From: rick@SJSUMCS.SJSU.EDU (Richard Warner)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.novell
Subject: Re: Netware VS Un*x--Plz no flame wars
Date: 12 Nov 92 16:21:18 GMT
Reply-To: Novell LAN Interest Group <NOVELL@SUVM.BITNET>
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.3 PL11]
              Nov 11, 92 8:13 pm

> I hope to open up a discussion of possible arguments for and against
> Netware in comparison to Un*x machines. I am specifically directing
> the question to those of you who have extensive experience on both
> platforms.
>
> Here is my story:
>
> Until recently all was operating reasonably well on my network, a Novell
> Netware 3.11 and 2.X configuration. This novell network was the first to
> be connected to the campus-wide IP network. Hence I have a fairly good
> understanding of Netware in a campus setting. Most of my client machines
> are 286s without hard disks. My server licences(sp?) will allow 350 con-
> current users at present divided across a few machines. My user base has
> been happy with the services offered. My only complaint is that I haven't
> been given enough budget to make everything as fault-tolerent as I would
> like.
>
> Enter a new 'acting' department chairman with more Un*x experience on a
> Sun386 than Novell.  Currently, the Sun is little more than a remote
> storage site for data, while the Novell machines offer more services.
>
> I have just requested a significant hardware upgrade for the department
> so that we can start utilizing more fully the software investment and
> increase the fault tolerance of all systems. The reply was a suggestion
> that UN*X is being throughout the university and wouldn't it be better to
> get a Un*x server and have all of the clients NFS mount it. Actually, the
> university uses Un*x for research and a combination of DEC and Novell for
> administrative tasks. Aside from the loss of the initial software investment
> and the cost of purchasing hard disks for the clients ( and related support
> issues mentioned in the Why Network thread), I would be very interested in
> all well reasoned arguments for and against the platform conversion.
>
> Thanks in Advance
>
> Jim Bowlin
> jimbo@morpheus.wustl.edu                        jimbo@aneswu.wustl.edu
>

The very first argument against UNIX in an administrative environment
is security.  UNIX is full of well known and lesser-known security holes
that can be used for malicious purposes by malcontents.  Despite the
recent uproar over security breaches on Novell, it is still much more
secure than UNIX.  I can hack my way into almost any standard UNIX
box at any time - and the much flaunted C2 is not much better.

Still on the security vein, UNIX file security is extremely simplistic
and does not lend itself to complex file access needs.  For example,
suppose you have a file that you and one other person will need to
have read and write access to, everyone in another department will need
read access to, and no one else should be able to see the file.  How
can that be implemented in UNIX?  Answer - it can't!  You can assign
assess to one individual, one group, and everyone else - far too
simplistic to meet the needs of most administrative organizations.

Also in the vein of security, the various PC based NFS implementations
are most useful when they talk to a daemon on the NFS server that
'authenticates' the user and permits them a level of access assigned
to that user.  To put it bluntly, this is one of the largest security
holes around.  It is trivial to spoof these daemons into letting you
get in as anyone that you want to be.  We have a couple of copies of
Sun's PC/NFS, and I showed a few doubters a while ago how easy this
was (getting in; I did not reveal the details on how I did it, just
that I could do it).

Because of security and file access concerns, all of our campus admin
folks use Novell networks and MVS on an IBM 3090.  None of that stuff
is on the campus IP network.  The research and academic side of the
University uses UNIX, Novell, VINES, DECNet, and a whole slew of things,
but the research/academic side and the admin side are totally independent
as far as computing resources are concerned.

Now from an operational standpoint.  The NFS software is both expensive
and large.  With large site licenses you can get PC based NFS software
for about $125-150/station.  This is not concurrent, this is per PC
(each PC needs an individual license).  If you have 20 PC's but a max
of 10 concurrent users, you can get buy with a 10 user license of Netware.
With NFS, you need 20 licenses.  Remember I said 'large' site license -
that figure is for > 100 licenses; anything less and the price goes up
sharply.  Let's say that you want to put together a 40 PC network with
one Sun SPARC 2 server.  The Sun SPARC (4/75M - it is a server, so
we will keep it to a 'cheap' mono unit) will cost $7500 for a basic
machine (32 Mb RAM, 424 Mb hard drive).  Add another $1000 for a
second 424 Mb drive.  That will leave you about 600 Mb of free disk
space after loading SunOS, swap space, etc.  With only 40 stations the
PC NFS software will run you +/- $8000 (figure at least $200/station
with only 40 licenses).  So a server + software has cost you $16,500.
Compare that to Netware.  A decent 486 box, 16 Mb RAM, 600 Mb disk
space, etc. will cost me roughly $5000 (that is on the high side, but
I will use quality parts).  I can buy a 100 user (concurrent user)
license of Novell for $3800.  Gee, my server + software only cost
$8800!  And that is for more than twice as many users! [ BTW - you
notice I ignored your honchos 386i;  first, the 386i is merely a toy,
and cannot support the 40 NFS users.  Second, the 386i is an orphan
than Sun no longer supports in any manner or fashion].

The second operation problem with PC based NFS implementations is size
of the network drivers.  The most recent version of Sun's PC/NFS
requires something like 140 Kb for all of the drivers.  And you thought
the 80 Kb or so that Novell uses was a hit!  One of the many reasons
we do not run NFS is that we have plenty of problems with RAM cram without
inviting more by taking up an additional 40-50 Kb for network drivers.
Sun says 'load part of them high'.  Well, we do that with Novell, and
still end up better off.

I have never heard a cogent argument in favor of a strictly NFS-based
departmental network.  I see PC based NFS software as a useful tool
for connecting one or two PC's to a network of UNIX boxes in a very
comtrolled environment (remember, it opens up some big security holes).
People who try to use it for departmental networks are using a hammer to
drive a screw in my opinion - i.e., they have chosen the wrong tool
for the job.

+-----------------------+-------------------------------------+
|   Richard M. Warner   |   Internet:  rick@sjsumcs.sjsu.edu  |
|                       | CompuServe:  71121,2257             |
+-----------------------+-------------------------------------+
|  ** DISCLAIMER:  All opinions are strictly my own.  I work  |
|                  hard enough at forming them!               |
+-------------------------------------------------------------+
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU