NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #31/NN_1992_31.iso/spool/comp/unix/sys5/r4/1019

Internet Message Format | 1992-12-28 | 5.8 KB

Xref: sparky comp.unix.sys5.r4:1019 comp.sys.novell:10869
Newsgroups: comp.unix.sys5.r4,comp.sys.novell
Path: sparky!uunet!sci34hub!gary
From: [e-mail] (Gary Heston)
Subject: Re: Novell bought USL?
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Gary Heston)
Organization: SCI Systems, Inc., Huntsville, Al.
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Date: Mon, 28 Dec 1992 03:34:04 GMT
Lines: 109

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Piercarlo Grandi) writes:
>On 23 Dec 92 18:02:19 GMT, [e-mail] (Gary Heston) said:
>
>gary> AT&T/USL has simply been bumbling fools regarding marketing and
>gary> future development paths. Novell is in the position of taking over
>gary> an active competitor. I expect the functionality to drop
>gary> drastically, with the price skyrocketing.
>
>gary> Why? Why else? To force the market to NetWare.
>
>I doubt this very much. I think that Novell see Unix not as competition
>but as salvation, as Novell (and AT&T) are scared dead by Windows NT.

In view of the large amount of resources needed by Windows in general,
and what NT is looking like, I doubt that Novell is "scared dead". I'm
sure they are expecting to fight for market share, but only if Windows NT
Server comes out cheap; something that hasn't been true of Microsoft
products other than early versions of DOS.

Don't forget that another major NOS is Banyan, which runs on top of
Unix--and Novell will then control their licenses. Not bad; get rid of
two competitors with one transaction.

>If Windows NT, that is positioned by Microsoft for high end workstations
>and *file servers*, takes hold, than Microsoft will own the network
>market too -- Windows NT is about LANmanager, not NetWare.

NT (from what I've heard) is only being targeted at servers, not workstations
(high end or otherwise). One thing that Microsoft will *have* to do in
order to succeed with NT is make it seamlessly integrate with NetWare,
which Gates would *certainly* hate.

>So Novell have had a consistent strategy to take on/shadow Microsoft for
>the past few years, in order to offer a comepletely alternative line.
>This is the logic, I think, behind both the DRDOS and the Unix
>acquisitions.

Novell hasn't been "taking on" Microsoft; they've been providing a product
that Microsoft wasn't (and probably claimed wouldn't work/wasn't needed,
but I'm really speculating there). Buying DR gave them the ability to
provide a better integrated environment, and probably made no significant
impact on sales of DOS. There are thousands of systems being networked,
but millions being sold with DOS. (I know; we build several thousand
per month with DOS/Windows installed--I support the network that does
the software installation on the manufacturing line.)

>I have the impression that Novell hate the guts of Microsoft, not just
>because they are competitors; it's also because Novell became what they
>are despite Microsoft.

I suspect that Novell is not alone in disliking Microsoft; so do most
of Microsofts' customers. Novell filled a void, probably without any
help from Microsoft (particularly if they were using Microsoft products
for development; "Talk to your dealer" doesn't help track down obscure
problems with a C compiler), and now Microsoft wants in. Since they've
failed once, they'll probably blame Novells' success rather than their
own errors.

>It is a little known fact that MSDOS's remote file system interface, the
>"redirector", is a trade secret of Microsoft, and is not publicly
>documented. Microsoft only licenses the "redirector" interface specs to
>whom they want and at their conditions.
>
>Novell has gone to some length to avoid using the redirector interface
>in their NetWare clients.

I have no knowledge in this area; it sounds like something the FTC
would like to know (just like the undocumented DOS/Windows functions).
In any case, reverse-engineering them would be legal and probably not
too difficult.

>What they have now is that Novell controls an almost full line of
>alternatives to Microsoft's:
>
>low end PC:        MS-DOS            DR-DOS
>graphics PC:        Windows 3.1        ???
>low end servers:    LANmanager OS/2        NetWare
>graphics servers:    Windows NT        Destiny/4.2/Uniware

Excuse me, but so far as I know, the only server support provided by
Destiny/4.2/Unixware for graphics would be for X running on TCP/IP.
Unixware does not provide DOS-type networking support (IPX/SPX) as a
server; only as a client (always possible that I missed something, though).

>The only product missing in Novell's lineup is a GUI (DR's GEM would be
>there, but it is manifestly useless); I would not be surprised if Novell
>bought out DesqView/X too; even if the recent moves to 4.2 as a low
>price, user friendly lightweight offering may mean that it was being
>positioned as a Windows 3.1 alternative too.

I don't consider it a competitor at 3x the price. Also, DesqView/X is
a TCP/IP package, not compatable with NetWare. It's also more expensive
than Win3.1, and Novell isn't noted for lowering software prices (word
is that there won't be an upgrade path from 3.11 to 4.0; full price for
a new package--$18K).

>I only hope that the very fierce competition between Novel and Microsoft
>results in Microsoft being less arrogant.

Nothing will *ever* make Microsoft less arrogant. Even a 50% drop in
the stock price. Gates would blame everyone except himself, and everything
except his ideas and policies.


--
Gary Heston    SCI Systems, Inc.  [e-mail]   site admin
The Chairman of the Board and the CFO speak for SCI. I'm neither.
"Data sheet: HSN-3000 Nuclear Event Detector. The [NED] senses the gamma
radiation pulse [from a] nuclear weapon." As if we wouldn't notice...