The technology the poster is referring to is called "Elevator Seeking" and was originally included in early versions of Novell Netware (and is still in current versions, as it really does improve access time.) Here's Novell's official definition.
Re:Windows Compliant / Posix Compliant Drivers
on
Compiling Under Wine
·
· Score: 1
Novell had something similar to this (SQL proxy) a few years back called SQL Integrator - however, it looks like it has faded into oblivion due to poor sales.
An open-source GNU solution would be pretty nifty. It would have to handle different feature sets & emulate certain commands... perhaps something with plugins to add support for different database types. (Novell does something similar with DirXML - a product that syncs different directory services databases with plugins that support each type of directory, such as ADS, NDS, LDAP, PeopleSoft, etc.)
Any CIO worth his salt would make sure this is communicated as a "no-no" to the users.
1) Documents & settings can be changed with a registry entry (w/ a.reg file delivered via login script, Group Policy (ADS) or ZENworks, for instance)
2) File servers should be fast enough that most users won't know the difference.
3) Quotas shouldn't be a problem if acceptable use & purge policies are standardized.
4) File servers (like filing cabinets) should _always_ be available during normal business hours, at least to desktop machines. Offline Folders (or better yet, Novell's iFolder) can be employed for persistent access to data while on the road.
5) Centralized corporate "search engine."
Again, this is really a technological "band-aid" with some serious security implications to a problem that should be resolved with proper procedures issued from the top down. A simple one page "how and where to save your data, and why" document issued to all users would negate the need for this. (And needless to say, a corporate structure should already have Group Policies/ZENworks in place for desktop management & some mechanism for disconnected local data access-- like iFolder).
Your post sounds like you're making an excuse for badly managed networks.
I'm a bit skeptical about this--users on a corporate network shouldn't store anything important locally, ever. Using something like Locutus to remedy this is simply using a technical band-aid to solve a training/culture problem.
"Ease of use and power are inversely proportional."
You base your whole argument on this yet don't provide sufficient evidence to support it.
iTunes 3, anyone?
"...recognising that the vast majority of computer users just want a system that works and don't care about issues of open- or closed-source and don't even want to know about dependencies."
This is sad./. continues to lose credibility points with me. Daily.
For years, I have trusted it as a relatively accurate source of industry info (though not always balanced.:) But lately it's not much better than FOX news. I'm really disappointed.
I really want to buy CDs. I often stumble across a new track or two of music from (Kazaa|Morpheus|Limewire) and find that I really like the band. When I check the price of the CD and find it's hovering around $20 I'm instantly turned off.
How can _anyone_ afford to build a reasonable CD collection at these prices? Frickin' special-edition DVDs "WITH EXTRA FEATURES" cost less than CDs!
Is the music industry TRYING to diminish sales so they can draw a weak link between diminished sales and file sharing? Are they purposely shooting themselves in the foot so they can figure out a way to litigate file sharing out of existance? (which by my calculations is not possible with today's technology.)
You would think they'd want to increase sales--but driving the prices of CDs up (and dropping the number of releases) isn't going to help. I can only surmise they're doing it intentionally.
Another great reason Apple chose KHTML: if they stuck with Gecko, you'd basically have a choice of two options for browsing the web. And Microsoft has most of the browsing market right now. Gecko would always be "that other browser that Macs & AOLers use." The more market share IE has, the more Microsoft can reinterpret "standards" as they see fit.
By choosing KHTML, Apple has agressively opened the browser market back up. Gecko already has legs and is finding its way into other software & embedded devices. Rather than pick this popular alternative to IE, Apple is now propping up a THIRD viable option. This gives much more competition to IE and ultimately forces developers to stick to standards. In effect, they're actually thumbing their nose at Microsoft in yet another way, saying "you can't control the web, because we've just created even more viable alternatives."
How about some concrete solutions?
on
The New IT Crisis
·
· Score: 1
Stuff like this shouldn't be posted. Andreesen whines about the problems in IT, then provides no solutions. (Though he'll probably follow up with some whiz-bang magic band-aid his company provides.)
Everyone knows most IT shops are overworked and underappreciated.
Can we be more constructive about coming up with solutions for these types of things?
such as: a) creating trade organizations of IT professionals - increases clout & sharing of ideas with each other; causes management to sit up and take notice.
b) forcing the hands of management to pick products that are actually _known_ to give a high ROI (i.e. Anything But Exchange, for instance. If it's known that Exchange is the most expensive & time-consuming E-mail system on the planet, why do organizations continue to buy into it when there _are_ good alternatives? Management needs educating!:)
c) training ourselves to DO BETTER.
I don't think most systems software (these days, anyhow) is necessarily that unreliable. Even Microsoft has caught up. What's lacking is broad-based inter-platform skill sets and the meticulous planning needed to integrate systems properly the FIRST time, rather than constantly tinkering with things. Magic software band-aids that "automate" these things will only add to the complexity of these systems and could prove counterproductive.
very well said, and it sounds like something I would have said anyhow.:)
(way, way off tangent) the thing that frustrates me about open source is that much of the enterprise stuff is still -not- as good as some of the stuff Novell produces... because most people are content to simply copy Windows features (which is all most people know.) It is _definitely_ worth the effort to spend some time with Novell's technology and see how good network management can really be.
proprietary doesn't necessarily mean bad...
on
Open Blade Servers?
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
why is there almost ALWAYS a knee-jerk reaction to the word "proprietary" by the slashdot editors?
Just because the blades are "proprietary" doesn't mean they're bad. They're denser, thus easier to physically manage and run with lower power requirements than other types of servers. Just because they weren't created by a committee of "free-thinking" open source advocates doesn't mean they're useless to companies who need more processing power at lower cost.
Seriously, the commercial market offers added value in their products that still lacks in many open source projects.
But it would seem to me that you're tired of the propretary systems and want things to go to POP/IMAP. You see no value whatsoever in groupware (as it has existed in the past) and are now trying to convince yourself, others, perhaps management, and now me, that groupware isn't worth a hill of beans and a system pieced together from a number of open-source solutions will be a better fit for what your users need.
Well, to each his own. I've worked with _dozens_ of companies in the past and they've used more than just "the e-mail piece" in the systems I've installed. It's unfortunate that companies don't place enough emphasis on training _in general_ but if they knew how much money they'd save in support by having clueful users then they'd probably jump on it. But your complaints still seem based on "we have these features, but no one uses them, so POP/IMAP would be a better fit." That's unfortunate.
Thanks for the link, Mr. Coward. That paper is interesting; it presents the state of how things are in many companies at the present time, but I think we can get past that. Most "average users" didn't know of e-mail five years ago; now many are demanding more features. GroupWise & other groupware packages were then, in fact, way ahead of their time if this is the case. We'll get there... but don't knock down a product because it's "too good" for your users.
Also, an _excellent_ resource geared towards user-side tips & tricks is Novell's GroupWise CoolSolutions website - http://www.gwmag.com. In the past I've found that there are key users in each group that _are_ eager to learn more and will take on the responsibility of "local expert" to train their associates. Some people LIKE learning new things.
Most of your points are "yes, we have this feature, but we don't see any need for it." If this is the case, you're much better off using POP3 e-mail. It's unfortunate that your users aren't receiving the proper training necessary to take advantage of a cohesive, integrated _GROUPWARE_ package such as GroupWise. Which goes back to my point: Most open-source people don't really understand GROUPWARE as compared to simple POP3/IMAP-based e-mail with Calendaring extensions.
Those extra features exist in GroupWise, and when used properly they can be a great boon to productivity.
Agreed - GroupWise *is* great. No one really cheers for it because there are such a small percentage of people using it (who _understand_ why its designed the way it is) compared to Exchange and Notes. It's really a well-orchestrated collection of small, well-thought-out design choices.
GroupWise actually fits in between Exchange and Notes in terms of functionality (more capable than Exchange, but less capable than Notes) but is actually (in my experience) easier to administer than Exchange (don't have much experience administering Notes unfortunately) and more reliable than Exchange (by far).
GroupWise does some things that have no equal in the open source world; the unified client with its Universal Inbox is a major one. The concept of an "item" with a type (rather than separate notes/appointments/tasks/documents that don't get along) that can be easily changed into another type of item is lost with Exchange completely.
Other MAJOR features missing (or inferior) in Exchange include: - FULL-TEXT server-side indexing of the ENTIRE post office database, including documents and all types of items (appointments/notes/tasks/phone messages/other third-party types of items/etc). This full-text indexing is turned on by default and is accessible in the client with one button & allows for a high degree of specificity. - The PROXY function that allows average users give one-click access to parts of their mailbox to other users, even across post offices and domains - Server-side rules that are ALWAYS server-side rules. (There are no client-side settings anymore; everything lives on the server. You can do local caching now for improved speed/less network traffic/offline capability & for "reliability" (like the post office ever goes down??)) - ROAMING PROFILES. A user can log into another workstation and as long as they are authenticated to NDS GroupWise will automatically load and access their mailbox PERFECTLY, without changing ANY settings on the workstation. This one really gets me. I can't understand why Microsoft makes it so fricking hard for a user to simply get up and walk over to another computer to get their email (or anything else, for that matter) without a bunch of handholding from a network administrator. YES, I am aware of the ways this can be done with Outlook but NONE are as simple as GroupWise - it does it by default! _That's_ enterprise software. (GroupWise even has algorithms in the connection code that go "looking" for the post office if it gets moved or renamed, or the address changes, or the station moves, or whatever... and it generally finds it.) - The completely RSA-encrypted & Stac-compressed post office backend is nice. Oh, and the client-server and server-server connections have ALWAYS been encrypted. Now they use even use SSL if you want. - The built-in transaction logging was a big deal a few years ago, but considering Exchange is still largely based on crappy JET technology, I guess it's still a big deal. - And the fact that the database engines (agents) RUN ON NT, LINUX, AIX, SOLARIS, 2000 and NETWARE should count for something! - oh, and the web access client in GW6 supports WAP, HDML, Compact HTML, PQA & std. HTML (with or without Java) OUT OF THE BOX. no third-party software is needed. - Did I mention the fully-indexed document management system with database-like functionality & user-specified permissions? - oh, and GW6 has other stuff like native load-balancing and fault-tolerance. GW was originally WordPerfect Office way before Outlook even existed, so the basic functionality of the Exchange+Outlook combo was there several years ago. Now Novell is basically quietly adding the latest features and enhancements to it without a lot of fanfare. And you don't hear about it that much because It Works. (And unfortunately, Novell doesn't have the equivelant of a Steve Jobs running the company)
GroupWise is a very capable system. I am totally underwhelmed with any of the open source solutions (or even the pieces) I've seen that try to duplicate groupware (all types). There are some great ideas out there, but none that I've seen so far come close to matching the rich set of features a package like groupwise can give you.
I will give up GroupWise when something better actually comes along. Believe me, I'm always looking (I'm not entirely happy with how Novell is handling groupwise updates & support at the moment, but considering their size compared to Microsoft they really aren't doing THAT bad of a job)... But no other product has surfaced yet that makes me want to dump GroupWise.
It's not magic - it's the right mix of very smart people combined with management who lets those designers (really artists) realize their vision with few restrictions.
...ever notice how Apple isn't constantly concerned with "make it as cheap as possible?" Sometimes it seems they're the ONLY company who won't compromise ideals in favor of cost; that's why their designs are so successful.
I'm just starting to understand why people immediately say "oh, I can't use that because I'd have to buy a Mac." It's a cop out; it's because their way of life would be dramatically changed. (hear me out for a second) These are the same people who spend a huge percentage of their time bitching and moaning about their computing experience, and generally (usually correctly) peg it to their choice of OS and workstyle.
What people fail to see is that OS X is actually so much better than Linux or XP that they really wouldn't have much to bitch or moan about. If they were REALLY serious about getting the "ultimate computing experience," they'd save up some money, dump their PCs and buy Macs. But there's a literal fear of things being so much easier that they'd have too much free time left over and wouldn't have anything to complain about.
My G3 iBook is the most reliable & most fun to use computer I've ever owned. And I use Win2K on my desktop, with Netware & Linux servers on the back-end. I have very few complaints about OS X (save for some performance issues which I'm sure will be fixed with 10.2 - you realize OS X hasn't even been out two years??) and eagerly look forward to buying more software for it simply because the experience is That Good. I realize now that I have nothing to complain about; I didn't like Windows or Linux, so I set out to find a better solution. I found it.
I'm not an AD expert, but you're saying the DCs auto-get their time from the "main DC" (PDC emulator)? does this happen often? I understand AD doesn't require timestamps for events... it uses GUIDs instead.
Client machines _automatically_ get their time from the local DC?
How does one control/manage the time synchronization with AD?
I was more frustrated with non-AD networks; NT 4.0 domains required the use of NET TIME/SET/YES commands in login scripts that weren't exactly foolproof.
Netware 5.1 server gets time from several NTP servers (i.e. tick.usno.navy.mil, tock.usno.navy.mil, etc.) and triangulates "correct" time from averaging out the sources. (Netware actually has the most intricate and cool time synchronization system built-in because NDS depends heavily on accurate timestamps)
Windows-based workstations automatically set clock to time on Netware server using Novell-supplied file client software (Client32) when they login.
Linux boxes get time from Netware server using NTP.
MacOSX laptop gets time from Apple using NTP (it's mobile & physically travels to many different networks.:)
btw, Microsoft has no concept of time synchronization. Throwing an NTP client into Win2K & WinXP isn't exactly what I'd call "enterprise-class time synchronization." I've struggled for years using a variety of techniques to keep clocks accurate on mid-sized Windows-based networks. Novell by _default_ synchronizes the local PC clock with the main login server. You actually have to override this feature if you want to do it yourself. It saves so much effort...
It's not a matter of "if" this will come to pass, but "when." Microsoft and Intel have incredible inertia and mindshare with the masses.
This all has very dire and serious implications.
What are the best ways to combat this? Even if a "few" people switch to Linux, if a majority of people are equipped with this technology they literally won't be able to exchange data with open source systems at all.
I think the point of the article isn't so much whether Mozilla will beat IE for general use... it focuses on the REAL advantage of Mozilla; that is, the use of the Gecko engine in lots of other devices and scenarios.
It will be interesting to see Gecko slowly supplant IE as the engine of choice for all non-MS companies who need to render HTML.
Win2K is an improvement over WinNT, but I'd still use NW4.11 over Win2K - feature for feature they're about the same (actually, NW4.11 is slightly more advanced in some respects.) If you need good IP support though, use NW5.x or better. NW6 these days has loads of really innovative features tacked onto it... Win2K is pretty "utilitarian" in comparison.
a whole bunch of geeks with no business sense complain again and again about how evil Microsoft is and how Linux is the answer, and "gosh darn it, corporate American should switch to it if they know what's right for them."
Finally, at least one group has come up with a way to make Linux palatable to mid- to large-sized corporate environments by extending it in such a way that coporporations can better get their minds & wallets around it.
And yet the geeks complain, because it's not the way they want it done. Does anyone really have a better idea? Do you really want Linux to continue to be a niche operating system just because it makes you feel "cooler" than the rest of the world?
Groups such as UnitedLinux (and RedHat, to a lesser extent) should get the full support of the very same community that has been pushing for widespread Linux adoption anyways.
Netware's file system (& NDS-linked trustee system) is one of my reasons for sticking by Netware... it really does make so much more sense than almost everything else out there. Rights simply "flow" down the hierarchy... plus you have a lot more attributes available, and it's not an "all or nothing" deal like Unix... you could give every user on your network a different set of rights to a file.
It's too bad that your GroupWise system sounds like it's so badly set up and run... I actually think GroupWise is the best thing since sliced bread. It's extremely flexible and stable when compared to MS Exchange/Outlook, and pretty impervious to viruses. If your GroupWise system isn't stable, then it's time to get a new e-mail administrator who knows what the hell they're doing.
Plus, it's a breeze to manage because of its integration with NDS.
It's really too bad you haven't had a better experience with it.
Slashdot Mirror
The technology the poster is referring to is called "Elevator Seeking" and was originally included in early versions of Novell Netware (and is still in current versions, as it really does improve access time.) Here's Novell's official definition.
Novell had something similar to this (SQL proxy) a few years back called SQL Integrator - however, it looks like it has faded into oblivion due to poor sales. An open-source GNU solution would be pretty nifty. It would have to handle different feature sets & emulate certain commands... perhaps something with plugins to add support for different database types. (Novell does something similar with DirXML - a product that syncs different directory services databases with plugins that support each type of directory, such as ADS, NDS, LDAP, PeopleSoft, etc.)
Any CIO worth his salt would make sure this is communicated as a "no-no" to the users. 1) Documents & settings can be changed with a registry entry (w/ a .reg file delivered via login script, Group Policy (ADS) or ZENworks, for instance)
2) File servers should be fast enough that most users won't know the difference.
3) Quotas shouldn't be a problem if acceptable use & purge policies are standardized.
4) File servers (like filing cabinets) should _always_ be available during normal business hours, at least to desktop machines. Offline Folders (or better yet, Novell's iFolder) can be employed for persistent access to data while on the road.
5) Centralized corporate "search engine."
Again, this is really a technological "band-aid" with some serious security implications to a problem that should be resolved with proper procedures issued from the top down. A simple one page "how and where to save your data, and why" document issued to all users would negate the need for this. (And needless to say, a corporate structure should already have Group Policies/ZENworks in place for desktop management & some mechanism for disconnected local data access-- like iFolder).
Your post sounds like you're making an excuse for badly managed networks.
I'm a bit skeptical about this--users on a corporate network shouldn't store anything important locally, ever. Using something like Locutus to remedy this is simply using a technical band-aid to solve a training/culture problem.
"Ease of use and power are inversely proportional." You base your whole argument on this yet don't provide sufficient evidence to support it. iTunes 3, anyone?
I can't believe I just read this on slashdot:
"...recognising that the vast majority of computer users just want a system that works and don't care about issues of open- or closed-source and don't even want to know about dependencies."
This is sad. /. continues to lose credibility points with me. Daily.
:) But lately it's not much better than FOX news. I'm really disappointed.
For years, I have trusted it as a relatively accurate source of industry info (though not always balanced.
The terrorists have won.
I really want to buy CDs. I often stumble across a new track or two of music from (Kazaa|Morpheus|Limewire) and find that I really like the band. When I check the price of the CD and find it's hovering around $20 I'm instantly turned off.
How can _anyone_ afford to build a reasonable CD collection at these prices? Frickin' special-edition DVDs "WITH EXTRA FEATURES" cost less than CDs!
Is the music industry TRYING to diminish sales so they can draw a weak link between diminished sales and file sharing? Are they purposely shooting themselves in the foot so they can figure out a way to litigate file sharing out of existance? (which by my calculations is not possible with today's technology.)
You would think they'd want to increase sales--but driving the prices of CDs up (and dropping the number of releases) isn't going to help. I can only surmise they're doing it intentionally.
Another great reason Apple chose KHTML: if they stuck with Gecko, you'd basically have a choice of two options for browsing the web. And Microsoft has most of the browsing market right now. Gecko would always be "that other browser that Macs & AOLers use." The more market share IE has, the more Microsoft can reinterpret "standards" as they see fit.
By choosing KHTML, Apple has agressively opened the browser market back up. Gecko already has legs and is finding its way into other software & embedded devices. Rather than pick this popular alternative to IE, Apple is now propping up a THIRD viable option. This gives much more competition to IE and ultimately forces developers to stick to standards. In effect, they're actually thumbing their nose at Microsoft in yet another way, saying "you can't control the web, because we've just created even more viable alternatives."
Stuff like this shouldn't be posted. Andreesen whines about the problems in IT, then provides no solutions. (Though he'll probably follow up with some whiz-bang magic band-aid his company provides.)
:)
Everyone knows most IT shops are overworked and underappreciated.
Can we be more constructive about coming up with solutions for these types of things?
such as:
a) creating trade organizations of IT professionals - increases clout & sharing of ideas with each other; causes management to sit up and take notice.
b) forcing the hands of management to pick products that are actually _known_ to give a high ROI (i.e. Anything But Exchange, for instance. If it's known that Exchange is the most expensive & time-consuming E-mail system on the planet, why do organizations continue to buy into it when there _are_ good alternatives? Management needs educating!
c) training ourselves to DO BETTER.
I don't think most systems software (these days, anyhow) is necessarily that unreliable. Even Microsoft has caught up. What's lacking is broad-based inter-platform skill sets and the meticulous planning needed to integrate systems properly the FIRST time, rather than constantly tinkering with things. Magic software band-aids that "automate" these things will only add to the complexity of these systems and could prove counterproductive.
(way, way off tangent) the thing that frustrates me about open source is that much of the enterprise stuff is still -not- as good as some of the stuff Novell produces... because most people are content to simply copy Windows features (which is all most people know.) It is _definitely_ worth the effort to spend some time with Novell's technology and see how good network management can really be.
Just because the blades are "proprietary" doesn't mean they're bad. They're denser, thus easier to physically manage and run with lower power requirements than other types of servers. Just because they weren't created by a committee of "free-thinking" open source advocates doesn't mean they're useless to companies who need more processing power at lower cost.
Seriously, the commercial market offers added value in their products that still lacks in many open source projects.
But it would seem to me that you're tired of the propretary systems and want things to go to POP/IMAP. You see no value whatsoever in groupware (as it has existed in the past) and are now trying to convince yourself, others, perhaps management, and now me, that groupware isn't worth a hill of beans and a system pieced together from a number of open-source solutions will be a better fit for what your users need.
Well, to each his own. I've worked with _dozens_ of companies in the past and they've used more than just "the e-mail piece" in the systems I've installed. It's unfortunate that companies don't place enough emphasis on training _in general_ but if they knew how much money they'd save in support by having clueful users then they'd probably jump on it. But your complaints still seem based on "we have these features, but no one uses them, so POP/IMAP would be a better fit." That's unfortunate.
Thanks for the link, Mr. Coward. That paper is interesting; it presents the state of how things are in many companies at the present time, but I think we can get past that. Most "average users" didn't know of e-mail five years ago; now many are demanding more features. GroupWise & other groupware packages were then, in fact, way ahead of their time if this is the case. We'll get there... but don't knock down a product because it's "too good" for your users.
Also, an _excellent_ resource geared towards user-side tips & tricks is Novell's GroupWise CoolSolutions website - http://www.gwmag.com. In the past I've found that there are key users in each group that _are_ eager to learn more and will take on the responsibility of "local expert" to train their associates. Some people LIKE learning new things.
Those extra features exist in GroupWise, and when used properly they can be a great boon to productivity.
GroupWise *is* great. No one really cheers for it because there are such a small percentage of people using it (who _understand_ why its designed the way it is) compared to Exchange and Notes. It's really a well-orchestrated collection of small, well-thought-out design choices.
GroupWise actually fits in between Exchange and Notes in terms of functionality (more capable than Exchange, but less capable than Notes) but is actually (in my experience) easier to administer than Exchange (don't have much experience administering Notes unfortunately) and more reliable than Exchange (by far).
GroupWise does some things that have no equal in the open source world; the unified client with its Universal Inbox is a major one. The concept of an "item" with a type (rather than separate notes/appointments/tasks/documents that don't get along) that can be easily changed into another type of item is lost with Exchange completely.
Other MAJOR features missing (or inferior) in Exchange include:
- FULL-TEXT server-side indexing of the ENTIRE post office database, including documents and all types of items (appointments/notes/tasks/phone messages/other third-party types of items/etc). This full-text indexing is turned on by default and is accessible in the client with one button & allows for a high degree of specificity.
- The PROXY function that allows average users give one-click access to parts of their mailbox to other users, even across post offices and domains
- Server-side rules that are ALWAYS server-side rules. (There are no client-side settings anymore; everything lives on the server. You can do local caching now for improved speed/less network traffic/offline capability & for "reliability" (like the post office ever goes down??))
- ROAMING PROFILES. A user can log into another workstation and as long as they are authenticated to NDS GroupWise will automatically load and access their mailbox PERFECTLY, without changing ANY settings on the workstation. This one really gets me. I can't understand why Microsoft makes it so fricking hard for a user to simply get up and walk over to another computer to get their email (or anything else, for that matter) without a bunch of handholding from a network administrator. YES, I am aware of the ways this can be done with Outlook but NONE are as simple as GroupWise - it does it by default! _That's_ enterprise software. (GroupWise even has algorithms in the connection code that go "looking" for the post office if it gets moved or renamed, or the address changes, or the station moves, or whatever... and it generally finds it.)
- The completely RSA-encrypted & Stac-compressed post office backend is nice. Oh, and the client-server and server-server connections have ALWAYS been encrypted. Now they use even use SSL if you want.
- The built-in transaction logging was a big deal a few years ago, but considering Exchange is still largely based on crappy JET technology, I guess it's still a big deal.
- And the fact that the database engines (agents) RUN ON NT, LINUX, AIX, SOLARIS, 2000 and NETWARE should count for something!
- oh, and the web access client in GW6 supports WAP, HDML, Compact HTML, PQA & std. HTML (with or without Java) OUT OF THE BOX. no third-party software is needed.
- Did I mention the fully-indexed document management system with database-like functionality & user-specified permissions?
- oh, and GW6 has other stuff like native load-balancing and fault-tolerance. GW was originally WordPerfect Office way before Outlook even existed, so the basic functionality of the Exchange+Outlook combo was there several years ago. Now Novell is basically quietly adding the latest features and enhancements to it without a lot of fanfare. And you don't hear about it that much because It Works. (And unfortunately, Novell doesn't have the equivelant of a Steve Jobs running the company)
GroupWise is a very capable system. I am totally underwhelmed with any of the open source solutions (or even the pieces) I've seen that try to duplicate groupware (all types). There are some great ideas out there, but none that I've seen so far come close to matching the rich set of features a package like groupwise can give you.
I will give up GroupWise when something better actually comes along. Believe me, I'm always looking (I'm not entirely happy with how Novell is handling groupwise updates & support at the moment, but considering their size compared to Microsoft they really aren't doing THAT bad of a job)... But no other product has surfaced yet that makes me want to dump GroupWise.
I'm just starting to understand why people immediately say "oh, I can't use that because I'd have to buy a Mac." It's a cop out; it's because their way of life would be dramatically changed. (hear me out for a second) These are the same people who spend a huge percentage of their time bitching and moaning about their computing experience, and generally (usually correctly) peg it to their choice of OS and workstyle.
What people fail to see is that OS X is actually so much better than Linux or XP that they really wouldn't have much to bitch or moan about. If they were REALLY serious about getting the "ultimate computing experience," they'd save up some money, dump their PCs and buy Macs. But there's a literal fear of things being so much easier that they'd have too much free time left over and wouldn't have anything to complain about.
My G3 iBook is the most reliable & most fun to use computer I've ever owned. And I use Win2K on my desktop, with Netware & Linux servers on the back-end. I have very few complaints about OS X (save for some performance issues which I'm sure will be fixed with 10.2 - you realize OS X hasn't even been out two years??) and eagerly look forward to buying more software for it simply because the experience is That Good. I realize now that I have nothing to complain about; I didn't like Windows or Linux, so I set out to find a better solution. I found it.
End of story.
I'm not an AD expert, but you're saying the DCs auto-get their time from the "main DC" (PDC emulator)? does this happen often? I understand AD doesn't require timestamps for events... it uses GUIDs instead.
/SET /YES commands in login scripts that weren't exactly foolproof.
Client machines _automatically_ get their time from the local DC?
How does one control/manage the time synchronization with AD?
I was more frustrated with non-AD networks; NT 4.0 domains required the use of NET TIME
Netware 5.1 server gets time from several NTP servers (i.e. tick.usno.navy.mil, tock.usno.navy.mil, etc.) and triangulates "correct" time from averaging out the sources. (Netware actually has the most intricate and cool time synchronization system built-in because NDS depends heavily on accurate timestamps)
:)
Windows-based workstations automatically set clock to time on Netware server using Novell-supplied file client software (Client32) when they login.
Linux boxes get time from Netware server using NTP.
MacOSX laptop gets time from Apple using NTP (it's mobile & physically travels to many different networks.
btw, Microsoft has no concept of time synchronization. Throwing an NTP client into Win2K & WinXP isn't exactly what I'd call "enterprise-class time synchronization." I've struggled for years using a variety of techniques to keep clocks accurate on mid-sized Windows-based networks. Novell by _default_ synchronizes the local PC clock with the main login server. You actually have to override this feature if you want to do it yourself. It saves so much effort...
It's not a matter of "if" this will come to pass, but "when." Microsoft and Intel have incredible inertia and mindshare with the masses.
This all has very dire and serious implications.
What are the best ways to combat this? Even if a "few" people switch to Linux, if a majority of people are equipped with this technology they literally won't be able to exchange data with open source systems at all.
I think the point of the article isn't so much whether Mozilla will beat IE for general use... it focuses on the REAL advantage of Mozilla; that is, the use of the Gecko engine in lots of other devices and scenarios. It will be interesting to see Gecko slowly supplant IE as the engine of choice for all non-MS companies who need to render HTML.
Win2K is an improvement over WinNT, but I'd still use NW4.11 over Win2K - feature for feature they're about the same (actually, NW4.11 is slightly more advanced in some respects.) If you need good IP support though, use NW5.x or better. NW6 these days has loads of really innovative features tacked onto it... Win2K is pretty "utilitarian" in comparison.
a whole bunch of geeks with no business sense complain again and again about how evil Microsoft is and how Linux is the answer, and "gosh darn it, corporate American should switch to it if they know what's right for them."
Finally, at least one group has come up with a way to make Linux palatable to mid- to large-sized corporate environments by extending it in such a way that coporporations can better get their minds & wallets around it.
And yet the geeks complain, because it's not the way they want it done. Does anyone really have a better idea? Do you really want Linux to continue to be a niche operating system just because it makes you feel "cooler" than the rest of the world?
Groups such as UnitedLinux (and RedHat, to a lesser extent) should get the full support of the very same community that has been pushing for widespread Linux adoption anyways.
I hear AFS does a lot of this, though...
Plus, it's a breeze to manage because of its integration with NDS.
It's really too bad you haven't had a better experience with it.