active Directory, although you never know because I'm sure it has changed.

The person who asked this question initially said that the only other option to Active Directory was A cobbled-together solution based as much as possible on OSS (as no direct equivalent exists)

This simply isn't true. There is eDirectory and it's better! (PDF) Wake up people! It's 2005 and there is a better option out there and to top it all off they are a Linux company too.