With OES 2.0, Novell Moves NetWare To Linux

apokryphos writes "Novell's long journey from NetWare to Linux is finally complete, with Open Enterprise Server 2.0. Linux-Watch takes a look at the newly-released OES 2.0: 'Now, with OES 2.0, the NetWare operating system kernel, NetWare 6.5 SP7, is still there if you run it, but it runs on top of the Xen hypervisor. You can also run the NetWare services, or a para-virtualized instance of NetWare, on top of Xen with the SLES (SUSE Linux Enterprise Server) 10 SP 1 kernel. So, if you're wedded to NetWare and its way of doing things, you don't have to wave good-bye to it.'"

Comments

Skeptical

[PCM2]

Presumably the reason you are sticking with a platform that has not really changed much in a decade is because you are too risk-averse to jump to something else. That said, is swapping out your NetWare servers with "Nu-NetWare" running on top of a Linux kernel really less risky than just switching to Linux -- or to Windows with Active Directory, for that matter? If it's taken you this long to even consider replacing those servers, couldn't you have spent some of that time constructively -- by coming up with a longterm migration strategy that would enable you to minimize risk? Seriously, I have heard some arguments why NetWare is so much "better" or "more elegant" (or whatever) than a Windows network, but these arguments usually seem to hinge on some specific minor capability. It seems to me that you can get pretty much everything NetWare gives you on a Windows network with some third-party management products, with the upshot that your platform is not obsolete.

Re:Skeptical

[BitZtream]

Part of the reason netware hasn't seen drastic changes recently is because it was doing directory services and things like that for years. A lot of the 'neat' stuff that everyone else is doing now was there in netware 4, now its more of the same using protocols that are much closer to public standards, like ldap for the directory services, smtp support for mail, ect. There are plenty more things like this but I'm too lazy to go get a feature list and point them out. :)

Personally, I can't stand netware. But, the did a lot of the good stuff way before MS or Sun picked up on the concepts, hence they haven't had a major reason to make any massive changes. In case you haven't noticed, Unix, linux included, hasn't had any massive redesigns in the past 10 years either. Its all just minor updates to things along as needed to cope with new hardware technologies.

Re:Skeptical

[nip1024]

The Novell platform has changed a great deal in the last decade. I've been a Systems Engineer for 15 years in large and small companies and have had to deal with just about every server OS out there. So far Netware is still the one I would choose for most applications. Linux is just now getting to the point where I would consider them before Novell. Microsoft Windows doesn't even come close to the stability or security I want and Active Directory is a joke. I've worked with Netware servers that have never been shutdown or rebooted for the entire lifetime of the system they were on (over 3 years). I have yet to see a Windows server that didn't need to be rebooted several times a year.

For comparison, one company I worked for had 3000 users, 280 servers and about 3600 workstations/laptops. They were a Windows shop and had over 180 full-time IT personnel. Another organization I worked with, though not for, had 1800 users, 40 servers and about 2200 workstations/laptops but they were a Novell shop. They had better service uptime (email/file/print/web) and faster workstation services (break/fix/moves/upgrades) and were able to do it with less than 25 IT people.

Novell networks are easier to maintain, more secure and much more stable than a Windows environment. The only areas where Windows beats (soundly) Netware is in ease of installation and application selection. Unless you absolutely must have an application that runs exclusively under Windows, there is no compelling reason to use a Microsoft network.

Re:Skeptical

[Orange Crush]

Ummm, Netware was going strong long past Win 3.1. MS didn't really get their act together until Win2k. Even as just a file server, Netware was way ahead of windows with easy-to-manage folder-by-folder (if you want) ACLs. Heck, Netware 4 still plays nicely with Windows XP.

Also, any idea how much of a PITA it would be to migrate from Netware without having to re-do all file and user permissions? Yeah, there are tools, but I've never had much luck with them.

Re:Skeptical

[Ash Vince]

And yet it still soldiers on. Trying to get an old WP expert to switch is hell. No, it does not unfortunately. What soldiers on is the believe that WP5.1 was a better product, but WP for Windows was shite and I think most people who liked WP before then would agree with this.

The reason I greatly preferred WP5.1 was because it was not a WYSIWYG (What You See Is What You Get) word processor. Some of us actually liked the idea of What You Want Is What You Get. It might take alot longer to get used to a word processor where you can't just jiggle stuff about until it looks right but the rewards are far greater when you put in the practice.

The whole idea of a WYSIWYG text editor was a novel idea (no pun intended) but you only need to look at why no professional web dev uses dreamweaver in layout mode to understand why it is a failure in the long term. The results are sloppy. You end up with a document full of bloated markup that does not actually change what the page looks like, instead it just contains loads of elements that countermand each other.

eg: <B></B>some text<B></B>

Now most of the time this is just inefficient, but on some rare occasions it becomes an issue. When this happens you have a few choices:

1) Keep tidying up the document until you can make it look professional, unfortunately this can sometimes involve alot of tidying for very little reward.

2) Keep pushing stuff about in another WYSIWYG layout program until it looks right but is now even more inefficient that when you started (and hence harder for anyone else to work on). This still might take longer that expected (ie - quoted).

3) Bodge it and hope the client does not notice the minor layout issue you were unable to fix properly.

Since none of these are exactly ideal I would recommend thinking the choice through. I personally would recommend point 1, and since alot of companies are now crying out for websites where the code validates against W3C guidelines alot of companies obviously think the same way.

I know there are differences between an HTML page being as small and efficient as possible and a word document, but that doesn't change why I prefer WP over Word. WP allowed you to view and edit the markup directly more easily ten years ago than Word does today.

Re:Skeptical

[drsmithy]

The whole idea of a WYSIWYG text editor was a novel idea (no pun intended) but you only need to look at why no professional web dev uses dreamweaver in layout mode to understand why it is a failure in the long term. The results are sloppy. You end up with a document full of bloated markup that does not actually change what the page looks like, instead it just contains loads of elements that countermand each other.

It's not a failure at all. It allows people who would not otherwise be able to produce even a slightly well-formatted document, do so. For those who are genuinely interested in "proper" layout procedures - and have the discipline and knowledge to use them - the ability to do so is not impeded by the existence of WYSIWYG tools.

The only way WYSIWYG is a "failure" is if you subscribe to the view that "we are worse off now that more people can be productive".

Re:Skeptical

[rickb928]

Actually,most of what has changed about NetWare over the past 10 years has been new 'features': iFolder in particular comes to mind.

And I recall getting my NetWare 5 server running at home sometime around 1998, or was it 2000? I had my trusty modem autodialing into my own ISP bank. BorderManager as my firewall, happily blocking ads, logging the few (back then) attempts to probe my connection. I ran the NAMP stack (NetWare/Apache/myQL/Perl/PHP) and having fun. I ran Websphere just to see if it would. Tomcat, the Advantage xBase engine, Mercury SMTP alongside GroupWise. At the time, Microsoft didn't have all of that so well done.

Oh yeah, and my personal record on a NetWare server is 1300+ days. My home server ran over 960 days at one stretch. The story of a NetWare server being walled in by accident is attributed to a New York-based Fortune 50 headquarters. Perhaps the only other platform that can easily claim that sort of reliability would be the AS/400 series, which is also reputed to have had at least one server walled in and 'lost'. It was looked for only when the lease expired. I don't doubt it.

None of that really mattered. Microsoft was running NetWare over and backing up to go over it again.

The NetWare Client for Windows was bloated mostly to accomodate the problems of Widows Networking. For one thing, if the Windows AD client did a lookup for something and didn't find it, it would happily look 'everywhere else'. The NetWare client, if not finding it in NDS or Windows, stopped and said 'not found'. The concept of looking everywhere else when it wasn't found within the directory you had struck me as ludicrous. But for Windows, it was SOP. And cost you a minute or two waiting for the inevitable failure. At least in NetWare you got an answer in 2-3 seconds, depending on network performance.

I miss NetWare. But the fight is over. Just don't try and tell me Windows IS any better, even today. It's just more popular.

aixelsyd

[slyn]

Netware confirms it: Netcraft is dying.

er... wait a second

For the additional apps.

[khasim]

eDirectory
GroupWise
ZENworks

On the other hand, Novell has ported all of them to Windows ... but not to Ubuntu. So you can have all the Novell apps on your Microsoft network.

Anyone care to comment on how nice it is to depend upon the good will of your biggest competitor for the stability of your apps?

Problems Problems Problems

[mpapet]

That said, is swapping out your NetWare servers with "Nu-NetWare" running on top of a Linux kernel really less risky than just switching to Linux

Yes it is. I can test and deploy this easier than starting fresh with anything else.

couldn't you have spent some of that time constructively
I did spend that time more constructively. The boss said "I've got other things for you to do that will actually make me money. Don't worry about something that basically works."

hese arguments usually seem to hinge on some specific minor capability
It works in Netware and I can't do it as easily on any other platform. Don't denigrate something you know nothing about.

One of the fundamental premises behind your opinion is the "constant upgrade cycle" mentality.
Is IT's job making work for itself by breaking things that work or making users/systems more productive? My boss and I both choose the latter. That's why I'm happy and work lots of very regular hours.

The reason this makes sense

[flydpnkrtn]

The reason this makes sense is mostly because of driver support. Anyone seen any major support for new iSCSI SAN devices for NetWare lately?

By moving NetWare into Xen they gain the driver support SUSE Linux Enterprise Server will have, and at the same time create an environment that makes it easy to upgrade.

To the top poster - it's not exactly easy to migrate away from a platform like eDirectory once you've committed to it, and yes Virginia, eDirectory does scale better than Active Directory any day.

For those who don't know netware ...

[damn_registrars]

There is a good reason to keep netware on a network, if its already there, and its not just laziness or fear.

Actually, two things come to mind immediately - TCO, and the netware permissions.

From my experiences when I ran netware servers, a system could be thrown together for about $5-600 (thats hundreds,
not thousands...) that could serve directory services, files, and print jobs to 200 clients simultaneously without batting an eye, and do it nonstop for months. Its hard to get anything else to match those numbers for that little $$.

Though one of the true hallmarks of netware is the permissions set that it has, that I really haven't seen an equal to in anything else. IIRC, there were 8 different permissions that could be set in netware, as opposed to the 3 in *nix. It is particularly valuable if you want to use directory structure as part of your workflow - for example a user could have a directory where they could write, read, but not modify or delete. I ran this for a newspaper, and the utility of this should be quite apparent.

So just to answer it for all those people who are speculating why netware is still relevant - yes, it is. There are plenty of good reasons for people to keep it around. Though I'll admit it will likely become yet another good product killed by the micro$oft marketing machine.

Novell didn't kill Netware...

[angryfirelord]

...Chuck Norris did.

Yeah, we just happened to get 180 incompetent ppl

[nip1024]

I was one of several dozen people administering the Windows environment. This was from mid-98 through late 2001. We were using Windows NT workstation, NT server and I was one of the people who did the migration to Windows 2000. As of November 2000, there were still stability issues and security issues needing regular updates from Microsoft. Both of these things required rebooting the servers. I've seen several 3.x and 4.x Netware servers (from early to late 90's) that have stayed up for years at a time.

Also, it isn't 25 experienced admins, it is 25 IT personnel. I think only about 4 of them are experienced admins. The rest are techs, management, help desk, and web programmers.

The company I worked for had some of the best and brightest people I've ever worked with. The problems weren't because of lack of knowledge or skill, it was from a crappy product with scaling issues and ridiculous problems with security. The same problems many Microsoft products still suffer from today.

Since that time, I've worked in W2k environments, W2003, and I'm finally getting to work in another Netware environment. Strangely, even though we have 900 workstations and about 30 servers, we are able to provide all necessary services with only 15 IT people. Only 4 of us are experienced admins.

I've been in IT for 15 years professionally and another 10 years prior to that for recreation. I've also heard the arguments from zealots from both sides. The only ones I care about, though, are the ones from people who actually have in depth experience in both Windows and Netware. Of those people, the people who actually know what they are talking about, I don't hear a lot of praise for Windows on servers.

Just a few things

[Ath]

I've noticed a few fallacies in some of the comments that definitely need correcting. In general, people tend to combine arguments about Netware as an OS versus the services that have been bundled with it. Over the years Novell has been rather inept at developing , communicating, and executing a strategy on the inevitable migration from the Netware OS to something else. First they went through a period of simply supporting their services like eDirectory on Windows. Second, they acquired Suse and talked about parallel platforms with common services. Ultimately, it seems they made a rather smart decision in how they were going to continue to support their existing customer base that is utilizing Netware while giving a rather clear path to Linux. The problem Novell still has is that a lot of their services haven't been completely migrated to Linux yet.

1) eDirectory - Done. Has been multiplatform for years. Continues to be the single best meta directory repository on the market. There is not a single environment of any decent size that can get away with one directory to service all the business requirements, but eDirectory continues to be the best option for consolidating the directory data using Novell's Identity Manager suite of drivers and tools.

2) zenWorks - Pretty much anyone who has used it considers it the premiere tool for managing Windows clients. Only in the next release will they not require Netware for some of the components. The middle tier design and agent-based client make it a pleasure to work with compared to the fat Novell Client days.

3) Management tools - someone else already said it, but Novell cannot seem to stay focused (and enforce discipline on their own development teams) to provide a consistent management tool. They have gone from NWAdmin to ConsoleOne to iManager - except you still pretty much need each of them depending on what you are going to manage.

4) File permissions - The NSS file system is pretty damn good, has been ported and made available on Linux for a few years now. It still provides the leading access controls / inherited rights / filtered rights that other file systems should be ashamed of for not offering.

For sure, Novell is just as if not more screwed up than any other company. They have squandered many opportunities to reestablish themselves as a significant technology player, but they are hardly on the verge of going out of business. They are profitable and still growing as a company. Product lines die out and Netware has been dying out for years, but they are considerably more than Netware.