Direct From TechProGuild

>No one platform is going to make you any safer than another.

This is just patently stupid. It begs us to believe that all of the viruses that Windows is riddled with don't really exist and that Unix is no more secure than Windows, which anyone with a brain-pan larger than a walnut knows is not true. There are _many_ real and easily understandable reasons why Mac OS X is more secure than Windows of any flavor.?

I hope the guy who wrote the above gibberish can follow this:

Unlike Windows, in OS X, the default configuration is to have communication ports closed and file sharing, FTP, remote login and web sharing all turned off right out of the box. And unlike Windows, the OS X admin account doesn't have access to core functions of the OS.

While hordes of amateur script kiddies successfully crack Windows security and cause millions of dollars of damage every year, there are no live virus or exploits that have caused any damage on Mac OS X. Why? Well the Unix code that forms the heart of OS X has been under attack for nearly 30 years by all manner of crackers. The open source nature of the BSD Unix kernel has been available to those intent on cracking it and those intent on preserving its security alike. That means that there is no more inherently secure desktop environment than OS X and the other 'nixes exposed to such Darwinian pruning.

As one expert notes, "Many orders of magnitude more people look over the source code for OS X and the related BSDs than have access to Windows source code," said John Klos, a developer of NetBSD, a flavor of Unix closely related to OS X (quoted from an article in the Baltimore Sun entitled BACKLASH by DAvid Zeiler).

Knowledgeable commentators believe that the notion of security-through-obscurity that seems to be all the rage by the ZDNetters these days, are desperately hoping for that sweet moment of schadenfreude when and if OS X is ever violated successfully (as opposed to tests where "hackers" are given local access to run their "test"), is a myth perpetrated to spread FUD among potential Mac converts (as if 90% + isn't enough market share for them to feel secure!

No, there is no completely secure computing environment, but the notion that there is no difference between them is just dumb. But note that most people who say such things are usually trying to defend an inferior product. And their only hope is to convince readers that excellence simply does not exist. Good luck with that . . . oh, and don't forget to update your virus definitions!

JoeL

Personally, I'd like a move AWAY from the TechRepublic site. I haven't used the TPG site as much as I would like, but that is going to change. It's sometimes confusing trying to determine what site your on.

Making TPG more user-friendly is a great idea. Having more productivity tools to help me do my job is also great. I guess the only constructively critical comment I would make is that I would hate to see the TPG web site integrate too smoothly with TR. I pay $10/month for TPG and already have some difficulty telling which services I'm accessing are premium and exclusive to TPG or which are freely available on TR. If I am going to continue my premium subscription, I want to easily be able to distiguish which things are premium and which are not, so I can accurately judge the value of my subscription.

Thanks for listening.

I would like to see an improved search function. A lot of arch and I get a huge number of hits that are just not related. I don't see how they coudl have been scored as a viable candidate for the search. I spend a lot of time wading through the hits and weeding out what is not a legitimate hit to my search.

With that said, I do love your service and use it a lot. I find the download newsletter and the items included the mosty useful.

The Vista delay means NOTHING to us here in our small school in central Pennsylvania.  We have to wait until the summer to work on all the computers anyway, because they're in constant use by the teachers and students during the school year.  About the only thing that will matter to us, is if MS slips again, and Vista doesn't get to us until late Spring.  There will be a point where it will be too late, we won't be able to run it through our tests, and it won't make the new images we create for deployment over the summer rebuild process.  If that happens, then maybe I'll get a vacation next year!

Why is it that we all get so hung up on release dates? Why should software comanies always be held to such strict dates?

Personally I would rather that Microsoft took the time to iron out as many of the bugs as possible before releasing vista commercially to the public. Let them get all the issues fixed before releasing the software.

My XP Home works just fine, and I am in no rush to get my hands on Vista. I don't want to see another Windows ME fiasco.

I'll probably use Vista once it has everything in it. What are peoples thoughts on the security software (anti virus and anti-spyware) that MS is putting into Vista? Are we going to see more lawsuits against Microsoft? I think it would be great to have a fully integrated system. I can still use other software as well. What are peoples thoughts on this subject?

John,

By your standards this posting is nothing more than a cheap shot at Microsoft.

Maybe I've missed something, but it appears that the e-journalist has set in stone what they believe to be the delivery date of Vista, and then seem to be surprised that it will not be delivered to their stated times and dates.

Concerning the "expected elements" that will not be delivered; are you sure that the e-journalism community have not become confused, in that those so-called missing elements were not originally intended for Longhorn Server ?

So far the only Greg Schultz, who publishes a weekly posting upon Vista has really had anything to say ... it appears that almost everyone else is taking pot shots at Microsoft, which is neither helpful; not does it help your credibility.

Maybe you would be better focusing your efforts upon how the application will be developed, what we can expect upon launch, and discussions concerning the eventual business deployment, (deciding whether the business should upgrade its current hardware, or replacing it, designing the build around the hardware, will the infrastructure be able to support the OS, software compliancy testing).

The last roll-out that was conducted of this potential scale was XP, and that started in 2001 with hardware testing, and build design.

I for one will be happy to receive a system that is relatively secure, and does what I want it to do, straight out of the box - Users without rights .. at last

Arthur

I think there are to many cooks to spoil the brew. Microsoft true has
alot more to contend with such as: they are the top dog and everybody
knows if someone going to pick on somebody it will be the top dog, but
in any case you would think that they would be organized enough to
either not make promises it can't keep or if they make those promises
or delivery dates make sure that they can produce. One side can't
communicate with the other, or to many cooks spoil the brew.
Signed just an opinion

Personally I don't think most people care that much. I already know people who think the onset of Vista will make their existing machines obsolete. What is the benefit the public will realize from a new Windows OS? After you upgrade your hardware to run it decently you will have about what you have now, but it will be wearing a tux (didn't mean that, exactly!) I know my company ran 98 until 2003. They won't be breaking down the doors for Vista, as you said.

Conservative businesses won't adopt Vista until they know that it won't break their apps or open new security holes. But they will stick with Windows anyway, running XP until Microsoft won't support it any more, because they are confused by Linux and think of Mac as a graphics-only OS.

Reid

Apple's Boot Camp, once imaging of a drive with both HFS+ and Win (Fat32 & NTFS) partitions is settled, will start to look more and more inviting to anyone tiring of persistent Windows issues.

For those who want to maintain their current PC hardware, Vista will be a long wait and a serious gamble, which will lead some decision-makers to give a long hard look at Linux whereas they might never have considered it before.

Truth is, cost of implementation, maintenance/upkeep and support, and *training* will probably be the driving factors of any decisions made.

I would certainly not overlook the MacIntel machines, but that option won't be what's best for all people.

As well, few desktop users , still, could really handle Linux.

Indeed, this is the toughest aspect of disaster planning. The day you roll out your disaster plan, everything's good. But then you add a new server, tack on a new domain, and open a branch office and guess what? Your disaster plan didn't address backing up data for any of those elements.

What's the best way to maintain a disaster plan? Should such plans be revisited monthly? Or, would disaster planning meetings be the first eliminated when a difficult project creates a scheduling conflict?

You couldn't be more Right.

When I took over this job I found a plan that was 15 years old, and thought the same thing "How could this ever work".

Keep the plans uptodate.

I review mine every 3 months and activate the plan to ensure it works.

Steve Fowler

IMHO, DR plans, scripts, procedures, physical resource/targets, external supplier contract schedules must be solidly linked to the organisation's change management system and maintained by its managed content.  All changes to live service components, INCLUDING HR type organisational change, need to be validated for impact upon the Business Continuity Plan, which includes the IT Disaster RESPONSE arrangements, which may include Service or Component recovery plans, scripts and resources.

Mostly, I come across organisations of varying size in varying sectors that have no idea that this should be the case, are too small to have formal process, relying on good practise or the IT team to know what they're doing or run disparately large complex structures made up of varying standards/practises, Gaps and overlaps.  Basically this is too hard to accomplish for 90%.  Occassionally I find it working in a bank,  or it works sometimes, or its planed to but doesn't, or used to when so and so was in charge. 

Not hard in concept, just difficult in practise.  It takes only one change to invalidate the continuity arrangements, so proove them often.

"And now News.com points out that most of Novell's own employees haven?t made the switch from Microsoft products to open source ones. "

I guess that sums it up

and this says what????  the article does not make any points. or attempt to answer.  but unfortunatly no, Novell is no longer relevant, more and more companies are migrating to Microsoft from Novell.  and in my opinion Linux is not yet ready to be trusted in the enterprise.

I have been with Novell since back in version 3.10 and loved the product.  I never have felt the partner relationship has ever been right with Novell.  I am now still supporting limited Novell sites but most of our efforts have been on the Microsoft camp.  The Microsoft (MS) Partner Channel is well organized, MS does a lot more events and their product support is realistic.

I named my company after Novell and the fact that I started out as a CNE so the name Computer Network Enterprises, Inc. just made sense to us.  Novell has bullied us in their partner program and tried to force us to sell their product and force us to change our business model....sorry big red the writing is on the wall.  I will miss the Novell days but uncle Bill just keeps sending us work and Drew Major had a great product but never found anyone to market the Novell properly nor get all the buggy problems with GroupWise working - hey just "FIX IT"

Sorry to see Novell dwindle...

I was an advocate of Novell for years, but then Novell
wouldn't help me when my GroupWise 5.5 EP client started automatically adding obscenities
to outbound messages, including to my organization's Board of Directors. 
In fact, Novell's response was that I needed to upgrade to GroupWise 6...that's
not support, that's extortion in my most humble opinion.  Don't believe me?  They even have a TID that I was referenced to when I called them for support, TID10066760.

So, I say the heck with them...they're getting what they deserve (yeah, I'm a
little bitter).  By the way, we never did upgrade to GW6...we switched to
Exchange.

Good point. Novell is NOT relevant and hasn't been for over 10 years. One of the many mistakes Novell made was to never transitition from selling products and services to the network geeks - to selling products and services to the suits who are making the decisions by looking at "the big picture". And, if you speak with the few remaining "I bleed red" Novell pundits today, they suffer from the same narrow-viewed approach to solving today's connectivity issues. Even before Novell missed this boat I'm describing, they made another series of grave mistakes by alienating a lot of the developers writing .NLM code with policy changes and support policy changes. Many developers I knew abandonded the platforms they wrote in and jumped on the Win32 bandwagon - and hasn't missed a beat yet, (unless you count the .NET paradigm shift.)

Novell as a company has - in my opinion - two near-genious products under their belt: NDS and Zen. Not enough though. They can't manage their way out of a paper bag.

I have been using Suse 9.3 and now 10 desktop since August at home, but use XP for work and also at home.  I don't see where the Linux desktop is going to make any inroads currently into Windows, and certainly not to Novell's bottom line.  There just isn't enough reasons for anyone to make a change.  For Linux, the server side is where the profit is, and that is with Redhat....

Don't pity Novell.  Microsoft took nothing away from them that Novell didn't outright hand to them.  I remember a time when Microsoft was considered a joke in the NOS world, and Netware was king.  Because of their refusal to focus on strength and have a clear vision of the future, they threw whatever momentum they had away.  If Apple couldn't challenge Microsoft for the desktop with decades of momentum and (at least earlier on) superior technology, then it's misguided hubris to think that Novell could challenge today.  I guess I'm embarrased that I once was proud to be called a CNE.

• Re-training staff
• Porting their business applications from Windows to Novell/Suse - if that is even possible.
• Cutting their losses regarding their investment in Windows software.
• Details, details, details - for example, many (most) enterprise level document management systems (HP digital senders, Fujitsu, Ricoh, Minolta... et al.) do not provide drivers for Novell or Linux.
• Most newer PDAs, including HP iPAQ, Sony Clie, and of course RIM's Blackberry are not supported by Novell/Suse or Linux. No need to mention Microsoft's handhelds, eh?

Novell is still the best NOS out there. Do you need to improve on NW 6.5 ? I don't think so. It is very stable and doesn't cost much to run. Microsoft has to keep moving foward to fix the stuff that they didn't fix when they release a product.

I too started out my Network career with Netware 3.x and stayed on the bandwagon until Netware 6. I was as proud as a peacock when I got my CNE. Expertise in Netware openend the door to other opportunities.

I think Novell lost its way with the half hearted support for TCP/IP in Netware 4. Instead of native TCP/IP, Netware 4.1 came with Netware IP. I like many others was disillusioned, and predicted the begining of the end for Netware. Everyone wanted TCP/IP and most of them turned to Windows NT instead.

Novell weaved magic with IPX and turned it into a cutting edge protocol, but the market wanted TCP/IP with the advent of the Internet. It was the relunctance of Novel to switch to TCP/IP that spelled the death knell for Netware. DR DOS and Wordperfect were mistakes, but only minor ones.

Jonathan S,  Australia

It may interest you to know that Novell gets a multi-million dollar pay-out from Microsoft every years because as a result of Novell pointing out to the courts that Active Directory has more than just a passing resemblence to NDS.

It's difficult to pity a company who's management decided to go mucking into fields where they had no clear vision.  I also began my Novell experience with 2.15 and Arcnet topology (though not in school).  Today, I'd be hard pressed to find a Novell shop to find work in.

NDS is a great NOS, but Novell was out-flanked with better marketing on a poor product (as with most of the MS apps).  It's difficult to compete against a company who had their software installed on almost every system that went out the door.  Name recognition is a powerful marketing tool that works well on the technically challenged masses.

So what do I use now?  It's a Microsoft world at my day job, but in the comfort of home... Novell 5.5, Linux (I've just started tinkering with SUSE 10), XP for the desktops (until I find a better one for the specialty apps we use), WordPerfect (still a superior product), Word (only when necessary) and web-based email (access from anywhere, with any machine).

I wish Novell lots of luck with their future endeavors, but what they need is a miracle.

We've almost completely moved over from Windows to Novell, and have no intention of upgrading from the WinXP desktop to Vista.  Once M$ stops supporting XP Pro, our systems will all be converted to SLED. Agency management is in agreement, and user training will be a breeze.

 Zenworks is heavenly to work with - we added that about a year and a half ago.  Our Groupwise runs smoothly, and Gwava's Guinevere has kept our email virus free for 3 1/2 years.  The previous IT department here had 5 people on staff and they still outsourced much of the work.  We're now a staff of 2 for 200 workstations in 6 offices and 22 preschools - and all work is done in-house.  My monthly mileage is less than 200 miles, even though we are spread across 4 counties.

I'd say we're very happy with Novell.

In my opinion, Novell is not relavant in the OS market anymore. It is a sad thing, they did have a pretty good product, but I think they lacked vision. Even today Novell doesn't seem to understand the enterprise marketplace and continues to product products that are not as enterprise aware as they should be. I think that Novell saw the file and printe server as a stand alone product, while other products were installed to meet specific needs- all of them stand alone. Microsoft either by accident or design, hooked every application and solution otgether, and right now there is no competitor that can offer the breadth of integration and enterprise capability. I don't think that changes with Novell (Suse) or Redhat (RHEL). They are very far behind. They could catch up, but I think that will take at least 10 years, and I am not sure either company has the financial backing to support that development without sales. Recently, Red Hat (president I think, but am not sure) said that the problem with Open Source development is that they are not funded. Because they are not funded, they have a difficult time meeting timelines and objectives. The Open Source programmer, no matter how good they are, need to be able to support themselves and their families. Because of that, they must have a full time job to provide the income. Open Source development naturally falls to the programmers available time. This model is not sustainable when pitted against the coprporation that pays people to product code 40 hours a week.

My two cents.

Michael

I too was once proud to call myself a "CNE".  I can't even remember what version it was (pre 2.00).  In the central US, Novell has been dead for several years now.  I used to have several Unix based servers but  replaced all but one with Microsoft products or appliances cause I wanted to take a vacation from time to time.  Since I had no one else working for me that new any but Microsoft, I made the switch. 

Relevant - yes. Winning - no.  Worthy of support (and capable of providing it) - absolutely. I have SLES for the webserver and Workstation on a half dozen machines.

I used 3.12 until 4 came out and when the political forces on Campus(UF) started talking ONE forrest and outside admins on our servers we dropped Novell and went NT. It wasn't Novell's failure as much as misunderstanding the resistance to 'federation'. NOBODY wants to hear 'we will take your job and your budget'.

Yo! Jcritch!  If you are going to actually sum
things up then how about a summary with a better referent than the blog
author's comment that there is an article about this somewhere else and
maybe providing a little substance to support your summary (if you will
also forgive me offering my opinion below as something of "substance"
rather than just lump of text)?

Here is the first sentence of the News.com article that Mr. Sheesley provided a link to:

-----
"Ron Hovsepian, Novell's president, speaking at a press event in Sydney,
said that "about 2,000 employees right now out of 5,000 are single-boot
only, which is Linux only, the rest are dual-boot." He said that a
project to migrate the 3,000 dual-boot workers to open source is likely
to be completed over the next year or so."
-----

Now here is my summary (low fiber to be sure, but not just empty calorie sugar):

In an organization that actively develops for the Windows platform they
have 3k out of 5k that still dual boot and expect to be all open source
within a year.  Sounds [to me] like they are only fixing what is
broken on a timetable that will allow them to make a complete
switchover without trashing development schedules and policies in a
planned and non-turmoil inducing project schedule.  Migrating five
thousand employees from one platform to another is far from a trivial
process.

You may be inclined dismiss their progress like Mr. Howarth does by
pointing out that some shops are still running Novell software and that
some of those shops are just now switching over to a Microsoft software
stack.  I wouldn't call that a resounding indictment of the
shortcomings of the Novell stack, but YMMV.  You may even share
his opinion that Linux is not ready as an Enterprise platform even
though Novell, Oracle, Merrill Lynch and many others don't share that
assessment.  But I feel that just saying that Novell hasn't
completed the switchover "sums it up" seems like an inadequate
summary.  That doesn't mean you are wrong or that I am right but I
thought I would at least provide a little of the thought process that
went into forming my opinion.  Again, YMMV.  There is more
than one conclusion that can be made based on available information.

Blogging can be just preaching to the choir.  But
It can also be a way to stimulate useful discussion on a topic that
might otherwise be ignored, overlooked or relegated to free
marketing/PR.

Novell is dead!!  Over the past 10 years how many times have we heard and read this (yet it is still being discussed)?

So you've had a bad experience with a security feature of Novell which prevented you from logging in.... I guess we should assume you've never had a odd problem with a Microsoft product which didn't cause some minor (or major) frustration?  :)

I'm not anti Microsoft, however, there is still a definite place for Novell's many products which integrate on all platforms (there is no point discussing which server is best, it serves no business purpose).  At my office we run Windows Server 2003, 2000, NT, Citrix, NetWare 6 and 6.5 all in harmony. 

The Novell applications such as ZenWorks, GroupWise,  (not to mention their identity products) will happily sit on a Windows as well as a NetWare/Linux server.  The underlying point is that Novell is not just about NetWare/Linux servers (which no one can deny is in decline) but many different products which integrate and enhance ease of management of any network.  It's about best of breed products (apologies for the clich?!).

We don't run Linux, but is certainly being considered.   XP and Office are definitely a business requirement for a number of users within any office, but not necessarily all.  Do you really need to spend approximately ?250 on a XP and Office when you can get Linux for free (or ?65 supported (per user))?  Is the Linux interface really so different that users won't just login and get on with the basic day to day operations? 

The next offering from Microsoft is Vista and is supposedly going to need 1 gig of RAM and a 256 Meg video card, and for what, a few fancy screens? (Just think how GOOD all the new effects will make your word processor look while you are typing a letter!)

Before being led further up the Microsoft path why not consider an alternative and evaluate whether it has a place on your network/desktop, it may not, but why write it off ?

http://www.novell.com/linux/xglrelease/
Worth watching the 4 very quick videos (especially the cube) very cool!!  (if you?re after fancy screens!)!

I also started my networking career with NetWare (3.12, to be exact) but got disillusioned with 5.0 and even more so with 5.5.  I was running a combo of NT/Win2k and NetWare servers, all "speaking" TCP/IP but I still needed the NetWare client and IPX/SPX for my NT/Win2k clients to talk to the NetWare servers!  By the time I left we had standardized on Windows 2000 with some Linux.

Kinda reminds me of the old "Betamax vs. VHS" debate.  NetWare relevent?  'Fraid not!

Tom K.

You wrote:

"...in it's own backyard ? the desktop..."

Grammatically speaking, the "it's" should be "its," without the apostrophe.

" XP and Office are definitely a business requirement for a number of users within any office, but not necessarily all."

You're quite right, that was a sweeping statement!! I work in the legal sector and the clean successful exchange of documents with clients etc, is of paramount importance. We cannot afford formatting or page/paragraph/TOC numbering issues etc etc.

Whether we like it or not Office is the suite used by the masses and if you need to transparently exchange documents then you need the same applications (Open Office hasn't full compatibility with Word).

We went through a similar exercise with WordPerfect and Word. WordPerfect was the tool of choice but because substantial time was lost when exchanging documents (not to mention looking unprofessional) we were forced to migrate to Word.

So if you don't exchange documents then you fit into the "not necessarily all" category. :)

 Tolan
 

As others have pointed out, Novell ruled during the 90's; I will give them credit for leading the way back then, but they are now not even a blip on the radar screen of technology.  I took the CNE courses and got certified, but the world moved on, and Novell didn't.  While I used to be a big fan, proud of my Netware credentials, after years of supporting their products - including the odious Groupwise 5.5, the worst email server/client I've ever used - I grew alienated with Novell.  I have no love for Microsoft (I'm an operating system agnostic) but they simply make superior server and desktop products (regardless of who "borrowed" from whom).

We had a few Novell servers at my company that ran OK as long as you didn't touch them, but if you tried unloading NLMs, doing any maintenance work or even just using the server console, watch out; they were bound to lock up and require a cold boot.  I tried all the silly server parameters like changing the "Packet Receive Buffers" value, etc. (after scouring the Novell site as well as my textbooks for every tip I could find) to optimize performance; those just never did anything.  The Groupwise server was even worse; we couldn't even update the NLMs for the product as the Internet Agent would not work.  It got to the point that the servers were off-limits during production hours, because we had had so many inconvenient reboots during the day caused by these servers locking up.  That more than anything else is why I got so fed up with Novell (and no, it wasn't a hardware problem, nor misconfiguration of the servers, nor anything other than the fact Netware simply could not seem to handle any activity being performed at the server console).

Ditto for the support packs and the horrible Novell client, which brought any Windows machine to a crawl; they kept releasing new versions, updates, and other "releases" but it never improved in quality.  Using Netware Administrator was not fun - it took at least 2-3 minutes to load!  Proving our punishment gluttony, we also used the Novell BorderManager firewall/VPN - other than the proxy server component, which ran reasonably well, the rest of the package was not impressive.
 The VPN pretty much only worked in one instance I can note, and that
was on my home PC after spending days on the project; it was not fit to
roll out to the user community.

We got off Novell in favor of Active Directory a few years ago, thankfully.  Like finally booting out an unwelcome guest who has stayed too long, it was time to clean house.  I actually have nightmares now that my company returns to using Novell/Groupwise and all the headaches it entailed - probably because I went on a casual job interview with what must be the last remaining company in North America that uses that deadly combination, and was appalled at the prospect of committing career suicide by taking a job working with those products again.

I still get the Novell magazines, somehow, and as I skim through the articles devoted to the "hot new products" Novell is pushing, I just think about the crazy babbling man on the corner outside the liquor store, and feel a mixture of pity and disgust.  Do they really expect anyone other than perhaps a Novell devotee or casual hobbyist to use their Linux desktop?  I'd rather just use a genuine, free, Linux server/desktop combination to achieve the same ends - at the very least I would not be reluctant to put on my resume.  Now I hear Oracle is thinking about buying Novell.  The only conclusion I can come to is that they intend to salvage what few remaining elements of useful technology may still exist at that organization and then euthanize the rest of the product line.  Probably that would be a mercy.

We are currently considering moving from Netware to
Microsoft servers for many reasons.

1. It
   seems like every feature on Netware requires a separate client component
   ex. Novell Client, iPrint client, iFolder client, Zenworks client.  That?s just crazy.
2. Recently
   we have been forced to update our GroupWise 7 server with a BETA
   patch because the original release was so bad that Novell recommended that
   we use the BETA.  What kind of company makes a product so
   buggy that they recommend to use a BETA
   patch.
3. Microsoft
   is running full speed with innovation, and Netware is stuck on its last
   version.  Hardware venders are not
   even planning to spend the time to make drivers for future server hardware.
4. And
   simply, I can support Microsoft servers with less time than with Netware
   servers

Also, in education Novell is very expensive, and Microsoft
is very cheap.

I love the intruder lockout feature. It alerts me when someone tries to
bypass security on our public access computers by rebooting.

The server gui actually started with Netware 5. It was/is horribly
slow. I never found it useful for much. I just typed "down" on my 5
server the other day for the last time because the hardware is too old.
:(  I never had any problems with it, but I don't plan to install
it on new hardware either.

As for Novell, they have some really nice offerings coming up with Suse
Linux Enterprise Desktop and Server 10. I got a look at them at
Brainshare and I realy liked what I saw. They really need to step up
the marketing if they want to gain any ground on Redhat and Microsoft
and become relevant again.

Novell is dead!!  Over the past 10 years how many times have we heard and read this (yet it is still being discussed)?

So you've had a bad experience with a security feature of Novell which prevented you from logging in.... I guess we should assume you've never had a odd problem with a Microsoft product which didn't cause some minor (or major) frustration?  :)

I'm not anti Microsoft, however, there is still a definite place for Novell's many products which integrate on all platforms (there is no point discussing which server is best, it serves no business purpose).  At my office we run Windows Server 2003, 2000, NT, Citrix, NetWare 6 and 6.5 all in harmony. 

The Novell applications such as ZenWorks, GroupWise,  (not to mention their identity products) will happily sit on a Windows as well as a NetWare/Linux server.  The underlying point is that Novell is not just about NetWare/Linux servers (which no one can deny is in decline) but many different products which integrate and enhance ease of management of any network.  It's about best of breed products (apologies for the clich?!).

We don't run Linux, but is certainly being considered.   XP and Office are definitely a business requirement for a number of users within any office, but not necessarily all.  Do you really need to spend approximately ?250 on a XP and Office when you can get Linux for free (or ?65 supported (per user))?  Is the Linux interface really so different that users won't just login and get on with the basic day to day operations? 

The next offering from Microsoft is Vista and is supposedly going to need 1 gig of RAM and a 256 Meg video card, and for what, a few fancy screens? (Just think how GOOD all the new effects will make your word processor look while you are typing a letter!)

Before being led further up the Microsoft path why not consider an alternative and evaluate whether it has a place on your network/desktop, it may not, but why write it off ?http://www.novell.com/linux/xglrelease/
Worth watching the 4 very quick videos (especially the cube) very cool!!  (if you?re after fancy screens!)!

Tolan

~evil grin~

I went to Oracle's website, and posted in their forums, the linux one about this...

Oracle considering creating it's own Linux Distro?

Posted:
Apr 18, 2006 10:16 PM
According to this article they are:http://news.com.com/Oracle+says+may+launch+own+Linux+version/2100-7344_3-6061696.htmlIf they do decide to create an Oracle Linux, what Distro would you like to see them base it on?RH? [ a quick scan shows the issues RH has with Oracle's software right now ]Debian?Suse?Slack?Gentoo?Actually,
I would recommend they work with a from scratch distro and build it
themselves completely, since RH is as far from being standards
compliant as possible, Suse isn't a lot better.Debian is closest to
being standards compliant, but since the standard states RPM is the
package manager and Debian won't downgrade from their own .deb system
they aren't fully compliant.Red Hat has the major Market share,
but buying a bugware distro and fixing it would cost more than rolling
their own from scratch would.I would love to see a Company that
could give Microsoft a run for their money backing a Linux
Distribution, but I would hate to see that company saddle themselves
with bugware to start with. I say that rolling their own is the best
way for Oracle to go

So . . . basically your whole argument against Slackware and Debian is that they don't use RPM? (I don't have to ask about your argument against Gentoo.)

Frankly, I'm of the opinion that the LSB is a sham that will eventually end up largely ignored due to its partisanship and mismanagement. In the meantime, I'll happily lead the pack as one of the first to think the guys at LSB have lost the plot.

The reason Debian won't standardize on RPM is simple: it's an inferior standard to DEB. It's not surprising that's the case, considering the fact that the DEB package format has been around a lot longer, and has had many more developers working on it all this time to refine it. It's just more mature, and seems to have headed in the right direction in the first place. Furthermore, there aren't any package management tools as slick as those developed for the DEB package format — APT, aptitude, Synaptic, et cetera.

Besides, Debian does support RPM, for the sole purpose of being LSB-compliant: it has Alien for package translation and basic RPM tools. I always go with a minimal install and don't install those, but they're there if you want them, and they're there in the default install types available through tasksel.

Personally, I'd like to see Oracle build a distro using the Debian official software archives, plus an Oracle-specific third party archive for its own software additions to the distribution. I might even be willing to use it.

Will Oracle enter the desktop market?  I don't know, but I am fairly sure that if they do, they will be throwing good money after bad. I do think that Oracle would be taking their eye off the ball, and would likely lose ground in more markets, and probably gain nothing in the desktop market.

They may have deep pockets and a deep bench, but that doesn't make it a good idea.

Oracle will not only scoop up Novell and thier SuSe Linux product, but Red Hat as well.  SCO is dying, and they don't have the muscle to challenge Oracle in the Unix ownership debate.

  I think if Oracle
would buy up Red Hat, Oracle could also take a cut out of IBM too.  I
worked for both Oracle and IBM and I can tell you IBM is counting on Red Hat
and SUSE Linux (More on Red Hat then SUSE.) to help the company move forward in
both software and hardware offerings areas.  So I think this would heart
IBM more then Microsoft short term anyway.  Oracle and IBM always liked
the Linux platform and disliked Windows, of course this is a no brainier.  They both think of Linux as the future of
operating systems to use with there other offering.   

  If Larry just wants the best Linux OS than I would buy
Novell, this is the best Server and desktop OS looking at Linux in my opinion.  Novell is a good take-over target and we all
know Larry likes to buy.  Larry, when he
buys (Speculation on my part) should build up the Linux OS as a stand-alone and
packaged offerings (Certified package.) 
That would be the only way he can take away market shares from
Microsoft.  Adding an office productivity
package could add value to the Linux OS too.  

What process did you kill?

I understand believe me.

I had been using MS Office 2000 then Upgraded to Office 2003. The only real difference for me was that the menus were a lot Fancier than what I wanted and/or needed and the thing got far more complicated that I felt it should be 3D Menus?. Add to that the loss of My beloved Photo Editor and I find myself thinking of going back to my trusty old 2000. It may not be as fancy and top heavy as 2003 but 3D Menus don't make for a better system, they just make it prettier that's all.

In almost every area where you could go in and control the program, Microsoft has added ten levels of things you can adjust.

I frankly don't see the point unless your the type that likes to tinker with every little aspect of the system. I for one am perfectly satisfied just having it do what I want, which is to say write letters and reports and above all Give me back my PhotoEditor.

OH NO !!, you have to deal with MS Publisher now, which is nowhere near as efficient. I don't care how fancy it is.I can' sharpen a picture anywhere near as well with this as I did with Photo Editor.

Microsoft has taken to chopping up a Product  into Ten different pieces and then adding all the facades to those ten parts that comprise the whole program and then breaking that down even more in order to give you menu, upon menu, upon menu. Thus you think you're getting more. You're not. You're getting the same, only the cut is different i.e. more menus, "Big Deal"

Who need's it, certainly not I. Just give me something that writes, spell checks and looks good and above all is ease of use.

That's MS Office 2000. Maybe Microsoft need's to back up because in many ways, they've jumped the fence in 2003 unless of course one is a glutton for menus and 3Dtoys.

I'm going back and when they get real again, I'll come back and have a look. Thanks but No thanks to 2003 and all it's trappings or better yet, "traps".

If this is what's waiting for us in Vista, "God help us Everyone". At least with the menus. ;)

Regards

Aaron

A key issue is why shouldn't you expect Microsoft to support a 6 year old software product?  Most businesses and individuals don't have the resources to continually upgrade.  A perfect example is how you (and many of us) are still using Office 2000.  This is one of the problems in technology today, it is assumed that change is a given and that it is always better.  Reallity shows that change isn't always best, sometimes you don't have to fix what isn't broken. But marketing tries to convince us otherwise

On one hand I understand discontinuing support on computer equipment and software; the life cycle is so short. On the other hand I can still go to a Ford dealer and get a power window motor for a 1992 Crown Vic. Yes, durable goods versus comodity computing products, blah, blah, blah. I acknowledge the intrinsic flaw in my comparison.

My first experience with the marketing machine as substitute for true "help" was with Dell a few months back. I had to replace memory in an old Dell and only wanted info from tech support on what was the maximum amount of memory the MOBO would support. Instead of a simple answer, they simply said the computer was far older than they continue to support, and directed me to sales. Sounds very similar to what you experienced with Microsoft.

In my business, my clients often run legacy OS's on ancient hardware simply because it still works, and avoids the concurrent user limitations of new OS's. When we do have a problem with an old piece of equipment or software, I can usually work around it, which my clients appreciate. The planned obsolecence strategies of manufacturers and publishers don't make it easy.

I don?t see that message as Microsoft trying to push a newer
version on you.  From a support perspective,
they are just telling you what is required to receive support from them.  You will also notice that this page states
that updates are available for your current version and gives you a link to
download updates like service packs which might fix your problem.  If Microsoft doesn?t support Office 2000
anymore, it?s probably good that they educate people of a step that they can take
so that they can get support.  Basicly,
Microsoft is educating the public as well as promoting their newer product
which is normal for any free enterprise company.

You should have said "Goodyear" instead of "Firestone". Firestone actually makes some pretty good tires. Maybe not the sort of tires you'd tend to choose for a Ferrari, but better than what you'd put on a Ford Escort.

I have to agree with everything that was said here.  I have always been an intel man running windows and Ubuntu linux.  It would be a waste of time to install Windows on a Mac.  What we should be talking about is; being able to install Mac OS X on my intel computer.  Finally getting rid of windows and install the Mac OS X instead.  Is it possible?  Then I could be a Mac/Linux home.

Consider coming from the other side.  Being able to run the Mac OS
from a Windows user perspective.  This gives the avid Windows user
a safe comfortable way to try the Mac OS without having to leave their
comfort zone. They can experience and learn the Mac OS at thier own
pace.  So if and when the person makes the decision that the Mac
OS is superior, they can adopt the Mac OS without having to buy a new
computer.  I personally know that a Windows user can't suddenly
expect to learn and be proficient in the Mac OS without some time and
the dual boot system is a great way to give that Windows user the time
to learn and experience the Mac OS.

By the way, I have used both VMware and Virtual PC and I prefer to boot
to the OS and not to use virtualization.  I have run into problems
with the virtualization and I'm never sure if it is due to the virtual
software or some other bug.  So I end up booting to the OS anyway
to find out.

I have a MacBook Pro and run both OS X and Windows.? My reasons for doing this are:

1.? As a business consultant my clients either use Macs or Windows.? I am required to use both systems, as well as my staff.
2.? Critical business software such as Quickbooks do not operate the same in Macs and Windows.? In fact the Windows version is far advanced and superior to the QuickBooks for MAC.? In all features.? The Olympus voice recorder only works in Windows.
3.? I am a pilot, and there is no software for advanced flight planning for the Macs.?

Installing Boot Camp.? The Mac side took only 25 minutes and everything on my iBook transfered the first time without a glitch, programs, data, passwords, settings, address books, EVERYTHING.? In the Windows side, this is day 7 and I am still installing all of my original software, data etc.? The good news - every windows application works!!

Finally, this is why I did the change.? I now only carry one laptop and transformer.? A 50% weight reduction.? I am forced to work in Windows (I have to tolerate Microsofts lousy customer service), but I choose to work with Apple products because they understand the customer - me!

So on a scale of 10 (10 best) I believe that Apple is a 9 and Microsoft is trying to reach a 3 with customer service.? As for robustness dependability and uptime - Mac 9 and Windows 2.? As for productivity Mac 95% efficient and Windows 32%.? This is a big enough difference for most CFO's to take note, and I predict that many companies will convert to MAC based systems to save significent money on maintenance, productivity, and security.

Keith Laken
klaken@usgription.com

One advantage that I see is in the classroom. If you were teaching applications on the Mac and applications on windows, you would need two computers. Now we can save a lot of money by using one machine for two different OS systems.  The big question is will the schools buy into this.

What about the need to run music software that is specific to each OS.  Eg. Cakewalk.  Instead of having two machines you just have two OS's

It is obviously the end of Mac... Intel CPU, MS OS... After the grey the black comes...
Not the best, not even the fittest - the worst survives...As ever, the worst takes the upper hand.
... "no rules in the land of mules"...
Fare thee
well, Mac...