tag@symbas.UUCP (Arne Gisvold) (08/14/89)
In article <3922@phri.UUCP> roy@phri.UUCP (Roy Smith) writes: > > We're considering buying a Jasmine DirectServe AppleTalk file >server. Does anybody have any experience, good or bad, with these? We have used several of these under their original name "Ferroshare/SymbShare" in europe, and have experienced few problems. Our main complaint has been with the pre-Jasmine releases of the software, and limited the numer of simultaneous users to 10 pr. server. This has been solved in the new release of the software. But remember - you can not run any other programs such as the printspooler on the DirectServe - something you can do on a Mac with AppleShare! Regards Tor-Arne
tag@symbas.UUCP (Arne Gisvold) (08/18/89)
In article <21068@paris.ics.uci.edu> truesdel@ics.uci.edu (Scott Truesdell) writes: >roy@phri.UUCP (Roy Smith) writes: > > >> We're considering buying a Jasmine DirectServe AppleTalk file >>server. Does anybody have any experience, good or bad, with these? >>-- > >The DirectServe isn't available yet. It would be pretty hard to get an >opinion about the operation "in situ" without breaking non-disclosure or >asking someone else to. > Interesting - but not correct. We have been running these boxes for more than 12 months now - admittedly with another name on the front (FerroShare/SymbShare). The software in fron of me is "DirectServe version 1.0b10" if you are interested. The project did not originate with Jasmine at all - but with a small english company called Ferroglen, and they have been selling it for approcimately 14 months now. They have signed an agreement for joint development and distribution with jasmine to reach a wider market. I have never signed a non-disclosure agreement on this incidentally. The original software had a few snags - a limit of 11 users was the main one - amd AppleShare 1.0 compatibility. The new "DirectServe" version has had the problems ironed out by an Australian university and Jasmine as far as I know. We are satisfied with the boxes this far - and have 5 of them running at various sites. Regards Tor-Arne Gisvold
truesdel@ics.uci.edu (Scott Truesdell) (08/26/89)
tag@symbas.UUCP (Arne Gisvold) writes: >>The DirectServe isn't available yet. It would be pretty hard to get an >>opinion about the operation "in situ" without breaking non-disclosure or >>asking someone else to. >> >Interesting - but not correct. Hi Arne. Thanks for your input on this. I didn't know that Ferroglen and Jasmine were continuing joint development. I had assumed (for no reason) that Jasmine had taken over the project completely. I would like to restate my original point on the DirectServe: It is unfair or misleading to pass widespread judgement on a product that is still under development. If the product is completely off target (which the DirectServe definitely is not) then I can accept some warning shots. From what I've seen of the product, they are definitely ON target and very close to ironing out the last of the details. I feel that it is especially important not to comment too much on performance of unreleased projects because fine-tuning for speed is often some of the last tasks remaining to be done. >We are satisfied with the boxes this far - and have 5 of them running >at various sites. This last sentence I find very encouraging. To hear satisfaction about a product still in beta test is very good news indeed. I look forward to following more news on this important product. Thanks for your note, --scott -- Scott Truesdell