Ok.. I can't stand it any more! I have to chime in... it sounds like objectivity is out of the realm of possibilities for the slashdot crowd. I would think anyone here would appreciate that any two systems will have differences... advantages and disadvantages. But to just rant like this whole thread is doing... it's just pathetic.
I was hoping to read some good discussion arguing the points in Ballmer's email... but instead it's the same predictable spew from Linux extremists.
Directory Services: For your comments about how AD may be making your life miserable... then perhaps you shouldn't use Microsoft's Implementation of it. However, I would like to mention that Active Directory is just and LDAP directory... running on STANDARD protocols [such as LDAP] and it is integrated with technologies such as KERBEROS and DNS which have origins in *NIX. Just because you don't want to use Active Directory doesn't mean you shouldn't use a Directory Service of any kind.
ANY directory service requires knowledge and expertise about how to use it. If you aren't qualified to run the Windows Implementation... then stick with OpenLDAP or an alternate. Don't just blindly criticize something because you don't understand it.
DFS & FRS: Using a stapler instead of a corkscrew obviously is the wrong tool for the job if you're trying to open a bottle of wine. So don't be naïve in thinking that FRS [File Replication Service] HAS to be used the way you WANT it to.
DFS is designed to make a collection of network shares appear in one FLAT logical hierarchy... replication is not part of the game.
FRS is used to replicate small files that don't change very often [such as Group Policies and Login Scripts] It is not a substitution for a document management solution and it is NOT intended for use of constantly changing data being accessed from multiple locations. It sounds like this poster has implemented it incorrectly!
A solution like XOSoft's WanSync or hell, even ROBOCOPY would be more appropriate. A transacted replication mechanism that guarantees no data will be lost is what this situation calls for. FRS Is a best effort mechanism... and if you happen to break it on a Domain Controller - then YES, you run the risk of hosing up your domain.
Slashdot Mirror
Ok.. I can't stand it any more! I have to chime in... it sounds like objectivity is out of the realm of possibilities for the slashdot crowd. I would think anyone here would appreciate that any two systems will have differences... advantages and disadvantages. But to just rant like this whole thread is doing... it's just pathetic.
I was hoping to read some good discussion arguing the points in Ballmer's email... but instead it's the same predictable spew from Linux extremists.
Directory Services:
For your comments about how AD may be making your life miserable... then perhaps you shouldn't use Microsoft's Implementation of it. However, I would like to mention that Active Directory is just and LDAP directory... running on STANDARD protocols [such as LDAP] and it is integrated with technologies such as KERBEROS and DNS which have origins in *NIX. Just because you don't want to use Active Directory doesn't mean you shouldn't use a Directory Service of any kind.
ANY directory service requires knowledge and expertise about how to use it. If you aren't qualified to run the Windows Implementation... then stick with OpenLDAP or an alternate. Don't just blindly criticize something because you don't understand it.
DFS & FRS:
Using a stapler instead of a corkscrew obviously is the wrong tool for the job if you're trying to open a bottle of wine. So don't be naïve in thinking that FRS [File Replication Service] HAS to be used the way you WANT it to.
DFS is designed to make a collection of network shares appear in one FLAT logical hierarchy... replication is not part of the game.
FRS is used to replicate small files that don't change very often [such as Group Policies and Login Scripts] It is not a substitution for a document management solution and it is NOT intended for use of constantly changing data being accessed from multiple locations. It sounds like this poster has implemented it incorrectly!
A solution like XOSoft's WanSync or hell, even ROBOCOPY would be more appropriate. A transacted replication mechanism that guarantees no data will be lost is what this situation calls for. FRS Is a best effort mechanism... and if you happen to break it on a Domain Controller - then YES, you run the risk of hosing up your domain.