barryf@aix01.aix.rpi.edu (Barry B. Floyd) (03/14/91)
comp.windows.ms may or may not be the best place to debate the inherent features of networks and network softare. nor may comp.windows.ms be the best place to debate related motivations of various companies. Given the likelihood that most readers of this news group are doing so as a result of association with some form of institution or corporate entity it is my guess that each of us has to live with a pre-installed network environment. Some of us may be so lucky as to have installed the LAN/WAN we have to use/maintain. Whether or not Microsoft or Sun should be more proactive in their support of PC/Win 3.0 networking is not for use to debate (here). I (and I presume others) are interested in getting what they have (i.e. their PC, Win 3.0, network environment, etc.) to work well together. Granted, Microsoft could be more responsive to more diverse networking needs. And granted, Sun could be more responsive to PC/Win 3.0 needs. Sun is offering a product for sale that is proclaimed to provide specific services for use in a specified environment (e.g. PC, TCP/IP LAN, Win 3.0 GUI, etc.). My interest in exploring PC-NFS (in comparison to any available shareware solution, any other commercial solution, PD solution, etc.) is simply geared towards getting a job done. Does PC-NFS perform as advertised? Why is PC-NFS not recognized by Win 3.0 (i.e. lack of NFS specific drivers)? What does B&W, Novell, FTP offer that may be more productive given a heterogeneous environment of computing platforms (e.g. Unix boxes, AIX boxes, DOS/Win boxes, Mac boxes) all running TCP/IP? Novell, as a proprietary solution not addressing the full breadth of my needs, is not in the running. The remaining TCP/IP solutions are running neck-and-neck; each has its strengths and each has its weaknesses. The respective companies producing and selling the products have to produce uniformly better products to keep up with each other, which is to my benefit. They have no one else to answer to except me as a customer and their stock holders. Is any one product noticable better than the others? aside... I don't believe anyone can sincerely whine about Sun and Microsoft as companies not working together. They obviously have different missions. Anyone and everyone should (IMHO) offer constructive criticism where their products overlap, despite their different missions. As such, I don't buy the complaint that Microsoft should have provided better support for NFS, inherent to Win 3.xi, unless Microsoft and Sun wish to unseat a competitor. It is Sun's job to make the best possible product it can, and make money doing so, regardless of Microsoft's explicit support (or lack thereof). In light of the IBM/Novell marraige a Microsoft/Sun marraige might serve their overlapping product and corporate missions... QUESTIONS: So far, what are the major contenders for NFS and/or TCP/IP PC networking support? Which one performs best under which conditions and within which environments? barry -- +--------------------------------------------------------------------+ | Barry B. Floyd \\\ barry_floyd@mts.rpi.edu | | Manager Information Systems - HR \\\ usere9w9@rpitsmts | +-Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute--------------------troy, ny 12180-+
phil@brahms.amd.com (Phil Ngai) (03/14/91)
In article <_Z$=48C@rpi.edu> barryf@aix01.aix.rpi.edu (Barry B. Floyd) writes: |Novell, as a proprietary solution not addressing the full breadth of Proprietary is a content-free word used by people who have already made up their mind about what they want, in order to dismiss something which they have no rational reason for rejecting. How does Novell compare to NFS? The Novell protocol was invented by Novell. NFS was invented by Sun. NFS has a large market share in the Unix world. Novell has a large market share in the PC world. If you want to run Novell on your PC you have to pay for it. If you want to run NFS on your PC you have to pay for it. (if you want to run NFS on your Sun, you still pay for it, just not directly) I haven't seen any public domain, free NFS implementations for the PC, have you? If you own a Sun, IPX probably seems like a weird oddball protocol. If you own an HP LJ IIISi, which only speaks Novell over the Ethernet, or an Intel Inport printer node, which also only speaks Novell, TCP seems like a weird oddball protocol. I use Novell with PCs and Macs. Obviously Novell is well integrated into the PC. In addition, it is also well integrated into the Mac. The Novell file server looks like just another fileserver to the Mac. You use the normal Mac menus to control it. I haven't used the Novell NFS service but I am sure it looks just like NFS to the Sun. The Sun, on the other hand, is NO NETWORK to the Windows world. And Sun doesn't even have ANYTHING for the Mac. (or OS/2) Sun talks to Sun, so who is proprietary and who networks better? -- The government is not your mother. The government doesn't love you.
cadsi@ccad.uiowa.edu (CADSI) (03/14/91)
From article <1991Mar14.015126.1156@amd.com>, by phil@brahms.amd.com (Phil Ngai): > The Sun, on the other hand, is NO NETWORK to the Windows world. And > Sun doesn't even have ANYTHING for the Mac. (or OS/2) Sun talks to Sun, > so who is proprietary and who networks better? Ok, I'm confused. I print, use network drives, Windows puts the little 'Net' insignia on mounted drives. Why is this NO NETWORK. Just because you choose NO NETWORK in the setup. Actually, That seems even more transparent than telling Windows there IS a network and it oughta be carefull. If you need to mount drives from Windows, mount a bunch before running windows. For those you don't need, get the Win3-nfs program from cica. It tells Windows that the left (unmounted) drives aren't worth lokking at. Then File Manager doesn't complain. In addition, I though Sun wrote Tops??? Tops DEFINITELY works on Macs. |----------------------------------------------------------------------------| |Tom Hite | The views expressed by me | |Manager, Product development | are mine, not necessarily | |CADSI (Computer Aided Design Software Inc. | the views of CADSI. | |----------------------------------------------------------------------------|
barryf@aix01.aix.rpi.edu (Barry B. Floyd) (03/14/91)
Sticking to the WINDOWS part of COMP.WINDOWS.MS, my question remains: Does the new release of PC-NFS perform as advertised? What are its "windows specific" strengths and weaknesses? I recently received Novell's product literature for LAN WorkPlace. LAN WorkPlace was previously developed and distributed by Excelan (along with their EXOS series of adapters). Novell seems to have brought the product up to date and reboxed it as their very own. The product literature lists 15 separate RFCs (standards) it complies with, including: IP, IP Subnet, IP Broadcast Datagrams, IP Broadcast Datagrams with Subnets, TCP, UDP, IP-IEEE 802, ARP, RARP (address resolution), ICMP (message protocol), DNS (domain name system) Resolver, NetBIOS on TCP/IP (for 80x86 microcomputers) TELNET, FTP, TFTP (Trivial file transfer protocol). They include a picture of a screen with a "Program Manager - [LAN WorkPlace]" window, Telnet Sparcstation II window, File Express window (their FTP windows application), and a NetWare/DOS session window. Though they do not specifically offer an NFS implementation they do specifically claim "Supports third-party applications --- Like other Novell products, LAN WorkPlace for DOS supports a wide range of third-party networking applications, including X-Windows, TN3270, NFS client and SQL Database services." They also provide "Serving FTP", their FTP server deamon. Could Novell, in their acquisition of Excelan and subsequent repackaging of LAN WorkPlace, be cognizant of a non-Novell networking environment? I think so. Will they ever release an NFS on TCP/IP product (without IPX)? I think not. They are offering what appears to be worth while standards based Win 3.0 network applications. If anyone has installed these upgrades to LAN WorkPlace 3.x for DOS please post pertinent info. (by the way, upgrades cost $495 for a 10 user license, minus 35% if you represent an educational institution == $321.75 to upgrade). Call (800) 346-7177 for more info. Does FTP, B&W, et al offer an NFS implementation? Are their any public domain or shareware implementations (clients, not servers)? barry -- +--------------------------------------------------------------------+ | Barry B. Floyd \\\ barry_floyd@mts.rpi.edu | | Manager Information Systems - HR \\\ usere9w9@rpitsmts | +-Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute--------------------troy, ny 12180-+
phil@brahms.amd.com (Phil Ngai) (03/16/91)
In article <{K%=10%@rpi.edu> barryf@aix01.aix.rpi.edu (Barry B. Floyd) writes: |I recently received Novell's product literature for LAN WorkPlace. LAN |WorkPlace was previously developed and distributed by Excelan (along with |their EXOS series of adapters). Novell seems to have brought the product |up to date and reboxed it as their very own. The product literature lists Makes sense, since they own Excelan, it is their own product. |Does FTP, B&W, et al offer an NFS implementation? Are their any public A guy from Novell specifically suggested B&W for NFS in the comp.sys.novell group. -- The government is not your mother. The government doesn't love you.
phil@brahms.amd.com (Phil Ngai) (03/16/91)
In article <1991Mar14.133608.8218@ccad.uiowa.edu> cadsi@ccad.uiowa.edu (CADSI) writes: |Ok, I'm confused. I print, use network drives, Windows puts the little |'Net' insignia on mounted drives. Why is this NO NETWORK. Just because For one thing, because it doesn't let Windows control print queues or printer mounting. |If you need to mount drives from Windows, mount a bunch |before running windows. This is the kind of thing Sun tries to palm off as WINDOWS COMPATIBLE. And you are proof that there are plenty of otherwise intelligent people who don't mind such deceptions. In fact, plenty of people who don't even know that it could be more user-friendly. |In addition, I though Sun wrote Tops??? Tops DEFINITELY works on Macs. Sun bought the TOPS company. I believe they couldn't figure out what to do with it, the MAC community not being the kind of market they understood (or wanted to understand), and have since sold it. I have to give them credit for making the right decision with TOPS. It sounds like the same thing is happening with PC-NFS which can only be good for everyone. Perhaps PC-NFS marketing will have to pay more attention to what the business community wants when the ties to Sun are severed. By the way, don't think that I hate Unix or Sun. I love Unix, in its place. I use Suns all the time and think they are wonderful for their intended purpose. But I know that there are places where there are better ways than the Unix way. -- The government is not your mother. The government doesn't love you.
sob@tmc.edu (Stan Barber) (03/16/91)
In article <1991Mar14.015126.1156@amd.com> phil@brahms.amd.com (Phil Ngai) writes: >I haven't seen any public domain, free NFS implementations for >the PC, have you? Yes. A free server version of PC-NFS is available. It is called SOS. You can get it from the Clarkson Packet Driver Archive. >The Sun, on the other hand, is NO NETWORK to the Windows world. And >Sun doesn't even have ANYTHING for the Mac. (or OS/2) Sun talks to Sun, >so who is proprietary and who networks better? Sun talks to CRAY, Sun talks to VMS, Sun talks to VM/370, Sun talks to Novell via the recently announces Novell NFS software. -- Stan internet: sob@bcm.tmc.edu Director, Networking Olan uucp: {rutgers,mailrus}!bcm!sob and Systems Support Barber Opinions expressed are only mine. Baylor College of Medicine
ben@val.com (Ben Thornton) (03/21/91)
phil@brahms.amd.com (Phil Ngai) writes: >For one thing, because it doesn't let Windows control print queues or >printer mounting. Perhaps Sun is leaving that as an exercise to some enterprising third party vendor :-). They DO sell a toolkit for such purposes. Did Novell write the network support included with the Windows 3.0 release disks? >|If you need to mount drives from Windows, mount a bunch >|before running windows. >This is the kind of thing Sun tries to palm off as WINDOWS COMPATIBLE. There is a difference between "Windows Compatible" and what you are wishing for, namely "Full Windows Support". >By the way, don't think that I hate Unix or Sun. I love Unix, in its >place. I use Suns all the time and think they are wonderful for their >intended purpose. But I know that there are places where there are >better ways than the Unix way. And there are many places where there are better ways than the Novell way. It all depends on your networking requirements. -- Ben Thornton packet: wd5hls@wd5hls.ampr.org Video Associates Internet: ben@val.com Austin, TX uucp: ...!cs.utexas.edu!val!ben What's the moral of the story?
phil@brahms.amd.com (Phil Ngai) (03/22/91)
In article <1991Mar20.202444.15674@val.com> ben@val.com (Ben Thornton) writes: |Perhaps Sun is leaving that as an exercise to some enterprising third Gee, why don't they just ship me some blank floppies and let me set the bits myself. Just think of the customization I could achieve. -- Help! I just got a Macintosh. Anyone got a magnifying glass?
chuck@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (Chuck Chang) (03/22/91)
In article <1991Mar21.185147.5502@amd.com> phil@brahms.amd.com (Phil Ngai) writes: >Gee, why don't they just ship me some blank floppies and let me set the >bits myself. Just think of the customization I could achieve. > >-- >Help! I just got a Macintosh. Anyone got a magnifying glass? Are you sure you're not looking at a Window3 screen with 1024x768 resolution? :-) -- ----------------------------- Chuck Chang Northwestern University chuck@casbah.acns.nwu.edu