Cool Solutions

Strategic Products in your Company


December 5, 2006 4:27 pm





OK, so here’s a topic for conversation.  A bunch of us were out at lunch discussing the merits of each others products and the question came up on which were the applications that were core to our customers.  Of course, we were all biased by the group we worked in so didn’t really reach a conclusion.

So, I figured I’d come on here and ask you all.   For example, those of you that use Linux (OES or SLES), what is driving your strategy – is it file and print, e-mail, database applications etc?  I would love to see how you rank the importance of the OS, Services and applications that you use and how that drives your business decisions.

Fire away 🙂

0 votes, average: 0.00 out of 50 votes, average: 0.00 out of 50 votes, average: 0.00 out of 50 votes, average: 0.00 out of 50 votes, average: 0.00 out of 5 (0 votes, average: 0.00 out of 5)
You need to be a registered member to rate this post.

Categories: Uncategorized


Disclaimer: This content is not supported by Micro Focus. It was contributed by a community member and is published "as is." It seems to have worked for at least one person, and might work for you. But please be sure to test it thoroughly before using it in a production environment.


  1. By:Ian

    If I had to “get rid” of technology out of my server room, the last things I would get rid of would be GroupWise and OES.

    GroupWise is core to the day to day operation of my entire organtization. When email goes down for any reason, I get a higher volume of calls on that then anything, internet access included. I suppose we could live without GroupWise for some other competitor who I won’t mention, but it would be a painful transition to say the least.

    OES, and specifically, the services on OES are very critical to us. File and print for an educational organization where students are never in the same spot call for a very heterogeneous network and OES fills that role very well. Whether its on NetWare or Linux doesn’t really matter in the long run to me. We use NetWare for all of our eDirectory/NSS duties at the moment. Sooner rather than later, we’re going to be moving to OES Linux because hardware support for NetWare is drying up(coughdellcough). As long as my users don’t see any difference on the back end, it all comes down to the services. Not being dependant on Windows is one of the biggest advantages for eDirectory in my mind, plus the insane hybrid domain controller with active directory model for Microsoft would just through a very rigid server framework into my server room. I like being flexible, it’s cheaper and in my situation, cheaper is better.

    I also use ZenWorks. It’s an important service for us, but not super critical. Once we start making use of the imaging and pushing more applications out with it, it will move into the can’t live without category, but it’s not there yet.

    I’m also a BorderManager user. It’s a great proxy, but not super critical due to other options out there in software/appliance land.

  2. By:Johnnie Odom

    Zenworks and eDirectory. Zenworks because it makes managing all of our Windows workstations and various servers possible to do on a large scale. eDirectory because everything we have (including our Macintosh clients) ties into it. Those are the two products that keep our school district signing our Novell contract year after year. Groupwise’s primary advantage is that it isn’t Exchange (and therefore more secure), I’m afraid to say.

  3. By:Dennis St. James

    In my organization it would depend on who you asked. But if you go to the top I can assure you that my CEO CFO etc would all agree that groupwise is the most important. They scream bloody murder if they cant get to their e-mails!! File and print services are important but users are usually pretty understanding if the interuption is temporary. So in my org. I would say:

    #1 E-mail (groupwise)
    #2 AS/400 access (Accounting and inventory systems)
    #3 Internet Access
    #4 File and Print

  4. The core applications that we use (in no particular order) are: OES (NetWare and Linux), GroupWise, ZenWorks, BorderManager. Other companies’ applications / services that are core to our business are SBClient (specialized terminal emulator), MS Office, a .NET Workflow engine, and Advanced Pick-D3 (a 4GL database engine).

    The order of recovery of these services in our DR plan is email (GroupWise), accounting (Advanced Pick and SBClient), BorderManager, Workflow engine, everything else. This order is driven by business needs, not by IS needs which would place ZenWorks very high on the list. This order lets the business function back to ‘normal’ as quickly as possible.

    So, as far as your lunch discussion goes, IS has one set of priorities and business has another. Granted in a ‘services based’ world they are supposed to be the same, but let’s face it IS is usually more concerned with the ‘working details’ of a system rather than the day-to-day use of a system. How often do any of you continue to use a highly customized piece of business software after it has been rolled out to the end-users (excuse me.. the customers)? I know we don’t, we are concerned with the system running error free and the next batch of projects. 🙂

  5. By:Alex Evans

    Cool – so three of the four of you that responsed so far rank GW at or near the top. Let me ask a follow up question that we were throwing around. If you did not have GroupWise how would that effect your continued use of the other Novell products? I am of the opinion that, for many customers, GW is the reason that customers are using NetWare, OES, SLES, IDM, iChain, eDir etc. Am I way off target?

  6. *cracks knuckles*

    I love questions like these. Marketing types lurv them too, but for different reasons.

    OES – NetWare
    We’re running a 6-node NetWare cluster running NW65 SP5+. It supports the file-and-print services for about 20,000 warm bodies. We print well over a million pages a quarter. Concurrent Connections to the cluster nodes reach as high as 6000 (at 8:40am in the morning during ‘dead week’ we have 1840), all NCP. Our NetWare cluster has around 6.5TB of storage dedicated to it, which is 5x larger than the next-largest storage consumer (Microsoft Exchange). My testing has strongly suggested that OES-Linux would melt under the load we’d throw at it (on existing hardware anyway), which is why I’m very interested in OES2 and the NSS/NCP performance improvements I’ve heard about.

    eDirectory 8.7
    The eDir tree is our designated One True Source for authentication. Due to Exchange, our AD tree has a lot of that data too, but eDir is deemed authoritative. We don’t have an Identity Management Tree yet, though we might. Depends on some internal discussions.

    We’re just beginning to use SLES9 to replace some aging Solaris machines. So far usage is limited to Web Apps in our oracle/java center. However, these are line-of-business applications. This will likely grow. We don’t have any SLES10 in yet, but that’s just a matter of when the next Linux/Unix server will be needed.

    A minority user, but increasing. Our ResTek folk absolutely adore it for printing in dorms…. so long as an A.N.D. Technologies P-Counter Print Release Station is in use. PCounter doesn’t support any Linux flavors yet, so that’s a NetWare dependancy.

    This drives the student computer labs. In association with pcounter we regulate printing. This is big business, and the source of most of our paper consumption.

    Zen for Desktops
    We don’t use it as much as we really should, but it is around. Our primary use is deploying applications, but we have yet to fully utilize the MSI features in newer Zen versions. We keep looking at inventory and imaging, but due to big divisions between our desktop support function and our server support function those projects just haven’t gotten of the ground.

    In a disaster the order of recovery goes something like this:

    1) Banner (run on a Solaris stack at the moment)
    2) E-mail. Exchange first, then Student e-mail.
    3) NetWare Cluster and related services.

  7. By:Eric

    Groupwise is a big one for us. Because we have Groupwise, we still have have a need for eDir (unless someday GW can be hosted in LDAP.. hint-hint). The other big one is ZEN. Similar story, needs eDir. I’ve read here in the blogs that future releases of ZEN may remove that requirement, and it really couldn’t come soon enough. Anyway, to satisfy the eDir requirement for GW and ZEN, we still have Netware. Because we have Netware for Edir.. and Edir for GW/ZEN.. we’re using Netware for File/Print/etc. Because of this use of Netware for File/Print, we cannot use OES Linux (our backup vendor still doesn’t support NSS on OES Linux).

    Clear as mud?

  8. eDir is the reason we use GroupWise. Rather than GroupWise being the reason we use eDir or other products. We were Novell centric two years before we added an email system. The issue now is that eMail (the service) has become a primary business tool in the past decade or so. The business purpose is what drives eMail as a critical component not the software brand. So, it was being Novell centric that led us to GroupWise.

  9. By:FlyingGuy

    1. OES ( NetWare kernel ) because it just works. NCP, NDPS, etc.
    1A. GroupWise
    1B. Border Manager, it just works.

    I have tried OES ( Linux ) and its just lacking. The Admin interface is just as bad as before, but the core of netware runs as a service, its not built in, as it should be.

    Then there are the missing parts:

    Monitor and ALL the features it provides.
    Being able to see whats happening ( Can you say, Ctrl-Esc )!

    I really DONT care which kernel you build it on, but if its not say within 90% of the Gold Standard called Novell’s NetWare then whats the point. Right now its more like around 40% and it has a HELL of a long way to march.

    IManager is a total Bust.
    ConsoleOne is a total Bust.
    NWAdmin was left to die on the vine because some MORON decided Java was the end all, be all.

    We can get away with the NwAdm32 & ConsoleOne dance for a while longer, but I am sorry, iManager is just wrong. Its not REAL time, its got to have an supporting HTTP stack and a fully functional Tomcat environment or your dead in the water.

    Let me tell you about Tomcat. It is what runs the GW Web Interface now and it bombs out, the GW Server just wont run because its stukk off in limbo someplace. If you DO have a clue in the error logs it looks something like:,a.lot.easier.fix had a main.Hallway error in,is.totaly.uninteligable

    If GW didn’t exist I would STILL use NetWare, why, because it JUST WORKS.

  10. By:David Flax

    I would say in my organization GroupWise is most important. Anytime there is an e-mail issue everyone calls. Next would be OES. We use OES NetWare for file/print and have started using OES Linux for some web services. If one of our file/print servers went down for more than maybe 1 hour the phone will start ringing.

    Last would be Zenworks. We don’t use it for more than distributing some apps and remote control, but our users don’t care too much about it.

  11. By:David Flax

    I would agree. I think e-mail drives a lot of the reasons companies buy more from the same vendor. Without GroupWise I don’t think we would be as heavy a user of Novell products as we are now.

  12. Well IDM and eDir are a totally differt problem solving business and for that used in a lot of large company’s weather they use GW or not. Products that are more tradionally tied are NetWare, ZENWorks and Bordermanager, then the messaging system is GW.

    I think in general, no more GroupWise means Exchange and that drives the move to an ‘all Windows environment’. Is’t that -why- we now (again) support Outlook with GroupWise? I work a lot with small business-education-goverment envi’s and a lot of times GW is replaced in favor of Exchange, cause GW is ‘old’, integration with 3th pary’s, they think Exchange is more easy, ‘feels better’, ‘Novell lost the battle’, want a MS envi only,.. in short a lot of arguments they have speak in favor of Exchange. I’ve discussed, like many of us, the GW vs Exchange many times and most of the time it end in a MS vs Novell discussion. And that’s the real problem: Exchange does need Windows and that leads to the -all Windows- vision. They do not know GW supports Outlook, also they do not know GW does run on Windows. ‘Really, does it? I didn’t know that.’ Well, that starts the discussion why they then still would need eDirectory, cause that to them means maintaining two directories. Let’s automate the provisioning then… that introduces IDM, SSO and password handling (might introduce Secure Login for SSO purposes) etc. After that the discussion turns to ‘Well, but we have this 3th party that only supports blablabla’. Well you get my point.

    There’s a lot of technical stuff behind the discusion that makes choosing Exchange over GW just easier. I’ve seen them blind for arguments like GW is more secure. What we need to do is take away as many of the technical obstacles there are in integrating GW in a whatever environment. Outlook support is one of them, but do not forget about the ‘GW client advantage’, like security. Then there must alway’s be a OES/Linux advantage; security and yes getting a free Linux OS to run your GW on. But why no good Active Direcory support? The Virtual Directory Services project technology now used in the ZENworks Linux Management and the upcoming ZENWorks 8 would be great to have in GW also. We could install GW, just point to -a- directory and GO. ZENworks was wiped out in a lot of companies shifting to a Windows environment. Not cause they do not love the product, but cause they -think- it’s tight to eDirectoy and eDirectory’s -is- NetWare. ‘You need ConsoleOne and C1 needs Client32 to manage it’, but I think eDirectory is just a database, like Tivoli and Altiris need a database to store managed objects. Just at some point it was decided that GW is managed with eDir, but like in Exchnage-AD it has it’s own database. With the shift to web based management the management API’s/Agents/etc have to be changed anyway… and hat would make GW really open, flexible, scalable.

  13. By:Nick

    Very well written Sebastiaan Veld, I agree with you 100%.

    I work as a consultant and as long Groupwise is “tied” to edirectory it will be impossible to sell it to windows only shops. GW should go the same way that Zenworks 8 is doing, pls Novell make it happen.

  14. By:Eric

    To Alex’s new question, if we didn’t have Groupwise, I have a strong feeling that may be the beginning of the end for Novell products around here. It really is one of the biggest reasons (besides ZEN) that we continue to need to maintain eDirectory (and therefore our Netware servers) in addition to our Active Directory domain.

    Sebastiaan talks about the eDir requirement for GW being an obstacle, and I agree. But there is also mention of Groupwise running on Windows servers. Yes, that is good and needs to be marketed better than it has been. But… not so fast… the Windows server platform support is only good when it’s actually supported. Was Groupwise (including Webaccess) supported on Windows 2003 server when it released? No, we had to wait 1 year and 7 months for GW 6.5 SP3. Will Groupwise be supported on Windows Longhorn server upon its release? Let’s hope it doesn’t take 1 year and 7 months. What about client support (Windows Vista / Outlook 2007)? These are all obstacles to organizations considering maintaining or implementing Groupwise. A similar situation exists with ZEN.

  15. By:Eric

    Regarding the comments about iManager and Consoleone, these are management interfaces that probably don’t help make new customers. I think existing customers just put up with it, but are probably frustrated like us. It just doesn’t make sense when you can run Microsoft Management Console on an old Pentium-II system, but Consoleone and iManager (even mobile iManager) choke on that same hardware. Is it too difficult to port GW/ZEN administration to MMC, for Windows shops? If you say yes, then, -please- agree to -one- management console for all Novell products. Whatever happened to the Novell statement ( “iManager is now the management platform for all future Novell products”? Are we going to have a different management console for every Novell app now (C1, iManager, ZCC, IDM Designer, etc, etc)?

  16. We’re leaving the Netware/Groupwise world. I’m still hanging onto ZEN and I’ve found some interesting things.

    eDir on Windows seems rather slick.
    iManager 2.6 has been very functional and iManager mobile is standalone so you don’t have to be at the mercy of some server somewhere.
    ConsoleOne has been usable since at least 1.35

    As far as criticality,

    1) ERP systems
    2) e-mail
    3) IM (currently groupwise, LCS in future)
    4) file/print services (unless long outage, then it jumps to number 2)

  17. You see, that exactly is my point. Who’s keeping who alive. So as long as GroupWise is keeping NetWare and eDirectory alive it might be digging it’s own grave. You see what will happen in a short while, the question will be raised ‘why do we have those two directory’s? When we choose Exchange we will only have one platform and one directory!’ Just having at least basic AD support might keep GW on board.

    I think a decision has to be made here. Either fully support Windows and AD or not at all. If the desision for GW is clearly made for security and scalability reasons, then customers will eat the fact that it needs to run on Linux, which just is really more stable, more secure and more important -open-, and one gets the platform for free when buying GroupWise anyway. For provisining either IDM could be leveraged (ZENworks also comes with the AD-eDir connector for free!) or implement the object broker to hook up with any Directory. Management can be done eitehr by leveraging ConsoleOne, or better the webconsole like ZLM has, be fair… how much time do we spend ‘managing’ GroupWise? I implement GroupWise and after I while I might patch it if needed or upgrade to a new version, but really spending lots of time in management console: No. When there’s time spend it’s for restoring mail(boxes). These dat-to-day things must be easy and flawless. A -clear- product and solution matrix must be available for customers here at the GW product site. ‘If I want this, then I must or can use that’. That’s where the partners come in with solutions like Beginfinite has. The desision that a customer makes is for the solution, not the product!

    So what should a OES and GroupWise advantage look like?
    SLES: a storage/db server
    GroupWise on (free) SLES; a messaging server.
    GroupWise and iFolder on SLES with NSS support; a collaboration Suite.
    GroupWise on OES with NSS support; a well integrated, policy driven (enterprise) Workgroup Suite.

    Why NSS? NSS is yet open sourced by Novell and supports actually what we all miss in other filesystems. Why not leverage NSS as a fast and scalable DMS database? The big problem we have today: my files are on my (NSS) filesystem, in GroupWise, in GroupWise DMS, other in my iFolders. NSS file access can be with different protocol (NCP, NFS, CIFS, HTTP etc) and NSS can be leveraged for files or applications and for that be granted properties to the volume, like the ability to have salvage, compression, restrictions and others. So, it should be easy to expand this with Metadata support and things like versioning and conflict resolution. NSS’s nature is that we can configure this on a volume base. The ability to sync this data to several locations would make a great multi master DMS system, which would fully leverage the eDirectory trustee model. iFolder could make happen that I (the admin or folder manager) just can make folders availabe in GroupWise like would be normally done on the filesystem with and for workgroup folders and my home-directory, but also have the ability for the members of the folder to sync the folder contents to their laptop, home or company pc. This would make the long promised policy driven networking closer to us with almost existing technology. Enhance Clien32, NetStorage, iFolder, GW client, Teaming, Instant Messaging, to access the files and I would be able to really access my files and folders alway’s and anywhere, like I’m able to access my messages in GW anywhere. Since the file have the metadata attached (version, creator, owner,..) it would allow for a great way of monitoring and managing who did (using auditing), and who is allowed to do what with which file (using trustees).

    Guess I’m asking for a better DMS or SharePoint, not just another DMS or SharePoint….

  18. By:Alex Evans

    The admin piece has always been a tricky one. Personally, I would rather see new features than porting to a new admin console. With the move from NWAdmin to C1, the number of man days required to make that change was huge – it’s similar with a move to iManager. In my opinion (yes, my opinion, not Novells) time is better spent writing new features that customers want. As for iManager, there are many technical difficulties to overcome first (our direct file access requirement is the big one) – and is iManager the right place? Just as many people hate iManager (iMangler) as want the port. I know that there are on going internal discussions around what’s best. Don’t read between the lines here – we are not discussing dumping iManager to the best of my knowledge.

  19. By:Alex Evans

    Great discussion everyone – it backs up what we thought.

  20. By:Ian

    I agree with a lot of what you said. I also agree that Active Directory support would be nice for some customers. However, I don’t think that eDirectory is being kept alive by GroupWise specifically. Given the option, I wouldn’t go near AD. I find eDirectory a far more flexible and a better built directory. The less I have to deal with domain controllers, the better I’ll feel. Even if I didn’t have GroupWise, I’d still advocate eDir over everything else out there.

  21. What is “refreshing” about the new mix of products from Novell is that they can be sold from a totally different perspective to clients. I will give you a simple example. Companies are worried about the “edges” of their network and the security of their data. They are absolutely paranoid about “insider” mischief…at least that has been my experience. Well, geez with OES you can address the “edge” security and while your are at it the Web services. To address the next “big issue” the insider mischief stuff, in the guise of making it easier for people to connect to the network you can implement some pretty neat stuff with NMAS and IDM. Last but surely not least is identity, access and accountability can easily be implemented with Novell’s very mature offerings….they are just on a new platform that happens to scale from desktop to datacenter securely. It is called Linux.
    Okay I am drifting here. I really need Novell to finish its security puzzle with some more pieces, like biometrics. Novell needs to offer biometric drivers that already work with biometic apis. In losing marketshare it is difficult for us in the field to “find” the eDirectory/NMAS/Biometric link without introducing Microsoft’s Active Directory. So if Novell could pick a few strategic commercial market niches like biometics and offer very SOLID solutions. Wow, then we would have the total solution without having to mix it up with MS. If we can solve a business problem with a complete solution that just so happens to be Linux they will listen, NO CALS, NO License renewals, etc.

  22. By:Pete Wood


    I agree with the assessment that we use Groupwise because we use e-Directory. I don’t want to be a sniper in a Novell-related blog, but Groupwise is not my favourite messaging environment. I say this more from an administrative perspective then from a user perspective – the 7 client and related WebAccess are pretty nice. However, I live in on-going fear of Groupwise corruption-related issues – I’ve suffered through them twice and recovery is a difficult process. The GW architecture suffers from what I would call a complex architecture resulting from ad-hoc evolution. e-Dir, in comparison rocks. It is mature, robust, scales – the list goes on. I’ll note that GW integration with e-Dir is less than complete.

    Back to your original question – it is usually the directory integration that leads to other products/services, e.g. netstorage, quickfinder. Quickfinder supports the indexing of filesystems and the filesystem’s rights integration/enforcement is the fast track to turning your enterprise shared volumes into an Intranet. BTW, we re-write Quickfinder indexed filesystem URLs in order to publish via Netstorage in our Intranet, which is the coolest thing I Never hear People Talk About.

    iChain we use because it is a cool product, and allows us to hide session managment and implement path forwarding in our portal, giving us the flexibility to slice and dice services where we need to, do any type of form filling, and even hide URL-based authentication where we have no other choice.

    Apps on OES are what we need – one way or the other, trad file and print services are a commodity. iPrint takes print services to another level, at least in terms of support and some nifty not-so-ordinary functions. For example, it works great for supporting on-demand authenticated printing on our wireless internet access service, where users have to authenticate, bu they do so via ldap and do not log into the directory. Access to our e-dir printing infrastructure with only an i-print client-side (which users have *no* trouble installing) makes our wireless service complete. I work in a university, and you can imagine that the second thing people want to do when they’re working in the library, using our wireless service, is print.

    Obviously we have a tonne more services, but I’ve just focused on a few that we look to OES to support. We’re still sitting on jumping to the Linux kernel under OES; not because we don’t have Linux expertise (it is all over our enterprise, and our folks are fine with it), but because we have lots to do and there has been a compelling reason to change yet. I suspect that hardware support will be the primary driver (can you say 64-bit?) and perhaps a bit of services or features starting to show on the Linux, but not the Netware side, which hasn’t happened yet, but I suspect it is inevitable.

    Here’s my obligatory Netmail comment – Netmail is the number one payback app on e-dir for us. We have managed thousands of Netmail users on the student side of the house with so little effort it is ridiculous – an darn site easier than if they were GroupWise! What is the migration path for Netmail users?


  23. By:FlyingGuy

    WHY do you guys insist on using technology that is so completely fragile, and is so dependent on so many other layers of software that are just as problematic?iManager — Depends on a perfectly running tomcat stack, which in turn relies on your JVM not being broken, which in turn relies on god alone knows what else. Basicaly it realies on 300,000 lines of code that that is mrophing on a pretty much constant basis.

    ConsoleOne — Depends on a JVM e-Directory conenctor which relies on a working JVM that would bet lots of money on that is completely and utterly version specific to ConsoleOne and nothing else. As we move more and more onto the linux kernel and more java based services come on board, how many of those are going to become JVM version specific? I can see a point where we have 4 or 5 *differrent* JVM’s running just to make 4 different services work.

    NWAdmin — Depends on NCP and thats it. NCP is a well known set of API’s. You can remove the need for Client32 by linking in the NCP code and giving it its own authentication mechinism, can you not? Can it not be X-Comiled using any number of tools? I mean it only needs to run on what, SLES (OES) & Windows? There are at least three different development tools that are x-platform to Linux, Windows & Mac, and they don’t require a JVM or Tomcat layer.

    ConsoleOne was a laudable idea, but the implementation of it was just deplorable and it has never worked reliably, correctly. I still have problems with the GW bits just simply killing it if something goes wrong in the GW bits. This is really nerve wracking when trying to do a Top-Down re-build of a broken Domain & Post Office, since you cannot re-build the Domain w/o ConsoleOne as GWCheck only handles the PO, Users, Archives & Libraries.

    What we need, is a one size fits all tool, that is dependent of the least number of API’s and software layers possible, since these are the tools you HAVE to use when things are broken or go bump in the night.

  24. By:Alex Evans

    Pete – we have no problem with you airing your opinions, good or bad. That’s what this whole blog thing is about I guess. I am surprised about your corruption comment though and especially the recovery from it. I have always found it pretty easy, as a support engineer, to get corruption issues resolved. I mean, even if your entire server dies we can get you back up and running (without old mail of course) in a matter of minutes – I am not sure that the other big 2 can say the same thing. Of course, nothing substitutes a good backup and, as long as you have one of those we can restore down to the indiviual item level. I guess the one thing on our radar right now is corruption due to opportunistic locking – make sure it’s turned off on all GW servers so that you don’t cause corruption.

    As for the eDir/GW integration – this is something that comes up time and time again. I have my own opinion on it and I, for one, am happy that it is not more tightly integrated into eDir. Yes, there are fields that we should expose for contact management but to be completely eDir integrated would cripple us and cause eDir bloat. So, for example – even if your entire eDir tree is toast, you can still login (unless you have LDAP auth of course). Also, we don’t need to follow your eDir partition and replication strategy. Moving GW to another Tree? Simple, just do a graft and you have lost nothing.

    iPrint – yes I love it too. I was recently told a story about a sales visit where the customer has a huge production plant and 400 printers. All the current workstations are on portable dollies and can get wheeled anywhere in that plant. So all the workstations had to have all 400 printers installed, so the user could select the printer closest to them at that time. It’s confusing for the users as they are presented with a list of 400 printers all with cryptic names. When they were shown what iPrint could do for them they were blown away – just click the map and print.

    As for NetMail – watch this space. That’s all I can say at the moment.

  25. By:Alex Evans

    FlyingGuy – I really don’t want to keep rehashing this conversation – you have expressed your opinions on the admin tools a few times now. All I am going to say on it is:
    NWAdmin had to go. The more objects you had in your container and the more snapins installed the slower it got. It was not keeping up with eDir and there was no hope of making it cross platform. As I already stated above I am of the opinion that I would rather see development man days (and a rip-and-replace port is actually man YEARS) spent on coding new and cool features then just porting existing stuff to a new interface/tool. Right now we are in ConsoleOne (and don’t forget that this is all my opinion, not Novell’s direction, or a Novell mandated response) and that is where I would rather stay for the time being. I personally hate iManager’s task oriented management approach as opposed to the object oriented approach in C1. At some point we will have to make the jump yes, I just hope it’s later rather than sooner.

  26. By:Pete Wood


    I just want to say thanks for your engagement in this dialogue and your candid comments. It’s really refreshing – and reassuring – to see such plain talk coming out of a vendor forum. Plus, you’re not afraid to pose questions that are likely to evoke some harsh opinions. I admire that.


  27. By:Dennis

    I don’t really thing GW is driving the rest of the stuff. I’d probably put IDM in that spot. Start with a couple of disparate eDir trees and peoplesoft, and a desire for SSO and that sort of thing. Along comes IDM, and a few more trees pop up, etc. Also since one of those eDir trees acts as our ldap auth, it’s pretty much at the top of any priority list, incl DR. We use NW because it works, (and clustering just rocks) but the migration to suse is obvious. Windows continues to prove daily how badly it sucks.