Novell's Blog Wheels Out Tired Criticisms of Open Source

by Sam Dean - Oct. 30, 2009Comments (6)

In response to the news this week that the city of Los Angeles is going Googlefied with a $7.25 million, five-year deal to adopt Gmail, Google Calendar and other applications, Novell's blog has an interesting rebuttal. Of course, the reason for the city's switch to Google's corner of the cloud is to save money that it would otherwise spend on expensive software licenses, and it will save. Still, the Novell blog post is intriguing because it's a missive from an open source-focused company criticizing the Los Angeles decision with barbs frequently aimed at open source solutions. It claims that L.A. should have opted for Novell's fee-based Groupwise solution. Huh?

According to the post on Novell's site:

"Like the LA Police department and others, we continue to doubt the economics and security of the City’s decision to move to a Google system. The City Council was presented with clear evidence that Google posed a very significant risk to the security of City and citizen data, much of it highly confidential. In addition, independent financial data showed that the new system will actually cost more, not less."

Why will the Google apps (which aren't open source but aren't expensive proprietary solutions either) cost more, according to the post? You probably already guessed that the post claims that there are "significant costs to migrating, training and securing Google Apps." Does this sound like the classic set of questionable responses that enterprise I.T. administrators deliver when asked why they don't migrate to free, open source software?

The post at Novell's site then goes on to say:

"To set the record straight, Novell GroupWise is a world-class product with more than 30 million users in 120 countries around the globe...The City of Los Angeles should have opted for this proven product to ensure the security of its data and to save taxpayer money."

Groupwise is, of course, typically sold to enterprises through software licenses, as Microsoft's applications and platforms are. The missive at Novell's site is just a blog post, and not necessarily the postion of the company, but it still is pretty jarring to see tired old criticisms of open source appearing on the site of one of the only publicly traded open source-focused companies. 

 


Browse Blog

Randy Clark uses OStatic to support Open Source, ask and answer questions and stay informed. What about you?



6 Comments
 

Novell got two faces and no spine. They are the jellyfish of OpenSource and Linux. One face picks on Google and propietary solutions.


The more important face to notice is that they barely semipromote their own products (their SLES/SLED 11 roadshow appeared as a Microsoft-entourage). Even more interesting is the well organised astroturfing and FUD campaign against GPL.


On the face of it Stallman is the target, but the real objective is undermining GPL. Just read the Novell blogs in the Monosphere for starters.


They also systematicly attacks Ubuntu rather than competing with Windows on the desktop. Frequently I spot Opensuse users at work undermining Ubuntu. They probably be better off promoting their own product rather than bashing their fellows.


Why go for the crumbles when there is a basket full of bread just in front of you?


By end of 2012 Novell is owned by Microsoft formally and not just de-facto. We have shifted everything from Novell to RedHat. Novell is a dead end.


1 Votes

"To set the record straight, Novell GroupWise is a world-class product"


Groupwise may have been a world-class product a number of years ago but not anymore. I manage a heterogenous network with Groupwise, Novell Open Enterprise, Windows, Ubuntu, RedHat, Zenworks 7/10 and SUSE.


The systems that always give me grief is Microsofts and Novells. Novell has taken SUSE, broken it and made every upgrade a real nightmare. Just this friday i upgraded just to have a whole slew of services broken. The problem was that rug decided to just scrap a bunch of .config files and replace them with the default ones from the packages. Thats not acceptable, period.


Groupwise 8 is still managed by ConsoleOne, still not integrated with LDAP (you atleast can auth against LDAP but the rest is stone-age) and still have a slew of ancient IPX/SPX legacy rotting away in the corners. Its an old product that has lived long past its best before date. Hulaproject looked like a really interesting successor but was sadly scrapped just as it started to become really interesting.


Going from Groupwise to for eg. Microsoft Exchange isnt really an option as its also a legacy product that should never have been released.


We are also going for Google now and all 2600 users will be using Google Apps in the near future. Anyone that hasnt tried it all the way may be doubtful but once i gave it a real spin the choice was just not there, its just that darn better than the rest.


Today the simplest way of acheiving a true heterogenous backend is going for Google Apps. This way our users can use whatever they like, be it Android, Windows Mobile, Linux, Windows, Apple, Unix or just about anything with a fairly recent browser.


Im also fairly certain that Novell will sell out fully to Microsoft and one thing is for sure. We wont go near anything from Microsoft with a ten foot pole in the future other than where its just not possible to avoid them.


1 Votes

I have read the blog posting and


1) it seems to be a criticism of the process not open source.

2) Please explain how Google apps are considered open source applications. There is a difference between using open source tools and producing open source apps. Open source tools can be use to produce proprietary application.


1 Votes

What about comparing zimbra or openxchange vs google apps?


0 Votes

The first two comments (Jack and Anonymous) are typicial of underinformed and second rate technology professionals. Novell doesn't embrace Ubuntu because they're a competitor. Is that so tough to understand? Is there no room in the open source world for proprietary software? Not every solution can be driven and funded by advertising.


As far as the technical shortcomings of GroupWise noted - like IPX/SPX legacy rotting at the corners - are you smokin' crack or something? There's no IPX/SPX dependency on GroupWise or any other current Novell product - not for years. It's still supported in limited capacity, but required - not hardly. If Novell's products are constantly giving you grief, that says more about you than Novell. We have just the opposite experience - particulary with GroupWise. I can't say enough for how well it runs.


Get you heads out of your butts.


1 Votes

To the last writer - NO there is no room for in the open source world for proprietary software.


Open source software does not mean the project has to scrounge around the Internet looking for 1.00 donations to the project, or advertising google ads to make pennies here and there.


It's quite all right to charge for support, consultation and the like for open source products, and there are a number of companies doing it successfully.


Surely the decision to choose one solution to the other goes further than the acquisition costs. I'd hate to think that technical prowess, total cost of ownership, ease of use and other factors were not considered in the final decision to go with product A over product B. So give the customer more credit and the benefit of the doubt.


At the end of it all, they did not choose your product. So instead of slamming them, ask them why and improve you own.


0 Votes
Share Your Comments

If you are a member, to have your comment attributed to you. If you are not yet a member, Join OStatic and help the Open Source community by sharing your thoughts, answering user questions and providing reviews and alternatives for projects.