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!

With OES 2.0, Novell Moves NetWare To Linux

kdawson posted more than 6 years ago | from the xen-underneath dept.

Novell 125

apokryphos writes "Novell's long journey from NetWare to Linux is finally complete, with Open Enterprise Server 2.0. Linux-Watch takes a look at the newly-released OES 2.0: 'Now, with OES 2.0, the NetWare operating system kernel, NetWare 6.5 SP7, is still there if you run it, but it runs on top of the Xen hypervisor. You can also run the NetWare services, or a para-virtualized instance of NetWare, on top of Xen with the SLES (SUSE Linux Enterprise Server) 10 SP 1 kernel. So, if you're wedded to NetWare and its way of doing things, you don't have to wave good-bye to it.'"

cancel ×

125 comments

in mother russia (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20917115)

linux switches you!

Re:in mother russia (-1, Troll)

R00BYtheN00BY (1118945) | more than 6 years ago | (#20917149)

fucking faggot fanboy

Re:in mother russia (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20917275)

A few years ago, while browsing around the library downtown, I
had to take a piss. As I entered the john a big beautiful all-American
football hero type, about twenty-five, came out of one of the booths.
I stood at the urinal looking at him out of the corner of my eye as he
washed his hands. He didn't once look at me. He was "straight" and
married - and in any case I was sure I wouldn't have a chance with
him.

As soon as he left I darted into the booth he'd vacated,
hoping there might be a lingering smell of shit and even a seat still
warm from his sturdy young ass. I found not only the smell but the
shit itself. He'd forgotten to flush. And what a treasure he had left
behind. Three or four beautiful specimens floated in the bowl. It
apparently had been a fairly dry, constipated shit, for all were fat,
stiff, and ruggedly textured. The real prize was a great feast of turd
- a nine inch gastrointestinal triumph as thick as a man's wrist.

I knelt before the bowl, inhaling the rich brown fragrance and
wondered if I should obey the impulse building up inside me. I'd
always been a heavy rimmer and had lapped up more than one little
clump of shit, but that had been just an inevitable part of eating ass
and not an end in itself. Of course I'd had jerk-off fantasies of
devouring great loads of it (what rimmer hasn't), but I had never done
it. Now, here I was, confronted with the most beautiful five-pound
turd I'd ever feasted my eyes on, a sausage fit to star in any fantasy
and one I knew to have been hatched from the asshole of the world's
handsomest young stud.

Why not? I plucked it from the bowl, holding it with both
hands to keep it from breaking. I lifted it to my nose. It smelled
like rich, ripe limburger (horrid, but thrilling), yet had the
consistency of cheddar. What is cheese anyway but milk turning to shit
without the benefit of a digestive tract?

I gave it a lick and found that it tasted better then it
smelled. I've found since then that shit nearly almost does.

I hesitated no longer. I shoved the fucking thing as far into
my mouth as I could get it and sucked on it like a big brown cock,
beating my meat like a madman. I wanted to completely engulf it and
bit off a large chunk, flooding my mouth with the intense, bittersweet
flavor. To my delight I found that while the water in the bowl had
chilled the outside of the turd, it was still warm inside. As I chewed
I discovered that it was filled with hard little bits of something I
soon identified as peanuts. He hadn't chewed them carefully and they'd
passed through his body virtually unchanged. I ate it greedily,
sending lump after peanutty lump sliding scratchily down my throat. My
only regret was the donor of this feast wasn't there to wash it down
with his piss.

I soon reached a terrific climax. I caught my cum in the
cupped palm of my hand and drank it down. Believe me, there is no more
delightful combination of flavors than the hot sweetness of cum with
the rich bitterness of shit.

Afterwards I was sorry that I hadn't made it last longer. But
then I realized that I still had a lot of fun in store for me. There
was still a clutch of virile turds left in the bowl. I tenderly fished
them out, rolled them into my handkerchief, and stashed them in my
briefcase. In the week to come I found all kinds of ways to eat the
shit without bolting it right down. Once eaten it's gone forever
unless you want to filch it third hand out of your own asshole. Not an
unreasonable recourse in moments of desperation or simple boredom.

I stored the turds in the refrigerator when I was not using
them but within a week they were all gone. The last one I held in my
mouth without chewing, letting it slowly dissolve. I had liquid shit
trickling down my throat for nearly four hours. I must have had six
orgasms in the process.

I often think of that lovely young guy dropping solid gold out
of his sweet, pink asshole every day, never knowing what joy it could,
and at least once did, bring to a grateful shiteater.

Why... Why... Why did I open this? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20917511)

I really didn't need to know that stuff like this even existed. I swear to the expanding gianormous black hole [sciencedaily.com] which our universe is within [newscientist.com] that I will never open a Troll rated post again. Drat. That would mean I couldn't meta mod. Sigh. Destined to see crap like this.

Re:in mother russia (1)

moderatorrater (1095745) | more than 6 years ago | (#20917881)

Good Lord, you need professional help. I don't care if that was a metaphor for someone who uses and installs netware, you have serious problems.

Re:in mother russia (1)

Ars Dilbert (852117) | more than 6 years ago | (#20918817)

You've never seen 'In Soviet Russia...' jokes on /. before? That's... that's... impossible!

Re:in mother russia (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20919421)

No, he meant the post about the guy masturbating with feces. Must have been below your viewing threshold.

Re:in mother russia (1)

damn_registrars (1103043) | more than 6 years ago | (#20920661)

I think thats not even the first time that story has shown up in a slashdot forum this week. Obviously I'm not about to read it word-for-word, but I recall seeing a painfully long posting not long ago about some guys obsession with library poo.

Some of the stranger spam I've seen, I'll say. Apparently whoever is behind that one doesn't know how to work the slashdot url tag?

Re:in mother russia (1)

damn_registrars (1103043) | more than 6 years ago | (#20920731)

I will also say, though, this thread may be a new low-water mark here:
  • Original post: -1, redundant
  • First reply: -1, troll
  • reply to first reply: -1, troll
And of course several AC posts on the same thread auto-modded 0 since then. Oh, if your keeping track, feces man is actually the troll that replied to the troll that replied to the redundant post. And they were all AC posts as well, IIRC.

SLASHDOT SUX0RZ (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20917175)

_0_
\''\
'=o='
.|!|
.| |
heinous anus [goatse.ch]

Wow (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20917337)

Novell is still in business?

You must kill your NetWare. (0, Offtopic)

Gary W. Longsine (124661) | more than 6 years ago | (#20917377)

Chu Chi [youtube.com] has seen it. It must be so.

Re:Wow (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20918105)

I think they're a division of Microsoft.

Didn't they call this UnixWare? (2, Funny)

pegr (46683) | more than 6 years ago | (#20917375)

I could have sworn they sold this product ten years ago...

Re:Didn't they call this UnixWare? (1)

rubycodez (864176) | more than 6 years ago | (#20920321)

well, it's easy to see the source of your confusion, what with the similarities between SCO and Novell, taking money from Microsoft to make FUD based "fear of IP infringement" attacks on Linux.

Re:Didn't they call this UnixWare? (2, Informative)

pegr (46683) | more than 6 years ago | (#20920601)

Mods must be kids. The org post was a joke. They did sell a NetWare that ran under UNIX. It was their UNIX, called UNIXWare. It was ten + years ago. It was the product that got Norda ousted. Learn your history folks!

Re:Didn't they call this UnixWare? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20920719)

...or be doomed to repeat it? /still have UNIXWare CDs

mods must be kids (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20921161)

Yeah. Old timers don't get to mod any more. It appears that rational factual comments in certain threads, say Apple or BSD for example, attract Troll mods, and once you get hit with a few of those you never get most points again.

Re:Didn't they call this UnixWare? (2, Informative)

nick5546 (1157253) | more than 6 years ago | (#20922279)

Unixware was NOT Netware under Unix, it was Unix Sys V R4.2. Netware for Unix was a product sold by Novell before they even acquired Unix from USL well.. http://www.faqs.org/faqs/unix-faq/unixware/general/ [faqs.org] Anyway, know your history :-) good advise indeed

Skeptical (4, Interesting)

PCM2 (4486) | more than 6 years ago | (#20917425)

Presumably the reason you are sticking with a platform that has not really changed much in a decade is because you are too risk-averse to jump to something else. That said, is swapping out your NetWare servers with "Nu-NetWare" running on top of a Linux kernel really less risky than just switching to Linux -- or to Windows with Active Directory, for that matter? If it's taken you this long to even consider replacing those servers, couldn't you have spent some of that time constructively -- by coming up with a longterm migration strategy that would enable you to minimize risk? Seriously, I have heard some arguments why NetWare is so much "better" or "more elegant" (or whatever) than a Windows network, but these arguments usually seem to hinge on some specific minor capability. It seems to me that you can get pretty much everything NetWare gives you on a Windows network with some third-party management products, with the upshot that your platform is not obsolete.

Re:Skeptical (2, Interesting)

pegr (46683) | more than 6 years ago | (#20917471)

Obsolete? It's been obsolete ever since Windows 3.0. What killed NetWare was their bloated Windows client. That's when Microsoft came in and ate their lunch.

The same thing happened with Word Perfect. They, too, couldn't manage the transition to Windows in a timely manner. Microsoft Word was pure joy compared to Word Perfect for Windows v1

Re:Skeptical (4, Informative)

Orange Crush (934731) | more than 6 years ago | (#20917999)

Ummm, Netware was going strong long past Win 3.1. MS didn't really get their act together until Win2k. Even as just a file server, Netware was way ahead of windows with easy-to-manage folder-by-folder (if you want) ACLs. Heck, Netware 4 still plays nicely with Windows XP.

Also, any idea how much of a PITA it would be to migrate from Netware without having to re-do all file and user permissions? Yeah, there are tools, but I've never had much luck with them.

Re:Skeptical (1)

Odin_Tiger (585113) | more than 6 years ago | (#20918017)

And yet it still soldiers on. Trying to get an old WP expert to switch is hell.

Re:Skeptical (3, Informative)

Ash Vince (602485) | more than 6 years ago | (#20919709)

And yet it still soldiers on. Trying to get an old WP expert to switch is hell.
No, it does not unfortunately. What soldiers on is the believe that WP5.1 was a better product, but WP for Windows was shite and I think most people who liked WP before then would agree with this.

The reason I greatly preferred WP5.1 was because it was not a WYSIWYG (What You See Is What You Get) word processor. Some of us actually liked the idea of What You Want Is What You Get. It might take alot longer to get used to a word processor where you can't just jiggle stuff about until it looks right but the rewards are far greater when you put in the practice.

The whole idea of a WYSIWYG text editor was a novel idea (no pun intended) but you only need to look at why no professional web dev uses dreamweaver in layout mode to understand why it is a failure in the long term. The results are sloppy. You end up with a document full of bloated markup that does not actually change what the page looks like, instead it just contains loads of elements that countermand each other.

eg: <B></B>some text<B></B>

Now most of the time this is just inefficient, but on some rare occasions it becomes an issue. When this happens you have a few choices:

1) Keep tidying up the document until you can make it look professional, unfortunately this can sometimes involve alot of tidying for very little reward.

2) Keep pushing stuff about in another WYSIWYG layout program until it looks right but is now even more inefficient that when you started (and hence harder for anyone else to work on). This still might take longer that expected (ie - quoted).

3) Bodge it and hope the client does not notice the minor layout issue you were unable to fix properly.

Since none of these are exactly ideal I would recommend thinking the choice through. I personally would recommend point 1, and since alot of companies are now crying out for websites where the code validates against W3C guidelines alot of companies obviously think the same way.

I know there are differences between an HTML page being as small and efficient as possible and a word document, but that doesn't change why I prefer WP over Word. WP allowed you to view and edit the markup directly more easily ten years ago than Word does today.

Re:Skeptical (4, Insightful)

drsmithy (35869) | more than 6 years ago | (#20920091)

The whole idea of a WYSIWYG text editor was a novel idea (no pun intended) but you only need to look at why no professional web dev uses dreamweaver in layout mode to understand why it is a failure in the long term. The results are sloppy. You end up with a document full of bloated markup that does not actually change what the page looks like, instead it just contains loads of elements that countermand each other.

It's not a failure at all. It allows people who would not otherwise be able to produce even a slightly well-formatted document, do so. For those who are genuinely interested in "proper" layout procedures - and have the discipline and knowledge to use them - the ability to do so is not impeded by the existence of WYSIWYG tools.

The only way WYSIWYG is a "failure" is if you subscribe to the view that "we are worse off now that more people can be productive".

Re:Skeptical (1)

Ash Vince (602485) | more than 6 years ago | (#20923171)

It's not a failure at all. It allows people who would not otherwise be able to produce even a slightly well-formatted document, do so.
This would be true if they produced a well formatted document, but usually they do not.

If you expect people to produce a well formatted document, the best way to do ensure they do is making sure they are correctly trained in that piece of software and what consitutes a decent document. It is certainly not by giving a very complicated tool to an untrained monkey and expecting them to produce something decent.

For those who are genuinely interested in "proper" layout procedures - and have the discipline and knowledge to use them - the ability to do so is not impeded by the existence of WYSIWYG tools.
Only someone who has never seen a document with a carriage return at the end of every line instead of word wrap would say this. Once you have been presented with such a document and asked to insert a single word into the first paragraph you will understand that the presence of WYSIWYG tools can be an impediment.

Re:Skeptical (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20918735)

Funny how Microsoft had a polished Windows version of their software well before _any_ other vendor. Funny how everyone else was confused over whether to go with Microsoft's OS/2 or Microsoft's Windows. Funny how the only vendor who wasn't going down the OS/2 path was Microsoft.

I wonder how all that confusion came to be. I wonder why MS wasn't confused. I wonder why OS/2 got delayed.

Have you ever seen a horse breeder that also races? He'll sell you some horses to race against other of his horses that he won't sell you... Do you see any possible conflicts with that?

Re:Skeptical (1)

Macfox (50100) | more than 6 years ago | (#20923437)

Buzzz!!! Wrong!!! MS Killed Netware when they sabotaged the RPC's/API in SAMMGR.DLL, that NDS for Windows NT used. This was the product that was going to make ADS obsolete. It did more and far better than ADS today. It basically was a SAM replacement and you didn't need to use the Win32 or VLM Clients. Hence Novell had to change strategy and continue with the (agreed) bloaty clients.


Novell subsequently took MS to over the Word Perfect and other antitrust issues (as above) and settled for $536,000,000 US. However the game was well won by MS at this late stage.

Re:Skeptical (1)

Slack3r78 (596506) | more than 6 years ago | (#20917499)

Presumably the reason you are sticking with a platform that has not really changed much in a decade is because you are too risk-averse to jump to something else.

The State of Georgia is one of Novell's single largest clients. When I worked for GA DHR [georgia.gov] about two years ago, we weren't technically even allowed to put any Linux boxes on the network.

Re:Skeptical (1)

toominator (108128) | more than 6 years ago | (#20917561)

I can only speak of my own experiences, but I've had Netware servers with uptimes in the > 365 days time frames. I run Mac OS X, Windows 2003, Redhat and Suse Linux servers, and to date, no server platform has given me less downtime or fewer problems than my Netware servers.

Besides Netware, Novell has also produced some pretty cool technologies such as iFolder, but I digress. /* puts on flame-retardant suit */ :)

Re:Skeptical (2, Interesting)

Glonoinha (587375) | more than 6 years ago | (#20919005)

More than a year of uptime? That's child's play for Netware. I've seen plenty of boxes with several years uptime - all running Netware 4.x
I've heard stories of Netware servers that got lost, physically misplaced (one, according to legend, was drywalled into a building by a work-crew that didn't know it was there) that ran for a very long time (years) without anybody knowing where they were.

It pretty much takes a hardware failure to bring down a Netware box. A bad cpu fan killed one of mine, and a bad power supply killed another (both in the late '90s).

Re:Skeptical (1)

Oliver Defacszio (550941) | more than 6 years ago | (#20921147)

Ay-men, brother. I have used every major OS out there, and I've never seen anything that can touch the uptime of a properly configured Netware server. Even running on garbage, underspecced hardware, I've personally seen Netware 4.x and 5.x run for years uninterrupted without breaking a sweat more times than I can bother to count.

I'll pour out a little liquor for the "real" Netware on this, its death day, for that operating system let me sleep soundly through the night more often than anything else when I was an on-call network admin a few years ago. Netware, I salute you... Salut!

Re:Skeptical (1)

PCM2 (4486) | more than 6 years ago | (#20919347)

I run Mac OS X, Windows 2003, Redhat and Suse Linux servers, and to date, no server platform has given me less downtime or fewer problems than my Netware servers.

Well guess what. When you migrate them to NetWare running on a Xen hypervisor, you're going to have some downtime. ;-)

Seriously -- the "NetWare is 100 percent reliable" argument, I get that. The "change a reliable NetWare system into a different system that looks just like a NetWare system, but isn't, yet is just as reliable" argument ... like I say, I'm skeptical.

Re:Skeptical (3, Insightful)

BitZtream (692029) | more than 6 years ago | (#20917597)

Part of the reason netware hasn't seen drastic changes recently is because it was doing directory services and things like that for years. A lot of the 'neat' stuff that everyone else is doing now was there in netware 4, now its more of the same using protocols that are much closer to public standards, like ldap for the directory services, smtp support for mail, ect. There are plenty more things like this but I'm too lazy to go get a feature list and point them out. :)

Personally, I can't stand netware. But, the did a lot of the good stuff way before MS or Sun picked up on the concepts, hence they haven't had a major reason to make any massive changes. In case you haven't noticed, Unix, linux included, hasn't had any massive redesigns in the past 10 years either. Its all just minor updates to things along as needed to cope with new hardware technologies.

Re:Skeptical (1)

PCM2 (4486) | more than 6 years ago | (#20919373)

Personally, I can't stand netware. But, the did a lot of the good stuff way before MS or Sun picked up on the concepts, hence they haven't had a major reason to make any massive changes.

Except, I guess, to change it so that henceforth it runs on top of Linux.

Not exactly ... (0)

khasim (1285) | more than 6 years ago | (#20917735)

That said, is swapping out your NetWare servers with "Nu-NetWare" running on top of a Linux kernel really less risky than just switching to Linux -- or to Windows with Active Directory, for that matter?

Nope. If anything, it is MORE risky because now you have Linux added to the bottom of the stack. That is where Novell went wrong with this. Instead of putting everything on top of Linux (including DOS which boots NetWare), they should have replaced DOS with Linux. Yes, DOS is still needed to boot NetWare.

If it's taken you this long to even consider replacing those servers, couldn't you have spent some of that time constructively -- by coming up with a longterm migration strategy that would enable you to minimize risk?

Considering that, up to this point, the OFFICIAL "migration strategy" from Novell was (and I am NOT joking), replacing Novell's NetWare with Microsoft's Windows.

Yeah, so I can run GroupWise on NetWare ... or go with Windows.

Seriously, I have heard some arguments why NetWare is so much "better" or "more elegant" (or whatever) than a Windows network, but these arguments usually seem to hinge on some specific minor capability.

The problem is that Novell has (at best) remained a static target. Microsoft has been improving Windows. Linux has been improved. So now, there's really not much of a reason to run Novell's products IN A NEW DEPLOYMENT. If you have them right now and they work right now, then extending them to a new office is easy.

It seems to me that you can get pretty much everything NetWare gives you on a Windows network with some third-party management products, with the upshot that your platform is not obsolete.

Pretty much. Again, Novell has chosen to remain a fairly static target. Eventually, your competition will meet your feature set.

But remember, Novell makes more money from Microsoft (court cases, licensing deal) than it makes from sales of its products.

What a hoot (1, Informative)

postbigbang (761081) | more than 6 years ago | (#20918367)

> Yes, DOS is still needed to boot NetWare.

Next thing you'll be telling me is that you need to boot Linux to get to VMWare ESX!! LOL, ROFL!!!!

> The problem is that Novell has (at best) remained a static target. Microsoft has been improving Windows. Linux has been improved. So now, there's really not much of a reason to run Novell's products IN A NEW DEPLOYMENT.

We like those old deployments, the ones that have been working since about '89. Oh yeah, they dropped IPX for IP, and got a life after eDirectory. Yawn.

> It seems to me that you can get pretty much everything NetWare gives you on a Windows network with some third-party management products, with the upshot that your platform is not obsolete.

Or, you could buy NetWare, say back in '89, with maybe some of that Zen stuff and have obviated the need for generations of patch work from Microsoft. Oh yeah, that was also before the .93 Linux kernel that started FOSS on its way.

> Pretty much. Again, Novell has chosen to remain a fairly static target. Eventually, your competition will meet your feature set.

These wars have been going on for years. Has Novell kept up? Perhaps without the intense amount of FUD that its competition has needed to use.

> But remember, Novell makes more money from Microsoft (court cases, licensing deal) than it makes from sales of its products.

Cite your source. Novell shareholders will smile at you. And they'll also point out the number of jursidictions that they've successfully won in, much to the chagrin of Microsoft shareholders, who merely seek world domination.

It's an empty argument to say that Novell didn't win the war. You're probably to young to remember the Ring Zero wars, and how hilarious Windows NT 3.51 was, and how people tried in so many ways to make pre-Active Directory services work. Novell tried valiantly to out-brain Microsoft. They did it, but they couldn't out-MARKET Microsoft. There's a big difference. Want fries with that?

Problems Problems Problems (4, Interesting)

mpapet (761907) | more than 6 years ago | (#20917861)

That said, is swapping out your NetWare servers with "Nu-NetWare" running on top of a Linux kernel really less risky than just switching to Linux

Yes it is. I can test and deploy this easier than starting fresh with anything else.

couldn't you have spent some of that time constructively
I did spend that time more constructively. The boss said "I've got other things for you to do that will actually make me money. Don't worry about something that basically works."

hese arguments usually seem to hinge on some specific minor capability
It works in Netware and I can't do it as easily on any other platform. Don't denigrate something you know nothing about.

One of the fundamental premises behind your opinion is the "constant upgrade cycle" mentality.
Is IT's job making work for itself by breaking things that work or making users/systems more productive? My boss and I both choose the latter. That's why I'm happy and work lots of very regular hours.

Re:Problems Problems Problems (1)

BlueMerle (1161489) | more than 6 years ago | (#20918217)

Is IT's job making work for itself by breaking things that work or making users/systems more productive? My boss and I both choose the latter. That's why I'm happy and work lots of very regular hours.
Ding!! We have a winner.

Re:Skeptical (5, Insightful)

nip1024 (977084) | more than 6 years ago | (#20917941)

The Novell platform has changed a great deal in the last decade. I've been a Systems Engineer for 15 years in large and small companies and have had to deal with just about every server OS out there. So far Netware is still the one I would choose for most applications. Linux is just now getting to the point where I would consider them before Novell. Microsoft Windows doesn't even come close to the stability or security I want and Active Directory is a joke. I've worked with Netware servers that have never been shutdown or rebooted for the entire lifetime of the system they were on (over 3 years). I have yet to see a Windows server that didn't need to be rebooted several times a year.

For comparison, one company I worked for had 3000 users, 280 servers and about 3600 workstations/laptops. They were a Windows shop and had over 180 full-time IT personnel. Another organization I worked with, though not for, had 1800 users, 40 servers and about 2200 workstations/laptops but they were a Novell shop. They had better service uptime (email/file/print/web) and faster workstation services (break/fix/moves/upgrades) and were able to do it with less than 25 IT people.

Novell networks are easier to maintain, more secure and much more stable than a Windows environment. The only areas where Windows beats (soundly) Netware is in ease of installation and application selection. Unless you absolutely must have an application that runs exclusively under Windows, there is no compelling reason to use a Microsoft network.

Re:Skeptical (1)

saleenS281 (859657) | more than 6 years ago | (#20918311)

Funny, I hear this argument again and again from netware zealots, yet none of them have ever spent a day administrating a windows network. Just because a company has 180 people, doesn't mean they're good, or trained. At the end of the day, 25 experienced admins are going to do a better job of keeping systems up and stable, than 180 inexperienced people with a certificate of completion from your local tech school of choice. Netware, windows, linux, unix, doesn't matter. If you were talking about windows98, I might agree. If you're rebooting windows2000+ "several times per year", you either haven't figured out how to use a firewall, or you shouldn't be administrating anything.

Re:Skeptical (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20918815)

>> If you're rebooting windows2000+ "several times per year"

Or, maybe you are simply putting on security updates? Oh wait, that would be more than several reboots per year.

Re:Skeptical (1)

lorenlal (164133) | more than 6 years ago | (#20919105)

Parent is right in that 25 good admins will out-do 180, 200, 1000, etc bad admins. In fact, the reliability will go down for each bad admin... Based on my experience at least.

But.. Given patches, and installation of software, security fixes, etc, reboots "several times per year" isn't necessarily a bad thing... assuming they're all planned.

Re:Skeptical (2, Informative)

oatworm (969674) | more than 6 years ago | (#20919243)

As a Windows system administrator, I'm getting a kick out of these replies.

There are, as I see it, some big problems with Windows:
1. You're much more likely to get an inexperienced boob running your network than you are with any other system out there. Most people I know (insert witty comment about "plural of anecdote != data", etc.) start off with Windows, then go to Linux or something else once they have their feet wet. Put another way, if you started off with NetWare, it's because you started off over ten years ago.

2. It's a royal pain in the rear to restore, especially if you're in a single server environment. Try restoring Active Directory on to a different machine - since it's wrapped up with System State, it's a crapshoot whether or not your new server will boot, much less have a working authentication system afterwards. I eagerly look forward to the day when I can restore Active Directory separately from the rest of my registry. With multiple servers, it's not quite so bad - you can get some redundancy going and migrate a new server in relatively cleanly. Exchange gets a little gnarly at times, though. Then again, when anything worth anything on Windows is a database (registry, Active Directory, Exchange, etc.), you're not going to be able to just "cp" your way out of your problems.

3. Windows Server is better than it used to be about requiring a reboot after an update, but Windows 2000 was horrible about it. If someone says they're rebooting their Windows 2000 server repeatedly throughout the year, it's telling me they're installing security patches and the like on a regular basis. If they're saying the same thing about Windows 2003, it probably means something similar, but the frequency is going down a little. Then again, rebooting a server is not that hard - do it after hours. Of course, it'd be handy if shutdown.exe actually worked the way it was supposed to so you could reliably script it... it seems to work 75% of the time for me, personally, which is about 25% worse than "shutdown -h now" works on my Ubuntu laptop.

4. Windows tries way too hard to be everything to everyone. It's built with the same mentality as Microsoft Word - yeah, you won't need 95% of the stuff that's there, but if MS did their job right, it'll be a different 95% for each customer. Trouble is, servers aren't word processors - when something goes wrong, you have to know about the other 95% and be able to troubleshoot it well enough to at least figure out if the problem is over there or if it's in the 5% you're actually using on a regular basis. Thankfully, a lot of that stuff is turned off by default, but if you've ever had to stare at group policy settings (especially pre-GPMC), well, you know what I'm talking about here.

Other than that, Windows is great!

design principle of loose coupling is ! The MS Way (2, Insightful)

Gary W. Longsine (124661) | more than 6 years ago | (#20921683)

Your comments remind me that the objective "everything to everyone" very nearly defines a general purpose computer, including the entry level server. There exit better ways to implement complex systems, even though like the general purpose computer which are intended to meet, to a large degree, this somewhat nebulous objective. One architectural principle, which is very important in helping to produce a complex system, and which seems to elude Microsoft is that of "loose coupling".

Some layers or components should be cleanly separated by well designed and well documented interfaces. When loose coupling is considered to be an important design objective, you can wind up with a system in which both a rapid evolution in technology, and a stable technology and production base, are possible. (More generally, the complex system can facilitate multiple competing objectives, and let you, the client, operator, or administrator, choose at run time which objectives you seek.) The architecture permits this, for example, by providing abstractions such as "modules" which let the administrator choose what components to load and run, swapping in new modules if they need to be "on the cutting edge" or using the tried and true ones if they need stability more than any other objective, for example. As a reasonable example of this principle, consider "the web" as a loosely coupled complex system, or consider simply Apache as a very coherent example of a single system where multiple modules doing different things and created by different authors co-exist pretty peacefully over generations of software revisions and wholesale architectural changes.

When loose coupling is ignored, or subjugated to the desire to create opportunities for "vendor lock", you wind up with things like the SMB/CIFS [wikipedia.org] snafu (that may sound harsh, but calling it a "protocol" is overly generous).

The items you mention in your point "2" above are nearly all rooted, ultimately, in the failure to consider the principle of loose coupling, when designing a complex system. Well, honestly as far as I can tell, Microsoft intentionally undermine it at every turn by trying to tie everything to everything else so that you get snared in the "Chinese finger trap [wikipedia.org] " that is the Microsoft world.

Yeah, we just happened to get 180 incompetent ppl (3, Interesting)

nip1024 (977084) | more than 6 years ago | (#20919395)

I was one of several dozen people administering the Windows environment. This was from mid-98 through late 2001. We were using Windows NT workstation, NT server and I was one of the people who did the migration to Windows 2000. As of November 2000, there were still stability issues and security issues needing regular updates from Microsoft. Both of these things required rebooting the servers. I've seen several 3.x and 4.x Netware servers (from early to late 90's) that have stayed up for years at a time.

Also, it isn't 25 experienced admins, it is 25 IT personnel. I think only about 4 of them are experienced admins. The rest are techs, management, help desk, and web programmers.

The company I worked for had some of the best and brightest people I've ever worked with. The problems weren't because of lack of knowledge or skill, it was from a crappy product with scaling issues and ridiculous problems with security. The same problems many Microsoft products still suffer from today.

Since that time, I've worked in W2k environments, W2003, and I'm finally getting to work in another Netware environment. Strangely, even though we have 900 workstations and about 30 servers, we are able to provide all necessary services with only 15 IT people. Only 4 of us are experienced admins.

I've been in IT for 15 years professionally and another 10 years prior to that for recreation. I've also heard the arguments from zealots from both sides. The only ones I care about, though, are the ones from people who actually have in depth experience in both Windows and Netware. Of those people, the people who actually know what they are talking about, I don't hear a lot of praise for Windows on servers.

Re:Skeptical (1)

PCM2 (4486) | more than 6 years ago | (#20919505)

Novell networks are easier to maintain, more secure and much more stable than a Windows environment. The only areas where Windows beats (soundly) Netware is in ease of installation and application selection.

So Novell networks are great for IT managers, but lousy for end users (because of poor application selection). And it seems to me that this has been the main problem with NetWare for years and years now. I guess it depends on your organization's priorities.

Unless you absolutely must have an application that runs exclusively under Windows, there is no compelling reason to use a Microsoft network.
I'm no great fan, but I reckon for most organizations that application is Exchange. By comparison, I spent a few years sitting on a NetWare network running Lotus Notes and doing basic e-mail communication felt like operating a Cold War-era Russian submarine.

Re:Skeptical (1)

afidel (530433) | more than 6 years ago | (#20919703)

Hmm, I run a Windows shop of 800 users at 100 sites with 150 servers and we have a total of 11 technical staff including helpdesk and telecom. I have a large number of servers that were last rebooted last summer when we took our datacenter down to double its size and upgrade our UPS system. I would have to ask if the 40 servers in the Novel environment included Dev/Test/Prod servers because that's pretty much a requirement for publicly traded companies today.

Re:Skeptical (4, Insightful)

rickb928 (945187) | more than 6 years ago | (#20920395)

Actually,most of what has changed about NetWare over the past 10 years has been new 'features': iFolder in particular comes to mind.

And I recall getting my NetWare 5 server running at home sometime around 1998, or was it 2000? I had my trusty modem autodialing into my own ISP bank. BorderManager as my firewall, happily blocking ads, logging the few (back then) attempts to probe my connection. I ran the NAMP stack (NetWare/Apache/myQL/Perl/PHP) and having fun. I ran Websphere just to see if it would. Tomcat, the Advantage xBase engine, Mercury SMTP alongside GroupWise. At the time, Microsoft didn't have all of that so well done.

Oh yeah, and my personal record on a NetWare server is 1300+ days. My home server ran over 960 days at one stretch. The story of a NetWare server being walled in by accident is attributed to a New York-based Fortune 50 headquarters. Perhaps the only other platform that can easily claim that sort of reliability would be the AS/400 series, which is also reputed to have had at least one server walled in and 'lost'. It was looked for only when the lease expired. I don't doubt it.

None of that really mattered. Microsoft was running NetWare over and backing up to go over it again.

The NetWare Client for Windows was bloated mostly to accomodate the problems of Widows Networking. For one thing, if the Windows AD client did a lookup for something and didn't find it, it would happily look 'everywhere else'. The NetWare client, if not finding it in NDS or Windows, stopped and said 'not found'. The concept of looking everywhere else when it wasn't found within the directory you had struck me as ludicrous. But for Windows, it was SOP. And cost you a minute or two waiting for the inevitable failure. At least in NetWare you got an answer in 2-3 seconds, depending on network performance.

I miss NetWare. But the fight is over. Just don't try and tell me Windows IS any better, even today. It's just more popular.

Fixed that for ya. (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20920439)

I have yet to see a Windows server that didn't need to be rebooted several times a year.
You mispelled "week".

Or were you talking about an ADP server? You mispelled "day", then.

Re:Skeptical (1)

gubol123 (933609) | more than 6 years ago | (#20922017)

I don't know what to say. We have a 7480 users, 140 servers, around 12000 workstations/laptops. We are complete windows shop and have 32 IT personnel, including 3 help desk employees. I feel either you are lying or your IT budget is completely over the top. If you ask me its time to trim your IT herd. Bring it down to 25 or so.

Re:Skeptical (1)

nuzak (959558) | more than 6 years ago | (#20918097)

> That said, is swapping out your NetWare servers with "Nu-NetWare" running on top of a Linux kernel really less risky than just switching to Linux

Lemme think for a momen--yes.

Seriously. They've even kept it binary compatible with NLMs. The same apps run. This is not your home network of three gentoo boxes you're talking about.

Re:Skeptical (1)

PCM2 (4486) | more than 6 years ago | (#20919321)

Soooooo... NetWare -----> Linux = Risk.

NetWare ------> Linux + Xen + NetWare = Less Risk.

Doesn't make sense to me. How can you assume that the NetWare services running under Xen running under Linux are 100 percent as reliable as the native NetWare services? That seems like an unlikely result.

Re:Skeptical (1)

Degrees (220395) | more than 6 years ago | (#20922131)

There is nothing wrong with being skeptical, and it's probably a good idea. Wait it out and see. :-)

The biggest benefit to NetWare ------> Linux + Xen + NetWare is drivers. The Xen environment provides (standardized/generic) Novell written drivers to the NetWare OS, and it becomes SLES' job to fulfill those calls. NetWare can be pretty brittle (the trade-off being high speed). This new environment provides a whole additional layer to buffer the ugliness of actual hardware calls away from the sometimes brittle NetWare OS.

Obviously, Linux + Xen + NetWare will b slower than native NetWare, but on a 3.0 GHz dual core box, is that really going to be noticeable?

So I understand where you would be skeptical - but I think you might (eventually) end up being pleasantly surprised.

For some reason, all problems seem to solvable by adding one-more-level of redirection. ;-)

Re:Skeptical (1)

LWATCDR (28044) | more than 6 years ago | (#20918165)

"Presumably the reason you are sticking with a platform that has not really changed much in a decade is because you are too risk-averse to jump to something else."
Not at all. The reason is because it works.
Netware still works just fine for a lot of companies. It really was/is a very good server. A company may have a LOT of money already invested in Netware Services that work just fine and dandy. So if you can still get support why go through the cost and time to re-write you code?
There are still multi-million dollar cooperations that depend on code written in COBOL. If you have people know how to run your Netware network, and it works why change?
You can always add new services with Linux while running Netware under Zen.
This is a brillant solution for people still dependent on Netware.

Re:Skeptical (1)

PCM2 (4486) | more than 6 years ago | (#20919291)

This is a brillant solution for people still dependent on Netware.

Wait... if you're only using it because it "just works," how come you say you're "dependent" on it? "Dependent" sounds like you have a vested interest in not changing -- which is what I mean by "risk averse." Change = risk, always. (Note: "Risk" does not equal failure, just greater statistical chance of failure than you'd incur from changing nothing.)

Re:Skeptical (1)

LWATCDR (28044) | more than 6 years ago | (#20919781)

No actually my company migrated to Linux years ago. But we didn't have anything that was dependent on Novell. Our problem now is that we have two systems that are dependent on Windows servers. One is the accounting system the other is our CMS. We will be migrating our CMS soon. The Accounting system just works.
The thing is change for the sake of change is worthless. If your systems work and are still supported which Novell is then there is no reason to rush into a migration.

Re:Skeptical (1)

Clover_Kicker (20761) | more than 6 years ago | (#20918447)

A Novell shop is not only wedded to NetWare, but has made a huge time investment setting up, testing and perfecting the associated infrastructure.

It only takes a day to set up a new server running whatever OS and copy the files over, but now you've got to reproduce the equivilent of your NDS (or whatever they call it now) database, your login scripts, your ZEN install packages etc. etc. That infrastructure has grown up over years, maybe even decades.

%DEITY% help you, there might even be GroupWise in the mix.

aixelsyd (5, Funny)

slyn (1111419) | more than 6 years ago | (#20917483)

Netware confirms it: Netcraft is dying.

er... wait a second

LinuxNovell (1)

GreatWhiteSlark (1170653) | more than 6 years ago | (#20917583)

Why use Novell these days? Linux builds are much more flexible and user friendly, not mention cheaper.

Re:LinuxNovell (1)

Skiron (735617) | more than 6 years ago | (#20917633)

Yes, and also no tie-in with the Devil and what that will entail in the near future.

For the additional apps. (4, Interesting)

khasim (1285) | more than 6 years ago | (#20917815)

eDirectory
GroupWise
ZENworks

On the other hand, Novell has ported all of them to Windows ... but not to Ubuntu. So you can have all the Novell apps on your Microsoft network.

Anyone care to comment on how nice it is to depend upon the good will of your biggest competitor for the stability of your apps?

Re:For the additional apps. (1)

flydpnkrtn (114575) | more than 6 years ago | (#20918283)

Whoa whoa whoa. So Novell has a duty to port and support their authentication and application platform to every distro?

Novell has ported eDirectory to SUSE Linux. They're working on a Linux GroupWise client. ZENworks integration is also being worked on.

It's not their job to support the applications they've created on every distribution of Linux. Has Ubuntu relased LaunchPad for every other distro?

Ummm, Microsoft owns Windows. (1)

khasim (1285) | more than 6 years ago | (#20918479)

Whoa whoa whoa. So Novell has a duty to port and support their authentication and application platform to every distro?

Did I say they did? No, I did not.

Novell has ported eDirectory to SUSE Linux. They're working on a Linux GroupWise client. ZENworks integration is also being worked on.

And Novell has ported eDirectory to Microsoft Windows. And who is Novell's biggest competitor?

No, Novell is not working on a "Linux GroupWise client". They're working on a Java-based one that pretty much sucks right now. And has sucked for as long as they've been working on it.

No, ZENworks is available on SuSE (and maybe Red Hat). But it is definitely available on Microsoft's Windows platform. Again, who is Novell's biggest competitor? Novell is not porting ZENworks to "Linux".

It's not their job to support the applications they've created on every distribution of Linux.

That would depend upon how you define "their job".

If they're trying to leverage GroupWise to sell more SuSE, then you are correct.

If they're trying to increase the marketshare of GroupWise, then you are wrong.

People using Microsoft Windows will, 99.9% of the time, NOT be looking to deploy GroupWise on it. They would go with Microsoft Exchange. It makes it easier for them because they have ONE company to deal with. Rather than dealing with Novell claiming that it is a Microsoft problem and Microsoft claiming that no one running Exchange sees that problem.

GroupWise could be THE corporate email server for Linux. And if it is not Novell's "job" to make it such ...

Who's job is it?
What REALLY is Novell's job?

Re:Ummm, Microsoft owns Windows. (1)

gallwapa (909389) | more than 6 years ago | (#20918821)

Uh, no. The new linux client isn't the java client. And fyi, GW7 client has been around for quite some time. The java (aka cross platform) client does suck. Most notably, it is missing spell check. ;-)

Re:Ummm, Microsoft owns Windows. (1)

flydpnkrtn (114575) | more than 6 years ago | (#20919011)

I think there are some fundamental things you don't know about the "new" Novell. I did the same thing at first - I thought to myself "Novell is dead, right?" when Novell first caught my attention (when I first read that they had bought SUSE out, in fact).

Novell has made Linux and a lot of open source software its platform - everything from the Desktop to the Server, is on top of Linux.

SUSE Linux Enterprise Dekstop is their desktop OS (SLED 10)
SUSE Linux Ent. Server is the server in the back room.

eDirectory, GroupWise, ZENworks, iFolder, Novell Storage Services all run on top of SLES. Other platforms are supported (RedHat and Windows Server 2003), but the "de facto" solution from Novell is SLES.

They've even created a competitior to Microsoft Small Business Server, which does the same thing SBS does. They call it Open Workgroup Suite.

So, to sum it up:
MS Exchange = GroupWise
Group Policy = (roughly) ZENworks
Active Directory = eDirectory
Microsoft Office = Novell OpenOffice
Windows XP = SLED
Server 2003 = SLES

That's always possible. (1)

khasim (1285) | more than 6 years ago | (#20919353)

I think there are some fundamental things you don't know about the "new" Novell.

That's quite possible. I only run 6 of their servers (and GroupWise 7.02 and ZENworks). But let's see what you have ...

Novell has made Linux and a lot of open source software its platform - everything from the Desktop to the Server, is on top of Linux.

Again, no. It is "on top of" SuSE. Not Linux. I've already pointed that out.

You asked if it was Novell's "job" to port it. I asked if it wasn't Novell's job, what REALLY was Novell's job. Remember?

eDirectory, GroupWise, ZENworks, iFolder, Novell Storage Services all run on top of SLES. Other platforms are supported (RedHat and Windows Server 2003), but the "de facto" solution from Novell is SLES.

I noticed that you said "SLES" that time. Good.

You are wrong on the Windows Server 2003. They're supported all the way back to Win2K server.

Yet, strangely, not Debian.

So, to sum it up:
MS Exchange = GroupWise
Group Policy = (roughly) ZENworks
Active Directory = eDirectory
Microsoft Office = Novell OpenOffice
Windows XP = SLED
Server 2003 = SLES

And your point is ... ? Every single one of those apps will run on Microsoft Windows. Yet not a single one of them will run on Debian.

Again, you asked:

It's not their job to support the applications they've created on every distribution of Linux.

GroupWise could be THE corporate email server for Linux. And if it is not Novell's "job" to make it such ...

Who's job is it?
What REALLY is Novell's job?

"Yet not a single one of them will run on Debian." (1)

Degrees (220395) | more than 6 years ago | (#20922891)

Isn't that picking nits?

What Novell sells, Novell has to support. They have trained practically everybody in the company to use SuSE, and the tech support people have been trained enough to troubleshoot and isolate bugs - in SuSE. And now you want them to be subject matter experts for RedHat / Debian / Ubuntu / Kubuntu / Slackware / Damn Small / Joe's Own / ...?

At what point does it end?

And from a system administrator's point of view: if you can run Debian, can you run SuSE? Of course you can. ssh into the SLES isn't going to look any different....

Part of Novell's problem stems from having to ship binary code. GroupWise has that built-in encryption. NCP uses RSA encryption. Novell really isn't in a position to spill the security beans by releasing source code. Even good old NetWare has that proprietary C-Shell menu system that belongs to someone else - it's not theirs to open source.

So they are stuck with the binaries. They'll even help you get eDirectory installed on RedHat - but if your environment has something tweaked that causes the whole thing to go boom, well... sorry. What more can they do? It's not like they have the bankroll that Microsoft has.

You asked what Novell's job is. Novell's job is to keep and gain customers. The NetWare customers are happy enough with SLES - particularly when SLES comes pre-set-up with XEN to run NetWare 6.5 inside it. For gaining new customers, Novell is going to get them from people fed up with Windows. SLES / RedHat / Debian - doesn't matter to the Windows admin. He/she will bite whichever bullet and learn to love ssh and grep.

I would love it if Novell had the resources to port the GroupWise 8 to RedHat / Ubuntu / etc. The reason they wrote the client in java is that it does port to Mac OS X (and their own WebAccess client). But the reality of their world is that the GroupWise team has to compete with Outlook / Exchange, and that means a Win32 client in a constant upgrade cycle, or else they suffer the fate of looking abandoned (like the Lotus Notes client).

So far, they have managed to keep the java client only one revision behind the Win32 client. That's not terrible, considering the size of the company.

You do make a decent point that if GroupWise ran on RedHat / etc., that could grow the GroupWise market. But I think there are more people unhappy with Exchange who want to migrate. If I were Novell, I'd pursue the largest market - particularly if my email product already ran on Windows, and I had a native migration tool.

The worst part about Novell is that they have some large stockholders who want out, and wouldn't mind liquidating the company if it means getting their cash back. So stupid financial acts tend to periodically damage the company. It's really hard to convince management to grow the investment in your email product when the finance robots are telling management to downsize instead (More cash! Reputation that we're dying? Not quantifiable - why do you ask?)

Re:Ummm, Microsoft owns Windows. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20919091)

And Novell has ported eDirectory to Microsoft Windows. And who is Novell's biggest competitor?
This is why you are not running a company. You'd be out of business in a day. Yes, Microsoft is Novell's biggest competitor - but guess what that also means? It means a huge number of users run... what? Windows perhaps? So if you want to make money, you need a customer base. What are most people running? That's right. Windows. So in order to maximize the pool of potential customers, you need to write your software for Windows. This is pretty basic economics.

No, Novell is not working on a "Linux GroupWise client". They're working on a Java-based one that pretty much sucks right now. And has sucked for as long as they've been working on it.
Uh, actually they are. The java one (which I agree, sucks) is only one of the Linux clients they are working on. There is also Evolution which has support for GroupWise and has for some time now (altho continually being improved afaik).

No, ZENworks is available on SuSE (and maybe Red Hat). But it is definitely available on Microsoft's Windows platform. Again, who is Novell's biggest competitor? Novell is not porting ZENworks to "Linux".
I answered this above...

That would depend upon how you define "their job". If they're trying to leverage GroupWise to sell more SuSE, then you are correct. If they're trying to increase the marketshare of GroupWise, then you are wrong.
Are you really this clueless? Obviously they are trying to push their SuSE platform as being the Linux w/ GroupWise support... but how would porting to Red Hat or Ubuntu or Mandrake or Slackware or PCLinuxOS help them significantly? Answer: it wouldn't. Red Hat's, Ubuntu's, etc market share is far too small to matter. Pop Quiz: If you want to optimize a program to run as fast as possible, do you spend time trying to fine-tune the section of code that only takes 1% of the total running time? or do you spend the time on a routine that takes 90% of the total running time? Answer: you spend it on the routine that takes 90% of the total running time. Why? Because even a slight improvement there will make more difference than optimizing the hell out of that routine that only takes up 1%. In other words, you go for the bigger slice of the pie. Again, this is pretty basic.

People using Microsoft Windows will, 99.9% of the time, NOT be looking to deploy GroupWise on it. They would go with Microsoft Exchange. It makes it easier for them because they have ONE company to deal with. Rather than dealing with Novell claiming that it is a Microsoft problem and Microsoft claiming that no one running Exchange sees that problem.
Except that your logic is based on bad assumptions... If a company is already using product XYZ (in this case, GroupWise), they are likely to prefer sticking with the same setup (so long as it's working for them) rather than go to someone else's product that they'd have to spend time learning. This is one of the biggest barriers for Linux adoption - the cost of retraining their admins/employees to be able to use the new system. Also, companies that use(d) GroupWise probably originally ran GroupWise on NetWare (and probably even still do if they still use GroupWise), which they likely started using long before WindowsNT - which is why they aren't using Exchange.

GroupWise could be THE corporate email server for Linux. And if it is not Novell's "job" to make it such ... Who's job is it? What REALLY is Novell's job?
You really don't want GroupWise to be THE Linux groupware server... no, really - you don't. Trust me. I'm forced to use it at work, and I hate it (not that I'd be happy with /any/ groupware server, mind you, but GroupWise has been known to make grown men cry). As far as who's job is it? Who's job is it to do what? Novell's job is to make money... if companies really want GroupWise, they'll run SuSE Linux. Why do they need to port it to Ubuntu? I can /maybe/ see Red Hat (because they actually target servers - Ubuntu is typically desktop oriented), but why even Red Hat? I find that typically companies want the full stack from a single source (which was part of your argument above, actually... except that you forgot that a lot of companies began using Novell long before WindowsNT came along). Certainly any company that really wants to run GroupWise is not gonna get hung up over having to run it on a SuSE server.

So basically (1)

kwabbles (259554) | more than 6 years ago | (#20917627)

Netware 6.5 can run virtualized, and the nlms are also ported to linux. So you can run 6.5 in Zen for your Netware, or just run some NetWare services right on top of OES.

Another Lunix first!! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20917871)

Well, for the first time, teh Lunix has a network operating system.

Rejoice at everything FOSS has accomplished in 15+ years!

iFolder once open sourced, now exclusive to OES (0, Offtopic)

thehunger (549253) | more than 6 years ago | (#20918037)

Anyone remember how Novell struggled to get recognition with iFolder back when it was specific to Netware?
They later produced a Windows version, then rewrote it in Mono. Still few customers were willing to pay for it.

Then someone at Novell had a bright idea: "why not make it open-source?" This was back when Novell's Linux-bet was new and they had to prove themselves. They thought giving away YaST, iFolder and some other stuff would give them credibility.

Since then, the iFolder project has struggled, with people leaving, some wanting to rewrite the whole thing in C again (mono had some scalability issues), etc. Finally when they've managed to put in some of the features people have been wanting (multiple ifolder-servers, encryption etc), Novell in all its wisdom has decided again to make iFolder exclusive to OES2.

That's right: if you want to setup an iFolder server with the new 3.6 features, you need to buy OES2 at the premium price Novell is asking (and besides OES2 is full of other stuff many people don't want). So for Red Hat and any other distro, 3.4 is the latest version..

Way to go, Novell.

Re:iFolder once open sourced, now exclusive to OES (2, Informative)

imemyself (757318) | more than 6 years ago | (#20918481)

Since then, the iFolder project has struggled, with people leaving, some wanting to rewrite the whole thing in C again (mono had some scalability issues), etc. Finally when they've managed to put in some of the features people have been wanting (multiple ifolder-servers, encryption etc), Novell in all its wisdom has decided again to make iFolder exclusive to OES2.

That's right: if you want to setup an iFolder server with the new 3.6 features, you need to buy OES2 at the premium price Novell is asking (and besides OES2 is full of other stuff many people don't want). So for Red Hat and any other distro, 3.4 is the latest version..


That's not entirely correct. You can download the iFolder 3.6 server from: http://download.opensuse.org/repositories/home:/dl9pf/ [opensuse.org] . That is linked to from the iFolder site (www.ifolder.com). Now admittedly, I don't think there has been a whole lot of community involvement with iFolder 3, Novell has mostly been doing their own thing with it. But you can get source RPM's for iFolder 3.6 from the link above, along with RPM's for Fedora and OpenSuSE/SLES. They do need to do a better job of giving information to the community about what's going on with iFolder though. The website doesn't really have much on the new version - it seems like there are just occasional announcements out of the blue. There are also several different versions of iFolder mentioned on the site (3.2 - which came with OES 1, 3.4, 3.5, and 3.6). Hopefully Novell will do a little bit better job managing iFolder now that OES 2 was released. I love iFolder and use it a lot. It's great for people with laptops that need to have access to their files while off the network, but still want to have all of their files stored on a server to share with other people or run centralized backups, etc.

I briefly played around with OES 2 in VMware last night, and it doesn't seem too bad. I haven't been able to try out too many of the new features, but the installation was pretty smooth (especially in comparison to OES v1).

The good thing about what Novell is doing is that they are making Linux a viable option for a lot of midsized companies. RH or other distros work fine for small companies or large companies that have the technical people to make the glue to put everything together. But midsized companies need something more than RHEL/Fedora would provide out of the box, and may not have the expertise to put together a home built/3rd party solutions for directory services/groupware/web based file access/etc. You can certainly do those things with RHEL/Fedora, but not out of the box. With Novell (and MS, and maybe IBM & Sun too) you can get software to do all of that that works together without having to spend a lot of time putting together bits and pieces of software from different places.

Re:iFolder once open sourced, now exclusive to OES (2, Interesting)

Linker3000 (626634) | more than 6 years ago | (#20919387)

Is any of this likely to be of use to me - I have a legacy app that was written in Turbo Pascal using a file access unit that only works properly when the data files are on a Netware Server (it has close ties with NCP). We need to access the legacy data perhaps 2-3 times a year and at the moment, we just stick the caddy-based Netware disk in a spare PC fire it up for an hour or so and then close it all down - it would be ideal if there was a virtualised Netware 6.x (or even 4 or 5) that I could run on one of our Linux (or Windows) servers when required. The only other option is to port the data.

Re:iFolder once open sourced, now exclusive to OES (1)

imemyself (757318) | more than 6 years ago | (#20919743)

I can't speak about the Xen stuff that Novell has put in OES 2, but I have ran Netware 6.0 and 6.5 in VMware (6.0 in VMware Server, and 6.5 in Workstation), and they work fine.

Re:iFolder once open sourced, now exclusive to OES (1)

Linker3000 (626634) | more than 6 years ago | (#20919881)

Thanks for that. Not having played with Virtualisation yet, are these things you have to package yourself or can you just download NW6.x as pre-virtualised runtime apps?

Point me in the right direction and I'll take it from there!

Re:iFolder once open sourced, now exclusive to OES (1)

imemyself (757318) | more than 6 years ago | (#20920835)

When I used Netware in VMware I just created a virtual machine in VMware and then went through the normal installation process for Netware(I don't remember any caveats, but it's probably been a year or two since I installed them.) I doubt that you could find a pre-made Netware VM, since you can't distribute Netware for free. Novell has some information on installing Netware as a VM under OES 2 here [novell.com] . I think there are sections for both VMware and Xen. It looks like their documentation is walking you through installing OS from an ISO - not using a pre-packaged VM. Hope that helps.

Re:iFolder once open sourced, now exclusive to OES (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20918515)

Where does that leave the Open Source I-Folder 3.6

SCO? (1)

flyingfsck (986395) | more than 6 years ago | (#20918119)

Now what is SCO going to sell?

Not a vote of confidence for OES (1)

neurovish (315867) | more than 6 years ago | (#20918205)

This sounds like Novell's version of Microsoft's "good news! We're going to keep offering Windows XP until next June!". When OES was first released, Novell proclaimed "NetWare is dead! Long live OES!". OES is supposed to be a complete NetWare replacement, running eDirectory, NSS volumes, print services, etc, etc. So now Novell is saying that the ability to run their old "dead" product on top of it's new replacement is press release worthy? And if you're running OES with NetWare in a Xen hypervisor, then what is the point of OES? Why not just install CentOS or some other well behaved Xenish distro, you'll save money and the support will be just as good.

Everyone knew this would happen (1)

askegg (599634) | more than 6 years ago | (#20918341)

To spite repeated assurances from the CEO Jack Messman when Novell purchased SuSE that "they were not dropping Netware, but adding linux", everyone saw through the market spin and prophesied this would happen. It's not the dropping of Netware that should concern Novell customers, but the lack of applications and features available for years in Netware that are still not in the linux versions, and the (still) glaring lack of a truly single management tool for all servers, applications, and services. (iManager was a move in the right direction, but it never seem to be complete, thus forced admins to continue using Console1, NWAdmin and the terminal). The best thing Novell could have done was to license it's awesome directory technology to anyone who wanted it, including Microsoft. The comparison between eDirectory and AD is pointless - there is none. eDirectory has features that AD can never have without a complete rewrite (and we have seen Microsoft's competence with developing new platforms via Vista). I was a huge Novell fan for many years - they had the right technology, but terrible marketing abilities. Nowadays all I am seeing is the beginning of the end of this once very promising company.

a happy day (1)

HartDev (1155203) | more than 6 years ago | (#20918383)

This is a happy and joyous bit of news! I love Netware!

The reason this makes sense (4, Insightful)

flydpnkrtn (114575) | more than 6 years ago | (#20918415)

The reason this makes sense is mostly because of driver support. Anyone seen any major support for new iSCSI SAN devices for NetWare lately?

By moving NetWare into Xen they gain the driver support SUSE Linux Enterprise Server will have, and at the same time create an environment that makes it easy to upgrade.

To the top poster - it's not exactly easy to migrate away from a platform like eDirectory once you've committed to it, and yes Virginia, eDirectory does scale better than Active Directory any day.

For those who don't know netware ... (4, Informative)

damn_registrars (1103043) | more than 6 years ago | (#20918633)

There is a good reason to keep netware on a network, if its already there, and its not just laziness or fear.

Actually, two things come to mind immediately - TCO, and the netware permissions.

From my experiences when I ran netware servers, a system could be thrown together for about $5-600 (thats hundreds,
not thousands...) that could serve directory services, files, and print jobs to 200 clients simultaneously without batting an eye, and do it nonstop for months. Its hard to get anything else to match those numbers for that little $$.

Though one of the true hallmarks of netware is the permissions set that it has, that I really haven't seen an equal to in anything else. IIRC, there were 8 different permissions that could be set in netware, as opposed to the 3 in *nix. It is particularly valuable if you want to use directory structure as part of your workflow - for example a user could have a directory where they could write, read, but not modify or delete. I ran this for a newspaper, and the utility of this should be quite apparent.

So just to answer it for all those people who are speculating why netware is still relevant - yes, it is. There are plenty of good reasons for people to keep it around. Though I'll admit it will likely become yet another good product killed by the micro$oft marketing machine.

Re:For those who don't know netware ... (1)

gallwapa (909389) | more than 6 years ago | (#20918855)

Delete inhibit and rename inhibit are awesome :) Users have rights to modify their own folders...so they can delete or rename their own folder...DI/RI take care of this, thus preventing loads of calls about mapping errors woo!

What about undelete? (1)

Reality Master 201 (578873) | more than 6 years ago | (#20918989)

Undelete was unquestionably the single greatest feature of netware (circa the 3.1 days) that I've not seen anywhere else.

It's still better than windows for file and print services. I don't miss trying to get the BTrieve settings for ArcServe and Solomon to play nicely together, though.

"Salvage" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20919163)

Yeah - deleted file recovery like you can't do on any other filesystem, and no, 2K3's shadow file copy isn't even close.

One or two other things that deserve a mention:
- On-the-fly resolving of group memberships, filesystem ACLs and filesystem visibility lists
- Filesystem quota (per user and per directory) for years
- On-the-fly mount/dismount/expansion of storage pools

Re:"Salvage" (1)

Reality Master 201 (578873) | more than 6 years ago | (#20920169)

Salvage, that's what it was.

Seriously, why is novell 3.1 still better than whatever latest windows server os is out there?

Re:"Salvage" (1)

damn_registrars (1103043) | more than 6 years ago | (#20920563)

Is it because the guys in Redmond seem to think that every system in operation should have 4 Ghz dual-core CPUs with mutliple gigs of RAM, several terabytes of storage, and beyond-bleeding-edge graphics cards (which of course have to all be maxed out by the time firefox has started)?

While on the other hand, some people seem to realize that indeed, file servers should only need to serve files (hence the name!) and therefore shouldn't be expected to have thousands of dollars worth of RAM and video options.

I'm sure all the other netware guys out there have already seen this story:
http://www.informationweek.com/story/IWK20010409S0001 [informationweek.com]

But nonetheless, some older servers run circles around the newest from m$ because:
  • lower hardware requirements
  • better reliability
  • more appropriate feature set
  • better interoperability with relevant systems

Re:"Salvage" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20923415)

Yep - how's this for an example:

Single NetWare 6 branch server, and it's doing some eDir stuff, file & print, the full ZEN w/s management suite, and the site's GroupWise post office. This sucker is a single-processor P-III 1GHz with 1.2GB RAM, and it's a 200+ user site.

Uptimes >6mo (usually due to power outages etc). Branch hums along just fine, too fine - goes so well they won't upgrade it.

Re:What about undelete? (1)

damn_registrars (1103043) | more than 6 years ago | (#20920377)

Undelete was unquestionably the single greatest feature of netware (circa the 3.1 days) that I've not seen anywhere else.
Actually, I have to confess I have seen undelete elsewhere - DOS 6.x. Maybe even DOS 5.0?

Re:For those who don't know netware ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20919499)

From my experiences when I ran netware servers, a system could be thrown together for about $5-600 (thats hundreds, not thousands...) that could serve directory services, files, and print jobs to 200 clients simultaneously without batting an eye, and do it nonstop for months. Its hard to get anything else to match those numbers for that little $$.

I used to develop for, and do minor admin tasks on, Netware 3 and 4, and I don't know what you're talking about. Do you mean software license price only? Linux beats it easily. Do you mean hardware? We always ran Netware with a UPS and a RAID array, as we did with all our high-reliability servers, and you can't build a high-reliability server for $500. If you really need a server that will stay up, the hardware is going to be your limiting factor; even Netware can't keep a hard disk from dying, eventually.

Though one of the true hallmarks of netware is the permissions set that it has, that I really haven't seen an equal to in anything else.

Netware did have some advantages, but for everything it did right, it did 10 other things worse than a 1996 Slackware system.

There is a good reason to keep netware on a network, if its already there, and its not just laziness or fear.

I've spoken with Netware admins, and found this isn't true. They won't say "yes, we've looked at Linux, but Netware permissions outweigh all the things it offers". They say misinformed things like "Linux doesn't do things we need that Netware does like ". I guess they're too busy studying for the latest Netware certifications that they haven't bothered to watch what the rest of the world is doing.

Re:For those who don't know netware ... (2, Insightful)

sciurus0 (894908) | more than 6 years ago | (#20920141)

A fairer comparison would be among Netware permissions and POSIX [www.suse.de] or Windows [microsoft.com] ACLs.

Re:For those who don't know netware ... (2, Insightful)

damn_registrars (1103043) | more than 6 years ago | (#20920461)

Interesting comparison, except for the fact that the POSIX standard for access control was never formally adopted - and as far as I've ever seen, never been implemented in anything out of the box, and similarly, implementing ACL in windows is non-trivial.

The permissions for netware, on the other hand, are all done server side, are very easy to set up (being as the server OS is made to do it), and virtually transparent to the user. In a good windoze / netware environment, the user doesn't even know when they're transitioning from a local HD to a netware mount, aside from perhaps slightly slower access times.

Novell didn't kill Netware... (4, Funny)

angryfirelord (1082111) | more than 6 years ago | (#20918683)

...Chuck Norris did.

Re:Novell didn't kill Netware... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20920445)

Chuck Norris jokes were never funny, and now they are old and tired and still not funny. Whoever modded you as "Funny" should be ashamed of themselves.

So that means... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20919047)

That means the last two people on planet earth still running Netware can continue to curse their users with Novell client software? I think I just saw a tumbleweed blow by.

Nothing to see here unless you're crusty. (1)

Pinback (80041) | more than 6 years ago | (#20919375)

MS-DOS, DR-DOS, OS/2, and now Linux. Netware has bootstrapped from various OS over the years.

But I refuse to take anything seriously involving Novell and Linux. At one time we were expected to believe that Caldera would change the world, and look where that went. Nowhere.

Just a few things (3, Informative)

Ath (643782) | more than 6 years ago | (#20920667)

I've noticed a few fallacies in some of the comments that definitely need correcting. In general, people tend to combine arguments about Netware as an OS versus the services that have been bundled with it. Over the years Novell has been rather inept at developing , communicating, and executing a strategy on the inevitable migration from the Netware OS to something else. First they went through a period of simply supporting their services like eDirectory on Windows. Second, they acquired Suse and talked about parallel platforms with common services. Ultimately, it seems they made a rather smart decision in how they were going to continue to support their existing customer base that is utilizing Netware while giving a rather clear path to Linux. The problem Novell still has is that a lot of their services haven't been completely migrated to Linux yet.

1) eDirectory - Done. Has been multiplatform for years. Continues to be the single best meta directory repository on the market. There is not a single environment of any decent size that can get away with one directory to service all the business requirements, but eDirectory continues to be the best option for consolidating the directory data using Novell's Identity Manager suite of drivers and tools.

2) zenWorks - Pretty much anyone who has used it considers it the premiere tool for managing Windows clients. Only in the next release will they not require Netware for some of the components. The middle tier design and agent-based client make it a pleasure to work with compared to the fat Novell Client days.

3) Management tools - someone else already said it, but Novell cannot seem to stay focused (and enforce discipline on their own development teams) to provide a consistent management tool. They have gone from NWAdmin to ConsoleOne to iManager - except you still pretty much need each of them depending on what you are going to manage.

4) File permissions - The NSS file system is pretty damn good, has been ported and made available on Linux for a few years now. It still provides the leading access controls / inherited rights / filtered rights that other file systems should be ashamed of for not offering.

For sure, Novell is just as if not more screwed up than any other company. They have squandered many opportunities to reestablish themselves as a significant technology player, but they are hardly on the verge of going out of business. They are profitable and still growing as a company. Product lines die out and Netware has been dying out for years, but they are considerably more than Netware.

Good Move (1)

Techman83 (949264) | more than 6 years ago | (#20920763)

I have been an Admin for several iterations of Netware and now OES1. I am keen to see the direction of where OES is headed and what sort of benefits this will have.

I admit it is far harder to setup correctly, but once it's done, it's done! And Active directory... if anyone thinks it's easier then eDirectory, they obviously haven't really worked with both.

Like many things M$, It's only better the M$ way because most people don't know any better.
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...