Prosoft Releases Mac OS X Client for Netware

JSherman writes "Prosoft Engineering has released a client that enables Mac OS X to connect to a Novell network. The client is pure TCP/IP, and is not tied with AppleTalk. Its been possible for Macs to connect to Netware Servers for a long time by using Novell's Native File Access, but this is a much better method since it's an actual client that will remember your user ID and password when connecting to servers, and it allows you to browse the NDS tree. This is great news for all of us that use Apple computers in the Enterprise. Mac OS X progress marches on."

Comments

How is this news?

[Auckerman]

MacOS 10 has had support for LDAP and NIS. 10.2 will have support for Active Directory. Now explain to me why I should PAY for a Novell client, when all I have to do is read some documentation.

Re:How is this news?

[Dephex Twin]

What's the point of automatic transmission when all I have to do for manual is press the clutch and shift gears?

Some people don't have the time, patience, and/or skill to implement stuff like netware themselves in a convenient manner. What do you think about GUI wrappers for things that can be done in the CLI?

If you don't see the use of this, you aren't looking beyond your world, IMO.

Re:How is this news?

[AndyDeck]

The news is that this is (reportedly) a native NCP client. LDAP/NIS/AD are all directory services - NCP is a file access protocol. Totally different animals.

This client is intended to permit a Mac user to map directly to a Netware volume without the old Netware (or Prosoft) for MAC NLMs, and without the new Native File Access pack NLMs - both of which, in different ways, forced the Netware server to look like a Mac server. A native NCP client goes the other way - it permits the Mac to use the Netware resources natively.

The advantage to the native Mac client is one less layer of indirection when accessing Netware-served files. The benefits should include improved security (relative to the Nw4Mac/NFAP methods), theoretically improved performance, better support for features such as clustering, etc.

In my opinion, Novell would be better off releasing sufficient information about NCP for third parties to create their own clients if they do not intend to write their own. I'm still waiting for the Linux equivalent to this client to appear, for instance. (as far as I can tell, ncpfs only supports IPX not native IP)

Re:How is this news?

[Auckerman]

"Some people don't have the time, patience, and/or skill to implement stuff like netware themselves in a convenient manner."

Then they should NOT be an admin. Lazy admins are the reason why many networks are insecure. This is not to be construed as an arguement against GUI's, which have their place, but merely an arguement that reading documentation to learn how to do something is what an admin is supposed to do.

Re:How is this news?

[frankie]

Lazy admins are the reason why many networks are insecure.

The Prosoft client is not for Mac sysadmins. This client is for Mac end-users in a corporate environment that only has MCSEs and maybe one old Netware guy. Folks who would otherwise be excluded from Netware servers because no one is willing to help get them connected.

That said, the Prosoft client is a bad choice for most situations. It's $149 per client, which rapidly exceeds the cost of buying Novell 6 with Native File Access (aka No Client Needed).

Auckerman, where exactly would I find the documentation that teaches me the Netware protocols, and how to convince 10.2 to use them directly? Right now I use FTP.

Re:How is this news?

[Dephex Twin]

Some places aren't big enough or wealthy enough to hire the best admin or even a full-time admin for their network. We all know that lots of networks are insecure and a lot of admins don't cut it, right? What do you think has a better chance of happening at this point:

1. All admins get their act together, and those who shouldn't be admins stop all activity, and small businesses that need new admins pool their funds and get one.

2. Programs with a more intuitive and user-friendly interface come about, making it easier for any person faced with the duty of setting up network stuff to at least have a basic setup without security holes.

Re:How is this news?

[AndyDeck]

I stand corrected, on both counts. The latest versions of ncpfs do indeed have support for NCP over IP.

I actually did know about the NCP documentation available through Novell's Developer Net - it's not what I originally had in mind though. Yes, it does document each NCP call - but (IMO) it hardly gives enough information to be used to generate a new client. Perhaps I'm just not enough of a developer to appreciate what's in the document.

The information is also provided under a restrictive license agreement that could inhibit its use for creating 3rd party Netware clients:

2. You may use the NCP Documentation only for providing technical
support services to end users of Novell products and to support Your
development of Derivative Software that does not: a) enable more than
one end user per copy of the Derivative Software to access a NetWare
server; or, b) provide NetWare server functions.

I can see where they are coming from... and given that ncpfs does now have the necessary IP support, and Novell has even gone so far as to donate some time from one of their engineers to improving Ethereal's NCP decoder, I don't really have any objections.

Re:How is this news?

[AndyDeck]

>cimetmc said:
>Actually, I read this as client software development being allowed using this documentation. What is not allowed is using to documentation to write some kind of gateway that would allow multiple users to connect to the server over a single connection, thus bypassing the server licensing, plus the implementation of an NCP server.

Yes, that is the strict interpretation... but remember, lawyers interpret licenses, not people. The license does permit client development given the above two restrictions - but those are enough to (IMO, IANAL, etc) prohibit this documentation's use to create GPL'd software.
I just checked, and 1) ncpfs IS GPL'd, and 2) the author does not seem to have used Novell's documentation in the development of ncpfs. Why? Because ncpfs will permit you to mount a Netware volume at an arbitrary Linux mount point, and permit any Linux user to use files on that volume. This explicitly violates the NCP Documentation license at 2a.
And this is what I had in mind when I suggested that Novell would be better off making client documentation freely available - but as I said in my last message, the fact that ncpfs exists, is GPL'd, and contains IP support satisfies my needs. But this was only possible through the use of third party documentation (including some of Caldera's work), reverse engineering, and (in the USA) the expiration of the RSA patents...
As for the relevance of this all to this story, ncpfs can't be used on older Mac's, although it could conceivably be ported to OSX. Hence the importance of Prosoft finally updating their client to support modern (IP-only) Netware servers. The rub of course is that the new client is OSX only, so older Macs are stuck with IPX (old Prosoft client), Appletalk (NW4Mac on NW4 or Prosoft NLMs on NW5), or NFAP on NW5.1 or NW6.

Platform potpourri

[Mr.Intel]

Not only can you get a NetWare client for the MAC (OS X) but you can download the demo from an ASP page. For those who don't want to bother with the reg info, here is the link to download it directly. The serial they gave me was 9602-3082-0060-5950-2. I assume it is time limited or some such other nonsense.

maybe not, skippy

[stego]

Both of my 'real jobs' have had Netware networks. I don't like Netware, but having a Mac client is a good thing.

Re:It's dead, Jim.

[GeorgeH]

Space offers virtual desktops for OS X (kinda) and it's open source.

Re:It's dead, Jim.

[feldsteins]

There's more Mac users who know what it is to not be able to log onto a NetWare server than who know what "virtual desktops" even are

Netware 6 needs no client software

[guanxi]

At least, that's what Novell and the reviewers say.

Re:Netware 6 needs no client software

[AndyDeck]

This is true, if you use the Native File Access Pack, is included free with NW6. However, as I noted in a previous message, the NFAP is an additional protocol layer, similar in function to Samba. It re-exports native Netware volumes over alternate protocols - CIFS (Windows), NFS (*ix), and AFP (Mac) - all over IP.

The biggest difference for me is security & passwords, but then I'm a directory services geek. NFAP authentication by design uses a separate password hash than NCP authentication. A native NCP client uses RSA-licenses public/private key encryption to protect passwords - CIFS, AFP, and NFS do not. Therefore NFAP is designed to have a separate password for these protocols to protect the native password. The NFAP password is usually still protected by some kind of hash algorithm, but this is not as secure as the NCP methods.

But one of Novell's latest mantras is anywhere anytime access to your data, so they include NFAP as a least-common-denominator.

V Desk Top

[ellem]

Code Tek makes one it is excellent. It's 20USD and worth every penny.

You go here Now!

Re:It's dead, Jim.

[MochaMan]

Now focus-follows-mouse for MacOS X, that would be something to shout about

Not gonna happen. Not even possible, in fact. Why? Well the Mac Menu bar sits on the top of the screen, not under the title bar of each window. So moving the mouse from a window in one application to a window in another application would require the menu bar to switch to the other application's menu bar, otherwise the user is left with the uncomfortable (and not at all user-friendly) situation of having Application A's menu bar while working in Application B's window. But it gets worse. Assuming, for the above reasons, that the menu bar has to change when you mouse over another application's window, you're in for a nightmare if you use the menus (and why have menus if you aren't going to use them?). Every time you move the mouse to the menu bar, you have to move the mouse pointer out of the Application's window. And if you have any other windows open in the background from another application, your menu bar is going to magically change every time you move the mouse up to the menu bar, defeating the purpose and causing much swearing.

You could do all sorts of hacks around this, like time-delayed menu-bar switching, but the fact is, the whole metaphor just doesn't work on a Mac. Focus follows mouse is also pretty confusing to most users, since their experience generally comes from either the Mac or Windows world, neither of which has focus follows mouse (actually, you can turn it on in Windows through a registry hack, same goes for tab-completion on the command line). The intended audience of this feature would be UNIX converts, but because of the menu bar deal, they'd be just as annoyed as Mac users. That's why I doubt we'll ever see this in the Mac OS, even as an option.

Now, on my FreeBSD boxes I tend to use focus follows mouse with sloppy focus, and I like it, but it just doesn't work under the Mac OS metaphor, not that I mind.