Highlighted
Absent Member.
Absent Member.
874 views

Is Ifolder 3.2 a dud?

Hi all,

Having browsed this forum a bit it seems the consensus is that Ifolder 3
is broken. Is Novell going to fix it or dump it? What product should I be
looking at as a replacement? (We would really like to keep the shared
folders feature, it really helps sell the product to our users.)

Thanks,

Kevin
Labels (1)
0 Likes
6 Replies
Highlighted
Absent Member.
Absent Member.

Re: Is Ifolder 3.2 a dud?

kevin.abel@sd27.bc.ca wrote:

> Having browsed this forum a bit it seems the consensus is that Ifolder 3
> is broken.


For some it works well... for others, it doesn't work sufficiently well
to use in production.

> Is Novell going to fix it or dump it? What product should I be
> looking at as a replacement? (We would really like to keep the shared
> folders feature, it really helps sell the product to our users.)


iFolder 3.5 will ship with OES2 I believe... I have no idea if any of
the major defects in 3.2 have been addressed in this version, but was
can hope. I'm hoping to find out more about it at Brainshare in March.

--
Jim
Support Sysop
0 Likes
Highlighted
Absent Member.
Absent Member.

Re: Is Ifolder 3.2 a dud?

My office (a MS centric office) is very impressed with teh
functionality of iFolder3.x. They are even planning to set one up for
the staff.

We have heard nothing about "dumping" iFolder.

--
Timothy Leerhoff
Novell Support Forum Sysop
0 Likes
Highlighted
Absent Member.
Absent Member.

Re: Is Ifolder 3.2 a dud?

On Tue, 27 Feb 2007 22:30:15 +0000, kevin.abel wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> Having browsed this forum a bit it seems the consensus is that Ifolder 3
> is broken. Is Novell going to fix it or dump it? What product should I be
> looking at as a replacement? (We would really like to keep the shared
> folders feature, it really helps sell the product to our users.)


I have ~15 ifolders from one server, and another 3 from client's systems.
The occasional issue with sync if both I and a colleague have updated the
same file, but apart from that it works!

--
Mark Robinson
Novell Volunteer SysOp
www.nds8.co.uk
One by one the penguins steal my sanity...

0 Likes
Highlighted
Absent Member.
Absent Member.

Re: Is Ifolder 3.2 a dud?

Mark Robinson wrote:
> On Tue, 27 Feb 2007 22:30:15 +0000, kevin.abel wrote:
>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> Having browsed this forum a bit it seems the consensus is that Ifolder 3
>> is broken. Is Novell going to fix it or dump it? What product should I be
>> looking at as a replacement? (We would really like to keep the shared
>> folders feature, it really helps sell the product to our users.)

>
> I have ~15 ifolders from one server, and another 3 from client's systems.
> The occasional issue with sync if both I and a colleague have updated the
> same file, but apart from that it works!
>

In general the OSS iFolder 3.4 clients with server 3.5 work decently,
and my understanding is the next release sometime this year will fix my
two biggest issues, namely the resources iFolder can use, and the XX
items not synchronized issue by providing a way to figure out which are
the problem files, and I hope a way to force them to resync.

James Pulver
0 Likes
Highlighted
Absent Member.
Absent Member.

Re: Is Ifolder 3.2 a dud?

In article <pan.2007.02.28.09.43.20.40713@no.spam.please.nds8.co.uk>, Mark
Robinson wrote:
> I have ~15 ifolders from one server, and another 3 from client's systems.
> The occasional issue with sync if both I and a colleague have updated the
> same file, but apart from that it works!
>

What version of iFolder? Most of the trouble *seems* to be with v3.2 as
ships with OES. I have no trouble here with the OSS 3.5x running on SLES 9.

bd
NSC Volunteer SysOp


0 Likes
Highlighted
Absent Member.
Absent Member.

Re: Is Ifolder 3.2 a dud?

In article <GbhFh.2422$ra4.1710@prv-forum2.provo.novell.com>, James
Pulver wrote:
> In general the OSS iFolder 3.4 clients with server 3.5 work decently
>

That is my experience as well.

bd
NSC Volunteer SysOp


0 Likes
The opinions expressed above are the personal opinions of the authors, not of Micro Focus. By using this site, you accept the Terms of Use and Rules of Participation. Certain versions of content ("Material") accessible here may contain branding from Hewlett-Packard Company (now HP Inc.) and Hewlett Packard Enterprise Company. As of September 1, 2017, the Material is now offered by Micro Focus, a separately owned and operated company. Any reference to the HP and Hewlett Packard Enterprise/HPE marks is historical in nature, and the HP and Hewlett Packard Enterprise/HPE marks are the property of their respective owners.