I've heard bullsh*t about this since Novell's tech note announcement
   regarding FPS for NetWare. In their tech document 2907903, Novell
   states that Microsoft's File & Print Sharing for NetWare identifies
   itself as a NetWare 3.12 NCP server, but really uses codes and packet
   types from NetWare 2.2 servers. This is why that Client32 can't see
   Win95 computers running FPS for NetWare, even with SAP advertising
   turned on. Novell has a reputation for accuracy so I think this is
   true.
   
   OK, I believe that MS reverse-engineered NetWare 2.2 to make FPS work.
   What I don't believe is everyone else claiming that the REST of Client
   for NetWare is only 2.2 compliant. NetWare 2.2 clients (and MS's FPS
   for NetWare) can't do Packet Burst. Client for NetWare and NetWare
   3.12 servers (and better) can. NetWare 2.2 clients (like NETX) can't
   log into NDS trees. OK, neither can Client for NetWare, but the NDS
   add-on fills that gap. You're going to say that MS's NDS client is
   only NetWare 2.2 compliant?
   
   Novell's obviously published the NCP client and IPX specifications,
   because other developers (notably Artisoft and IBM) released NetWare
   clients for their products. Microsoft followed suit as well. I don't
   expect Novell to release NCP SERVER specs, which lead, most likely, to
   MS's decision to take NetWare 2.2 apart and re-write it as a Win95
   service.
   
   And so what if FPS for NetWare only acts like a 2.2 server? I only
   recommended FPS for NetWare for sharing between Win95 machines
   and for Remote Administration. In these two jobs, FPS for NetWare
   works as designed.
   
   And here's a good one for Novell. In the same document, they claim
   that Remote Registry Service depends on FPS for NetWare. Wrong.
   (Insert buzzer sound here.) While Remote Registry depends on User
   Level Security, that security comes from a security API in Win95
   (SECUR32.DLL), which goes through the security provider software that
   comes with the CLIENT. It does not depend on any file sharing service,
   though, yes, you would need file and print sharing to go peeking into
   someone else's hard drive remotely. If Novell wanted to make Client32
   work with remote administration, they could license code from
   Microsoft (gasp!) and write their own security provider code. Bet they
   can't do that in NLMs.