Speaking as the dev lead for the Exchange Directory (1991-1996) and later on Active Directory (1996-2005), there's a lot wrong with this chapter. NT's approach to functional directory services in the early 90's was "wait for Cairo. they're building one", which meant that we in Exchange had to build our own directory service. When Cairo collapsed (late 1995) Exchange and NT struck a deal so that once Exchange 4.0 shipped (April 1996) one of my developers and I brought a copy of the Exchange Directory source code over to Windows, and we built Active Directory out of that. Exchange in no way "bet on" the NT Directory; we essentially built the replacement for it in order to get the features we needed. Ask me if you need details.
However, the part about endless repeated pressure to build everything (specifically including the directory) on top of SQL is entirely accurate.
I'm only moderately annoyed that I had to pay ten bucks to post this correction.
I agree with you entirely. The challenge in writing about this is the time frame and the reality of what conversations where happening where and when. Everything tou said is true. But just as true were all the meetings I went to about what to do when. The names of what things were at the time and what they became us something that I have struggled with because with the OS releases the definitions were always fluid.
The reality of the NT directory and the lack of reality of Cairo were all coming to play in this.
Left out were the endless meetings over x.500 and ldap and the like.
I am trying hard to describe this from the perspective of the meetings and strategy and as you point out and I try to explain, the reality of the code did not often align with those meetings. I’m just trying the be polite and accurate.
You're missing the point that there was no NT Directory. The strategy given to us was "use the NT directory, which is the Cairo directory. Sorry that doesn't exist yet, so Exchange might need to cobble something together for its first release." I built that something, and later went on to use it to fill the directory service shaped hole in Windows.
Presenting this as Exchange leveraging the NT Directory might be polite, but it is definitely not accurate.
And although I remain eternally grateful to LDAP for saving me from COM I completely agree about omitting it from the history.
Don if you email me I would love to show your the post I would like to do that goes into more detail about the journey of the directory. steven@learningbyshipping.com
I worked at Novell during this period (1995-1999), in the GroupWise team. Exchange was our competition. GroupWise and Novell Directory Services was better, but tied to a sinking ship.: Netware.
Speaking as the dev lead for the Exchange Directory (1991-1996) and later on Active Directory (1996-2005), there's a lot wrong with this chapter. NT's approach to functional directory services in the early 90's was "wait for Cairo. they're building one", which meant that we in Exchange had to build our own directory service. When Cairo collapsed (late 1995) Exchange and NT struck a deal so that once Exchange 4.0 shipped (April 1996) one of my developers and I brought a copy of the Exchange Directory source code over to Windows, and we built Active Directory out of that. Exchange in no way "bet on" the NT Directory; we essentially built the replacement for it in order to get the features we needed. Ask me if you need details.
However, the part about endless repeated pressure to build everything (specifically including the directory) on top of SQL is entirely accurate.
I'm only moderately annoyed that I had to pay ten bucks to post this correction.
I agree with you entirely. The challenge in writing about this is the time frame and the reality of what conversations where happening where and when. Everything tou said is true. But just as true were all the meetings I went to about what to do when. The names of what things were at the time and what they became us something that I have struggled with because with the OS releases the definitions were always fluid.
The reality of the NT directory and the lack of reality of Cairo were all coming to play in this.
Left out were the endless meetings over x.500 and ldap and the like.
I am trying hard to describe this from the perspective of the meetings and strategy and as you point out and I try to explain, the reality of the code did not often align with those meetings. I’m just trying the be polite and accurate.
You're missing the point that there was no NT Directory. The strategy given to us was "use the NT directory, which is the Cairo directory. Sorry that doesn't exist yet, so Exchange might need to cobble something together for its first release." I built that something, and later went on to use it to fill the directory service shaped hole in Windows.
Presenting this as Exchange leveraging the NT Directory might be polite, but it is definitely not accurate.
And although I remain eternally grateful to LDAP for saving me from COM I completely agree about omitting it from the history.
Don if you email me I would love to show your the post I would like to do that goes into more detail about the journey of the directory. steven@learningbyshipping.com
I worked at Novell during this period (1995-1999), in the GroupWise team. Exchange was our competition. GroupWise and Novell Directory Services was better, but tied to a sinking ship.: Netware.
"The virtual cycle between these products" possibly edit to "virtuous circle"
Thank you!