Slashdot Mirror

request 'em
http://www.novell.com/coolsolutions/tip/16646.html

http://www.fuckmicrosoft.com/content/whatsbad.shtm l
http://philip.greenspun.com/bg/
http://www.novell.com/linux/truth/no_mention.html
http://www.netaction.org/msoft/cybersnare.html
http://www.endgame.org/microsoft.html

Ximian was a small outfit and Novell bought them out, maybe they're considering a similar move with CodeWeavers?

In any case, for comparison here's a list of top most wanted apps for Crossover to support next.

Like the SUSE LINUX: Hardware compatibility list?
http://cdb.novell.com/?LANG=en_UK

They have had a database with compatible hardware online at least since version 6.2, when I started using SuSE (1998).

But I do not find any WiFi cards in that database.

Taking that stance, why is RH Europe in existance http://www.europe.redhat.com/ ? Or even better how about a reseller based in NZ ?

Also the title of Novell http://www.novell.com/ is "Novell Worldwide", not exactly European only?

I think you failed to make any point, I am certain that the free distributions outweigh the commerical and the commerical products that exist happily aim at a worldwide audience.

the people at Cygwin [cygwin.com] have put together a great version of Linux for the average user to use

It depends on what he calls significant progress. If he is only looking at marketshare growing rapidly then he was right. If he was looking at a big vendor with an established channel getting behind desktop Linux then again he was right. (Novell Linux Desktop) Only if he predicted Linux taking a significant chunk of Windows share away would he be wrong. For that to have happened, desktop Linux would have had to grown by thousands of percent in one year when it has been growing at only about 25-30% annually.

My prediction: if we assume Linux has 3% marketshare on the desktop now and 25% annual growth then by the rule of 72 (you bean counters know what that is) Linux desktop marketshare will double approximately every three years. So in three years, 6%. In six years, 12%. By the time it hits that number, desktop Linux will have the respect it needs for ubiquitous support from virtually all hardware vendors and all but the most extreme Microsoft toadies on the software side.

And with another six years of development at Open Source's blistering pace, Linux will no longer be vulnerable to FUD. They can try to sling it, but it just won't stick. With industry pundits like Cringley seeing its potential and predicting big moves even last year, in six more years the general public will accept it on equal footing with Windows. At that point the biggest difference will be the price. Windows will still have some advantages such as compatability with legacy apps, but the lower price of Linux will be pretty seductive.

The Linux claims stem from the fact that people take old hardware that is lying around, lying around because it has been abandoned and CAN'T run the latest Microsoft OS with office productivity suite, and see if they can get Linux to run on it.

I have a whole IT dept closet full of abandoned PC's, 486's, Pentiums, PII's that I WILL NOT TRY to run Windows XP SP2 and MS Office 2003 on, because it WILL NOT be usable after I spend what would probably be 6 hours getting everything installed.

I WILL NOT TRY it ALSO BECAUSE that hardware is WAY BELOW MICROSOFT's OWN DOCUMENTED HARDWARE REQUIREMENTS for WinXP. Now if I wanted to run Windows 3.1, or Windows 9.x, then yes it would be fine, but Microsoft doesn't SUPPORT those OS's anymore. They were abandoned, just like Windows XP will be abandoned when Windows Vista comes out. Not to mention there's NO WAY WinVista will run on that stuff, since it needs 512 MB JUST FOR THE OS!
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/pro/evaluation/ sysreqs.mspx
http://www.microsoft.com/office/editions/prodinfo/ standreq.mspx
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/windowsvista/eval uate/hardware/vistarpc.mspx

Now take a PII Laptop with 96 MB of memory...
Remember per Microsoft's specs and experience, that's not enough for XP with Office 2003. But try loading the latest Suse Linux 10.0 with OpenOffice, and guess what... it didn't take 6 hours to install... only 1.5 hours, and it works and it is usable.
(Although it is below what Novell recommends, now that I just looked... http://www.novell.com/products/suselinux/sysreqs.h tml )

The fact is I can take some current Linux distro, and a current OpenOfice distro and make a legacy computer productively usable. This is because Linux and OpenOffice are open and people can do this and make their results available for others to use. And the OpenOffice installation can be included and done at the same time as the OS installation.

The fact also is that Windows is NOT open. I can not prepare simplified installations and share them. Each license owner has to do that themselves. No one can tweak and recompile the OS or the Office product to make it usable on older hardware. Its closed and up to the marketing whims of Microsoft to decide what Windows can and can not do...

Like Windows Vista... which will require 512 MB of memory, JUST FOR THE OS...

Never mind that the non-compete clause was rendered inneffective when Santa Cruz sold their assets to Caldera. (The TLA offered Novell a full license back of Unix and SCO's modifications, but with some restrictions. The contract stated that those restrictions caese to exist in the event of a change of control of SCO.)

Read these linked PDFs.

http://www.novell.com/licensing/indemnity/pdf/8_20 _03_n-sco.pdf
http://www.novell.com/licensing/indemnity/pdf/10_7 _03_n-sco_tla.pdf
http://www.novell.com/licensing/indemnity/pdf/10_9 _03_sco-n.pdf
http://www.novell.com/licensing/indemnity/pdf/11_1 9_03_n-sco.pdf

As you can see, SCO brought up the non-compete clause in the press back when Novell first announced the aquisition, but never addressed the issue with Novell. Novell said that claim was baseless.

Also notice the difference in wording from the two lawyers corresponding back and forth. Lasala (Novell) always mentions specific clauses in the agreement that support his position, and lays it out very clearly, whereas Tibbits (SCO) simply says "We don't agree, fuck off" (paraphrased of course).

Also, in the SCO complaint you will notice SCO says "Why would Novell need a license if they retained the copyrights?"

The TLA specifies the licensed technology as "any code not owned by Novell as of the date of this agreement". This means that Novell retained the copyrights over Unix (due to copyrights being excluded elsewhere in the agreement), and also a license to any SCO modification or derivative. In the first linked letter, Novell demands all versions of Unixware and Unix under SCO's control. This includes the latest versions containing copyrighted SCO code.

So, if the copyrights didn't pass to SCO (very likely) Novell is allowed to distribute their own code, and has a license to redistribute SCO's code, without any restrictions (due to the change of control of SCO). If the copyrights did or do transfer, Novell still has a license to all of Unix with no restrictions.

Novell has killed any hope SCO had of ever holding any Linux users or vendors liable for copyright infringement.

Never mind that the non-compete clause was rendered inneffective when Santa Cruz sold their assets to Caldera. (The TLA offered Novell a full license back of Unix and SCO's modifications, but with some restrictions. The contract stated that those restrictions caese to exist in the event of a change of control of SCO.)

Read these linked PDFs.

http://www.novell.com/licensing/indemnity/pdf/8_20 _03_n-sco.pdf
http://www.novell.com/licensing/indemnity/pdf/10_7 _03_n-sco_tla.pdf
http://www.novell.com/licensing/indemnity/pdf/10_9 _03_sco-n.pdf
http://www.novell.com/licensing/indemnity/pdf/11_1 9_03_n-sco.pdf

As you can see, SCO brought up the non-compete clause in the press back when Novell first announced the aquisition, but never addressed the issue with Novell. Novell said that claim was baseless.

Also notice the difference in wording from the two lawyers corresponding back and forth. Lasala (Novell) always mentions specific clauses in the agreement that support his position, and lays it out very clearly, whereas Tibbits (SCO) simply says "We don't agree, fuck off" (paraphrased of course).

Also, in the SCO complaint you will notice SCO says "Why would Novell need a license if they retained the copyrights?"

The TLA specifies the licensed technology as "any code not owned by Novell as of the date of this agreement". This means that Novell retained the copyrights over Unix (due to copyrights being excluded elsewhere in the agreement), and also a license to any SCO modification or derivative. In the first linked letter, Novell demands all versions of Unixware and Unix under SCO's control. This includes the latest versions containing copyrighted SCO code.

So, if the copyrights didn't pass to SCO (very likely) Novell is allowed to distribute their own code, and has a license to redistribute SCO's code, without any restrictions (due to the change of control of SCO). If the copyrights did or do transfer, Novell still has a license to all of Unix with no restrictions.

Novell has killed any hope SCO had of ever holding any Linux users or vendors liable for copyright infringement.

Never mind that the non-compete clause was rendered inneffective when Santa Cruz sold their assets to Caldera. (The TLA offered Novell a full license back of Unix and SCO's modifications, but with some restrictions. The contract stated that those restrictions caese to exist in the event of a change of control of SCO.)

Read these linked PDFs.

http://www.novell.com/licensing/indemnity/pdf/8_20 _03_n-sco.pdf
http://www.novell.com/licensing/indemnity/pdf/10_7 _03_n-sco_tla.pdf
http://www.novell.com/licensing/indemnity/pdf/10_9 _03_sco-n.pdf
http://www.novell.com/licensing/indemnity/pdf/11_1 9_03_n-sco.pdf

As you can see, SCO brought up the non-compete clause in the press back when Novell first announced the aquisition, but never addressed the issue with Novell. Novell said that claim was baseless.

Also notice the difference in wording from the two lawyers corresponding back and forth. Lasala (Novell) always mentions specific clauses in the agreement that support his position, and lays it out very clearly, whereas Tibbits (SCO) simply says "We don't agree, fuck off" (paraphrased of course).

Also, in the SCO complaint you will notice SCO says "Why would Novell need a license if they retained the copyrights?"

The TLA specifies the licensed technology as "any code not owned by Novell as of the date of this agreement". This means that Novell retained the copyrights over Unix (due to copyrights being excluded elsewhere in the agreement), and also a license to any SCO modification or derivative. In the first linked letter, Novell demands all versions of Unixware and Unix under SCO's control. This includes the latest versions containing copyrighted SCO code.

So, if the copyrights didn't pass to SCO (very likely) Novell is allowed to distribute their own code, and has a license to redistribute SCO's code, without any restrictions (due to the change of control of SCO). If the copyrights did or do transfer, Novell still has a license to all of Unix with no restrictions.

Novell has killed any hope SCO had of ever holding any Linux users or vendors liable for copyright infringement.

Never mind that the non-compete clause was rendered inneffective when Santa Cruz sold their assets to Caldera. (The TLA offered Novell a full license back of Unix and SCO's modifications, but with some restrictions. The contract stated that those restrictions caese to exist in the event of a change of control of SCO.)

Read these linked PDFs.

http://www.novell.com/licensing/indemnity/pdf/8_20 _03_n-sco.pdf
http://www.novell.com/licensing/indemnity/pdf/10_7 _03_n-sco_tla.pdf
http://www.novell.com/licensing/indemnity/pdf/10_9 _03_sco-n.pdf
http://www.novell.com/licensing/indemnity/pdf/11_1 9_03_n-sco.pdf

As you can see, SCO brought up the non-compete clause in the press back when Novell first announced the aquisition, but never addressed the issue with Novell. Novell said that claim was baseless.

Also notice the difference in wording from the two lawyers corresponding back and forth. Lasala (Novell) always mentions specific clauses in the agreement that support his position, and lays it out very clearly, whereas Tibbits (SCO) simply says "We don't agree, fuck off" (paraphrased of course).

Also, in the SCO complaint you will notice SCO says "Why would Novell need a license if they retained the copyrights?"

The TLA specifies the licensed technology as "any code not owned by Novell as of the date of this agreement". This means that Novell retained the copyrights over Unix (due to copyrights being excluded elsewhere in the agreement), and also a license to any SCO modification or derivative. In the first linked letter, Novell demands all versions of Unixware and Unix under SCO's control. This includes the latest versions containing copyrighted SCO code.

So, if the copyrights didn't pass to SCO (very likely) Novell is allowed to distribute their own code, and has a license to redistribute SCO's code, without any restrictions (due to the change of control of SCO). If the copyrights did or do transfer, Novell still has a license to all of Unix with no restrictions.

Novell has killed any hope SCO had of ever holding any Linux users or vendors liable for copyright infringement.

The two headquarters are within 10 miles of each other (Sco in Lindon, Utah and Novell in Provo, Utah)

From Novell's Fast Facts page:

"Corporate headquarters are in Waltham, Mass., with key facilities located in Provo, Utah and Nürmberg, Germany."

I suppose the people at the Provo facility could duke it out with SCO mano a mano, but the Novell bigwigs are on the other side of the country now.

http://www.novell.com/linux/suse/
http://fedora.redhat.com/
http://www.ubuntulinux.org/
http://frontal1.mandriva.com/community/
https://www.scientificlinux.org/

What we have in the Linux and BSD world at least are very good Mandatory Access Control systems that help mitigate some of this risk. In the Linux world you can use SELinux (shudder) or use something even easier, AppArmor. If you properly profile an application to determine what it should and should not do you'll be in much better shape when new exploits like this come out. It won't save you from everything since they can still get access to anything the program could legitimately access in the first place but it's much more efficient than setting up sandboxes for everything like chroot and much more secure.

Thank you for your response. I'd like to elucidate my point of view for a moment as it appears that I've done a poor job of explaining myself.

1) Microsoft licensing and Microsoft software can not be distinguished from one another.

2) There is a glut of technical problems with Microsoft software that I touched on as it pertains to Exchange; it is well documented (Google "Microsoft vulnerabilty"). Although part of my post focuses on the inherent problems that Microsoft licensing proves to be, I believe it's unfair to characterize it as if it is exclusively focused on the licensing problems.

It seems that my mention of numerous technical problems was not enough, or was not focused upon in my response. I will work to provide a more robust set of technical as well as licensing issues. I took it for granted that the copious documented technical problems that Microsoft software has historically suffered would provide an analog to my focus on licensing.

There is at least one well known (at least in my circles) alternative to Exchange. Take a look at this:

http://www.novell.com/products/openexchange/

Feature for feature it has everything Exchange has (except the licensing :) ).

It's in early Alpha, and requires a whole lot more than Sendmail (as the original poster mentioned, but hey, it's Microsoft bashing, so it's OK not to read the OP right?)

I've been managing Exchange since 5.0. I can count the number of times I've had to rescue anything from a corrupt data store on two fingers (in 12 years)...

It's also readily apparent you've never used Exchange before, because moving mailboxes is simple...

Licensing is part of the Microsoft world, it's not that difficult. Nor does it take much time. Most companies that use MS products know how licensing work...

You know how easy it is to add new Exchange servers to an SBS Exchange environment? Very. Buy a new copy of Exchange an add to the SBS Exchange org.

If that really was the case, why are not more people moving to [open source Exchange alternatives]...

1. This means you have a dedicated admin machine that only a few very trustworthy admins have access to, that is very secure (no root logins, firewalled heavily, patched often, etc). I highly recommend running SuSE Enterprise Linux 9 with the IBM EAL4+ Security Configuration
   All maintenance activities are run from this management server.
2. Use the Parallel Distributed SHell (PDSH) utilities: http://www.llnl.gov/linux/pdsh/pdsh.html. These allow you run commands or copy files to a single system, a group of systems, or all systems at the same time. Wondering what kernel all your systems are running? Just issue a `pdsh -a uname -a`. Need to copy out the sudoers file? `pdcp -a /home/admin/node_files/sudoers /etc/sudoers`
3. Run Ganglia for resource monitoring: http://ganglia.info/
4. Run Samhain for filesystem integrity scanning on all servers: http://la-samhna.de/samhain/
5. Host based firewalls for all servers: http://www.shorewall.net/
6. Power supplies have caused more instability in my experience than any other single hardware component. Buy both good equipment and buy systems with dual redundant hot-swappable power supplies for the important machines
7. Good deals can be had from the big vendors. Although we run a lot of whitebox and IBM equipment, Sun currently has a great system for a very cheap price (starts at $745): http://www.sun.com/servers/entry/x2100/.
8. NFS sucks, but is the best filesystem glue-layer available. It is very sensitive to high latency environments, so run it over Infiniband (it has very low latency, and massive bandwidth (5us, 1.25GB/s) if you need to sqeeze out the best performance.
9. Every system should have an electronic "system book", which contains the full hardware specs, including where each part gets service from (if bought separately), how long the warranty lasts (give end dates), contact info, etc. If you are managing 50 or less systems, keep track of all changes in a central location, otherwise track all changes by using a system which scales (even a handwritten script and DB table would be sufficient).
10. Good enough is the enemy of the Best, but that is a good thing. Never overengineer a solution, this only means that other problems go unsolved.

Not if the rest of your code is in C#. You're probably better of using the Novell C# LDAP library.

I know about System.DirectoryServices, but its just a COM interop for the windows standard API -- which dopes ADSI -- which sucks the monkey nut.

It uses Mono to do SSL -- but I stripped that out and used .NET 2.0's SSL stream -- worked like a dream. And it talks real standard LDAP, so you can use it against AD, NDS, etc.

Off-topic, but does anyone else get a circular redirect when going to http://www.novell.com/? Linux/Firefox here...

RedHat, Suse, Mandrake, etc all offer linux as OSS

OpenSolaris has an OSI license. It is called the CDDL. Welcome to open source.

This includes not just the compiler but a very wide array of tools.

Sun offers the Sun ONE Studio tools for free. Vastly superior to GCC in every measurable way. Of course that is my opinion based on years of code crunching. The fact is that these are available for free. Download and go.
I believe that the source is being made open also.

ALL of the source code of anything marked OSS is available

Absolutely. All of the components under the CDDL are open. Have fun.
More on the way.
Heck, Sun just spent FIVE years working on an entirely new filesystem called ZFS and they released it and open sourced it at the same time. How cool is that?
See : http://www.sun.com/smi/Press/sunflash/2005-11/sunf lash.20051130.1.html

Now, you mention DELL and IBM. Well they both sell hardware with services.

I have heard that .. somewhere. I think Sun does that too. So does my corner store.

Neither of them directly deal with Linux

see : http://www.redhat.com/sundown/
Why is there an IBM logo on that page? Why is there an edition RHEL for POWER but not for Sparc ? Why does it say in big BOLD graphics there "Migrate to Linux with IBM + Red Hat"?
Now go look at : http://www.redhat.com/en_us/USA/rhel/compare/serve r/
The absolute cheapest edition is $349 and the top is $2499 !!
I can get Solaris for FREE.
For UltraSparc or for Intel or AMD Opteron.
The cost of an OPTIONAL software support contract is less than 34 cents a day.
I ought to know .. I bought one because it was five times cheaper than my daily coffee intake and I can't live with that either.
See my blog : http://www.blastwave.org/dclarke/blog/pivot/entry. php?id=107
While you're surfing, look at the three guys at :
http://www.novell.com/linux/unixtolinux/
They are all parked on a bench outside the IT Directors office waiting to tell how reiserfs screwed up their data again and they lost the corporate database because of some messed up kernel patch.
But that is just me guessing.

You can buy just about any size machine from these 2 companies that
is both smaller/cheaper to larger/more expensive than what Sun offers.

Sure. I agree with "cheap".
Show me a 64-bit Opteron that is faster, cooler and less costly than a SunFire X2100.
Really. Anyone can make junk that is cheap and monsters that are massively expensive.
Show me a 64-bit machine that has more horsepower than an 8-core 1.2GHz SunFire T1000 or a 64-bit AMD Opteron machine with more horsepower than the SunFire X2100.
For less money.
Oh, and the Opteron gear has to be certified to run Windows as well as Linux as well as a real UNIX.
Good luck.

when I look at the top 500 fastest computers, where is Solaris in there?
Does it hold the majority of the top 10, let alone the top 500?

Take a long hard stare at my blog from a little while ago :
http://www.blastwave.org/dclarke/blog/pivot/entry. php?id=113
I count, what? 16 e

Using your logic SuSe Linux not open source enough either:

Have a look as the SuSe Linux license agreement, it contains the same restrictions:
http://www.novell.com/licensing/eula/sles_9.pdf

you meant Ximian Connector? it's been released under the GPL license last year. see this press release.

There is quite a few options that have good pro's and cons. Here is a few suggestions and my personal experiences. For a desktop environment here are a few suggestions. SuSE Pro Linux,
This desktop environment comes complete with a nice interface for installation. This includes the ability to use a domain for authentication information.
Pros: Good installer, Easy to configure, abundance of applications.
Cons: SMB configuration for Printer sharing is not simple nor easy but required to browse a windows network. Requires Lisa to browse windows base network. Apps list is weighty and can confuse. Will not play DVD's *(due to the DVD Consortiums direct actions.) The equipment and software is capable of it but disabled. While video games are not a plus for the Linux Desktop system you can get around this with Codega.
Novell Linux Desktop,
This seems to be a great alternative to the full weight of SuSE Pro. This environment comes with far fewer applications that the full beast of SuSE Pro and might need a few applications installed or compiled.

I would give both of them a go and see what you think.

The Novell Linux server is also a good beast but will not always play with within a previous AD environment. Mind you this has nothing to do with Novell's server product.

Hesperant
The Rainworks Project

There is quite a few options that have good pro's and cons. Here is a few suggestions and my personal experiences. For a desktop environment here are a few suggestions. SuSE Pro Linux,
This desktop environment comes complete with a nice interface for installation. This includes the ability to use a domain for authentication information.
Pros: Good installer, Easy to configure, abundance of applications.
Cons: SMB configuration for Printer sharing is not simple nor easy but required to browse a windows network. Requires Lisa to browse windows base network. Apps list is weighty and can confuse. Will not play DVD's *(due to the DVD Consortiums direct actions.) The equipment and software is capable of it but disabled. While video games are not a plus for the Linux Desktop system you can get around this with Codega.
Novell Linux Desktop,
This seems to be a great alternative to the full weight of SuSE Pro. This environment comes with far fewer applications that the full beast of SuSE Pro and might need a few applications installed or compiled.

I would give both of them a go and see what you think.

The Novell Linux server is also a good beast but will not always play with within a previous AD environment. Mind you this has nothing to do with Novell's server product.

Hesperant
The Rainworks Project

I believe that the extension is now free. http://www.novell.com/products/desktop/features/ev olution.html

None of the large IT concerns that I have worked for have done en-masse Linux desktop installs, by the way, but both had an approved "default" install CD-ROM image that had been sufficently tested (read that "tested tested and then triple tested again...") with the appropriate packages, etc. installed and all of the security settings tweaked and set. that it wasn't a big deal to get once the manager approved it.

Big problem was convincing the low- to mid- level managers to approve using it instead of M$.

I'm surprised nobody has commented on the fact that in the subnote for people using virtualization that they spelled Xen as Zen by mistake. Probably the person editing it thought it was a mistake.

I think that they might have been talking about Zen.

http://www.novell.com/products/zenworks/linuxmanag ement/index.html

> ...one of the major distributions to get behind KDE and push it a bit.

Like SUSE Linux? Or Mandriva?

;if i were a NLD user, i might enjoy subverting the 'designed for windows' decal with novell's version.

;treehead

And people who run the Groupwise Crossplaform Client (http://download.novell.com/Download?buildid=AULI_ HA9i4A~)

Isn't YAST already open? I know Mandrake/Mandriva has a solid GPL commitment.

Honestly I find it sort of disappointing that more distro's haven't taken advantage of these open gifts we've been given. Fedora with its clunky up2date and yum solutions is a good example. Urpmi and Rpmdrake have solved the problems associated with rpm's ages ago. YAST is a strong second.

Does Novell have horses in this race?

What team colors are they wearing?

I believe they are wearing green. They might be right, but their real intentions are obviously to protect their products.

Your in a Novell environment so use Zenworks to push down the necessary settings when the users log in using the built in support for volatile users, etc.

http://www.novell.com/products/zenworks/index.html ?sourceidint=hp_products_zen

Being a small house without a lot of support staff Zenworks can help stramline your support system with imaging support, snapshot(install) support, group policy support, application distribution, and much more.

Unfortunately this probably won't be read, but for posterity. It's absolutely correct to say that this is a farce given the criteria.

The solution to the broken installations and unmanagable patches is simply to reorder the steps. All this upgrading glibc and breaking things would go away and never be the "problem" that it's claimed to be. SLES9 was released on 8/3/2004, which is one month after the start of the "simulation" period, and 2 months before the M1 milestone of installing the "datamining" component. If the admins in the test were on the Reality timeline. They simply could have upgraded to SLES9 when it became available, instead of having to patch SLES8 in contorted and unmanageable ways, or going out of distribution. Since the "simulation" covered the time frame that SLES9 was available, I don't know any admin that wouldn't have at least looked at doing the upgrade from 8 to 9 early on. At the very least, I'd consider the upgrade the moment that a glibc change was necessary.

My last point, what's with the 187 patches? That must be patching some sort of "everything but the kitchen sink" default OS installation. Last time I checked, don't respectable sysadmins start with a simple base and add only what's needed? Don't respectable admins even pare down default installs that include more than absolutely necessary? This alone would cut down on the shear number of patches and make the system more secure. But if they did that then the number of MS patches would look too bad.

Firstly KDE will be the primary and default desktop on OpenSUSE and any future SUSE Linux releases. Secondly they will now ship the full KDE as a fully supported (and developed, whatever that means) desktop on all enterprise products. Some more details here.

I think it was the press more than Novell, but they sure didn't mind mentioning it in passing as early as 2001 -- and that was version 7.1!

Well, leave out raised floors and install servers on floor level then.
But remember, this is what happens when shit hits the fan and servers are on floor level.

Rebranded //and// extended. ZLM7 is much improved over Red Carpet Enterprise 2 and the first releases of ZENworks Linux Management. I know you (maw) know this - just posting for the slashdot record. :)

Red Carpet lives and breathes as ZENworks Linux Management. In fact //I// have posted a few times on Slashdot about that transition. The Red Carpet - now ZENworks Linux Management - engineering team are alive and well and working on the next release of the ZENworks Linux Management product line. [As an aside - I know Slashdot is renowned for the innacuracy of posts - but this one just seems steeped in Gnome/KDE politics... Gnome, KDE - I really don't care so long as it's not the Win32 Shell...]

IIRC, RedCarpet isn't quite dead. It's now a component of Zenworks Linux Management

Hells yes. I have about 40 Netware 6.5 servers, 2500 users in eDirectory, and about the same number of workstations managed by Zenworks Desktop Management.

Hells yes. I have about 40 Netware 6.5 servers, 2500 users in eDirectory, and about the same number of workstations managed by Zenworks Desktop Management.

Hells yes. I have about 40 Netware 6.5 servers, 2500 users in eDirectory, and about the same number of workstations managed by Zenworks Desktop Management.

Red Carpet still exists. It's only been rebranded.

Not only do those people look like zealots, I believe you are one of them too. Either you are new here or you are a zealot. Because...

You can't run .NET on linux
You can't run ASP.NET on linux
There's not an Integrated Development Environment (IDE) for .NET on linux
There's no commercial support for .NET on linux

So I am betting you want to bash Novell too because they support .NET?

http://www.novell.com/products/linuxprofessional/c omparative.html

Isn't there a POSIX layer for NT that would require symlink ability? This is probably just unused capability that is already built into the OS.

It is. NTFS already supports links. Soft and hard. There is just no easy way to create them through the explorer interface. There was a command line utility that you could download to make them though. The fact that you can "mount" a drive as a folder is the only visible indication in the current UI.

I couldn't find teh command line tool that I used to use, but a quick google search turned up this: NTFS Link

I don't want to start a war about "what distro is better", but have a look at http://www.novell.com/linux/suse/. their distro was designed to operate in a novell environment.

It's even easier than ncpmount nowadays. There was the novelclient (yep, that's the spelling). It was basically a front end for ncpmount.

Novell has published a nearly full featured client. http://www.novell.com/coolsolutions/feature/15402. html

They also have integrated Groupwise support into evolution. The native windows fat client is still better, but at least i don't have to keep a seperate box just for running groupwise. http://www.novell.com/products/desktop/features/ev olution.html