Novell Upgrades ZENworks Linux Management Software

cfelde writes "eWeek reports that Novell launched a major new release of its ZENworks Linux Management software at CeBIT on Friday, with the aim of bringing management of Linux desktops and servers on par with that of Windows desktops and servers. ZENworks 7 Linux Management adds remote control, imaging, hardware and software inventory, a Web console, and ZENworks' automated policy management to make it a full life-cycle management suite."

Comments

Addresses Critics Wells

[bigtallmofo]

New features listed in ZENWorks 7 will really help to shutter the FUD in regard to Linux's TCO.

Now CIOs will have an even more robust product to be able to tell their MS reps to stop chanting "TCO" as a reason to stick with/switch to Windows.

About time

[Vidar Leathershod]

There are plenty of small businesses who will stick with MS just for the MMC stuff. I am hoping this is pretty decent, so I can get someone to switch already.

Vidar

What?

[Pan T. Hose]

Novell launched a major new release of its ZENworks Linux Management software at CeBIT on Friday, with the aim of bringing management of Linux desktops and servers on par with that of Windows desktops and servers.

Am I the only one who has been trying for years to finally bring management of Windows desktops and servers on par with that of Linux desktops and servers? I'm sure that "full life-cycle management suite" may be very interesting to anyone who employ cutting edge proactive paradigm shifts, but in the Real World administrators have much more problems with remote administrating of Windows than Linux (or BSD, or Mac, or Solaris... you name it) boxen. (Don't trust Microsoft when they tell you about Linux TOC. They lie.) So the question is: is Novell really relevant in the Un*x world? Hasn't TCP/IP won with Novell's proprietary networking technology? Don't get me wrong, Novell networks were great in MS-DOS world but the Un*x culture is much older than that, the Internet is much older than that. The most important question is: what does it really mean for Linux users, administrators and developers? And by "really" I mean without the marketspeak buzzwords. Which tools is it supposed to render irrelevant? (Because if it is useful, then it must be used in place of some other, standard, existing tool, for all of those areas have been pretty much covered for decades.) All in all, the choice is good, but I will remain sceptical until I see any Real World examples of the supposed superiority of those new ideas. (I am not holding my breath, though.) I believe that we should look at Windows if we want to make Linux ready for the desktop, but as far as the management of Linux desktops and servers goes, here the Windows should learn from us.

Critical need

[The Second Horseman]

Actually, deploying and managing hundreds or thousands of workstations in a policy-driven fashion is critical in a large buisiness network. It's the policy-driven part that's important -- it can really cut down on the number of people you have running around changing workstation configs. The non-corporate elements around here tend to discount these sort of things, but if you're short-staffed and faced with 1,500 workstations, managment and deployment are huge issues. And up until recently, those tools for Linux werent there. They're not really there for MacOS. If you want to beat Windows, you have to not only match what the OS does for managment, you have to have 3rd-party tools as good as the ones available for Windows. And a lot of those 3rd party tools are quite good.

Re:Critical need

[Ed Avis]

On Unix-like systems most of the policy is determined by config files in a user's home directory, which will be the same across all systems. Then there is a small amount of per-system configuration like X server configuration and who is allowed to log in, which can be done by distributing out config files to each host with an overnight cron job. What remains is configuring which software is installed, which is fairly easy to do by setting up a custom repository with yum/apt/smart/whatever.

I must be missing the point here - what is involved in managing desktops in a 'policy-driven fashion'? Perhaps it is more difficult if you can't assume that 99% of the desktop machines have almost identical settings.

To put things another way: hundreds of universities have big networks of Linux desktops, with a varied range of applications and hardware configurations. I don't think many of them shell out for expensive 'policy-driven' tools, yet they manage to enforce sensible policies in the face of fairly hostile and ingenious users (students). I understand the need for extra tools when administering Windows because Windows configuration is otherwise so fiddly and obscure. But I don't see what extra these tools bring to Unix.

Removes last excuse for Linux on Desktop

[Anonymous Coward]

For Novell shops this removes the (second to) last major excuse that they had to not run Linux on the desktop: desktop management. This is a very big deal and a very big day for Linux on the corporate desktop (although many Slashdotters may not recognize it).

The ground under Microsoft's castle is shifting.

The final problem is the agreements that MS has with the large PC OEMs (Does anyone _not_ buy Dell for corporate desktops?). MS will continue to (ab)use their monopoly power in this regard. Try to buy 1,000 Linux desktops and see how much you save over buying Windows: not very much, eh? Now look at how much the OEMs are paying MS for each Windows licence that they sell...

The winning punch for Linux on the corporate desktop will not be up-front price, it will be TCO. Novell is rubbing it's fist and thinking about MS's Jay Leno-size chin...

Re:Oh, *great*

[Clover_Kicker]

> And why would we want to subject ourselves to that kind of difficulty,
> pain, and anguish? The tools that are already part and parcel of
> Unix/Linux are complete and useful for that.

Ever used Zen on Windows? There's a lot to like.

> All it takes is someone that knows what the hell they are doing.

Heh. In case you haven't noticed, there's a severe shortage of people who know what the hell they're doing.

Re:wtf?

[asdfghjklqwertyuiop]

It's a little of a different mindset but not that big. The nice thing about Linux is that since they are human readable files there is no singular point of failure (i.e if registry corrupts) but the Registry is still not that daunting and it can be backed up easily by backing up the System state.

Well the other nice thing about config files is the ability to have in-line comments and manage the files via CVS or something similar.

Re:to late, to little

[ezs]

Sure - if the customer is tying all of their management into Microsoft SMS 2003. The SMS/Vintela story is good if you have Windows guys looking to have some simple Linux management. Contrast this to the ZENworks story that says - "We don't mind what you have". ZENworks will run in a pure NetWare, pure Windows or a pure Linux environment. Most often it runs in a broadly heterogeneous world. You choose who manages what and what to install on and where to administer from.

Re:Absolutely

[morcego]

That is true sometimes, of course. But that was not the point I was trying to make.

I was comparing people with comparable skills. Just a question of productivity due to system resources, and the fact that you will have, in the long run, lower suport calls with a unix network.

Most people tend to forget a basic fact about Unix versus Windows. Their learning curves are the inverse of each other.

To learn basic skills, Windows is (usually) easier. But the more you want to advance your knowledge, the harder it gets.

Unix is the oposite. Harder to learn the basics, and keeps getting easier and easier to advance your knowledge.

Re:on par?

[yukonc]

I agree, Engineers and Admins that know what they are doing can keep any OS running well. We have 5 Windows engineers working on >200 Servers. Half of them Mission Critical apps to our business. We are very good at meeting our SLAs. So are the Linux, Unix and Novell Groups.

The Desktop support people have a much tougher time. They deal with Users. Users have the right to install their own apps, because they need it (political). Management won't purchase new machines (and OSes) for users because it is just too costly.

Desktop people are always going to be screwed if they don't get the support they need. It doesn't really matter what OS they are running, there will always be the user that needs root level access to break their machines.