'These two articles aren't really about Active Directory or eDirectory. They're about the challenges people face while migrating large business networks to Linux.'
That is blatently false. The first article was nothing BUT praise for ActiveDirectory and both articles concentrated specifically on ActiveDirectory and how "Linux can't run AD". At best, it only began to scratch the surface of the Linux authentication process and a few select services that Linux offers that are requirements of an ActiveDirectory installation.
If this was a true comparison of migrating from Microsoft Windows to Linux, then the author should have explored more than just the "directory services" component of both OS's. The author neglected to mention critical components such as automatic software updating, security protocols and services, web services, etc. As such, this was strictly an "AD vs. LDAP or Lack of AD on Linux" article.
'That said, I've asked David to explore eDirectory in his next article. If it solves the problems he brings up in these two articles, it's well-worth an article.'
Not attempting to be insulting, I doubt David could do it justice. There are already serious technical errors in his articles on AD and he apparently doesn't understand eDirectory. Do you honestly expect an unbiased and educated review of Novell eDirectory? I, for one, do not. I do not believe the author would write one in as much so as I do not believe he is capable of writing one.
But, I will admit, I would enjoy watching him fall flat on his face in his attempt to write such an article.
At that point, could we call upon his termination for lack of credible journalism?