More evidence supporting my comments regarding SCO ...
Joe
capabilities:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/12/04/sco_no_ha/
Tony Lawrence
Are you trying to start a fight?
I don't know if there are any rah-rah SCO supporters left here. There
might be (I'm ready to be surprised), but an awful lot of the people
who frequent this group saw the light long ago and are under no
illusions about SCO or its products.
SCO systems were most of what I did for many years. But I have fewer
and fewer SCO customers left and I'm often the one who helps them move
on. Unfortunately, some are stuck - they have ancient apps that can't
be moved or that have prohibitive relicensing costs. I remain
committed to trying to help them for as long as I can.
There's also the issue of "it if ain't broke..". Some SCO systems do
perfectly fine at their allotted task. They *could* be switched to
Linux or whatever, but any switch costs time and money, so the owners
are just leaving it be for now. I do always advise them to be prepared
( see http://aplawrence.com/Linux/nearing_end.html for some pointers)
but I agree there is often no reason to jump ship immediately.
By the way, for those moving off SCO or operating in mixed
environments, I have a bunch of helpful stuff at
http://aplawrence.com/cgi-bin/indexget.pl?Conversion
--
Tony Lawrence
Unix/Linux/Mac OS X Resources
http://aplawrence.com
Joe
On Tue, 5 Dec 2006, Tony Lawrence wrote:
>
> Joe wrote:
>> Apparently, I'm not the only one to have a poor opinion of SCO's
>> capabilities:
>> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/12/04/sco_no_ha/
>
> Are you trying to start a fight?
>
> I don't know if there are any rah-rah SCO supporters left here. There
> might be (I'm ready to be surprised), but an awful lot of the people
> who frequent this group saw the light long ago and are under no
> illusions about SCO or its products.
>
> SCO systems were most of what I did for many years. But I have fewer
> and fewer SCO customers left and I'm often the one who helps them move
> on. Unfortunately, some are stuck - they have ancient apps that can't
> be moved or that have prohibitive relicensing costs. I remain
> committed to trying to help them for as long as I can.
>
> There's also the issue of "it if ain't broke..". Some SCO systems do
> perfectly fine at their allotted task. They *could* be switched to
> Linux or whatever, but any switch costs time and money, so the owners
> are just leaving it be for now. I do always advise them to be prepared
> ( see http://aplawrence.com/Linux/nearing_end.html for some pointers)
> but I agree there is often no reason to jump ship immediately.
I do understand and can respect your position. What I have a problem with
is the questions like "I want to install <major additional capability> on
my SCO box", or "I want to install new SCO box for <xyz> capability" -- or
rather, I have a problem with responses that don't include: "you might be
better to install a Linux/BSD box to do this"
But really, why do I post such things here? Well, this is a "misc"
discussion of things about SCO, right? And if a company cannot fix a
broken link on its home page within a day (still broken as I type this),
that indicates a problem.
I believe some people (not you) have had their heads in the sand for too
long about where SCO is heading. What I see is Darl and others getting fat
paychecks and large bonuses while engineers are laid-off and the company's
revenues drift in (but decline) on the basis of the heritage of work done
years ago. Of course that cannot last forever and it is going to be
interesting to see what has happened in the last quarter.
I think Bob Mimms is probably correct and there have been layoffs, so
that SCO can try to remain cash-neutral; but the result of this is that
there will be less staff to actually support and develop SCO's products.
SCO is clearly in the minefield now and the fillowing mines are drfiting
close to SCO's ship:
1. The result of the arbitration in Switzerland related to UnitedLinux
contracts
2. Novell's motion to have SCO's cash put into escrow.
3. Novell's motion to declare that Novell has the right to direct SCO's
behavior regarding SYSV contracts (would completely undermine SCO's case)
4. IBM's many motions for PSJ.
At this time, SCO's claims related to Linux are down to 327 lines of code.
Such things as header files, and other things that are determined by
specifications (and hence not copyrightable).
Anyway, the real conflict is that beween Microsoft and everyone else. SCO
has helped to delay Linux installations and connections have been made
from the PIPE investments in SCO to MS. Those who implicitly supported SCO
or said early on (when there was already public evidence about the
weakness of SCO's claims) "let's wait and see, all the evidence is not out
yet" have helped to further MS's position in the OS market.
Tony Lawrence
Joe wrote:
>
> I do understand and can respect your position. What I have a problem with
> is the questions like "I want to install <major additional capability> on
> my SCO box", or "I want to install new SCO box for <xyz> capability" -- or
> rather, I have a problem with responses that don't include: "you might be
> better to install a Linux/BSD box to do this"
Fair enough.. but I really think nowadays that pretty much "goes
without saying".
Yeah, now and then I have made posts that specifically said that.
You'd have to be just a little crazy to set up a new
webserver/mailserver or fileserver using SCO today..
But when someone needs to add a harddrive, or implement ssh (though I
have often suggested a little Linux box as a landing point for ssh) or
the like, I don't always feel the need to point out the obvious.
Feel free to follow me around and do this :-)
Harold Stevens
[Snip...]
> broken link on its home page within a day (still broken as I type this),
> that indicates a problem.
Amazing to me: fix is a quick text edit on a b0rked link, simply making
cluster
to be instead
clustering
or somesuch. Even pointyhairs as *INEPT* as Ralphie and Darl could arrange
something that simple, no? IMO, it's a rather obvious display of straws in
the wind. More like sheetmetal shrapnel in a tornado, actually.
Anybody without a "Plan B" for when (not if--when) SCOX vanishes in a poof
of bankruptcy smoke has their head stuck in their nether regions.
JMO; YMMV...
--
Regards, Weird (Harold Stevens) * IMPORTANT EMAIL INFO FOLLOWS *
Pardon any bogus email addresses (wookie) in place for spambots.
Really, it's (wyrd) at airmail, dotted with net. DO NOT SPAM IT.
Kids jumping ship? Looking to hire an old-school type? Email me.
jlsels...@my-deja.com
Harold Stevens wrote:
> In <Pine.LNX.4.64.06...@localhost.localdomain> Joe:
>
> [Snip...]
>
> > broken link on its home page within a day (still broken as I type this),
> > that indicates a problem.
>
Looks fixed now.
Jonathan Schilling
XeniXman
I still like SCO Openserver. That might brand me as a boob &
simpleton, but I am both.
SCO systems have a rep for working flawlessly for years. Customers
take their servers for granted after a while because they seldom reboot
them.
In the past, I have worked with various versions of Linux, but each
version seemed to be a beta with promises of better things to come.
That was years ago when I stopped watching the Linux versions roll by.
I should probably dig into the chaos and get a clue however, otherwise
I might risk being content too long.
My unabridged "I HATE LINUX" list:
(1) Too many flavors and versions of flavors (Strawberry v9.3,
Chocolate v15.7b, Souza v47.8)
(2) I don't like the fact that Al Kader can download the source and use
their advanced knowledge of logic-N-stuff to crack into my customer's
systems.
(3) I perceive that Linux is less hacker proof than SCO because SCO has
fewer systems installed. Many people don't even know what SCO is.
That's ok with me.
(4) Will my apps work as is? rmcobol & Informix RDS.
(5) I don't like change.
(6) I'm old.
(7) I'm getting older.
In a perfect world, my cat would still be a kitten and Islamic fascists
would be dead. I would still look forward to a better tomorrow as the
days before me far outnumbered the days behind me. This would be a
world where songs have melody and lyrics (not death threats). Women
would be different (and better) from men, and Doritos come in a 16oz
bag. Yogurt is sold in 8oz containers and Gasoline sells for
50cent/gal because nobody would need it, or want it. People would take
walks in the evening and they would smile and say "hello" as they meet
and greet each other. The word "Professional" would be a positive
description (not just a synonym for hooker), and all the children would
be above average. Amen.
Jd
On Wed, 6 Dec 2006, XeniXman wrote:
>
>
> SCO systems have a rep for working flawlessly for years. Customers
> take their servers for granted after a while because they seldom reboot
> them.
I seen uptimes of over 1 year on Linux machines, with reboots only
necessary for kernel updates. Much longer uptimes are also reported.
>
> In the past, I have worked with various versions of Linux, but each
> version seemed to be a beta with promises of better things to come.
> That was years ago when I stopped watching the Linux versions roll by.
> I should probably dig into the chaos and get a clue however, otherwise
> I might risk being content too long.
>
> My unabridged "I HATE LINUX" list:
>
> (1) Too many flavors and versions of flavors (Strawberry v9.3,
> Chocolate v15.7b, Souza v47.8)
So pick one that you like and use it. Actually, you should probably pick
two: an RPM-based distro and a deb-based distro.
> (2) I don't like the fact that Al Kader can download the source and use
> their advanced knowledge of logic-N-stuff to crack into my customer's
> systems.
Using your logic, we don't see any cracks of Windows.....
> (3) I perceive that Linux is less hacker proof than SCO because SCO has
> fewer systems installed. Many people don't even know what SCO is.
> That's ok with me.
That may be true as far as the OS goes, but what about the applications?
It seems to me that binaries for popular Internet facing apps tend to lag
other OSes.
> (4) Will my apps work as is? rmcobol & Informix RDS.
Excellent point. An OS is no use if the apps are not supported on it.
> (5) I don't like change.
Change is a fact of life.
> (7) I'm getting older.
Isn't everyone? However, some years ago, I realised that if I let age
determine what I felt I could do, then I might as well lie down and die
right then. What I find interesting is that many posters in Linux forums
appear to be quite old: they have worked on old Unix systems, or they are
retired, etc.
>
> and all the children would
> be above average. Amen.
Ah, another listener of the Prairie Home Companion!
>
>
XeniXman
> On Wed, 6 Dec 2006, XeniXman wrote:
>
> > My unabridged "I HATE LINUX" list:
> >
> > (1) Too many flavors and versions of flavors (Strawberry v9.3,
> > Chocolate v15.7b, Souza v47.8)
>
> So pick one that you like and use it. Actually, you should probably pick
> two: an RPM-based distro and a deb-based distro.
How does one choose? I generally don't like to install an OS at a
customer site that I don't trust, and it's difficult to trust one until
I install it at a customer site. Just because a demo box boots and
doesn't crash doesn't mean it will hold up when 30 users pile in for a
month or two of normal activity. The nightmare scenario for me is to
install a system and start hearing about data corruption and random
quirks a few weeks later. This nightmare can only be made perfect when
it happens on a first time install of an OS. Some people say I'm
paranoid. I'm one of them.
BTW: "deb-based distro"? what language is that? neo-latin?
>
> > (2) I don't like the fact that Al Kader can download the source and use
> > their advanced knowledge of logic-N-stuff to crack into my customer's
> > systems.
>
> Using your logic, we don't see any cracks of Windows.....
The internet was forged on unix systems, but windows has made the
mistake of basing the OS on the internet. The internet has become a
default part of Windows - which means that the hackers of the world
(Al Kader & Friends ) are now part of windows.
It still seems that that SCO treats the internet as the separate thing
as it should be (IMO). I'm not sure about Linux.
>
> > (3) I perceive that Linux is less hacker proof than SCO because SCO has
> > fewer systems installed. Many people don't even know what SCO is.
> > That's ok with me.
>
> That may be true as far as the OS goes, but what about the applications?
> It seems to me that binaries for popular Internet facing apps tend to lag
> other OSes.
There are still many applications that don't require the internet. "My
perfect network design" has a separate application server that is
ignorant of the internet. IOW: data that is absolutely vital to
company survival is kept on boxes that are as isolated as possible.
Unix is a wonderful thing for this.
for security sake: I grieve the loss of dumb terminals on serial
lines.
I also understand the needs of world wide data access. It is a tap
dance in which the system people must give the users what they want
without giving Al Kader his desires. Unfortunately, the sysadmin has
often caved to corporate bullies who want everything. These same
bullies then blame the sysadmin when heck breaks from the depths. It's
a lot like being a manager of a fast food shop. Responsibility that
exceeds salary, and imagined power over nothing. LOL.
> > (4) Will my apps work as is? rmcobol & Informix RDS.
>
> Excellent point. An OS is no use if the apps are not supported on it.
>
> > (5) I don't like change.
>
> Change is a fact of life.
>
> > (7) I'm getting older.
>
> Isn't everyone? However, some years ago, I realised that if I let age
> determine what I felt I could do, then I might as well lie down and die
> right then. What I find interesting is that many posters in Linux forums
> appear to be quite old: they have worked on old Unix systems, or they are
> retired, etc.
>
That's one way to look at age. Another is that I've seen lots of
things come and go that I never really needed. Most of the trails
I've treked have been for nothing. Sometimes a person can gain more by
standing still. The hard part is knowing when to move.
>
> >
> > and all the children would
> > be above average. Amen.
>
> Ah, another listener of the Prairie Home Companion!
>
I love a good story about Lutheran socials. {snicker}.
> >
> >
Boyd Lynn Gerber
> Jd wrote:
> > On Wed, 6 Dec 2006, XeniXman wrote:
> >
> > > My unabridged "I HATE LINUX" list:
> > >
> > > (1) Too many flavors and versions of flavors (Strawberry v9.3,
> > > Chocolate v15.7b, Souza v47.8)
> >
> > So pick one that you like and use it. Actually, you should probably pick
> > two: an RPM-based distro and a deb-based distro.
>
> How does one choose? I generally don't like to install an OS at a
> customer site that I don't trust, and it's difficult to trust one until
> I install it at a customer site. Just because a demo box boots and
> doesn't crash doesn't mean it will hold up when 30 users pile in for a
> month or two of normal activity. The nightmare scenario for me is to
> install a system and start hearing about data corruption and random
> quirks a few weeks later. This nightmare can only be made perfect when
> it happens on a first time install of an OS. Some people say I'm
> paranoid. I'm one of them.
For Linux I prefer SUSE. Novell just release OpenSUSE 10.2. It is really
good. I highly recommend it if you want a linus distro. Novell also has
SLES/SLED Server/Desktop with 1 year support contract.
Choose the OS based on the applications you want/need to run. I used all
the various OS's for what they do best. Everyone has a place/niche. Let
your applications point you to what you need.
--
Boyd Gerber <ger...@zenez.com>
ZENEZ 1042 East Fort Union #135, Midvale Utah 84047
Bill Campbell
>Jd wrote:
>> On Wed, 6 Dec 2006, XeniXman wrote:
>>
>> > My unabridged "I HATE LINUX" list:
>> >
>> > (1) Too many flavors and versions of flavors (Strawberry v9.3,
>> > Chocolate v15.7b, Souza v47.8)
>>
>> So pick one that you like and use it. Actually, you should probably pick
>> two: an RPM-based distro and a deb-based distro.
>
>How does one choose? I generally don't like to install an OS at a
>customer site that I don't trust, and it's difficult to trust one until
>I install it at a customer site. Just because a demo box boots and
>doesn't crash doesn't mean it will hold up when 30 users pile in for a
>month or two of normal activity. The nightmare scenario for me is to
>install a system and start hearing about data corruption and random
>quirks a few weeks later. This nightmare can only be made perfect when
>it happens on a first time install of an OS. Some people say I'm
>paranoid. I'm one of them.
We have been installing Linux in mission-critical applications since
September 1997, and have *NEVER* had problems with ``data corruption or
random quirks''. We used Caldera Linux systems from the first release of
CND 1.0 through early 2002 when we switched to SuSE as it appeared that
Caldera wouldn't remain a viable option. At the time of the switch,
I evaluated all of the major distributions available at the time, and
decided that SuSE was the best engineered of those available.
We made the switch about the same time I read an article in SysAdmin
magazine about the OpenPKG.org portable packaging system, an RPM based
system that's totally independent of the underlying vendor's packaging
system, and one that provides packages for a wide variety of Unix and
Linux systems.
OpenPKG solved many of the problems that I had experienced since the mid
1980s as we used a lot of open source software (a Stallman zealot might
say we were running GNU/Xenix, GNU/OpenServer, GNU/NCR, GNU/SunOS, etc.).
We have always used open source software to provide a stable set of
programs that don't vary from vendor to vendor. The problem we had before
going to OpenPKG is that we usually broke the vendor's updates as we had
replaced so many components of the OS (e.g. SCO's brain-dead MMDF MTA).
Most of the systems we have installed since 1998 have been Linux,
with a few FreeBSD systems thrown in for flavor, and Mac OS X for
desktop applications since 2002 or so. We still have a few OpenServer
installations we support as they depend on third party software that's
either unsupported or only runs on OpenServer or Windows.
These systems vary from small business installations with fewer than 10
users to ISPs with tens of thousands of users, and uptimes are typically
measured in years rather than days (our in-house FreeBSD 4.8 system had
been up 895 days when a power failure that exceeded the UPS capacity
caused it to shut down).
...
>The internet was forged on unix systems, but windows has made the
>mistake of basing the OS on the internet. The internet has become a
>default part of Windows - which means that the hackers of the world
>(Al Kader & Friends ) are now part of windows.
No. Windows is based on a BDPL (Brain-Damaged Program Loader)
that was designed to make hobbyist hardware usable in a private,
single-user environment. It was never designed to work in a hostile
network enviornment whereas Unix was designed originally by the phone
company to be used as a multi-user system where security has always been
a major issue. Windows 98 and earlier never have had any real security
as the underlying system provides no concept of user level permissions
or restrictions.
Later versions of Windows, based on NT, has provisions for real security,
but a combination of Microsoft's policies of making things as easy to use
as possible with no training, third party software written by people who
don't have a clue about multi-user systems or security so have to be run
with Administrator priviledges, and the difficulties of writing secure
monolithic software, have left what seems to be an infinite variety of
security holes.
>It still seems that that SCO treats the internet as the separate thing
>as it should be (IMO). I'm not sure about Linux.
It would be wise to learn something about Linux before expounding at
length about how bad it is.
...
>There are still many applications that don't require the internet. "My
>perfect network design" has a separate application server that is
>ignorant of the internet. IOW: data that is absolutely vital to
>company survival is kept on boxes that are as isolated as possible.
>Unix is a wonderful thing for this.
That's certainly a Good Idea(tm), and it's certainly the best way
to configure any mission-critical application that doesn't require
connection to the outside world. Even when one requires network
interface, it's easy enough to have the critical data on a private
LAN that's inaccessible directly with the dual-homed Internet facing
server making its connections via that LAN without having any trusted
relationship with the application server(s).
...
Bill
--
INTERNET: bi...@Celestial.COM Bill Campbell; Celestial Software LLC
URL: http://www.celestial.com/ PO Box 820; 6641 E. Mercer Way
FAX: (206) 232-9186 Mercer Island, WA 98040-0820; (206) 236-1676
The only logical reason to take guns away from responsible people is to
give irresponsible people an edge in the perpetration of their crimes
against us. -- The Idaho Observer, Vol. 1, No. 2 February 1997
Gary R. Schmidt
[SNIP]
> single-user environment. It was never designed to work in a hostile
> network enviornment whereas Unix was designed originally by the phone
> company to be used as a multi-user system where security has always been
> a major issue. Windows 98 and earlier never have had any real security
[SNIP]
No, UNIX was designed to play games on - MoonLander, IIRC. The security
model was more of a "well, Multics does all this clever stuff, but I
just want to make sure that xyz next door can't delete my files, and
implement it by next Tuesday."
The security model on Windows, of course, is fundamentally flawed due to
the requirement that any partially-trained amoeba can use it to control
an enterprise environment (most other models go no lower than the
canonical monkey!).
Cheers,
Gary B-)
--
______________________________________________________________________________
Armful of chairs: Something some people would not know
whether you were up them with or not
- Barry Humphries
Glenn
> Jd wrote:
>> On Wed, 6 Dec 2006, XeniXman wrote:
>>
>>> My unabridged "I HATE LINUX" list:
>>>
>>> (1) Too many flavors and versions of flavors (Strawberry v9.3,
>>> Chocolate v15.7b, Souza v47.8)
>> So pick one that you like and use it. Actually, you should probably pick
>> two: an RPM-based distro and a deb-based distro.
>
>
> How does one choose? I generally don't like to install an OS at a
> customer site that I don't trust, and it's difficult to trust one until
> I install it at a customer site. Just because a demo box boots and
> doesn't crash doesn't mean it will hold up when 30 users pile in for a
> month or two of normal activity. The nightmare scenario for me is to
> install a system and start hearing about data corruption and random
> quirks a few weeks later. This nightmare can only be made perfect when
> it happens on a first time install of an OS. Some people say I'm
> paranoid. I'm one of them.
>
> BTW: "deb-based distro"? what language is that? neo-latin?
deb-based would be the software packgage system, Top choice IMHO.
debian stable for servers, rock solid! (debian.org), ubuntu for
desktops (ubuntu.com)
>
>>> (4) Will my apps work as is? rmcobol & Informix RDS.
>> Excellent point. An OS is no use if the apps are not supported on it.
>>
debian stable with abi modules
(http://ace-host.stuart.id.au/russell/files/debian/sarge/kernel-patch-linuxabi/)
runs our multi user SCO rmcobol apps with no problems.
Glenn