"But a majority of medium and large enterprises have switched over to Active Directory because it's not possible to run a large Windows shop without it."
Last time I checked, many Fortune 1000 companies were still eDirectory (or even NDS) shops or remained NT Domain shops.
We have Windows 2000 but stuck with the NT Domain model. It wasn't important anyways as we have Novell's directory service in play and use Novell Account Manager to manage both NDS/eDirectory and the NT Domain model. NAM will also manage UNIX PAM and Windows ActiveDirectory services.
Using other Novell tools such as DirXML we can control just about anything. Microsoft's equivalent is more of an "uberdirectory" than a metadirectory. In that, the data is controlled and stored in AD rather than sync'd as in eDirectory with the other services. This means that while eDirectory remains lean and mean, AD becomes bloated and prone to corruption.
btw: France needed a directory service (yes, the entire country) - and like many other cities across the world (and in the U.S.) they choose Novell eDirectory - 35 MILLION nodes of it. Show me ONE single company running Microsoft AD with a 35 MILLION node Domain Forrest.
Wait, you can't - because it doesn't exist.
You, sir (and I use the term lightly) are nothing more than a Microsoft shill. You have no intention of comparing directory services, you simply want to push the Microsoft mantra.
You are nothing more than another Mindless Minion of Microsoft and I dare you to prove me wrong.
oh, you can control a Windows 2000 AD install with eDirectory and NAM or DirXML, negating the need to migrate away from Novell's product and use AD exclusively - that alone disproves your statement I quoted above.