Off Topic - Novell Contractor Needed

[Jeremy Fowler]

Ok, I understand you may have had prior bad experiences with Novell, and I can
respect your opinion, however so much that I disagree with it. I know there is
nothing I can say to sway your opinion, so we must agree to disagree. One
question though, why NT? Why not Linux, or FreeBSD, or OpenBSD? I don't believe
NT is a viable solution to a production network anymore than you think Netware
is. If your such an NT lover, why are you in this group?

-Jeremy

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jonathan [mailto:hutchins at opus1.com]
> Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2001 8:43 AM
> To: 'Jeremy Fowler'; kclug at kclug.org
> Subject: RE: Off Topic - Novell Contractor Needed
>
>
> > Windows 95 current?
>
> I meant anything that current, or more current than that.
>
> Win95 is still a pretty viable system.
>
> > Novell integrates with any Microsoft OS including Windows 2000 and Me...
>
> Well, it has a client.  The client takes three to ten times as long to log
> in and connect than the native Windows clients, and it's responsible for a
> lot of lock-ups and crashes, but it's there.  It's probably still upgraded
> regularly - we used to get updates about once a month back when I was
> working for a firm that supported it.  Usually the updates created more
> problems than they solved, but sometimes they would run.
>
> >> Having maintained Novell networks for three years, and
> >> having converted maybe 100 sites from Novell to NT, I stand
> >> firm in saying it has no place on a current production network.
> >> Typically service calls are reduced to 1/3 or fewer when Novell
> >> is eliminated.
>
> > I really suggest you read this page:
> > Here's a quote from it that fits perfectly well in this situation:
> > -- Quote --
> > NT does NOT have a lower support cost than NetWare
>
> As I said above, my field experience directly contradicts this.
>
> > Now, this is not to say that a poorly designed, poorly
> > implemented Netwarenetwork can't be more difficult to maintain than a well
>
> > designed NT network, but this reflects the skills of the installer and
> administrator,
> > not the merits of the product itself.  I have seen some terrifyingly
> poorly
> > designed NetWare networks, installed by people I wouldn't trust to install
>
> > Windows 95 on a workstation.
> > -- End Quote --
>
> The company I worked for was widely recognized as one of the best Novell
> integrators in the KC area.  We often were called in to clean up those
> botched installs.  We had four CNE's, one of whom had done some of the
> original product development with Novel.
>
> > personally I don't think you
> > know what the hell you are talking about. Instead of just
> > blabbing off about how Novell sucks, why don't you give us
> > some reasons why you have come to this decision? Can you
> > honestly give use an example situation in which NT would be
> > better than Novell and why?
>
> Well, if three years of support experience, and 100 conversions in which
> problems were reduced or eliminated isn't experience and reason, what do you
> want?  Something that agrees with your own prejudice, supported by abstract
> papers written by Novel supporters?
>
> > I could give you a hundred reasons why NT falls
> > short in comparison to NetWare...
>
> In theory.  In field practice, it didn't keep up with NT, and after 4.0 came
> out it never caught up.
>
> Why do you think it's stock is in the toilet, and it's market share is
> starting to make MacOS look popular?  It's because it's not a workable
> product in most environments.
>
> You can cite all sorts of articles and press releases that say how great it
> is, but the fact is that corporate America has found the same thing I found
> in direct field experience: Novel just doesn't work in a modern environment.
>