CA Announces Program Ports to Linux 184
December writes "CA has announced that they will port ARCserveIT, InnoculateIT, MasterIT and NetworkIT to Linux.
The full press release is available online. " Computer Associates and Red Hat are teaming up, according to the press release. They'll be making a package aimed at "mid-market" customers.
Re:security (Score:2)
Never knock on Death's door:
At least it isn't a lawsuit... (Score:2)
but Linux doesn't have virii :) (Score:1)
Re:Who needs this? (Score:1)
what if you dont notice the virus (Score:1)
so what are you gonna do now tough guy? huh?
CA Just Generally (Score:2)
CA is the most egregiously arrogant company I have dealt with in over 15 years of doing computer support. Besides the support issues that have already been mentioned, just trying to *buy* their products can be a nightmare. Several years ago they tried to sell me Unicenter. The salesman and I went round and round for months over one central issue: Pricing.
It wasn't that the pricing was too much, it was that they couldn't tell me what it was. I insisted that I wasn't going to invest any time in evaluating Unicenter until I was convinced that it would fit in my budget. I wanted a price schedule -- you know, like a price per server of various sizes, and a price per client, a price per management station, etc. They wouldn't give me any prices until I'd given them a complete inventory of all the hardware on our network, identifying which machines were servers, which workstations, etc., etc., etc. I tried to explain that this was a Sun environment and, what with NFS and all, just about *all* the machines could be considered servers, and that for the purposes of determining affordability, he could just assume that all of our approximately 150 Sun machines were servers. I explained that doing the kind of documentation he wanted, in the form he wanted, was exactly the kind of thing I didn't have time for until I knew that I could afford the product. After a long time of this, I finally told him to just stop calling me.
We went through the same thing again a few months ago with ARCserve. We'd been using ARCserve for NT since the Cheyenne days -- Cheyenne was actually a pretty good company before CA slaughtered it -- and we wanted to (a) upgrade it to the latest version and (b) buy copies for our Unix machines. It boggles the mind, but we never, ever did get a price for it. There appeared to be no one in CA who was authorized to give us a price, and we tried, repeatedly, for months to get this information out of them. At one point they sent us a single license for evaluation, but by that time we were pretty far along evaluating an alternative, Backup Express [syncsort.com] from SyncSort [syncsort.com]. Backup Express works great, and SyncSort's service is excellent.
Really, CA offering products for Linux is a very mixed blessing.
Re:Avoid Arcserve! (Score:2)
I developed an affection for Palindrome but Cheyenne bought them and then stopped development on it. We would still be using it for our own servers but it won't work after y2k.
About 20% of our customer support time is spent troubleshooting backup problems. I can't recall ever getting a solution to a problem from a supplier support technician. (Well, once with Dell)
Arcserve is a swearword around our shop. It is the Microsoft Windows of backup software in my book.
I thought it was just me ... (Score:1)
You think the NT flavor is bad? Hah! try the netware version!
It is JUNK (Score:2)
And their software is by far the worst in the industry when it comes to the process of licensing. It is a nightmare! Tell them to keep this junk to themselves.
all persons, living and dead, are purely coincidental. - Kurt Vonnegut
Re:Who needs this? (Score:1)
Since a lot of use Linux boxes to serve files for Windows machines, yes, a virus scanner that can identify and remove Windows viruses is a good thing to have. And there are already several available.
However, if CA really wanted to impress me, they would make a virus scanner that integrated in to samba so that it could scan files as they are sent out and received in.
Re:Who needs this? (Score:1)
I used to run a similar product on a nightly basis on a number of novell servers, Netware doesn't have viruses but the clients that connect to it and store their files on it most certainly do.
Another use would be to scan the mailstore for all those pop3 users to make sure none of those word attachments have annoying macro viruses in them.
This kind of product is very useful to anyone using linux boxes as a server in a mixed platform environment.
--
Closed Source > Open Source (Score:3)
Mostly useless. (Score:2)
However, we DO NOT need virus checkers to protect our systems or our own data from viruses or Trojan horse applications. You only need those things when you run closed-source binary applications. Nobody in their right mind would use closed source when they can get the source code and check it themselves before they compile it. If I can't get the source, then I don't use it.
If you use binary-only software, then you deserve whatever Hell it unleashes on your system.
(You know, I'm starting to feel like Richard Stallman, here.)
Anyway, virus checking software will not stop Trojan horses, and it will only give the user a false sense of security. The people who *need* anti-virus software are the ones who are the least likely to keep it updated.
What newbie Linux users really need are friendly, easy-to-setup security software, or a distro that comes preconfigured to be secure and has a simple interface to give the root user control of the various security settings.
I also take issue with folks who think GNU/Linux will have arrived when there is all this shrink-wrapped software available for it. That is not what I want, nor what most of you are going to want if you stop and think about it. Shrink-wrapped software means locking people out of their own systems. It means becoming more like the enemy. If you become the enemy, even in order to defeat them, you haven't won, just replaced the enemy with yourself. The whole fixation with trying to turn GNU/Linux into the next Windows with shrink-wrapped software and comparable software will destroy the community in the long run. I see us heading in that direction and I don't like it. For the good of the community, the fixation with Micro$oft has got to stop, and this desire have all the same tools as them has to end. To win, we need to transcend the commercial software mentality and come up with something truly innovative to move the computing world in a new direction....
Uh, sorry for the rant. I'll stop before I get too far off topic, but you get the point.
so you read all the code you compile? (Score:3)
Another good reason to choose Debian (Score:1)
My impression of CAI is that they are the slumlord of software. They seem to buy old programs, market the hell out of them, add an IT to the name and provide crap support.
Re:Bah. CA stuff is CRAP (Score:1)
Arcserve (Score:3)
I hope they clean up the ArcServe interface up first before they port it. I had to support ArcServe on 8 NT servers at my last job and it was not a pretty picture.
Arcserve appears to have horrible support for library tape devices, and their instructions for installing patches (as well as figuring out which patches are pre-requisites to others is a nightmare.)
The tape device I was using was a Magstar B10. It had support for 20 tape cartidges and was a fast little machine, however, Arcserve would often leave the tape device in an unwritable state.
When I left that job in June, I had found out from a colleague in November that they hadn't had a full backup since August.
NJV
ArcServe sucks on Netware, too (Score:2)
ArcServe was the wrong choice for the job.
The UI was horrible, consisting of a scattering of programs, some loaded on the server, some on the client. Only backup software I know of that forced you to load a program on another machine just to eject a tape.
It used to go off the trolly somewhere into a la-la land that only ArcServe could find. It would keep spitting out useless console messages and eating up CPU time. The only way to fix it was to forcibly kill the program, which is not good for the health of your Netware server.
And it was always spewing error messages like "Unexpected error nnnn" or "Tape server error nnnn" where "nnnn" was some number not found in the manual. You'd call tech support, sit on hold for an hour, and that get a tech who'd look it up and say something like "It means your backup is toast, try it again" or "Oh, we don't know what that means, either. It wasn't documented by the engineering team, and they haven't had a chance to go back and find it yet."
Geez, am I glad I don't have to deal with that POS anymore.
Re:but Linux doesn't have virii :) (Score:2)
Besides, after the hypothetical virii explosion, you restore from last night's backup. You don't lose much, if anything. Fileserver data is usually relativly static, changing incrementally over time.
Who needs this? (Score:1)
InoculateIT for Red Hat Linux, which provides complete protection for Linux machines deployed as components of the eBusiness infrastructure from all kinds of virus threats
Yeah, right. Do we really need that?
The rest of the stuff are things that any decent SysAdmin could cobble together with scripts or even get free scripts to do.
And, have you noticed that all this stuff is "for Red Hat Linux?" I say, "No, thank you" on that count, too.
Lone-tar (Score:1)
I also found the support excellent: when I called once on a weekend, I was forwarded to the person who wrote the software, who came in from mowing the lawn to take my call. Now that's *support*!
Re:Avoid Arcserve! (Score:1)
I found that even the ntbackup program that comes with NT is better - it backs up Exchange too.
The main sysadmin at our site was constantly complaining about it too. It dumped some of our backups.
I heard that Backup-Exec is better?
Re: (Score:1)
Re:Um (Score:1)
Ever heard of Melissa (Score:2)
Re:Who needs this? (Score:1)
if CA really wanted to impress me, they would make a virus scanner that integrated in to samba so that it could scan files as they are sent out and received in.
I see an opportunity here. Why don't you follow your own advice and create such a beast?
ArcServe (Score:1)
Virii scannin? (Score:1)
ArcServe... (Score:3)
I think the next slashdot poll should be 'your fav backup software'
o Bru
o Networker
o Tar
o dump
o pen & paper
The consequences of popularity (Score:1)
What surprises me is seeing RedHat's name on all this. If the product is as bad as everyone is making it out to be, why would RedHat buy into it? Is it because they don't know, or do they have plans on improving it? Maybe they just got a good price. My thought is they just want to beef up their Enterprise package with anything they could throw in it, and in this case, the price was non-prohibitive to do so. Sometimes I wonder about the idea of "value-added" software.
--
Re:so you read all the code you compile? (Score:1)
Truth be told, no, I didn't read every single line of KDE 1.89 and QT 2.1 beta. But the mere fact of having the source code from a trusted server, makes it less likely to contain Trojans. Nor did I check every line of source in the Slackware 7.0 distro, either.
I do, generally, give the source code of smaller items the once over, and I write a lot of the software that I use anyway.
I admit that viruses could become an issue, if we follow the shrink-wrapped route and do some things in a dumb way. But, if a user is smart and conscientious about security and we don't start doing colossally stupid, Redmondian things with our software, then we should be virtually immune to GNU/Linux viruses.
Now, where'd that OpenBSD CD go?
Re:At least it isn't a lawsuit... (Score:1)
In the past when people would say "but there's no virus protection software for Linux," we would say "but you don't *need* it with Linux, virii are non-existent because of the design of the system."
Now when people say "but there's no virus protection software for Linux," we can say "yes there is." Sort of loses something, doesn't it?
Wasted days and wasted nights... (Score:1)
I realize that this post is pretty redundant, but we spent so much precious time and energy trying to get that POS to work, that I just had to get my 0.02 Euros in.
Linux community, go invest in LinuxOne before you waste any time with Arcserve. Its truly a POS.
Re:CA Support (Score:1)
line, but I can say this:
AimIT - worked for awhile, was unable to relocate
the ever-expanding database.
ShipIT - worked with only non-MS product, which made it useless for the most part, ime
InoculateIT - only one that seemed to work well and still does. Although I think it is corrupting the mailserver even though it is 'Exchange-aware'.
I was tempted to get ArcServeIT because of the
Linux support, but I reckon I will skip it and
go with something else since the NT machines are
the ones that need regular backups. Especially
the Exchange server - arggh, don't let me start!
Re:but Linux doesn't have virii :) (Score:1)
thats funny, because i've run across several just like that, although 'restore from last's night backup' doesnt always work, because the virus slowly began corrupting the documents other data files on the server, so it was not noticed until weeks later. By then, the backup tapes had been overwritten.
Re:ArcServe sucks on Netware, too (Score:1)
(Well, the Win16 client always crashed, and don't get me started about the BTrieve database... But the backups were always good.)
BTW, the errors you describe seem symptomatic of bad SCSI cables or termination.
--
Re:Arcserve (Score:2)
Veritas NetBackup is real enterprise software. It's superb. Excellent. An example of a really fantastic closed source product. And their support is good too.
Arcserve (last I used it) is a mess - probably fine if you have a motley collection of 20 servers that need to be backed up to a single tape drive, but that's about it.
If you need good backup go with the good tools - Veritas, Legato, ADSM.
Incidentally, I am always dismayed at the number of Linux/BSD geeks who will have a fit if there aren't N levels of security and firewalls and ssh and whathave you, but will quite happily ignore backup, or think that if they dump a massive tar file onto a DAT once a day they are doing enough. Bleugh.
Re:ArcServe... (Score:2)
I switched from Legato to Veritas for backup, and haven't looked back. And yes, I think Veritas is currently rather more expensive. But Oh so worth it
Re:The consequences of popularity (Score:2)
Here's my list of shrink wrap products that are really really good and better than any OS equivalent that I'm aware of:
Veritas NetBackup
HP OpenView
Photoshop
Painter
Oracle
Remedy
Quark Xpress
These are the ones I've come across at work.
Re:GNU Backup solution? (Score:2)
HE ASKED ABOUT ENTERPRISE SOULTIONS AND YOU GIVE HIM SOMETHING THAT CAN'T HANDLE FILESYSTEMS LARGER THAN A TAPE??????
Get a clue. Please. Please. Please. Can everyone remember that Enterprise doesn't mean "One step up from my little ISP where I did my first job after college". It means "The largest 20% of companies in the world".
This little program is probably great, and it probably fits the bill for loads of companies but
IT IS NOT A FREAKING ENTERPRISE SOLUTION FOR ANYTHING AT ALL.
I am aware of three Enterprise backup solutions:
Veritas Netbackup, Legato Networker, ADSM
These programs are so far beyond Amanda it's not even funny, so can we all stop flinging the word 'Enterprise' around until we've worked in Enterprise environments and actually know what we are talking about?
Please? Can we? That way we'll learn instead of spouting vaguely pro-Linux FUD all the time.
Thanks.
Arcserve for Linux? Egads! (Score:1)
That being said, I openly wonder how they will be doing the cataloguing on Arcserve for Linux. On the NT Server version, you had a choice of either using their own proprietary (buggy) database, or SQL Server 6.x. Will we have the option to use MySQL or Postgres as the database for the catalogue? If so, I might actually have good things to say about them!
JB.
... If there are no flames shooting out of it, then it is a software problem
Re:Red Hat virus (Score:1)
Red Hat is the virus.
Couldn't resist.
Re:Virii scannin? (Score:1)
It has already saved our bacon several times.
Re:Who needs this? (Score:1)
Who here can really say that security on their box is sooo good that a Trojan horse or virus can't come in an wipe out files or trash the system? Who can say they never make a mistake here or there. Its all fine and good to trash some newbies (it not, but I have bigger fish to fry in this rant) but when it come down to it, there are people our there spending their whole time trying to come up with new virii (see Chinese Virus thread) If you don't want to give Computer Associates your money (or your company's money) for an anti-virus product...Don't. But don't discourage them because our Linux ego is too big to ask for a little help.
Linux is NOT perfect. It is a work in progress. If we keep discouraging companies from writing software because it "offends" us, Linux will die.
Re:Who needs this? (Score:2)
Of course, many systems are multi-use (ftp+samba, apache+samba, sendmail+samba, etc). Samba with integrated scanner can't address these issues. Perhaps a kernel hack that implemented SOER/SOFR at the filesystem level would be a better all-around solution.
I'm digging for my copy of 'Linux Device Drivers' now..
Re:Arcserve (Score:2)
Licensing was another headache. Just pray you don't have to rebuild the NT box, or reinstall. Your key no longer works. You have to call and explaing why and they'll give you another.
-- If the Internet has no walls...why do we need windows?Re:Avoid Arcserve! (Score:2)
If you want good backup, get Veritas Netbackup. It's good. You pay for it. About 6000UKPS for the server license and about 120UKPS for each client license.
It's the best there is IMHO and so far above anything open source that it's not even funny.
Sadly, there seems to be nothing good in the middle between Veritas and the like at the top and BRU and the like at the bottom.
NetBackup Blows Goats (Score:1)
Disclaimer: I do like some veritas software including Volume Manager and VxFS.
Veritas NetBackup is *crap*. It's an old product made by a company called OpenView in the 80's which has never been properly integrated with modern Unix. The interface is a nightmare, it installs 3 tons of shit all over your filesystem in places you don't want it. It installs 3 dozen new services into inetd (a service for each tape drive ro something like that!!!). The GUI is woefully inconsistent and counter intuitive. Overall, I find it very inflexible and difficult to automate. On top of this, the documentation is pathetic. Oh, and don't go on the training course, you just get to sit in front of a power point presentation for three days. And guess what the course documentation is? Copies of the powerpoint slides. *bangs head against desk*.
I have looked at this several times over the past year and each time, I have gone back to plain old gnutar.
Also, I note that they are violating the GPL by including an old version of GNU Tar (1.09, so old it doesn't use --help, but +help instead) with modifications, but no source code available.
It's a shame, but I find this symptomatic of practically every piece of commercial Unix software that I have seen. They treat the system as something to be pushed away and ignored, rather than integrated with. So, I invariable end up going with the open-source alternative if at all possible. Ah well, their loss of sales.
To be fair, I think that the software would work a lot better if I had a tape library available to me instead of the poxy DLT4700 stacker that I have now. You may be able to get a better (and less biased) opinion than mine over at backupcentral.com [backupcentral.com].
Avoid NetBackup!!! (Score:1)
-Dom
Re:The consequences of popularity (Score:1)
So, you end up spending thousands of currency units more on consultants and/or training. And usually, the consultants leave behind little or no documentation on what they've done, so they have to be called back if you want to make any changes at all.
I for one would *gladly welcome* some commercial software that didn't suck in this manner.
Re:Arcserve (Score:1)
The documentation is a joke, the program give some error/status codes but I am not able to find a list with their explanation.
Everyday I pray that arcserve does what it pretends to do (yes, I tested a backup) instead of make some super clever things rendering my simple backup unusable.
They have a new "wizard-like" interface which is even worse then the classic one. If they continue walking in this direction I assume they will not get a big marketshare under "old style" linuxers.
Forward Looking Statements? (Score:1)
Haven't lawyers already said it's airtight?
Hardly true is it? Less number than a certain other platform, but then again less dross too.
Oh yeah, unviable - of course.
It *IS* the year 2000!! They'd have already done it all!!
Re:Arcserve - bleh (Score:1)
GNU Backup solution? (Score:1)
Avoid Arcserve! (Score:5)
I was using the version just before it changed to ArcServeIT, though we did get the first version of ArcServeIT. It is poorly programmed and unstable as hell. I nevercould rely on it. Restores were always a scary experience. It wouldn't recover crashed machines at all (apparently you were supposed to pay extra for this very basic capability, and my predecessor hadn't bought this feature). I could get back data files USUALLY. However, I had endless trouble with the catalog. Doing restores on that system was a constant series of barely-dodged bullets. I have never, in my life, dealt with software that was so horrible. I fought it for MONTHS. I almost always managed to do restores when I needed them, but that was mostly due to ingenuity on my part.
Eventually, in desperation, I called up support (which is actually decent) and complained at them about the endless trouble we were having with it. Turns out that the Raima database that they use internally can only support 16 million records. I had over a million files on one server ALONE, and I was backing up over fifty machines to DLT tape. The catalogs were silently corrupting themselves within a few days of being rebuilt. This is NOT DOCUMENTED ANYWHERE in the manuals. And I asked them about this. "Oh, Arcserve isn't meant to handle that much data." Excuse me? This is a multi-thousand dollar package, and I don't remember seeing anything on the box about how much data I could back up with it???
They did tell me I could use SQL Server to store the database files. I went through the whole process of buying a new drive, setting up SQL Server, and configuring ARCServe to talk to it. It did work, and it didn't lose catalog data. However, after a backup, it would take somewhere around TWENTY HOURS to update the catalog in the database. When it was time for the next daily backup, it often wouldn't be finished updating the catalog from the PRIOR one 24 hours before! And if I wanted a restore, even a simple query would take twenty minutes to run (as in, browsing the files that had been backed up the night before from a specific server).
At that point, we just dumped it and bought a real solution, Legato Networker. Networker on NT has a few odd wrinkles but it is mostly solid, and it has saved my rear end several times. When I do a restore with Networker, I get back a perfect machine. Users can actually restore their own recent files without any intervention on my part. And it works. Every time.
Caveat re: Legato: An earlier build of Networker totally ate itself and destroyed the server installation. I was able to rebuild the server from its 'bootstrap' tapes, but bugs in the restore process make it very slow and tedious to recover the catalogs from multiple machines. I don't know if this has been fixed yet. It has not crashed since I went to a more recent patch rev, and has been almost painless. Light years difference from ArcServe, which was a constant, constant hassle.
Conclusion: Don't touch this software with a ten-meter pole. It won't be any better on Linux than it was on NT. Go with something you can trust; both BRU and Arkeia have pretty good reputations.
ArcServe SUCKS.
Re:It is JUNK (Score:2)
Worse than Junk - at least IMHO.
The company I recently worked at were a major CA customer, with Unicenter, Arcserve, Innoculan, and almost everything else their suits could persuade this companies management to buy.
Their biggest failing was the constant need for two or more of their consultants on site to do even the simplest job. There was one task of installing some Unicenter agents on one Unix box which they stated needed someone on site. For a 30 minute job it took one of their illeducated morons 5 days (all charged at exhorbitant rates) to get the thing working, and the end result was a pointless agent that didn't monitor anything really critical.
Most of their software is badly designed, inconsistant, and a resource hog. And the licensing mechanism also usually requires additional charagable CA support, with license keys failing after a few months. It took me 2 hours to get Arcserve licensed once before I could restore files - I needed to call the UK office, who in turn forwarded me to somewhere in Germany, where they issued me with a 40 character license key. Software so critical MUST work out of the box first time.
And as for their support. I once logged a report about a process taking up 99% of CPU resources. After having the call open for 3 weeks, they finally responded, telling me to stop the process. UTTERLY INSULTING RUBBISH!
My current boss believes that they can do no wrong. Maybe I should throw him in the bit bucket.
Bah. CA stuff is CRAP (Score:1)
It's really a piece of garbage.
Also, IIRC, they have a really twisted pricing model, basically, the more powerful your server is, the more you have to pay to run the exact same executable on it. How fucked up is that? Apparently, if you can spend twice as much on the server as someone else, you should spend twice as much for their product.
You forget the other people running Linux... (Score:1)
I admit this is the best way to ensure a lack of viruses.
But, clueful people are not the only ones running Linux anymore. Linux has hit mainstream. Look at all the media, press, etc..
Do you seriously think everyone is going to never run closed source binaries? Hah!
YES, it's a good idea to promote OSS as being free of viruses, and YES, it's a good idea to promote Linux as being virus-free when used with OSS software. BUT, your standard PHB is not going to give up his non-OSS software functionality if there's no OSS project that is as good as or better than the non-OSS. Your average Joe Sixpack could care less about the merits of the way a piece of software is created, as long as the software: a) works, b) does what he needs it to do, c) is cheap and available.
With all that in mind, realize that Linux is not always going to have mostly OSS software being used on it. For these programs, for these people, an antivirus tool is needed.
I also take issue with folks who think GNU/Linux will have arrived when there is all this shrink-wrapped software available for it. That is not what I want, nor what most of you are going to want if you stop and think about it. Shrink-wrapped software means locking people out of their own systems. It means becoming more like the enemy. If you become the enemy, even in order to defeat them, you haven't won, just replaced the enemy with yourself. The whole fixation with trying to turn GNU/Linux into the next Windows with shrink-wrapped software and comparable software will destroy the community in the long run. I see us heading in that direction and I don't like it. For the good of the community, the fixation with Micro$oft has got to stop, and this desire have all the same tools as them has to end.
Stop thinking of non-OSS software as "the enemy" and you'll see something new. The majority of the world does not care about "the community". The majority of the world does not have the same ideals. Reality is not black-or-white, nor even grayscale. Reality is multi-colored. Anyone can play. Anyone can enter. The community isn't building non-OSS projects, the non-community is.
If you want to promote OSS, promote it on its merits above non-OSS. Show them how OSS ensures security through massive world-wide (free) support. Show them how OSS is virtually immune to, say, a virus or a trojan thru thousands of eyes scrutinzing the code. Show them how the OSS process produces superior software thru massive parallelism of coders. Show them how a virus enclosed in one piece of non-OSS code can infect an entire system of virtually bug-free open source, mostly free, software. Convince them that non-OSS, binary only, packages are bad in the long run. All that's fine and dandy.
But don't say that a worthy project like an anti-virus software is a bad thing simply because it's not needed at this precise moment.
---
I agree - It is JUNK (Score:3)
Their support consisted of nothing at first, but then was scaled to 4 programmers living in our eng area. This was not because they wanted to do this- they had wanted to charge us ungodly amounts of cash for this privelige. The only reason we got them at all was because it would have violated a prior arrangement they made with us. The programmers, however, were uncooperative and generally did not want to work on anything but a very narrow set of parameters on the server side only. Getting anything done with them was about impossible, but we finally got them to compile a Unix client, which we could eventually compile under linux- neither were stable.
Bottom line is this- they did not have product or plan for product under Linux 2 years ago. Even under other platforms, they did not meet the "enterprise" standard of support (everything works, is fully interoperable, 99.9% of the time w/ comprable uptime). Considering how bad their previous "flagship enterprise" products were before, I can't begin to imagine all the hassles of dealing with their product on *nix, plus the added hassles of having to put up with their exhorbitant and lousy support (and VERY obtuse documentation). Maybe if you have only one person assigned for support it *might* work out, but it didn't work well in a multi-staff multi-hat environment.
They are excellent business people. They can sell to management like nobody else- strategic partnerships to increase their stocks has apparently been what they are best at. And they ALWAYS sell with binding, multi-year contracts that tie your hands while leaving them free to do as little as they wish...so I have to wonder if, beyond marketing hype, this is something I would really want associated with a quality product like Redhat, which is THE LINUX in the minds of most business-people and consumers.
Re:Virii scannin? (Score:1)
My favourite (Score:2)
Just what we need!!!! (Score:1)
What a sad day!!!!
--
" It's a ligne Maginot [maginot.org]-in-the-sky "
CA virtual-reality system management interface (Score:1)
The product was CA-Unicenter: TNG. It has a pretty slick three-dimensional virtual reality interface. You can "fly" around the world with your mouse and click down into a particular building/subnet/host/component/yaddayaddayadda. Neat demoware.
I still haven't heard of anyone actually using this instead of the console alerts though. "NIC FAILED ON WORKSTATION xyzzy SUBNET baz AT FACILITY foo" is a lot more useful, but it doesn't look as cool on a video.
Re:so you read all the code you compile? (Score:1)
The beauty of this, however, is that I can gain some benefits from our "model", too.
Keep in mind who this software is aimed at. It is not aimed at Joe Clue; it is aimed at anti-clueful managers to buy for their IT guys. There's some interesting-looking stuff there, but I was referring to simply the AV (InnoculateIT) package. While this provides some marginal (yet somewhat useful) functionality for Linux machines, the main application I see for it is virus scanning for alien platforms. It's my feeling that this can do nothing but help the acceptance of Linux in the corporate world.
YMMV, no guarantees are provided, void where prohibited, offer restricted in certain areas...
Re:ArcServe... (Score:1)
Re:Closed Source > Open Source (Score:2)
The stuff will NOT be included in normal Red Hat Linux, but in the Enterprise edition (meaning the version that's recommended for using Oracle and SAP).
The normal version of Red Hat Linux is 99.9% opensource (Netscape being the only closedsource package), and will stay that way.
Re:For the good of linux! (Score:1)
As you will see from the almost universal dislike of CA in the surrounding discussions this company is not well regarded.
As a linux admin I am get to choosing the best solution. I don't have this choice when I have to look after Netware or NT because the solution was all worked out on someones spreadsheet on the basis of comparing pricelists and reading glossy brochures not on an informed understanding of technical issues.
The standard test applies here. What's in it for us? CA get access to the Linux buzzword that makes shares soar. What do we get? Why should we drop our pants and bend over for every company that ports to Linux? Lets leave the worst of the old software companies in the last millenium where they belong and choose carefully which ones we partner with.
Re:ArcServe... (Score:1)
ArcBatch. For a Netware environment it comes in
two flavours - an
a workstation or an
server. You can either specify a pre-configured
job to run at a particular time or load all the
settings from an ASCII file.
So far so good. But when I was testing a site for
Y2K problems last year ArcBatch would not handle
any dates after 31 December 1999 - it would submit
the jobs with seeming random dates (e.g. 3 March
1923) and times. I contacted CA tech support and
received a snotty fax back saying that my testing
methodology (setting server clock to January 4 2000 and seeing what happened) was faulty, that
ArcServe got its date and time information "from
the queue" so a natural date roll-over would not
exhibit these problems, that ArcServe WAS Y2K
compliant and finished with the advice to check
out their Y2K web page.
So guess what happened January 4 this year? Yep,
same problem. Checked the CA web site for patches
and upgrades and found a fix for ArcBatch dated
December 9!! Weeks after I had been given the
brush-off!! Bastards!!
So I can't recommend these bozos to anyone looking
for a backup solution.
Toby
Re:You forget the other people running Linux... (Score:1)
I'd rather have mediocre FREE software (as in Free Speech) than the "best" closed software.
Re:Avoid Arcserve! (Score:1)
I have some experience with Backup-Exec, and I'd say that its much better. The UI can be a bit akward, but nothing like the byzantine crap on Arcserve.
I worked for a VAR for a spell, and we installed literally hundreds of Backup Execs, and besides the fact it was too hard for the customers to figure out (meaning each restore was a service call), I rarely was disapointed by its reliability -- minus a few odd driver mismatches that their support figured out.
I wonder if we'll ever see it on Linux.
Re:GNU Backup solution? (Score:2)
Re:Red Hat virus (Score:1)
Re:CA Support (Score:1)
Re:ArcServe... (Score:1)
I wouldn't expect Linux versions anytime soon, but if you've got PC/Mac clients and a server that'll run the software, then go for it.
Re:The consequences of popularity (Score:1)
Re:Arcserve (Score:1)
Re:security (Score:1)
Re:At least it isn't a lawsuit... (Score:1)
#include "grain-of-salt.h" I agree, but it's not. This posting was my feeble attempt at humor. It's not. The point I was trying to make in my first post (/me ducks!) was that this will more-than-likely open doors for the broader acceptance of Linux in the corporate/enterprise/whatever-you-want-to-call-it environment, for the reasons stated in my other top-level post. And from reading the overall negative tone about this company's software in the other posts, companies with superior products ought to start saying, "Our software is better than theirs. Let's port ours!" Maybe I'm too idealistic. Try marketing-speak! "But there's no virus protection software for Linux..."
"Linux doesn't need AV software, but there's a package available if you need to scan for Windows viruses on your network.
Re:It is JUNK (Score:1)
I also had licensing problems. You had to register online...the box was on a closed system. What garbage. I had to call...three hours later and MANY call transfers, I had a key. This is the worst product ever. Installation is a pain. Upgrades are nightmare.
The interface is the most unruly thing I have ever seen to. Everything is slow and unmanagable. We already have better tools - that are free.Re:This is a Good Thing! (Score:3)
Except that's *NOT* a fact:
Sophos Anti-virus [sophos.com]
Datafellow's F-Secure for Linux [datafellows.com]
And that's just the two *I* know of.
Re:This is a Good Thing! (Score:1)
AMANDA has been good to me (Score:1)
1. It uses your own systems dump program, or gnutar and gzip, instead of proprietary stuff.
2. It uses a "holding disk", so that network bandwidth isn't the bottleneck, tape speed is.
3. It has indexing features, so that it won't overwrite the wrong tape, and knows what files are on which tape
4. Nice CLI interface and hand-edited text configuration files.
If you need to back up multiple machines to one tape drive, it's great!
Re:The consequences of popularity (Score:1)
Re:Avoid Arcserve! (Score:1)
I can't believe that a program with such a twisted, unnavigable UI could be become the industry standard. ArcserveIT is hunk of crap. Stay away...
Re:Arcserve (Score:3)
Re:Who needs this? (Score:2)
This is a Good Thing! (Score:5)
Let me tell you *WHY* it's a Good Thing...
Many shops are forced to keep an NT server around to provide virus-scanning services for the Windows desktops in the company. Because "Linux doesn't have viruses", the Linux boxen tend to act as a Typhoid Mary during a Windows virus infection.
It is precisely because of the fact that there is no virus-scanning software for Linux (for DOS/Win16/Win32 viruses) that many otherwise clueful PHBs will not adopt it. Software to scan for alien viruses on email attachments, etc, can only broaden the appeal of Linux.
It's also not a bad thing if they provide scanners for native viruses.
"What?!!?" you say. "Sure there is concept, but for all practical purposes, there are no Linux viruses. Besides, permissions protect us!"
True, my friend. Permissions protect the system from getting hosed. A virus can only affect your own files, or files that you have write permission to. Consider, though: the system, aside from configuration (which, I realize, is not insignificant), is on the original install media. What do you have under your account?
That's right. Your data, which is far more valuable.
It's true, any non-half-assed shop keeps backups... but let's face it, it's a real pain in the ass to restore. And managers hate to be inconvenienced. :)
Reserve some judgment on this, and try to be somewhat open-minded whilst reaching your own conclusions.
RealAudio interview with Szulik (Score:2)
Re:GNU Backup solution? (Score:2)
I didn't say that ALL the filesystems have to fit on a single tape, I said that EACH filesystem much be able to fit on a single tape. Amanda shuffles the level 0 dumps around so that they are dynamically spread out from each other. It does a very good job at it too.
Also, in an enterprise your tapes are going to be at least 35GB DLT tapes; mabye larger. That's 70GB of data compressed. Not very many filesystems out there that are that big; and if you have one, you can split it into chunks with tar.
The rationale for having Amanda not split the filesystems apart is that you can recover everything without Amanda. This comes in very handy when the backup server's HD crashes the same day as the print server, and you are trying to recover the files with 20 people standing over you. Everything on tape can be restored with dd, and either tar or restore (depending which you used to backup).
I resent that you automatically assume that I don't know what enterprise means. I know that enterprise = thousands of employees. And the summer job was actually after high school; I'm presently in college. That job was at a comporable ISP to your own employer, Colt Internet. And Amanda worked fine for them.
Finally, I think your use of the word FUD is wrong. What I said was true, and not negative about the competition at all. Since FUD = Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt, I really don't see how saying something good about Amanda could be FUD by any strech of the imagination.
Re:Who needs this? (Score:2)
Re:CA Support (Score:2)
Cut your losses, cutover to HP Openview or any number of expensive SNMP managers. BTW, Unicenter and Solaris don't mix. They have allways had bigtime problems with Solaris, and Novel 4.x and up have been about the same. Don't look to TNG either, same poor results.
Good luck, your going to need it.
Never knock on Death's door:
Re:all SERVER anti-virus packages provide OnAccess (Score:2)
Re:Arcserve for Linux? Egads! (Score:2)
Since they already have a port of their Ingres II database for Linux, one would suspect they might use that. I don't know if that is the proprietary database on NT you mention or not (although I believe that Ingres is available for NT). It is hard to say what CA will really support.
seamless? I don't think so (Score:3)
delivering a seamless out-of-the-box management solution tightly packaged for the midmarket customer
This, I know is rah rah marketing talk, but I work with CA products every day and I have never seen a seamless out-of-the-box solution come from them yet. I'm sort of surprised that HP and Harris or even BMC got in on this instread of CA.
On a more positive note, A recent MERIT survey revealed that 48 percent of enterprise customers view Linux as an important component to their enterprise IT strategy for 2000..
I hadn't heard of this survey yet, this is good news.
Never knock on Death's door:
Re:security (Score:3)
I just hope someone else comes out with a better product than CA's, and fast. I have never touched a bit of CA-*IT ware I could tolerate..
we may soon (Score:2)
In addition, a trojan need not necessarily be a virus installed by root. For example, a system like the script kidd3z Tribal Flood network could install as a regular user and use a non privledged port. Of course it would not be able to conceal itself from "ps" or "netstat" or hide in some daemon. But there are a lot of novice users out there with RedHat 6.0 on their cable modem doing ip masq. They may not notice for a long time, and they are especially the targets that a trojan might want.
CA Support (Score:3)
uhhm, ever heard of backup? (Score:2)
Uhhm, have you ever heard of backup, my friend? Every company that has any clue makes a tape backup of user's data every night. So the fact that a "virus" can destroy you data has exactly zero effect when you can easily restore it from a tape.
And it's not just about viruses. Backup is the ultimate answer to accidental deletion, unwanted modifications and (gasp!) hardware failure. And if you don't make back up -- well, then you deserve to have your data destroyed. Perhaps after this happens once you'll learn -- but you never know.
___
Re:Red Hat virus (Score:2)
a) yes Linux=Red Hat
b)Linux=mainstream
You seemed to have focused on just the virus part of the press release, but this is only one area of the larger suite that CA is pushing. With CA partnering with Red Hat, this helps provide an "Industrial Strength" flavor that business wants before we blindly port our enterprise to the flavor of the month. I would have had other choiced ahead of CA, because I think their products are clunky, but the exposure as mainstream I think is a good thing.
Never knock on Death's door:
Re:Um (Score:3)
Can't remember what the name of the product was, but CA had some marketoid-type ad in a computer magazene for some product that asked something to the effect of "Imagine if you could fly around the office to fix computer problems". What's wrong with telnet, or some windows equiv? What if the ethernet is unplugged? This looked like a lot of fluff and no substance.
Now Arcserve, when I used it maybe 3-4 years back was horrible. I had to recover 20 some odd files that were spread across several backup tapes. The UI made you click on each cute little backup tape icon and after 45 minutes (no I'm not exagerating), a list of files would come up, and if I wanted one, I had to click on it, then tell the program I wanted to restore from tape, insert that tape, wait for it to finish, then do it all over again. Why no command line? Why no ability to give it a list of files and have it tell me which tapes to put in? Given CLI primitives to list files on a tape and restore, I could have written the whole thing in PERL in an hour.
I find this to be a huge problem, especially with admin tools. If something is sufficiently messed up, you might need to use a command line. If the developer invests all its time in the GUI, then the command line version will be poor, or non exisitant. That's what I like about Linux. Many of the GUIs are just fancy ways of getting at underlying CLI tools. This gives the user True flexibility.