Slashdot Mirror
Novell's Race Against Time
DiamondGeezer writes "The Guardian newspaper in the UK reports in 'It's a race against time' that Novell is on a knife-edge financially and competitively, having placed a huge one-way bet in the success of its Linux strategy. But there's no guarantee of success: its revenue from Linux licensing is puny, and it faces a crowded market of Linux distros. Novell may be getting some positive press now that it's gone full tilt for Linux, but let's remember the reasons why: because of mis-steps of its previous management (especially the disastrous acquisition of WordPerfect in the mid 1990s) and its failure to grow its Netware business (with more than a little help from Microsoft), it's now having to re-engineer itself for Linux."
How does Novell expect to remain competitive in the world of free linux. Especially with RedHat dominating the paid business sector.
They were one of the pioneers of many technologies available today. It will be sad to watch their slow painful death.
--
NoVA Underground: Where Northern Virginia comes out to play
Last post before the dreaded Slashdot April Fools articles are submitted.
wtf use would a few apple apps be to a linux user? christ, the only good things in Mac are open source apps anyway. You want Novell to PAY MORE for things like apache, postfix and samba?
Since their awful work of the past, novell have made a considerable step towards knocking some Microsoft users off. I am an avid SuSE user having tried many other distros.
My Linux - (L)ove (I)s (N)ever (U)tterly eXPensive
Novell may be facing competition with a lot of other distributions, but I have to say that I don't see Suse fading anytime soon. In fact, in my experience, Suse has been getting more popular as of late. It certainly seems like the most well refined distribution I've used lately. Redhat seems to have left a bad taste in the mouths of a lot of Linux users, and I've never heard of anyone using Mandrake on a server, which really leaves Suse as the last of the major distributions with commercial backing (I know there are other commercial Linux distributions, but when I think of commercial Linux distributions, I always think of the big 3 as Suse, Redhat and Mandrake).
YaST is probably one of the best system tools I've used on any Linux distribution, and hopefully we will see some really great things once we see some (forgive the buzz word) synergy between Suse and Ximian.
Famous Last Words: "hmm...wikipedia says it's edible"
Is it sad that I miss my old, university ginormous NDS tree? Everywhere I do, it's Active Directory, which appears to have almost caught up to where Novell was in 1994.
This crazy world makes no sense.
dinner: it's what's for beer
I don't recall hearing that Novell ever intended to make a lot of money by selling a Linux distro. On the other hand, converting their existing products to Linux will save them a bundle compared to developing a completely independent solution. Most of what their stuff does is the same as what Linux does. They can concentrate on the things that make them different to add value.
I, for one, hope Novell makes a go of it, but the world is unfortunately a harsh place.
Engineering is the art of compromise.
Maybe Novell should also license from IBM all it can from Lotus SmartSuite, then merge the best of WP, Paradox, (if it still has any rights to WP & Pdx) into SmartSuite and then release the package to compete with OpenOffiice.org.
I am STILL not pleased with the document insert "feature" which, when I insert a document, it goes into a "band", invisibly. When I link to another document and then want to edit from beginning to end, I damn well should be able to SEEEEEEE those linked documents.
Lotus WordPro has done this RIGHT for years. 1.9.79 still makes me go, "sigh.... maybe NEXT version SO/OO.o will pull their heads out and actually BUY a copy of Lotus SmartSuite and start simplyfiying and mimicking stuff that works, instead of coming up with gee-whizz stuff that piles on to the list of features that have to be debugged, making it too resource intensive (on the devs AND the desktop) to be economical to go back and fix those useful features.
I also think Novell could pull a rabbit or two by adjusting the document interface so that a user in a spreadsheet can put the tabs wherever they want, not just get force-fed bottom tabs only or top tabs only. (Actually, I thought GroupWise offered that, or maybe it was QuattroPro...)
If IBM and Novell had some limited thing going on, Lotus SmartSuite could be diffused (not DEfused, mind you) across more Linux/Open Source environments.
I am not at all about "killing off" the various suites that OpenSource devs are making, but christ-o-matic, take a LOOK at what SmartSuite has, and gingerly, without ticking IBM off too terribly, clone some of those features, especially if IBM is not going to get its Lotus camp on the band wagon.
NOVELL, are you leesteneeng? Please, PLEASE, license from IBM/Lotus the Lotus and then uppgrade the Approach database interface, the Lotus WordPro document interface, and the Lotus 1-2-3 interface. They're crisp, tight, concise, colorful, not drab/gray.
At least Lotus isn't busy chomping away and cloning the heck out of ms' orifice. (Actually between Lotus and SourceNext ("Lotus SuperOffce developers/distributors in Japan/Asia...), I wonder what will be the next offerings to Lotus SmartSuite.)
David Syes
Previously: "Linux... Toward the Sunrise..." Now: "Linux... Toward the-- No, now, part of Every Sunrise"
What Novell really needs to do is merge unique features from Netware into Linux, and license much of Apple's proprietary code at any price.
Wow, sounds like a good idea. I'm sure Steve Jobs and Apple would jump at the chance to undercut their own market by allowing Novell to make a low cost Mac alternative!
Netware was very stable, and very easy to manage from a sysadmin perspective. Especially pre-Netware 5. In my experience, it was a robust networking and directory services package that enabled Windows to work (relatively) seamlessly better than Windows could do it. That's the caveat though, Microsoft's networking schema evolved and Windows NT 4 especially was the beginning of the end for Novell's flagship product. Once Windows could natively do what you previously needed a "Client" to do it was pretty much over. Microsoft's transition to TCP/IP was much smoother than Novell's away from IPX/SPX I miss Zenworks and the Novell Application Launcher that could be used as an explorer/program manager replacement, making deployment and managing a ton of computers easy. LANDesk is a lackluster replacement, IMO. Active Directory on the other hand is shaping up to be a very nice way to manage a bunch of computers, mix with Ghost and LANDesk, its almost the same as the old Netware suite. I think this is where Novell could make a real in-roads with Linux. If Novell is successful in combining Linux seamlessly (no "client" needed, automatic domain/tree login with user rights, shares, printers...etc) with the GUI administration tools of Netware, I think they'd have something marketable. Unfortuantely, RedHat's nearly beaten them to the punch. I think Novell is a lot like Netscape. Brand recognition is still there and Novell still has a decent reputation for solid products though the market share has decreased a thousand-fold. If they can bring something to the table that can be deployed easily, with out having to go through lengthy conversion and training processes for the people who have to deploy and manage it, Novell might just garner a bit more attention. Its not a last ditch effort, but its damn close.
I know what you're thinking. Did I forward 65,535 packets or 65,536 packets?
...but don't expect to see IBM buy them unless they've got something compelling to offer.
Novell does have their own flavor of directory services, which is appealing to large organizations who need it to run on a heterogeneous mix of platforms.
Is Novell deserving of the support that the Open Source Software (OSS) community can provide to increase the odds of success regarding its Linux push?
:) deserve our encouragement if we're in a position to recommend SuSE for various projects that require a well-supported enterprise-grade Linux distro.
This may be like the opposite of "guilt by association", but here goes:
We fans of Linux like IBM these days because they support it extensively and have given it corporate legitimacy. IBM favors 2 distros in particular: Red Hat and SuSE. They both get pretty even support with IBM's servers and software (WebSphere, DB2, Tivoli, Lotus, etc).
In addition, when Novell acquired SuSE IBM invested $50 million in Novell as a show of good faith.
So I think the folks in Utah (not SCO!
I might be talking out of my @ss, but the last few days I've been thinking that innovation and customer service have taken a rather bad beating by IP and patent infringement litigation.
If Novell really wants to do something besides take a dive in front of the world, they should take the talent that they do have, add a bit to it, and (as someone else almost stated) create a Linux distro that is not like the rest. A Linux that 'makes it easy' to put it anywhere in your network, run just about _anyone's_ applications, and has simple to use but well behaved patch management and update services.
They could also ship low cost versions of their distro that are tailored for specific applications such DVR, home-based firewall/proxy/mail_filter/u-name-it, game machine, etc...
I kind of hate to say this, but if my aunt Julie got a Novell CD in the mail, and it installed perfectly for her, let her get all her normal home user applications running with ease, they would increase their customer base.
All of the home users that I know of don't want to mess around with the OS on their $500 'Dude, your getting a whaaaa?' machines. They just want to turn it on, get their email, be able to figure out how to easily use their digital cameras, and do cool stuff on the Internet that they hear about from friends and neighbors.
If Novell really wants to be a 'playa' they need to make a user experience that beats windoze and AOhelL for ease of use, ease of adding features, and ease of keeping it secure from spam, spim, virii, and other malicious forms of those 'I don't know what it was, but now my computer doesn't seem to work very good' problems.
IMHO any OS that can build a 'tune-up' kit that my aunt Julie can use will be a bear in the marketplace.
Its not good enough to have a good OS, your product has to be part of a service, and it *MUST* be innovative and include the kind of customer service that people *WANT* to pay money for.
Yeah, I hack together my own machines, and for the most part I enjoy it... but I'm rare... the majority of people just want a computer that works when they turn it on... like their stereo or microwave oven.
They also want to do 'cool' stuff without having to be an MIT graduate (not that being a MIT graduate guarantees that you know how to do _anything_).
Well, the reason that RedHat got its customer base is because they more-or-less did these things for the corporate environment. With what is happening on the home desktop, SPAM litigation, the UN wanting to control the Internet... its all too much, the aunt Julie's of the world just want it to work as reliable as their toaster, and without the need of knowing someone in the neighborhood who is a computer genius.
If Novell can do that, they *WILL* garner sizable market share.... IMO.
Support NYCountryLawyer RIAA vs People
Can the company's benevolence lead to some source of income?
Does what they are doing make some kind of big-picture opportunity?
If this company is intent on competing with Microsoft,
Is there anything "cool" about what the company is trying to pull off... can it get beyond logic and actually make money?
Am I just in it for a quick press "bounce"?
Will the SlashdotEffect create enough interest to actually drive the price up? (It is possible... just look at Corel in the late 90's!)
There's nothing wrong with throwing money after a good idea... just try and grasp the big picture and see if things make sense. (Checking current fundementals doesn't hurt either, but that will lead to conservative selections.)
I would argue that Sun has done more work then any other organization with regards to OpenOffice, it doesn't seem to have translated into a large amount of cash. On the other hand, Novell does have a history of some great network management products, the Directory services spring to mind and I personally have never heard anything bad about ZenWorks. Red Hat would have nothing comparable if Novell were to whip them out and make them what I remember of them. I always liked the NDS.
"I use a Mac because I'm just better than you are."
It's nice to have been the first Network OS for PC's. The first guys to implement networks were invariably the biggest companies since they had the most to gain and the most resources to invest in a computer network. By default, they installed Netware. Fast forward 15-20 years and the bulk of these guys are still on Novell for authentication/directory services and probably file and print. Plus, since NDS works with anything, on many different platforms, there has been little reason for big co's to drop Novell - authentication to MS servers has been seemless for a long time.
Further, Novell is currently profitable and has a fat bank account. I think they'll have enough cash flow to finish any transition to Linux. With their brand name and history, they'll easily make SUSE the #2 Linux distro around (with a real shot at #1).
IMHO, what Novell could really use right now is a some really good integration of WINE into SUSE so that their new Server + Workstation bundles actually have a chance of being useful to the average company that has the odd Windows app that they need to run the business.
You know that if Novell goes down the tubes, some "industry experts" (read: shills writing for those magazines you get swamped with if you ever answer "IT Professional" on a survey) will surely blame Novell's involvement with Linux. A formerly big, profitable company dabbles in open source...and bites the dust. Therefore, open source is unprofitable. QED.
I had a lot of problems just getting it installed.
perhaps its just because im not the type to use the 'gui' approach to things, not that its a bad thing.
it either didnt have drivers for hardware that we needed to function, or had quirks with those drivers, or needed special treatment.
HOWEVER, that being said i installed it on a plain machine... and the installation was flawless.
I dont like yast, it was good for getting things to work, but I ended up in a console with a text editor editing configs anyhow.
the cups and samba portions in yast are just completely barebones.
the built-in kde conguration tool is far more powerful with regards to samba configuration than yast is.
I dont hate suse, it just didnt fit our needs, and upgrades failed way too easily. these machines we need, they are critical. I could not have a machine fail after an upgrade. after several of these failed upgrades i said enough is enough and switched the suse machines out with gentoo machines.
so, that why I switched it out.
it needs some more polishing, but granted some of my own personal preferences were trampled by it and thats part of it, for sure.
I will try it again in the future, I keep my eyes on most ditros, except for micro$oft linux. (redhat)
but between debian and gentoo and upgrading, I think its a tie. both do it very well, and with very little pain.
suse left me hanging more than once with a trashed system. either it didnt boot or it was really b0rked.
I say, give it a shot. it works fine as long as you dont have like bleeding edge hardware.
(like some sata controllers, ect)
All the comments on how Netware was so great make me laff. Read "In Search of Stupidity: Over 20 Years of High-Tech Marketing Disasters"
by Merrill R. Chapman, to get a good feel for why Netware went by the wayside. Its wasn't the 'suits' that killed them, it was the engineers. They had a bunch of egotisical engineers who refused to build what the market wanted. Yes, it is/was a fast stable file server. But thats about it. You couldn't really run apps on it. And when the clients of the world are all running Windows, and Netware is expensive and difficult to use with Windows, there you go.
As a former CNE I don't understand all the fuss about Novell. Their technology stopped providing value to companies and therefore stopped paying my bills long ago. Do any other former CNE's list that on their resume these days? Not me, there's no net gain from it. I always did like Novell, Gateway and others but time marches on.
When I think of Disaster, Linux, and WordPerfect, I think of their attempt to port the entire suite to Java. Attempting to capitalize on "write once, run anywhere," and wholeheartedly ignoring the reality of such systems, it ran in a JVM in a browser window. Unfortunately, the computers trying to run the thing couldn't ignore reality, and as such loading a heavily stripped down version of WP took several minutes. It also couldn't take advatage of OS API's, and had to reinvent the wheel many times. I've spoken to a coder from that project, who says it was basically a hell that they knew management wasn't going to let them out of until one or both of them were dead. As Corel laid the lot of them off, it would appear it was both.
You can still try out their beta if you would like, though ironically for a "write once run anywhere" suite you'll be hard pressed to find a browser old enough to run it.
The subsequent version of WP was recoded in C and C++.
The ______ Agenda
I never saw Microsoft give away NT Server or Windows Server back in the day or now. The MS server OS's are pretty expensive, when you start counting client licenses. They pulled that freebie thing with Netscape but not Novell. Yes, they were cheaper than Novell but thats because Novell charged too much for Netware, not because MS was giving anything away in the server arena. And the core software they are selling now (Linux) is free to Novell. So they should be able to undercut Windows Server pretty effectively.
I expect you're trying to be funny. But just in case you're not -- why then, my friend, you are caught in what is called (by author Harry Browne, first I heard of it) the "previous-investment trap".
OK, so you bought a bunch of Novell stock at $X, way back when, and now it's worth $Y (where Y << X). You could say to yourself that, well, it's really worth $X, and you'll sell it all (with great relief) just as soon as it gets back to $X. And maybe it will.
However, maybe it won't. To be in the previous-investment trap is to believe that it's "really" worth $X. In fact, what you have now is a bunch of Novell stock that's worth $Y, today, right now. You could sell it for $Y, and have $Y worth of cash in your hand.
So, the way out of the previous-investment trap is to ask yourself, "If I had that $Y, in cash, in my hand right now -- is buying $Y worth of Novell stock the single best thing I can do with my $Y?"
Maybe it is -- maybe the thing really is undervalued, and there is good reason to believe that it will return to $X, and even more. If so, relax, and enjoy the ride.
But if it's not, then the only way out of the trap is to bite the bullet: sell the Novell stock, take your $Y (and your hard-won experience), and spend the cash on something better.
(Obviously, this applies to a lot more than just stock; details are left as an exercise for the reader...)
First of, I used to be a big RedHat fan, but once I fired up my first copy of SuSE 8.2, I was impressed enough to look more closely. When I started working with SuSE 9.0, I was hooked. The engineering that has gone into SuSE Linux just simply rocks, particularly when compared to RedHat which *still* lacks a Yast-like toolbox and *still* has its head buried in ext3 fossilware.
All that having been said, one of the things I *LOVE* about RedHat is that nearly 100% of the software they sell is open source. That's why you can now download clone CD & DVD images of RHEL from CEntOS.org and WhiteBoxLinux.org. They compiled the entire OS from the source code RedHat makes available to the world for free.
I'm glad to see Novell taking on Microsoft again. The competition will only make both companies better. However, I am concerned that one of the best Linux disros on the planet is now becoming laced with proprietary software that encourages vendor lock-in and requires per-user licensing costs.
So, what's this? I'm going to be REQUIRED to pay a per-seat licensing fee for desktop & server OS software when 98% of it is open source? RedHat may be behind the engineering curve, but at least they aren't infecting their main product with proprietary code.
Don't get me wrong. I'm excited for Novell, and we'll likely consider their offerings! Personally however, I'm rooting for Debian/UserLinux, particularly now that Yast has been GPL'd. (Thanks to Novell, BTW) Open Standards, Open Source, no vendor lock-in.
- CLC
It's not just open source stupid!
... scalability, database size, license cost, standards based transactions and data handling...
And I say that with total humor.
I prefer to see more Novell in the marketshare whether it's open or closed source. Hopefully Linux users support will push them to open more technology like some companies have done, but overall Novell products are a lot better than there rivals. The eDirectory platform is better than Active Directory in many respects, including but not limited to security, cross-platform support (duh) and reliability
You get the picture.
If you were a Suse fan, stick in there. If you are a developer help out, open communication with Novell. Ignore the articles and push through the filter. Find situations where it works and implement it. I belive that eDirectory combined with what is now the Novell Linux Desktop will someday be a force to reckon with in the enterprise space.
If you've managed or designed a network you appreciate the technology Novell can offer you. I know many system administrators who would love to return to a day where the enterprise desktop isn't anything but an interface to work applications. I'd prefer a Linux desktop I could roll out with the features and security measures I want and be able to manage all the functionality at the server. It's the current Windows server sales pitch, but Novell's is better.
But then again, technology doesn't win in the board room. If it did Novell wouldn't be in a cash crunch now. But then again, I'm becoming a shill and ignoring some of the bad decisions Novell has made - either way, support them.
Taking on SCO would help their cause quite a bit as well...
Get your Unix fortune now!
Novell made a bad bet. Red Hat owns business Linux, and let's face facts; paid Linux is a niche market. The main attraction of Linux is that it's free as in beer. When it's all said and done, SuSe would have been better off as an independant company.
From where I sit, Novell's aquisition was right on the money. redhat may have been more popular in the usa, but suse has always been a very solid distro, and always struck me as more solid and finished than redhat.
I have several business clients, all of who were red hat shops, and most of whom are now suse/novell shops. I don't see anybody moving in the other direction.
As for the main attraction of linux, free beer is absolutely irrelevant to the big boys I work with. They buy enterprise linux, and support contracts, and depend on linux to do the job with good performance, high reliability, and no hassles. suse/novell has been delivering, and with all the best of netware and edirectory available in a data center grade linux, I don't see them going anywhere but forward.
"While I don't doubt that Novell has taken a large risk with playing "the linux card", I don't see them in any immediate danger of financial difficulty."
People keep saying this but I don't see where they took any risk at all. It wasn't like they had a thriving business and they decided to ditch it to pursue linux. They were desparate to have a product that people might be interested in and sad to say that wasn't netware.
Novell probably saved themselves from an almost certain death by buying suse but it wasn't risky.
evil is as evil does
It ran with fewer requirements, and also it was their networking technologies that was the foundation for NT Networking. The Client for MS Windows was based on Netware's client technology.
Bull. The only piece of Novell technology in Windows was the Novell client. SMB has nothing to do with Novell.
hello dear sirs my name is jamesh i are india (bihar) can u guide me install red had linux 9?
...if Novell is catering to destop users they have definetly found an untapped Linux market. My colleague is a Linux user/geek who gets a kick out of demonstrating to me (the only one of three OS.X users in the building who happens to have a desk near his) that his Linux laptop works just as well as my PowerBook. After trying a few distributions on three differnet laptops he finally settled on installing SUSE on an IBM box and then spent a week downloading software, tweaking the OS, flashing a whole range of firmware and opening up his IBM laptop a few times to muck around with the internals he finally announced: "See my LINUX laptop can do everything your PowerBook can!". Well of course it could. I never claimed Linux couldn't. My point, which he had once again missed completely, was that my PowerBook did all of those things from the time I took it out of the box and pressed the power button and the same applies to the Windows laptops the rest of the firm uses. That more or less sums up why people use Windows and OS.X. Things just work out of the box. and when it comes to my personal laptop workstation I simply do not have the time or the patience to spend a week or more trying to get everyting to work. If Novell can eventually deliver a Linux distro that enables me to install it on a laptop/desktop computer and just go to work without any further hassle I will use their distro whether irrespective of how evil they are supposed to be (they'll have a tough job out-eviling Microsoft anyway). And that concludes my rant.
Only to idiots, are orders laws.
-- Henning von Tresckow
Not to mention the fact that Novell's SUSE Linux server has about twice the performance of Windows Server 2003...
When you start running dozens or scores or hundreds of servers, that kind of performance difference starts to matter. Not to mention the license fees savings - but they are not as important as the ability to run half as many servers - which means fewer admins, less infrastructure costs, etc.
Richard Steven Hack - This sig is TOO GODDAMN SHORT TO DO ANYTHING USEFUL WITH! MORONS!
Agreed.
1 755222). Here's another interesting link http://www.linuxworld.com.au/index.php/id;16020781 22;fp;16;fpid;0
Being Novell they have street cred. Netware gives them a wedge into big businesses which no other Linux distro has. And I think they know and understand the businesses' needs better than any of the others, and have the tools to complement Linux to cater to those companies (Zen, identy management and such).
I think Novell and SUSE make a good fit. SUSE now has a desktop platform which they can work WITH, and not AGAINST.
They're clearly aware of it, and their CC EAL4+ certification was part of their plan, a certification which I think only SUSE still holds (among the Linux distros).
What the article could have mentioned is that Novell is proving to their customer that they can do without Windows, migrating internally to Linux desktops (see Joe Barr's http://www.newsforge.com/article.pl?sid=05/03/23/
Case in point: it doesn't seem odd to you to say "I administered Novell". Novell was so complex you *needed* an administrator! (I can't say "I administered my mom's iMac" with a straight face.)
Would you be able to say it with a straight face if you did it for your mom's computer and 100 other moms? I find it odd how you can compare one iMac to a box designed to serve hundreds or more people. Perhaps you've been disillusioned by the Window world where it seems to require an Administrator every handful of machines so you feel all giddy you can take care of more than a handful of iMacs with no trouble?
In the real world NT "admins" might be a dime a dozen, but if you need a dozen of them it quickly becomes apparent that you'd probably be better off with one or two linux/bsd/mac osx/netware admins to do the job. The major place where NT makes any sense are the SOHOs which can't afford the time or complexity of contracting out the local support company which handles all the other SOHOs in the area but can somehow live with someone mostly incompetent to even remotely admin a system who is responisble for tweaking the machine every couple weeks/months when there's some reason to fix, change, reboot, update, etc.
That's the big lie that slapping a GUI on Windows has done, to make everyone who can click a mouse with any level of confidence that they too are an admin. That's great in a fantasy world, but be hardly amazed at how this is a core reason why that now these "admins" are handling their SOHO's www server there's internet worms released in '01 that still haven't disappeared. Perhaps you'll realize one day as well that real admins aren't as worthless as you imply.
PS - Netware targetted SOHOs and was a slow target interacting with MS's little NT/9x dualopoly. It's only now that NT is making any headway into the enterprise (ie, large offices) space for servers replacying *nix of one brand or another. But Linux is really eating into this space as well as the SOHO space as well, undercutting NT like NT undercut Netware. The only space that Linux doesn't seem to have a strong sink into is the Desktop space, and MS more than anyone prays it stays that way.