SCO is bashing Linux!!!
Tracy R Reed
I admin a bunch of SCO machines here at work and I can't say that I've
ever been a big fan of it. I prefer Linux. But this has gone too far. I
refer you to: http://www.redhat.com/news/news-details.phtml?id=46
That document is astounding. How could SCO so badly misrepresent Linux?!?!
They fear it. That's what it looks like to me anyhow. I just got off the
phone with SCO at 1-800-726-8652 where I talked to Andy in dept 365041. I
politely informed him of how incorrect this document was, how
objectionable it is, and how bad it makes SCO look to misrepresent an
operating system such as Linux. I encourage all of you to do the same.
--
Tracy Reed http://www.ultraviolet.org
In 1984 mainstream users were choosing VMS over UNIX. Ten years later
they are choosing Windows over UNIX. What part of that message aren't you
getting? - Tom Payne
Tracy R Reed
On25 Nov 1997 22:31:41 GMT, Tracy R Reed <tr...@freeside.ultraviolet.org> wrote:
>phone with SCO at 1-800-726-8652 where I talked to Andy in dept 365041. I
>politely informed him of how incorrect this document was, how
>objectionable it is, and how bad it makes SCO look to misrepresent an
>operating system such as Linux. I encourage all of you to do the same.
Oh, and I have Andy's email address but I am loathe to post it for fear
that idiots will flame him to ashes. A phone call is much more personal and
has greater effect anyway. And it's far less likely that someone would
flame on the phone.
--
Tracy Reed http://www.ultraviolet.org
http://www.linux.org - Escape the Gates of Hell
"640k memory is enough for anyone."
-- Bill Gates
Greg Retkowski
Tracy R Reed wrote:
> I admin a bunch of SCO machines here at work and I can't say that I've
> ever been a big fan of it. I prefer Linux. But this has gone too far. I
> refer you to: http://www.redhat.com/news/news-details.phtml?id=46
>
> That document is astounding. How could SCO so badly misrepresent Linux?!?!
> They fear it. That's what it looks like to me anyhow. I just got off the
> phone with SCO at 1-800-726-8652 where I talked to Andy in dept 365041. I
> politely informed him of how incorrect this document was, how
> objectionable it is, and how bad it makes SCO look to misrepresent an
> operating system such as Linux. I encourage all of you to do the same.
Hrm. I live in the bay area, maybe I'll just drive by and egg their corporate
HQ. <g>
-- Greg
Brian Kimball
Tracy R Reed wrote:
>
> I admin a bunch of SCO machines here at work and I can't say that I've
> ever been a big fan of it. I prefer Linux. But this has gone too far. I
> refer you to: http://www.redhat.com/news/news-details.phtml?id=46
>
> That document is astounding. How could SCO so badly misrepresent Linux?!?!
> They fear it. That's what it looks like to me anyhow.
Uh huh. Don't get your pee hot, though. I don't think anyone is taking
this seriously. They make a bunch of vague statements about Linux, and
then offer their system (limited to 5 users) for the low low price of
$1,495. What a deal.
SCO is desparate. Linux is most likely eating away at the only market
they're involved in. I predict that in 5 years they're going to be a
Linux distributor. Watch out, RedHat!
-brian
Donovan Rebbechi
The Letter
November 7, 1997
Your Old SCO UNIX OS was good...
But, now there's something that blows it out of the water! Introducing
the NEWEST VERSION of SCO's hot OS...LinuxWare 2000
Move up to LinuxWare now and SAVE BIG with this SPECIAL TRADE-IN OFFER.
Dear SCO Unixware User:
I want to bump you out of your comfort zone! (And you'll thank me for
doing it.)
Right now you're plodding along with your old SCO UnixWare OS, when
instead you could throw the throttle wide open with SCO's powerful new
LinuxWare
2000
Sure it's hard to move up from an old familiar OS. But when the rewards
are so dramatic -- it's simple the right business decision.
You May Feel Your Old SCO Unixware
Is Adequate...
But, Did You Know This?
1.Unixware has no technical support since we are abandoning that
line.
2.The future lies with our Linux line. The previous SCO Unixware
line is being abandoned in favour of this, and consequently, we urge
users to upgrade.
3.Most Important, can your company accept that its viability as a
business depends heavily on a product that we are no longer prepared to
maintain ?
4.Of course, there is a challenging aspect to our old Unixware
product. Just imagine all of the fun you get when you encounter a bug
(like f00f) and the vendor won't fix it or distribute the source so
some-one else can. Simply put, you are screwed.
5. UnixWare has inadequate joystick support.
Unleash your system's full
potential.
Make the jump NOW to SCO LinuxWare
2000 on Intel
What makes LinuxWare 2000 so hot? It's Web and Java ready. Apache ,
Netscape server and JDK pre-loaded and ready to go. Fully optimized for
the Internet and intranets. ALso included in the new edition is support
for the latest gaming hardware, making linuxware the ultimate in
internet gaming multi-user operating systems. At work and at play,
LinuxWare is the operating system of the 21st century.
Now's The Right Time To Move Up!
To encourage you to move up now, I've put together the following
limited-time SPECIAL TRADE-IN OFFER...
LinuxWare 2.3.2 Enterprise
(5-user system).................... $95
SCO Software Maintenance (1-Year).... $ 10
Quake III (5-user license. $300
free to first 100 callers.
------
Regular Price.........................$405
YOUR PRICE.......................just $100
You Save $305 !!! (which is about 10 times Unixware's present
market value...)
Here's the real bottom line... Make the jump now and you'll experience
the improved system performance, peace of mind, and personal
productivity and video game support
that only SCO LinuxWare 2000 can give you. And you'll SAVE $305 Please
pick up the phone now and call 1-800-726-8652, dept. 365041 and
trade up to LinuxWare 2000.
First 100 callers receive a FREE copy of Quake III !!!
Work Hard. Play Hard.
It's here-- LinuxWare 2000.
Phil Ptkwt Kristin
I just got the infamous letter today in the mail. What a joke. I ran
immediatly to my computer to get on news only to find that someone else
has already beat me to it.
In article <347B84B6...@pobox.com>,
Brian Kimball <or...@pobox.com> wrote:
>Tracy R Reed wrote:
>>
>> I admin a bunch of SCO machines here at work and I can't say that I've
>> ever been a big fan of it. I prefer Linux. But this has gone too far. I
>> refer you to: http://www.redhat.com/news/news-details.phtml?id=46
Good I don't have to retype the letter - RedHat is already on it :)
>>
>> That document is astounding. How could SCO so badly misrepresent Linux?!?!
>> They fear it. That's what it looks like to me anyhow.
How could they be so stupid when it comes to marketing? You don't bash
Linux to Linux users. The only way I can figure that SCO knows I'm a
Linux user is that they must have bought the mailing list from Linux
Journal - I'm a subscriber. Those of us who subscribe to LJ are the
hardcore users ;-)
>
>Uh huh. Don't get your pee hot, though. I don't think anyone is taking
>this seriously. They make a bunch of vague statements about Linux, and
>then offer their system (limited to 5 users) for the low low price of
>$1,495. What a deal.
>
>SCO is desparate. Linux is most likely eating away at the only market
>they're involved in. I predict that in 5 years they're going to be a
>Linux distributor. Watch out, RedHat!
>
They'll probably be a Linux distributer in less than five years, or else
they'll be out of business. I'd only give'em a couple of years at the
most.
I didn't notice they're 'SCO UnixWare 2.1.2 New Features' page on the
RedHat site above, so I'll put some of the highlights here and respond to
them:
OPTIMIZED FOR INTERNET COMPUTING:
"Internet Services are now buil in..." [Welcome to the club - what tooks
so long?]
INCLUDES NETSCAPE FastTrack SERVER:
[The $200 version of Caldera OpenLinux comes with this which makes it
$1295 cheaper than SCO]
INCLUDES NETSCAPE NAVIGATOR GOLD:
[Big deal, I downloaded it for Linux many months ago]
SCO PPP from Morning Star:
[There's diald, ezppp, IP Masquerading for Linux - what else?]
SCO Internet Configuration Manager:
[See RedHat]
FULL NETWARE SERVICES PACKAGE:
[See Caldera, RedHat]
PHONE SUPPORT:
[See Caldera]
Who are these marketing dweebs trying to fool? Give it up SCO.
pt
Brian Kimball
Donovan Rebbechi wrote:
...
> Right now you're plodding along with your old SCO UnixWare OS, when
> instead you could throw the throttle wide open with SCO's powerful new
> LinuxWare 2000
>
> Sure it's hard to move up from an old familiar OS. But when the rewards
> are so dramatic -- it's simple the right business decision.
>
> You May Feel Your Old SCO Unixware Is Adequate...
>
> But, Did You Know This?
>
> 1.Unixware has no technical support since we are abandoning that
> line.
> 2.The future lies with our Linux line. The previous SCO Unixware
> line is being abandoned in favour of this, and consequently, we urge
> users to upgrade.
> 3.Most Important, can your company accept that its viability as a
> business depends heavily on a product that we are no longer prepared to
> maintain ?
> 4.Of course, there is a challenging aspect to our old Unixware
> product. Just imagine all of the fun you get when you encounter a bug
> (like f00f) and the vendor won't fix it or distribute the source so
> some-one else can. Simply put, you are screwed.
> 5. UnixWare has inadequate joystick support.
...
ROTFL! Mind if I drop this off at SCO tomorrow? Hehe... humor is the
solution to everything.
-brian
Donovan Rebbechi
Brian Kimball wrote:
>
> ROTFL! Mind if I drop this off at SCO tomorrow? Hehe... humor is the
> solution to everything.
>
> -brian
That was posted under the GPL (: go right ahead...
-- Donovan
ram.sa...@stanford.nojunkemail
Clever idea, but I recommend that it be be more realistic than just
serve as a parody! Consider:
Donovan Rebbechi <elf...@pegasus.rutgers.edu> wrote:
> LinuxWare 2.3.2 Enterprise
> (5-user system).................... $95
> SCO Software Maintenance (1-Year).... $ 10
> Quake III (5-user license. $300
> free to first 100 callers.
> ------
> Regular Price.........................$405
> YOUR PRICE.......................just $100
> You Save $305 !!! (which is about 10 times Unixware's present
>market value...)
> LinuxWare 2.0.32
> (arbitrary-user system)............... $0
> USENET Support
> (as long as you live)................. $0
> --
> Regular Price......................... $0
> YOUR PRICE.......................just $0!
--Ram
email@urls || http://www.ram.org || http://www.twisted-helices.com/th
TCP impementations will follow a general principle of robustness: be
conservative in what you do, be liberal in what you accept from others.
--Jonathan Postel in RFC 793, writing about TCP
Bernd Paysan
Brian Kimball wrote:
> SCO is desparate. Linux is most likely eating away at the only market
> they're involved in. I predict that in 5 years they're going to be a
> Linux distributor. Watch out, RedHat!
And watch out SCO users. SCO won't have support/maintainance then, won't
have a future strategy, won't have new apps (who cares aboult thousands
of old, unmaintained apps), won't fix security holes, won't patch
Pentium bugs... and it doesn't have independent maintainers such as
Linux.
SCO got out of the Microsoft Xenix-deal in Europe (and thus no longer
supports Xenix), they want to do the same in US. This allows M$ to
compete with them in the Unix area (perhaps by distributing el cheapo
pre-installed Linux in masses ;-), and then they'll go down very soon. 5
years is an optimistic assumption; half of their market share is
swallowed by NT, anyway, and the other half moves to Linux.
--
Bernd Paysan
"Late answers are wrong answers!"
http://www.informatik.tu-muenchen.de/~paysan/
Chuck Bermingham
Phil Ptkwt Kristin <pt...@user1.teleport.com> wrote in article
<65g5ac$nj9$1...@user1.teleport.com>...
>
> Who are these marketing dweebs trying to fool? Give it up SCO.
>
> pt
>
>
The sad part is that about a year ago, Linux Journal posted an article
about SCO, and had very few bad things to say about it. In fact, the
article proposed that SCO made good products and would likely continue to
be a force in the commercial UNIX world for quite awhile.
I am particularly disturbed about the attitude their marketers take toward
our excellent developers and their (not so corporate but quite effective)
support system.
Mark Williams used to have Coherrent. When I mentioned Linux to one of
them, they insisted it was a bad idea because of "no support." Then, they
turned around and *sold* me about 3 GNU tools for almost $100. And their
OS did *not* have virtual storage.
SCO may or may not be afraid of Linux, but in either case, I cannot forgive
them this behavior. If they want Linux'ers to "move up" to SCO, then
they'd better compete with us on merit. They sure as hell ain't going to
convice me with *this* kind of crap.
Alan Daniels
On Wed, 26 Nov 1997 11:13:56 +0100, Bernd Paysan
<pay...@nospam.informatik.killspam.tu-muenchen.de> wrote:
[snip...]
>SCO got out of the Microsoft Xenix-deal in Europe (and thus no longer
>supports Xenix), they want to do the same in US. This allows M$ to
>compete with them in the Unix area (perhaps by distributing el cheapo
>pre-installed Linux in masses ;-), and then they'll go down very soon. 5
>years is an optimistic assumption; half of their market share is
>swallowed by NT, anyway, and the other half moves to Linux.
Actually, it appears to me that SCO has an opportunity here -- either
by drowned by a Tsunami, or surf it. It should seem pretty obvious
that selling an Intel-based UNIX is going to be a *VERY* hard sell
when your product costs $1000+, and something equivalent is being
given away for free. Especially when that free equivalent has an
exponentially growing user base, a good reputation for stability,
and lots of very vocal fans. Even if SCO was substantially better,
it would be doomed by the same logic that got Windows 3.0 to outsell
the Mac back in 1990: "Good enough". Of course, I've never used SCO,
so I can't comment on its quality either way. As a quick view through
the NEWS.COM archives will show, though, SCO is going through tough
times, and their graceless attack on Linux comes across as looking
pretty pathetic.
And desperate.
It seems that the chief complaint against Linux in corporations is
"No support", so SCO could make decent money by making a migration
to being a Linux support organization. Not making their own distri-
bution, but being the company you can call, day or night, when you
have Linux trouble. There *will* be a market for this sort of
company when Linux breaks the last few pieces of the "corporate
acceptance barrier" (which I predict will happen over the 1998 year).
SCO can either make a transition to being a new kind of company, or
hang on to a dying business model.
--
======================================================================
Alan Daniels dan...@mindspring.com
dan...@cc.gatech.edu
Greg Retkowski
Tracy R Reed wrote:
> I admin a bunch of SCO machines here at work and I can't say that I've
> ever been a big fan of it. I prefer Linux. But this has gone too far. I
> refer you to: http://www.redhat.com/news/news-details.phtml?id=46
>
> That document is astounding. How could SCO so badly misrepresent Linux?!?!
> They fear it. That's what it looks like to me anyhow. I just got off the
> phone with SCO at 1-800-726-8652 where I talked to Andy in dept 365041. I
> politely informed him of how incorrect this document was, how
> objectionable it is, and how bad it makes SCO look to misrepresent an
> operating system such as Linux. I encourage all of you to do the same.
>
> --
> Tracy Reed http://www.ultraviolet.org
> In 1984 mainstream users were choosing VMS over UNIX. Ten years later
> they are choosing Windows over UNIX. What part of that message aren't you
> getting? - Tom Payne
FYI: most of sco's mail addresses are in the format first name last initial
@ sco.com. For example The CEO, Alok Mohan, would be al...@sco.com. A list of
the officers of the company can be found at:
http://www.sco.com/discover/corpbro/execs.htm
In case you wished to send them an email expressing your distaste with their
microsoft-like FUD marketing tactics. Please do not flame them or send
abusive mail. In all likelyhood this was all the scheme of some junior
marketing guy that the execs never heard of.
-- Greg
Tim Smith
Alan Daniels <dan...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>Actually, it appears to me that SCO has an opportunity here -- either
>by drowned by a Tsunami, or surf it. It should seem pretty obvious
>that selling an Intel-based UNIX is going to be a *VERY* hard sell
>when your product costs $1000+, and something equivalent is being
>given away for free. Especially when that free equivalent has an
But it's not "something equivalent". Linux has a lot of security problems.
Eventually, they will mostly be found and fixed, and then SCO will be in
real trouble, but until then, there are probably enough customers that want
reasonable security on an Intel box, and find $1k a cheap price for such
security.
--Tim Smith
Ingo Molnar
Tim Smith <t...@halcyon.com> wrote:
: [...] then SCO will be in
: real trouble, but until then, there are probably enough customers that want
: reasonable security on an Intel box, and find $1k a cheap price for such
: security.
*ROTFL*
wondering, when was the F00F bug fixed in SCO? and the LAND attack?
ah, and this SCO root exploit security hole, just from yesterday's Bugtraq:
---------->
Topic: Vulnerability in /usr/bin/X11/scoterm
II. Impact
Any user with an account on the system may be able to execute arbitrary
commands with root privileges.
This problem exists on the following releases of SCO operating systems:
- SCO Open Desktop/Open Server 3.0
- SCO OpenServer 5.0
<----------
and just an excerpt from land.c's vulnerability list:
----------->
SCO OpenServer 5.0.2 SMP IS vulnerable
SCO OpenServer 5.0.4 IS vulnerable (kills networking)
SCO Unixware 2.1.1 IS vulnerable
SCO Unixware 2.1.2 IS vulnerable
Linux 1.2.13 NOT vulnerable
Linux 2.1.65 NOT vulnerable
Linux 2.0.30 NOT vulnerable
Linux 2.0.32 NOT vulnerable
<-----------
SCO, get a life.
-- mingo
Felix Kogan
Alan Daniels wrote:
> On Wed, 26 Nov 1997 11:13:56 +0100, Bernd Paysan
> ?pay...@nospam.informatik.killspam.tu-muenchen.de? wrote:
>
> [snip...]
>
[..]
>
>
> It seems that the chief complaint against Linux in corporations is
> "No support", so SCO could make decent money by making a migration
And no serious RDBMS. I heard from a man from CA, that someone from
theyrOpenIngres development team ported the last version of it to Linux
during _2 weeks offhours work_. Impressive?
It would be nice to have something like Oracle, Sybace or even OpenIngres
(good enough, I've been working with it during last 6 month6 and it's
OK for most of the commercial purposes) available and priced
correctly for Linux.
I know that ADABAS is available, but it's only personal edition.
I've never touched it. Can anybody say how good is it?
> to being a Linux support organization. Not making their own distri-
> bution, but being the company you can call, day or night, when you
> have Linux trouble. There *will* be a market for this sort of
> company when Linux breaks the last few pieces of the "corporate
> acceptance barrier" (which I predict will happen over the 1998 year).
> SCO can either make a transition to being a new kind of company, or
> hang on to a dying business model.
>
> --
> ======================================================================
> Alan Daniels dan...@mindspring.com
> dan...@cc.gatech.edu
--
Felix A. Kogan
fel...@cucis.cis.columbia.edu, http://lin003.cis.columbia.edu
Columbia Presbyterian Medical Center of New York, T?O department
----------------------------------------------------------------------
"Who is General Failure and why is he reading my disk?!" (C)
Tracy R Reed
On 27 Nov 1997 11:00:06 -0800, Tim Smith <t...@halcyon.com> wrote:
>But it's not "something equivalent". Linux has a lot of security problems.
>real trouble, but until then, there are probably enough customers that want
>reasonable security on an Intel box, and find $1k a cheap price for such
>security.
Pass me some of that crack, Tim.
Linux has fewer security problems than SCO. I admin both in a professional
capacity. There still isn't a fix for the f00f bug among other things for
SCO. Linux's support architecture for when a security problem is found is
far more responsive than SCO's as well. I've dealt with SCO numerous times
recently and I am not impressed.
--
Tracy Reed http://www.ultraviolet.org
DALnet motto: "Ein Volk, ein Reich, ein Fuehrer"
(One people, one country, one leader)
Tracy R Reed
On Thu, 27 Nov 1997 20:39:30 -0500, Felix Kogan wrote:
>And no serious RDBMS. I heard from a man from CA, that someone from
postgres works just fine on Linux and Informix is working on a port to
Linux. And since Linux can run SCO binaries I am going to try moving the
Unify database from one of our SCO machines to my Linux machine.
Christopher B. Browne
On 28 Nov 1997 02:53:39 GMT, Tracy R Reed <tr...@freeside.ultraviolet.org> posted:
>On Thu, 27 Nov 1997 20:39:30 -0500, Felix Kogan wrote:
>>And no serious RDBMS. I heard from a man from CA, that someone from
>
>postgres works just fine on Linux and Informix is working on a port to
>Linux. And since Linux can run SCO binaries I am going to try moving the
>Unify database from one of our SCO machines to my Linux machine.
There are quite a number of RDBMS products, as well as free ones.
Supposing it requires a billion dollar enterprise to have a "serious"
RDBMS, then Linux indeed has one, as Software AG is a "billion dollar
enterprise," and their system, Adabas-D, is being sold for Linux.
And there's the possibility that something may come from Informix. And
then there's Empress, Solid, and various other "smaller" names.
There's about 20 database systems available in all.
See: <http://www.hex.net/~cbbrowne/rdbms.html> for a pretty exhaustive
list...
--
Christopher B. Browne, cbbr...@hex.net, chris_...@sdt.com
PGP Fingerprint: 10 5A 20 3C 39 5A D3 12 D9 54 26 22 FF 1F E9 16
URL: <http://www.hex.net/~cbbrowne/>
Bill Gates to his broker: "You idiot, I said $150 million on **SNAPPLE**!!!"
jo...@ccpl.carr.lib.md.us
In article <347E20D0...@cucis.cis.columbia.edu>,
Felix Kogan <fel...@cucis.cis.columbia.edu> wrote:
>
> Alan Daniels wrote:
>
> > On Wed, 26 Nov 1997 11:13:56 +0100, Bernd Paysan
> > ?pay...@nospam.informatik.killspam.tu-muenchen.de? wrote:
> >
> > [snip...]
> >
>
> [..]
>
> >
> >
> > It seems that the chief complaint against Linux in corporations is
> > "No support", so SCO could make decent money by making a migration
>
> And no serious RDBMS.
Give consideration to MDBMS by Marty Bochane. It is an amazing much in
little RDBMS.
John Culleton
> > ======================================================================
> > Alan Daniels dan...@mindspring.com
> > dan...@cc.gatech.edu
>
> --
> Felix A. Kogan
> fel...@cucis.cis.columbia.edu, http://lin003.cis.columbia.edu
> Columbia Presbyterian Medical Center of New York, T?O department
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> "Who is General Failure and why is he reading my disk?!" (C)
-------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Post to Usenet
cu...@journyx.com
> >And no serious RDBMS. I heard from a man from CA, that someone from
i got an advertising postcard in the mail from sco
it's main point was that support for linux was unavailable.
this is not true. you can buy support packages from somewhere,
probably redhat.com.
__________________________________________________________________
Web-Based Time Tracking journyx WebTime
is FREE for 60 Days at (512)345-8282
http://journyx.com/wts.html cu...@journyx.com
Erik Hensema
tr...@freeside.ultraviolet.org (Tracy R Reed) wrote:
>>phone with SCO at 1-800-726-8652 where I talked to Andy in dept 365041. I
>>politely informed him of how incorrect this document was, how
>>objectionable it is, and how bad it makes SCO look to misrepresent an
>>operating system such as Linux. I encourage all of you to do the same.
>Oh, and I have Andy's email address but I am loathe to post it for fear
>that idiots will flame him to ashes. A phone call is much more personal and
>has greater effect anyway. And it's far less likely that someone would
>flame on the phone.
Please don't flame the guy, it just makes you look stupid.
---
Erik Hensema
Claimer: These oppinions are strictly my employers', not mine.
Please remove the "delete_me" from my address before replying.