Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Novell Cancels BrainShare Conference

timothy posted more than 5 years ago | from the just-before-it-could-buy-beer dept.

Novell 102

A.B. VerHausen writes "While OSCON and SCALE organizers ramp up plans for their events, Novell shuts down BrainShare after 20 years, citing travel costs and budget tightening as main concerns. 'Instead of the traditional in-person conference, Novell plans to offer online classes and virtual conferences to make education and training available to more people at a lower per-head cost to companies,' says the news story on OStatic.com."

cancel ×

102 comments

First Post! (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26149349)

First post, bitches! HAHAHAHHAHAHA ... ahhh, first.

Re:First Post! (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26149409)

I envy you.

Re:First Post! (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26149831)

Hey Slashdot, did you know that for a certain group of us ACs our only pleasure in life is getting first posts.

Here we sit in the nursing home, in wing-back chairs [howardupholstery.com] to prop-up our ageing heads when we fall asleep, pressing F5 on our Asus Eee PCs' browser windows.

We often sit here all day, and all evening, then occasionally one member of the group will scrabble as furiously as his arthritic hands will allow, typing out a first post on Slashdot. The two posts you see here:

First post, bitches! HAHAHAHHAHAHA ... ahhh, first.

And:

I envy you.

Were written by Arthur (veteran of Malaya and India) and Norris (Suez veteran) respectively. Although our first post rantings occasionally filthy, please don't mod us down too hard, we really don't have anything else to do (apart from trying to look down nurse Crochtihngler's uniform).

The (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26149397)

What [goatse.fr]

Huh? (3, Funny)

girlintraining (1395911) | more than 5 years ago | (#26149425)

I think the real story here is people are still using Novell. They must be found and stopped! Oh god, the nightmares of NetBEUI and IPX/SPX... they haunt me.

Re:Huh? (3, Interesting)

Gr33nNight (679837) | more than 5 years ago | (#26149467)

We have a Novell backend, and use Groupwise and Zenworks. We do not use NetBEUI or IPX/SPX.

Re:Huh? (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26149673)

We have a Novell backend,

Wow, that must make it tough to go to the toilet.

Re:Huh? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26150861)

u have to phone in and run it by microsoft every time

Re:Huh? (3, Funny)

garcia (6573) | more than 5 years ago | (#26149779)

We have a Novell backend, and use Groupwise and Zenworks.

I'm sorry.

Re:Huh? (1)

JoeZeppy (715167) | more than 5 years ago | (#26155345)

Just be glad you're not using Lotus Notes. We've got a crew of IBM'ers running around right now fucking up a perfectly good Exchange environment to install their god-awful unreliable bug-filled piece of crap on 40,000 desktops.

Re:Huh? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26150297)

then u r teh ghey lolz

Re:Huh? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26156071)

We use a Novell backend also, Our Exchange 5.5 to 2003 migration sucked so bad we moved to Groupwise. I think it was because the Admin did everything remotely from home 60 miles away...as a local government Groupwise has turned out to be a better solution than Exchange. Our Print services are flawless, our file service is stable once again.

Re:Huh? (3, Informative)

spun (1352) | more than 5 years ago | (#26149519)

We use a Novell back end for file and print services. You know it's all based on Suse Linux now, right? Novell dropped Netware last year, I think. Almost all of last year's Brainshare was about Linux. Good times, I'm sad to see it go.

Re:Huh? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26149633)

We use a Novell back end for file and print services. You know it's all half-assedly based on Suse Linux now, right? Novell dropped Netware last year, I think. Almost all of last year's Brainshare was about half-assed Linux. Good times, I'm sad to see it go.

There, fixed that for you...

Re:Huh? (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26149669)

We use a Novell back end for file and print services. You know it's all half-assedly based on Suse Linux now, right? Novell dropped Netware last year, I think. Almost all of last year's Brainshare was about half-assed Linux. Good times, I'm sad to see it go.

Here, I just wanted to make some snide half-ass remark using a tired Internet meme to feel superior and smug without any actual work or knowledge on my part.

There, fixed that for you...

Re:Huh? (3, Funny)

causality (777677) | more than 5 years ago | (#26149983)

We use a Novell back end for file and print services. You know it's all half-assedly based on Suse Linux now, right? Novell dropped Netware last year, I think. Almost all of last year's Brainshare was about half-assed Linux. Good times, I'm sad to see it go.

Here, I just wanted to make some snide half-ass remark using a tired Internet meme to feel superior and smug without any actual work or knowledge on my part.

There, fixed that for you...

Are you sure that's the way to go about it? Tired internet memes usually get rewarded (modded up) around here. All you need now are some pants, hot grits, Natalie Portman, sharks with lasers on their heads, flying chairs, the ability to imagine a Beowulf cluster of those, and maybe some frosty piss.

Re:Huh? (1)

larry bagina (561269) | more than 5 years ago | (#26150043)

[citation needed]

Re:Huh? (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26150109)

I used a tired Internet meme to mock the tired Internet meme. The recursive nature alone is worth points. And I didn't have to work or contribute anything on my part. More recursion - profit!

Re:Huh? (1)

genner (694963) | more than 5 years ago | (#26150663)

Are you sure that's the way to go about it? Tired internet memes usually get rewarded (modded up) around here. All you need now are some pants, hot grits, Natalie Portman, sharks with lasers on their heads, flying chairs, the ability to imagine a Beowulf cluster of those, and maybe some frosty piss.

In Soviet Union tired meme's reward you.

Re:Huh? (1)

daedae (1089329) | more than 5 years ago | (#26150943)

In Soviet Russia, proper possessive grammar forms you!

Re:Huh? (1)

causality (777677) | more than 5 years ago | (#26156547)

Are you sure that's the way to go about it? Tired internet memes usually get rewarded (modded up) around here. All you need now are some pants, hot grits, Natalie Portman, sharks with lasers on their heads, flying chairs, the ability to imagine a Beowulf cluster of those, and maybe some frosty piss.

In Soviet Union tired meme's reward you.

Shit, don't ask how I forgot the Russian reversals. I knew I was forgetting something when I hit Submit...

Re:Huh? (1)

ncc74656 (45571) | more than 5 years ago | (#26151499)

Tired internet memes usually get rewarded (modded up) around here. All you need now are some pants, hot grits, Natalie Portman, sharks with lasers on their heads, flying chairs, the ability to imagine a Beowulf cluster of those, and maybe some frosty piss.

In Soviet Russia, all of that stuff needs you!

Re:Huh? (1)

Curtman (556920) | more than 5 years ago | (#26154071)

I rely on reactionary moderation due to internet memes in order to bolster my ego you insensitive clod.

Re:Huh? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26155985)

You forgot a story about caring for your newly purchased nigger, and an epic about eating Obama's turds.

Half-Assed Truths (4, Informative)

TheNinjaroach (878876) | more than 5 years ago | (#26150923)

I agree that the parent was making some snide half-assed remarks towards Novell / SuSE Linux, but in those remarks were some half-assed truths.

We're migrating off of the last of our Netware boxes, some of them have over four years of uptime so we're not exactly rushing to swap them out. Many of these boxes are being replaced with their new SUSE Linux-based counterparts that offer the same Netware file and directory services that we had before. So far the experience has been terrible. Large file servers that never crashed on Netware now go down weekly. Directory services simply stop answering LDAP queries with no explanation. Sometimes we can restart the service without rebooting, but usually a poorly implemented kernel module blows out and takes the whole system down with it.

We aren't suffering from problems with Linux, instead we suffer from Novell rushing ported Netware services out the door to make their SUSE offerings look like a complete and competent replacement for Netware. They're not there yet, so I find some truth to the parent's troll that "it's all half-assedly based on Suse Linux now," because in many ways it is.

Re:Half-Assed Truths (2, Interesting)

drspliff (652992) | more than 5 years ago | (#26152817)

I used eDirectory on Linux and Netware and it every now & then we'd login to one of the main directory boxen and see the whole console filled with abends. As far as file-serving went it was absolutely rock solid, but never managed to see how it fared on Linux (I left the company when they were still using nw6.5 and unitedlinux/sles) because we just didn't "trust" it when our existing setup worked fine.

I don't know how far they've gotten along with making SuSE more streamlined, but at the time most of our Linux installs were authenticating against the eDirectory servers via LDAP, whenever these went down nss_ldap, pam_ldap and friends would fsck up completely until rebooted... (it would hang forever logging in, even as `root`).

Their whole approach seems to be trying to weigh the monetary cost of each option, keeping netware alive vs using linux, adopting to linux vs "trusted" stability and so on... not a position I'd like to be in.

Re:Half-Assed Truths (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 5 years ago | (#26152971)

What exactly is the advantage, for you, of NDS as opposed to insert_some_other_solution_here? I know that my cute little homegrown samba-ng+netatalk+nfsv4+nis+radius+ldap servers won't ever impress anyone but what exactly is your benefit over OpenLDAP, for what you are doing? I've worked for a couple Novell shops and was always impressed with how reliable the servers were (although also distressed with how easy it was to obliterate them doing routine maintenance and how unlikely two server-installed software packages were to actually work together and/or at the same time on the same server... but that was a long time ago) and it seems like the only thing going from Novell to Novell Linux gets you is continued support from Novell, and a headache.

Re:Half-Assed Truths (1)

plazman30 (531348) | more than 5 years ago | (#26154063)

The advantage of eDir/NDS is partitioning. You only need to keep a PART of the directory on your server.

Re:Half-Assed Truths (1)

MacColossus (932054) | more than 5 years ago | (#26155091)

For our environment it was something we inherited from the since long ago replaced admins. It just worked and it was much less expensive than Microsoft solutions. We are in higher ed at a small private college. We have 6 people in our Academic Computing group and only 4 of those are technical. So we stuck with it. We are still on Netware as OES didn't support AFP for Macs until last week. Pardon us for not being the first in line to test that. :-) Anyway, we didn't have much of a Linux skillset amongst our admins but that has changed as we use Redhat and Ubuntu for Web, DNS, dhcp, Moodle CMS, Etc. We still use E-directory on Netware for file services, and Groupwise on Netware for email. Groupwise client has actually gotten much better over the past 3 years. So in closing we gained less work by not switching, less expense by not paying consultants or trainers for Linux skills we didn't have but have been able to gradually gain on the job, paid less than similar Microsoft solutions, and kept our jobs due to lack of down time and other end user unhappiness.

Re:Half-Assed Truths (1)

Degrees (220395) | more than 5 years ago | (#26160133)

We're getting painless migration. So far, we've migrated about 30 servers from NetWare to SuSE, and there has been litterally zero impact (almost*). Admin functions are still done on Windows workstations using ConsoleOne or iManager. People still use their Windows PCs, accessing NCP volumes (although the NCP "volume" is actually an NCP layer on the server: the files are actually on ext3 or reiser). We notify our clients of the brief outage while we switch, but other than that, they can't tell anything changed.

Mostly the benefit is that the Service Desk still uses the same tools it always did for user management. There's been zero change for GroupWise, ZENworks, remote control, file system permissions, print driver roll-out - you name it. It all just works, same as it ever did.

On the back-end, it did get a little more complicated, as there is a greater reliance on PKI. In the NetWare environment, the PKI was so built-in as to be almost invisible. In the SuSE environment, it isn't really invisible / automated. I imagine it will get better, but I'd be lying to you if I said it was as easy on SuSE as it was on NetWare.

*OK - yes, there was this one DOS app built ten years ago that has it's own internal database, that didn't like the change from a NSS volume to a NCP emulated ext3 volume. But that's the only exception out of about 800 users and 100+ apps.

Whoops - I forgot a problem (1)

Degrees (220395) | more than 5 years ago | (#26160491)

As I was getting ready for work, I remembered a problem. Management of the network did get worse with the transistion to SuSE in the realm of DNS / DHCP. On Linux, DNS / DHCP management is practically a stone-age operation. On NetWare it was far better, with a Windows app that did syntax checking, and the data was stored in eDirectory (which means auto-replication and redundancy). So my portrayal that the migration is completely rosey is flawed. Wanted to fess up that there IS some pain involved, and that it's not all 100% UPgrade.

Re:Half-Assed Truths (1)

LinuxDon (925232) | more than 5 years ago | (#26153073)

Don't give people not familiar with SLES/Open Enterprise Server the wrong impression here. We've been using it (the complete Open Workgroup Suite) for about two years now and it works great.
The uptime/stability totally beats the crap out of some other vendors.

Also OES1 was the first release on Linux, so it had some issues that were fixed by SP1 and other updates. Open Enterprise Server 2 SP1 is a completely different experience compared to OES1 without any SP/updates.

But I'm not familiar with your situation so YMMV.

Re:Half-Assed Truths (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26155561)

I work for a consulting company that is partnered with Novell, so I've seen the good, the bad and the ugly. We have found that most issues related to services on Linux have been due to just plain stupid assumptions made by sysadmins who don't read the manual. OES2, and the beautifully implemented NOWS SBE small business server based on it are rock solid if you do what the manual says. Yes, Novell hasn't spent as much as other vendors on plugging up ways for you to screw yourself, but that should be pretty obvious to any IT professional, and considered when making business decisions. The fact is, eDirectory and GroupWise on Linux are some of the most solid and scalable enterprise solutions when you do it right.

That said, if I were running my own small IT department, I'd throw up Ubuntu Server with openLDAP and postfix + Courier IMAP in a heartbeat

Re:Huh? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26155307)

85% of all fortune 1000 companies use Novell as their Infrastructure software. What most admins dont understand Microsoft is an Application company not a networking company(their security has proven that), Novell on the other hand is an Infrastructure company. Why do you think MS tapped Novell for 650 million for their IP, while Novell paid MS 50 million for their IP....its obvious whos IP is worth more.

Re:Huh? (3, Informative)

IBBigPoppa (1433897) | more than 5 years ago | (#26149671)

Novell has moved so far passed Netware, IPX, and NetBEUI. They actually have the second largest Linux distro, Suse Linux. Gardner has rated their Identity Manager Solution as a leader. They also own PlateSpin and Managed Objects. They are not the Novell most remember from Netware 5.0 and 6.0. They are have some interesting stuff like Dynamic Storage (policy based storage management) and Domain Services for Windows (AD integration/emulation with eDirectory and Linux).

Re:Huh? (2, Funny)

KillerBees (36367) | more than 5 years ago | (#26150423)

They are not the Novell most remember from Netware 5.0 and 6.0..

Apparently not a lot of people remember the modern Novell either...

Re:Huh? (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 5 years ago | (#26153019)

They are not the Novell most remember from Netware 5.0 and 6.0.

I miss the Novell I (dimly) remember from Netware 3.0, when servers would stay up until you maintained them.

Granted, they were sometimes difficult to bring back up after performing software maintenance as per documentation, but no plan is perfect.

They are have some interesting stuff like Dynamic Storage (policy based storage management) and Domain Services for Windows (AD integration/emulation with eDirectory and Linux).

I'm not sure what "policy based storage management" means, but you can implement Domain Services for Windows (AD integration with Linux) with OpenLDAP and BIND. My understanding is that it is not trivial, but entirely possible. :) Since Novell seems to be failing massively, what does using "their" Linux actually get you?

Re:Huh? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26149731)

we have over 200,000 people using NetWare for file/Print, application deployment, patch deployment, etc.

IPX was actually a very nice protocol (4, Informative)

Terje Mathisen (128806) | more than 5 years ago | (#26149799)

Disclaimer: I spent a year (91-92) working for Novell in Utah.

That said, IPX was in many ways both more forward-looking and easier to administrate than IP networks:

Instead of statically allocated local addresses or DHCP servers, IPX use the 48-bit MAC address as the only local identifier.

IPX and IP both use 32-bit external addresses, but the IPX 32-bit address is simply the address of the network, with no addressing mask to split it into net/host parts. This meant that clients could be plugged in anywhere and just worked, without any DHCP servers, and since each Netware server was allocated its own internal 32-bit network address, it was trivial to install multiple network cards for load balancing and/or redundancy:

If a single link went down, all traffic would automatically be rerouted to the other interface, while having a single unique server address.

This same mechanism was a key part of Software Fault Tolerant (SFT) NetWare, which used a mirrored (over a separate fast/high-bandwidth link) link to replicate all inputs between two servers: This allowed Drew Major (the chief architect) to keep the two servers in lockstep, and handle pretty much any kind of single disaster (up to and including smashing a server with a 100-ton press) without a single client drop.

As a programmer I really liked the way IPX used Async Event Blocks (AEBs) to control all send/receive operations, with optional application callbacks at interrupt time.

At one point (around 1988?) this allowed me to write an IPX-based print server under Dos, which managed to fit a dual-buffered print receiver, interrupt-driven serial and parallel port printer interfacing plus all the housekeeping needed for a TSR, inside about 1600 bytes.

This allowed 2x512 bytes as print buffers, 256 bytes as the local stack and about 300+ bytes for all the remaining code and data.

Terje

Re:IPX was actually a very nice protocol (2, Interesting)

dedazo (737510) | more than 5 years ago | (#26149871)

Agreed. There was nothing wrong with IPX at all. The standardization on TCP/IP and the death of other packet protocols is not so much going for something "better", but rather for the least common denominator. Not that that's particularly bad, since it's important for a more open internet and better interop, but it doesn't take away anything from the technical value of other implementations.

Anyone remember LANtastic? As long as you didn't use Token Ring it was pretty good as well.

Re:IPX was actually a very nice protocol (1)

rickb928 (945187) | more than 5 years ago | (#26150089)

I remember LANtastic. The UI was pus, Microsoft would make it work poorly every time they hosed the MUP to hose up NetWare, but it sure worked fine otherwise. Beat the hell outta Personal NetWare, and could really do as well as NTAS.

Re:IPX was actually a very nice protocol (1)

dedazo (737510) | more than 5 years ago | (#26165025)

Well, compared to anything nowadays it was crap, but back then if you wanted to network DOS/Win3x machines, it was the cat's meow, especially if you didn't want to shell out $$$ for Netware.

That's one of the reasons it was also very popular in the 3rd world. It was a low-cost alternative. Windows NT eventually did it in.

Re:IPX was actually a very nice protocol (1)

Omega996 (106762) | more than 5 years ago | (#26151369)

jesus, I had forgotten about that product until you mentioned it. the first IT job I had involved LANtastic for the company's pitifully small LAN and an IBM System/36. We used their proprietary adapters to get 2MBit/sec! Ugh, that was also my introduction to the joy that was Windows for Workgroups....

Wow... that's some serious flashback from an epoch long past...

Re:IPX was actually a very nice protocol (2, Interesting)

virtue3 (888450) | more than 5 years ago | (#26151621)

Uh... guys, it's called UDP, which has pretty much entirely replaced IPX. Mostly because it's the same protocol more or less running through IP. It saves you from having to install multiple network interfaces on your system. And it's all going through the same layers. That and UDP can work through NATS/Firewalls, which I'm not totally sure IPX did successfully (at least back in teh day when I was still learning how to use port forwarding when I was playing star craft games over a LAN).

Re:IPX was actually a very nice protocol (1)

Linker3000 (626634) | more than 5 years ago | (#26153713)

I'll see your LANtastic and raise you a 10-Net.

I'm holding Netware Lite, SageNet and Infaplugs (anyone remember them!!??) in reserve.

I use to install Netware Servers - I think my first would have been with Netware 2.0A. I also used to run a whole raft of Netware Training courses, but 'lost touch' with things Novell around Netware 4.11 when I changed jobs.

Anyone remember fixing ESDI/SCSI Netware disk driver issues by attacking various files with a hex editor, and having to key in the hard disk defect lists!?

Oh - and which disk drive manufacturer used to print their defect list on a label affixed to the top of the drive and had to send dealers and distributors a note telling them not to photocopy the list by putting the drives on the copier as this was killing the drives with static!?

Happy days.

I have a virtual lawn now!

Re:IPX was actually a very nice protocol (1)

dedazo (737510) | more than 5 years ago | (#26165097)

Oh - and which disk drive manufacturer used to print their defect list on a label affixed to the top of the drive and had to send dealers and distributors a note telling them not to photocopy the list by putting the drives on the copier as this was killing the drives with static!?

I seem to remember Micropolis (remember them!) used to do something like that. But I might be wrong.

They used to make some sweet disks though. And I think they were the first ones to release a standalone, stackable SCSI RAID product.

Re:IPX was actually a very nice protocol (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26151079)

Whoa! OK, I'll get off your lawn.

Re:IPX was actually a very nice protocol (3, Interesting)

IGnatius T Foobar (4328) | more than 5 years ago | (#26151225)

Instead of statically allocated local addresses or DHCP servers, IPX use the 48-bit MAC address as the only local identifier. IPX and IP both use 32-bit external addresses, but the IPX 32-bit address is simply the address of the network, with no addressing mask to split it into net/host parts. This meant that clients could be plugged in anywhere and just worked, without any DHCP servers, and since each Netware server was allocated its own internal 32-bit network address, it was trivial to install multiple network cards for load balancing and/or redundancy

Yup. And now there's a push for IPv6. Automatic address assignment on IPv6 turns the 48-bit MAC address into a portion of the IPv6 address. It's startlingly similar to IPX. If the Internet had been based on IPX, and they figured out a way to make IPX run at a global scale (finding equivalents to things like BGP) we wouldn't be in the impending address exhaustion pickle we are today.

Re:IPX was actually a very nice protocol (1)

girlintraining (1395911) | more than 5 years ago | (#26152775)

Automatic address assignment on IPv6 turns the 48-bit MAC address into a portion of the IPv6 address.

whatcouldpossiblygowrong

Re:IPX was actually a very nice protocol (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 5 years ago | (#26153005)

Instead of statically allocated local addresses or DHCP servers, IPX use the 48-bit MAC address as the only local identifier.

This is a bad idea because if you decide you need to draw addresses from a pool of more than 48 bits for whatever reason, you will have to extend Ethernet at the same time you extend IPX. The advantage of having a wholly separate address for a wholly separate layer is that you can replace one layer or another with minimal disruption - which is why we can move from a 32 bit address to a 128 bit address or any other bit length without changing Ethernet one bit. If you need to actually have physical connections which involve more than 48 bits worth of addresses, my hat is off to you, and Ethernet will not suffice.

IPX address range extensibility (1)

Terje Mathisen (128806) | more than 5 years ago | (#26156577)

If you ever need to have more than 48 bits to address unique items on interest, on a single network segment, then you'll have a problem.

2^48 is a pretty big number though. It is big enough that every human being on the planet can have about 60.000 addresses, on every single possible IPX network segment.

IPX won't run out before you do need that many single-segment addresses, and IPv6 is doing much of the same as IPX, by (at least by default) having the 48-bit MAC as the least significant part of the 128-bit address.

Terje

Re:IPX was actually a very nice protocol (1)

thehunger (549253) | more than 5 years ago | (#26159033)

Yes, IPX/SPX was ok and with its broadcast mechanism easier to use - no need for DHCP servers and manual router configurations. The problem I had with Novell was with their use of the Ethernet_802.3 ethernet framing. The idiots grabbed and implemented the draft spec too early and ended up with their own implementation, one WITHOUT the 802.2 header. Result? The only protocol you could use was IPX/SPX because there was no protocol ID field. Idiots! Anyway, I do remember we struggled with router tables filling up from all the SAP broadcasts in our 400+ server environment.. Obviously with 1-minute interval broadcasts, things weren't as scalable...

Re:Huh? (1)

Analog_Manner (1326359) | more than 5 years ago | (#26150163)

The drafting department at Montachusett Regional Vocation Technical School in Massachusetts uses Novell, and everything seems to work great. Not sure what you are haunted about. The rest of the school runs off of an (Apple?) X-server (at least, it did when I graduated in 2005).

Re:Huh? (3, Informative)

paesano (784687) | more than 5 years ago | (#26150345)

Please don't blame NetBEUI on Novell. That is Microsoft's atrocity. Last I checked, they still use that crap tunneled in TCPIP.

Perhaps you meant NCP?

Re:Huh? (1)

Anarke_Incarnate (733529) | more than 5 years ago | (#26150847)

YES, these Linux users must be stopped. How dare they use SUSE, Gnome, KDE, etc. Novell still has their Edirectory, Zenworks, etc that are pretty decent products. They also sell (sort of, more like support) a very good Linux distro.

Re:Huh? (1)

rrohbeck (944847) | more than 5 years ago | (#26153875)

Come on. IPX/SPX wasn't all that bad. I wrote a lot of code on it, around '85. Anything NetB* was crap of course.
Good times, cracking the Novell keycard code... that was soo primitive.

Re:Huh? (1)

plazman30 (531348) | more than 5 years ago | (#26154033)

NetBEUI was a Microsoft invention, and IPX/SPX was a damn good protocol for it's time. No address conflicts EVER, large packet sizes. Very nice protocol.

Andy

Re:Huh? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26155073)

IPX is awesome, I use IP to get to the internet and let people hack my honeypot. I use IPX to protect my winders PCs. LONG LIVE IPX!!!

Re:Huh? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26155167)

A Novell backend is better than having a Windows backend....everyone would be in it...
Ask the IMF, World bank, Citi Bank and the Pentagon (to name a recent few) how they like the security of Windows. The World Bank packed up all their windows servers and sent them to MS to fix... the three recent MS "Urgent" patches were from these hacks...are you familiar with them?

Re:Huh? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26155889)

Uh, NetBEUI is a Microsoft protocol. It's demon offspring, NBT, lives on in windows to this day.

And for its day IPX was pretty bulletproof. All you had to do was know your frame type and things worked. Aside from being chatty across WANs, it was a great protocol, and far faster than IP on local links.

If you had nightmares about it you probably didn't understand how to use it. Unless you were part of the open-source reverse-engineering project. In which case I'm very sorry.

Re:Huh? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26158917)

I'm not sure what rock you've been under but NetBEUI is a MS product. If you know networking at all NetBIOS, NetBEUII, NBT or what ever you want to call it today is a MS protocol and is still used by MS today...just in a different wrapper. ITS A NON ROUTABLE PROTOCOL...it sucks as much a their Windows product line.

A lower per-head cost to companies (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26149477)

I heard they cancelled the show because of complaints from Zaphod Beeblebrox.

Virtual Conferences (1)

olddotter (638430) | more than 5 years ago | (#26149567)

Are their any official virtual conferences where every one uses collaborative technologies to hold a conference with out flying all over the world? It might cut down on "hallway chatter" but social services like Twitter might make up for that.

...What? (1)

IceCreamGuy (904648) | more than 5 years ago | (#26149593)

At first I read "Novell causes brain cancer." I need more sleep.

Re:...What? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26152031)

You're not far off there buddy. :)

Netware? (1)

MrDiablerie (533142) | more than 5 years ago | (#26149621)

People still use Netware?

Re:Netware? (3, Informative)

IceCreamGuy (904648) | more than 5 years ago | (#26149685)

Yes. I run Netware 5 on HP LC3s. They have been up and running since 1998. We're migrating to AD right now. Get off my case!

Re:Netware? (1)

Juggz (1181257) | more than 5 years ago | (#26150039)

"We're migrating to AD right now" Im so, so sorry.

Re:Netware? (1)

mpapet (761907) | more than 5 years ago | (#26150179)

We're migrating to AD right now.

My deepest sympathies for the mid-project nightmare about to unfold before your very eyes. Your employer will lose a bunch of "productivity," but you won't be fired.

Re:Netware? (1)

IceCreamGuy (904648) | more than 5 years ago | (#26150473)

Actually it's going great, and the project's almost over. I've had one office over for about a year, and another office just went over a couple weeks ago; only had one day of confusion and the productivity gains from migrating have been well worth it.
Not only does it make administration easier, but it also makes HIPAA compliance a billion times easier, enterprise-wide management systems easier, provisioning is easier, data sharing is easier, well, pretty much everything's easier than with Netware, and the users get the feel for it very quickly. I don't know why yours went so poorly, that really is a bummer. Ours went very roughly at first, but if yours really went that bad, then sorry to say but either you didn't do a very good job, or we're talking about two different beasts. My offices are about 80 users each, and I'm doing it pretty much alone; maybe you're talking about thousands of users or something. All it really takes, though, is careful analysis, planning and thorough testing. Emphasis on the analysis part.

Re:Ours went very roughly at first (1)

mpapet (761907) | more than 5 years ago | (#26150775)

Yes, well, scale your "very roughly" up to every office in your org and add a bunch of proprietary apps and you've got Enterprise-class trouble.

One office at a time, with one person doing it is blissfully simple. Have a great holiday.

Re:Ours went very roughly at first (1)

IceCreamGuy (904648) | more than 5 years ago | (#26150891)

About 50% of our apps are written in-house, and yeah, they certainly have caused the most trouble, but nothing that testing and tinkering didn't fix. Like I said, though, the last office that I did went over great. I prepped scripts to do pretty much everything, perpared the entire domain, users, OUs, policies and all, did it in one weekend and literally by that Wednesday everyone was back to normal productivity levels. The "very roughly" part happened in the very beginning, when myself and the previous admin knew nothing about AD and just kinda winged the HQ conversion without planning or testing anything. That was a nightmare, I'll certainly give you that. I will have a nice holiday, you too.

Re:Netware? (1)

Sponge Bath (413667) | more than 5 years ago | (#26150919)

We still use an HP LC3 at work.
After it crapped out we put it on it's side and set our Midway classics arcade game on top of it. It elevates the game to just the right height and is heavy enough to make a nice solid base.

Re:Netware? (1)

dedazo (737510) | more than 5 years ago | (#26149797)

Not Netware so much as they use Novell's Linux-based enterprise stack (SLES, ZenWorks, etc).

And the opnSUSE community is very much alive. They released a new version a few days ago.

But some companies still do use Netware to some extent. I know a few in Canada that do.

Re:Netware? (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26149903)

People still use Netware?

Apparently people still ask stupid questions too.

Novell uses a Linux platform these days. You would have known that if you had bothered to consult Google, Wikipedia, or if you realized that several people asked this question before you did and others have already answered them. You fail.

As for me, I'm conducting something of a social experiment. I wonder if the mods will mod you down for being redundant and for asking what really was a dumb question that the slightest research would have answered or if they will mod me down because my response wasn't very nice.

Re:Netware? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26150281)

Dude... what are you talking about? What does asking if people still use Netware have to do with the fact that eDirectory runs on Linux? Seriously! Do you not know what Netware is? People do still dun it; it was the most popular EIM system for 10 years. The author clearly knows that people still run it, and it's funny to think about the fact that people still deal with the antiquated system in today's world. If I had mod points I would mod you down, because... you're an asshole. Was your hypothesis correct?

Re:Netware? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26150915)

Perhaps you get modded off-topic because the topic isn't your social experiment

Re:Netware? (1)

Hal_Porter (817932) | more than 5 years ago | (#26157183)

This is the internet. The real topic is always someone's social experiment.

Re:Netware? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26150023)

We were, until about July this year.
Now all hell broke loose.

We don't have specialy bright sysadmins I may say...

Re:Netware? (1)

The Second Horseman (121958) | more than 5 years ago | (#26150515)

Yeah, I have a two node file server cluster, attached to a fibre channel-based SAN, running on current server hardware and a recent Netware release. I don't even have to spend minutes per month making sure it works correctly. We're planning on moving it to OES Linux, but it's a bit hard to get excited about that when Netware's providing the entire organization's file/print services with almost no downtime. And if we have a hardware failure, well, the services just fail over to the other server. A lot of users don't even notice.

We use Linux and Windows for a bunch of other stuff, obviously, so we'll move eventually, but it's all about putting resources where it makes sense. If it's even slightly less stable, we're going to get a ton of complaints. When we want to take advantage of new features, or we have some other business case, we'll move. Or, if we have a window of opportunity in terms of staff time we'll take it. Might as well avoid being stuck for significantly longer due to staffing constraints and other projects.

I think you'd be surprised how much Netware is still out there. The typical Slashdot point of view isn't at all reflective of corporate, higher ed, k-12 or healthcare IT.

Re:Netware vs what? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26155987)

I support Windows servers, Novell(netware and suse OES 2.1) servers, sun, and SAP...I have far more problems with Windows than any other. I would give up all my windows servers to have less work.. Personallyk, I believe many people who run windown have the wool pulled to tightly over their eyes...really thing about it...Windows is very unstable, far more vulenerable and just plain sucks.

corepirate nazi dog & pony shows less attracti (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26149809)

the daze of living like there's no tomorrow, on j public's dime/pension/future, are almost over now. better days ahead.

Novell isnt all bad (1)

Cyrus20 (1345311) | more than 5 years ago | (#26149833)

I see Novell daily. Many of the customers we have ( I work in tech support) use Novell servers for their database machines and they are actually very reliable. seems like they just chug away for much longer than a windows server running the same systems. I agree that it is a beast when something breaks on a Novell server and there just dont seem to be many experts on them anymore. (I am so not one, even though I do know some basics). all in all Novell did many things right.

Re:Novell isnt all bad (1)

Cornwallis (1188489) | more than 5 years ago | (#26150047)

"...it is a beast when something breaks on a Novell server?" Fraid not. You can actually fix it, generally in short order, without having to reinstall the whole damn OS like you do with M$. Good old Netware just worked and worked. I had one server that was up for 18 months and only restarted due to an extended power outage.

Re:Novell isnt all bad (1)

Wintermute__ (22920) | more than 5 years ago | (#26150607)

Indeed. I have had Netware servers with 4 years uptime at branch offices. Right now I have one that's been up over 2 years. You'd regret it if you tried that with Windows.

Re:Novell isnt all bad (1)

Amouth (879122) | more than 5 years ago | (#26150651)

Its and older story but every time i think Novell i remember this

http://www.informationweek.com/news/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=6505527 [informationweek.com]

i remember talking with one of the admins the day it happend - can't seem to find the pictures he sent me.

Re:Novell isnt all bad (1)

Cyrus20 (1345311) | more than 5 years ago | (#26150819)

I think its a beast for us when on the off chance they do break because we need the least amount of down time possible due to the fact that these are radio stations we deal with and time down means money lost. (such is the case with almost anything I know...LOL)

Back in the Day we called it Networld (1)

twmcneil (942300) | more than 5 years ago | (#26149889)

At Networld in 1990 (I think it was) I recall some MS person talking about how Lan Man 2.0 was going to blow Netware out of the water speed-wise. Drew Major calmly responded "Maybe if you ever release it, we'll see."

Ah, those were the days.

Re:Back in the Day we called it Networld (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26150005)

Yeah, that Novell guy sure showed him!

Oh wait, Novell makes a shitty Linux distro now and is no longer the "king" of the LAN so to speak.

Ah, those were the days. And they're fucking over, thank fuck for that.

Not to mention... (4, Funny)

Quiet_Desperation (858215) | more than 5 years ago | (#26149921)

...the whole sharing brains thing was just too messy. Everyone always went home all sticky.

Eew.

The real problem (3, Funny)

Bearpaw (13080) | more than 5 years ago | (#26150203)

...the whole sharing brains thing was just too messy. Everyone always went home all sticky.

The real problem was all the zombie processes.

Re:Not to mention... (1)

rrohbeck (944847) | more than 5 years ago | (#26153933)

...the whole sharing brains thing was just too messy. Everyone always went home all sticky.

Hannibal, is that you?

Netcraft confirms, Ron Hovsepian health question (1)

SuperKendall (25149) | more than 5 years ago | (#26150029)

Novell pulling out of an expensive conference? Only one explanation - Ron Hovsepian [sltrib.com] must be about to perish!

Travel services is dead. (1)

eclectro (227083) | more than 5 years ago | (#26150199)

One more crippling bombshell crushed the already beleaguered Travel industry when Novell cofirmed they were going to move to cancel Brainshare conferences and use online resources. Ntecraft confirms that oil is at already at umprecedented low levels collapsing in complete disarray, as more people use online networking instead of hotels. You don't need to be a Kreskin to see where this headed. We're all going to have internet implants rather than using airplanes. Let's look at the numbers...

Re:Travel services is dead. (1)

otis wildflower (4889) | more than 5 years ago | (#26150459)

And not one moment too soon if you ask me!

(Flying sucks, even if you're on the company ningi...)

Mmmmm...... (1)

Facegarden (967477) | more than 5 years ago | (#26150415)

Mmmmmmm... Braaaaiiiiinnnsss......
-Taylor
(err... I mean Taaaaaaaayyyyyyloooorrrrr)

This is good news! (1)

genooma (856335) | more than 5 years ago | (#26150421)

The zombie lord and his minions have been finally put to death by a small faction of Novell employees loyal to the human race. Our brains are safe for another day.

Novell is not alone (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26150507)

Novell is not alone in shutting down their annual event, NetApp has also canceled their annual conference. Jet a grip - the economy just plain sucks.

Missing something (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26156371)

Novell rocks. What most people (admins) fail to understand is Novell is a Networking company. Their products are for a Networking Infrastructure, where on the other hand Microsoft is an Application company, not a networking company (obvious by recent hacks). After all MS taped Novell 650 million for their IP...where on the other hand Novell paid MS 50 million for their IP...Whos' is worth more...the truth is in the numbers. GET IT ...MICROSOFT is not a Networking Company, they are an application company... HELLO, That's why they suck at networking. Ask the IMF, World Bank, CITI Bank and the Pentagon where their recent hacks came from. The recent "urgent" patches were to repair hacks to the above businesses. The World Bank packed up their Windows Servers and sent them to MS to fix, CITI Bank had their password Server hacked....after MS assured them it was secure....hahahah that was stupid..

The computer convention business is dying (1)

Animats (122034) | more than 5 years ago | (#26156575)

Computer conventions are on the way out. Comdex, E3, and Macworld are dead or dying; now Novell. The SF Convention Bureau says that two Cisco conventions and one from NetApp have been canceled for 2009.

Doctor conventions are up, though.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...