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.
Thread beginning with comment 281049
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
segedunum
Member since:
2005-07-06

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

IanSVT Member since:
2005-07-06

eDirectory is just a management tool for AD.


Huh? eDirectory is a multi master directory service. So is AD for the most part. They're peers technically.

GroupWise is #3 in market share for groupware behind Exchange and Notes. I've yet to see anything written otherwise.

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.


I'll disagree with that. I think the business has failed the technology, not the other way around. Novell's software is fairly easy and any sys admin worth their pay should be able to handle it as easily as Windows. Novell has hurt itself by not being able to sell or market the products mostly because they won't rather than they can't.

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.


I don't think you quite understand the technical issue with this. They integrated it into the directory service because it's a fully functional multi master directory service. There is no proper open source equivalent. You don't need it if you just have a linux box serving up dynamic ip addresses or acting as name servers. If you want the fault tolerance that your directory service provides, plus the ability to manage it from a common tool(iManager) then you integrate it in.

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.


You didn't respond to my point. Show me an open source developer who needs or even hacks against any of that type of "enterprise" level software. Open source is not always the panacea for all situations.

I don't, which is why most Linux server installations hit a brick wall. The vast majority aren't going to buy Novell's software on top.


If you want to run a directory server, you can run eDirectory for free up to a quarter million objects I believe. However, if you need a directory service, you're probably paying for it directly or through support pricing anyway.

To reiterate, Novell's upper level management, sales, and marketing has failed the technology. The technology has not failed them. Can Novell do a better job with the technology? Absolutely. I can't find any piece of software that can't use updates or improvement. But our main disagreement hinges on me blaming the management/sales/marketing, and you blaming the technology.

Reply Parent Score: 3

segedunum Member since:
2005-07-06

Huh? eDirectory is a multi master directory service. So is AD for the most part. They're peers technically.

You're missing the point. In most companies, because of Windows, Active Directory is already a prerequisite. Bringing eDirectory in is just an over-arching tool to manage and synchronise with Active Directory.

GroupWise is #3 in market share for groupware behind Exchange and Notes. I've yet to see anything written otherwise.

In the so-called enterprise world, Exchange is first, Notes is a long, long way behind and Groupwise is a long, long, long, long way behind that. Point: It is not going to catch up with Notes, and certainly not Exchange, as it is and keep itself viable. What they need is to get people using it, or using what they're using.

Novell's software is fairly easy and any sys admin worth their pay should be able to handle it as easily as Windows. Novell has hurt itself by not being able to sell or market the products mostly because they won't rather than they can't.

Novell have made a lot of technical blunders, as well as the sales and marketing ones. So many products are discontinued, renamed, patches are poorly implemented, service packs are late and difficult to install..... I could go on. It's a sign of a company not sure of what it's doing.

I don't think you quite understand the technical issue with this. They integrated it into the directory service because it's a fully functional multi master directory service. There is no proper open source equivalent.

Red Hat Directory Service (Fedora Directory Server) is. Red Hat committed to GPLing that when they took it over, and they did. That's what I use myself at the moment on a few small implementations where it's not reasonable to pay Red Hat money (CentOS), and where Red Hat would not benefit at all. It's enough that I'm using it. It's a tad rough around the edges in places, but it's not as bad as I thought (and it's basically iPlanet, so it's got a lineage).

On bigger projects where they'll be in a position to pay good money, because I'm familiar with RHDS, guess what I'll probably be using? Guess what I might be using if Novell had the same open source philosophy? Even though I know a few of our clients who are big Novell users, I can't imagine a situation now where we'd use Novell software ourselves because we just can't pick it up and run with it.

There are also other benefits in building up an installed base like that. People are used to your software, and also, more systems are compatible with your software. Microsoft themselves know the benefits of a certain amount of piracy. With open source software, no one has to pirate anything.

You didn't respond to my point. Show me an open source developer who needs or even hacks against any of that type of "enterprise" level software.

It's not just about hacking. It's about the wider benefits. As I've said above, getting more people using your software who wouldn't have bought it anyway can be enough of a benefit. Heaven knows, Novell needs that. That's what Novell certainly doesn't understand. Look at software like Qt. I'm sure Trolltech have got tons of customers through knowing about Qt through KDE, and none of them will have contributed to Qt and few will have contributed to KDE.

Linux itself could be considered 'enterprise level'. Not so long ago, RAID and volume management software was considered enterprise level.

If you want to run a directory server, you can run eDirectory for free up to a quarter million objects I believe.

No distro is going to get that into a repository ready for usage so people can get in there and use it though. Novell are terrified as a proprietary company would be, and they don't see the benefits as an open source company would - especially a company who's revenues are declining from their traditional products, and whose software is now familiar to so few people.

But our main disagreement hinges on me blaming the management/sales/marketing, and you blaming the technology.

I blame both. Much of the technology is good, but some other bone-headed technology decision shoots it down.

Reply Parent Score: 3