[THIN] Re: Betr.: NDS Pass Through

  • From: "Braebaum, Neil" <neil.braebaum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: "'thin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx'" <thin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Fri, 18 Oct 2002 16:56:03 +0100

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Schneider, Samuel M. Mr (Contractor) UHD 
> [mailto:Samuel.Schneider@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] 
> Sent: 18 October 2002 16:49
> To: 'thin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx'
> Subject: [THIN] Re: Betr.: NDS Pass Through
> Well, As an early adopter you should know that a directory 
> (ummm excsuse
> me) a set of domains chained by transitive trust is not a 
> directory.

The domain aspect, and how other domains are treated is a slightly different

A directory is a respository for the relevant info you want to store
(outside of true, huge amounts of application data).

As a directory, AD meets that criteria.

> It's just like the old M$ training for NT4 where 
> M$ Drill and Drills that Domains are directories. 

I understand your amusement - but they were aligning themselves with the
future. Just because they (in the run-up to AD) changed the denomination of
the domain labels, doesn't necessarily invalidate what AD is.

> Bull-hockey. They wish to compete on the same level as NDS 
> but only provides updates to existing legacy infrastructures.


In what way?

> Wheeew!!!! ok. Now let me state this I am not a detractor, I 
> was involved in a significant (early release of AD.. 1700 +
> rollout) Tools and application methods were not sound ( 
> especially in the Messaging arena). Joe shonks comment about 
> administering nds is incorrect if you have administrators who 
> are worth their pay NDS is much easier and methodical to 
> administer than AD is... that is until you have rebuild your 
> forest to incorporate new versions. :)
> I don't disagree that AD is quite an improvement over 
> domains... But strongly disagree with comments recommending 
> that AD is even close to the same caliber of NDS from a 
> directory perspective.

Then explain what you mean.

You've mentioned some things you don't like about it.

But you've not actually made any specific reference to your derision on the
term "directory".

> Nuff said



This e-mail and its attachments are intended for the above named 
recipient(s) only and are confidential and may be privileged.
If they have come to you in error you must take no action based 
on them, nor must you copy or disclose them or any part of 
their contents to any person or organisation; please notify the 
sender immediately and delete this e-mail and its attachments from 
your computer system.

Please note that Internet communications are not necessarily secure 
and may be changed, intercepted or corrupted. We advise that 
you understand and observe this lack of security when e-mailing us 
and we will not accept any liability for any such changes, 
interceptions or corruptions. 

Although we have taken steps to ensure that this e-mail and its 
attachments are free from any virus, we advise that in keeping 
with good computing practice the recipient should ensure they 
are actually virus free.

Copyright in this e-mail and attachments created by us belongs 
to Littlewoods. 

Littlewoods takes steps to prohibit the transmission of offensive, 
obscene or discriminatory material.  If this message contains 
inappropriate material please forward the e-mail intact to 
postmaster@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx and it will be investigated. 
Statements and opinions contained in this e-mail may not 
necessarily represent those of Littlewoods.

Please note that e-mail communication may be monitored.

Registered office: 
Littlewoods Retail Limited, 
Sir John Moores Building, 
100 Old Hall Street, 
L70 1AB 
Registered no: 421258 

This weeks sponsor Emergent Online
Visit Jim Kenzig of thethin.net at the
Emergent Online Booth #221 at Citrix Iforum 2002!
Register now at:
For Archives, to Unsubscribe, Subscribe or 
set Digest or Vacation mode use the below link.


Other related posts: