<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" ?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:s="http://www.techrepublic.com/search" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"  xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
<channel>
    <title><![CDATA[Discussion on Don't look now, but Linux 2.4 is enterprise-ready ]]></title>
    <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/11-36272]]></link>
    <atom:link rel="hub" type="application/rss+xml" href="http://pubsubhubbub.appspot.com/" />
    <atom:link rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" href="http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/11-36272/rss" />

    <description><![CDATA[]]></description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <lastBuildDate>2013-05-21T14:01:32-07:00</lastBuildDate>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[Response to Sun is the best]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/11-36272-398824]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[Opps, stumbled into a 'religious believer' again.  Oh, well - stats tell the truth, check-em now.  You'll find that sun is really losing.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/11-36272-398824]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[woodwd234]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Sat, 29 Sep 2001 15:46:56 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[Linux could really take off]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/11-36272-355804]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[What about Linux for large enterprises?     Last company I worked for I observed serverfarm footprint outgrow mainframe &amp; attached storage.  Costs for Sun &amp; NT escalated to a point where serverfarm horsepower server farm was 3 times mainframe horsepower.  40% of IT budget was going into 15% processing requirements.  We R aggressively working w/ IBM onprojects to run 10s, 100s or even 1000s ofautonomous Linux servers in a footprint the size of your desk.Coupled with unsurpassed RELIABILITY of a mainframe will make companies wonder why they ever hired large staffs of server boot monkeys.  Working out bugs but are already moving onthe path of eliminating Sun, Solaris, NT etc servers.    Linux is pretty much the same flavor onany platform.  Skill sets are portable to those willing to go wherever Linux goes.  IBM recently managed tostart up 48,000 Linux kernels on one box.  Even though that numberis unrealistic for most companies needs it does show thatscalability is no obstacle.    My current deals w/ linking security mechanisms to a common database accessible from OS/390, Unix &amp; our serverLPARs &amp; reducing a need for multiple securitystaffs.  Everyone who has an ID on any of the servers usually has mainframe ID.  Doing this by linking the X.400 and X.500 industrydefined directory stds &amp; protocolsacross all platforms. Once a directory server is set up, can be run in it'sown LPAR, under Unix, Under OS/390, or under Linux.  Shut it down, start it upwherever I want.  Also have the ability tocreate a chain of dynamically added redundantservers if the balancing of load demandswarrant it. The new servers are functional almost immediately. We use common storage pools accessible by all platforms that allows them to jump in andget w/ the program without having to doall the network stuff to get syncronized.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/11-36272-355804]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[goseecal]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Wed, 01 Aug 2001 20:45:39 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[Linux could really take off]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/11-36272-355803]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[What about Linux for large enterprises?     Last company I worked for I observed serverfarm footprint outgrow mainframe &amp; attached storage.  Costs for Sun &amp; NT escalated to a point where serverfarm horsepower server farm was 3 times mainframe horsepower.  40% of IT budget was going into 15% processing requirements.  We R aggressively working w/ IBM onprojects to run 10s, 100s or even 1000s ofautonomous Linux servers in a footprint the size of your desk.Coupled with unsurpassed RELIABILITY of a mainframe will make companies wonder why they ever hired large staffs of server boot monkeys.  Working out bugs but are already moving onthe path of eliminating Sun, Solaris, NT etc servers.    Linux is pretty much the same flavor onany platform.  Skill sets are portable to those willing to go wherever Linux goes.  IBM recently managed tostart up 48,000 Linux kernels on one box.  Even though that numberis unrealistic for most companies needs it does show thatscalability is no obstacle.    My current deals w/ linking security mechanisms to a common database accessible from OS/390, Unix &amp; our serverLPARs &amp; reducing a need for multiple securitystaffs.  Everyone who has an ID on any of the servers usually has mainframe ID.  Doing this by linking the X.400 and X.500 industrydefined directory stds &amp; protocolsacross all platforms. Once a directory server is set up, can be run in it'sown LPAR, under Unix, Under OS/390, or under Linux.  Shut it down, start it upwherever I want.  Also have the ability tocreate a chain of dynamically added redundantservers if the balancing of load demandswarrant it. The new servers are functional almost immediately. We use common storage pools accessible by all platforms that allows them to jump in andget w/ the program without having to doall the network stuff to get syncronized.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/11-36272-355803]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[goseecal]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Wed, 01 Aug 2001 20:45:36 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[Linux is just getting warmed up...]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/11-36272-353725]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[As usual superior marketing is prevailing, I bet you were one of the first people to buy a VHS VCR not because it was better but because it was better marketed..]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/11-36272-353725]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[campbellr@...]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Tue, 31 Jul 2001 01:28:49 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[I guess I don't know...]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/11-36272-314143]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[How you decided Linux is limited?It is &quot;pointless&quot; to argue because you don't know what you are talking about when it comes to a comparison between Linux and Windows NT 4/2000.All the &quot;features&quot; you listed of Windows 2000 are copies of Unix features that have been around for years and are mature, relatively bug free, and have been used in Enterprises for which Windows 2000 just isn't suitable.Linux implements these features in an inherently more stable and robust OS, with binary compatibility with time-tested, industrial-strength, cast-iron Unix applications. Windows 2000 is an expensive substitute for GENIUNE SYSTEMS ADMINISTRATORS with real-world experience and thorough educations (instead of paper MCSEs), but a REAL Enterprise Network Operating System it is not.And please feel free to &quot;go into&quot; any of the above &quot;features&quot; of Win2k and we'll be happy to enlighten you as to the Unix/Linux equivalents.&quot;Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent&quot;-bkennedy]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/11-36272-314143]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[Barrington]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Wed, 06 Jun 2001 10:14:43 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[I guess I don't know...]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/11-36272-314139]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[How you decided Linux is limited?It is &quot;pointless&quot; to argue because you don't know what you are talking about when it comes to a comparison between Linux and Windows NT 4/2000.All the &quot;features&quot; you listed of Windows 2000 are copies of Unix features that have been around for years and are mature, relatively bug free, and have been used in Enterprises for which Windows 2000 just isn't suitable.Linux implements these features in an inherently more stable and robust OS, with binary compatibility with time-tested, industrial-strength, cast-iron Unix applications. Windows 2000 is an expensive substitute for GENIUNE SYSTEMS ADMINISTRATORS with real-world experience and thorough educations (instead of paper MCSEs), but a REAL Enterprise Network Operating System it is not.And please feel free to &quot;go into&quot; any of the above &quot;features&quot; of Win2k and we'll be happy to enlighten you as to the Unix/Linux equivalents.&quot;Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent&quot;-bkennedy]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/11-36272-314139]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[Barrington]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Wed, 06 Jun 2001 10:11:53 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[NDS: Security through obscurity?]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/11-36272-308546]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[&quot;NDS is one of the most secure directories available. If you open it up, then the security will not be there.&quot;Why? This sounds like security through obscurity, which security experts agree on as being illusory. Open systems can be audited by anyone interested for their quality of security.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/11-36272-308546]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[shiva]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Tue, 29 May 2001 07:10:01 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[re: Enough is Enough]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/11-36272-308209]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[Move to Linux. You'll get a new ulcer, but it should go away after a while.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/11-36272-308209]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[frylock]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Tue, 29 May 2001 03:23:38 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[Keep it up!]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/11-36272-307710]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[If enough people say that Novell is dead then sooner or later it's going to happen - a self-fulfilling prophecy I believe.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/11-36272-307710]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[jono.c]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Mon, 28 May 2001 12:18:17 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[Er... OK...]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/11-36272-307708]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[I think the title of that post should have been more like &quot;I'm ignorant, wanna see?&quot;The installed base for NDS is something like 139 million seats and growing.  NDS is way ahead of AD, chuck in ZENWorks, SSO or DirXML and you just can't touch it's ROI.  The only way AD is going anywhere is on the back of MS apps rather than by any merit of it's own so I wouldn't be so quick to write Novell off at all.Linux looks very interesting as an app server now some of the big boys are getting behind it, way better that NetWare and probably more stable than Windows, scalable now with a better kernel and a journalled FS too.  File/print is NetWare, no contest, you just can't catch it, end of story.  Maybe when someone makes a solid transport between Linux and Windows clients but not now (and please don't say Samba!).  It supports clustering too.Windows 2000 is great btw - I really like it as a replacement for NT or 95 on my desktop, but as an apps/file &amp; print server? Maybe, maybe not. Unless you're an MS shop, in which case its probably worth sticking with what you know about, as mewell's post demonstrates.So run your enterprise on Windows 2000 and Active Directory with a smattering of Linux if you want, but it can be done better.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/11-36272-307708]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[jono.c]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Mon, 28 May 2001 12:15:03 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[More than a rumour]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/11-36272-307389]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[Just a comment on the &quot;rumour&quot; that Novell is attempting to market NDS to Linux vendors such as Red Hat;  this is more than a rumour, if one looks at press releases such as this one from Novell, entitled &quot;Red Hat Selects Novell's eDirectory [NDS] for Largest Linux eDirectory Deployment Worldwide&quot;:http://www.novell.com/news/press/archive/2000/09/pr00099.html]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/11-36272-307389]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[Russell Cohen]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Mon, 28 May 2001 00:22:29 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[More people are looking for alt.'s to MS]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/11-36272-225892]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[I talked my company's officers into switching from MS-Office to Sun's StarOffice 5.2 (which is free, instead of paying Bill Gates umpteen bucks per site license seat!) Sun believes in open systems and backs it up by making the code public for developers. Remember when everyone promised open systems??? Oh, and StarOffice has more functionallity than MicroSquash Office and come with filters to open files from other office suites. You can even save the files in other formats, including MS's.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/11-36272-225892]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[djames@...]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Tue, 20 Feb 2001 11:46:00 -0800</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[I agree with jkingery]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/11-36272-222470]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[I think that Microsoft and all the others should treat their certifications like other professions and give seminars throughout the year for way less than they're charging now. If you've obtained an MCSE, or other certs, you should just take cheap, ongoing seminars to stay current. After all, like JKingery says, we're &quot;fixing their broken product(s)&quot;, and we're paying dearly for it. With all of the opions that our clients have for software and hardware, we need to get up-to-date fast and don't always have the time and/or the resources for it]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/11-36272-222470]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[palmer2k]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Fri, 16 Feb 2001 04:58:52 -0800</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[Response to Sun comment]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/11-36272-222076]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[Actually, I was referring to sales more than anything.  Sun is selling more enterprise servers and winning more new enterprise accounts than anyone.  Whether they have the best product on the market is certainly an arguable point. However, in terms of high-end enterprise computing they are up there among the best, if not _the_ best.Jason]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/11-36272-222076]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[jasonhiner]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Thu, 15 Feb 2001 23:24:55 -0800</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[Enough isn't nearly enough]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/11-36272-221685]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[What I think Micro$oft is doing is guaranteeing an income stream for IT professionals for years to come.  Imagine if a NOS just worked perfectly first time out of the box and never screwed up.Convince your IT managers to go W2K and it simply means we can ask more money for trying to make an inherently faulty product shine.  Built-in obsolescence is not something new. Auto manufacturers have been doing it for years.... Eventually companies will wise up to the fact that they spend almost as much on IT as they obtain in revenue, but until that day keep pushing Microsoft.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/11-36272-221685]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[jeff.morris@...]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Thu, 15 Feb 2001 09:33:09 -0800</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[Novell dead?]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/11-36272-221447]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[Take it from someone who used to work for Novell, they are not dead but they ARE dying...much of their NDS engineering brainshare has left as well as many top technical people (I don't mean management!).  Guess where they went?  Yep, Microsoft.  Guess what's going to get better?  Yep, Active Directory.  I love Novell and NDS, but the last company to abandon an OS and go to just directory services is Banyan.  When is the last time you did work on Banyan?  Too bad really...the competition makes EVERYONE's products better!!!]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/11-36272-221447]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[netdrwiz@...]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Thu, 15 Feb 2001 05:30:06 -0800</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[I have heard that before!]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/11-36272-221397]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[Yes, Novell is not doing well amoungst small businesses, but they remain a force in the enterprise. Loss of market share does not make Novell OS2. It does show that they have problems. Last time I checked, most large enterprises are now laying off people and just the other day even Cisco's stock was downgraded. To say that Novell is dead is ludicrious. Of all the postings here that make no sense at all-it is the statement that Novell is dead. I say &quot;bullsh...&quot;]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/11-36272-221397]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[Lwood]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Thu, 15 Feb 2001 05:02:16 -0800</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[NDS is not dead yet]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/11-36272-221386]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[NDS is the only true directory available foryour enterprise.  You can exchangeinformation back and forth between LDAP andNDS quite easily, and AD still has a lot ofproblems and is only usable in an all 2000shop.  Try managing users on several 2000,NT, Linux, Solaris and NetWare servers withAD. Oh, sorry, you can't!  However, with NDSyou can manage them all.  Novell's One NETstrategy is a great idea and NDS is one ofthe most secure directories available.  Ifyou open it up, then the security will not bethere.  With NDS and its One NET strategy,Novell will still be around for many years tocome.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/11-36272-221386]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[sean.edgington@...]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Thu, 15 Feb 2001 04:52:18 -0800</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[Right On]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/11-36272-221177]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[I am in total agreement with the above.All us IT folks do now a days is come up with fixes for new MS software that is not stable or reliable and cost way to much to begin with. Novell was nice till 5.X then it to is following into the daily fix\patch routine. SLOW it Down MS and Novell and take the time and develop a good product rather than release a new one every other day.I welcome a change and am headed to LINUX and leave the rest behind.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/11-36272-221177]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[bruggles@...]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Thu, 15 Feb 2001 02:08:26 -0800</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[Enough is Enough]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/11-36272-221116]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[I am so tempted to get the hell out of IT altogether.  Customer support for IT professionals has been getting more expensive and poorer in quality for years.  It's not just MicroSuck, though they are the primary culprits.  MicroSuck used to offer a free one-year subscription to TechNet after achieving MCSE.  Now they offer it at half price.  In my mind, it takes a lot of damn gall to ask me to pay for fixing their broken product(s).  My ulcer can only take so much.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/11-36272-221116]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[jkingery]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Thu, 15 Feb 2001 01:35:09 -0800</pubDate>
    </item>
    </channel>
</rss>

