that would have been a pretty good fit for what they're currently trying to do. Make no mistake - Novell has some of the best enterprise management software in the industry. Linux definitely needs this.
Oh well, they'll just release their own distro of Linux now (called Netware 7).
Have you guys looked at MS SUS 1.0 to automatically deliver critical updates? It's kinda lame--not the greatest management capabilities--but it does work. I have a company similar to Thrive & use it to deliver patches to end-user desktops at several clients.
If you want something that's almost as rugged but easier on the wallet, check out a product called the "iBook" (pronounced eye-book) by a company called "Apple Computer." Pretty rugged.
"It looks like Microsoft is beginning to flex their marketplace monopoly muscles again, after taking a couple of years off."
when was this? I didn't notice it.
seriously though - after enough money and brute force (like Microsoft always does) they'll probably get their way, and we'll ultimately have no choice but to purchase Palladium-equipped BIOSes that only boot Microsoft-based OSes. Sure, there will be small niche players that provide computers that'll still boot Linux... and there's always Apple...
A good Directory Services implementation combined with "single sign on" technology will eliminate the need for so many passwords at the workplace. While Active Directory has problems with this, Novell's eDirectory (NDS) handles this quite well.
Doesn't do much for the passwords you have on your personal stuff on the web - but check out the Liberty Alliance for that--it's a "peer-to-peer" password management system based on a good directory--like Microsoft's crappy "Passport" system, but good.
I think you're missing the point -
This is obviously not an attempt to capture marketshare for Sun--they don't have much chance of ever being the powerhouse they once were, at this point. This is simply a project that delivers a _very_ Windows-y experience under LInux. The other window managers have some of the same attributes as Windows and are Windows-like, but this goes all of the way and even emulates Windows' icons--network neighborhood, "This Computer," "Documents," etc. haven't really been done in the other Window managers yet.
This attention to detail- replicating Windows functionality almost _exactly_ - is what will put this on corporate desktops.
We're not talking about what would be the "best," "most consistent," or "most efficient" user interface. We're talking about "what interface looks most like Windows?"
fvwm, KDE, Gnome & all the others _don't look most like Windows_ - there is no Network Neighborhood. These seem silly to geeky-types - but these are major stumbling blocks for people who aren't computer professionals. Sun has had a checkered track record in every thing they've gotten themselves into (and I would disagree - some of those interfaces are actually quite consistent with themselves) - but this one _looks almost exactly like Windows_. That's the important part.
This desktop is not targeted at most readers of/. - so don't judge it based on what _you'd_ like your desktop to be.
Linux will _never_ gain any major ground in the coporate desktop world until it looks and feels like Windows. Most non-computer-industry types do not like change--no matter what the benefits are. This project appears to fill that very important hole - something that's almost a Windows "workalike" while eschewing any proprietary Microsoft code.
This *looks* good, a bit cleaner than WinXP & it is laid out a bit nicer. Things like "This Computer" instead of the pandering, cheesier "My Computer" set it apart yet the thing looks instantly familiar to anyone who has used Windows.
Kudos to Sun for finally getting the desktop right.
like most open source things, you have to build it to make it work. eDirectory just drops in--and some of the surrounding pieces of it are either free or open source now.
Setting up OpenAFS/Kerberos/LDAP is a lot of work--and kind of high-maintenance in comparison to eDirectory. eDirectory itself is actually more advanced and feature-rich than even the three of those pieces combined--it's a loosely-coupled replicated database that's tuned for slow WAN links. It's completely object-based (LDAP is just an access protocol - Kerberos is just an authentication method - AFS is just a distributed file system--none of these really define the "way" this data is stored, extended, replicated & accessed) & can handle any type of information. It can be extended on the fly. It's kinda hard to describe how impressive eDirectory is if you haven't seen it in action on a big WAN.
I've always thought that was cool too - but in reality, I don't think most people (outside of geeks) care that file serving speed is 20-30% faster than the competition. Except on really big servers that serve lots of people - but how many of those are left?;)
Unfortunately, the faster file speed has been tempered by problems (lately) with NSS & the Netware client itself. So it's a wash.
SAMBA (and Novell's own Native File Access Pack - presumably built on that) actually does a decent job with this--and is now faster than Microsoft's own file serving routines.
I do wonder how they're going to maintain the extended attributes associated with netware volumes--Novell's file systems have a richer standard set of attributes & trustee assignments than any other common server file system I've seen.
as a (former) huge Novell fan who still supports a few Netware clients (& runs netware at home), I say THANK GOD.
I like the Novell kernel - but unfortunately programmers have gotten worse & don't want to take the time required to properly code drivers or modules for it. Everything runs at RING 0 - this means it's fast. It also means it's not a good market for developing software on it.
The Linux kernel has gotten Pretty Darned Good - with all of the modern features necessary in a state-of-the-art kernel. My complaint with it is that you can't scale Linux to multiple servers (from a management standpoint) like you can Netware.
Linux with Novell's style of enterprise management (eDirectory, cross-platform tools, open access to data, outstanding workstation management tools, etc.) would be a dream system to administer. It would also be innovative enough to handily compete with Microsoft's lack of enterprise management tools.
when did /. become a Rupert Murdoch company?
on
The Impending IP Crisis
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
These articles remind me of FOX news... total sensationalism to drive advertising & page views.
Whether you "approve" of NAT or not, the truth is that it is a very effective band-aid that has hindered the progress of IPv6 because it works so well. We'll be on IPv4 for at least another ten years.
Don't just sit there and rot--innovate. Do something your competition isn't doing. Find more markets. Geez, just because the rest of the industry makes their bread & butter on (questionably) charging people up the ass to support their own software doesn't mean you _must_ follow this model. Look at Apple - still profitable - very innovative - software is pretty solid & easy to use. They just keep making more of it--dazzling their customers. When's the last time Microsoft dazzled a customer?
Whatever happened to high values, moral integrity, "the right way to do it?" I mean, I know some people may 'claim' it's been beaten out of them by Dilbert-ish management, but it doesn't mean you can't keep trying. What's the point of work if you don't enjoy it? Quit whining and complaining - if you don't like your situation, go find another job--or start your own company and do it the right way.
(rambling... I'm thinking of writing an article on this soon)
I'm a consultant - regardless of cash flow or size, most organizations I've come across seem to fall into one of two groups:
"reactive" - organization can only think ahead 3-6 months, and are too busy trying to manage day-to-day to do any real planning. These are usually characterized by a management team that is happy with the status quo & is just trying to keep their heads above water day-to-day. This is MOST organizations! They often see technology as a cost center--a liability--a necessary evil they have to keep propping up once in a while.
"proactive" - organization has a much longer-term view & can adjust to new inputs in a smooth, methodical way. This is characterized by a management team that actually has a longer view of things--they see the "big picture" possibly several years down the road. These organizations are great to work for because they value your input & generally don't try to constantly override your suggestions. They see technology as it is--a tool to enable business to be faster/smoother/easier/more efficient/more competitive, and will pay accordingly to set things up correctly because they understand the potential return on investment.
Unfortunately, only around 20-30% of the organizations I've encountered are truly "proactive" - it takes a bit more work and money up front to think "proactively" all the time, but in the end you end up with a solid, smooth-running organization. This methodology always comes from the top down.
My clients are generally the proactive type because I've worked my contracts to be proactive--"reactive" companies don't see the value in paying to have someone maintain their networks, unless something _really_ breaks--and when that happens, they generally throw tons of money at stuff to fix it (always more than it would have cost to keep it properly maintained in the first place).
So I guess this also extends to software development. Doing it right the first time means never having to do it again; saving money & headaches down the road. This doesn't mean to say the quick & dirty method isn't always the wrong way--but it's _usually_ the wrong way if you don't want to have to clean up the mess later on--added to your existing future workload, of course. Short-sighted management is _wrong_ when they insist on doing something half-ass to get it out the door if you know you'll have to redo it later.
Of course, your local politics may vary. You might consider writing a short brief or proposal for your boss that explains exactly what you'll be doing--and how deviating from that plan will cause extra headaches/time/$$MONEY$$ down the road. I find that seeing things written up like this (especially if you can attach costs to it - you can generally get management's attention with actual figures) usually helps make your point. If your boss is constantly telling you to do things the wrong way and generally making your life a living hell, you probably need to get out of that situation.
as a sidenote, regardless of the economy, life is too short to hate your job. You'll figure out a way to make ends meet.
Do you guys actually believe everything you read on the web just because it's in article form?
Obstructing airflow: Not the best way to quiet down your computer.
Buying quieter fans with better bearings & larger surface area: much better way.
I fix computers for a living - I would never, ever do a modification like this on a production system unless it was approved by the manufacturer. I don't want to have to deal with the potential cleanup.
Yes, and he didn't say anything about how long he ran it in that configuration. These foam tiles have an INSULATING effect--anything that insulates against noise also holds in heat. Common sense says to check the temperature of the case a few hours after it has been left on, while running a make -j. Blocking the front fan ports with insulation would not lead to a computer I can trust to not melt down, in my opinion.
another stupid article that doesn't deserve the attention from the/. crowd.
"I know, I'll line the inside of my computer with _thermal insulation_ & block the air intake ports. I can't believe NO ONE has ever thought of this before!"
idiot.
I'm not too happy about the fact that Apple may have tweaked the benchmarks in their favor--but everyone does that now, so they're just playing "fair."
What's really important about these G5 systems is the newness of the architecture--each processor runs full speed on the system bus, which runs at 1GHz. That's very difficult to benchmark when you're just doing math, but this foundation seems much beefier & smarter to me than Intel's current offerings--8GB/sec memory rate _per processor_. Since Apple is just at the beginning of the G5 changeover, I expect we'll see huge things in this area in a very short time.
still does - albeit from a PIII or better with Netware 6.
Netware 6 still kicks some serious ass - it's easy to get limited-user eval versions to mess around with... it's still the only server out there designed from the ground up specifically to be JUST A SERVER.:)
Supports any type of client these days, too. Comes w/ Apache preinstalled, even... the list goes on.
Slashdot Mirror
that would have been a pretty good fit for what they're currently trying to do. Make no mistake - Novell has some of the best enterprise management software in the industry. Linux definitely needs this.
Oh well, they'll just release their own distro of Linux now (called Netware 7).
SMS sucks -
SUS will auto-send patches to workstations via administrative group policy snap-in. Set it up on each server.
Or get Novell's ZENworks. Even better.
"demonstrates (IMHO) poor judgement and journalistic integrity."
are you sure you're not new here? Slashdot has been judgement and integrity-free since 1998!
SUS works fine on a DC - it really doesn't have heavy requirements. I haven't had any problems with it in that respect.
Have you guys looked at MS SUS 1.0 to automatically deliver critical updates? It's kinda lame--not the greatest management capabilities--but it does work. I have a company similar to Thrive & use it to deliver patches to end-user desktops at several clients.
it shows that this is an objective, non-biased, politically neutral survey free from outside influence.
I tend to agree with _all_ of the results.
If you want something that's almost as rugged but easier on the wallet, check out a product called the "iBook" (pronounced eye-book) by a company called "Apple Computer." Pretty rugged.
"It looks like Microsoft is beginning to flex their marketplace monopoly muscles again, after taking a couple of years off."
when was this? I didn't notice it.
seriously though - after enough money and brute force (like Microsoft always does) they'll probably get their way, and we'll ultimately have no choice but to purchase Palladium-equipped BIOSes that only boot Microsoft-based OSes. Sure, there will be small niche players that provide computers that'll still boot Linux... and there's always Apple...
seriously... no more cards.
firewire or usb. that's it. preferably not even usb. everything can be adapted to the firewire bus. that's it. end of story.
it's an organization looking for a reason to keep existing.
A good Directory Services implementation combined with "single sign on" technology will eliminate the need for so many passwords at the workplace. While Active Directory has problems with this, Novell's eDirectory (NDS) handles this quite well.
Doesn't do much for the passwords you have on your personal stuff on the web - but check out the Liberty Alliance for that--it's a "peer-to-peer" password management system based on a good directory--like Microsoft's crappy "Passport" system, but good.
I think you're missing the point - This is obviously not an attempt to capture marketshare for Sun--they don't have much chance of ever being the powerhouse they once were, at this point. This is simply a project that delivers a _very_ Windows-y experience under LInux. The other window managers have some of the same attributes as Windows and are Windows-like, but this goes all of the way and even emulates Windows' icons--network neighborhood, "This Computer," "Documents," etc. haven't really been done in the other Window managers yet. This attention to detail- replicating Windows functionality almost _exactly_ - is what will put this on corporate desktops.
We're not talking about what would be the "best," "most consistent," or "most efficient" user interface. We're talking about "what interface looks most like Windows?" fvwm, KDE, Gnome & all the others _don't look most like Windows_ - there is no Network Neighborhood. These seem silly to geeky-types - but these are major stumbling blocks for people who aren't computer professionals. Sun has had a checkered track record in every thing they've gotten themselves into (and I would disagree - some of those interfaces are actually quite consistent with themselves) - but this one _looks almost exactly like Windows_. That's the important part.
This desktop is not targeted at most readers of /. - so don't judge it based on what _you'd_ like your desktop to be.
Linux will _never_ gain any major ground in the coporate desktop world until it looks and feels like Windows. Most non-computer-industry types do not like change--no matter what the benefits are. This project appears to fill that very important hole - something that's almost a Windows "workalike" while eschewing any proprietary Microsoft code.
This *looks* good, a bit cleaner than WinXP & it is laid out a bit nicer. Things like "This Computer" instead of the pandering, cheesier "My Computer" set it apart yet the thing looks instantly familiar to anyone who has used Windows.
Kudos to Sun for finally getting the desktop right.
like most open source things, you have to build it to make it work. eDirectory just drops in--and some of the surrounding pieces of it are either free or open source now.
Setting up OpenAFS/Kerberos/LDAP is a lot of work--and kind of high-maintenance in comparison to eDirectory. eDirectory itself is actually more advanced and feature-rich than even the three of those pieces combined--it's a loosely-coupled replicated database that's tuned for slow WAN links. It's completely object-based (LDAP is just an access protocol - Kerberos is just an authentication method - AFS is just a distributed file system--none of these really define the "way" this data is stored, extended, replicated & accessed) & can handle any type of information. It can be extended on the fly. It's kinda hard to describe how impressive eDirectory is if you haven't seen it in action on a big WAN.
you know,
;)
I've always thought that was cool too - but in reality, I don't think most people (outside of geeks) care that file serving speed is 20-30% faster than the competition. Except on really big servers that serve lots of people - but how many of those are left?
Unfortunately, the faster file speed has been tempered by problems (lately) with NSS & the Netware client itself. So it's a wash.
SAMBA (and Novell's own Native File Access Pack - presumably built on that) actually does a decent job with this--and is now faster than Microsoft's own file serving routines.
I do wonder how they're going to maintain the extended attributes associated with netware volumes--Novell's file systems have a richer standard set of attributes & trustee assignments than any other common server file system I've seen.
as a (former) huge Novell fan who still supports a few Netware clients (& runs netware at home), I say
THANK GOD.
I like the Novell kernel - but unfortunately programmers have gotten worse & don't want to take the time required to properly code drivers or modules for it. Everything runs at RING 0 - this means it's fast. It also means it's not a good market for developing software on it.
The Linux kernel has gotten Pretty Darned Good - with all of the modern features necessary in a state-of-the-art kernel. My complaint with it is that you can't scale Linux to multiple servers (from a management standpoint) like you can Netware.
Linux with Novell's style of enterprise management (eDirectory, cross-platform tools, open access to data, outstanding workstation management tools, etc.) would be a dream system to administer. It would also be innovative enough to handily compete with Microsoft's lack of enterprise management tools.
These articles remind me of FOX news... total sensationalism to drive advertising & page views.
Whether you "approve" of NAT or not, the truth is that it is a very effective band-aid that has hindered the progress of IPv6 because it works so well. We'll be on IPv4 for at least another ten years.
Exactly.
Don't just sit there and rot--innovate. Do something your competition isn't doing. Find more markets. Geez, just because the rest of the industry makes their bread & butter on (questionably) charging people up the ass to support their own software doesn't mean you _must_ follow this model. Look at Apple - still profitable - very innovative - software is pretty solid & easy to use. They just keep making more of it--dazzling their customers. When's the last time Microsoft dazzled a customer?
Whatever happened to high values, moral integrity, "the right way to do it?" I mean, I know some people may 'claim' it's been beaten out of them by Dilbert-ish management, but it doesn't mean you can't keep trying. What's the point of work if you don't enjoy it? Quit whining and complaining - if you don't like your situation, go find another job--or start your own company and do it the right way.
(rambling... I'm thinking of writing an article on this soon)
I'm a consultant - regardless of cash flow or size, most organizations I've come across seem to fall into one of two groups:
"reactive" - organization can only think ahead 3-6 months, and are too busy trying to manage day-to-day to do any real planning. These are usually characterized by a management team that is happy with the status quo & is just trying to keep their heads above water day-to-day. This is MOST organizations! They often see technology as a cost center--a liability--a necessary evil they have to keep propping up once in a while.
"proactive" - organization has a much longer-term view & can adjust to new inputs in a smooth, methodical way. This is characterized by a management team that actually has a longer view of things--they see the "big picture" possibly several years down the road. These organizations are great to work for because they value your input & generally don't try to constantly override your suggestions. They see technology as it is--a tool to enable business to be faster/smoother/easier/more efficient/more competitive, and will pay accordingly to set things up correctly because they understand the potential return on investment.
Unfortunately, only around 20-30% of the organizations I've encountered are truly "proactive" - it takes a bit more work and money up front to think "proactively" all the time, but in the end you end up with a solid, smooth-running organization. This methodology always comes from the top down.
My clients are generally the proactive type because I've worked my contracts to be proactive--"reactive" companies don't see the value in paying to have someone maintain their networks, unless something _really_ breaks--and when that happens, they generally throw tons of money at stuff to fix it (always more than it would have cost to keep it properly maintained in the first place).
So I guess this also extends to software development. Doing it right the first time means never having to do it again; saving money & headaches down the road. This doesn't mean to say the quick & dirty method isn't always the wrong way--but it's _usually_ the wrong way if you don't want to have to clean up the mess later on--added to your existing future workload, of course. Short-sighted management is _wrong_ when they insist on doing something half-ass to get it out the door if you know you'll have to redo it later.
Of course, your local politics may vary. You might consider writing a short brief or proposal for your boss that explains exactly what you'll be doing--and how deviating from that plan will cause extra headaches/time/$$MONEY$$ down the road. I find that seeing things written up like this (especially if you can attach costs to it - you can generally get management's attention with actual figures) usually helps make your point. If your boss is constantly telling you to do things the wrong way and generally making your life a living hell, you probably need to get out of that situation.
as a sidenote, regardless of the economy, life is too short to hate your job. You'll figure out a way to make ends meet.
Do you guys actually believe everything you read on the web just because it's in article form? Obstructing airflow: Not the best way to quiet down your computer. Buying quieter fans with better bearings & larger surface area: much better way. I fix computers for a living - I would never, ever do a modification like this on a production system unless it was approved by the manufacturer. I don't want to have to deal with the potential cleanup.
Yes, and he didn't say anything about how long he ran it in that configuration. These foam tiles have an INSULATING effect--anything that insulates against noise also holds in heat. Common sense says to check the temperature of the case a few hours after it has been left on, while running a make -j. Blocking the front fan ports with insulation would not lead to a computer I can trust to not melt down, in my opinion.
another stupid article that doesn't deserve the attention from the /. crowd.
"I know, I'll line the inside of my computer with _thermal insulation_ & block the air intake ports. I can't believe NO ONE has ever thought of this before!"
idiot.
I'm not too happy about the fact that Apple may have tweaked the benchmarks in their favor--but everyone does that now, so they're just playing "fair."
What's really important about these G5 systems is the newness of the architecture--each processor runs full speed on the system bus, which runs at 1GHz. That's very difficult to benchmark when you're just doing math, but this foundation seems much beefier & smarter to me than Intel's current offerings--8GB/sec memory rate _per processor_. Since Apple is just at the beginning of the G5 changeover, I expect we'll see huge things in this area in a very short time.
I am shocked. Shocked! I'm shocked that Microsoft would do something like this that wasn't in the best interest of their customers.
still does - albeit from a PIII or better with Netware 6.
:)
Netware 6 still kicks some serious ass - it's easy to get limited-user eval versions to mess around with... it's still the only server out there designed from the ground up specifically to be JUST A SERVER.
Supports any type of client these days, too. Comes w/ Apache preinstalled, even... the list goes on.
I still think it's fun to play with.