Hello David,
I'm sorry if I comment on several of your posts, however I want to learn more about your position and perspective. If it's too not too late I want to get out in time! ;-) (No, I'm kidding ... I actually have to say that you are on top of some cool technologies that will change the world. Not too many people are working with technologies like SSA ... you know we're seeing 35-37MB/sec with NetWare and PCI?)
> It is a real shame that a company that was the ONLY defacto
> standard for connecting computers together self-destructed.
Sounds rather permanent.
> NOVLs customer base is deploying NT.
Just as Novell customers deployed Windows and Windows95. But they are still buying NetWare and renewing licenses.
> Their resellers are selling NT.
Just as Novell resellers sold Windows and Windows95. But they are still selling NetWare and other Novell products.
> Hot new products such as a web server REQUIRE enduser to purchase
> Netware, while all competetors run out of the box on any operating
> system/hardware platform that enduser already has. STUPID!
I'm not sure I understand this. NetWare ships with Web service. That means HTTP protocol support built into the file system. I actually can't believe the marketing hype that a "Web Server" is something special! If you built the file system correctly then you simply add HHTP, just as we added AppleTalk, FTP, NFS, and even FTAM!
When you say that "all competetors run out of the box on any
operating system/hardware platform that enduser already has" do you mean that Microsoft IIS runs on NetWare? I mean, NetWare customers are the ones you're talking about ... right?
> Computer manufacturers are standardizing on competitive directory
> services, and they are bringing in MSFT to make sure it is kosher.
Acutally if you look at ActiveDirectory what you will find is a glorified domain service with limited support for other access protocols ... as long as you are on a Windows machine.
> Netware itself is too one-dimensional. It is still basically a NOS.
And it should be a ??? I'd like to hear your definition of a NOS. I thought the Internet and global networking was the key. So a layered service on the Network would be called a ??? Well ... maybe it would be called a Network Operating System? I think that press hype about "The NOS is dead" is just plain foolish. We are just about to see what a NOS really is ... in my opinion ...
> NT runs application code, and THAT is why application developers
> are porting to it. Brilliant. Endusers will have NT on the floor
> anyway. Why do they need NOVL?
So that the network actually works, is realiable, and is manageable. Please don't tell me that you think Microsoft knows networking ...
Please read this link and then let me know that CMU doesn't know networking ... net.cmu.edu
Read carefully and you will see that from 1994 till April 1997 when this article was published they have been promised fixes ...
> Yes, yes, yes, NOVL is a superior network operating system... and
> beta max was a superior video technology.
I don't know the numbers, but I don't believe that Beta ever had the installed base, the channel, and the evolving products either ...
> Looks like NOVL is still on track to become the next Banyon.
Maybe ... but I don't think so. Please take this post as one asking for more education. I've been reading your posts for the last number of days and am trying to figure out your position on this ... I want to learn!
Scott C. Lemon |
