Hello Kiethsha,
I'm very interested in your input and contributions. You seemed to have joined SI and migrated to this thread on the 2nd of the month ... are you interested in contributing valuable accurate information and fact to the thread ... or just FUD?
I'll assume that you're on the up-and-up and truly want to discuss fact related to Novell. I appreciate the fact that you want to "balance" the comments being made ... both pro-Novell, and anti-Microsoft ... but let's try and keep FUD to a minimum.
> Again a bunch of drivel instead of real world examples. How about
> some Internet sites using Novell technology? Hit rates, concurrent
> pages access, peak downloads, Ecommerce $ volume would be
> interesting if they exist. Heck Novell just converted their own web
> site from Unix and Apache this past summer.
If you are looking for success stories, I guess that I could spew a couple of examples ... and then so could you. Here's the link:
novell.com
Then everyone can read for themselves. There continue to be announcements of Internet sites using Novell technologies. I just posted another message a little while ago about MT&T using Novell's technologies for almost all of the things that you have hinted about ... and in ways that are far beyond simple-minded HTTP web service.
And yes, the web sites, which have been front-ended by BorderManager for a long time, were running Apache on UnixWare ... a carry-over from the UnixWare days ... but even you seem to acknowledge that they are Novonyx (Netscape's code) on NetWare today.
I noticed that Microsoft has removed an easy way to locate the information on how many NT servers (and what type of hardware) it takes to run your web site. Since you are anxious to talk about how these numbers are accomplished, could you guide me to the link that details exactly what runs the microsoft.com site?
> As for Border Manager and fake benchmarks, it doesn't even have
> basic Proxy performance features such as load-balanced cache,
> reverse proxy or host, server proxy or FTP cache.
Please ... you need to learn more about the Novell products.
Could you explain to this audience which benchmarks are "fake"?
I'll assume that you are referring to MindCraft? From recent experiences I don't think they would like to know that you are calling their benchmarks "fake" ...
mindcraft.com
Obviously this is an old benchmark and we are now seeing numbers in excess of 10,000/sec ... what are the benchmark figures for Microsoft Proxy?
As for features, you, and the link that you have provided:
> Check out microsoft.com
... are incorrect. You ought to let your folks know that the comparison chart that they have drawn-up has numerous errors. I know that you are interested in being truthful and that you will have this taken care of. Your comments about a "load-balanced cache, reverse proxy or host, server proxy or FTP cache" are wrong. Please point your browser at novell.com ... you'll be using all of these features ... and they have been there since day one of the product.
I'm sure that the problems in your comparison chart were a simple misunderstanding of the technology ... or a simple oversight.
> BTW, customers tour the MSFT operations center daily. Including SAP
> running on NT. Are they any ERP applications for NetWare?
I'm curious about the scalability and uptime of these services ... can you provide the *real* data about how much hardware, software, and *real* costs to run this? And what about actual load on the systems in terms of users and transactions? I'm just curious about the details ...
> Oh and NTS and it's directory service which has over 600 integrated
> applications is outselling all versions of NetWare combined by
> 50%.
Ok ... now you have completely lost me ... you haven't shipped a directory service yet ... what are you talking about?
I hope that you aren't trying to convince everyone here that by "calling" your Domains a new name, all of the poor architecture dating back to NetBIOS and MS-Net will just go away? And you're going to claim these as directory applications. Come on ... let's keep this up and honest ... not full of FUD. Everyone knows that Active Directory won't even be complete in the first cut of NT v5.0.
I once heard a joke about "How many Microsoft employees does it take to change a light bulb?" The answer was "None. They'll just redefine 'dark'!" ... I can't believe that you expect people to be fooled by renaming Domains. When you ship a directory, then you can talk about directory applications.
> NT is competing and winning with current product. Windows 2000 and
> AD just broaden the scale and scope.
Hmmm ... then what brought you here?
Also, I have to ask ... obviously by renaming the product to Windows 2000 you hope to escape the classic ".0" release problems. But are you going to have Windows 2000.0? I think that people will still be hesistant to run Windows 2000 with out SP1 being attached to the name ... maybe even SP2. I know that once you got to SP3 my NT Workstation seems to be pretty stable.
> Wake up Toy, become aware that distributed computing requires
> scalable directory databases. BTrieve? You have got to be kidding.
> I thought it was an internal project called RDP or something.
Yes ... and distributed computing requires a stable kernal that can stay up and running also! (Or at least one that reboots faster!) ;-)
I'm really curious about your perspectives on this recently published document ... tuxedo.org
Can you shed any light as to whether it is an actual Microsoft document? And in either case, maybe you could comment on the statements made within ... I noticed that some of the suggestions at the bottom of the document involve new techniques being used, besides standard business FUD tactics ... are you part of this? This might be better on the Microsoft thread ... but since you want to discuss your company here ...
(P.S. I really don't want to get into a massive battle, so if you agree to stick to honest open discussion I'll do likewise. But I do like to fully understand the details of claims and implementations.)
Thanx!
Scott C. Lemon |
