From: nelson@crynwr.com (Russell Nelson)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.novell
Subject: BYU packet driver IPX doesn't do SPX 
Distribution: world
Date: Sat, 25 Jul 92 02:17:16 GMT
Organization: Crynwr Software

In article <1992Jul24.003758.25941@novell.com> donp@novell.com writes:

   In article <1992Jul22.132642.27926@eds1.eds.com> jdm1@eds1.eds.com (Jonathan D    McCown) writes:
   >nelson@crynwr.com (Russell Nelson) writes:
   [Unattributed quote: -drp]
   >>   Couldn't Novell make one available ? I am sure it would be worth their
   >>   money to have a "supported" packet driver interface!

   What a concept!  A supported interface to unsupported drivers.  

"Unsupported drivers?"  Hardly.  The Crynwr packet drivers simply
unbundle the support from the product.

   Why's everyone so worried about whether or not the IPX
   implementation comes from Novell when the drivers aren't
   controlled by Novell?

Now, Don, I realize that you are "not speaking for Novell in this
matter.", but I think it's clear from Novell's other actions that
they intend to be the sole networking vendor in the DOS market,
interoperability be damned.  I suppose that it should be nice to see
a vendor who doesn't claim that their closed system is open.

   >>Politically unacceptable.  They've lined up all their ducks behind ODI.

   As hard as this is to grasp, in my experience at Novell, i've never
   seen the company do *anything* for political reasons.  If there was
   money to be made by supporting packet drivers, i assure you that
   Novell would be right in there doing it.

Oh, I suppose that Novell didn't do it for political reasons, but
instead for strategic reasons.  They weren't going to use a spec put
out by their biggest competitor, and they wanted to control the spec
so that it was as efficient was possible for *their* solution.

Nonetheless, Novell wasn't interested in adopting the packet driver
specification even after I offered to sell support to Novell.

   >On the other hand, if this is indeed Novell's position (responses
   >welcome) it will be factored in with other
   >grievances_with/shortcomings_of their product.  I am not a devout
   >Novellist, and for us Netware was the least of several evils.  At
   >some point if the harrassment of using a product exceeds
   >>reasonability _we_will_change_products_.

   Funny you should mention it.  I don't really know why Novell as a
   company decided not to support packet drivers, but if i were making
   the decision for the company, i'd probably decide against it precisely
   because, over all, supporting packet drivers would tend to *decrease*
   the usability of the product.  In other words, in my personal opinion,
   Novell would *lose* more customers if it fully supported packet
   drivers than it will by continuing on its current course of
   concentrating on ODI to the exclusion of packet drivers.  Although
   those of you that know and love packet drivers would be pleased with
   packet driver support, in my opinion the overall perception of the
   quality of Novell's products would decrease.

Oh sure, at this point, Novell would look like it was capitulating if
it supported another spec.  The press jumped all over Novell's
announcement of odinsup, misunderstanding it and saying that Novell
had given up on ODI.

That's why I say that Novell's ducks are lined up behind ODI.  Any
other choice is politically unacceptable.

-russ <nelson@crynwr.com>  I'm proud to be a humble Quaker!
Crynwr Software            Crynwr Software sells packet driver support.
11 Grant St.               315-268-1925 Voice   [ if mail bounces, forward it ]
Potsdam, NY 13676          315-268-9201 FAX     [ to uuadmin@uu.psi.com.      ]