[TriLUG] Novell jumps into Linux

[Chris Bullock]

On Wednesday 25 June 2003 10:10 am, Magnus wrote:
> On Wednesday, June 25, 2003, at 09:48 AM, Michael Thompson wrote:
> > Have all* the Novell naysayers on the list actually ever
> > used/configured
> > a Novell server or used netadmin?
>
> /me has

I hadn't until Novell released its trial version of e-directory.  I have never 
worked with nds or the such.  I read the very helpful "how-to" and I had a 
novell nds server running in less that 30 minutes, on a Linux box I may add. 
Set up my tree, added users, machines, groups, printers and it just worked.  
I have looked at OpenLDAP and don't have a clue where to start, I mean where 
is the self explainatory how-tos.  Sure novell cost a little money but so 
does 'nix consultants.  The average business wants something that works and 
preferbly something that works now.  Novell has been around the block a few 
times and it works and is stable and once the server is initially set up a 
data-enty clerk can modify the entries.  With open source dir services its 
very hard to do exactly what you want, I am not saying the OpenLDAP or 
whatever directory services software you use is bad, I am saying that in the 
long run I feel that Novell is the best/only choice for most companies 
wanting directory services.
>
> > Can anyone honestly say that writing
> > custom scripts (which I wouldn't do for free, maybe some would) would
> > be
> > easier and cheaper to a small business than just going ahead and
> > licensing a server and being able to get support?
>
> Support is a funny word.  It often means different things to the giver
> than the receiver.  And it certainly doesn't equate to integration
> services for anyone.

The problem with custom scripts is documentation in that most 
consultants/script writers do not leave easily readible if any at all 
documentation.  What good is a "custom" script if replacement IT guy doesn't 
know what it does.  Big corporations have what they call a standard, and 
everyone knows what the standard is.  If I want to add Susie Q to the 
Accounting department, I do not want to have to parse scripts that the last 
guy wrote to find out how to add her to the acct group, give her access to 
the business printer and allow her files to be shared with human resources.
>
> > Thats exactly what
> > they are doing now, only its Windows servers.  Whats wrong with Novell
> > trying to get a 'finished' Linux admin product into these areas?
>
> It's proprietary.  I've gained quite an appreciation for depending on
> products that I have adequate rights to.
>
> > I
> > could probably convince many of my small clients (less than 10 systems)
> > to convert to Linux and then bleed them dry in consulting hours as I
> > script their 'free' OS into something usable for the average end user,
>
> Keep in mind that's what many small clients ask for (go cheap/free on
> software, but spend lots of time configuring to suit the environment).

But most clients also want an understanding of what to do if they have a 
problem.  Using vi to edit the ldap.conf file is a little more difficult than 
using nwadmin
>
> IMHO the disconnection between Linux users & Linux developers is part
> of the problem;  there are lots of people using OpenLDAP, but none of
> the implementation money is getting to the developers (at least not a
> significant portion anyway) so while the back end is pretty slick, they
> do no have adequate resources to develop suitable front end management
> tools or slick installers.  It's entirely a volunteer effort.

So if OpenLDAP is such a great product, then people would not have a problem 
buying it.  I am not sure about the license that openLDAP has but if they are 
stricken for money put a price tag on it.  Its not wrong to have to pay for 
something that works is it, or maybe it is, I'm still asking my self that, 
hmmm, why pay for something that works vs work my butt off and give it away.
>
> Further, many consulting clients require an agreement to be signed such
> that none of the work done at the client site can be shared with the
> outside world.  Yes, consultants make more money spinning the clock up
> to reinvent the wheel over & over but if clients would be more
> realistic in their intellectual property secrecy requirements, it would
> be possible for field consultants to collaborate more (if they were so
> inclined) to the end of having slick deployment & management tools.
>
> Even otherwise Linux-friendly shops can put legal burdens on
> consultants to hand over ownership of all scripts & programs to $CLIENT
> such that they never see the light of day in the outside world.  This
> can be a real discouragement to consultants who would otherwise be
> inclined to make tools available.