Slashdot Mirror
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:
- MS Exchange/Active Directory
- A cobbled-together solution based as much as possible on OSS (as no direct equivalent exists).
- Samba/OpenLDAP/Kerberos
- Bynari Insight Server for messaging/groupware.
- Nitrobit Group Policy for, you guessed it, group policy management.
Is this a duplicate post? Or was someone else doing their job by asking /.? Seems like a poor way to get a job done.
/.? Could be a resume generating event......
Wonder if his boss will read his question on
This gets moderated insightful for repeating the Slashdot memes? Jesus. Break it down for me, monkey -
Just be sure to include your long term costs when you are evaluating. you should calculate the costs of integration and upgrades too. MS products don't work well with other companies products and will inevitably cost you hundreds of man hours if you are ever presented with the problem of integrating non standard MS software with software from other vendors.
Riiiiight. So, all of these vendors - IBM, Oracle, Sybase, Siebel, etc. - they don't integrate well? Oracle on Red Hat ain't a fucking cake-walk, either. Support? Like "RTFM, newb!"? Right. Or "look it up on alt.who.the.fuck.knows"?
Truth is, vendor support for Microsoft applications is superior - you're working with a known factor - Windows. OSS: Linux, Unix, or ? Stock or custom kernel? Which kernel version? What glib? Build from source or binaries?
As far as admins go studies have shown that unix admins on average maintain more servers per admin then windows admins. You may be able to do with one unix admin as opposed to two windows admins.
I won't dispute this claim, as many "Windows admins" are desktop techs who know enough to get by. A *true* Windows administrator, however, can be just as efficient (or more) than a Unix/Linux admin. Windows now has quite a nice set of remote support tools built in - including command line utilities.
windows machines as a rule run less services per machine then unix machines do. This means more servers, which means, more servers to patch, keep up to date, backup, and admin.
Errr, what? Many organizations run a Linux/Unix firewall/router/proxy server, and then a Windows AD Controller/Exchange/File & Print Services/WINS/DNS/DHCP server. Are these ideal configurations? No. It depends on what you're doing with them. Is your Internet connection absolutely critical? No? Then run a cheap Unix box with a 2nd NIC, and throw it up with a smoothwall distro, etc., - or get a purpose-built distro. If your connection is CRITICAL, you'll run Debian or Red Hat Enterprise, or a *nix-based appliance.
Windows does not scale well, no. But your blanket statement is patently untrue.
Finally the perenial problem of backups and bare metal recovery. This is trivial in unix but costs thousands if not tens of thousands of dollars for windows.
Trivial? Fine - you show me a trivial way to backup open files on the fly in Unix - cause I would LOVE to know that. I'll set up a Samba server tomorrow and start having all my clients use that instead of Backup Exec for Windows.
There is a lot to think about. Just saying I have used windows XP before so i can maintain a active directory/exchange environment is plain old stupid.
No shit? Wow, that's deep. That's like saying that because you can install Fedora Core 4 on a modern P4 PC from Dell or HP, you're a Unix admin.