Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system


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This discussion has been archived.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:
  • Shipping both? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by mgkimsal2 ( 200677 ) on Monday October 21, 2002 @02:26PM (#4497681) Homepage
    Were they going to ship both, or only ship mysql, and have postgres as a 'supported' but not 'shipped' system?
    • Re:Shipping both? (Score:3, Informative)

      by FreeLinux ( 555387 )
      It appears that they will be shipping MySQL as part of the OS distribution however, PostgreSQL is available as part of a separate Software Developer's Kit.
      • Makes sense. If PostgreSQL were standard, no one would bother with their SDK. On the other hand, this guarantees that folks will be developing for the lowest common denominator. Oh well...

        Does the SDK cost anything? If not, I guess it works out. If it does, Novell just marginalized itself a bit more.
    • That seems to explain why Microsoft was attacking MySQL so much a few weeks ago.
  • by feinorgh ( 127281 ) on Monday October 21, 2002 @02:29PM (#4497712) 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?
    • 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 FreeLinux ( 555387 ) on Monday October 21, 2002 @02:48PM (#4497882)
        I'm surprised that GNU/RMS hasn't rallied the GNU/FSF and explained the GNU/GPL to them.
      • and hope companies who profit from MySQL do support the company and the product's development

        Why hope? Just charge them. I don't understand this. We talk about free (as in beer) software, and then we hope someone donates. It proves that software costs money to make, and that most software should be commercial. Why not write free (as in speech) software and charge for a commercial license to use the software.
        • Because that is a contradiction. If the software is free, then you can't then turn around and try to control HOW it is used. The two requirements would be mutually exclusive.

          The fact is that software DOES cost money to produce, but that doesn't mean that the best way to profit from it is by selling it only as a commercial non-free product. I believe that MySQL does profit from its commercial support services, for those who need that service, or use it as a means of supporting the product. The problem I have is only that I feel that the licensing explantion is deliberately deceptive, and that it reflects poorly on them.

          It is not anything new there, it has been this way ever since they become GPL. The text describing the licensing is almost identical to the text describing their non-open source licensing prior to becoming GPL, except they replace non-commercial use with GPL in the text.

          If you want to release a product and require a commercial license to use it, then release it under that commercial license, but don't try to also claim that it is GPL, and that you can't use the GPL license if you are using it commercially. The GPL license allows no such exemption, nor should it.

          • I'm sorry this is off-topic, I was already heading this direction. But I have never (I'm a developer with 6+ years in the field) needed support on any of my software with exception of Allaire's Cold Fusion Application Server. The support I recieved for that was never charged because they all ended up being bugs on their end (the early 3.x days of CF were pretty bad). However, for Access 97, MSSQL 7, MSSQL2000, WinNT3.51, NT4.0 (SP1-6) 2K (SP1-2, Desktop, Server, Enterprise), Visual Studio (6,.NET), ASP (2.x, 3.x, .NET), PHP (4.x), Perl (5.x), RH Linux (7,8), and Apache (even on Windows at one point!) I have never once needed or paid for services or support. However, I've paid nice licensing fees to MS for their software, but the creators of the OSS software essentially invested into our IT department for free. I guess I just don't understand why you'd want to give something of monetary value to a business for free. I can understand if it's for individuals (the community), non profit orgs, and educational institutions (which should be the underwriters of OSS IMHO), but not for businesses.
            • I guess I just don't understand why you'd want to give something of monetary value to a business for free

              Because you want to support the continued development of the software, because you know your company will only continue to benefit by the additional time and investment that company will be able to make in the on going development, enhancement, and bug fixing that the product will undergo as a result. I could go on and on and on, but the bottom line is that it just makes sense to do so, and it is the ethical thing to do, as well as the financially sound thing to do.

              • Because you want to support the continued development of the software, because you know your company will only continue to benefit by the additional time and investment

                But this is completely utopian! My company notices that your company, plus a bunch of nerds are already putting enough time and investment into it. For example - my company as never and will never invest in any open source project. Yet, Apache, Perl, and Linux are going to continue to grow successfully. Why should I drop a dime for it when I don't have to? Because it's nice?
    • by pmineiro ( 556272 ) < minus physicist> 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 WilliamX ( 22300 ) on Monday October 21, 2002 @04:48PM (#4498893)

        The reasoning is somewhat inaccurate here. The mysql client library is LGPL, making it prefectly ok to link in non-GPL software.

        What gets people is that MySQL continues to describe the GPL licensing of MySQL in a false light, and as such creates a confusion among those who are not already knowledgable about the GPL.

        As I said in my earlier post, I understand the reason why they are doing it, they want to encourage purchase of commercial support licenses. But in doing so, they are making themselves look ridiculous, and should instead post an accurate explanation of the licensing.

        It's my opinion that MySQL AB never really wanted to open source their product, but did so under pressure from the community who regularly used its non-open source licensing as an attack against it. So this is their way of getting open sourced, but still trying to make people feel that they are obligated to purchase licenses that they are not obligated to do under the GPL license.

        • Hrm. Nothing like responding to dead thread to drag out the hours of the night, but here goes... :)

          The MySQL 4 client library is GPL not LGPL.

          Regarding the licensing explanations, what is unclear about:

          "This is our licensing policy in brief: Our software is 100% GPL, and if yours too is 100% GPL (or OSI compliant), then you never have to pay us for the licences. In all other instances, you are better served by our commercial licence."

          As for never wanting to be Open Source, we have had an open license for non-Windows versions of the software from day one. For a period of time we did sell the Windows version of MySQL as shareware, but this opened up after we gained a bit more confidence and stability as a company.

          Of course, we want people to buy licenses, but we don't have to do a bait and switch to get them to do it. :)

          Your friendly neighborhood mysql evangelist...
          • Because the "licensing policy" explanation contradicts the GPL.

            And no, you didn't have an "open license" you had a free license for non-commercial use. Under that old license, ISPs offering MySQL databases were required (though I'm sure most didn't) to purchase commercial licenses, as were many others that would not be required to once the product was GPL'ed. Open does not equal "limited free" in the licensing world.

            The Windows licensing was different, in that you didn't even offer a free for-non-commercial use version, and restricted it to purchased licenses only.

            And if it is true that they are changing the licensing policy on the MySQL client libraries for Version 4, and using the GPL instead of the LGPL for them, that is a huge step backward in my opinion, and will do more to push users to alternatives with more friendly licensings, such as PostgreSQL and Interbase/Firebird.

  • 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 scott1853 ( 194884 ) on Monday October 21, 2002 @03:06PM (#4498045)

      I don't know why they could be so far behind schedule, they hired John Romero and the project manager for Falcon 4 to help keep them on track. What could have happened?
    • And by that time, PostgreSQL 7.3 will be out of beta. Maybe even Linux kernel version 3.0!

      If all goes as planned, MySQL 5 will be stable by 2007.


      What would this world be like if software reviewers reviewed actual, released software for a change instead of all of these developer wishlists that may (or most likely not) get released sometime in the future?
  • This does seem like a pretty big blow to GPL in general - but I figured if anyone would know of good alternatives to Netware, it'd be the dudes at /. - so, honestly - is this the beginning of the end for GPL, or will Novell "correct" their "mistake" (both in quotations, as I don't think I know enough about the behind-the-scenes detail to make a subjective decision like that) with a future update?
  • 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.
    • These [] financial results show that although Novell is trading below their values, as you said, they are still strong and perhaps on the road to recovery.

      People have cried the Novell is dead/dying mantra since the release of NT 4.0 yet, their still plugging along. Don't count them dead yet.
      • (* People have cried the Novell is dead/dying mantra since the release of NT 4.0 yet, their still plugging along. Don't count them dead yet. *)

        Novell is the Apple of Networking. (Well, except for their esthetically ugly screens.)

        Too many companies rely on them. Their cash cow may shrink, but will probably never die any more than 360-based mainframes will. At worse, another company will purchase them (IBM? Computer Associates? Some European tech company?)

        If Wall Street hates Novell that much, then perhaps I'll purchase some stock...........wait, I have no money for stock purchases due to the last stock poppage and sour tech econ. Bummer.
      • Novell's single sign on may be their saving grace. Their OS business is on hot idle and has been for almost a half decade. They don't have much hope of being a large ecomerce/.net framework type player and their is no compelling reason for people who are not already Novell customers to take up the platform so where do they go from here? Maybe they have a future as a convenienve/IT streamlining application vendor but other than that I don't see where to company is headed and neither can the market.
      • 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 Soko ( 17987 )
      Actually, let me make an educated guess here.

      I think they've seen the writing in the wall as far as NetWare goes, and are thinking of taking the best parts of it and porting those parts to Linux. This story [] on E-Week shows that they've re-organised thier engineering units to make a "Cross Platform" group with Linux as a specific target. MySQL on NetWare may be the first step in a wholesale change at Novell.

      If they can pulll this off, they'll survive - quit nicely too, I think. Dunno if I'd mortgage the house to buy thier stock, but they seem a survivor in the IT world.

    • 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.
      • 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.

        It's fairly recently that you could run their products without at least one Netware server around. I think even eDirectory was like that initially.

        If they had *started out* with platform-independant products that had full functionality without Netware, they'd be in good shape. Unfortunately their early strategy was very MS-like and appeared designed to sell Netware licenses.

      • Yet if you look at their full product range they have products such as...

        They even owned WordPerfect [] for a while, too!
      • I could go on but the message is clear, the company is packed with good products which it doesn't know how to sell.

        Maybe they should buy Amiga, and perhaps Palm will let them have Be cheap, and then all such software packages can be in the same place.

    • This is just a me-too tatic by Novell. Many of Novell's previous me-too's have fallen by the wayside as well. One exception at present is Perl.

      NetWare ships with Perl 5.00307, an almost useless and stripped down old version (released October 1996 by the Perl folks, and released November 2000 by the NetWare folks) - where you cannot compile your own Modules without a Windows NT machine (95/98 will not be sufficent) Microsoft Visual C 4.2 or later, a CodeWarrior compiler and linker, the "NetWare SDK", "NLM & NetWare Libraries for C" and "NetWare Server Protocol Libraries for C".

      To put it as breifly as possible; Perl for NetWare is poorly supported, and does not support basic things such as fork(), chown, syscall, chroot, alarm, and about 20 other functions that are standard with a real, and current Network Operating System (ie: Unix based systems, and to a lesser extent, Win32 systems).

      MySQL users on NetWare will very likely fall into the same unsupported trap... History speaks for itself, beware!
      • This has always been the case for compiling programs for Novell: a DOS/Windows box with compilers. This is nothing new or special with regard to Perl.

        Just to share blame, why not address the issue that a large portion of Perl modules that use native code aren't portable outside of UNIX (and even then...).
        Perl for NetWare is poorly supported, and does not support basic things such as fork(), chown, syscall, chroot, alarm, and about 20 other functions...

        Ummm... Of course this is because NetWare itself doesn't have these functions. Current operating systems? UNIX is *how* old? NetWare by your metric IS the current operating system. As for network-wide security and administration, I'm sorry but Novell's offerings are superior and have been superior for years. NIS+? LDAP? Active Directory? Pshaw! NDS was already better than these years ago and eDirectory widens that margin.

        Why does Novell need to update Perl? Because they bundle it? Why doesn't the Perl community maintain the port just like they do for every other operating system ? Or is Novell special on your shitlist? It's not like Novell controls the Perl source.
    • Well I have several Novell certifications and have decided,like so many others, not to maintain them anymore.
      Everywhere I see sales people sell MS products even to Novell users. So it have been hard to keeping your hopes up.
      In my last job, I started to shift my focus away from Novell, because I, like everybody else, can see that their customer base is getting smaller.
      I like Novell and their products, they have not managed to convince me that I should keep my focusing my career on Novell. I fear that I would end up with at lot of skills for product that is not wanted.
      The "fun" thing is that many techs are running away, so it is easy, where I live, to find a job if you are a skilled Novell tech. with Certifications. But who wants a job that focuses on a skill that might not be there in the future.
  • by Charlton Heston ( 588481 ) on Monday October 21, 2002 @02:36PM (#4497773) Homepage
    I dislike marketers as much as any programmer, or for that matter, anyone who's had their dinner interrupted by a phone call. But Novell needs better marketing in general. They've got really neat technology, but nobody knows about it. I think that if Novell discovered cold fusion they wouldn't tell anyone. The most they'd do is but a little paper sign on the door of the laboratory saying "cold fusion inside - don't tell anyone."

    So, without the proper marketing, I doubt anyone will ever discover that Novell can be a web services platform, or that there's a built-in database that's ready to use.
    • I dont know if you have ever heard of BrainShare but if you search it online you will see that many people are fully aware of the power of Novell. My company installs novell servers for clients frequently and I have noticed lately that Novell servers are starting to be added to new networks and even mixed with NT Servers' networks. So i must say that the release of Netware 6 while not advertised widely definitly didnt go unnoticed. -Geek
    • Sorry to say (and this is not a flame) but the name Novell brings up connotations of losses in the server OS market, losses in the office suite market, etc. Too bad MySQL will now be associated with it.

      Maybe you're right, they need better marketing. And I'll start with the suggestion of a name change. Call it: Improvell!
      • Sorry to say (and this is not a flame) but the name Novell brings up connotations of losses in the server OS market, losses in the office suite market, etc. Too bad MySQL will now be associated with it.

        I guess that depends on your view of MySQL...

        I, for one, do not see this as a problem. Yeah the database is not too bad, but the lack of a clear license is a huge draw back. No thinks, I'll take the truly free alternative.

    • Oh, sure, they don't have flashy David Bowie television commercials, etc., but they do a decent amount of marketing. The problem isn't marketing -- the problem is lack of developers.

      A couple of years ago, Novell held a developer contest for the best product integrated with NDS. This was at the height of the dotcom boom. The best integrated application award went to a contextless login client extension -- something to make their file system client work better. This was the best showing?

      Novell needs developers. They've recently been trying to fix this -- they purchased Silverstream Software [] to add Java development and business logic to their directory service. Their DirXML and Account Management products are expected to benefit the most from it. Hopefully someone will notice...
  • by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 21, 2002 @02:39PM (#4497795)
    Microsoft announced that Cardfile would be bundled in their next version of Windows.
    • w00t, damn the one feature I missed from 3.1 is back. Now due to the fact that MS OS's seem to rise in file size for no reason other than its the next "version" with little extra features, we can expect it to be somewhere around an extra 50 megs
  • 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.
    • I have not used Netware 5 or 6, but I have certainly done installs of Netware 3 and 4 that did not require btrieve. I think under Netware 3 the documentation (folio) system might have used btrieve, so you got it automatically if you installed any package that contained documentation (including TCP/IP). But btrieve is certainly not required for the actual TCP/IP stack.
      • Better check again. Try typing unload btrieve and see all the errors about; Must unload TCP/IP first, must unload IPX/SPX first.

        Additionally, BTrieve is also used for the Installed Products databse. On Netware 4.11 load install.nlm and the change back to the console to see the BTrieve already loaded messages. INETCFG too. Also, look for a module called NWMKDE (NetWare MicroKernel Database Engine), I can't remember for sure if 4.11 has this but, it is another name for BTrieve.
    • Re:Here it is. (Score:3, Informative)

      by ttfkam ( 37064 )
      Information has to be held somewhere; why not a database? The common misconception is that Btrieve and MySQL (or other relational databases) are equivalents. They are not. Btrieve is closer in concept to BerkeleyDB and variants.

      Apples and oranges. And the network data has to be stored somewhere.
    • My understanding is that FLAIM has depricated BTRIEVE for low-level storage in Netware. FLAIM is used to store all the records in NDS, though technotes about Novell's license service make reference to a choice between FLAIM or BTRIEVE for that.

  • by Asprin ( 545477 ) <> 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...

    • Look at Netware 6 (Score:5, Informative)

      by FreeLinux ( 555387 ) on Monday October 21, 2002 @03:05PM (#4498029)
      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

      Netware 6 already has this. I forget their name for it but, it goes under the guise of Any Client or some such. With this feature, Microsoft clients can connect to the Netware 6 servers without the previously required Novell client. The Netware 6 server looks to the client, like a NT server. Netware 6 also supports an NFS like export that allows *nix clients to also connect natively, without the use of Novell client software.

      Netware 6 has a lot of really powerful features. What's more, I think that Linuxers would like it because it has a similar feel, even if the commands are different. Hell, it even runs Xwindows with the IceWM.
    • 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.

    • As far as a samba server, NetWare 6 also bundles what they call Native File Access Pack. It makes your server appear as a Windows server(CIFS) to windows clients, Mac(AppleTalk) to Mac client or Unix(NFS) to Unix clients. It's also a free download for NetWare 5.
    • 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

      I've heard a lot of people making that suggestion, including members of the Samba team. The problem is that NetWare's file services are superior to NT's, so Novell isn't so anxious to emulate an NT server.

      For example, NetWare has their "salvage" capability, in which deleted files can be restored. It's so powerful that it's been called "poor man's version control." Note for those who are security consious: the deleted files keep the same ACL they had before deletion, so they are never recoverable by somebody who didn't have rights to read them before they were deleted. Furthermore, individual files can be flagged as "purge immediate", and directories can be as well. Finally, the entire feature can be disabled.

      Another advantage of NetWare file services is inherited rights, and the inherited rights filter. "Inherited rights" means that if you have a 50 GB disk that's got 175,000 files on it, and you want to grant one person read-rights to every file on the disk, you just grant them the read-right to the root, and you're done. Unlike NT, you don't have to wait 15 minutes for the rights to propagate through the entire filesystem. And if there's a branch of the directory tree that you don't ever want rights to flow into, you can add an inherited rights filter to prevent this from happening.

      NetWare drivers also tend to be much more intelligent when copying files across the network. With NT, if you open up a folder that's on a server across the WAN, and copy a bunch of files to another folder on the same server, NT tends to pull the files across the WAN to your workstation, then send them back to the original server. Novell's been aware of and avoided this issue since the mid 1980's, when they first built NCOPY.EXE to avoid the problem in DOS.

      If they implemented Samba, they'd lose some of their perceived technical advantage over NT, and they can't really afford to lose what little advantage they have.
  • What IS Novell?? (Score:2, Interesting)

    by xtremex ( 130532 )
    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?
    • Re:What IS Novell?? (Score:4, Informative)

      by Magorak ( 85788 ) on Monday October 21, 2002 @03:08PM (#4498053) Homepage Journal
      Novell has been around a long time and will continue to be around a long time regardless of what any Linux/NT/200 people may think.

      The company I work for is a pure Novell shop. We run Groupwise for our email, and plenty of other Novell products and we do extremely well. In fact, Novell even powers our web presence. We will be upgrading from Netware 5 to Netware 6 this year.

      It IS a real OS. Standalone server sits in my server room and runs all of it's apps very well. It's a hell of a lot more stable than any 2K/NT box and in many ways, just as stable as a Unix box. I won't say better, but I will say it does a good job.

      I hate it when people say that Novell is dead and dying. They've been around a long time and they are still around because they always make a decent product and require very little maintenance, unlike the MS OSes out there.
    • Re:What IS Novell?? (Score:4, Informative)

      by krammit ( 540755 ) on Monday October 21, 2002 @03:27PM (#4498237) Homepage
      Netware in its current incarnation is a top notch server OS. It's got one of, if not the best LDAP implementations available (NDS, eDirectory) that offers integration with all of its products for very easy administration. (Groupwise is an excellent Exchange replacement, minus the constant virus problems). Once its setup, that's it. It does not require constant attention like other server OSes *cough*. It does still load on top of DOS (for reasons I can't understand) but it is in no way a DOS based OS. In fact, it seems to have borrowed quite a bit from Unix in versions 5 and 6.

      What you gain: dead easy file/print administration, extensible LDAP framework built right in, excellent reliablity/stability, can be easily (if you read the documentation) performance tuned

      What you lose: application support and expensive licensing.

      For small to mid size businesses, you could do better with a WinNT or *nix solution, but for large enterprises with massively distributed networks, Netware is an excellent way to go.
      • As for loading on top of DOS, the reasons now are somewhat historical, but there were very good reasons at the time. I suppose from way, way, way back its because Netware started on non-Intell machines and the little DOS wedge gave Netware a chance to work quickly with PC BIOSes.

        From at least as far back as NW 3.x you should think of DOS as a cross beteween, ie, Sun BootProms, and LILO.

    • Novell is not a real OS, but DOS has nothing to do with that fact. Novell is an answer to a question which is no longer being asked. Novell is the best file server system that has ever been created. Period. It is a secure, stable, high performance file server. The user administration features under NDS exceed any modern definition of the word "scalable", and its reliability is legendary.

      As I mentioned, however, no one wants a file server anymore. File servers are commodity items, in the form of Win2k servers in closets, and the core of an enterprise network these days is not the file servers, but the application servers. This is where *nix (the only real operating system(s) in existence) and windows (a brightly colored omnibus driving off a cliff) have taken over.

      Novell's good if you have an enormous need for enterprise wide file services. Just don't try to print (at least with NDPS), and for God's sake, don't do anything while Console One is loading. And no "cons" discussion related to Novell would be complete without mentioning the seething hell that is NLS or SLP problems. But, if you need enterprise wide file services, it's because you've implemented enterprise wide applications which run on desktops via shared database files, which means you have much bigger problems that anything I've described here.

      It was a good idea, and I hope the NDS concept takes hold elsewhere (so far it hasn't - AD is not a directory), but all in all, Novell is irrelevant. That is why I put down my CNE and picked up Linux.

      Novell, if you're reading this and wondering how and when you lost it, I just want to say it WAS the case 87 NCP fiasco. Well, okay, and the fact that I couldn't request Pink Floyd's "Time" while on hold with Novell Support Connection Radio. May your death be prolonged and gentle, may you fade quietly away into a copyright holding company who makes good money with the occaisonal lawsuit, and, long after Brainshare is no more, know that I will show up every so often in the Spring to raise a Wasatch brew to the glory that was Novell.

    • NetWare uses DOS just as a bootloader. It has nothing to do with DOS. In fact, NetWare is a scalable multiprocessor, memory protected OS. It has as much to do with DOS as Linux has with LILO.
  • The commercial version of MYSQL has two licenses, the one commercial one you buy for support from MYSQL AB and the gpled version covering the orginal gpl led code..

    Guys wake up..

    Novell asked ofr the commercial version becuase of support issues that they want MYSQL AB to handle..simple as that nothing more its stil has the gpl license as its base..

  • Great News!!! (Score:5, Informative)

    by malraid ( 592373 ) on Monday October 21, 2002 @03:04PM (#4498014)
    I personally think that these are great news, both MySQL and PostgreSQL(although I really favor PostgreSQL)

    Most slashdotters tend to think that NetWare is dying/dead. I feel that this very is far from true. Netware doesn't have the market share that it had some years ago, and it missed the .com revolution ( and also the .com burst by the way)

    However I have found many Netware shops that say that they will continue to use it because:
    1) it works
    2) it's secure (maybe more than Linux, as you can't get Quake 3 to run on Netware yet!)
    3) it can be cheaper than Win 2k, specially on large instalations.
    4)NDS is acutally useful, compared with Active Directory which in my opinion is pretty much useless.

    These shops tend to be in well established bussiness, definetly old-bussiness.

    For example, just this morning I landed a consulting job with a large private school (300+ computers) where they run 5 NetWare servers (+1 Solaris) And I'm able to charge more than for a Win2k work, because most geeks think Netware is dead and can't offer support for it.

    So go ahead and make it official, NetWare is dead!
  • License Fees (Score:5, Informative)

    by Bonker ( 243350 ) on Monday October 21, 2002 @03:07PM (#4498049)
    It's worth noting that MySQL commercial licenses... even with very little volume discout (US$395.00/license) are still two orders of magnitude less expensive than MSSQL or Oracle.
    • Re:License Fees (Score:5, Informative)

      by brunes69 ( 86786 ) <slashdot&keirstead,org> on Monday October 21, 2002 @03:29PM (#4498253) Homepage

      Then it is also worth noting that PostgreSQL commercial licenses, even with very little volume discount (US $0.00/license) are still infinite orders of magnitude less expensive than MySQL, MSSQL, or Oracle.

    • Re:License Fees (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Alarion ( 263883 )
      Yes, and MSSQL and Oracle(and others) offer many many more features, mostly ones that are needed in mission-critical situations.

      In all honestly, while I like MySQL - and use it extensively, it really isn't worth more than maybe $99/license, IMO.

      With MySQL's notoriety for random table file coruptions, lack of stored procs/triggers, lack of a transaction log that can be used to re-perform lost transactions, etc MySQL should not be used in any sort of enterprise class situation. Save for maybe prototyping systems that will be developed to a Oracle, Sybase, Postgres, etc.
  • by didiken ( 93521 ) on Monday October 21, 2002 @03:27PM (#4498245) Homepage
    Hey by the way, MacOS X 10.2 Server ships with MySQL too !
  • by kirkb ( 158552 ) on Monday October 21, 2002 @03:36PM (#4498303) Homepage
    For years, Novell Netware included a copy of Oracle. Didn't Oracle recently announce that they aren't porting to Netware anymore? That's probably the only reason that Novell has moved to support MySQL and PostgreSQL.
  • There are some very good reasons to use Novell, and there are some very good reasons not to use it, but the availability of MySQL as a reason either way just seems odd.

    There is (and has been for a while now) a MySQL NLM for Netware that is under the GPL (sorry, I can't find the URL at the moment) and I recall seeing a PostgreSQL NLM on a 4.11 server a while back as well. While I applaud Novell for adding MySQL as a part of there base package, as it adds some additional out-of-the-box functionality, I don't see this making a dent in there slow decline.

    Now, Novell does have some VERY interesting tech, but they don't sell it well, they never have. Lets take GroupWise as an example. It could be an Outlook Killer. It has just about all of the features of Outlook (and Exchange), and in many a better product. However, they don't push it, and they don't encourage people to try new things with it. I would LOVE to see them take a really bold step and release a version of that in the same way Sun did Star Office (OK, like Sun but without all the associated problems...). OOo plus Groupwise plus an easy to use SQL database front end would be a real alternitive to M$. It would also shine a bright light on Novell for a long time, one that could then be used to help them grow again if they played their cards right.
  • Novell also offers a free email & directory service, MyRealBox [], as a combination marketing and testing platform.
  • by foo fighter ( 151863 ) on Monday October 21, 2002 @05:46PM (#4499378) Homepage
    Novell Connection magazine is really an excellant rag. []

    It's short, which means you can find time to read the whole thing each month.

    It has informative articles about Novell products, not lame marketing-written crap. It's worth keeping up on what Novell is doing because most of their products are truly kick-ass.

    You can probably qualify for a free subscription.

    The killer feature is the monthly column on packet filtering and traffic shaping. Awesome. Probably the best regular column out of the dozen or so IT/Networking mags I get each month.

  • Netware? Do those guys still exist??? And what on earth are they selling now? Gee, you don't say! A vaccum cleaner with MySQL installed? Wow!
  • I do like Novell's strategy towards OSS, porting their tools to Linux, NDS, etc. I've used NDS, Groupwise, NES on Netware, and now NDS on Linux but following is just FUD.

    From the Infoworld article:

    Novell will embed the commercial version of MySQL, enabling developers to build applications without requiring use of the restrictive General Public License agreement, as is required of the open-source version of MySQL.

    Failing to state what exactly it is that Novell's license will allow that is restricted by the GPL. Anything short of Novell's decision to let everyone and anyone redistribute their software freely without any restrictions I don't see how this is possible. Especially if you read the next paragraph that reads:

    Developers can, for example, build a Web site with a database providing dynamic content on NetWare, according to Mickos.

    You're kidding me!!! Who should I praise for this innovation? Thanks to Novell, hundreds of thousands of websites will now be able to provide *dynamic content*!! Just think of the possibilities - online shopping, searching the web, personalized news; virtually no limits! Think of all this as opposed to the old-style, static-web, restrictive licensed GPL-ed software.

    C'mon now. Who are they fooling with these kinds of comments?
  • Talk about a corpse that refuses to die. Yikes, this is even worse than IBM's debacle about insisting on keeping OS/2 alive...

    Novell needs to reinvent themselves seriously. (Shipping a database with the server does not count as reinventing seriously.)
  • Why oh why they don't just support a real SQL DBMS?

    As always people coding to MySQL will have to code around all sorts of limitations that wouldn't be there with real SQL DBMSs as Firebird, SAPdb or PostgreSQL.

    Their code will be more complex, less reliable, their databases will get all sorts of inconsistent data due to lack, or underutilization, of integrity constraints and transaction control.

    And once they go over three concurrent users, performance will suffer... then they will have to recode to ANSI SQL, because MySQL isn't standards-compliant at all, and will never achieve the level of elegance that SQL provides -- and that is already less than a truly, but not yet widely available, fully RDBMS could give.

"I don't believe in sweeping social change being manifested by one person, unless he has an atomic weapon." -- Howard Chaykin