Linked by Eugenia Loli on Fri 26th Oct 2007 05:34 UTC, submitted by WillM
Talk, Rumors, X Versus Y "Experts say that migrations from Unix to Linux have slowed down because all the low-hanging fruit has now been picked. Linux growth in the U.S. x86 server market has, over the past six quarters, started to falter and reverse its positive course relative to Windows Server and the market as a whole." More here.
Permalink for comment 281049
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:

The biggest reason for this in my opinion is because Microsoft doesn't have to. They basically set their own rules within reason.

Novell doesn't have to either. They're selling something that will work, and continue to work, on a platform where they have some say. I can't see the point of installing eDirectory on a platform where Active Directory already exists, and most organisations can see that paradox. eDirectory is just a management tool for AD.

I mean hell - Novell think they have to give you a choice of databases with Zenworks as well, including SQL Server.......... Nice one Novell.

Dead? Tell that to the active developers and all the customers who actually use groupwise.

The last two developers and customers using it may not believe that, but it's true.

OpenXchange, OpenGroupware, none of these come close to GroupWise's market imprint.

Compared to Exchange, no one has any clue what Groupwise is. No one using Kolab, OpenGroupware or Zimbra, which are far more widespread generally than Groupwise, have any clue what Groupwise is nor why they should use it. It's a stagnant and huge piece of software that has gone, and is continuing to go, nowhere. It's not contributing anything to Novell.

Point is, its usage is not going up and is not likely to.

What does mono have to do with Zen 10?

Zenworks for Linux (client anyway) is supposedly written with Mono, but really, it's just the .Net Windows stuff ported over.

As far as eDirectory enabled services, iManager is that tool. You can criticize the tool, but you can't say it doesn't exist.

It's disjointed, not integrated with the tools of other products like MMC is and is not integrated with Novell's desktop of choice on their servers as MMC is. You see, that's what I'm talking about. Novell are just not organised, don't integrate things together and don't have an overall technical strategy from the top down.

This is what has killed Novell, and other Microsoft competitors - because it isn't just them.

Not integrated into the directory services, however.

Then why didn't Novell integrate this stuff into existing projects rather than porting stuff they didn't need to do, increasing complexity? Linux isn't just a free platform you can dump proprietary stuff on. You have to get how you can use open source development and existing software if you want to survive.

However, it's not because it isn't open source, it's because your average linux joe doesn't need a groupware package, directory services, directory service enabled printing/dhcp/dns, heavy duty workstation and policy management services.

Tell that to people who are using the free, standard software available in every Linux distro and not Novell's. If Novell wants to be a Linux distributor, they have to respect the open source software people are already using.

Regardless of what you think of their development of products and services and what impact they have, it is an irrefutable fact that they have continued to develop and progress their technology over the past four years.

You can work on an awful lot of things, but the bottom line is it isn't stopping the haemorrhaging of customers and it isn't increasing their revenue. That's the bottom line.

Edited 2007-10-26 17:18

Reply Parent Score: 3