} Les Mikesell } Subject: Re: [CentOS] RE: Using CentOS as a file server on a win2K domain- } -nothing to do with alternatives } } On Fri, 2005-07-29 at 07:01, Bryan J. Smith wrote: } > } > Excluding Novell eDirectory (fka NDS) from considerations, _every_ } > Fortune 100 company I've been at either uses a NsDS based tree } > (including Sun One) for their enterprise, and syncs ADS to/from it, or } > segments with another LDAP solution (e.g., Netegrity, many others). The } > NsDS or other LDAP solution almost _always_ pre-dates ADS adoption, } > simply because it was necessary to manage countless numbers of users and } > systems. } } Back up a step and I think you'd find that those companies had mainframe } X.500 systems that predate any PC or unix implementations because at the } time only a mainframe had the necessary capacity. Some may still be } running the master copy on mainframes. Remember that the L in LDAP } means 'lightweight' which only makes sense in comparison to X.500, and } that from the start LDAP was designed to work as a tcp front end query } mechanism to X.500 directories as well as a standalone database for } smaller systems. } } -- } Les Mikesell } lesmikesell at gmail.com maybe i asked the original question improperly and im almost sure this one isnt posed perfectly either. what do really large companies use that do not allow or have 100% migrated away from "M$ windows servers" in their networks yet allow "windows clients" in their networks "and" must service all their windows clients needs just as *if* their were M$ servers on their networks? does this make better sense? i believe this is what everyone is getting at in all these threads and yet there appears to be no 100% functional open source solution right now, is there? -- Robert Hanson Abba Communications http://www.abbacomm.net