Active Directory Domain on Ubuntu

[Mark]

On Fri, Nov 12, 2010 at 4:28 PM, Christopher Chan
<christopher.chan at bradbury.edu.hk> wrote:
>
> You have missed the point. It is not whether they have a long
> 'maintenance' commitment, it is whether they have any tools that make
> them manageable in the corporate environment. None of the Ubuntu LTS
> distros are with the exception of Hardy but its so called LTS means that
> it is not viable since that only means security updates. Who needs a
> dumb distro that cannot open files most of the world are using?
>
If I missed the point, someone else (you?) missed the whole topic.
LTS is not (just) a commitment to long maintenance.  RHEL is used in
corporate environments all over the world - that's what "Enterprise
Linux" entails, as opposed to other RH packages. That's one of the
distinctions between SuSE and SLES (formerly SLED?).  They're not
Enterprise distributions solely because of long-term support
commitments - all RH and SuSE releases have those (as opposed to
Fedora, or Gentoo which I also know for a fact is used in some
enterprise situations).

> You have zero idea what is potentially required of corporate desktops.
> Even small roll outs have the possibility of requiring certain lock down
> or what different people should have on their desktop.
>
Given that you have zero idea about my experience, that's quite a statement.

>> It's not so much the size or condition of the ship but how much
>> maintenance you are willing to do.
>
> HA! Exactly my point. Admins want to roll out desktops, not first
> engineer a management solution and then roll out. Distros with KDE 3.5.x
> will have a big portion of that handled. The question is whether it
> offers desktop apps that are viable today.
>
So here you are saying that KDE 3.5.x is the only desktop environment
in corporate use in the whole Linux world?

So far, I've only seen one Linux office where KDE was used, and I
didn't work in that one.

You can more easily present convincing arguments based on your own
knowledge than you can using insults to people about whom you know
nothing.

However, I have yet to see any desktop environment in a corporate
controlled environment that does not require at least some tinkering
by the sysadmins as to what gets rolled out and what does not,
including Windows-based environments (which are, let's see now, oh,
yeah: EVERYWHERE).

Amend that: my last two jobs I just installed CentOS on my desktop and
no one gave a hoot about what I did on it.  I had to put a Windows VM
on it to communicate with the Exchange Server (and which I used for
pretty much not one damn thing else), but my sysadmins didn't really
care what I did with that, either.  It was my choice to avoid Windows,
not theirs for me, and no one ever restricted my Linux machines in any
other way.

Maybe you could cite some specific examples of what you mean by what
KDE has that GNOME or others do not.  We could probably have a much
more meaningful discussion (or argument) over that.