8 ms·

Yep, Netware ran entirely in Ring 0. In linux terminology it was a kernel with no user space, and NLMs were kernel modules. Very fast for file serving, but any

by flomo 2y ago

Yep, Netware ran entirely in Ring 0. In linux terminology it was a kernel with no user space, and NLMs were kernel modules. Very fast for file serving, but any application could crash the system. Stability was largely a result of lots of updates. NT had userspace, protected memory, etc, and a GUI for setting up TCP/IP.

Sesse__ 2y ago
In NetWare 4.x (and even more so in 5.x), you could give NLMs their own address space. But by then, it was probably lost anyway.
- skissane 2y ago
  Around 2006/2007, I was playing around with NetWare 6.5 at work. We had heaps of it but lots of talk about replacing NetWare/eDir/GroupWise with Windows/AD/Exchange (which I think finally did happen after I left the place). My recollection was it was quite unstable - because, having come from Linux, I was playing with bash and SSH. bash would crash a lot (something that very rarely happens on Linux) but it wouldn’t bring down the whole server (which was a dev/test NetWare server anyway). I don’t remember what exactly I was trying to do: I had some work-related justification, which I forget now - something something identity management - but my real reason was just to explore the system. The instability of it convinced me to not take any ideas I had any further.
surfingdino 2y ago
> NT had userspace, protected memory, etc, and a GUI for setting up TCP/IP. That's because Microsoft hired Dave Cutler who previously worked on VMS and knew what he was doing. Microsoft even had their own Unix, but didn't know what to do with it.
- flomo 2y ago
  The issue with UNIX on PCs was the $1000 or whatever licensing cost. Just as some trivia, Novell bought UNIX System V R4 from AT&T and planned to merge it with Netware to create "SuperNOS", which would have been a direct competitor to NT. But they never got it out the door and spun-off UNIX to (old) SCO.
- sllabres 2y ago
  Microsoft Xenix (never knew more about it than the name). For small to medium sized businesses Netware had the advantage that with IPX networking there was nearly no configuration necessary. No subnetting, assigning of IP addresses to clients or running DHCP services. The availability of software on the server was limited (i remember backup services, licensing software). But for central file service and printing it was rock solid, even in a bit larger (for the time, around 1995) environments without any issues. (IRC >200 clients on a single 486 CPU and 4 MB RAM)
  - bitwize 2y ago
    > Microsoft Xenix (never knew more about it than the name). For a year or two there, the only other commercial Unix workstation not made by Sun could be had from Radio Shack: the TRS-80 Model 16 running Xenix. Enough small businesses ran Xenix, with up to 3 simultaneous users on a single stock machine (console + 2 terminals) that Radio Shack kept supporting these things until the late 1980s; with up to an 8 MHz CPU, up to 7 MiB of RAM, and an actual (external) MMU, the Model 16 could handle more workload, theoretically more stably than an x86 machine running Xenix until about the time Xenix/386 came out.
    - smackeyacky 2y ago
      Apollo made competitive workstations at the time until they got swallowed by HP. The Unix workstation market was bigger than Sun, but since they were the most successful nobody remembers how competitive that segment was. The model 16 was a footnote not a competitor
      - pavlov 2y ago
        I believe Apollo had a proprietary OS with limited Unix compatibility. So maybe the grandparent poster is right about the Model 16 being the only other non-Sun desktop Unix for a while, as long as you define Unix tightly enough.
        kjellsbells 2y ago
- pjmlp 2y ago
  Legend says, had it not been for the unexpected MS-DOS success, they would keep being a UNIX shop.
wannacboatmovie 2y ago
> Netware ran entirely in Ring 0 NetWare was TempleOS with networking...
- lproven 2y ago
  1. This was normal for the time. 2. See my earlier comment: it's only true for 3.x and not for >=4.x.
freeopinion 2y ago
Netware existed and thrived before NT LAN Manager. NT LAN Manager seemed like the one MS product that couldn't make inroads against established competition. It simply wasn't as good as Netware. The way I remember it NLMs were pretty stable. Anything on Windows was not stable, userspace or otherwise. Netware's TUI was just as good as NT's GUI for what it needed to do. It wasn't a liability. Netware's superior directory service was more important. Netware's demise was the transition from IPX to TCIP/IP and the explosion of the WWW. And from my perspective it wasn't really NT that knocked Netware down. It was Linux and Solaris. Novell kinda saw that coming and tried to figure out a future with SuSE. They just never got the combination of their directory server with Linux right in time. Microsoft stumbled around for some years, but they got their directory services figured out before Novell got their OS story straight in the new world.
- flomo 2y ago
  Windows NT Server pretty much stomped Netware, so you seem very confused. Are you thinking of OS/2 LAN Manager? NetWare was stable running vanilla file/print services (just don't load the AppleTalk module!), not so good with database services and so on.
  - lproven 2y ago
    LAN Manager is a whole family of programs. Don't confused LanMan the family with the one implementation in NT -- LanMan is quite a bit older than WinNT. LanMan is an opened-up version of 3Com's proprietary DOS-based server OS, 3+Share. I installed many 3+Share boxes in the late 1980s and early 1990s. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LAN_Manager https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LAN_Manager 3+Share used NetBEUI but LanMan was protocol-neutral, which was rare and exceptional back then. E.g. AppleShare only ran over AppleTalk, Netware only ran over IPX/SPX, and Unix spoke unto Unix -- and nothing but Unix -- over TCP/IP. (Addons to run TCP/IP on other OSes existed but most of them cost money. Often more money than the OS itself, in the case of DOS. And many had proprietary APIs: so for example Quarterdeck DESQview/X used TCP/IP but it couldn't talk to the free TCP/IP stacks Microsoft and IBM eventually distributed. (Two different TCP/IP stacks, natch.) LanMan ran on OS/2 1.x, on various proprietary Unixes, and on DEC VMS, which DEC marketed as part of its PATHWORKS suite: file/print serving via LanMan, plus Email, terminal emulation, X11 servers for DOS and Windows... all over the DecNet protocol.
lproven 2y ago
> Netware ran entirely in Ring 0 Netware 3.x did. Netware 4.x let you demote NLMs into ring 1/2/3 for slightly greater stability. See: http://dune.pol.lublin.pl/pub/pc/novell/NetWare/ch07/ch07.htm http://dune.pol.lublin.pl/pub/pc/novell/NetWare/ch07/ch07.ht... Look for the section "Using New NLMs in NetWare 4.x"

by flomo 2y ago

Sesse__ 2y ago

In NetWare 4.x (and even more so in 5.x), you could give NLMs their own address space. But by then, it was probably lost anyway.

skissane 2y ago
Around 2006/2007, I was playing around with NetWare 6.5 at work. We had heaps of it but lots of talk about replacing NetWare/eDir/GroupWise with Windows/AD/Exchange (which I think finally did happen after I left the place). My recollection was it was quite unstable - because, having come from Linux, I was playing with bash and SSH. bash would crash a lot (something that very rarely happens on Linux) but it wouldn’t bring down the whole server (which was a dev/test NetWare server anyway). I don’t remember what exactly I was trying to do: I had some work-related justification, which I forget now - something something identity management - but my real reason was just to explore the system. The instability of it convinced me to not take any ideas I had any further.

surfingdino 2y ago

> NT had userspace, protected memory, etc, and a GUI for setting up TCP/IP. That's because Microsoft hired Dave Cutler who previously worked on VMS and knew what he was doing. Microsoft even had their own Unix, but didn't know what to do with it.

flomo 2y ago
The issue with UNIX on PCs was the $1000 or whatever licensing cost. Just as some trivia, Novell bought UNIX System V R4 from AT&T and planned to merge it with Netware to create "SuperNOS", which would have been a direct competitor to NT. But they never got it out the door and spun-off UNIX to (old) SCO.
sllabres 2y ago
Microsoft Xenix (never knew more about it than the name). For small to medium sized businesses Netware had the advantage that with IPX networking there was nearly no configuration necessary. No subnetting, assigning of IP addresses to clients or running DHCP services. The availability of software on the server was limited (i remember backup services, licensing software). But for central file service and printing it was rock solid, even in a bit larger (for the time, around 1995) environments without any issues. (IRC >200 clients on a single 486 CPU and 4 MB RAM)
- bitwize 2y ago
  > Microsoft Xenix (never knew more about it than the name). For a year or two there, the only other commercial Unix workstation not made by Sun could be had from Radio Shack: the TRS-80 Model 16 running Xenix. Enough small businesses ran Xenix, with up to 3 simultaneous users on a single stock machine (console + 2 terminals) that Radio Shack kept supporting these things until the late 1980s; with up to an 8 MHz CPU, up to 7 MiB of RAM, and an actual (external) MMU, the Model 16 could handle more workload, theoretically more stably than an x86 machine running Xenix until about the time Xenix/386 came out.
  - smackeyacky 2y ago
    Apollo made competitive workstations at the time until they got swallowed by HP. The Unix workstation market was bigger than Sun, but since they were the most successful nobody remembers how competitive that segment was. The model 16 was a footnote not a competitor
    - pavlov 2y ago
      I believe Apollo had a proprietary OS with limited Unix compatibility. So maybe the grandparent poster is right about the Model 16 being the only other non-Sun desktop Unix for a while, as long as you define Unix tightly enough.
      - kjellsbells 2y ago
pjmlp 2y ago
Legend says, had it not been for the unexpected MS-DOS success, they would keep being a UNIX shop.

wannacboatmovie 2y ago

> Netware ran entirely in Ring 0 NetWare was TempleOS with networking...

lproven 2y ago
1. This was normal for the time. 2. See my earlier comment: it's only true for 3.x and not for >=4.x.

freeopinion 2y ago

Netware existed and thrived before NT LAN Manager. NT LAN Manager seemed like the one MS product that couldn't make inroads against established competition. It simply wasn't as good as Netware. The way I remember it NLMs were pretty stable. Anything on Windows was not stable, userspace or otherwise. Netware's TUI was just as good as NT's GUI for what it needed to do. It wasn't a liability. Netware's superior directory service was more important. Netware's demise was the transition from IPX to TCIP/IP and the explosion of the WWW. And from my perspective it wasn't really NT that knocked Netware down. It was Linux and Solaris. Novell kinda saw that coming and tried to figure out a future with SuSE. They just never got the combination of their directory server with Linux right in time. Microsoft stumbled around for some years, but they got their directory services figured out before Novell got their OS story straight in the new world.

flomo 2y ago
Windows NT Server pretty much stomped Netware, so you seem very confused. Are you thinking of OS/2 LAN Manager? NetWare was stable running vanilla file/print services (just don't load the AppleTalk module!), not so good with database services and so on.
- lproven 2y ago
  LAN Manager is a whole family of programs. Don't confused LanMan the family with the one implementation in NT -- LanMan is quite a bit older than WinNT. LanMan is an opened-up version of 3Com's proprietary DOS-based server OS, 3+Share. I installed many 3+Share boxes in the late 1980s and early 1990s. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LAN_Manager https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LAN_Manager 3+Share used NetBEUI but LanMan was protocol-neutral, which was rare and exceptional back then. E.g. AppleShare only ran over AppleTalk, Netware only ran over IPX/SPX, and Unix spoke unto Unix -- and nothing but Unix -- over TCP/IP. (Addons to run TCP/IP on other OSes existed but most of them cost money. Often more money than the OS itself, in the case of DOS. And many had proprietary APIs: so for example Quarterdeck DESQview/X used TCP/IP but it couldn't talk to the free TCP/IP stacks Microsoft and IBM eventually distributed. (Two different TCP/IP stacks, natch.) LanMan ran on OS/2 1.x, on various proprietary Unixes, and on DEC VMS, which DEC marketed as part of its PATHWORKS suite: file/print serving via LanMan, plus Email, terminal emulation, X11 servers for DOS and Windows... all over the DecNet protocol.

lproven 2y ago

> Netware ran entirely in Ring 0 Netware 3.x did. Netware 4.x let you demote NLMs into ring 1/2/3 for slightly greater stability. See: http://dune.pol.lublin.pl/pub/pc/novell/NetWare/ch07/ch07.htm http://dune.pol.lublin.pl/pub/pc/novell/NetWare/ch07/ch07.ht... Look for the section "Using New NLMs in NetWare 4.x"