Serious Networking

Posted:
in General Discussion edited January 2014
I know macs can survive in windows networks. But can you create MAN's and WAN's?



My uncle works at a local ISP and I was telling him about macs after his PC crashed. He asked if macs can be used for serious networking and I know they are better in LAN's, but software like Novell, what are the options on mac, or does Novell run on macs?



Please just explain and give me some information, I do not know much about networking outside of LAN's. So speak simply and don't expect too much knowledge from me. Oh yeah not laughing at this post would help too!

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 12
    wmfwmf Posts: 1,164member
    You can generally do anything on a Mac you can do on Windows or Unix. You don't want to use a Mac (or any computer) as a high-end router; they're not designed to do that. Computers don't connect directly to MANs or WANs so that doesn't matter. NetWare doesn't run on Macs, but then it has about the same features as OS X Server.
  • Reply 2 of 12
    ast3r3xast3r3x Posts: 5,012member
    Well can I have a brief explanation of how it is setup? I thought it just goes up from computer to computer to servers until certain servers are connected with each other. Just a hierarchy of computers that are connected at the top of each hierarchy.



    What type of software is run on the higher ups and how would you implement this. I would just like to be able to give a little more information to my uncle, possibly even set up a little example for him. He is a rather high up in the chain there so I can get in and show the macs off.
  • Reply 3 of 12
    gargoylegargoyle Posts: 660member
    basically as wmf said. You would have your local net of macs and pc's then you would have some sort of router device for your long distance connection. These devices could be ISDN lines, FDDI terminators, or the box that sits on the end of your leased line.



    If you are talking remote connections direct to the mac server, like a dial-in box then I am not too sure.
  • Reply 4 of 12
    zozo Posts: 3,115member
    regarding Novell, they just bought or are collaborating with SuSE Linux. They are definitly trying to get off or offer an alternative to Winblows. You could see about asking for Novell on OSX.



    Also, I am part of the Novell GroupWise beta program. The GroupWise application has been ported to Java to be platform independent. Basically runs off of the 'webaccess' services.



    The app is doing well but still needs to be tidied up.



    Other than that... errr... dunno really
  • Reply 5 of 12
    ast3r3xast3r3x Posts: 5,012member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by ZO

    regarding Novell, they just bought or are collaborating with SuSE Linux. They are definitly trying to get off or offer an alternative to Winblows. You could see about asking for Novell on OSX.



    Also, I am part of the Novell GroupWise beta program. The GroupWise application has been ported to Java to be platform independent. Basically runs off of the 'webaccess' services.



    The app is doing well but still needs to be tidied up.



    Other than that... errr... dunno really




    Thanks this is promising and I will E-mail them. I just know novell is popular and would be nice to be able to say that it can run that. Know any other software titles that are as popular and used as much as novell?
  • Reply 6 of 12
    cubedudecubedude Posts: 1,556member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by ast3r3x

    Thanks this is promising and I will E-mail them. I just know novell is popular and would be nice to be able to say that it can run that. Know any other software titles that are as popular and used as much as novell?



    I just know someone's gonna say Windows, I just know it. Someone has to say it. Who's gonna say it? C'mon, someone say it. Please?



    Actually, Windows is the only one that comes to mind.
  • Reply 7 of 12
    ast3r3xast3r3x Posts: 5,012member
    I don't understand how a company can seriously use windows, there is an update every week to fix a security issue.
  • Reply 8 of 12
    Right because Apple never updates security.. Every OS updates security on a constant basis.
  • Reply 9 of 12
    cubedudecubedude Posts: 1,556member
    Yeah, but Apple doesn't release nearly as many security updates. Plus, the OS is more secure in the first place.
  • Reply 10 of 12
    ast3r3xast3r3x Posts: 5,012member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Mount_my_floppy

    Right because Apple never updates security.. Every OS updates security on a constant basis.



    No I understand it's necessary, but it seems they only release them once somebody goes public with a problem.
  • Reply 11 of 12
    dfryerdfryer Posts: 140member
    What I would like to know is how well a primarily MacOS/X network scales- on a co-op term I was a tech support guy in an office of 60 WinNT users. If that were the extent of the entire network I would have no doubts as to OS X Server to handle everything... however, we were actually part of a larger WAN (10000 users or more) and all the mail, login authentication etc. was handled by MS Exchange and Active Directory servers. Do the technologies offered by 10.2 server scale up that high? (I don't know enough about NetInfo, LDAP, etc. to answer this question for myself) \
  • Reply 12 of 12
    ast3r3xast3r3x Posts: 5,012member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by dfryer

    What I would like to know is how well a primarily MacOS/X network scales- on a co-op term I was a tech support guy in an office of 60 WinNT users. If that were the extent of the entire network I would have no doubts as to OS X Server to handle everything... however, we were actually part of a larger WAN (10000 users or more) and all the mail, login authentication etc. was handled by MS Exchange and Active Directory servers. Do the technologies offered by 10.2 server scale up that high? (I don't know enough about NetInfo, LDAP, etc. to answer this question for myself) \



    Haha good question kinda what I wanted to know I think only worded better.
Sign In or Register to comment.