| ActiveMac | Anonymous | Create a User | Reviews | News | Forums | Advertise |
|
|
|
User Controls |
|
New User |
|
Login |
|
Edit/View My Profile |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ActiveMac |
|
Articles |
|
Forums |
|
Links |
|
News |
|
News Search |
|
Reviews |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
News Centers |
|
Windows/Microsoft |
|
DVD |
|
ActiveHardware |
|
Xbox |
|
MaINTosh |
|
News Search |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ANet Chats |
|
The Lobby |
|
Special Events Room |
|
Developer's Lounge |
|
XBox Chat |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ's |
|
Windows 98/98 SE |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Windows Me |
|
Windows "Whistler" XP |
|
Windows CE |
|
Internet Explorer 6 |
|
Internet Explorer 5 |
|
Xbox |
|
DirectX |
|
DVD's |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
TopTechTips |
|
Registry Tips |
|
Windows 95/98 |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Internet Explorer 4 |
|
Internet Explorer 5 |
|
Windows NT Tips |
|
Program Tips |
|
Easter Eggs |
|
Hardware |
|
DVD |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Latest Reviews |
|
Applications |
|
Microsoft Windows XP Professional |
|
Norton SystemWorks 2002 |
|
|
|
Hardware |
|
Intel Personal Audio Player 3000 |
|
Microsoft Wireless IntelliMouse Explorer |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Site News/Info |
|
About This Site |
|
Affiliates |
|
ANet Forums |
|
Contact Us |
|
Default Home Page |
|
Link To Us |
|
Links |
|
Member Pages |
|
Site Search |
|
Awards |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Credits |
 |
Microsoft vs. Novell, round two? | |
|
||
| Time: 10:47 EST/15:47 GMT | News Source: E-Mail | Posted By: Byron Hinson | ||
|
Some are suggesting that the planned acquisition of SuSE Linux AG by Novell Inc. could reignite an old battle between Novell and Microsoft. Novell owned a competing network operating system for file and print services, which lost market share to Windows in the mid-1990s. It's a blow Novell has struggled to recover from. | ||
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 328 Last | Next |
The time now is
10:30:06 AM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
| #1 By 6859 (206.156.242.36) at 11/5/2003 11:43:12 AM |
|
I disagree with the thought that the SUSE acquisition will allow Novell to fight against Microsoft and the Windows juggernaut. Nothing short of government action can dethrone Microsoft.
What I think this will do is give Linux much needed real support and better integration wtih Novell servers and services, but other than that... |
| #2 By 2332 (216.41.45.78) at 11/5/2003 11:54:12 AM |
|
Maybe, just maybe, the reason "nothing short of government action can dethrone Microsoft" is because when a company makes good products, products that people like and are overall happy with, people don't feel the need to go elsewhere.
In that case, it would make sense that the only entity can dethrone them would be an entity that can use force instead of choice. |
| #3 By 2459 (24.175.137.164) at 11/5/2003 12:49:50 PM |
| **cheers and applause** |
| #4 By 931 (66.156.0.208) at 11/5/2003 12:55:24 PM |
| The battle is long over and we all know who the winner was, I don't see that being replayed at the present time, actually I don't think even novell wants to battle. I think they want to just do thier own thing quitly and hope for the best. |
| #5 By 7754 (216.160.8.41) at 11/5/2003 1:01:52 PM |
| Microsoft is probably delighted that they bought SuSE--what better way is there to fight against a competitor than to have Novell buy them? |
| #6 By 7754 (216.160.8.41) at 11/5/2003 2:27:32 PM |
| tkiller, that sounds like the Novell-propaganda spin on AD. AD wasn't a first attempt at a directory service--it came from Exchange, which isn't a product without enterprise experience. I have not heard lots of reports from the field that suggest it isn't ready for the enterprise, either. Also, from the developers with which I've spoken, AD is much more friendly to program against than NDS. I've spent equal amounts of time on each... NDS is by no means a bad directory service, but AD isn't bad, either. |
| #7 By 1643 (65.40.197.179) at 11/5/2003 2:31:54 PM |
|
tkiller,
What are you smoking? As both a mcne and mcse, consulting on implementations of +100,000 users, AD costs nothing more to implement or maintain the nds. Just because it's simple, doesn't mean it's less powerful. Humor |
| #8 By 7754 (216.160.8.41) at 11/5/2003 2:47:49 PM |
|
tkiller, no, in most instances those folks weren't programming against NDS with MS apps, but with a custom internal browser app against NDS. In a number of cases, they ended up ditching the use of NDS for the apps altogether.
But hey, let's make sure we're comparing apples to apples here. If you're talking about the cost to implement AD coming from an NDS environment, of course it's going to cost more than simply staying with NDS. The exact same would be true if you were coming from AD and switching to NDS. That doesn't mean that NDS is less expensive, nor does it mean that it's better. |
| #9 By 2960 (156.80.64.137) at 11/5/2003 3:04:26 PM |
|
This post was edited by TechLarry on Wednesday, November 05, 2003 at 15:06. |
| #10 By 2332 (216.41.45.78) at 11/5/2003 3:20:59 PM |
|
#12 - Give us examples, numbers, and studies... or take your baloney elsewhere.
AD is just as powerfu as NDS (and a lot easier to administer), and I've seen nothing to suggests it any more expensive. |
| #11 By 7894 (12.230.166.167) at 11/5/2003 3:29:57 PM |
| This will only hurt Redhat initially in the US. Possibly even causing more confusion for the Linux solution. Too many alternatives; vendors, graphic interfaces, skins; does not translate to greater market share. |
| #12 By 135 (209.180.28.6) at 11/5/2003 3:30:50 PM |
|
tkiller - "When non-technical people are making decisions, bad things happen."
You're right... non-technical people choose Linux. |
| #13 By 1643 (65.40.197.179) at 11/5/2003 3:42:58 PM |
|
#12 "clunkier, harder on networks, more CPU intensive..."
How is it clunkier? It is more robust in every concievable fasion. Harder on networks? It's not, and it's very flexible...and compresses intersite communications. CPU Intensive? Maybe Win 2000 for over 200 sites if you use automatic bridgeheading...but in nds you would need to configure that manualy. Humor |
| #14 By 2332 (216.41.45.78) at 11/5/2003 6:31:43 PM |
| #19 - Wow... where did you get those stats? Do you work for HP? |
| #15 By 10022 (24.169.28.128) at 11/5/2003 8:08:40 PM |
|
Novell lost Xerox to MS. They are in the proccess of going to AD.
and Xerox is a company that for the last few years worried about every PENNY! every single cent! |
| #16 By 12071 (203.185.215.149) at 11/5/2003 10:37:33 PM |
|
#1 "Nothing short of government action can dethrone Microsoft."
You honestly think that the US Government would ever hurt Microsoft? #16 "You're right... non-technical people choose Linux." riiiiiiiiight. Did you read that back to yourself before hitting the "Post" button? |
| #17 By 135 (208.186.90.91) at 11/5/2003 10:44:46 PM |
|
kabuki - "Did you read that back to yourself before hitting the "Post" button? "
If you want some examples of non-techies choosing Linux check out /. |
| #18 By 1295 (216.84.211.57) at 11/5/2003 11:54:06 PM |
|
#19 Sideshow "Are there any NDS directories this big around the world? "
Well I know the Federal Goverment uses Novell and Lotus Notes... anybody know if that is a nation wide network etc? If it is that might be larger than HPs don't you think? |
| #19 By 9589 (68.17.52.2) at 11/6/2003 3:14:09 AM |
|
The Novell vs Microsoft battle was settled long ago. The crux of the matter was that businesses had applications that ran on Microsoft's OSs and with few exceptions, Novell did not. So, if you have two NOSs in which you incur both a upfront cost for every server deployed (server license) plus a per employee cost (client license) it is a no brainer. Why would any company incur double the cost so that they could have obstensibly the better directory service? That is both Microsoft OSs to run their applications and Novell to run their file, print and directory services. The answer - they didn't starting with WinNT 4.0. The result is that Novell got run out of town for all practical purposes.
This story, with some variations, is playing itself out again with Linux. Linux is, with few exceptions, without applications that businesses are using today. Even with Linux at "zero" cost, it is too expensive! lol |
| #20 By 2332 (65.221.182.2) at 11/6/2003 10:02:58 AM |
|
#28 - and I'd be interested on hearing some people come back and prove to me how it wouldn't be cheaper to go from AD to NDS
Well, considering you're the one who made the initial claim, you're the one with the responsibility to support that claim. On average, 55% of the users pc's need to be replaced in order to run XP effectively. And, why, exactly, did they need to be upgraded to Windows XP? Not only does AD support NT if running in mixed mode, Windows 2000 (you know, that OS that's been out for almost 4 years) has built in support for AD. After all, AD debuted with Win2k, not XP. The current network link, that Novell uses with no problems whatsoever, is current 32K. According to our AD team, staffed with experienced MS Certified members and consultants from the Almighty MS, have stated that, for our purposes, needs to be 256 at a minimum. I'm afraid your certified members don't know what they're talking about. Below are the recommend minimum bandwidth stats for various AD setups, direct from MS: Domain 15,000, Forest 25,000 = 9.6 kbps Domain 15,000, Forest 50,000 = 14.4 kbps Domain 25,000, Forest 50,000 = 19.2 kbps Domain 40,000, Forest 75,000 = 28.8 kbps Domain 45,000, Forest 100,000 = 38.4 kbps Domain 100,000, Forest 100,000 = 56.0 kbps In other words, at most, you would need a 28.8 kbps link. In addition, you can configure AD to be even more conservative. Source: http://www.microsoft.com/technet/prodtechnol/ad/windows2000/plan/bpaddsgn.asp (1) Single-processor Pentium Pro 200 server running Netware 5.1 = (3) high-end Windows 2003 servers Baloney. Simple as that. Either you have no clue how to setup a machine, or you're lying. In addition, unless you want to take advantage of Win2k3, Windows 2000 Server has lower hardware requirements. Of course, I would never in my right mind run a mission critical domain controller on a Pentium Pro 200, but maybe that's because my company can afford servers that cost more than $50. All of this so that they can have the same functionality, with more down time according to our AD team. Huh? Nice try... I think you need a new AD team. |
| #21 By 2332 (65.221.182.2) at 11/6/2003 10:43:39 AM |
|
Sorry buddy... I've implemented several AD setups, and I know from first hand expierence that you're simply full of crap or you're not qualified to do the work you're doing.
I provided concrete numbers direct from the source. You've provided me with statements from your "AD team", which clearly has no clue whatsoever. |
| #22 By 7754 (216.160.8.41) at 11/6/2003 10:54:39 AM |
| tkiller, I've set up W2k on a Pentium Pro 180 before, and it works just fine. The biggest difference between it and a much beefier box is that it's going to be slow to boot, but once it's up, it will be up to the task. Have you tried a test run with a similar box? I would definitely give it a whirl. I'm not sure what the actual apps are that you are running (you mention some general functions, but not specific vendors; "Application server" is a bit too vague), but I truly think you could get by with that machine. I'd probably pop for some more RAM, though... but I would have done that on the Novell side as well--128 is a paltry amount for the stuff you were running. |
| #23 By 2332 (216.41.45.78) at 11/6/2003 11:42:06 AM |
|
#33 - Give me a break. You say I don't know what I'm talking about, but you're the one claiming that a single proc P-Pro 200 beats out 3 Win2k3 servers.
Get a grip. At least make up some stuff that's kinda plausible. |
| #24 By 7754 (216.160.8.41) at 11/6/2003 6:33:40 PM |
|
Nevermind that Novell copied Banyan....
GroupWise... yuck. I've dealt with the inadequacies of that program far too much to buy into that argument. Hey, if you're going to run either GroupWise or Exchange (or any email server), you'd better run an anti-virus program on it. In case you hadn't noticed, most viruses these days aren't using Outlook contacts to replicate, since that hole has long since been closed. The thing about GroupWise is that you have far less choice as to what you're going to use for anti-virus... or anything else for that matter. The document management system that Novell touts is a joke... best of luck while you put your critical documents in the "blob." The GroupWise client has always been second-rate... that's why Novell made the Outlook plug-in for the GroupWise server. The list goes on and on.... As for security flaws, at least Microsoft has been pretty open about what the flaws are. Remember the padlock security fix for GroupWise 6? The one Novell wouldn't tell anyone what it actually fixed until months later? |
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 328 Last | Next |
The time now is
10:30:06 AM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
