Got to agree. I wondered if I imagined it; no one else around me seemed to notice and I haven't seen any posts about it. Yep, that was WAY over the top.
If you follow other lore in the SW universe, it's there. Some of the official games, for example, especially JK I & II. This is not news to folks who have been following the SW franchise outside the big screen.
Actually, I believe the gov has pretty well demonstrated it can do whatever it wants when it comes to the documents meant to hem them in.
I believe corporations are much more constrained by the rule of law than governments.
Seriously though... A second (third!) OS edition for people who go day to day as admin but who don't want sock_raw? Stupid. Face it... Windows is for egotists who think being non-admin is a BAD thing.
[blokequote]lack of money should not be a reason not to have children.[/blokequote]
Not having money to support them is the best excuse ever not to have kids next to just being two complete dolts who should not propagate like you and anything that ever looked at you. This is not a troll, see I have a real SlashID. Since when is not having the resources to support offspring a poor excuse from refraining to procreate?
Where you said
"my parents who were not particularly [something] had five kids"
Pay attention. He said they *could* be innovative, not they *are* here. You're conflating the two. They have shown innovation (not all of it good, but nonetheless...).
How do you call making sure somebody didn't steal their installation of your software "[forcing] people into buying something"? You mean forcing people into paying for something , I think (as opposed to letting them install it illegally). In the context of this discussion, MS has forced nobody to buy anything, they're just trying to keep them from pilfering it. You need to get out of the lab more if you think MS is losing ground from their recent efforts to shore up illegitimate software installs. If you think nobody buys MS software for actual value, maybe you could read some of the commentary here.
This is something I was trying to say some posts ago. You have it exactly. Until this void is filled, expect Redmond to keep gaining ground in all areas where directory-integrated enterprise apps are needed. And the way convergence tends to fold in on itself, expect that to be pretty much everything tomorrow.
The thing is, in your suggestion
roll up some nice pam/ldap/nss/ntlm/kerberos/nfsv4/samba combination
above, you still miss the thing that isn't there... group policy and the myriad of things you can manage and manage well with it. This is one of the things that differentiate AD from NDS and other competitors. In a world where investors think that CMM is the holy grail, in a world where you've got to have very stringent security policies but still have server apps not only work but perform, in a world where you need to be able to manage ten stock configurations across 500 servers and never miss a beat on a patch, a configuration change or a rebuild, AD, group policy and their add-ons are power. The nay sayers can cast aspersions all they lke, but I'm in the trenches and I'm telling you it is far more efficient and stable than anything I've seen elsewhere. And I've been in the RH deployment labs, I done racks of RLX with their Control Tower tools, etc., so I do have something to compare it against.
I want to stress just like you have that this is not a task that is beyond the capabilities of the FOSS community. It is a challenge and it is high time somebody got going on an answer. For a long time I watched SaMBa-TNG to see when they'd hit a full head of steam, but they never did. You are right on that somebody has to really reign it in and get a standardized reference design together and have all the majors behind the effort. And you point out RedHat's stand-off. I suspect that they'll be releasing pieces of Netscape directory server as GPL soon to try to coax some sweat from developers and let their ES implemetation ultimately become THE implementation. But it won't happen. All it'll do is worsen the fragmentation in this arena and guarantee that redmond keeps a stranglehold in this division for at least another generation or two of major enterprise OS releases. IMO, with convergence getting hotter and hotter, it is a bad time for the vendors to be playing this gambit. They need to be working up a solution together. If they don't get it on soon, you know who'll be the big player in convergent apps based on integrated directory services on Linux? Nobody.
Well, it sounds to me like you did learn something. You learned that the time to read up on something is before you deploy it. If you approach MS stuff with that kind of cavalier attitude, I'd hate to see your *N*X deployments or BSD for sure!
FOO:
YHBT, I think. You don't use a workgroup either. A domain is a domain, a security group is a security group and an organizational unit is an organizational unit (I can see how that can be confusing). You do not have to have any thing other than a parent domain to support an OU and OUs can nest any imaginable way and have a single parent domain. You really don't know what you're talking about so sit back and listen a little. OUs are not to be used for the same reasons as the old "resource domains" of NT yore. I explain it really simply for folks who ask about it... "OUs are for what can be done TO the objects contained, Group Membership is for what can be done BY the objects contained"
When I said the migrations were big wins for the customers, I AM generally speaking in terms of managing tens of thousands of users at a time. But I am also talking about more than that -- I am talking about their ability to write custom directory-aware applications. This is the big void (I'm not going to say failing because it is not impossible, it's just that no one is quite there yet) in the *N*X world.
When MS designed AD, they designed it with the same thing in mind they design everything -- end-user extensibility. Group policy is a very workable swiss-army-kinfe of tools for the admin to make administration much easier. Developers are easily able to build on it in a very good OO manner. They also built a fair amound of standards-based interoperability into it so that anyone with familiarity with LDAP, Kerberos, etc. was going to be able to get into programming for it quickly. They made the integration super tight between it and other core OS services -- Kerberos, DFS, RADIUS, RRAS, Message Queueing, etc., etc. -- as well as their flagship products that sell separately including Exchange, SQL2K, ISA and everything they've come out with beyond that. I've never been an MS fanboy as far as their business practices go, and I have cursed Win9x and NT4 installations more than a vast majority of posters here. But MS is starting to get some things right as far as their products go. Before, they were an easy target for the RH and the SuSE of the world (hell, the Debs and Slackwares too, even BSDs for crying out loud) to target by saying "they're too unreliable and difficult to configure to do enterprise computing with". Those days are coming to an end. While millions of FOSS contributors have trained their eyes on the desktop, MS has transcended it and is poised to gain back the market that made FOSS a threat to begin with: enterprise computing. And all they had concede was 10% web browser share. It's time for the major vendors to put their thinking hats on. And maybe it is time for them to think about working together again too. They've all been thinking, "hey, it's FOSS, but I can still put some widgets onto the pieces I glue together and call it proprietary and sell it for the same prices as MS or even more". RH is all about it. SuSE is too. But what you end up with are separate incompatible implementations of enterprise-grade features. What's worse, the RH and the SuSE of the world are still at the whim of whoever maintains the components they have glued onto. Sure, they can fork and maintain their own if they have to, but they specifically do not want to.
I think the top ten vendors need to form a consortium to delineate about five goals that they want to see in enterprise features, agree on thorough, complete specifications, and then engage the community with cash and other incentives to get it done. And when the goals are realized, the reults need to be free enough that all distros can interoperate. When you encumber other's rights to do one thing with the software, you encumber all abilities to do any thing in a truly interoperable manner. The major vendors need to figure out how they're going to benefit from the features being available without encumbering them or they will remain behind MS just because MS got ahead of them and the FOSS community is too fragmented. When there are c
These are all valid points.
YaST is a problem. It is the same kind of problem you'll always have whenever you try to over-simplify configuration management tasks that inherently require good, in-depth thought. It is similar in flaws to MS's "manage your server" (not to be confused with ComputerManagement) wizard that they try to get you to use. Also a piece of shit. If you want to add and configure OS components, you know how to do that. If you want to configure services, you know how to do that. Trying to wizardize inherently tough tasks is just wrong. I have had to argue this with many a developer. Some argee with little argument; the rest only begrudgingly admit it after their wizard never gets out of QA.
YaST notwithstanding, SuSE's ES distro is still one of the best configs out of the box for integrated apps. I'd take it over RHES any day. I don't see Ximian/MONO as a liability per se, but we'll have to see how deeply they embed it in their distro. They may have some assurances from Redmond we don't know about regarding encumbrances on.NET too. Frankly, I think MONO's gonna be a great implementation at the end of the day; I'm just afraid that MS will only let it get so successful before they start trying to compete (and I mean in their unfair way; regular good-spririted competition is great) with it instead of co-operate.
Sorry, Jon... you are out of touch. It will absolutely do every bit of that either natively or with the rest of the Win2000/2003 tools that come with it out of the box. Just because you don't know how to do it doesn't mean it doesn't. And yes, that feature set is about 1999.
Like many others here, I have participated in several migrations away from NDS in favor of AD. Each instance has been a big win for the people I worked for.
That being said, I have recently installed a trial of the last release of SuSE LINUX Enterprise Server (the first since Novell acquisition) and I have to say that this product's successors/siblings are going to balance things in the DS arena again. I never had anything against Novell, but they stagnated while they tried to fend off and interoperate the beast simultaneously and MS gained almost all of their infrastructure ground almost solely at Novell's expense while they were floundering without a plan.
The recent SuSE and Ximian acquisitions are going to pay great dividends both for Novell and for the community in the long run. I am excited to see what they do, but for goodness sake, don't applaud the last five years of NDS. That's like claiming the last three Rocky films were the best.
These are the same guys who'll shout high and low that the internet could be brought down by a particular vulnerability and then refuse to supply the fix (not an IOS upgrade, mind you, just a patch) to anyone running their gear but without a current maintenance contract. Sorry, if your gear powers a sizable fraction of the internet and you have already made your money off of selling it, it is your responsibility to the community to provide patches for this kind of exploit gratis if in fact it is as dire as you say it is. Security comapny? Bah. Profitteer!
Duh. In the late 80's I had a Tandy "PDA" that had a thumb keyboard and my Sony wireless phone from about 96 has a scrollwheel. Go fish.
You're right that RIM has contributed more but your other argument is void and the merit of RIM's other contributions are not the point. The point is the patent is valid till it's tossed and they are infringing. Either invalidate the patent or find for NTP. But don't "excuse" RIM on merit of their position in the industry. That's just BS.
Did it ever cross your mind that that they actually might take something like that into consideration beforehand?
That's pretty good... issuing the advisory before even discovering a vulnerability, let alone an exploit. Man, are we gald you're here to speed up the process.
Where were you when the tsunami victims-to-be needed you?
Sorry, folks... it's really simple. If you're installing software packages or widgets that plug into them, you're performing an administrative task. That's why they call them administrative rights, dolts. Neither well-configured Windows (well, 2k, XP or 2k3/SBS anyway) nor Linux nor BSD (free, OSX, etc.) nor proprietary UNIX (Solaris, HP/UX, etc.) in my experience deviate from this simple notion. And if you have half a tendency towards laziness, you find simple ways to automate any context-shift you may need to enact to perform regular tasks in any environment that doesn't provide you them by default (i.e., not SuSE, OSX). Anytime you're doing those types of things, it's good to know when you have crossed the line into "admin land" and my opinion is that anyone who doesn't want to know the difference neither needs nor deserves any avenue to root.
Slashdot Mirror
Got to agree. I wondered if I imagined it; no one else around me seemed to notice and I haven't seen any posts about it. Yep, that was WAY over the top.
If you follow other lore in the SW universe, it's there. Some of the official games, for example, especially JK I & II. This is not news to folks who have been following the SW franchise outside the big screen.
Great sig. You'll love it -- it's a way of life.
While I was trying to be funny and don't think I deserve the troll mod, I have to admit, you were funnier.
Actually, I believe the gov has pretty well demonstrated it can do whatever it wants when it comes to the documents meant to hem them in. I believe corporations are much more constrained by the rule of law than governments.
I can't believe that you yourself are a latter day saint! Blasphemy! Perhaps you believe in them, but to self-proclaim... that's scary.
OMFG!! I can't believe you played the Orson Scott Card!!!
Mr. Anderson... welcome back. We missed you.
Seriously though... A second (third!) OS edition for people who go day to day as admin but who don't want sock_raw? Stupid. Face it... Windows is for egotists who think being non-admin is a BAD thing.
[blokequote]lack of money should not be a reason not to have children.[/blokequote]
Not having money to support them is the best excuse ever not to have kids next to just being two complete dolts who should not propagate like you and anything that ever looked at you. This is not a troll, see I have a real SlashID. Since when is not having the resources to support offspring a poor excuse from refraining to procreate?
Where you said
"my parents who were not particularly [something] had five kids"
I'm assuming [something] is "intelligent". QED.
You're modded +2 funny, but you're onto something. The thing is, they have been slowly improving some of those crappy products.
Pay attention. He said they *could* be innovative, not they *are* here. You're conflating the two. They have shown innovation (not all of it good, but nonetheless...).
How do you call making sure somebody didn't steal their installation of your software "[forcing] people into buying something"? You mean forcing people into paying for something , I think (as opposed to letting them install it illegally). In the context of this discussion, MS has forced nobody to buy anything, they're just trying to keep them from pilfering it. You need to get out of the lab more if you think MS is losing ground from their recent efforts to shore up illegitimate software installs. If you think nobody buys MS software for actual value, maybe you could read some of the commentary here.
The thing is, in your suggestionabove, you still miss the thing that isn't there... group policy and the myriad of things you can manage and manage well with it. This is one of the things that differentiate AD from NDS and other competitors. In a world where investors think that CMM is the holy grail, in a world where you've got to have very stringent security policies but still have server apps not only work but perform, in a world where you need to be able to manage ten stock configurations across 500 servers and never miss a beat on a patch, a configuration change or a rebuild, AD, group policy and their add-ons are power. The nay sayers can cast aspersions all they lke, but I'm in the trenches and I'm telling you it is far more efficient and stable than anything I've seen elsewhere. And I've been in the RH deployment labs, I done racks of RLX with their Control Tower tools, etc., so I do have something to compare it against.
I want to stress just like you have that this is not a task that is beyond the capabilities of the FOSS community. It is a challenge and it is high time somebody got going on an answer. For a long time I watched SaMBa-TNG to see when they'd hit a full head of steam, but they never did. You are right on that somebody has to really reign it in and get a standardized reference design together and have all the majors behind the effort. And you point out RedHat's stand-off. I suspect that they'll be releasing pieces of Netscape directory server as GPL soon to try to coax some sweat from developers and let their ES implemetation ultimately become THE implementation. But it won't happen. All it'll do is worsen the fragmentation in this arena and guarantee that redmond keeps a stranglehold in this division for at least another generation or two of major enterprise OS releases. IMO, with convergence getting hotter and hotter, it is a bad time for the vendors to be playing this gambit. They need to be working up a solution together. If they don't get it on soon, you know who'll be the big player in convergent apps based on integrated directory services on Linux? Nobody.
Well, it sounds to me like you did learn something. You learned that the time to read up on something is before you deploy it. If you approach MS stuff with that kind of cavalier attitude, I'd hate to see your *N*X deployments or BSD for sure!
FOO: YHBT, I think. You don't use a workgroup either. A domain is a domain, a security group is a security group and an organizational unit is an organizational unit (I can see how that can be confusing). You do not have to have any thing other than a parent domain to support an OU and OUs can nest any imaginable way and have a single parent domain. You really don't know what you're talking about so sit back and listen a little. OUs are not to be used for the same reasons as the old "resource domains" of NT yore. I explain it really simply for folks who ask about it... "OUs are for what can be done TO the objects contained, Group Membership is for what can be done BY the objects contained"
When I said the migrations were big wins for the customers, I AM generally speaking in terms of managing tens of thousands of users at a time. But I am also talking about more than that -- I am talking about their ability to write custom directory-aware applications. This is the big void (I'm not going to say failing because it is not impossible, it's just that no one is quite there yet) in the *N*X world.
When MS designed AD, they designed it with the same thing in mind they design everything -- end-user extensibility. Group policy is a very workable swiss-army-kinfe of tools for the admin to make administration much easier. Developers are easily able to build on it in a very good OO manner. They also built a fair amound of standards-based interoperability into it so that anyone with familiarity with LDAP, Kerberos, etc. was going to be able to get into programming for it quickly. They made the integration super tight between it and other core OS services -- Kerberos, DFS, RADIUS, RRAS, Message Queueing, etc., etc. -- as well as their flagship products that sell separately including Exchange, SQL2K, ISA and everything they've come out with beyond that. I've never been an MS fanboy as far as their business practices go, and I have cursed Win9x and NT4 installations more than a vast majority of posters here. But MS is starting to get some things right as far as their products go. Before, they were an easy target for the RH and the SuSE of the world (hell, the Debs and Slackwares too, even BSDs for crying out loud) to target by saying "they're too unreliable and difficult to configure to do enterprise computing with". Those days are coming to an end. While millions of FOSS contributors have trained their eyes on the desktop, MS has transcended it and is poised to gain back the market that made FOSS a threat to begin with: enterprise computing. And all they had concede was 10% web browser share. It's time for the major vendors to put their thinking hats on. And maybe it is time for them to think about working together again too. They've all been thinking, "hey, it's FOSS, but I can still put some widgets onto the pieces I glue together and call it proprietary and sell it for the same prices as MS or even more". RH is all about it. SuSE is too. But what you end up with are separate incompatible implementations of enterprise-grade features. What's worse, the RH and the SuSE of the world are still at the whim of whoever maintains the components they have glued onto. Sure, they can fork and maintain their own if they have to, but they specifically do not want to.
I think the top ten vendors need to form a consortium to delineate about five goals that they want to see in enterprise features, agree on thorough, complete specifications, and then engage the community with cash and other incentives to get it done. And when the goals are realized, the reults need to be free enough that all distros can interoperate. When you encumber other's rights to do one thing with the software, you encumber all abilities to do any thing in a truly interoperable manner. The major vendors need to figure out how they're going to benefit from the features being available without encumbering them or they will remain behind MS just because MS got ahead of them and the FOSS community is too fragmented. When there are c
These are all valid points. YaST is a problem. It is the same kind of problem you'll always have whenever you try to over-simplify configuration management tasks that inherently require good, in-depth thought. It is similar in flaws to MS's "manage your server" (not to be confused with ComputerManagement) wizard that they try to get you to use. Also a piece of shit. If you want to add and configure OS components, you know how to do that. If you want to configure services, you know how to do that. Trying to wizardize inherently tough tasks is just wrong. I have had to argue this with many a developer. Some argee with little argument; the rest only begrudgingly admit it after their wizard never gets out of QA. YaST notwithstanding, SuSE's ES distro is still one of the best configs out of the box for integrated apps. I'd take it over RHES any day. I don't see Ximian/MONO as a liability per se, but we'll have to see how deeply they embed it in their distro. They may have some assurances from Redmond we don't know about regarding encumbrances on .NET too. Frankly, I think MONO's gonna be a great implementation at the end of the day; I'm just afraid that MS will only let it get so successful before they start trying to compete (and I mean in their unfair way; regular good-spririted competition is great) with it instead of co-operate.
Sorry, Jon... you are out of touch. It will absolutely do every bit of that either natively or with the rest of the Win2000/2003 tools that come with it out of the box. Just because you don't know how to do it doesn't mean it doesn't. And yes, that feature set is about 1999.
Like many others here, I have participated in several migrations away from NDS in favor of AD. Each instance has been a big win for the people I worked for.
That being said, I have recently installed a trial of the last release of SuSE LINUX Enterprise Server (the first since Novell acquisition) and I have to say that this product's successors/siblings are going to balance things in the DS arena again. I never had anything against Novell, but they stagnated while they tried to fend off and interoperate the beast simultaneously and MS gained almost all of their infrastructure ground almost solely at Novell's expense while they were floundering without a plan.
The recent SuSE and Ximian acquisitions are going to pay great dividends both for Novell and for the community in the long run. I am excited to see what they do, but for goodness sake, don't applaud the last five years of NDS. That's like claiming the last three Rocky films were the best.
Cisco as security company? Sure, whynot?
These are the same guys who'll shout high and low that the internet could be brought down by a particular vulnerability and then refuse to supply the fix (not an IOS upgrade, mind you, just a patch) to anyone running their gear but without a current maintenance contract. Sorry, if your gear powers a sizable fraction of the internet and you have already made your money off of selling it, it is your responsibility to the community to provide patches for this kind of exploit gratis if in fact it is as dire as you say it is. Security comapny? Bah. Profitteer!
Close to $700 million last year, posted $100 million in profits. I'd call that OK. They're in Ottawa.
What about COGNOS, they're doing OK, right?
Duh. In the late 80's I had a Tandy "PDA" that had a thumb keyboard and my Sony wireless phone from about 96 has a scrollwheel. Go fish.
You're right that RIM has contributed more but your other argument is void and the merit of RIM's other contributions are not the point. The point is the patent is valid till it's tossed and they are infringing. Either invalidate the patent or find for NTP. But don't "excuse" RIM on merit of their position in the industry. That's just BS.
Did it ever cross your mind that that they actually might take something like that into consideration beforehand?
That's pretty good... issuing the advisory before even discovering a vulnerability, let alone an exploit. Man, are we gald you're here to speed up the process.
Where were you when the tsunami victims-to-be needed you?
I suppose somebody's gonna whine that it promotes insecurity because you need admin rights to run it.
Sorry, folks... it's really simple. If you're installing software packages or widgets that plug into them, you're performing an administrative task. That's why they call them administrative rights, dolts. Neither well-configured Windows (well, 2k, XP or 2k3/SBS anyway) nor Linux nor BSD (free, OSX, etc.) nor proprietary UNIX (Solaris, HP/UX, etc.) in my experience deviate from this simple notion. And if you have half a tendency towards laziness, you find simple ways to automate any context-shift you may need to enact to perform regular tasks in any environment that doesn't provide you them by default (i.e., not SuSE, OSX). Anytime you're doing those types of things, it's good to know when you have crossed the line into "admin land" and my opinion is that anyone who doesn't want to know the difference neither needs nor deserves any avenue to root.
Why isn't XP?