Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive


Forgot your password?

Novell to Ship MySQL With NetWare 6 226

An anonymous reader writes "Coming close on the heels of their announcement that they've ported PostgreSQL to NetWare, Novell announced today that they will begin shipping MySQL with NetWare 6. Owing to customer and partner doubts about the GPL, Novell has chosen the commercial version of MySQL, rather than the GPL'ed version."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Novell to Ship MySQL With NetWare 6

Comments Filter:
  • What version? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by mgkimsal2 ( 200677 ) on Monday October 21, 2002 @02:30PM (#4497715) Homepage
    It says it'll ship in 2003, but a beta is available.

    WHEN will MySQL 4 get out of 'development' and into 'stable'? The infoworld article was already mentioning MySQL 5, but 4 is still alpha/beta, not 'production', and the 3.23 series seems to be progressing still.
  • by swb ( 14022 ) on Monday October 21, 2002 @02:36PM (#4497765)
    I loved Netware 4.11 and think that NDS even then is better than the next two iterations of Active Directory could hope to be.

    However, Novell has been doing this "Me too!!!!" thing with bundling stuff for years. Perl, the whole Netscape server, some IBM web thing, etc and it means nothing.

    I hate to agree with the trolls, but Novell is dying. There was even an article in the WSJ last Friday about companies trading *below* their hard asset valus, and guess who was on it? Novell was! The Wall Street logic apparently was that trading below asset value was the sign that you were a dead duck and that investors not only didn't think you would do well now, but thought you'd likely go bankrupt, too.
  • Here it is. (Score:4, Interesting)

    by FreeLinux ( 555387 ) on Monday October 21, 2002 @02:39PM (#4497803)
    Here is Novell's press release [] on the matter. (man their new web site sucks) It appears that earlier reports of PostgreSQL were inaccurate.

    Now, what the press release doesn't say is if Novell plans to remove Pervasive/BTrieve from Netware. Netware has always been deeply steeped in Btrieve (an abomination, in my opinion). Indeed Netware 3 through 6 even use BTrieve for the TCP/IP stack. I can't imagine why but, they do.
  • by WilliamX ( 22300 ) on Monday October 21, 2002 @02:40PM (#4497806)

    MySQL has always published incorrect information about it means for MySQL to be licensed under the GPL. Much of the text was from when it was published under the free-for-non-commercial use license. They keep this incorrect explanation to encourage people and companies to financially support the company's work.

    And while I applaud them seeking financial support, and hope companies who profit from MySQL do support the company and the product's development, their having that false explanation of the GPL licensing and what it means should be removed and replaced with a more honest licensing explanation.

  • by mattc58 ( 603979 ) on Monday October 21, 2002 @02:46PM (#4497865)
    I can verify this post. I am an ISV with a product for MySQL. Their understanding of the licensing issues is confusing at best.
  • by Asprin ( 545477 ) <<gsarnold> <at> <>> on Monday October 21, 2002 @02:47PM (#4497874) Homepage Journal

    This is neat-o keen, but exactly how does this convince people who are running NT or Linux servers (and who therefore can *already* get MySQL for free) to go with NetWare?

    If I were Novell, I'd be more interested in developing a Samba-style SMB server NLM to try to replace NT file and print servers -- look in any current virus catalog under "Klez" for more details...

  • Re:What version? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by mgkimsal2 ( 200677 ) on Monday October 21, 2002 @02:48PM (#4497884) Homepage
    If the developers won't give it the label 'stable', then it's not worth it. Funny, they think it's good enough to win head-to-head competitions via eweek against big db players, but they don't have enough confidence to label it 'stable'. Seems a bit hypocritical. What would the outcry be if MS 'won' benchmarks with 'alpha' software?
  • What IS Novell?? (Score:2, Interesting)

    by xtremex ( 130532 ) <cguru&bigfoot,com> on Monday October 21, 2002 @02:56PM (#4497955) Homepage
    I remember needing DOS to install Netware, and it just added networking to DOS apps, etc.
    Now, why would somebody use Novell now? Is it a REAL OS? Does it still need DOS/Windows to run? What am I gaining/losing by using Novell instead of a *NIX?
  • by eMilkshake ( 131623 ) on Monday October 21, 2002 @03:12PM (#4498092) Homepage
    NetWare 6.0 comes with Native File Access, and it's available [] for NetWare 5.1. It supplies CIFS/AFP/NFS access to NetWare servers.

    As much as I used to agree with those who sound the "better product" drum, as a former Novell sysadmin (primary NDS admin for a state university and developer of a YES approved NLM), Novell has lost it. They have too much development in Bangalore (yes, I have participated in a conference call with Bangalore engineers, and yes, they did speak English well, but didn't quite get some concepts on failover I was trying to explain as required) and too much turnover among developer staff. Couple that with a core kernel that's too small to extend (flaws in the kernel prevented effective multi-CPU work are documented on their developer site -- look for NKS) and you have a lean, mean server OS that rocks on a 486, but looks as out of place today as big hair and belts over large sweaters.

  • Re:What version? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by io333 ( 574963 ) on Monday October 21, 2002 @03:36PM (#4498304)
    I've never seen this said before, though I suppose it has been:

    In my experience, a program that runs under a Microsoft OS is usually into version 3.x or 4.x until it is anything that could actually be called "stable." And by stable, what comes to mind are programs that don't crash unexpectedly and do what they are actually supposed to do.

    Examples under windows of programs that were not really "stable" under at least version 4 are:

    Internet Explorer
    Microsoft Word
    Microsoft Windows
    CoolEdit ... the list is nearly endless.

    On the other hand, under Linux, I've used software called "beta", and less than version 1.x (heck, sometimes it's like version 0.1alpha) that is just as solid and functional as a 6.x or 7.x version of something in the Microsoft world.

    Examples are:
    flux box
    xine.... again the list is nearly endless.

    I'm not quite sure what the philosophy is here except to kind of thumb noses at Winsoftware windows versions and commercial software marketing BS in general... but fact is that I'd trust a 0.3 beta version of some linux program just as much as I'd trust a release verison 9.x of anything under Windows.

    But then I wonder if this hurts Linux when it comes to getting JoeAverage to run LinSoftware:

    Isn't Joe gonna think that version 6 of Internet Explorer might be better than version 1 of Mozilla?
  • by pmineiro ( 556272 ) <> on Monday October 21, 2002 @04:05PM (#4498551) Homepage
    Reading the license term for MySQL it seems pretty clear that Novell has no choice in choosing the license model. According to the terms at the MySQL page, MySQL is only GPL if the whole system is open sourced or GPL:ed. N'est ce pas?

    Actually this points to an important weakness in the GPL ... it only applies if you link against code.

    It is possible, for instance, to write your own mysql client library, which then communicates with the mysql server over a socket. Separate programs, no license infringements, so your code (with your special client library) can be closed source even if you use the mysql GPL license (and, when you distribute your complete product, be sure to include a copy of the mysql source).

    However, most people use (link against) the (GPL'd) mysql client library to talk to the mysql server, and that's what gets them.

    It is for this reason that I suspect mysql's protocol and client documentation is nonexistant. Contrast to the extensively documented PostgreSQL protocol and client libraries, which is a BSD license product. There is no incentive for the PostgreSQL guys to create impediments to custom engineered client libraries.

    -- p
  • by alistair ( 31390 ) <> on Monday October 21, 2002 @04:11PM (#4498607)
    One of the main problems Novell have is that the market, and customers to a large extent, always associate them with Netware, which most corporation are activly retiring.

    Yet if you look at their full product range they have products such as;
    • Zenworks, probably the best NT / 2000 Desktop managememnt and application installer out there.
    • DirXML - A fantastic meta directory product which has been fully based on XML and XSLT since long before they were fashionable.
    • eDirectory - A fully featured and very capable multi-master directory which runs on NT, Solaris and Linux and knocks AD into a crooked hat yet is fully LDAP complient (more so in many ways than Netscape / Sun's Directory Server).
    • A very nice suite of WEb Services products they recently aquired from Silverstream.

    I could go on but the message is clear, the company is packed with good products which it doesn't know how to sell.

    Last year I ran an evaluation of all the Meta Directory software out there and DirXML was the clear winner. We bought it and are very happy with it's performance, it certainly should be looked at by anyone who has looked at the Sun ONE or Siemens "equivelents".

    My advice to Novell would be that they need to spin off the Netware business to continue developing this and keeping their many millions of existing users happy. The remainder of the business should then be refocused as a Directory Services company. They already almost give away eDirectory, they should make this more official and then when organisations are hooked sell them all the value add products which integrate so nicely with this.
    This would also be welcomed by all the organisations who are concerned about Active Directory's single platform nature and the high cost of the Sun ONE Directory and their on|off support for Linux, which Novell have always been very committed too.
  • by swb ( 14022 ) on Monday October 21, 2002 @04:21PM (#4498723)
    I think that the info tech world, except for a few places, has largely written them off the same way that Banyan was written off. Wasn't Vines/Streetalk lightyears ahead of anything else at the time?

    Novell may have a barely positive operational cash flow (sales revnue - sales cost), but I'd almost bet that they have an overall negative cashflow, especially considering their investment holdings are probably taking a pounding.

    I seriously doubt that there will be a Netware 7.

    *I* think they should have ported the Netware file/print system to other OSs. Clearly Netware-the-OS tanked when the Internet got hot and people wanted a general purpose OS to run arbitrary server apps (db, web, ftp, mail, etc etc) on. Netware as an OS failed miserably (we tried!) to do those 'other' tasks well, so people bought NT/Unix.

    They they found that NT/Unix did file sharing "good enough" and stopped buying Netware. Pretty much end of story.

    Novell also fucked over Mac users with NW5, which is why we're on 2k. As awful as it can be, its better than what Novell had at the time for Mac support.

  • by SgtChaireBourne ( 457691 ) on Tuesday October 22, 2002 @02:30AM (#4502122) Homepage
    That seems to explain why Microsoft was attacking MySQL so much a few weeks ago.

Who goeth a-borrowing goeth a-sorrowing. -- Thomas Tusser