OPEN LETTER TO RAY NOORDA - From anther user
Harry Skelton
President, CEO
Novell Corp
Mr Noorda,
I would first like to thank Philip Rhoades for his post. I think it covers
many issues regarding the educational institutional use of UnixWare and
prohibitive pricing of UnixWare. To be quite honest, I had no clue as to the
CEO of Novell. Would I have known I would have possibly have called you
direct. But as one who beleaves in open communications, I am posting to the
net. (CC: of this message will be e-mailed)
My concerns, as a long time Unix user, would be direct to the quality of your
product and the policies in handling user issues. Additional issues that are
of major consequence deal with the endless drivers and specialized code
needed to support the current and future hardware platforms.
Mr. Rhoades clearly pointed out X/Open's involvement in the direction of
Unix. However the actual reality of the situation, as explained to me by one
of your product directors, is that X/Open may define the standards for Unix
but it in no way governs what Novell does with it's product. Infact it was
to my understanding that Novell may well be using X/Open as a backboard in
which to bounce those who participate with standards off of. Thus freeing
Novell's hands in techno-policial issues.
I personally do not feel that NT is a 'real' threat to UnixWare as the two
address different parts of the marketplace. I would be a very wise move on
Novell's part to build NT servers and abilities into UnixWare, possibly as a
side product, in order to please those that have requirements for NT and/or
windows in general.
Phill's statement regarding the FREE Unix's is quite true. The sad fact is
that these "Free" software offerings are rapidly outpacing Novell's own
development in the Unix industry. Such things as faster and more compliant X
servers, support for more platforms, offerings of source code, and a 'support
community' that spans the world.
Novell UnixWare, being a profit making product for Novell, is limited to the
amount of resources it can expend on such things as keeping up with current
revisions of new software, new device drivers or even new technologies in
software operations. It is this profit need that is currently driving Novell
to, what I feel, is a replay of UnixWare 1.0 and all that came with it.
Novell is currently trying to revamp it's Unix offering in order to compete
with such vendors as Sun (Solaris), SCO (Open Enterprise), and even NT
platforms. Novell's commitment to building a multi-threaded and
multi-processor Unix is also known. However if one were to look into the
other platforms that exist, you would see quite a number of problems that
would strip down Novell's profits.
First major impact will be in quality of the product. There are still major
problems with UnixWare. As well as a multitude of minor probems. The user
community has been painfully aware of these problems. Even with the
introduction of revisions and patches, Novell continues to introduct yet more
problems for itself and it's users by not taking the firm position of "We ARE
the standard!"
It is my opnion that Novell is trying to keep up with Solaris and others in
hopes to make up profits in sales and marketplace share. Perhaps this can be
done but I doubt that you can keep it up for very long.
My recommendations would be as follows:
* Make a solid product
Ignore the marketplace for a moment and fix your product. Make it rock solid.
Insure that those problems reported are user implementation problems and not
product failure problems.
* Make a solid staff
Many developers that I have talked to within Novell have expressed this same
ideal. I also know that many of my comments have even been published in your
newsletters in dealing with the product and management behind the product. To
my understanding these were presented as solutions for internal issues as
well as issues that needed to be resolved. From those that I have talked to,
it was the upper managers that flatly refused to move on those requested
policy changes as well as product changes.
There is this great rift that spans between the management and the lower
employees. Developers are complaining that they don't have time to build the
product propperly. Support staff members are upset as they are in the middle
of the user/vendor conflicts over hard policy. And the few vendors I have
talked to note major disapproval with Novell's attitude to the sales and
support of the product. This includes their constant request for changes in
the product in order to help them sell more of the product and to deal with
user complaints.
* Blaze a new trail
Forget SUN, Cray, SCO, NT, whomever! Novell has USL. You have the
resources. And I know you have a staff that would be willing to bend over
backwards to make Solaris look so much as a simple computer game.
You have both old and new resources within the Unix group that are willing to
bash any other Unix to the wayside. Additionally, as Phill pointed out, you
have a community that spans the world at you fingertips. I think you would
be quite surprised to find the amount of cooperation you could get from them,
if you'd only be willing to talk to them.
* Put on a show! Let the world know about UnixWare!
Some companies, such as SUN and SCO offer free products to those who
contribute to their Unix products. These companies also sweaten the deal by
sending loads of resources and products to magazine editors and writers. By
sending staff to offerings that vendors may have at conferences or other
activities.
They are there waving a banner for the whole community to see that the vendor
and users are being firmly supported by their respective companies.
I am certain you know this as I'm sure that the NetWare group has to deal
with such companies as 3Com, Wellfleet, and others.
* Support the hardware manufactures - Set the standards
Embrace the hardware manufacturers. Open a wider channel of communications
and cooperation with them. Set the standards for the new technologies. And
accept the new technologies developed by these manufacturers.
Novell presently lacks this cooperation and communications. Even with my
humble dealings with HP, they clearly note that they are in the dark with
Novell and UnixWare. Not because they want to be but because Novell has
their hands tied and shield access to the indepth UnixWare technologies and
resources.
* Support your vendors!
I'm not sure if you see this, high upon your lofty chair, but there are
vendors out here that are very upset ("Pissed" would be a better word) at
Novell. Not only does Novell restrict it's support to the vendors and sales
support, but you make it costly for them to do business.
Even now, Unix Support is going to be breaking away from the phones and
directing the users to call their vendors and deal with them exclusively. How
are the vendors going to deal with the users when they cannot get a response
from Novell on their issues?
I say keep you arms open. Not only to take on all vendors, but to also
insure they are good vendors. This CNE, Golden/Master/Platinum Vendor stuff
is a profit sham. Clear and simple. Novell's only goal is the bottom line
with these folks. Not a techical line. The Unix Marketplace is far more
complex than trying to just sell a DOS product. Novell needs to define new
standards, not based on profits, but based on skill and reliability. A
reliability that will extend from the top from Novell and UnixWare down to
the lowest vendor.
This quality in product, service, support, and community will be a blazing
light in which others, such as SUN, SCO, will define their product and
companies by.
* Support the user community
Dell Computers once was touted as being #1 in a Unix product. All of the
things both Phill and I have mentioned, were clearly visable with Dell's
product. Not only were they participating with the users, they also included
user software within it's distribution. Not only did this make for happy
users but it added diversity and human quality to Dell's offering.
But much like Novell's current path, Dell decided that absolute profit was
the key. Not that the product was not profitable, but that it did not
satisfy their greed. This is clearly a path that Novell seems to be taking.
It is also a path that SUN and others are also taking....
Novell is at a fork in the road. It's in your hands to guide it. I am
certain that there will be many that continue to purchase UnixWare for
Novell's sake. In the same scheme that true-blue IBM'ers would rather die
than to purchase a clone.
But I am equally certain that if Novell is untilling to understand the unique
ethics and policies that surround Unix and the Intel based Unix marketplace,
UnixWare will simply become a trademark owned by a company that will
eventually give up the fight and it's users loyalty.
I would offer myself to making the changes for Novell. But I am uncertain
that the structure of your company is able to perform radical change or
willing to change at all. I am equally sure that there are many in
management that would rather save face than to deal with the concerns and
policies expressed by the user community.
For now, you are a petty DOS company trying to do a MainFrame job. And
failing. This is the image that is reflected by your performence with me and
those I communicate with.
I am also equally certain that you may never see this article.
I am open to communications. Always.
I hope you are willing to make the change.
Signed,
Harry Skelton
MIS Director/CIO
James & Douglas Publishers
404-590-7100
--
Harry Skelton - 1848 Beaver Dam Lane - Marietta, Georgia - 30062
404-590-7100 Work -- 404-578-8085 Home
$ ping elvis
ping: elvis has left the network
Evan Leibovitch
(Harry Skelton) writes:
>I would first like to thank Philip Rhoades for his post.
Yes, it was nice to hear someone make the case of why universities
should be subsidized by Novell. Can't say I agree, but it was well
stated.
>I think it covers
>many issues regarding the educational institutional use of UnixWare and
>prohibitive pricing of UnixWare.
Prohibitive pricing. That's a laugh.
Philip was bemoaning the Novell charge of $3,000 for a site licence
covering the entire university. Does anyone in their right mind believe
that to be prohibitive? Compare that to the university's hardware
budget, or what the manpower costs to administer the systems -- it's a
drop in the bucket.
You want free? Get Linux or BSD. After that, who offers better than
$3,000 for a site licence?
Prohibitive? Get a life.
>To be quite honest, I had no clue as to the CEO of Novell.
Duh. Read any shred of the computer press over the last five years?
Noorda is second only to Gates in his presence in the industry.
Maybe this is what happens to people who only depend on Usenet for
their 'news'.
>Would I have known I would have possibly have called you direct.
"Hello, is this Novell? Could you tell me the name of your CEO?
Great, do you spell Noorda with a 'u' or a 'o'? OK. Now, can you
patch me through to his private line? Thanks a bunch."
WHen you're writing a letter to someone, if your aim is to get results
(rather than be seen as a whining complainer who won't be happy no
matter what you do), it pays to understand who you're writing to.
>Mr. Rhoades clearly pointed out X/Open's involvement in the direction of
>Unix. However the actual reality of the situation, as explained to me by one
>of your product directors, is that X/Open may define the standards for Unix
>but it in no way governs what Novell does with it's product.
So? X/Open defines standards, and USL is a company that makes products
that may, or may not, meet that standard. Ditto with OSF, Microsoft and
anyone else. That's been the status quo since day one. Tell us something new.
I lost a *lot* of respect for X/Open in the last few years. Its
navel-gazing during the OpenLook/Motif wars set the availability of
good, inexpensive GUI software for Unix back by many years.
>I personally do not feel that NT is a 'real' threat to UnixWare as the two
>address different parts of the marketplace.
Tell that to Microsoft. Unix is *exactly* what they're gunning for. They
may miss the mark, but it's Microsoft's stated intentions to produce NT
to be an alternative to Unix;
- as the OS used by high end and RISC workstations
- as a client-server environment
- as a multi-tasking environment on PCs
>I would be a very wise move on
>Novell's part to build NT servers and abilities into UnixWare, possibly as a
>side product,
Why does Novell have to do it? What about third parties?
>Phill's statement regarding the FREE Unix's is quite true. The sad fact is
>that these "Free" software offerings are rapidly outpacing Novell's own
>development in the Unix industry.
What another bunch of crap.
We have no published figured for installed base of either free Unixs or
UnixWare, so any statement about "rapidly outpacing" is sheer
speculation (or rather, I suspect, wishful thinking on Harry's part).
What is the penetration of 'free' Unix amongst the Fortune 500? Amongst
VARs who sell vertical applications that are the backbone of the
commercial Unix market?
Get real.
>It is my opnion that Novell is trying to keep up with Solaris
Harry has made numerous hints over the months about the grass being
greener on the Solaris side of the hill. I wish him luck. How soon, Harry?
>I'm not sure if you see this, high upon your lofty chair, but there are
>vendors out here that are very upset ("Pissed" would be a better word) at
>Novell. Not only does Novell restrict it's support to the vendors and sales
>support, but you make it costly for them to do business.
As a reseller, Novell has treated us better than any other supplier I
can name, and that includes four other Unix-on-Intel producers.
>This CNE, Golden/Master/Platinum Vendor stuff
>is a profit sham. Clear and simple. Novell's only goal is the bottom line
>with these folks. Not a techical line.
Yup, what a sham... doing something to ensure that VARs and dealers have
a clue about what they're selling.
>The Unix Marketplace is far more
>complex than trying to just sell a DOS product.
Duh. So was NetWare. And Novell has been sorta successful in selling that.
>For now, you are a petty DOS company trying to do a MainFrame job. And
>failing. This is the image that is reflected by your performence with me and
>those I communicate with.
I'll not go deep into the other side of the story on this one. I have
received private e-mail from people at both Dell and Novell, painting
a picture of a user who makes me glad I'm not one of the folks manning
the UnixWare support lines.
Many of Harry's early valid accusations against Novell have been dealt
with, including the most recent issue of the Emergency Boot Floppy.
But the complaints have not stopped, just become more vague, regarding
marketing issues and other such stuff.
Many people out there are finding UnixWare solid and useful, Harry. If
you have specific complaints about particular problems that haven't been
addressed yet, let's hear them. Otherwise, go away and bug the Sun
newsgroups.
--
Evan Leibovitch, Sound Software Ltd., located in beautiful Brampton, Ontario
ev...@telly.on.ca / uunet!utzoo!telly!evan / (905) 452-0504
I can't complain, but sometimes I still do -- Joe Walsh
Harry Skelton
>>To be quite honest, I had no clue as to the CEO of Novell.
>
>Duh. Read any shred of the computer press over the last five years?
>Noorda is second only to Gates in his presence in the industry.
>
>Maybe this is what happens to people who only depend on Usenet for
>their 'news'.
This is true. Some of us have a life beyond our work too and would rather
spend time with our kids than sucking up information from every magazine
produced.
>As a reseller, Novell has treated us better than any other supplier I
>can name, and that includes four other Unix-on-Intel producers.
Too bad I can't say the same as a user.
>>This CNE, Golden/Master/Platinum Vendor stuff
>>is a profit sham. Clear and simple. Novell's only goal is the bottom line
>>with these folks. Not a techical line.
>
>Yup, what a sham... doing something to ensure that VARs and dealers have
>a clue about what they're selling.
The sham relates to the high prices of these services and products. I do not
work for a large computer company. Infact, my department is quite small.
Thus I do not have the luxury of having a budget to spend on obtaining CNE
certification nor NSE CD's. That comes directly out of my pocket.
I just want to see something that I, as a end-user, individual, can afford.
>Many people out there are finding UnixWare solid and useful, Harry. If
>you have specific complaints about particular problems that haven't been
>addressed yet, let's hear them. Otherwise, go away and bug the Sun
>newsgroups.
>
>--
> Evan Leibovitch, Sound Software Ltd., located in beautiful Brampton, Ontario
> ev...@telly.on.ca / uunet!utzoo!telly!evan / (905) 452-0504
> I can't complain, but sometimes I still do -- Joe Walsh
You are a clear indication why we should have never passed NAFTA. :) :)
But seriously. Cool your jets. My peice has been said. Novell didn't want
to listen. I give up. (for now)
I think we all have had enough bashing.
--
Harry Skelton - 1848 Beaver Dam Lane - Marietta, Georgia - 30062
404-590-7100 or 800-366-8181 Work -- 404-578-8085 Home
ske...@jdp.dragon.com
"He who flames improperly risks making an ash of himself!"
--- Jeff Klumpp (j...@ficc.uu.net)
Evan Leibovitch
point to be made here and there. Also consider that Harry and I have
kissed and made up in private e-mail.
In article <zorbaCI...@netcom.com> zo...@netcom.com (Harry Skelton) writes:
>>As a reseller, Novell has treated us better than any other supplier I
>>can name, and that includes four other Unix-on-Intel producers.
>Too bad I can't say the same as a user.
This, I guess, is what I find most puzzling, and perhaps calls into
question the issue of 'Novell the shrinkwrap vendor of UnixWare' as
opposed to 'Novell the owner of Unix and sub-licensor of its code'.
Back in the Bad Old Days when USL was a foster child of AT&T, if you had
a problem with bugs in your Esix or Interactive or Dell or Microport
Unix, there wasn't a hope in hell that USL would take your call, let
alone return it. Even the SVR4 bug-report mailing list, which I
subscribed to, never had any USL participation.
Back then, you couldn't buy a shrinkwrap S5R4 from USL. So there was
never any question of what the channel was. You'd call your vendor and
pray that they could either fix the bug themselves, or get through to
the USL ivory tower.
Things aren't as clear-cut now. Novell, after buying USL, has clearly
gone into in the shrinkwrap business with UnixWare. Yet it still
sub-licenses 4.2 code to companies like Information Foundation,
VentureCom and Consensys, thus (in a way) competing with itself.
If IF and Consensys have merely licensed code and are resellling it
(which may not be the exact nature of IF's relationship), then it would
strike me that the buyer of Consensys or IF Unix would indeed not be
able to go to Novell directly, that all bugs etc. would be reported to
the actual "shrink-wrapper" who would then move the request up the
channel to Novell if the vendor couldn't handle it. In a sense, the
UnixWare folk are under the same constraints, but they'd likely get
listened to faster if only because of proximity to Novell's USG.
So where does this leave the IF purchaser such as Harry? I'm not sure.
The policies should be better spelled out, as Harry says, though I'm not
so sure the company is being negligent in referring his calls back to
where he purchased his Unix.
>>>This CNE, Golden/Master/Platinum Vendor stuff
>>>is a profit sham. Clear and simple. Novell's only goal is the bottom line
>>>with these folks. Not a techical line.
>>Yup, what a sham... doing something to ensure that VARs and dealers have
>>a clue about what they're selling.
>The sham relates to the high prices of these services and products. I do not
>work for a large computer company. Infact, my department is quite small.
>Thus I do not have the luxury of having a budget to spend on obtaining CNE
>certification nor NSE CD's. That comes directly out of my pocket.
Nobody said you had to be one yourself -- just have access to one. For the
small end-user, CNE/CUE certification is overkill, as is the NSE. It was
never designed for smaller end users, it was meant for larger end-users
and resellers.
Resellers have to have a certain committment to the stuff they sell.
There's been a lot of fly by night Unix "salesmen" who whose knowledge
of Unix is limited to sales brochures and the prices in the Merisel
catalogue. SCO's attempts at dealer certification, as well as Novell's,
are merely an attempt to make sure that people who will be selling the
stuff have a minimal knowledge of it too. In the case of Novell, what is
important is *knowing* the stuff, not necessarily paying Novell to teach
you. I may be later proven wrong, but this is the impression I have
based on my own experiences to date.
Most of the UnixWare-relevant stuff on the NSE is on the ftp server
anyway. If you don't want to subscribe to the NSE, you can always buy
some Internet service for a lot less.
>But seriously. Cool your jets. My peice has been said. Novell didn't want
>to listen. I give up. (for now)
I think Harry gives both Novell and himself too little credit. Novell has
listened, not just to Harry but everyone else who demanded the
Emeregency Floppy issue be resolved. And they did it in a manner which
IMO was the best possible way. Other specific matters, like the ttymon
problems, were dealt with. The complaint about the PE and TCP/IP will be
dealt with in 1.1. Slowly, steadily, they're hunting down the real
problems and tackling them.
I believe Novell *has* listened and that they continue to listen. The
private e-mail that I have received from Novell people as replies to
posts have been my own personal proof that they are listening.
Whether and how they choose to prioritize this or that specific complaint
is another matter. I don't think they've given up and I don't think
Harry should either. There's just that simple matter of tone, and I
shan't repeat myself on that one.
>I think we all have had enough bashing.
Amen. Merry Christmas.
Harry Skelton
matter of agreement, and as a matter of your vendor perspective and the
perspective of this humble user. :)
>So where does this leave the IF purchaser such as Harry? I'm not sure.
>The policies should be better spelled out, as Harry says, though I'm not
>so sure the company is being negligent in referring his calls back to
>where he purchased his Unix.
Fully agreed. I think that Novell is doing what is right from the business
perspective. But much like if I purchased a car from a Ford dealer, who
added various other extras, I should still be able to go to Ford itself for
resolutions to issues that my vendor is unable or unwilling to provide.
Vendors like IF are at the mercy of Novell for their extended support
services. But those services, IMO, are not responsive enough to the vendor.
Even now I have several bug reports in on ttymon, vi, scsi controllers, as
well as requests for enhancements for other portions of UnixWare. These
issues have been forwarded by IF to Novell. However, IF nor I have been
notified by any offical response (that I know about) with regards to these
issues.
If Novell is to let the Vendor's handle the users, the communications must be
opened further and faster in order to insure a timely response to user
issues. As well as to Vendor requests.
There also has to be a chain of command in which a user may bypass his/her
vendor so that they may be able to address critical issues that the user may
feel the vendor is not moving fast enough on. In dealing with such companies
as ICL, Sequenet, SUN, and Altos (back when...) when I as a user had felt it
necessary to call upon the main company for results, even if the main company
was the ones at fault, they became very sensitive to the issues and responded
quickly and with much focused attention. I have not seen this with Novell.
It is granted that I have received support directly from vendors. But it
was at thier options to do so and not from the chain of command by Novell.
Thus my argument would be that Novell, as a company, is not able nor willing
to support it's user base. If it has been the management making the
directives for such good folks as the developers to call me and others with
support and fixes, it has not been expressed to me. So I feel that the
company is not standing behind it's product or it's users.
>>The sham relates to the high prices of these services and products. I do not
>>work for a large computer company. Infact, my department is quite small.
>>Thus I do not have the luxury of having a budget to spend on obtaining CNE
>>certification nor NSE CD's. That comes directly out of my pocket.
>
>Nobody said you had to be one yourself -- just have access to one. For the
>small end-user, CNE/CUE certification is overkill, as is the NSE. It was
>never designed for smaller end users, it was meant for larger end-users
>and resellers.
Actually there is a great interest and advantage to becomming CNE/UNE(CUE)
certified. Just pickup a Sunday paper and look for companies that require
CNE or companies that require other such certification. I beleave on a prior
post I pointed out this causes a great deal of descrimination against those
of us that have experience in dealing with networks, Unix admin, etc. but the
company is so blind to understanding the tasks of the administrators that the
only support they have to insure they have a 'good choice' is the
certifications.
I think your comment 'Nobody said you had to be one yourself -- just have
access to one' could be expanded to include an open test suite for
certification. Allowing any owner of UnixWare to pay a fee (something in the
range of $200 or less) for a course for CUE certification. Perhaps to break
the steps down further into smaller peices such as:
o Unix Administration - $200
o Unix/Netware Networking and administration $200
o Unix System Programming (all levels) $250
I beleave that would cover the bases and still work out to the same amount of
money one would pay for CNE certification.
But my opinion would stand with a complete certification at the $200 mark or
less.
Secondly, the NSE is becomming accessable by our vendors. IF is going to
start a program with it's users for NSE access. (Thanks JDC!!!!!!) Thus my
$20 internet account can access the latest information available. (as a side
note/joke, it seems that the breakdown of open communications between Novell
and it's vendors has shown itself with me as I typically find out about
things before my vendor does. ;) I hope that trend will reverse itself soon)
>Resellers have to have a certain committment to the stuff they sell.
>There's been a lot of fly by night Unix "salesmen" who whose knowledge
>of Unix is limited to sales brochures and the prices in the Merisel
>catalogue. SCO's attempts at dealer certification, as well as Novell's,
>are merely an attempt to make sure that people who will be selling the
>stuff have a minimal knowledge of it too. In the case of Novell, what is
>important is *knowing* the stuff, not necessarily paying Novell to teach
>you. I may be later proven wrong, but this is the impression I have
>based on my own experiences to date.
Agreed. But this has not stopped some folks from selling SUN products and
will not stop such companies as DELL from selling SCO or UnixWare. It's the
age old issue of the dollar. Money talks. And it's who you know not what
you know.
But Novell should add to it's vendor certification some stiff fines for those
who violate the policies or agreements. That plus possibly having the vendor
pay some form of probationary fee that will be returned once the vendor has
proven themselves.
That may be too hard of a line for small vendors. But perhaps this is not a
small vendor product.
>Most of the UnixWare-relevant stuff on the NSE is on the ftp server
>anyway.
I disagree. Postings and E-mails I have received from Novell indicate that
there is much lacking from the FTP servers as well as WWW servers, etc. It
would be nice if they did put the NSE on the WWW server. But that would
possibly be viewed as a profit loss for Novell.
>I think Harry gives both Novell and himself too little credit. Novell has
>listened, not just to Harry but everyone else who demanded the
>Emeregency Floppy issue be resolved. And they did it in a manner which
>IMO was the best possible way.
Agreed. But I would point out the lack of documentation and support for the
EBF. Private mail,to me from Rick Farr, basicly said "you get what you paid
for". In other words, 'don't expect much from the 1.0 EBF support since we
posted it free' attitude. I find this the wrong attitude to have with any
released product. Free or otherwise.
But the EBF is non the less very welcomed here. And I have stated my thanks
to those involved. Even Rick. :)
>Other specific matters, like the ttymon
>problems, were dealt with. The complaint about the PE and TCP/IP will be
>dealt with in 1.1. Slowly, steadily, they're hunting down the real
>problems and tackling them.
At what cost? They are trying to get 1.1 out and it does fix a number of
issues. However Novell has clearly told me that they are trying not to deal
with issues of the 1.x release in order to focus on the 2.0 release. I'd
much rather have a working 1.x than a broke 2.0. If Solarix X86 versions are
any indication of what to expect in 2.0, then I'd hope they provide a dual
support role for us 1.x users who are not interested in dealing with the
problems of 2.0.
>I believe Novell *has* listened and that they continue to listen. The
>private e-mail that I have received from Novell people as replies to
>posts have been my own personal proof that they are listening.
Always in private. In a lot of ways this is good. But I'd rather they be
more open to the public on the issues.
>Whether and how they choose to prioritize this or that specific complaint
>is another matter. I don't think they've given up and I don't think
>Harry should either. There's just that simple matter of tone, and I
>shan't repeat myself on that one.
Nor shall I. I have renewed my war with Novell. I'm just smiling as I flame
now. ;) But seriously. I am trying to play the game by 'their rules'. That
means I start flooding my vendor's e-mail box with requests, ideas, problems,
nags, etc. Is this what Novell wants? Is this what my Vendor wants? I've
already been told by my vendor that I am 'wasting much of their time' with
things other than bug reports. It is 'not what you signed up for'. But it's
what Novell told me to do.
Where do I go but here?
>>I think we all have had enough bashing.
>
>Amen. Merry Christmas.
Merry Christmas, Evan.
May your holidays be filled with family, fun, and laughter.
Mark Ekelund,992-0430,,
I just read a reply to a reply to... stating that $3000 for a
university campus site licence for Novell wasn't such a bad deal.
I have always wondered why Novell provides support for higher
education but not for K-12. We are paying $3 - 4,000 for Netware
for every elementary school we network. This is their entire
budget for 2 years. Of course we are not about to upgrade from
version 2.x and will be the first to jump ship when a good but
more affordable alternative arises.
Why doesn't Novell support K-12 education ?
--
Rich Farr
[stuff deleted]
|> I disagree. Postings and E-mails I have received from Novell indicate that
|> there is much lacking from the FTP servers as well as WWW servers, etc. It
|> would be nice if they did put the NSE on the WWW server. But that would
|> possibly be viewed as a profit loss for Novell.
Good News! All of the FYI's (the problem description/solution section from
the NSE) are already on the WWW server. These are the FYI's for all Novell
products (UnixWare included). Again, the address is "http://www.novell.com/"
Please use this service. I believe it is very useful. I am logging usage
statistics on the WWW as well as FTP and other stuff. Basically, the more
it is used, the more obvious it becomes to Novell that it is what customers
want. (I think they already know this however, but use it anyway).
Incidentally, I have compiled Lynx, a line mode browser, for UnixWare. I'll
be putting it up on ftp.novell.com in ~/Web later today.
|> Agreed. But I would point out the lack of documentation and support for the
|> EBF. Private mail,to me from Rick Farr, basicly said "you get what you paid
|> for". In other words, 'don't expect much from the 1.0 EBF support since we
|> posted it free' attitude.
Wrong!!! I believe you misunderstood what I wrote. After I posted the
announcement about the EBF utility being available, you posted a follow-up
question asking about the lack of documentation on restrictions, licensing,
etc. My reply was "take it for what it's worth". By this I did not mean to
say we don't support it or won't help users work with it. I was trying to
say that if there is no documentation pointing limitations on its use, then
there probably are no limitations. Of course it is supported just like any
other patch or release that is made publicly available.
This is not meant to be any sort of a slam. I just wanted to make sure
there is no misunderstanding on this issue.
Rich Farr
Harry Skelton
In article <CIE6M...@Provo.Novell.COM> rf...@Novell.Com (Rich Farr) writes:
>Good News! All of the FYI's (the problem description/solution section from
>the NSE) are already on the WWW server. These are the FYI's for all Novell
>products (UnixWare included). Again, the address is "http://www.novell.com/"
>Please use this service. I believe it is very useful. I am logging usage
>statistics on the WWW as well as FTP and other stuff. Basically, the more
>it is used, the more obvious it becomes to Novell that it is what customers
>want. (I think they already know this however, but use it anyway).
I have just tried your server. The menus are very hard to brouse through
(I'm using 'www' from netcom.com). It notes UnixWare support in various
areas but does not put you directly to the NSE.
Regarding the NSE, I found it does not have many of the patches noted for the
7770, X Windows, ttymon, nor articles regarding these items. It has some
comments about them but not to the detail that actually explains the problem.
Such as the 7770 information simply says to get another controler card,
install UnixWare, then load and configure the adsa drivers. Problem is there
is no documentation on how to perform the configuration nor explaining to the
users how to modify the space.c file for higher performance beyond the 5mb
range.
I tried a find with "X". Nothing! I tried "X11". Nothing! It might be
advisable to expand your keywords.
Lastly, the examples posted on the NSE lack supporting programs. I'm certain
that there are many what would rather deal with loading a program than trying
to hack 'addttymon' to Novell specs.
The WWW/NSE service does seem to be a great idea. But more information needs
to be expanded upon on the NSE. That plus the supporting programs and
alternate examples of how to address various issues.
>Incidentally, I have compiled Lynx, a line mode browser, for UnixWare. I'll
>be putting it up on ftp.novell.com in ~/Web later today.
Some of us have to pay for disk space. I'd much rather have a telnet port
that I can get into and work the NSE that way. Beyond that, FTP to the disk
would be very nice. ;)
>Wrong!!! I believe you misunderstood what I wrote.
Yes I did. Sorry.
>Of course it is supported just like any
>other patch or release that is made publicly available.
Of course it needs more documentation to support it. :)
>This is not meant to be any sort of a slam. I just wanted to make sure
>there is no misunderstanding on this issue.
Understood. I was not trying to slam you on these issues. Just trying to get
more needed info and my job done. ;)
Fred Puhan
ME> Education Technology Centre of B.C. Date: Tue, 21 Dec 1993 15:50:29
ME> GMT
ME> Why doesn't Novell support K-12 education ? --
For the same reason MANY companies don't support K-12 (or higher) education:
the Bottom Line. Stockholders are constantly monitoring a company's stock
performance; "there are only two emotions on Wall Street -- fear and greed."
Educational institutions are notoriously underfunded. Committing a company's
resources for altruistic (or even long-term) goals tends to have a negative
impact on the bottom line.
Janet E. Brown
think this would be a good incentive. My son is 5 and is already
highly computer literate. My husband and I volunteer a lot in the
computer 'learning area' - I have thought many, many times that networking
in the school would not only help education but might cut-back on
administrative costs as well. My thoughts for our school was Netware Lite.
I wonder if card manufacturers, INTEL, 3COM, etc. offer reduced rates
to schools. Thanks for the enlightning post ... Also, I have been
involved with National Engineering Week for several years; we are really
looking at serious shortage of technical people, especially engineers,
in the future. I would think that some of the computer companies would
try to protect their investments in our future by supporting K-12
activities. I have no idea what NOVELL or anyone else is doing - they
may be deeply involved for all I know - this was just an observation
on my part.
Todd A. Coy
>From: bro...@ncifcrf.gov (Janet E. Brown)
>Subject: Re: OPEN LETTER TO RAY NOORDA - From anther user
>Date: Wed, 22 Dec 1993 14:35:43 GMT
IBM has an education division called Eduquest. They sell not only computers
but software, including Novell to Educational Instatutions at a Fairly
discounted rate. Some of the Prices are even below that which retailers buy
it for. I believe Apple and Zenith have similar programs as well as Compaq.
--Todd
tc...@umi.com
George I. Fenton
>Really, K-12 doesn't receive a discount? If NOVELL is watching, I
>think this would be a good incentive. My son is 5 and is already
>highly computer literate. My husband and I volunteer a lot in the
>computer 'learning area' - I have thought many, many times that networking
>in the school would not only help education but might cut-back on
>administrative costs as well. My thoughts for our school was Netware Lite.
>I wonder if card manufacturers, INTEL, 3COM, etc. offer reduced rates
I would like to see stats on what computer software and hardware companies
are really providing discounts on K-12 level, and how many years they have
provided such "investments". I believe certain amount of companies
give obsolete software and hardware to the schools, while others
provide state-of-the-art items if based on a larger educational contract.
I agree that education needs more investment, but this has to be from
both private and government agencies. I also understand Novell's standpoint
of not simply donating stuff if such mass donations/discounting policy
adversely affect their bottom line. This is our captialist system, isn't
it? :-)
IMHO. --GIF
Rick Richardson
>Agreed. But I would point out the lack of documentation and support for the
>EBF. Private mail,to me from Rick Farr, basicly said "you get what you paid
>for". In other words, 'don't expect much from the 1.0 EBF support since we
>posted it free' attitude. I find this the wrong attitude to have with any
>released product. Free or otherwise.
The EBF floppy is a bad example, since it *should* be part of a
released product. But as far as I know, it doesn't have a part
number and isn't yet a released product, its just been "made available".
Whether it should be part of a released product is a different question.
Getting blasted for not supporting 'free' or 'contributed' software is
why most companies are scared to even offer this stuff. Yet, 90%
of this type of stuff is very valuable. The Novell FTP server
should be full of 'free' stuff, like SCO's. If you blast them
for not supporting this stuff, it will all go away. If something
needs to be made part of a product, then blast them until they do
(ala TCP/IP), *then* blast them if they don't support it.
-Rick
--
Rick Richardson Senior Staff Engineer NCSA Mosaic -
DigiBoard, Inc. Email: ri...@digibd.com #1 reason for a national
6400 Flying Cloud Dr. Fax: (612) 943-0803 (toll-free) data highway.
Eden Prarie, MN 55344 Tel: (612) 943-5383 <standard disclaimer>
Harry Skelton
>Getting blasted for not supporting 'free' or 'contributed' software is
>why most companies are scared to even offer this stuff. Yet, 90%
>of this type of stuff is very valuable. The Novell FTP server
>should be full of 'free' stuff, like SCO's. If you blast them
>for not supporting this stuff, it will all go away. If something
>needs to be made part of a product, then blast them until they do
>(ala TCP/IP), *then* blast them if they don't support it.
Good point. I agree. But much like the EBF, things like device drivers and
the like also need good docs. Supported or not. I have a mission critical
problem now with my SCSI controller (age old 7770 argument). The drivers
support the controller (so I'm told) but not at the full data rates. I only
found this out after checking out the space.c of the driver.
But this also applies to other drivers that have been released.
I'm not trying to argue or flame the lack of support/docs for these drivers.
Lord knows I've been in a e-mail conversation with almost everyone at Novell
on a few issues of my own regarding ftp'd drivers.
I guess my point is that Novell seems to be throwing stuff out for FTP, etc
but do not have much documentation nor extensive support for these items. I
think this all relates back to the issue of general lack of documentation and
a limited willingness of the vendor to go into details on what they released.
It is clearly understandable that they have thier hands full with trying to
get 1.1 and 2.0 out the door. But that should not excuse them from releasing
questionalable 'free' products. However I do agree with you in staying that
I am very pleased and thankful that they have released these drivers and
products.
As far as a 'blast', how about a good X server, An optimizing C compiler that
doesn't run slower than a non-optimized output, faster TCP/IP, more X
extensions/clients, Online CD-ROM based docs, an affordable NSE, affordable
CNE/UNE certification, virtual console support (not this newvt thing!), full
data rate support on SCSI drivers, RAID-0 and 1 support without having to go
third party (i.e. free with OS), scrap 'cs' and 'ttymon' or fix the buggers,
more protocol support for UUCP, and how about faster floppy support both with
Unix and DOS formats. Almost forgot: Full Pentium Optimization down to the
kernel!!
But I know they are busy folks. I'm willing to wait. (for now)
P.S. Make 'sort' (and other user programs) Posix/ANSI compliant. i.e. support
$TEMP redirection of temp files. (OBJ Hint: sort supports -T dirname
for temp directory support. Although it's undocumented and a carry over
from an older rev.)
Have a good one! Happy Holidays!!
Rick Richardson
>As far as a 'blast', how about ...
> ... virtual console support (not this newvt thing!)
Actually, you can have SCO/ISC style VT's (login per VT) right now.
Just add /etc/getty lines to your inittab (don't forget that they have
to go into /etc/conf/init.d/kernel, too, or you'll lose the lines
on the next system build. Be careful if you run X, as you can
get into a race condition with XDM over the next free vt - its
best to fire up getty's on vt02 and greater. I suppose you
could also use ttymon, but I'm a getty kind of guy.
I did this successfully back in the Beta for 1.0, but haven't
had a need to do it lately. I'm pretty sure it still works.
As far as a blast at Novell goes - I asked them during the 1.0
beta to pretty please put the necessary entries into the stock inittab,
but set to "off". Then at least mere mortals could easily see
how to get normal VT login behavior, not the goofy and useless
vtlmgr kind.
Obviously, they didn't take the suggestion, and I forgot to
remention it for 1.1, so if somebody sets this up, send the info
to our friendly FAQ maintainer.
Aleksey Y. Romanov
>start a program with it's users for NSE access. (Thanks JDC!!!!!!) Thus my
>$20 internet account can access the latest information available. (as a side
>note/joke, it seems that the breakdown of open communications between Novell
>and it's vendors has shown itself with me as I typically find out about
>things before my vendor does. ;) I hope that trend will reverse itself soon)
There is one thing I do not understand at all: the restriction in NSE
distribution and unrealistic price for end user. The price to make one more
cope of the thing is about 3 cents, there are no trade secrets inside and mere
availability of such a thing to end users at a price of a computer magazine
will be a definitive reason to choose UnixWare against its competitors.
> Harry Skelton - 1848 Beaver Dam Lane - Marietta, Georgia - 30062
Aleksey
Leslie Mikesell
Rick Richardson <ri...@digibd.digibd.com> wrote:
>As far as a blast at Novell goes - I asked them during the 1.0
>beta to pretty please put the necessary entries into the stock inittab,
>but set to "off". Then at least mere mortals could easily see
>how to get normal VT login behavior, not the goofy and useless
>vtlmgr kind.
What's wrong with vtlmgr? I rather liked Dell's approach which was
to put a getty on vt01 (only) in the stock inittab. I typically
log in as root there and my normal login's .profile executes vtlmgr
when started on the console so using all the other vt's is automatic.
Is there a better way to do things?
Les Mikesell
l...@chinet.com
Harry Skelton
>In article <rick.756624286@digibd>,
>Rick Richardson <ri...@digibd.digibd.com> wrote:
>
>>As far as a blast at Novell goes - I asked them during the 1.0
>>beta to pretty please put the necessary entries into the stock inittab,
>
>to put a getty on vt01 (only) in the stock inittab. I typically
>log in as root there and my normal login's .profile executes vtlmgr
>when started on the console so using all the other vt's is automatic.
>Is there a better way to do things?
Yes. I agree with Rick. VT's should be on by default and indipendant of the
login session. If nothing else, like Rick said, they should have them turned
off but part of the inittab.
One thing regarding the inittab, rebuilding of the kernel and the environment
should not blot out the inittab. Either move it to a backup file or leave it
in place for the user to deal with. Not many know where the 'real' inittab
is kept.
Pete Holsberg
>One thing regarding the inittab, rebuilding of the kernel and the environment
>should not blot out the inittab.
That occurs even in AT&T SVR3.2!!!
------------------------------------------------------------------
Pete Holsberg The House On *This* Side Of U.S. 1
44 Lopatcong Drive p...@mccc.edu
Trenton, NJ 08638 p...@pjh.jvnc.net
FAX: 609-586-2318
------------------------------------------------------------------
**** Trenton Computer Festival **** April 16-17, 1994 ****
------------------------------------------------------------------
Randy Suess
Harry Skelton <zo...@netcom.com> wrote:
>
>One thing regarding the inittab, rebuilding of the kernel and the environment
>should not blot out the inittab. Either move it to a backup file or leave it
>in place for the user to deal with. Not many know where the 'real' inittab
>is kept.
This is real silly. If a "user" does not know where the
real inittab is kept, then they *certainly* have no reason
to messing with anything having to do with the system, such
as /etc/inittab. The inittab MUST be rebuilt. Things you
change or add to the kernel probably have a change to the inittab
to go along with it. Sorry, but some people should stay away
from things they don't understand. There is no reason to screw
up a decent OS for people that have nightmares about autoexec.bat.
--
They stand on a wall, and say:
"Nothing is gonna hurt you tonite. Not on my watch"
Randy Suess - ra...@chinet.com - The gapers block on the Information Hiway
Leslie Mikesell
>Yes. I agree with Rick. VT's should be on by default and indipendant of the
>login session.
OK, but why??? For development type work I like keeping one VT logged in
as root all the time but other than that, the machine belongs to me and
I prefer not to have to log in every time I want a new session. Do
you share the machine with simultaneous sessions active on the console
or what? You can always use "su - user" or a loopback telnet session
to get that effect. Or do you just forget to invoke vltmgr in the
first place? Just put it in your .profile and be done with it.
Les Mikesell
l...@chinet.com
Harry Skelton
I think it is a matter of taste and preference. I share my machine with many
folks. I dislike trying to allow users to run programs with my own login. I
find it a security problem (although a mild one).
My vote is to put it in the system, but turned off. The user can choose as
they please. I do not want to vt-out to another forked login session of
myself. My environment is already too open.
Steve Alexander
The TCP/IP in 1.1 is quite a bit faster (I've measured it as up to twice as fast
using ttcp), although you may have to tweak some knobs to take full advantage of
it. The vagaries of PC hardware make it a bad idea for software to make
optimistic assumptions, at least in my experience.
In any event, TCP/IP performance is largely dependent on hardware. Nothing will
help you if you're using an 8-bit card, but a 16-bit card with a good-sized
frame buffer will work quite well.
--
Steve Alexander, Lachman Technology, Inc. | ste...@lachman.com
(708) 505-9555 x256 FAX: (708) 505-9574 | ...!{sun,ico}!laidbak!stevea
Paul Connolly
>
>[stuff deleted]
>
>|> I disagree. Postings and E-mails I have received from Novell indicate that
>|> there is much lacking from the FTP servers as well as WWW servers, etc. It
>|> would be nice if they did put the NSE on the WWW server. But that would
>|> possibly be viewed as a profit loss for Novell.
>
>Good News! All of the FYI's (the problem description/solution section from
>the NSE) are already on the WWW server. These are the FYI's for all Novell
>products (UnixWare included). Again, the address is "http://www.novell.com/"
>Please use this service. I believe it is very useful. I am logging usage
>statistics on the WWW as well as FTP and other stuff. Basically, the more
>it is used, the more obvious it becomes to Novell that it is what customers
>want. (I think they already know this however, but use it anyway).
>
>Incidentally, I have compiled Lynx, a line mode browser, for UnixWare. I'll
>be putting it up on ftp.novell.com in ~/Web later today.
>
>
>|> Agreed. But I would point out the lack of documentation and support for the
>|> EBF. Private mail,to me from Rick Farr, basicly said "you get what you paid
>|> for". In other words, 'don't expect much from the 1.0 EBF support since we
>|> posted it free' attitude.
>
I haven't once been told that isn't supported!!
I think the important thing here is that the EBF was made available.
I for one know the hassle that univel went through to make it available!!
Merry xmas
Paul
>Wrong!!! I believe you misunderstood what I wrote. After I posted the
>announcement about the EBF utility being available, you posted a follow-up
>question asking about the lack of documentation on restrictions, licensing,
>etc. My reply was "take it for what it's worth". By this I did not mean to
>say we don't support it or won't help users work with it. I was trying to
>say that if there is no documentation pointing limitations on its use, then
>there probably are no limitations. Of course it is supported just like any
>other patch or release that is made publicly available.
>
>This is not meant to be any sort of a slam. I just wanted to make sure
>there is no misunderstanding on this issue.
>
>
>Rich Farr
--
Paul Connolly
All opinions are mine!!
Com Tech Communications PTY. LTD.