Hello osf-managers,
I'd like to ask questions on Pathworks for LanManager/Netware.
1)
Recently I read two posting (appended below) which said that
"Pathworks should be avoided". However, they didn't mention the
reasons. What is bad with Pathworks?
2)
I think above postings mentioned Pathworks for LanManager. How
about Pathworks for Netware?
3)
Do you think IPX/SPX for Netware impacts our main network? We
have 20 - 30 Windows machines.
4)
Is it possible to run LanManager (SMB) client protocol as well as
Netware client on Windows 3.1? What products should we buy?
(Windows for Workgroup? Does this include only Network drivers?
or whole Windows 3.1?) Maybe you recommend Windows-95. However,
we have to use Windows 3.1 for some time.
Background:
I'm running Samba to share resources on Digital-Unix for Windows
and Windows-NT as well as NFS for some Windows. One user wants to
run
Pathworks for Netware for Windows machines
Pathworks for Lan Manager for Windows-NT machines
Since, you know, those products are supported by DEC, some people
like such solutions. (Some do not :-)
I would like to know how painful Pathworks for Lan Manager is, and
whether the fact is applied to Pathworks for Netware.
I don't like such divergence in network protocols. However, I
must have rigid reasons to reject the request for Pathworks.
I would also like to compare
Samba vs. Pathworks for Lan Manager
NFS capability on Netware server vs. Pathworks for Netware
I'm also worrying about using IPX/SPX protocol on our main network.
Currently I filter most of IPX packets with intelligent bridge.
Best regards, Kazuro.
-----
Kazuro FURUKAWA, KEK-Linac <furukawa_at_kek.jp>
Natl. Lab. for High Energy Physics (KEK), Japan
Telephone: +81-298-64-5694, Facsimile: +81-298-64-7529
-----
>>> On Tue, 04 Jul 95 10:37:46 +0200, blaser_p_at_vptt.ch wrote;
> The main point is also, to avoid Pathworks. Its painful and costs you
> a lot of money.
-----
>>> On Wed, 12 Jul 95 08:09:23 -0400, Edward Silver <edsilver_at_omni.voicenet.com> wrote;
> Well, it was fairly unanimous that Pathowrks on the Alpha running OSF 3.0
> was not a great idea. Most people stated that it was difficult to
> administer and some complained of extreme server load causing crashes.
> Others complained that printing was difficult. In general the word was
> to avoid it.
-----
Received on Tue Oct 03 1995 - 09:28:10 NZDT