SCO 5.0.6 Question
FTG
MANAGER it shows to be version 5.0.6j.
Is this the latest version for 5.0.6 and do I need to install any
supplements?
If I need to install supplements, which ones?
Thanks all
Gary L. Burnore
<NPIw7.9218$Be6.327...@newssvr30.news.prodigy.com>, "FTG" <no...@ftg.gov>
wrote:
>I have installed SCO 5.0.6 When I go into SCOADMIN, SOFTWARE
>MANAGER it shows to be version 5.0.6j.
>
>Is this the latest version for 5.0.6 and do I need to install any
>supplements?
>
>If I need to install supplements
Yes.
>, which ones?
>
All of them.
--
gburnore at DataBasix dot Com
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
How you look depends on where you go.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gary L. Burnore | нлГКнГоГКнГГнлКнГоГКнГнГоГКнГннлГ
| нлГКнГоГКнГГнлКнГоГКнГнГоГКнГннлГ
Official .sig, Accept no substitutes. | нлГКнГоГКнГГнлКнГоГКнГнГоГКнГннлГ
| нл 0 1 7 2 3 / нГо 3 7 4 9 3 0 лГ
Black Helicopter Repair Services, Ltd.| Official Proof of Purchase
===========================================================================
Karel Adams
"FTG" <no...@ftg.gov> schreef in bericht news:NPIw7.9218$Be6.327...@newssvr30.news.prodigy.com...
> I have installed SCO 5.0.6 When I go into SCOADMIN, SOFTWARE
> MANAGER it shows to be version 5.0.6j.
>
> Is this the latest version for 5.0.6 and do I need to install any
> supplements?
Can't say for sure about the latest version
but there certainly are supplements to install. Take a look at
http://www.sco.com/support/toolbox/patch.html
but be aware that sooner or later this will disappear
hopefully reappearing somewhere at www.caldera.???.???/???/
Wishing you good luck, and please feel welcome if you have more questions!
Karel
Continental Europe (we contain!)
Tony Lawrence
> http://www.sco.com/support/toolbox/patch.html
>
> but be aware that sooner or later this will disappear
and thereby piss people off who stumble across it in dejanews or google
later.
But who cares? Caldera has so many customers, what difference does it
make if they make things harder for people searching for answers?
After all, the *customer* isn't the important thing here, right? The
*important* thing is to get rid of those pesky sco links. It would take
WORK to write redirects for them, and why should Caldera do any work
when they are sitting in the catbirds seat, flush with money and fame,
dripping with excess customers?
Naaw. Why wait? Wipe out all the SCO lnks now and be done with it.
--
Tony Lawrence
SCO/Linux Support Tips, How-To's, Tests and more: http://pcunix.com
Gary L. Burnore
Tony Lawrence <to...@pcunix.com> wrote:
>Karel Adams wrote:
>
>> http://www.sco.com/support/toolbox/patch.html
>>
>> but be aware that sooner or later this will disappear
>
>and thereby piss people off who stumble across it in dejanews or google
>later.
Considering: Minimum Patch Listing Updated on 15 May 2000
They may as well delete the damned thing.
>But who cares? Caldera has so many customers, what difference does it
>make if they make things harder for people searching for answers?
Exactly. They _WANT_ everyone to move to Red Hat.
>
>After all, the *customer* isn't the important thing here, right? The
>*important* thing is to get rid of those pesky sco links. It would take
>WORK to write redirects for them, and why should Caldera do any work
>when they are sitting in the catbirds seat, flush with money and fame,
>dripping with excess customers?
>
>Naaw. Why wait? Wipe out all the SCO lnks now and be done with it.
I agree with this post. After supporting and recommending SCO since its Xenix
days, Caldera is basically telling us to get fucked.
Karel Adams
"Tony Lawrence" <to...@pcunix.com> schreef in bericht news:3BC367B8...@pcunix.com...
> Karel Adams wrote:
>
> > http://www.sco.com/support/toolbox/patch.html
> >
> > but be aware that sooner or later this will disappear
>
> and thereby piss people off who stumble across it in dejanews or google
> later.
>
> But who cares? Caldera has so many customers, what difference does it
> make if they make things harder for people searching for answers?
Tony I can understand and accept that you are unhappy.
Basically I think you are very right.
But does your reaction contribute anything to answering the original question?
I liked you better in more positive moods!
Like someone else said, the right will look rather like
"Do not consider patching this OS at all! If you have any option,
consider switching to any Linux flavor as soon as you see possible.
If you really need to stick to it, your best chances are here: ....."
KA (positivist)
FTG
I wouldn't install Caldera now if my life depended on it. They have
apparently trashed all of the SCO stuff. WTF !!
Jean-Pierre Radley
| Thanks for the link but it looks like it's just a tad old, circa 05/15/2000
|
| I wouldn't install Caldera now if my life depended on it. They have
| apparently trashed all of the SCO stuff. WTF !!
What bullshit. All the patches ever issued for OSR 5 are still
available, including those isued last week.
--
JP
- bill -
ftp://ftp.caldera.com/pub/openserver5/README.OSR5.Supplements
--
-bill-
Technical Service Systems - bi...@TechServSys-garbage.com
Bob Meyers
"Jean-Pierre Radley" <j...@jpr.com> wrote in message
news:2001100920...@jpradley.jpr.com...
Please keep us up on the patch locations JP. They are moving targets... the
patch link I used yesterday no longer takes me there today.
Gee, I hope Caldera doesn't do the same as the accounting software I sold
for years: SBT. They got bought by Accpac. Shortly after Accpac bought them
they terminated most resellers, declared they owned all third party add-ons
and then pretty well shelved the product. A product family many consultants
were earning a decent living selling.
Tony Lawrence
> Tony I can understand and accept that you are unhappy.
> Basically I think you are very right.
I'm not particularly unhappy. Caldera's success or failure isn't going
to affect me at all.
I just think it is incredible that they are so naive about how people
search for information. The fact is that links should be maintained
forever, either as is or redirected intelligently so that a person who
stumbles across them years later will hopefully be brought to the
relevant place.
That out of date link should be redirected to current information- this
stuff is NOT hard to do- 99% of the cases are very obvious and easily
handled by simple scripting.
> But does your reaction contribute anything to answering the original question?
No. But it's relevant, because maybe if somebody opens their brain and
starts thinking, they will change their attitudes.
Jean-Pierre Radley
|
| "Jean-Pierre Radley" <j...@jpr.com> wrote in message
| news:2001100920...@jpradley.jpr.com...
| > FTG propounded (on Tue, Oct 09, 2001 at 10:33:45PM +0000):
| > | Thanks for the link but it looks like it's just a tad old, circa
| 05/15/2000
| > |
| > | I wouldn't install Caldera now if my life depended on it. They have
| > | apparently trashed all of the SCO stuff. WTF !!
| >
| > What bullshit. All the patches ever issued for OSR 5 are still
| > available, including those isued last week.
| >
|
| Please keep us up on the patch locations JP. They are moving targets... the
| patch link I used yesterday no longer takes me there today.
You're kidding? I just went to the Caldera main page, and five clicks
later found myself looking at all the OSR5 patches and supplements.
Hardly a difficult trail to follow.
--
JP
Jeff Hyman
JP,
Though this may be a bit of a stretch... it may be a good gesture
to name the 5 clicks. That may be all thats necessary to show (and teach)
the answer. It's not your obligation nor duty... I just was hoping
the pissing match could stop and an attempt made to help both
the user and Caldera here.
--
Best Regards,
Jeff Hyman, President
.--.
__________________________ .-. | | __________________________________
Lone Star Software Corp. | | | | .-. E-Mail: je...@cactus.com
Cactus International, Inc. | |_| | | | Sales: 800.525-8649
509 E. Ridgeville Blvd. _ |___ |_| | Support: 301.829-1622
Mt. Airy, MD 21771 _| ~- | ___| Fax: 301.829-1623
http://www.CACTUS.com \, _} | | http://www.LONE-TAR.com
------------------------- \( -- | | -----------------------------------
| |
Tony Lawrence
> Though this may be a bit of a stretch... it may be a good gesture
> to name the 5 clicks. That may be all thats necessary to show (and teach)
> the answer. It's not your obligation nor duty... I just was hoping
> the pissing match could stop and an attempt made to help both
> the user and Caldera here.
Obviously Caldera doesn't give a damn. None of the old sslreference
links now work, and they straight out say that the other stuff will only
work for some unspecified period of time.
Bunch of maroons, in my nshmo.
Karel Adams
"Tony Lawrence" <to...@pcunix.com> schreef in bericht news:3BC4A37D...@pcunix.com...
> Jeff Hyman wrote:
>
> > Though this may be a bit of a stretch... it may be a good gesture
> > to name the 5 clicks. That may be all thats necessary to show (and teach)
> > the answer. It's not your obligation nor duty... I just was hoping
> > the pissing match could stop and an attempt made to help both
> > the user and Caldera here.
>
>
> Obviously Caldera doesn't give a damn. None of the old sslreference
> links now work, and they straight out say that the other stuff will only
> work for some unspecified period of time.
I must allow their behaviour is beyond my comprehension, too.
Why did they ever spend any money on it, then drop it?
> Bunch of maroons, in my nshmo.
Still I am more concerned about you, Tony.
I've always known you correct, polite, sometimes charming.
Why do you go shouting abuse now?
If Caldera don't want your business you have only to go
with BSD/Suse/RedHat/younamethem.
If they wish to continue the software we all know and like, fine!
We'll gladly go with them! If not, they want us to drop'em
so we surely ought to do that! But we can drop them without
shouting, we ought to show ourselves better educated.
Karel (old-fashioned)
Jeff Hyman
> Jeff Hyman wrote:
>
> > Though this may be a bit of a stretch... it may be a good gesture
> > to name the 5 clicks. That may be all thats necessary to show (and teach)
> > the answer. It's not your obligation nor duty... I just was hoping
> > the pissing match could stop and an attempt made to help both
> > the user and Caldera here.
>
>
> Obviously Caldera doesn't give a damn. None of the old sslreference
> links now work, and they straight out say that the other stuff will only
> work for some unspecified period of time.
>
> Bunch of maroons, in my nshmo.
> --
> Tony Lawrence
Tony,
Those are fightin' words in my part of the country. Apparently
JP did not have the same problem. Thats why I asked him to post his
5 clicks. Either way Tony, you claim to not care, yet it appears that
this forum does in fact bring benefit to you with many solutions
being refocused to your website. I don't understand why you would
want to make a flamatory comment when in fact you are in a position
to help participate in the solution. I personally have not been
disapointed with much of what Caldera has been (or not been) doing.
I feel they are probably doing the best they can with the resources
they have available, in a time where technology companies are all
refocusing and cutting back just to stay even. Your a good man
Tony, and believe me I'm not siding with any party here. What words
could I say, or what could I do, to help refocus your energy to
a more positive place?
Brian K. White
"Karel Adams" <k_a...@glo.be> wrote in message
news:Rc2x7.6338$35.6...@iguano.antw.online.be...
except the teeny little fact that bsd and linux, so far, still cannot offer
what open server does. as a consultant, when you buy and install a box that
was put together by one of the major sco box vendors , you have an extremem
minimum of surprises. anything that you learn how to do _will work_ on every
machine you install (practically). This just isn't so with linux. freebsd
seems to be better about this but even in my limited experience with
freebsd, I have already seen more than enough evidence and examples of it
being significantly linux-like wrt surprises. If you install and are then
responsible for a lot of boxes, nothing is better than sco.
So yeah, even though I've been using linux (and nothing else) at home since
redhat 4.0, and even though I have much more and deeper experience with
linux than with sco, I'm well and truely agreived at the stream of negative
developments concerning Open Server. It sucks big time and it's as simple as
that.
It's three things mostly:
1) we have all invested a lot of time and energy becoming knowledgeable in
the care and feeding of a certain product. (Open Server) And now it's
starting to look like the value & usefulness of that investment is starting
to fall off.
2) because of "1", most of us have to start learning something else. (most
everyone has started some time ago but that was just looking ahead, the
point still applies. This is a pain because instead of getting that much
better at what we have chosen to become knowledgeable in, we are instead
starting over, trying to do work with less experience than we like. etc...
3) finally, even if we say that 1 and 2 are not to be taken too seriously
because after all, that is simply part of the price of progress. it's
nothing new and nothing unique to this scene. the unavoidable fact is, there
is no "something else" even available that can really replace sco. linux is
going to be what gets used in many new installs where sco would have been
used before, but the end result will be that the users will have a less
harmonious experience over all. You used to be able to install a box and
forget about it, but I beleive all these linux boxes are going to need a lot
more attention. a big pain in the ass for the consultant and the consumer
both. Many new customers will be oblivious to how bad they have it because
they will have never seen sco unix, and will mostly only have windows and
linux to compare, and certainly linux is a thousand times better than any
version of windows for server-type functions, but just because the consumers
have lower expectations doesn't mean linux is actually as good as it should
be.
If sco open server becomes unsupportable because development ceases and key
manufacturer resources go away, then that really is a heavy blow to the
system. If you don't see this, then I submit that perhaps you are just one
of the new breed who sets a low enough bar that linux passes. If such is the
case, I ask you to simply accept that there are others for whom linux does
not pass, and sco does, and so losing sco would suck majorly.
--
Brian K. White -- br...@aljex.com -- http://www.aljex.com/bkw/
+++++[>+++[>+++++>+++++++<<-]<-]>>+.>.+++++.+++++++.-.[>+<---]>++.
filePro BBx Linux SCO Prosper/FACTS AutoCAD #callahans Satriani
Tony Lawrence
> Those are fightin' words in my part of the country. Apparently
> JP did not have the same problem. Thats why I asked him to post his
> 5 clicks. Either way Tony, you claim to not care, yet it appears that
> this forum does in fact bring benefit to you with many solutions
> being refocused to your website.
Benefit?
Hardly. My web hosting costs me net after all income from advertising
and donations appx $100.00 a month.
I spend easily ten hours a week and often more updating links, posting
new information, etc.
Don't get me wrong- it's a labor of love, as is what little I contribute
here, but the benefits are definitely not monetary. In fact, when I
retire (which I hope is not too many years away), I'll be forced to shut
it down because I just won't be able to afford to underwrite it.
As to not caring about Caldera, that's just simple reality. If they
fail, someone else will pick up what remains of SCO. My business will
continue as usual. The product is caught between a rock and a hard
place no matter who owns it, and that wouldn't change.
BTW, I fully agree with Brian's sentiments in another part of this
thread: SCO is a much easier and stable product to work with. I too am
running Linux now as my personal machine, and in some ways it's better
for that, but it's a bumpy ride at times. My old sco server was
comfortably boring :-)
>I don't understand why you would
> want to make a flamatory comment when in fact you are in a position
> to help participate in the solution. I personally have not been
> disapointed with much of what Caldera has been (or not been) doing.
The only thing I'm disappointed with is this business of dropping SCO
links. Someone suggested to me that it's possible that they did not buy
the sco domain- if so, that's horrible, but understandable- but dammit,
if that is the case, they should SAY SO, because they are looking like
damn idiots now.
> I feel they are probably doing the best they can with the resources
> they have available, in a time where technology companies are all
> refocusing and cutting back just to stay even. Your a good man
> Tony, and believe me I'm not siding with any party here. What words
> could I say, or what could I do, to help refocus your energy to
> a more positive place?
If they need resources to help redirect the SCO pages to appropriate
Caldera pages, all they have to do is ask. I'd be very happy to
volunteer my time to help with that- the fact is, it's not any big major
project, it's dead simple for 99.995% of the cases. Of course, if they
don't own the domain, that's a totally different story..
Jean-Pierre Radley
| If sco open server becomes unsupportable because development ceases
| and key manufacturer resources go away, then that really is a heavy
| blow to the system.
I am not alone in heartily wishing that Caldera would add more bodies to
the OpenServer team, but the fact remains that at this very moment, work
is proceeding on the next major OSR release (which might be 5.0.7, or
might be 5.1.0).
It's not going to be "unsupportable" or "unsupported" for quite a few
years.
--
JP
Jean-Pierre Radley
| Recently, Tony Lawrence wrote:
| > Jeff Hyman wrote:
| >
| > > Though this may be a bit of a stretch... it may be a good gesture
| > > to name the 5 clicks. That may be all thats necessary to show (and teach)
| > > the answer. It's not your obligation nor duty... I just was hoping
| > > the pissing match could stop and an attempt made to help both
| > > the user and Caldera here.
| >
| >
| > Obviously Caldera doesn't give a damn. None of the old sslreference
| ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
| > links now work, and they straight out say that the other stuff will only
| > work for some unspecified period of time.
| >
| > Bunch of maroons, in my nshmo.
| ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
|
| JP did not have the same problem. Thats why I asked him to post his
| 5 clicks.
Jeff, of course I *do* have the same problem: Tony is thoroughly right,
old URLs are not being forwarded, a *major*, boneheaded mistake which
will probably help push Caldera's stock price still lower.
Meanwhile, if you do not try to start from old sco.com URLs, it's no big
deal, using obvious links, to click through from www.caldera.com to
current patches and supplements.
--
JP
Bela Lubkin
> So yeah, even though I've been using linux (and nothing else) at home since
> redhat 4.0, and even though I have much more and deeper experience with
> linux than with sco, I'm well and truely agreived at the stream of negative
> developments concerning Open Server. It sucks big time and it's as simple as
> that.
>
> It's three things mostly:
> 1) we have all invested a lot of time and energy becoming knowledgeable in
> the care and feeding of a certain product. (Open Server) And now it's
> starting to look like the value & usefulness of that investment is starting
> to fall off.
> If sco open server becomes unsupportable because development ceases and key
> manufacturer resources go away, then that really is a heavy blow to the
> system. If you don't see this, then I submit that perhaps you are just one
> of the new breed who sets a low enough bar that linux passes. If such is the
> case, I ask you to simply accept that there are others for whom linux does
> not pass, and sco does, and so losing sco would suck majorly.
As someone who has been working at SCO and now Caldera since 1989, and
in the OpenServer development team since 1993, my perception of the
current situation is greatly different from what you seem to have
received. What I see is, since the Caldera takeover, the OpenServer
team has been in a much better political position then it was any time
since SCO bought UnixWare. For the first time in 5 years it does _not_
feel like we're being ground under heel, made to feel that the product
we've labored over is unwanted and soon to be discontinued. Caldera
actually has a clue about the simple idea: "take care of the product
that provides all the income".
This is not to say that it feels like we have _all_ the manpower we need
or should have. But the whole company is a lot smaller than SCO was,
the economy's all weird -- times are different. It _does_ feel like we
have enough people to keep maintaining and improving OpenServer for the
moment, and it even feels like we might get more people if the situation
improves. Believe me, once UnixWare came on the scene, that _never_
felt like a possibility under SCO.
>Bela<
Tony Lawrence
>
> As someone who has been working at SCO and now Caldera since 1989, and
> in the OpenServer development team since 1993, my perception of the
> current situation is greatly different from what you seem to have
> received. What I see is, since the Caldera takeover, the OpenServer
> team has been in a much better political position then it was any time
> since SCO bought UnixWare. For the first time in 5 years it does _not_
> feel like we're being ground under heel, made to feel that the product
> we've labored over is unwanted and soon to be discontinued. Caldera
> actually has a clue about the simple idea: "take care of the product
> that provides all the income".
>
> This is not to say that it feels like we have _all_ the manpower we need
> or should have. But the whole company is a lot smaller than SCO was,
> the economy's all weird -- times are different. It _does_ feel like we
> have enough people to keep maintaining and improving OpenServer for the
> moment, and it even feels like we might get more people if the situation
> improves. Believe me, once UnixWare came on the scene, that _never_
> felt like a possibility under SCO.
I'm sure it pleases a great many of us to hear this.
But we need to hear it more. It needs to be screamed loud and clear.
Bob Meyers
> Jeff Hyman propounded (on Wed, Oct 10, 2001 at 08:40:08PM +0000):
> | Recently, Tony Lawrence wrote:
> | > Jeff Hyman wrote:
> | >
> | > > Though this may be a bit of a stretch... it may be a good gesture
> | > > to name the 5 clicks. That may be all thats necessary to show (and
teach)
> | > > the answer. It's not your obligation nor duty... I just was hoping
> | > > the pissing match could stop and an attempt made to help both
> | > > the user and Caldera here.
> | >
Well I did get here in 5 clicks:
http://www.caldera.com/support/ftplists/osr5list.html
But the old page had this nice "Minimum Patch List" page that lets us know
what was really necessary to install. Now, as best I can tell, they term it
"Major" and "Minor" patches, with no indication (that I saw) as to what
would be considered the MINIMUM patches for a stable server.
Gary L. Burnore
<2001101012...@jpradley.jpr.com>, Jean-Pierre Radley <j...@jpr.com>
wrote:
>Bob Meyers propounded (on Wed, Oct 10, 2001 at 09:07:40AM -0700):
>|
>| "Jean-Pierre Radley" <j...@jpr.com> wrote in message
>| news:2001100920...@jpradley.jpr.com...
>| > FTG propounded (on Tue, Oct 09, 2001 at 10:33:45PM +0000):
>| > | Thanks for the link but it looks like it's just a tad old, circa
>| 05/15/2000
>| > |
>| > | I wouldn't install Caldera now if my life depended on it. They have
>| > | apparently trashed all of the SCO stuff. WTF !!
>| >
>| > What bullshit. All the patches ever issued for OSR 5 are still
>| > available, including those isued last week.
>| >
>|
>| Please keep us up on the patch locations JP. They are moving targets... the
>| patch link I used yesterday no longer takes me there today.
>
>You're kidding?
No, he's not. They've moved it twice in the last month that I know of.
So yeah, you've got to start from the main page and click down instead of
bookmarking where they are. Pain in the ass.
>I just went to the Caldera main page, and five clicks
>later found myself looking at all the OSR5 patches and supplements.
>Hardly a difficult trail to follow.
But not where they were.
Gary L. Burnore
<Rc2x7.6338$35.6...@iguano.antw.online.be>, "Karel Adams" <k_a...@glo.be>
wrote:
>
>"Tony Lawrence" <to...@pcunix.com> schreef in bericht news:3BC4A37D...@pcunix.com...
>> Jeff Hyman wrote:
>>
>> > Though this may be a bit of a stretch... it may be a good gesture
>> > to name the 5 clicks. That may be all thats necessary to show (and teach)
>> > the answer. It's not your obligation nor duty... I just was hoping
>> > the pissing match could stop and an attempt made to help both
>> > the user and Caldera here.
>>
>>
>> Obviously Caldera doesn't give a damn. None of the old sslreference
>> links now work, and they straight out say that the other stuff will only
>> work for some unspecified period of time.
>
>I must allow their behaviour is beyond my comprehension, too.
>Why did they ever spend any money on it, then drop it?
IBM does it all the time:
Buy, then bit bucket the competition.
Gary L. Burnore
<2001101018...@jpradley.jpr.com>, Jean-Pierre Radley <j...@jpr.com>
wrote:
>Brian K. White propounded (on Wed, Oct 10, 2001 at 10:27:02PM +0000):
Then, as Tony and others have said. THEY SHOULD FUCKING SHOW US THAT.
Gary L. Burnore
<2001101016...@mammoth.ca.caldera.com>, Bela Lubkin <be...@caldera.com>
wrote:
Bela, I believe this only because it's YOU saying it. The website surely
doesn't reflect this though.
Jean-Pierre Radley
|
| Well I did get here in 5 clicks:
| http://www.caldera.com/support/ftplists/osr5list.html
|
| But the old page had this nice "Minimum Patch List" page that lets us know
| what was really necessary to install. Now, as best I can tell, they term it
| "Major" and "Minor" patches, with no indication (that I saw) as to what
| would be considered the MINIMUM patches for a stable server.
Never heard of anything called "Minimum Patch List". Where is (was) it
to be found?
OTOH, I went to ftp.caldera.com/pub.openserver, and saw the same old
README.OSR5.Supplements file I've been tracking for years; just now,
it's dated 9/26/01.
--
JP
Bob Meyers
> Bob Meyers propounded (on Wed, Oct 10, 2001 at 05:35:09PM -0700):
> |
> | Well I did get here in 5 clicks:
> | http://www.caldera.com/support/ftplists/osr5list.html
> |
> | But the old page had this nice "Minimum Patch List" page that lets us
know
> | what was really necessary to install. Now, as best I can tell, they term
it
> | "Major" and "Minor" patches, with no indication (that I saw) as to what
> | would be considered the MINIMUM patches for a stable server.
>
> Never heard of anything called "Minimum Patch List". Where is (was) it
> to be found?
I used to find it here:
http://www.sco.com/support/toolbox/patch.html
And their very own page title was "Minimum Patch List For SCO Products"
Bill Vermillion
I posit that your short experience with xBSD - it's only been 3 or
4 months since I saw you on that list I think - may what is
causing the surprises. It's damn stable.
I just spent an hour or so cleaning up after the person who has
a dedicated server screw up several things. He thought I'd probalby
have to reload from tape. A bit of moving a file here and there and
re-editing a config file and it was good as new. Been up
for 187 days and shows about 15,000 FTP transmission hours/month.
My mail machine is at 249 days [and will go away this weekend as it
moves to a newer/faster server], and the web server is at 303 days.
Recently I was trying to find some changes and saw one file with
all the changes listed for the past 14 years. You can cvs back to
any version for the past 5 I think.
But it is different. Talk with anyone who came from a SunOS
[BSD] environment [I think Tony did that, right Tony] and there are
lot of things that may surprise you - but it's mainly the approach.
And lest you think that's all I do this afternoon I saw one of the
most bizarre things on an OSR5. Someone had given them a printer
[a church] and they had plugged it into the parallel port but not
turned it one. One of their working parallel printers had quit the
other was still working.
See the problem - three printers. But to find out what was going
on we turned on the new printer and the one that died made a bit of
noise. I printed a document and both printers printed it.
It was the most bizarre set of jumper settings plus an
auto-configuring BIOS that made it all work.
But to continue:
> If you install and are then responsible for a lot of boxes,
>nothing is better than sco.
Depends precisely on just what you are running on them. Because
for 'net type services there are better solutions [IMO] than SCO.
A clinet just came and retreived their four CPU raid driven BIG sun
server as they ran out of money. It was running an Oracle front
end with an OS/X Webobject 'middle engine' and a Sun Netra with
Apache as the web front end. Pick the OS that does the job with
the aps you are unning.
>So yeah, even though I've been using linux (and nothing else) at
>home since redhat 4.0, and even though I have much more and deeper
>experience with linux than with sco, I'm well and truely agreived
>at the stream of negative developments concerning Open Server. It
>sucks big time and it's as simple as that.
>It's three things mostly:
>1) we have all invested a lot of time and energy becoming
>knowledgeable in the care and feeding of a certain product. (Open
>Server) And now it's starting to look like the value & usefulness
>of that investment is starting to fall off.
So you are still young. The Xenix 2.2 looked tired and then to 2.3.
Then the first 3.2.0, then Opendesktop 1.0 [that was pretty flaky
at first] ODT was pretty settled, then a string of OSR5s, along
with a UW 2, and a UW7. Nothing is constant as change. Get used
to it.
But if you took the time to learn the Unix systems as a whole -
then you can move between OS - while not with impunity - but
without too much trouble. Watch for things to get even bigger as
the new chip breakthroughs will mean things that weren't possible
to implement will be easier. Looks like some new manufacturing
will give us 20Ghz CPUs in about 5 years.
>2) because of "1", most of us have to start learning something
>else. (most everyone has started some time ago but that was just
>looking ahead, the point still applies.
You don't have to learn something else if you just keep learning
constantly. That way there is no hump to get over.
> This is a pain because instead of getting that much better at what
>we have chosen to become knowledgeable in, we are instead starting
>over, trying to do work with less experience than we like. etc...
That's a human problem. So often people learn something and keep
at it without learning anything new that one day they are out of
work with skills that aren't useful. If you learn systems and
design you never have to start over. If you learn details you
always have to start over.
>3) finally, even if we say that 1 and 2 are not to be taken too
>seriously because after all, that is simply part of the price of
>progress. it's nothing new and nothing unique to this scene. the
>unavoidable fact is, there is no "something else" even available
>that can really replace sco.
Really. Blinders on? Or do you mean there is nothing that can
replace SCO if you stay with iNTEL chips. SCO is really good for
what it does - but many of the smaller users get dragged to the MS
side of things. I've seen others who've outgrown their SCO OSR5
and moved to UW7. They almost went with AIX which thier SW vendor
was pushing. As databases grow sometimes you have to move. The UW
side is really strong. In email a few months ago with a UW admin I
asked just how big his site was. He said one of the bigger ones.
"We did $16,000,000" last Friday.
> linux is going to be what gets used in many new installs where sco
>would have been used before, but the end result will be that the
>users will have a less harmonious experience over all. You used to
>be able to install a box and forget about it, but I beleive all
>these linux boxes are going to need a lot more attention.
Why do you say that. Why would they need more attention. I had
one client who kept calling me in to fix things and they always seemed
to have problems with the NT machines too. They had a full-time
computer person on staff. The tried something. They let the
computer person go, and had an on-call service company to work on
their NT machines when things went wrong and they'd call me when
the SCO needed attention.
Things stay up an up. The only need to repower the DSL router now
and then. It appears that sometimes the biggest problem in keeping
systems stable is having people who keep trying to make them
better.
> a big pain in the ass for the consultant and the consumer both.
>Many new customers will be oblivious to how bad they have it
>because they will have never seen sco unix, and will mostly only
>have windows and linux to compare, and certainly linux is a
>thousand times better than any version of windows for server-type
>functions, but just because the consumers have lower expectations
>doesn't mean linux is actually as good as it should be.
But you are not comparing the same thing. Windows is a desktop and
Linux is more server like. You need to compare Linux with an NT
server - one that doesn't really have users - to make a fair
comparison.
Bill
--
Bill Vermillion - bv @ wjv . com
FTG
those
locations and now NONE of them work properly as of today.
Why can't they just leave well enough alone?
"Gary L. Burnore" <gbur...@databasix.com> wrote in message
news:9q2tfh$5e0$2...@astroconsulting.databasix.com...
Simon Hobson
(in message <Rc2x7.6338$35.6...@iguano.antw.online.be>):
> If Caldera don't want your business you have only to go
> with BSD/Suse/RedHat/younamethem.
> If they wish to continue the software we all know and like, fine!
> We'll gladly go with them! If not, they want us to drop'em
> so we surely ought to do that!
It's not so simple !
At work we use SCO, in a couple of weeks we're switching to a new server with
5.0.6 to get more disk space and better performance. I'd rather be running
something else (something that supports more than 460M cache would be nice)
but we don't have any choice - the software we run is supported on SCO, AIX,
or NT. AIX and the hardware to run it is out of our budget, NT - well need I
say anything, so we're left with SCO. IF (and only IF) the software vendor
(Sage) changes their supported OS list can we change OS.
Simon
Bob Meyers
"Simon Hobson" <si...@no-spam.ccomms.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:01HW.B7EE253C0...@news.demon.co.uk...
> At work we use SCO, in a couple of weeks we're switching to a new server
with
> 5.0.6 to get more disk space and better performance. I'd rather be running
> something else (something that supports more than 460M cache would be
nice)
> but we don't have any choice - the software we run is supported on SCO,
AIX,
> or NT. AIX and the hardware to run it is out of our budget, NT - well need
I
> say anything, so we're left with SCO. IF (and only IF) the software vendor
> (Sage) changes their supported OS list can we change OS.
If the Sage product is MAS90, I recommend you switch to Windows 2000 server,
perhaps only to run MAS90. My sources tell me Sage will soon drop SCO
support completely. Moreover, they charge so much more for the SCO
client/server version the price difference will pay for your Windows 2000
Server and new server hardware. The system I did still uses their SCO for
other apps and services, but uses a W2K server for MAS90. That seems to be
working well.
Tony Lawrence
Even the dealers who push folks to move to NT will usually admit that
Sage runs more reliably (that being a relative term- I don't think too
much of Mas90/200 in general) on Unix.
I believe it is true that Sage has officially discontinued the Unix
product (which demonstrates the depth of their intelligence far more
than their buggy software does). However, I also understand that
certain dealers are planning to keep the Unix product alive and
supported in spite of Sage's stupidity.
I have Sage customers who are, at least for now, continuing to "just say
no" to NT. They feel that they can get away with that for a few years
anyway, and who knows what things will look like two or three years
later. Smart people, I think.
What is particularly stupid about Sage's product is that it is already
client/server. There's absolutely NO reason not to have server code
that runs on non-Windows platforms- no "I miss my gui" excuses, no need
for MFC programming, etc. But they are too clueless to comprehend
that. Good luck to them competing with Msoft (Great Plains/Realworld
are now Microsoft) on Bill's own turf- if they had a Unix/Linux server
they'd have something to sell against, some good opportunites to plant
FUD, but now they are left playing Msoft's game on Msoft's ball field.
I think the odds are pretty plain.
Bill Vermillion
Simon Hobson <si...@no-spam.ccomms.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>On Wed, 10 Oct 2001 21:30:42 +0100, Karel Adams wrote
>(in message <Rc2x7.6338$35.6...@iguano.antw.online.be>):
>> If Caldera don't want your business you have only to go
>> with BSD/Suse/RedHat/younamethem.
>> If they wish to continue the software we all know and like, fine!
>> We'll gladly go with them! If not, they want us to drop'em
>> so we surely ought to do that!
>It's not so simple !
>At work we use SCO, in a couple of weeks we're switching to a new
>server with 5.0.6 to get more disk space and better performance.
>I'd rather be running something else (something that supports more
>than 460M cache would be nice)
I'm just curious. Why do you need so much cache. Or maybe the
question should be where are you using that much cache. In certain
instances that much could slow things down - eg huge buffers that
need flushing for example.
This is nothing more than a question to satisfy my curiosity.
joe
> perhaps only to run MAS90. My sources tell me Sage will soon drop SCO
> support completely. Moreover, they charge so much more for the SCO
It might be of interest to those looking for accounting packages that
I have recently achieved excellent results using Omicron under
Visionfs on a SCO server.
Omicron is a DOS/Windows product, but very unix-like in its simple,
solid, reliable, "roll you own" philosophy.
It's been my bread and butter for the past 20 years and I am really
delighted to have it now "under" unix.
--
Joe Mc Cool C.Eng, SMIEEE
========================================================================
Tangent Computer Research BT71 7LN (www.tangent-research.com)
voice:(44)2837-548074fax:(44)-870-0520185 The more you say the less the better.
Simon Hobson
(in message <GL5y6...@wjv.com>):
>> At work we use SCO, in a couple of weeks we're switching to a new
>> server with 5.0.6 to get more disk space and better performance.
>> I'd rather be running something else (something that supports more
>> than 460M cache would be nice)
>
> I'm just curious. Why do you need so much cache. Or maybe the
> question should be where are you using that much cache. In certain
> instances that much could slow things down - eg huge buffers that
> need flushing for example.
>
> This is nothing more than a question to satisfy my curiosity.
Fair question ...
The accounts files for the live system total something in the order of
8Gbyte, and one file alone (the order line detail data file) gets to over
1Gbyte. (1)
The reporting tool bundled in the software is not too clever and tends to
switch from a nice, quick index search to (you've guessed it) a sequential
search without a lot of provacation. I think you can imagine what a
sequential search through a 1G file does to the concept of buffering recently
used data in cache memory :-(
We do have a better reporting tool (Infomix's ACE), but there is resistance
in some quarters to changing (the "I don't know it and I'm not prepared to
learn' mentality) and obviously a large base of already written reports.
I estimate that around 2-3G would avoid the cache flushing that happens when
one of these reports runs - at present we can get a system with 90% idle and
90+% WIO (dual processor, not enough IO bandwidth). I've even seem sustained
periods of 100% WIO !
Part of the reason for the server upgrade is to get better disk IO bandwidth,
the other is financial - with 3ys prepaid 24x7 maintenance it costs hardly
any more than the ongoing maintenance on the existing server.
Simon
(1) The files are C-ISAM files and are very sparse in placed - if a field is
20 characters, it will contain 20 spaces if it is empty (oh for proper null
value support !).
Bill Vermillion
Simon Hobson <si...@no-spam.ccomms.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>On Sat, 13 Oct 2001 22:25:21 +0100, Bill Vermillion wrote
>(in message <GL5y6...@wjv.com>):
>>> At work we use SCO, in a couple of weeks we're switching to a new
>>> server with 5.0.6 to get more disk space and better performance.
>>> I'd rather be running something else (something that supports more
>>> than 460M cache would be nice)
>> I'm just curious. Why do you need so much cache. Or maybe the
>> question should be where are you using that much cache. In certain
>> instances that much could slow things down - eg huge buffers that
>> need flushing for example.
>> This is nothing more than a question to satisfy my curiosity.
>Fair question ...
>The accounts files for the live system total something in the order
>of 8Gbyte, and one file alone (the order line detail data file)
>gets to over 1Gbyte. (1)
>The reporting tool bundled in the software is not too clever and
>tends to switch from a nice, quick index search to (you've guessed
>it) a sequential search without a lot of provacation. I think you
>can imagine what a sequential search through a 1G file does to the
>concept of buffering recently used data in cache memory :-(
I had the mis-fortune to work on one system like that - years ago.
You have my sympathy.
The files were much smaller but the systems then were very much
slower compared to todays.
>We do have a better reporting tool (Infomix's ACE), but there is
>resistance in some quarters to changing (the "I don't know it and
>I'm not prepared to learn' mentality) and obviously a large base of
>already written reports.
What you need is an accounting department that understands that
time wasted by employees waiting us most often more costly than the
time and expenditure it takes to train people in new ways. I think
we all have comp up agains walls like that.
>I estimate that around 2-3G would avoid the cache flushing that
>happens when one of these reports runs - at present we can get a
>system with 90% idle and 90+% WIO (dual processor, not enough IO
>bandwidth). I've even seem sustained periods of 100% WIO !
Sounds like you need one of the SCSI RAM 'drives'. I don't even
know if they are made anymore - but those were a very fast and
expensive solution for slow I/O.
>Part of the reason for the server upgrade is to get better disk
>IO bandwidth, the other is financial - with 3ys prepaid 24x7
>maintenance it costs hardly any more than the ongoing maintenance
>on the existing server.
Sounds like a very good move. I hope it works out fine.
Thanks for the details of the problem.
Bill
Simon Hobson
(in message <GLI7s...@wjv.com>):
>> We do have a better reporting tool (Infomix's ACE), but there is
>> resistance in some quarters to changing (the "I don't know it and
>> I'm not prepared to learn' mentality) and obviously a large base of
>> already written reports.
>
> What you need is an accounting department that understands that
> time wasted by employees waiting us most often more costly than the
> time and expenditure it takes to train people in new ways. I think
> we all have comp up agains walls like that.
It's not accounts, it's the IT manager (even she has been overheard telling
her mates in teh pub that she doesn't know how she got (or keeps) the job !).
She's had as much training in Informix as I have - I've just dived into the
books and 'kept learning'. Her approach is that she doesn't want anything
done in Informix in case it goes wrong and I'm not about to fix it - like I
say, she doesn't know it and doesn't want to learn.
Management are aware of the situation, and a few 'good results'* have made
management aware of the benefits so I expect something to happen.
* One report took 40+ hours to run, I wrote it in Informix and it takes 90
seconds ! Another I got down from an hour or two to 5 minutes BUT it combines
data that the old report couldn't.
>> I estimate that around 2-3G would avoid the cache flushing that
>> happens when one of these reports runs - at present we can get a
>> system with 90% idle and 90+% WIO (dual processor, not enough IO
>> bandwidth). I've even seem sustained periods of 100% WIO !
>
> Sounds like you need one of the SCSI RAM 'drives'. I don't even
> know if they are made anymore - but those were a very fast and
> expensive solution for slow I/O.
Well given that 1/2G RAM DIMMS are now available for about 50 pounds (about
$70 - $75 I guess) it would be nice to be using an OS that would allow me 8G
of RAM in the cache ;-)
I've seen these RAM drives, but I can't help wondering about when the power
fails :-(
Simon
Bill Vermillion
Simon Hobson <si...@no-spam.ccomms.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>On Sat, 20 Oct 2001 13:24:10 +0100, Bill Vermillion wrote
>(in message <GLI7s...@wjv.com>):
>>> We do have a better reporting tool (Infomix's ACE), but there is
>>> resistance in some quarters to changing (the "I don't know it and
>>> I'm not prepared to learn' mentality) and obviously a large base of
>>> already written reports.
>> What you need is an accounting department that understands that
>> time wasted by employees waiting us most often more costly than the
>> time and expenditure it takes to train people in new ways. I think
>> we all have comp up agains walls like that.
>It's not accounts, it's the IT manager (even she has been overheard
>telling her mates in teh pub that she doesn't know how she got (or
>keeps) the job !). She's had as much training in Informix as I have
>- I've just dived into the books and 'kept learning'. Her approach
>is that she doesn't want anything done in Informix in case it goes
>wrong and I'm not about to fix it - like I say, she doesn't know it
>and doesn't want to learn.
>Management are aware of the situation, and a few 'good results'*
>have made management aware of the benefits so I expect something to
>happen.
Let us know when you become manager. :-)
>* One report took 40+ hours to run, I wrote it in Informix and it
>takes 90 seconds ! Another I got down from an hour or two to 5
>minutes BUT it combines data that the old report couldn't.
So even at the worst case you've cut time consumed by over 90% and
in the best case it's approaching 100%. Doing a years worth of
work in 78 minutes should make anyone notice. [that is what 40
hours vs 90 seconds comes out to].
>>> I estimate that around 2-3G would avoid the cache flushing that
>>> happens when one of these reports runs - at present we can get a
>>> system with 90% idle and 90+% WIO (dual processor, not enough IO
>>> bandwidth). I've even seem sustained periods of 100% WIO !
>> Sounds like you need one of the SCSI RAM 'drives'. I don't even
>> know if they are made anymore - but those were a very fast and
>> expensive solution for slow I/O.
>Well given that 1/2G RAM DIMMS are now available for about 50
>pounds (about $70 - $75 I guess) it would be nice to be using an OS
>that would allow me 8G of RAM in the cache ;-)
>I've seen these RAM drives, but I can't help wondering about when
>the power fails :-(
The memory stays via backup as I recall. The nice thing is they
are pure SCSI devices. Treat them just as another drive.
Quantum used to make them. I don't see them at their site but they
sold the HD section to Maxtor in order to concentrate on the DLT
and higher tape lines. Maxtor is continuing the high-end SCSI line
but it appear they have dropped the SCSI RAM drives. It was a
niche market to start with and with today's system performance
probably not needed.
I see that Maxtor has broken the 137GB limit on the IDE interface
and extended it to 48bits. I think it will be at least 6 months
before they exceed the 144 PetaByte range :-) ^32 It doesn't seem
that long ago when the maxium 528MB of the orignal PC seemed
unreachable. [144PB for the acronymically challenged is
144MBytes of GigaBytes - 144,000,000 Gigabytes.],