Novell (NOVL) dirt cheap, good buy? Message Board

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Technology Stocks : Novell (NOVL) dirt cheap, good buy?

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: Paul Fiondella who wrote (30232)	2/10/2000 1:20:00 AM
From: Scott C. Lemon	Read Replies (1) of 42771

Hello Paul, I'm curious here ... this does get into an interesting area ... > What the Europeans are getting at is that Microsoft cannot be > allowed to corrupt non proprietary standards through > incompatibilitey with those standards. So how does anyone evolve the IETF standards? It seems to me that the entire "game" is for companies to propose standards, try to get the IETF blessing, and then quickly try to "extend" the standards to evolve them and add more features. So a "non-proprietary standard" is one which (per the definition of proprietary dictionary.com ) means that it is "not owned" by any one company. So I would guess that IETF standards would fall under this definition ... So I'm wondering why all companies would not strive to "extend" the IETF standards and develop new standards ... it seems that it is the customers responsibility to demand standards compliance ... > Microsoft shouldn't be allowed to develop incompatible proprietary > software. Hmmm ... this is kinda strange to me. Novell and most other companies are using proprietary and incompatible solutions and products. For example, the Novell client uses NetWare Core Protocol and "PureIP" which are both Novell inventions ... and completely proprietary. I'm trying to understand the implications of the statement and what you are trying to say ... that Microsoft should only be able to develop "Open Source" projects? (I know that I'm confused at this point ...) > Some people will say AD is no threat to directories precisely > because it only works on Win2000. But that is just the point. > With the market power MSFT has, it can bend the market if Win2000 > is widely sdopted, to its proprietary standard. But only if customers agree to buy and install AD services ... Since the ADSI APIs include support for LDAP (and Novell has developed the ADSI provider for NDS) the customer should make the choice on what they spend money on ... Microsoft is providing a solution to a set of customers. If more customers are "weak" and decide to just go passively along for a ride, do we then become a welfare state to protect people from themselves? I need to read more about the specific complaints about the incompatibilities ... I guess that if Win2000 doesn't allow me to access Yahoo!, I might either complain to Microsoft, or to Yahoo! ... I would complain to Microsoft ... ;-) Scott C. Lemon

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next