From: Joe Barr 

On Tue, 24 Jun 2003 20:53:50 -0700,  Richard Shupak the shit eating worm
from Microsoft wrote:

>    Here we go again Joe.  You are making claims about something you know
>    nothing about.  Just like you did with George, why don't you
>    demonstrate some experience with both Active Directory and NDS or
>    admit you have no experience and apologize to everyone here.
>
> Rich

I can't even give you a nice try for that, Shupak.  The problems with
Active Directory are so plentiful and so bad that even an organization like
MS Research & Disinformation - which dedicates its existence to such
work - cannot cover up the stench.  Your customers, Shupak, know that AD is
a piece of shit.  Try and convince them, if you like, that they are wrong. 
Don't waste your lies and bullshit on me.

Following is one of about 14 trillion stories in the trade press revealing
you once more as a lying sack of shit.

http://www.computerworld.com/hardwaretopics/hardware/server/story/0,10801,57552
,00.html


Inactive Directory


By MARK HALL
FEBRUARY 12, 2001



Microsoft's simple solution to its operating systems proliferation problem
is said to be Active Directory. Its duty will be to keep all of the user,
resource and application information current, distributed and managed among
whatever you've got on your network. Even if it happens to be
cross-platform. (It sure is nice when Microsoft recognizes the real world.)

That's why Active Directory is based on LDAP, Kerberos, MAPI and other
industry standards. But because Active Directory insists on controlling
down to the network protocols, it will play nice only on a network where
it's the master and all other directory servers and services are slaves. If
you chat with system administrators or surf the Windows chat boards online,
you come across consistent complaints about how hard it is to get
Microsoft's Kerberos to work right. You also hear about the nightmare
you'll face if you try to install Active Directory when your domain name
server happens to run on Linux, Solaris, NetWare or anything else. Horror
stories abound.

Microsoft's answer is simplicity itself: You'll have none of those problems
if you just move all of your IT operational management to Active Directory.
That's just what IBM said when you complained that your Unix-based Internet
services didn't mesh well with SNA.

No one talks about SNA much these days. Coincidentally, not many people are
doing much with Active Directory these days either. Although Microsoft
announced last week that it will reach the 1 million mark this month for
Windows 2000 server licenses, the company is uncharacteristically modest
about how many Active Directory installations it has so far. Some reports
say as few as 15% of all Windows 2000 upgrades include Active Directory in
their rollouts.

Like IBM's grand vision of SNA, Active Directory is a simple, monolithic
answer to a complex, heterogeneous problem.

So far, most users think it's the wrong answer.

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-4