Hi Admission – I don’t know anything about Netware: I was visiting one of my friends in his IT dept where they have one Netware 5 server and three NT4 servers. The NW server is the file and print server. The NT are PDC, BDC and an app server, being a NT admin I can’t see the need for the Netware server and told him to mov it to an NT server – that way they are all using NT. Any of you Netware Guys know of any good reason not to move to NT? Pauline

NetWare is a much more secure platform for file and print sharing, and has been for years. Novell's eDirectory is also a more full-featured directory that Active Directory. Novell simply failed to market/advertise their NOS. After geting 2 exams into the MCSE track, I jumped the MS ship and started (and finished) my CNE because I felt that NetWare was a better product.

Both NOS's have their strong & weak points. Read some of the independent reports published by noted companies like the GartnerGroup. The most recent ones even put Novell as being less costly of a network to implement than Microsoft, and that surprised me. I was not one to put a lot of stock in reports comparing NOS's, they all seemed to be biased in one form or another. Even the ones that glowed on and on about Novell. But after you look @ the ones from the GartnerGroup, which has nothing to gain and everything to lose (since that is how they make their living), it will open your eyes up to a lot of things as an admin you probably din't even think about. The GartnerGroup provides clients with a wide range of products and services in the areas of IT advisory services, measurement, research, decision support, analysis, and consulting. We just bought 3 licenses just to be able to research their databases just because of their indepth research. And like I said if you can keep an open mind, and check your ego @ the door about Novell and Microsoft, there are some very important articles that every network admin should read. Now days a Network Administrator has to do much more research than in years past. If you don't your network WILL become stagnant, no matter what size it is. With Linux coming on the way it has in the last two years, and the unification of 4 of the 5 main Linux developers. We have taken jobs away from Microsoft and Netware Web Servers and put Linux boxes running Apache in their place. With the stableness of the Linux OS and the security of Apache, it makes for a hard system to beat. This is why I say large networks now days can not be one dimensional, unless you are Microsoft or Novell, for obvious reasons. It just seems to me that when we have a project to implement Novell and Linux are still on the table after the weeding out process is through. On a security note, Microsoft had over 100 security type issues this year alone, compared to just 4 for Novell. I don't know about other network admins, but I would rather be in a “Proactive” role rather than a “Reactive” one. It was once upon a time that you had a definite dividing line when it came to either Microsoft or Novell. If it was a file and print sharing issue or security problem, Novell would be the answer. If it dealt with delivering applications or a Web issue, Microsoft would be the answer. But that is definetely the case these days. Novell is not the one that Microsoft should be worried about. Linux is the one that will be nipping @ their heels for many years to come. Especially with Linux introducing more and more corporate level applications. Not to mention the lovely world of Open Source, which is a IS departments dream come true. And on a totally different note. Is there anyone that can understand Microsoft's licensing scheme? Every day I get closer and closer to having Microsoft out of my personal PC's and home network. When I buy something and then are FORCED to contact a company to register it or it will not work (Microsoft's Office), that is just bullcrap. With Novell's introduction of eDirectory, ZENworks, iFolder and other services, it is making the life of a Netware Admin much easier. And gives us more time to find better ways of servicing our clients. Which in any network is the prime objective. If your clients are not happy, your admin life will definetly not be a happy one. In short I guess it all boils down to how honest we want to be with ourselves (Network Admins) when it comes to what NOS or software application will do the best job for the projects or issues that we have. Even if I was starting out today in deciding which NOS I would install soley based upon information gathered by research, articles, white papers, cost of implementing & maintaining, stability, security, etc., etc.. I don't see how I could pick Microsoft over Novell. Like I said it is just how honest we want to be with ourselves. We could debate this issue for days. Mine is not the one of trying to convert someone from Microsoft to Novell. I just know that Novell works for our 10K plus users running on 32 Netware 5.1 boxes with 9 Linux servers doing DNS, DHCP, & Web Services. Our biggest problem is trying to get people to remember their passwords. And those are the type of problems I can live with. Later! V-Peace-V

Hi Underdog Many thanks for the info. Liked your answer! Later Pauline

Seems to me the question isn't why shouldn't you move to another NT box but why are you using NT in the first place. NT is notoriously buggy, an entire website, ntbugtraq.com, is devoted to just this issue. M$ released Windows 2000, which was originally to be called NT 5.0, precisely to address the thousands of complaints about NT 4, unless you think that routinely rebooting servers is actually valid or that a server that hangs after running out of disk cache while sitting and doing nothing is the way a server NOS is supposed to work(hint: it isn't!!) Those of us who know of and have worked with the Novell product are having trouble deducing why anyone would buy M$ networking software to begin with. As the previous poster suggested, marketing plays a huge role in this situation. In fact, there is a maxim in the IT field that says 'superior marketing trumps superior technology'. Ask yourself this: when you are stuck in the server room on Friday night with an M$ server that simply refuses to work, or has been hit with yet another virus, or has crashed due to unforseen software compatibility issues, which do you want on your side then, superior marketing or superior technology?? The trouble is that the sharks over in Redmond are talking about their software and making all kinds of pie-in-the-sky promises to the people in companies that know the least about networking, i.e, the so-called CIOs or Chief Information Officers, or even to non-technical management personnel such as a CFO or CEO. In other words, the people that make the purchasing decisions are basing the decisions on Microshaft's on-going campaign of lies, distortions, misinformation and half-truths about its networking products. Put it this way, if you can't see any reason to buy NetWare, then don't buy it. If your friend doesn't have any training in NetWare, the advantages would be lost anyway. Stick with your NT boxes and good luck.

short answer- with both the IT guy can keep both on his resume

I have been a Netware admin for 13 years - started w/ version 2 (where you had to compile the OS and clients). I have never had a security breach or virus incident. I have 5 reasons to be loyal to Netware: 1. The company that our head honchos hired to do a penetration survey of the enterprise networks got into 99% of the Windows servers. They didn't even bother with the Netware servers, since they knew they weren't going to get in (as stated in their report). 2. It costs me less than a quarter of the cost of licensing my users/servers than what it would be on a Windows 2000 server. 3. In 13 years, I have never had a virus on Netware. It took only 5 months for a virus to hit the Windows 2000 server (even with up to date patching). 4. In 13 years, I have had a knuckle whitening all-nighter with a dead server exactly 4 times. I've already done it once with Windows (again, in 5 months). 4. Windows servers are not really servers. Since when should a regular user be able to login and run programs on the server desktop? That's called a non-dedicated server (which Novell abandoned in version 2.0) or a peer-to-peer network (which are notoriously insecure). You shouldn't have to reboot servers, either. I routinely go a year or more without rebooting Netware - and that's only for OS service packs or (rarely) new software being loaded. 5. I don't have to spend part of every day checking for updates, warnings and patches. I'll take the real thing, thank you. The only reason I have the 2000 server is for RAS and Citrix. I'm open to anyone with a better remote access solution that doesn't involve a W2K server.