SCO in Trouble?
Gumby
It is...IMPRESSIVE!
Good Bye SCO!
As for High End market that SCO seeks.
Linux already has a 64 bit version available on Dec Alphas.
Good Bye SCO!
As for Support.
Excellent Newsgroup support. All questions answered same day and without
ego!
Free email support same day!
Support contracts for $99 100 days
Good Bye SCO!
Linux is growing exponentially as I speak!
Installed WordPerfect. Perfect!
DHCP client. Perfect!
Squid proxy. Perfect!
Fax Server. Perfect!
Email and Http. Perfect!
Samba Server & Client. Perfect!
3 manuals on line CD. Perfect!
KDE. WOW! (makes Windows look bad)
I could go on and on.
Linux is unbelievable!
Good Bye SCO!
SCO Stock SCOS: $9
Linux Stock RHAT: $75
Hmmm....
Mark A. Davis
> As for High End market that SCO seeks.
> Linux already has a 64 bit version available on Dec Alphas.
> Good Bye SCO!
SCO has no products for non X86 machines. So that is irrelevant.
> As for Support.
> Excellent Newsgroup support.
> All questions answered same day and without
> ego!
And without trolling like yours?
I find this group is just fine for support.
> Free email support same day!
Nothing commerical is "free".
> Support contracts for $99 100 days
From whom, and at what level
> Linux is growing exponentially as I speak!
Indeed it is, and always has
> Installed WordPerfect. Perfect!
Under SCO OS5- Perfect
> DHCP client. Perfect!
Under SCO OS5.05- Perfect
> Squid proxy. Perfect!
Under SCO OS5- Perfect
> Fax Server. Perfect!
Under SCO OS5- Perfect
> Email and Http. Perfect!
Under SCO OS5- Perfect
> Samba Server & Client. Perfect!
Under SCO OS5- Perfect
> 3 manuals on line CD. Perfect!
SCO online manuals are much better and have been so for many years.
Perfect
> KDE. WOW! (makes Windows look bad)
Installed under SCO OS5- Perfect
> I could go on and on.
So could I :)
> Linux is unbelievable!
> Good Bye SCO!
So good bye to you??
> SCO Stock SCOS: $9
> Linux Stock RHAT: $75
> Hmmm....
That does not say ANYTHING about a company. You need to take an
Economics class.
--
/--------------------------------------------------------------------\
| Mark A. Davis, |Lake Taylor| Voice: (757)-461-5001x431 8-4:30ET |
| Director of | Hospital | ma...@yylaketaylor.org ***to reply |
|Information Systems|Norfolk, VA| from USENET remove anti-spam "yy" |
\--------------------------------------------------------------------/
Gumby
> > As for High End market that SCO seeks.
> > Linux already has a 64 bit version available on Dec Alphas.
> > Good Bye SCO!
>
> SCO has no products for non X86 machines. So that is irrelevant.
>
> > As for Support.
> > Excellent Newsgroup support.
> > All questions answered same day and without
> > ego!
>
> And without trolling like yours?
> I find this group is just fine for support.
>
Looks like the trolling caught an ego.
Sizable one a that!
As for support, the Linux group has been far better.
But then again if you don't know what Linux is, then how can you compare?
> > Free email support same day!
>
> Nothing commerical is "free".
FREE
I'll repeat that
FREE
Unlike SCO
FREE
> > Support contracts for $99 100 days
>
> From whom, and at what level
From Mandrake www.madrake.com
>
> > Linux is growing exponentially as I speak!
>
> Indeed it is, and always has
>
> > Installed WordPerfect. Perfect!
>
> Under SCO OS5- Perfect
>
> > DHCP client. Perfect!
>
> Under SCO OS5.05- Perfect
>
> > Squid proxy. Perfect!
>
> Under SCO OS5- Perfect
>
> > Fax Server. Perfect!
>
> Under SCO OS5- Perfect
>
> > Email and Http. Perfect!
>
> Under SCO OS5- Perfect
>
> > Samba Server & Client. Perfect!
>
> Under SCO OS5- Perfect
>
> > 3 manuals on line CD. Perfect!
>
> SCO online manuals are much better and have been so for many years.
> Perfect
>
> > KDE. WOW! (makes Windows look bad)
>
> Installed under SCO OS5- Perfect
>
> > I could go on and on.
>
> So could I :)
>
> > Linux is unbelievable!
> > Good Bye SCO!
>
> So good bye to you??
EGO
Just love SCO support! :->
> > SCO Stock SCOS: $9
> > Linux Stock RHAT: $75
> > Hmmm....
> That does not say ANYTHING about a company. You need to take an
> Economics class.
Dam ego thing again.
Gee I could be wrong, but I thought that $9 was greater than $75.
Now I could go into the economics of it, yet I think with your degree you'll
convert the float and come up with an EPS.
I think your feeling the ship sinkin Mark.
Albeit some of the products can be configured under SCO, (not perfectly mind
you).
You also have to purchase the Development Libraries from SCO and a lot of
their products VisionFS, AFPS, etc are going way of the dodo since they are
free from the Linux Development.
Funny, If I install most of the products you listed as installable underr
SCO, is it SCO anymore? :->
-Gumby
Andrew Smallshaw
> EGO
> Just love SCO support! :->
>
> > > SCO Stock SCOS: $9
> > > Linux Stock RHAT: $75
> > > Hmmm....
>
> > That does not say ANYTHING about a company. You need to take an
> > Economics class.
>
> Dam ego thing again.
> Gee I could be wrong, but I thought that $9 was greater than $75.
> Now I could go into the economics of it, yet I think with your degree you'll
> convert the float and come up with an EPS.
Your logic is way out, since it does not take into account the number of
shares. What you're after is the price per share multiplied by the number
of shares, or market capitalisation.
Having said that, I was amazed to find out Red Hat's is bigger than SCO's,
($5.05bn vs $380m), but then Linux is particularly fashionable at the
moment.
> Funny, If I install most of the products you listed as installable underr
> SCO, is it SCO anymore? :->
Now this is pure BS. If you knew anything about Linux, by the same logic
you wouldn't call it that. Linux is a kernel, a fairly small but fairly
terse bit of code. Everything that you see on screen (with the exception
of some error messages and boot time information) is _not_ Linux.
--
Andrew Smallshaw
smal...@cs.man.ac.uk
Scott Taylor
Andrew Smallshaw wrote:
> On Wed, 01 Sep 1999 02:03:10 GMT, Gumby wrote:
> > EGO
> > Just love SCO support! :->
Now this is just getting silly! SCO OSR5/UNIX ware is for the enterprise. It's
strong; never had a crash on my enterprise system in over 2 years of operating
it. I'll gladly pay top dollar for something this strong. It all comes from the
same manufacturer, and hardware support and new drivers are readily available.
Linux is young, but growing fast and the same support (I mean drives etc.) should
be available for it in no time but there are so many variations of the same kernel
it's hard to keep up.
On the other hand, I would not pay for a proxy and mail server, so I use Linux on
some cheap old P133 and it hasn't failed in 2 months of running. Total cost,
under $400.00 (including hardware). SCO would have been much more just for a 5
user lic.
So there you go. There is still room in this world for both systems. And yes,
Linux will probably kick butt on a few O/S's but not for a while yet...Let's just
hope it becomes a solution to the bloat ware world; you know the one.
ST
Mark A. Davis
>
> >
> > > As for High End market that SCO seeks.
> > > Linux already has a 64 bit version available on Dec Alphas.
> > > Good Bye SCO!
> >
> > SCO has no products for non X86 machines. So that is irrelevant.
> >
> > > As for Support.
> > > Excellent Newsgroup support.
> > > All questions answered same day and without
> > > ego!
> >
> > And without trolling like yours?
> > I find this group is just fine for support.
> >
>
> Looks like the trolling caught an ego.
> Sizable one a that!
You are one to speak.... what kind of person finds it necessary to troll
in this group like you?
> As for support, the Linux group has been far better.
> But then again if you don't know what Linux is, then how can you compare?
Excuse me, but I have been using Linux probably way before you knew what
ANY Unix was. Seems to me I was first involved in Linux when it was
Minix, perhaps six years ago?
> > > Free email support same day!
> >
> > Nothing commerical is "free".
> FREE
> I'll repeat that
> FREE
> Unlike SCO
> FREE
Your statement is illogical.
> >
> > Installed under SCO OS5- Perfect
> >
> > > I could go on and on.
> >
> > So could I :)
> >
> > > Linux is unbelievable!
> > > Good Bye SCO!
> >
> > So good bye to you??
>
> EGO
No, we are just tired of people like yourself who insist on trolling.
> Just love SCO support! :->
>
> > > SCO Stock SCOS: $9
> > > Linux Stock RHAT: $75
> > > Hmmm....
>
> > That does not say ANYTHING about a company. You need to take an
> > Economics class.
>
> Dam ego thing again.
You seem to be stuck on that, don't you
> Gee I could be wrong, but I thought that $9 was greater than $75.
> Now I could go into the economics of it, yet I think with your degree you'll
> convert the float and come up with an EPS.
Um, how about: 1) how many shares? 2) at what stabilization AFTER IPO?
3) what are the dividends?
> I think your feeling the ship sinkin Mark.
There is no ship, and nothing is sinking
> Albeit some of the products can be configured under SCO, (not perfectly mind you).
They are not products, and everything you listed works fine under OS5.
> You also have to purchase the Development Libraries from SCO
No you do not. You can use GCC. SCO includes the necessary headers.
> and a lot of
> their products VisionFS, AFPS, etc are going way of the dodo since they are
> free from the Linux Development.
Which is why I don't use them
> Funny, If I install most of the products you listed as installable underr
> SCO, is it SCO anymore? :->
Yes
Gumby
This is a Usenet forum, remember?
Looks like I got your feathers ruffled.
Anyway, in truth, SCO will be around for a long time.
They have established themselves and just recently came out with a winning
quarter.
My intent is to see how SCO followers are dealing with Linux. Loyalty
changing?
Now, besides Tarantella, they need to get down to business with Linux.
Linux is a very serious threat.
I have been using SCO for a very long time. Back in the Lyrix, VPix, and
XENIX days.
So I'm no stranger to this company.
Done my share of HP and SUN, even a little VAX.
So I'm no stranger to Unix.
I want SCO to continue to do well, however there are some serious issues
that they are just ignoring.
How hard could it be for their technical staff to write a DHCP client?
What about X? Nothing has been done with its development. Modem manager is
nice.
What about support? Common, this is real bad.
They get people SCO ACE certified; you know its bad when you call more than
one ACE guy and your telling them how it works.
And could we make the licensing any more complicated please!?
And I'm sick of remapping keyboards and emulation because they can't figure
out VT or ansi standards.
I mean why is Linux doing this stuff so well?
You know how nice it is to see a color map of your file list?
I just want SCO to smarten up! Stay ahead of the pack.
If we are going to pay for this product it better start getting better.
Linux is very stable now, so that isn't going to be a strong argument to buy
SCO.
Drivers and applications are starting to grow everyday.
Monterey...ya ya.
Looks like that one is coming. Linux already has one for Alpha.
Is there a 64 bit Intel platform yet?
Intel is a poor platform as it is.
Tell you what.
Come out with an Intel better than RISC platform.
Come out with a SCO Unix solution to run on it.
Come out with a comprehensible product line.
Come out with a comprehensible licensing structure.
Come out with a friendly, knowledgeable support structure.
Mix
Add a pinch of humor.
Bang!
You just made the best OS now and for a long time to come.
Now, I put away the trolling, so lets have a good debate here.
My intent is to test any weakness in SCO as the general technical community
starts to question its worth.
Not to test our wits.
-Gumby
Mark A. Davis <ma...@yylaketaylor.org> wrote in message
news:37CEB6...@yylaketaylor.org...
John Ryan
overstatement) is RESPONSIBLE for Linux in the same way that SCO is
RESPONSIBLE (i.e. liable, accountable etc.) for Openserver and Unixware.
----- Original Message -----
From: Ioan Nemes <ine...@transylvania.com.au>
To: John Ryan <sco...@idirect.ca>
Sent: September 3, 1999 7:59 AM
Subject: Re: SCO In Trouble?
> Sydney, 3 September 1999 - 21:57 PM
>
> > Linux may very well be an
> > excellent product, my limited experience with it leads me to believe it
is,
> > but there is simply no single, responsible entity behind it.
> >
> > Just my 2 cents.
> >
> > John
> > sco...@idirect.ca
>
> Pardon me, the WHOLE INTERNET less M$ & my IT manager !!!
>
> Ioan Nemes
> ine...@transylvania.com.au
Jeff Liebermann
wrote:
>My intent is to see how SCO followers are dealing with Linux. Loyalty
>changing?
My turn. SCO dealers and followers have no loyalty. As long as one
can make money selling and servicing SCO products, the loyal following
will be there. Notice that I said "making money" and not "producing a
superior product" or "filling every nitch" or "supporting every
feature". I'm quite happy to be servicing a quality product lacking
in features, and lacking in a few places, if I can make money doing
it.
Yes, Linux is eroding the bottom end of SCO's market. It's also
attacking the upper end quite nicely. Linux may actually produce a
more feature infested product than SCO. However, the litmus test is
still whether those with time and money invested in SCO product
knowledge can make money with Linux. At this time, my seat of the
pants analysis says no. There are various alternative financial
models for Linux. Eric Raymond has done some exellent writing on the
topic. However, I don't believe it and apparently a large segment of
the business customer base isn't buying it either.
The way I read how SCO is dealing with Linux is to support as many
applications as possible using lxrun. Skunkware is doing quite a good
job of porting many Open Source packages to OSR5 and UW7. A big
question will be how SCO deals with the transition to a POSIXified
installation cerimony as it seems that the bulk of the value added in
the various Linux packages is in the installation proceedure. RPM has
been ported to OSR5 but I don't see anyone using it.
>Now, besides Tarantella, they need to get down to business with Linux.
Excuse me, but do you have the telephone number of whomever to call to
"get down to business" with in Linuxland?
>Linux is a very serious threat.
Sure. Any time one tries to compete with a free product, there are
problems. In effect, Linux now owns the bottom part of the client
market. SCO seemed to have abandoned this part of the market and
concentrated on big servers bordering on mainframis's. Kindly
remember that SCO cannot afford to give away product so the most
viable strategy is to go for the high end. This blows my customer
base out of the price range, but there are apparently a large number
of businesses that want 24x7, high uptime boxes that are going to buy
into the clustering NSC (non-stop computing) pitch that SCO is
apparently pushing. Can Linux do NSC? Probably. Can it convince a
technical base of dealers and consultants that Linux can make them
money? I don't know but methinks not.
>I have been using SCO for a very long time. Back in the Lyrix, VPix, and
>XENIX days.
Drivel: I just loaded up an ancient Dell 386SX20 laptop with Xenix
2.3.4. Amazing. The whole OS with extended utilities is only 8MB of
diskspace.
>So I'm no stranger to this company.
>Done my share of HP and SUN, even a little VAX.
>So I'm no stranger to Unix.
Your web site also shows MacIntosh experience. Random Desktop?
>How hard could it be for their technical staff to write a DHCP client?
Writing is easy. Testing, regression testing and quality control is
not easy. The traditional SCO model is to produce the best *TESTED*
product as possible. The Linux model is to release often. The SCO
model is stable, but tends to be behind on fixes and features. The
Linux model is dynamic and tends to be a never ending stream of
changes. I don't know which is better. I personally prefer the Linux
model, but my customers want SCO style stability. Never mind
features, just don't let it crash. Incidentally, a survey of Windoze
2000 (NT5) early suckers showed that stability was their number one
concern. I believe this to be universal among most business
customers. So, how is Linux going to offer stability? Which version
is stable?
Actually, SCO already has a DHCP client for OSR5. It's in the Compaq
Neoserver, which is a small biz stand alone server for DOS/Windoze
applications but runs on an OSR5 mutation.
>What about X? Nothing has been done with its development.
What about X? What would you like? Yet another window manager?
Isn't CDE, KDE, GNOME, AfterStep, fvwm95, ad nausium, enough?
>Modem manager is nice.
I beg to differ with you but that has nothing to do with the
discussion.
>What about support?
Well, what about support? What about it don't you like? Want to
bring back free 30 day installation support? Fine. All the people
that don't need the support get to pay for the few clueless bozo's
that can't follow instructions and monopolize the tech support persons
time. Great idea.
>Common, this is real bad.
>They get people SCO ACE certified; you know its bad when you call more than
>one ACE guy and your telling them how it works.
Gee. I'm not certified and i can tell you how it works. Most of the
people that I know, that really know their stuff, don't need
certification. They also do not specialize in feats of photographic
memory. If they don't know, they know whom to ask. If you don't get
a clear answer the first time you interrogate an SCO ACE person, you
might get a better answer if you give them time to do some research.
>And could we make the licensing any more complicated please!?
Licensing is the where the dollars hit the customer demands. If
customer requirements were simple, licensing would also be simple.
However, how are you going to inscribe the ultimate fair and
profitable licensing scheme that satisfies everyone? That includes
the free SCO Unix users, the small biz, the dealer, the consultant,
the distributor, the big OEM, the reseller, the vertical market
software bundler, the hardware guys, the NC computer imbedded system
manufacturers, and the stockholders? Don't forget that there are also
international laws governing such licenses that vary radically in
various countries. Question: Do you understand how Microsoft's new
"Open License" abomination works? I don't.
>And I'm sick of remapping keyboards and emulation because they can't figure
>out VT or ansi standards.
Hmmm. It isn't the keyboard that's screwed up but the screen fonts.
However, none of my customers use X11 so it's not an issue. It was an
issue in 3.2v5.0.2 where SCO mutilated ansi, but it came back in
3.2v5.0.4 as "scoconsole" or something like that (I don't have my
machine handy).
>I mean why is Linux doing this stuff so well?
Careful. Is Linux doing it better or just faster? I'll give Linux
credit for making changes and improvements faster than SCO, but are
such changes really better?
>You know how nice it is to see a color map of your file list?
None of my customers every see the shell prompt. None of them would
know what to do at the shell prompt anyway. If I sold color ls
listings as a feature, I would get laughed out of their office.
However, programmists and developers find such things useful.
>I just want SCO to smarten up! Stay ahead of the pack.
No you don't. You want SCO to do what you find useful and convenient.
Granted, so do I, but reality is quite different. SCO will do
whatever the big customers and OEM's demand. The big guys drive the
development, the features, and supply the big bucks necessary for
advanced developement. Small fish like you and me get the fallout for
essentially nothing.
A while ago, I was having trouble getting SCO's attention on fixing
some disgusting Xenix and ODT bugs. My bug reports were not judged
sufficiently important to gain immediate attention. So, I laundered
them though a contact at one of SCO's big OEM customers, who was happy
to have them. I probably made life miserable for some of the
engineers, but I did get my bugs fixed (for a while).
>If we are going to pay for this product it better start getting better.
Methinks your definition of "better" is quite different from mine. I
want stability, uptime, and reliability and can live without a few
features. You apparently equate "better" with more features.
>Linux is very stable now, so that isn't going to be a strong argument to buy
>SCO.
>Drivers and applications are starting to grow everyday.
Drivers for what? 3D effects video cards suitable for games? For a
long time, OSR5 did not have any sound drivers, no LS120, no PCMCIA,
and no wiz-bang video cards. Why? Because one finds these in client
workstations and not servers. Even EIDE was marginally supported
because real servers use SCSI. SCO thought you could live without
them. This debate is still going on but I'm not going to a 3Dfx video
card and quadraphonic 48Khz sampling sound card in my email server.
Applications is where SCO has blown it big time. The problem is that
OSR5 and UW7 just do not have enough ported applications. By
applications, I mean productivity applications and no programmers
utilities and development tools. Both Linux and SCO Unix is infested
with more utilities and cute programs than could possibly be useful by
the customer base. However, in main line productivity applications,
there is Star Office, Applixware, and not much else. Nobody seems
interested in inscribing the next "Office for Unix" when Microsloth
owns both the desktop and the productivity applications market. The
mistake that SCO made was not realizing that such office productivity
applications are developed for the client workstation first and not
the server. Most of these can use any server, but it's the client
that gets the port. The mistake has been (apparently) recognized but
the recovery is slow. There are lots of ISV's porting applications to
various SCO Unix products, but few real office suite applications.
I had great hopes for JAVA applications, but apparently not this week.
Lotus dropped their JAVA Office this week and some other big name did
the same (I forgot the name).
>Monterey...ya ya.
>Looks like that one is coming. Linux already has one for Alpha.
>Is there a 64 bit Intel platform yet?
>Intel is a poor platform as it is.
I'll spare you the analogy inumerating all the mediocre products and
platforms that were successful for reasons other than superior
performance. The most obvious one is VHS vs BETA. Intel Merced will
win because Intel bent over backwards to retain backwards
compatibility with existing applications and not trash the customers
software investment.
>Tell you what.
>Come out with an Intel better than RISC platform.
>Come out with a SCO Unix solution to run on it.
>Come out with a comprehensible product line.
>Come out with a comprehensible licensing structure.
>Come out with a friendly, knowledgeable support structure.
>Mix
>Add a pinch of humor.
>Bang!
>You just made the best OS now and for a long time to come.
I have a better idea. Modularize the OS so I can dump parts and
pieces that I don't need or want. Balkanize the licensing so that I
don't pay for something I don't need. Avoid trashing reliability in
the name of feature bloat and sell uptime, reliability, and stability.
I don't care about support because I don't use it, need it, or want to
pay for it. Let those that need support pay for it. If I need humor,
I'll write my own.
>Now, I put away the trolling, so lets have a good debate here.
>My intent is to test any weakness in SCO as the general technical community
>starts to question its worth.
>Not to test our wits.
Oh baloney. You're intent is to attract attention, make lots of
noise, and engage in a debate among those that have little influence
in changing the alleged problems you itemize. It would have been
enough to mention that you need DHCP for your project or client and
that you had to switch to Linux in order to get it. Some explanation
as to why you didn't switch to Unixware 7 would have been helpful.
Everything else was the same ego trip that you accused others of
maintaining.
--
Jeff Liebermann 150 Felker St #D Santa Cruz CA 95060
(831)421-6491 pgr (831)426-1240 fax (831)336-2558 home
http://www.cruzio.com/~jeffl WB6SSY
je...@comix.santa-cruz.ca.us je...@cruzio.com
Jean-Pierre Radley
| On Fri, 03 Sep 1999 18:13:40 GMT, "Gumby" <greensl...@yahoo.com>
| wrote:
|
| >My intent is to see how SCO followers are dealing with Linux. Loyalty
| >changing?
|
| My turn.
You used your turn quite nicely!
--
Jean-Pierre Radley <j...@jpr.com> XC/XT Custodian Sysop, CompuServe SCOForum
Gumby
I could rebut each point in turn, however, an html size post would just
loose interest.
Some points are becoming banter, so I'll focus on the one issue I'm sure has
the most interest.
Reliability & Cosmetics.
Why do you think Microsoft has taken over the applications market?
IMHO: It did a great job of presenting and standardizing its applications.
Now, there is an obvious growing sentiment against anything Microsoft not
just because it represents monopoly, but because its applications and OS are
so FAT (excuse the pun). Not to mention the Office 2000 product costs.
SCO takes some of the brunt because it costs money and does not offer
competing applications.
Now comes Linux, our supposed saviour.
Well, we techies know that Joe is not going to find it simple to install ...
yet.
Regardless, what is important is that it voices the computer communities'
need for
better, faster, cheaper, smaller.
Stability, in a small boot, low cost, tight coded OS with Applications.
So I think we've reached a turning point.
Yes, stability is very important, however we want an intuitive and logical
OS with apps that cost reasonable and run well.
Microsoft is not stable and inflated, yet offers the pizaz.
SCO is not pizaz yet offers stability.
Linux is offering both and is free. (yes I know some will disagree here)
The verdict has it. Even if Linux has some short comeings its pointed in the
right direction.
Does this mean SCO and Microsoft are going down? No.
What will be good for all of us, (the reason for this debate), is that our
community will be left with an OS and applications that it should have had
in the beginning;
Reliabilty with a Cosmetic skin that makes it FUN to use computers, not
frustrating, timely and expensive!
-Gumby
Gumby
I think, however, that what makes Linux so much more attractive is its
collaborative effort.
It has sort of a Karma if you will.
The responsibility lies with everyone.
Each makes a contribution and shares in its success or failure.
IMHO: people are tired of being dictated the outcome of OS & Apps
development.
Now we have more of a democracy; popular choice wins.
-Gumby
John Ryan <sco...@idirect.ca> wrote in message
news:qnUz3.16132$Vr1.3...@quark.idirect.com...
Scott Taylor
Jeff Liebermann wrote:
>
> On Fri, 03 Sep 1999 18:13:40 GMT, "Gumby" <greensl...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
> >My intent is to see how SCO followers are dealing with Linux. Loyalty
> >changing?
>
> My turn. SCO dealers and followers have no loyalty. As long as one
> can make money selling and servicing SCO products, the loyal following
> will be there. Notice that I said "making money" and not "producing a
> superior product" or "filling every nitch" or "supporting every
> feature". I'm quite happy to be servicing a quality product lacking
> in features, and lacking in a few places, if I can make money doing
> it.
Bravo! Well said.
And just to add; I would be hard pressed to convince the offices to use
any other client then the *ugh!* windownz (windoze) clients they use.
Bill Vermillion
Gumby <greensl...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>Is there a 64 bit Intel platform yet?
>Intel is a poor platform as it is.
Well they do keep promising the chips. However the delays that
have happend have caused MIPS (SGI company) and HP to extend the
life-time of their chips with new implementations.
I get confused on HP. PA-RISC? The MIPs line was supposed to
stop at the 12000 ( I used the 4000s') Now they have designs in the
pipeline for th 14000, 16000 and 18000. Of course MIPS is still
the second largest chip manufacturer - quantity only - in the world.
It has to do with ALL thoses Nintendo's and PlayStations.
Original iNTEL target date was 1/2 half of 1999.
--
Bill Vermillion bv @ wjv.com
Tom Parsons
| >Intel is a poor platform as it is.
|
| have happend have caused MIPS (SGI company) and HP to extend the
| life-time of their chips with new implementations.
|
| I get confused on HP. PA-RISC? The MIPs line was supposed to
| stop at the 12000 ( I used the 4000s') Now they have designs in the
| pipeline for th 14000, 16000 and 18000. Of course MIPS is still
| the second largest chip manufacturer - quantity only - in the world.
| It has to do with ALL thoses Nintendo's and PlayStations.
|
| Original iNTEL target date was 1/2 half of 1999.
At Forum99, they were saying consumer availability in the summer of 2000.
--
==========================================================================
Tom Parsons t...@tegan.com Sysop, SCOForum-CompuServe
==========================================================================
John Ryan
A democracy is wonderful for a form of government, but for creating and
maintaining an OS, well, we've all heard the joke about what a horse
designed by a committee looks like (an ass). Karma and navel gazing aside,
I don't know how many people out there, running a business, would like to
hear that we'll get their business-critical server back up just as soon as
we can focus the collective consciousness of all the wonderful,
non-obligated, non financially involved Linux people out there to solve the
particular problem that's plaguing it (see where I'm going here?). To me,
the fact that the responsibility lies with everyone and no-one is a huge
hindrance, not an asset. There are THOUSANDS of businesses out there,
happily running Openserver, or XENIX, or Unixware, or ODT, or some other SCO
product, many of them have no idea how or why it works, just that it's been
doing so for weeks/months/years without failure. Think you'll be doing
them, and the UNIX community at large, a service by convincing them to
convert to another UNIX that, as a corporation, directly employs no-one?,
profits no-one?. There is a Santa Cruz Operation, it employs people, it is
an entity responsible for it's product, it functions on the premise that if
it's products do not meet a market need, they will go out of business, that,
in itself, is the greatest impetus for improvement and support that there
is. There is no similar driving force out there for Linux. While it is
heartening to see someone embrace a flavour of UNIX so whole-heartedly, I
cant just sit hear and read your divisive and inflammatory posts without
hearing a sound in the background. That's the sound of MS, and all of it's
MCSE's and MCP's and all of it's mega, MEGA-bucks gaining market share by
the second because people like you want to be fashionable and support Linux
purely because you want to seem avante-garde. I work with MS disciples
every day, and the smugness of these folks is absolutely appalling, but they
have a huge advantage over those of us in the UNIX community, they don't
have people like you doing the other side's work for them. SCO has many
problems (and Linux doesn't?), but it is still UNIX, and as such it is
hell-and-gone better than NT. It also happens to be the best selling UNIX
on the most popular platform (Intel). This means that it's the first, best
tool we have to maintain the UNIX presence in the client/server market, it
also happens to be a reliable, stable, dynamic OS. Do everyone in the UNIX
community a favour, quit with the "my UNIX is better than your UNIX" crap,
and have some respect for the OS and the people who wrote it, support it,
and spend their days trying to improve it. If this infighting keeps up, MS
will be able to blow it's whole NT marketing budget on a massive party,
after their work has been done for them.
Gumby <greenslabofclay-...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:4WbA3.1155$G6.1...@news0.telusplanet.net...
Gumby
"Up John", "Johnny on the spot" just to name a few.
Look buddy,
If you can't have a civilized debate then shut up.
The hate in your post just bordered on "Manifesto".
But of course your rebut will teach me as you throw what you think are
intelligent words.
You missed the point all together, blinded by your obvious ego.
Your heads so far up your Hooper, I don't think you'll ever get it.
If you can't understand that this is a debate to open our minds to better
computer standards, then please swing over to alt.Spam. Your response will
at least get more respect there.
-Gumby
Thanks Bill for your remarks.
John Ryan <sco...@idirect.ca> wrote in message
news:KtnA3.2774$m7.3...@quark.idirect.com...
Jeff Liebermann
<greenslabofclay-...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>Good job Jeff!
Likewise, but I don't like you logic and some of your judgements.
>Some points are becoming banter, so I'll focus on the one issue I'm sure has
>the most interest.
>Reliability & Cosmetics.
I engaged in a running debate over the issue of how to measure
reliability which ended (IMHO) in a stalemate. My contention is that
reliability is largely dependent on the maintenance and support
structure for the product. If I owned a 99.999% reliable machine, but
couldn't get anyone to fix it the one time it hickuped, is that
reliable? Opinions seem to vary but the analogy is correct. Call
Linux or SCO reliable or un-reliable by whatever criteria you want,
but if you can't find anyone to fix it fast or cheap, it's not a
maintainable product. This is IMHO the most serious problem with SCO
Unix. The talent pool of qualified Linux hacks is growing far faster
than the swamp of SCO Unix qualified hacks.
Someone just reposted yet another SCO attempt to "recognize" Linux in
a competative manner:
http://www.xos.nl/misc/sco.html
I just read it all for the 3rd time and couldn't figure out the
problem. There is no way that anyone from SCO can apparently even
mention Linux without someone from the Linux advocacy camp going
nuclear over distortions, misinformation, etc. While I don't agree
with everything that SCO inscribed, I don't see any way to say
ANYTHING about Linux without getting bashed. I guess anyone that
makes money off of commercial Unix is evil this week.
>Why do you think Microsoft has taken over the applications market?
>IMHO: It did a great job of presenting and standardizing its applications.
I have a very large hole in my wallet from some of the mid 1980's
Microsoft business practices. I know of others with financial horror
stories. I hate Microsoft. However, I also remember the CP/M days of
proprietary floppy formats, copy protection, proprietary everything,
and plastic baggy-ware. For the industry in general, I would say that
we would be in deep shit were it not for Microsoft.
Microsoft became enormously popular because their products are easy to
steal. MS knows the big dirty secret of software adoption, you can
give it away or make it easy to steal, but eventually they'll pay the
price. MS doesn't give a damn about theft at the home user level. I
don't even wanna think about all the stolen copies of MS Office parts
and pieces that have been dragged home from work. However, that's not
where the money is hidden. It's in the big corporate contracts.
These guys have to be legal as they're worth the effort sueing. Want
proof? Ever look at how the licensing works on NT4 server? Just pick
a number, any number and type it in. You get warned that you may need
to present valid EULA's if busted, but until some digruntled employee
turns you in, you're just fine. However, SCO requires an ordeal
process, implimented with a rotten license manager that can't even
display the license consumption. Let's face reality. Most of the
early adopters are software pirates.
Meanwhile, the various Unix vendors are giving lip service to such
concepts as "shrink wrap Unix" and "CDE standard desktop" while trying
to kill each other off. The current Monterey conglomeration of IBM,
SCO, Sequent, Intel, Compaq, etc may be the last hope of getting it
all together into one standard Unix, as has been promised ever so
often. However, if past history is any indicator of success, methinks
these suicidal fools will soon be at each others throats again, and
the whole concept of a unified Unix will go down the drain. It's
happened before. Remember the ACE initiative to produce a non-Intel
and non-Microsloth hardware platform?
Evan Leibovitch organized an attempt to get SCO and the Linux mob
together on binary distribution standards. Several meeting were held.
SCO was apparently not interested in contributing and the Linux mob
was no more cooperative. It collapsed.
>Now, there is an obvious growing sentiment against anything Microsoft not
>just because it represents monopoly, but because its applications and OS are
>so FAT (excuse the pun). Not to mention the Office 2000 product costs.
>SCO takes some of the brunt because it costs money and does not offer
>competing applications.
The lack of productivity applications is a serious problem. However,
may I point out that the market share of non-Microsloth office
productivity applications is also shrinking. The closest
approximation of a potential rival is Lotus/IBM Notes which
conveniently doesn't currently run on SCO product. The only place I
can shoe horn WordPerfect is in the legal profession, and they appear
to be buying it out of habit, and not for any intrinsic features.
>Now comes Linux, our supposed saviour.
The basic principle of business is that marketting tries to confuse
the customer, while sales tries to convince the customer that their
product will eliminate the confusion and solve the problem (created by
marketting). Meanwhile, Linux tries to save the computing world from
the evils of commercial software. Somehow, I don't feel saved.
>Well, we techies know that Joe is not going to find it simple to install ...
>yet.
Actually, most Linux's are easy to install. It's getting it
configured without destroying the system that's fun. I just finished
playing with SUSE 6.2 and Xfree86 something. Using all of the *FIVE*
X11 configuration weapons, I successfully destroyed the symlinks
between the various X11R6 directories and lost the svga server
somewhere in the mess. 45 minutes to install, 10 minutes to destroy.
Then, we have the Linux IDE driver that installs in the most basic
mode. Most users don't know about the hdparm command to turn on UDMA
and 32 bit xfers, and therefore run their servers at about 1/3 the
disk speed. (I didn't know about this either and couldn't find it in
any of the books).
Once again, an OS is only as reliable as the service organization.
>Regardless, what is important is that it voices the computer communities'
>need for
>better, faster, cheaper, smaller.
>Stability, in a small boot, low cost, tight coded OS with Applications.
The entire SCO Forum 99 was infested with bigger, better, and more
reliable. Non-stop computing and mainframis like features were
epidemic. Almost the entire Compaq boothe was built around clustering
and NSC related products. UniSys dragged in an impressive mockup of
some gigantic refridgerator size raised floor monster server that
would actually run multiple concurrent operating systems. There may
be voices out there demanding better, faster, cheaper or smaller, but
SCO is listening to bigger, faster, better, uptime, and reliability.
Different voices, different market.
>So I think we've reached a turning point.
>Yes, stability is very important, however we want an intuitive and logical
>OS with apps that cost reasonable and run well.
>Microsoft is not stable and inflated, yet offers the pizaz.
>SCO is not pizaz yet offers stability.
Microsoft has successfully proven that mediocrity can sell and sell
well. I've interrogated my customers about upgrades (a major source
of my income) and found that most of them upgrade not for new features
or services, but in the vain hope that some of the instabilty and bugs
for which MS products are famous will magically evaporate. Hope
springs eternal.
>Linux is offering both and is free. (yes I know some will disagree here)
I disagree.
Microsoft: What do you want to reinstall today?
Linux: What kernel patch or upgrade do you want to install today?
SCO: Where's my update?
Big deal. They all cost the customer downtime, service labour, and
headaches. Most of my customers don't want to see me in a
professional capacity. They just wannit to work out of the box.
Several large companies are getting a clue and doing it the right
way(tm). I call it "single application servers". These are a room
full of small servers that contain a single major application. No
giant mainframis like monster that contains all one's eggs in one
basket, but a pile of small, independent, and somewhat autonomous
servers. There are many reliabilty advantages to this, but the big
one is reduced downtime even with the alleged added complexity. A
large company may have a few dozen major applications running. With
the average rate of updates at about 3 month intervals, the mainframis
like server may be going up and down far too often for comfort. One
opps may take down the whole company instead of just one application.
Therefore, by distributing the potential points of failure among a
pile of small servers, instead of one big one, the overall reliability
is improved. Yeah, it's a bitch to adminster, but it's better than
having some screwball program take down the whole company.
>The verdict has it. Even if Linux has some short comeings its pointed in the
>right direction.
Who appointed you judge and jury? For that matter, in what DIRECTION
is Linux headed?
>Reliabilty with a Cosmetic skin that makes it FUN to use computers, not
>frustrating, timely and expensive!
Naw. If it were easy, it would be no fun. Whatcha going to do about
"standardizing" speech input when it finally works well enough to
understand the average member of the GUM (great unwashed masses)?
Brian K. White
> Microsoft became enormously popular because their products are easy to
> steal. MS knows the big dirty secret of software adoption, you can
> give it away or make it easy to steal, but eventually they'll pay the
> price. MS doesn't give a damn about theft at the home user level. I
> don't even wanna think about all the stolen copies of MS Office parts
> and pieces that have been dragged home from work. However, that's not
> where the money is hidden. It's in the big corporate contracts.
> These guys have to be legal as they're worth the effort sueing. Want
> proof? Ever look at how the licensing works on NT4 server? Just pick
> a number, any number and type it in. You get warned that you may need
> to present valid EULA's if busted, but until some digruntled employee
> turns you in, you're just fine. However, SCO requires an ordeal
> process, implimented with a rotten license manager that can't even
> display the license consumption. Let's face reality. Most of the
> early adopters are software pirates.
I've long felt pretty certain that this explained AutoCAD.
Synopsis (you don't have to be a drafter to appreciate this scenario):
untill recently AutoCAD was a thousands of dollars per workstation hunk
of code.
there were are at least a few other products that are more or les
equivalent in price and performance (including usability)
the others all had/have some kind of hardware parallel port dongle or
other method of garunteeing strict licence adherance.
Officially, AutoCAD has jus as restrictive a licencing model, however
the install didsks can be copied and installed and run anywhere, also
the installed app can be moved and copied anywhere and it doen't
complain. not even a token difficulty in copying.
all other competeing products *together* probably don't amount to a
small fraction of AutoCAD's actual sold licences, *forget* the actual
install base which must be double the licence count.
If you can copy it and run it at home, you get real good with it, then
at work you are productive with one package and not with another.
Upstairs goes to hire drafters, gee everyone lists AutoCAD proficiency,
no one lists CadKey hrmmm guess if we want to actually get any drawings
done we better get a case of AutoCAD and get to work.
Gumby
I'm learning more variant names like Microsloth and Windoz than ever before.
I didn't think of it, but your absolutely right...Microsoft is probably
popular in big part because it is easy to steal.
Another good point is that it does not matter what OS; support matters.
Yet it does have to be supportable; if techies are given the choice, they
are going to take the path of least resistance.
Whether that is SCO, Linux, Microsoft...that is another debate which you say
stalemated.
I agree that many small independent servers are key to reliability.
Didn't know about the 32 bit disk access tip in Linux ... I'm checking into
that.
Finally, Judge and Jury? In my own mind; what it sounds like in your post,
(I say this respectfully), is that your judge and jury are hung.
We are going to continue to have problems with standardization,
bastardization, & installation in the population.
Can't disagree there; yet one can hope for better. As you said, "Hope
springs eternal".
So where do we go from here?
Well, I for one will continue to prod SCO. (what good a little voice like
mine will do)
But you get a swarm of mosquitoes together and they can be far more
affective than one big horse fly.
I will watch and learn Linux.
As a consultant, that is my job to know and understand all that is
computers.
Ironically, I'm going to make money off the chaos; so its not so bad after
all.
And in the mean time, I'll dream of that perfect computer place where
everything seamlessly fits together, boots up in 2 seconds, runs like the
wind, and never comes up with blue screens.
-Gumby
Reply to message by: Jeff Leiberman, Sent 9/5/99 1:51AM, comp.unix.sco.misc
Re: SCO in Trouble?
Gumby
I checked my setup on Red Hat 6.0 with "hdparm /dev/hda5"
32 bit DMA is enabled.
John Ryan
> Well John certainly has a fitting name.
> "Up John", "Johnny on the spot" just to name a few.
>
> Look buddy,
> If you can't have a civilized debate then shut up.
I can see what you mean by civilized. Have a look at the definition of the
word "hypocrite".
> The hate in your post just bordered on "Manifesto".
And while you're at it, look up "manifesto", hate appears nowhere in the
definition, nor was it present in my post.
> But of course your rebut will teach me as you throw what you think are
> intelligent words.
Obviously I've touched a nerve, that was not my intention, but if the shoe
fits....
>
> You missed the point all together, blinded by your obvious ego.
> Your heads so far up your Hooper, I don't think you'll ever get it.
> If you can't understand that this is a debate to open our minds to better
> computer standards, then please swing over to alt.Spam. Your response
will
> at least get more respect there.
>
> -Gumby
>
If the point of the thread is to "open our minds to better computer
standards", then given your opening post:
----- Original Message -----
From: Gumby <greensl...@yahoo.com>
Newsgroups: comp.unix.sco.misc
Sent: August 31, 1999 2:48 PM
Subject: Re: SCO in Trouble?
> Well I have done the Linux install.
> It is...IMPRESSIVE!
> Good Bye SCO!
>
> As for High End market that SCO seeks.
> Linux already has a 64 bit version available on Dec Alphas.
> Good Bye SCO!
>
> As for Support.
> Excellent Newsgroup support. All questions answered same day and without
> ego!
> Free email support same day!
> Support contracts for $99 100 days
> Good Bye SCO!
>
> Linux is growing exponentially as I speak!
> Installed WordPerfect. Perfect!
> DHCP client. Perfect!
> Squid proxy. Perfect!
> Fax Server. Perfect!
> Email and Http. Perfect!
> Samba Server & Client. Perfect!
> 3 manuals on line CD. Perfect!
> KDE. WOW! (makes Windows look bad)
> I could go on and on.
>
> Linux is unbelievable!
> Good Bye SCO!
>
> SCO Stock SCOS: $9
> Linux Stock RHAT: $75
> Hmmm....
Please tell me which iteration of "Good Bye SCO!" was intended to raise the
bar. I'm the first to seek improvement in the OS, and to enjoy reasonable
debate on the subject, but after having read post after post taking endless,
puerile shots at SCO, I felt I was justified in speaking up. If my post
offended anyone, my apologies, it was not my intention. IMHO the place for
the above is not the SCO support group, and the only purpose it serves is to
cast the trolling bait.
Jeff Liebermann
<greenslabofclay-...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>Nawhhh.
>I checked my setup on Red Hat 6.0 with "hdparm /dev/hda5"
>32 bit DMA is enabled.
>
Examples are for first hard drive.
Test with:
hdparm -tT /dev/hda (tests speed of /dev/hda)
hdparm -v /dev/hda (reads current settings)
hdparm -I /dev/hda (get drive info)
Try:
hdparm -c1 /dev/hda (enable 32 bit transfer)
hdparm -d1 /dev/hda (enables DMA)
Note: Don't enable DMA before 32bit xfer. I tried it just for fun
and locked up the IDE drive so badly that it had to get powered off
for about 15 minutes to recover. Weird.
hdparm -X66 /dev/hda (enable UDMA 66Mhz support)
Don't try UDMA 2/66 if you don't have a UDMA 66 supported drive and
motherboard. I just had to try it and repeated my previous fiasco.
So much for learn by destroying.
Using RedHat 6.0 (kenel 2.2.6), my performance went from 2.0Mbits/sec
with everything off to 12Mbits/sec with 32bit xfer and DMA on.
100% of all the systems that I've worked on were installed with just
about everything turned off and running at about 3-4Mbits/sec.
Jeff Liebermann
<greenslabofclay-...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>Excellent post.
I aim to please or at least to entertain.
>I didn't think of it, but your absolutely right...Microsoft is probably
>popular in big part because it is easy to steal.
Yep. Serial numbers that can be generated by merely summing all the
digits so that they're divisible by 7. Or the famous all 1's.
Sheesh. MS can't make it any easier. The new and improved scheme is
difficult, but anyone with any access to a bundled package and just
write down the serial number and it will work.
The funny thing is that if MS, SCO or anyone else offered 30 day
demos, or crippleware, nobody would want it. However, give the same
customer the opertunity to steal it, and they'll grab it and run. A
few upgrades later, they realize that their entire business is running
on stolen software and that they're in an exposed position. So, they
go legit and buy the product. Methinks the drug dealers called them
"reefers".
Oh yeah, then there are the computer geeks and consultants running
their business on NFR (not-for-resale) software from MS. I seem to
recall that it was $245 for a huge box of software and docs. Quite a
deal.
>Another good point is that it does not matter what OS; support matters.
Choke, cough, sputter, belch! What? Nobody wants support. People
call support in desperation and only as a last resort. It's a painful
experience at best and a waste of time in many cases. Sometimes,
methinks it would be better to move all the support department experts
into product development and just have them improve the product
sufficiently so that it doesn't need any support, it just works.
Wishful thinking? Probably. Like I judge the quality of an
automobile by the service department that it tends to spend its life
getting repaired. I don't care if the service department is wonderful
or sucks, the car should not need such service, and neither should
mature products.
>Yet it does have to be supportable; if techies are given the choice, they
>are going to take the path of least resistance.
Huh? I are a techy type and I always choose the path of maximum
profitability. Unix needs support because it's exessively complex and
difficult. NT needs support because it's a pile of garbage that tends
to self destruct.
>I agree that many small independent servers are key to reliability.
Thanks. Now tell that to SCO. Fortunately, Compaq has a clue and
came up with a small business version of a two server cluster. I
forgot to inscribe the price but I vaguely recall that it was
reasonable. Methinks the 24x7 will eventually be a big thing even in
small biz and that such configurations will be common. Perhaps in 3
years or so.
>Finally, Judge and Jury? In my own mind; what it sounds like in your post,
>(I say this respectfully), is that your judge and jury are hung.
>We are going to continue to have problems with standardization,
>bastardization, & installation in the population.
>Can't disagree there; yet one can hope for better. As you said, "Hope
>springs eternal".
One of my other personalities is the unofficial SCO "voice of doom".
This is a necessary function as certain individuals within SCO start
to worry if nobody predicts the impending demise of SCO or Unix. It
seems that every time the doom sayers predict disaster, sales go up,
the stock creeps up, and things start to look better.
>So where do we go from here?
>Well, I for one will continue to prod SCO. (what good a little voice like
>mine will do)
>But you get a swarm of mosquitoes together and they can be far more
>affective than one big horse fly.
It's scarey but you're right. This seems to be a rather recent
phenomenon. Either SCO has bugged my phone, or they are starting to
do things the way I want. My Forum 98 wish list of non-negotiable
demands have been largely met. I wanted a small footprint Unix and
got it in the "small system" 80MByte UW7 install. There are others.
It feels kinda odd or perhaps unusual when SCO actually listens to me.
>Ironically, I'm going to make money off the chaos; so its not so bad after
>all.
The company motto is:
"If this stuff worked, you wouldn't need me"
It's on all my business stationary. Nobody has ever complained.
>And in the mean time, I'll dream of that perfect computer place where
>everything seamlessly fits together, boots up in 2 seconds, runs like the
>wind, and never comes up with blue screens.
Naw, reality doesn't work that way. More realistically, it's the
usual:
Fast, Cheap, Reliable. Pick Two.
My crystal ball shows that the industry is growing fast enough to make
room for specialty computers. In short, I'm predicting the demise of
general purpose computers, which will be replaced by special purpose
boxes that have been optimized for their intended place. For example,
a dedicated Oracle server, a dedicated email hub, a dedicated proxy
plus cache machine, etc. Soon, there will be specialized hardware
making such balkanization of functionality more economical and
appealing. Already, there are dedicated router/firewalls built around
what was formerly a general purpose machine.
SCO is sitting on the golden goose and can't figure out how to sell
it. The NC Toolkit, formerly the Point-o-Sale Toolkit, is a great way
to create such specialized machinery. However, instead of optimized
machines, it's being used to build electonic cash registers and thin
client terminals. What a waste.
- Cesar -
with all your written sparring...I think you should say sorry
to "Gumby", ...I think you hurt his feelings (...ahem!)
Boy, talk about someone who can dish out his idealogy with ease but
can't handle it (and blows his cool) when someone dishes it back to him!
Gumby ...grow up! If you can't debate without having to give a low
blows like insulting John's name, just shut up yourself and come back
when you're more mature.
And one final question... why does anybody that disagrees with you
always happen to have an "EGO"?
Cesar
In article <IRoA3.1188$G6.1...@news0.telusplanet.net>,
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
Gumby
Look at Jeff's posts.
Intelligent, insightful, witty & without ego.
Truly informative and a pleasure to read.
I challenge you to do the same...please.
I changed the tempo...do the same if you can.
-Gumby
John Ryan <sco...@idirect.ca> wrote in message
news:cJEA3.8244$m7.8...@quark.idirect.com...
>
> Gumby <greenslabofclay-...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:IRoA3.1188$G6.1...@news0.telusplanet.net...
> > Well John certainly has a fitting name.
> > "Up John", "Johnny on the spot" just to name a few.
> >
> > Look buddy,
> > If you can't have a civilized debate then shut up.
>
> I can see what you mean by civilized. Have a look at the definition of the
> word "hypocrite".
>
> > The hate in your post just bordered on "Manifesto".
>
> And while you're at it, look up "manifesto", hate appears nowhere in the
> definition, nor was it present in my post.
>
> > But of course your rebut will teach me as you throw what you think are
> > intelligent words.
>
> Obviously I've touched a nerve, that was not my intention, but if the
shoe
> fits....
>
> >
> > You missed the point all together, blinded by your obvious ego.
> > Your heads so far up your Hooper, I don't think you'll ever get it.
> > If you can't understand that this is a debate to open our minds to
better
> > computer standards, then please swing over to alt.Spam. Your response
> will
> > at least get more respect there.
> >
> > -Gumby
> >
>
> If the point of the thread is to "open our minds to better computer
> standards", then given your opening post:
>
>
Gumby
me with words bullshit".
Now common Cesar...can you come up with something useful here or do you just
look for weakness and prey.
People like that just drive me nuts.
Take some of your own advice, use your perception to bring out the essence
of the debate.
Focus on the issue; Not my immaturity at lashing into John.
-Gumby
- Cesar - <ce...@voyager.co.nz> wrote in message
news:7qv886$qt6$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
Gumby
My Red Hat 6.0 (2.2.9-19mdk) had 32 bit and DMA enabled.
Thanks for the UDMA 66 info.
Many people still don't know that to use it you need:
1. ATA UDMA66 supported drive
2. Motherboard support, (BIOS and Physical modifications, resistor used)
3. Proper ATA cable (80 pin for crosstalk shield)
4. and finally, DRIVERS.
I can't believe LINUX already has drivers!
Man that really impresses me.
Tip: I heard that using the ATA cable with your old drives can boost
performance.
-Gumby
Jeff Liebermann <je...@comix.santa-cruz.ca.us> wrote in message
news:KRfTNyhrzXtMkv...@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 05 Sep 1999 20:38:34 GMT, "Gumby"
> <greenslabofclay-...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >Nawhhh.
> >I checked my setup on Red Hat 6.0 with "hdparm /dev/hda5"
> >32 bit DMA is enabled.
> >
>
> Examples are for first hard drive.
>
> Test with:
> hdparm -tT /dev/hda (tests speed of /dev/hda)
> hdparm -v /dev/hda (reads current settings)
> hdparm -I /dev/hda (get drive info)
> Try:
> hdparm -c1 /dev/hda (enable 32 bit transfer)
> hdparm -d1 /dev/hda (enables DMA)
> Note: Don't enable DMA before 32bit xfer. I tried it just for fun
> and locked up the IDE drive so badly that it had to get powered off
> for about 15 minutes to recover. Weird.
>
> hdparm -X66 /dev/hda (enable UDMA 66Mhz support)
> Don't try UDMA 2/66 if you don't have a UDMA 66 supported drive and
> motherboard. I just had to try it and repeated my previous fiasco.
> So much for learn by destroying.
>
> Using RedHat 6.0 (kenel 2.2.6), my performance went from 2.0Mbits/sec
> with everything off to 12Mbits/sec with 32bit xfer and DMA on.
>
> 100% of all the systems that I've worked on were installed with just
> about everything turned off and running at about 3-4Mbits/sec.
>
>
Gumby
> digits so that they're divisible by 7. Or the famous all 1's.
> Sheesh. MS can't make it any easier.
The new serial numbers past Office 97 do not allow this anymore.
Could be wrong.
> The funny thing is that if MS, SCO or anyone else offered 30 day
> demos, or crippleware, nobody would want it. However, give the same
> customer the opertunity to steal it, and they'll grab it and run. A
> few upgrades later, they realize that their entire business is running
> on stolen software and that they're in an exposed position. So, they
> go legit and buy the product. Methinks the drug dealers called them
> "reefers".
Now thats funny! :-)))
> Oh yeah, then there are the computer geeks and consultants running
> their business on NFR (not-for-resale) software from MS. I seem to
> recall that it was $245 for a huge box of software and docs. Quite a
> deal.
I stay away from that myself, yet I know it goes on all over.
> >Another good point is that it does not matter what OS; support matters.
>
> Choke, cough, sputter, belch! What? Nobody wants support. People
> call support in desperation and only as a last resort. It's a painful
> experience at best and a waste of time in many cases.
True...I had to raise my working rate because I was getting good at support.
Can't make money when your systems are running 247 and you fix problems in 5
min.
> >Yet it does have to be supportable; if techies are given the choice, they
> >are going to take the path of least resistance.
>
> Huh? I are a techy type and I always choose the path of maximum
> profitability
Naw...I like my systems running perfectly.
It leaves me time to grow and move into other things.
I hate wasting my time on broken or breaking shit.
> >I agree that many small independent servers are key to reliability.
>
> Thanks. Now tell that to SCO. Fortunately, Compaq has a clue and
> came up with a small business version of a two server cluster. I
> forgot to inscribe the price but I vaguely recall that it was
> reasonable. Methinks the 24x7 will eventually be a big thing even in
> small biz and that such configurations will be common. Perhaps in 3
> years or so.
I'll be keeping my eye on that one.
Compaq gives me bad breath though.
> One of my other personalities is the unofficial SCO "voice of doom".
> This is a necessary function as certain individuals within SCO start
> to worry if nobody predicts the impending demise of SCO or Unix. It
> seems that every time the doom sayers predict disaster, sales go up,
> the stock creeps up, and things start to look better.
Ya I like to doom it up to get the debates going, but then you get guys who
just loose site of the issues.
(Right John? :->>)
> It's scarey but you're right. This seems to be a rather recent
> phenomenon. Either SCO has bugged my phone, or they are starting to
> do things the way I want. My Forum 98 wish list of non-negotiable
> demands have been largely met. I wanted a small footprint Unix and
> got it in the "small system" 80MByte UW7 install. There are others.
> It feels kinda odd or perhaps unusual when SCO actually listens to me.
Thats the big thing. As long as they are listening and acting.
The product will get better, I'll be happier and so will my clients.
> >And in the mean time, I'll dream of that perfect computer place where
> >everything seamlessly fits together, boots up in 2 seconds, runs like the
> >wind, and never comes up with blue screens.
>
> Naw, reality doesn't work that way. More realistically, it's the
> usual:
> Fast, Cheap, Reliable. Pick Two.
Thats funny, I heard that in another saying where you pick Price, Quality,
Support.
> My crystal ball shows that the industry is growing fast enough to make
> room for specialty computers. In short, I'm predicting the demise of
> general purpose computers, which will be replaced by special purpose
> boxes that have been optimized for their intended place. For example,
> a dedicated Oracle server, a dedicated email hub, a dedicated proxy
> plus cache machine, etc. Soon, there will be specialized hardware
> making such balkanization of functionality more economical and
> appealing. Already, there are dedicated router/firewalls built around
> what was formerly a general purpose machine.
Totally agree.
With Linux, maybe some of those old workstations will find retirment in
other tasks.
> SCO is sitting on the golden goose and can't figure out how to sell
> it. The NC Toolkit, formerly the Point-o-Sale Toolkit, is a great way
> to create such specialized machinery. However, instead of optimized
> machines, it's being used to build electonic cash registers and thin
> client terminals. What a waste
Haven't heard of that one.
Is that on their Web site anywhere?
-Gumby
Jeff Liebermann
<greenslabofclay-...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> SCO is sitting on the golden goose and can't figure out how to sell
>> it. The NC Toolkit, formerly the Point-o-Sale Toolkit, is a great way
>> to create such specialized machinery. However, instead of optimized
>> machines, it's being used to build electonic cash registers and thin
>> client terminals. What a waste
>
>Haven't heard of that one.
>Is that on their Web site anywhere?
Network Computer
http://www.sco.com/nc
I don't think it's been touched since late 1997. All the links under
"news" are broken.
The product is similar to the various small footprint Linux
incantations and consists of development tools suitable for building
an NC operating system that boots into a shell, browser, or X11
server.
The NC demo that was passed out at Formum 98 is at:
http://www.cruzio.com/~jeffl/sco/nc_demo
It's a 1.44MB "dd" image. Use RAWRITE.EXE or dd to create a boot
floppy. It should run on anything with greater than 8MB of ram. No
hard disk required. The demo includes tar so that you can add stuff.
However, no networking.
For an example of NC's using the toolkit, see:
http://www.sherwoodterm.com
Gumby
I tried to get my last client on this type of concept.
I wanted to use windows terminals. Citirx and NT or Tarantella.
Trouble was that the price of the workstations was so low that it was better
price than the windows terminals. Hard Drives are very cheap, and software
is usually bundled.
Also, they liked the idea that if the server went down the secretaries could
still type letters.
I tried to explain redundancy and lower cost of ownership to no avail.
I would have loved it. These guys have a different backdrop, screen saver,
and theme each week!
You know the ones who set "tulips" as the pattern, and then you can't read
the icon labels on the desktop anymore? Clueless.
Booted the NC demo.
Impressive.
I'd have to see network running.
It would be neat to see how that runs on a 486.
It would also boot faster on a net card setup.
-Gumby
Jeff Liebermann <je...@comix.santa-cruz.ca.us> wrote in message
news:kuTTN2etNtDMIyL4=HipZv...@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 06 Sep 1999 10:02:35 GMT, "Gumby"
> <greenslabofclay-...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >> SCO is sitting on the golden goose and can't figure out how to sell
> >> it. The NC Toolkit, formerly the Point-o-Sale Toolkit, is a great way
> >> to create such specialized machinery. However, instead of optimized
> >> machines, it's being used to build electonic cash registers and thin
> >> client terminals. What a waste
> >
> >Haven't heard of that one.
> >Is that on their Web site anywhere?
>
> Network Computer
> http://www.sco.com/nc
> I don't think it's been touched since late 1997. All the links under
> "news" are broken.
>
> The product is similar to the various small footprint Linux
> incantations and consists of development tools suitable for building
> an NC operating system that boots into a shell, browser, or X11
> server.
>
> The NC demo that was passed out at Formum 98 is at:
> http://www.cruzio.com/~jeffl/sco/nc_demo
> It's a 1.44MB "dd" image. Use RAWRITE.EXE or dd to create a boot
> floppy. It should run on anything with greater than 8MB of ram. No
> hard disk required. The demo includes tar so that you can add stuff.
> However, no networking.
>
> For an example of NC's using the toolkit, see:
> http://www.sherwoodterm.com
>
>
>
Jeff Liebermann
<greenslabofclay-...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>The name threw me off.
Remember, the purpose of marketting is to confuse the client.
The purpose of sales is to offer solutions to the confusion.
>I tried to get my last client on this type of concept.
>I wanted to use windows terminals. Citirx and NT or Tarantella.
I've had a long history of horror stories trying to make this concept
work. Please note that the pricing for NT terminal server is
considerably higher than the equivalent number of fat NT client
runtimes.
A large number of my customers just need a cheap telnet and only
character based access. There are about 100 different "solutions" to
character based telnet. I eventually settled on MSDOS 6.22, Crywnr
packet drivers, and NCSA telnet (ancient version). It works very well
running on junk. The problem was that the just was starting to fail.
Instead of a fat client software maintenance problem, I had a hardware
meltdown problem. If it moved, it broke and broke often. Great idea
using "retired" hardware for workstations.
Wyse has a Linux based NC client that will boot to a shell, browser or
X11 server. See:
http://www.wyse.com/winterm/wint5000/
There was a room full of them at SCO Forum 99 running all manner of
applications dispensed by Tarentella or Wintop. I was impressed.
Methinks something like $650/ea street price for the basic box.
http://www.wyse.com/winterm/pricing.htm
>Trouble was that the price of the workstations was so low that it was better
>price than the windows terminals. Hard Drives are very cheap, and software
>is usually bundled.
Hard drives are cheap if you don't consider the cost of keeping them
"clean", backing them up, optimizing, lost files, etc. Even free,
they constitute a major maintenance problem. One of my customers has
a neat system. The drives and machines are largely identical. Only
one directory is unique to the machine called "save_this" or something
similar. That's the only part that gets backed up. When the drive
gets mashed, they swap drives, use PowerQuest DriveCopy to recreate
the drive, and restore the one directory.
>Also, they liked the idea that if the server went down the secretaries could
>still type letters.
One of my pastimes is to REMOVE services from unreliable NT servers.
At the same time, I tend to add services to various Unix boxes.
There's a moral here. With a reliable server, continuing work with
the server down would not be an issue. Actually, I have several
systems where dropping a server will bring the whole company to a
grinding halt. Perhaps the secretaries can still work, but order
processing, tracking, and shipping come to a grinding halt when the
SQL box goes down. Redundant mirrored servers (using rdist) seems to
be the only way until I get into cluttering (clustering).
>I tried to explain redundancy and lower cost of ownership to no avail.
Don't bother. Just wait until the NT server goes insane, the users
start screaming, and the bill for the crash recovery ordeal is
presented. No need to explain anything as it will be obvious. I've
sat in on far too many network "planning" meetings, where the grand
ideas, and impressive topologies are presented. If asked, I usually
attempt to calculate the opertunity costs of the feature and compare
it with the potential cost of a crash. However, nobody listens until
it goes down and everything stops. Then, they do a 180 degree
reversal and start talking about reliablity, uptime, and REMOVING
features. Just wait a while and you won't need to talk about cost of
ownership.
>I would have loved it. These guys have a different backdrop, screen saver,
>and theme each week!
>You know the ones who set "tulips" as the pattern, and then you can't read
>the icon labels on the desktop anymore? Clueless.
Let them have their fun. Personalizing a computer that tends to be
inherently cold and unfriendly is a defense mechanism that should not
be removed. If users want a weird interface, I don't have a problem
as long as I can return it to defaults when they get lost.
>Booted the NC demo.
>Impressive.
>I'd have to see network running.
>It would be neat to see how that runs on a 486.
>It would also boot faster on a net card setup.
I put it on a flash card and booted from it. Works considerably
faster. The demo booted in about 10-15 seconds on a 486DX4/100. It
works well enough on an old 486DX33 with 8MB but it's a tight fit in
the ram filesystem. I've seen it boot from the network and that's
even faster.
Gumby
> character based access. There are about 100 different "solutions" to
> character based telnet. I eventually settled on MSDOS 6.22, Crywnr
> packet drivers, and NCSA telnet (ancient version). It works very well
> running on junk. The problem was that the just was starting to fail.
> Instead of a fat client software maintenance problem, I had a hardware
> meltdown problem. If it moved, it broke and broke often. Great idea
> using "retired" hardware for workstations.
I'm suprised you didn't use kermit.
I had them on 486 telnet sessions with Word perfect. It even had a VGA
display of the document preview.
> Wyse has a Linux based NC client that will boot to a shell, browser or
> X11 server. See:
> http://www.wyse.com/winterm/wint5000/
> There was a room full of them at SCO Forum 99 running all manner of
> applications dispensed by Tarentella or Wintop. I was impressed.
> Methinks something like $650/ea street price for the basic box.
> http://www.wyse.com/winterm/pricing.htm
Ya I like Wyse, they have been around since MAI.
>When the drive gets mashed, they swap drives, use PowerQuest DriveCopy to
recreate
> the drive, and restore the one directory.
Ya I tried to explain the cost of ownership.
I just use "xcopy32 /h /e /r /c /k /s /y" to make drive copies.
>
> Don't bother. Just wait until the NT server goes insane, the users
> start screaming, and the bill for the crash recovery ordeal is
> presented. No need to explain anything as it will be obvious. I've
> sat in on far too many network "planning" meetings, where the grand
> ideas, and impressive topologies are presented. If asked, I usually
> attempt to calculate the opertunity costs of the feature and compare
> it with the potential cost of a crash. However, nobody listens until
> it goes down and everything stops. Then, they do a 180 degree
> reversal and start talking about reliablity, uptime, and REMOVING
> features. Just wait a while and you won't need to talk about cost of
> ownership.
Nahh, I pride myself on being the best to my clients.
That means NO problems.
Trouble is I'm having trouble making money with that logic.
>
> >I would have loved it. These guys have a different backdrop, screen
saver,
> >and theme each week!
> >You know the ones who set "tulips" as the pattern, and then you can't
read
> >the icon labels on the desktop anymore? Clueless.
>
> Let them have their fun. Personalizing a computer that tends to be
> inherently cold and unfriendly is a defense mechanism that should not
> be removed. If users want a weird interface, I don't have a problem
> as long as I can return it to defaults when they get lost.
I agree with you there.
I just ignore it, but it still bugs me.
> >Booted the NC demo.
> >Impressive.
> >I'd have to see network running.
> >It would be neat to see how that runs on a 486.
> >It would also boot faster on a net card setup.
>
> I put it on a flash card and booted from it. Works considerably
> faster. The demo booted in about 10-15 seconds on a 486DX4/100. It
> works well enough on an old 486DX33 with 8MB but it's a tight fit in
> the ram filesystem. I've seen it boot from the network and that's
> even faster.
Now that is cool!
How did you get the network links on the demo.
or do you have another version?
Warren Young
>
> I'm learning more variant names like Microsloth and Windoz than ever before.
My personal favorite is MICROS~1. ;->
> Another good point is that it does not matter what OS; support matters.
> Yet it does have to be supportable; if techies are given the choice, they
> are going to take the path of least resistance.
This isn't wholly correct. Many techies _like_ broken systems, because
they're fun to fix. It's consultants who often wan
> Well, I for one will continue to prod SCO. (what good a little voice like
> mine will do)
I personally hope Linux just gets better and better, prodding SCO to
improve their product. Until Linux, competition for SCO was pretty weak
in the "Unix on x86" market. I mean, really, who installs Solaris x86?
*BSD? Mere mosquitoes. Linux is the first force to really start
bothering SCO in a long time.
> And in the mean time, I'll dream of that perfect computer place where
> everything seamlessly fits together, boots up in 2 seconds, runs like the
> wind, and never comes up with blue screens.
That's fine with me -- we're in a vertical market, so we make money off
the apps we develop, not the OS we ship them on. We don't upgrade our
customers' OSes, unless there's some vital feature the newer version
buys us.
--
= Warren Young: www.cyberport.com/~tangent | Yesterday it worked.
= ICBM Address: 36.8274040N, 108.0204086W, | Today it is not working.
= alt. 1714m | Windows is like that.
Jeff Liebermann
wrote:
>I personally hope Linux just gets better and better, prodding SCO to
>improve their product. Until Linux, competition for SCO was pretty weak
>in the "Unix on x86" market. I mean, really, who installs Solaris x86?
>*BSD? Mere mosquitoes. Linux is the first force to really start
>bothering SCO in a long time.
Linux may be bothering SCO but it's NT that's grabbing the revenue
sales. Linux tends to take the low end systems and clients, but NT
server grabs the big systems with the larger number of seats. The
real problem is that most clients are running Windoze desktops. This
makes a Windoze server a real temptation even though a Unix server
will do as well and be much more stable. SCO Unix has to be better
than NT in order to make a server sale. All Linux has to be is
cheaper.
At this time, Red Hat could probably afford to buy SCO. No clue what
they're going to do with the approx $2 billion dollars raised in last
months IPO. As a clue:
http://biz.yahoo.com/p/r/rhat.html
http://biz.yahoo.com/p/s/scoc.html
Market Price/earnings Cash Sales
Capitalization Ratio in bank
RHAT $7.2 billion Astronomical $15 million $12 million
SCOC $334 million 25:1 $54 million $214 million
Gumby
> > I'm learning more variant names like Microsloth and Windoz than ever
before.
>
> My personal favorite is MICROS~1. ;->
That is hilari~1!
Tony Lawrence
> http://www.xos.nl/misc/sco.html
> I just read it all for the 3rd time and couldn't figure out the
> problem. There is no way that anyone from SCO can apparently even
> mention Linux without someone from the Linux advocacy camp going
> nuclear over distortions, misinformation, etc. While I don't agree
> with everything that SCO inscribed, I don't see any way to say
> ANYTHING about Linux without getting bashed. I guess anyone that
> makes money off of commercial Unix is evil this week.
unless you are a fawning sycophant of the One True Operating
System, there is nothing that CAN be said about Linux that
won't cause the morons who inhabit shlashdot to rise up in
anger.
Certainly there are bright, insightful people who both use
and write about Linux. However, the vocal majority is a
pack of ignorant asses, and it is that lack of intelligence
that makes me NOT want to be associated with Linux, in spite
of its obvious attractions: it's damn embarrassing to be
associated with the band of idiots who are its loudest
proponents.
To the minority bright folk who champion Linux- you know who
you are, and you know these comments don't apply to you. I
know from private email that it least some of you do feel
somewhat embarrassed by the jerks that my comments do apply
to. To the rest of the great unwashed Linux advocates- ah,
words fail me..
--
Tony Lawrence (to...@aplawrence.com)
SCO articles, help, book reviews, tests,
job listings and more : http://www.aplawrence.com
Jeff Liebermann
wrote:
>unless you are a fawning sycophant of the One True Operating
>System, there is nothing that CAN be said about Linux that
>won't cause the morons who inhabit shlashdot to rise up in
>anger.
The surest sign of success is pollution and Linux is certainly
successful. Some of SCO's statements are pure FUD (fear uncertainty
doubt) and have more emotional appeal than logic behind them. Fine,
welcome to the advertising business. However, in re-reading SCO's
comments on Linux, I tried to determine how I would re-write them so
that:
1. It would be a bit more trueful and less FUD.
2. It would not piss off the Linux community.
3. It would emphasize the superiority of some areas of SCO product
and services.
I couldn't do it. It did't matter how I tried to re-write it, I still
couldn't keep it objective, accurate and favourable to SCO. Perhaps a
better writer could do it, but I couldn't. SCO shouldn't have said
anything, but assuming there was some need to bash Linux, I don't know
how to say anything about Linux without drawing criticism.
So, what are the implications?
1. SCO will probably draw away from the Linux mob in self defense.
There goes any hope of joint ventures and interoperability.
2. The Linux cheerleaders will continue to bash SCO. SCO is an
easier target than Microsloth.
3. There are areas where SCO Unix is superior to Linux.
Unfortunately, SCO seems to be unaware of them.
Slashdot is not inhabited by raving lunatics advocating the overthrow
of commercial software. See:
http://slashdot.org/search.pl?query=sco
for the lastest collection of topics involving SCO. I just read all
125 comments on "SCO Talks about Linux". There were quite a few
defenders of SCO but nothing I would consider effective. Lots of "me
too" and "one line brilliance" type of comments with very little
insight. There was even a spelling flame. I don't know which is
worse, SCO FUD, or Linux advocacy. If anyone from sco.com had posted
a statement or explanation, I would have jumped into the fray on
slashdot. Nothing (yet).
I vaguely recall some of the parting words of Jack Tramiel, as he
folded Commodore; "The fanatics never did us any good" (or something
like that). I guess fanatics have their place, but why do they have
to act like fanatics?
Jeff Liebermann
Shwake) wrote:
> The amount raised was closer to $100 million than $2 Billion. The
>outrageous market cap is an artifact of the modest portion of shares made
>available to the public. Something like 90% is held by Red Hat insiders and
>outside investors (like Intel, Compaq, et.al. as well as the venture
>capitalists). Red Hat received $14 per share from those lucky enough to
>be qualified (not me, unfortunately) while those same shares flew through
>the $100 level today.
Ouch. A very bad guess on my part. It's about $88.5 million. I
didn't look at the numbers in detail. According to the SEC prospectus
filing at:
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1087423/0001047469-99-031070-index.html
We estimate the net proceeds to us from the sale of 6,000,000
shares of common stock in this offering to be approximately
$76,870,000 at the initial public offering price of $14.00 per
share and after deducting the underwriting discount and estimated
offering expenses. If the underwriters' over-allotment
option is exercised in full, we estimate net proceeds will be
$88,588,000.
Insiders ended up with 67.7% of the outstanding stock, most of it
being restricted shares which cannot be immediately unloaded. RedHat
could dump some of these shares to generate additional capital
(resulting in dillution), or borrow on the stock to generate
sufficient capital. It could be done, but not as easily as I thought
initially. The board is authorized to issue another 5 million shares
without stockholder approval.
Reading through the SEC filing, I find the section starting:
RISKS RELATED TO OUR LINUX-BASED OPEN SOURCE BUSINESS MODEL.
rather interesting. It's the usual disclaimers and potential
nightmares, but it does show how fragile the whole open source
business can be:
WE COULD BE PREVENTED FROM SELLING OR DEVELOPING OUR PRODUCTS IF
THE GNU GENERAL PUBLIC LICENSE AND SIMILAR LICENSES UNDER WHICH
OUR PRODUCTS ARE DEVELOPED AND LICENSED ARE NOT ENFORCEABLE.
WE ARE VULNERABLE TO CLAIMS THAT OUR PRODUCTS INFRINGE THIRD-PARTY
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS PARTICULARLY BECAUSE OUR PRODUCTS ARE
COMPRISED OF MANY DISTINCT SOFTWARE COMPONENTS DEVELOPED BY
THOUSANDS OF INDEPENDENT PARTIES.
The capital generated will be used for:
- fund our domestic and international expansion;
- enhance our REDHAT.COM web site;
- improve and extend our service offerings;
- make possible investments in businesses, products and technologies;
and
- expand our sales and marketing programs and conduct more aggressive
brand promotions.
Hmmm, item 4 suggest that RH may buy companies. SCO?
Some of the plans include:
EXPAND SERVICE CAPABILITIES TO ADDRESS THE ENTERPRISE NEEDS OF
LARGE CORPORATIONS
which sounds like RH is going after the same big fish that SCO is
currently targetting. This should be interesting.
Raymond N Shwake
>At this time, Red Hat could probably afford to buy SCO. No clue what
>they're going to do with the approx $2 billion dollars raised in last
>months IPO. As a clue:
>http://biz.yahoo.com/p/r/rhat.html
>http://biz.yahoo.com/p/s/scoc.html
> Market Price/earnings Cash Sales
> Capitalization Ratio in bank
>RHAT $7.2 billion Astronomical $15 million $12 million
>SCOC $334 million 25:1 $54 million $214 million
The amount raised was closer to $100 million than $2 Billion. The
Gumby
two 1541 drives with Shadow improvements.
Now I look at my watch and think...My commodore 64 had less memory.
How about the ol reset switch.
or Putting the on/off switch to the front of the 1541 drive.
300 baud modems.... ahhhh
I could even go back to the PET, but that would be giving away my age.
I digress
-Gumby
Jeff Liebermann <je...@comix.santa-cruz.ca.us> wrote in message
news:H4PWN4N1pImRn4...@4ax.com...
Bill Vermillion
Warren Young <tan...@mail.com> wrote:
>Gumby wrote:
>> I'm learning more variant names like Microsloth and Windoz than
>> ever before.
>My personal favorite is MICROS~1. ;->
>> Another good point is that it does not matter what OS; support
>> matters. Yet it does have to be supportable; if techies are given
>> the choice, they are going to take the path of least resistance.
>This isn't wholly correct. Many techies _like_ broken systems, because
>they're fun to fix. It's consultants who often wan
>I personally hope Linux just gets better and better, prodding
>SCO to improve their product. Until Linux, competition for SCO
>was pretty weak in the "Unix on x86" market. I mean, really, who
>installs Solaris x86? *BSD? Mere mosquitoes.
BSD a mosquito? The worlds largest ftp site, www.cdrom.com, uses
it exclusively. The limits are 6000 simultanous anonymous ftp
users at one time. Running on a PII-450 as I recall. 1GB RAM
and about 1/2TB file system.
They set a record of 1.3Terabytes downloaded in one day.
If THAT is a mosquito, I had to envinsion what an elephant would
look like in comparison :-)
--
Bill Vermillion bv @ wjv.com
Bill Vermillion
Jeff Liebermann <je...@comix.santa-cruz.ca.us> wrote:
>On Wed, 8 Sep 1999 14:11:48 GMT, Tony Lawrence <to...@aplawrence.com>
>wrote:
>>unless you are a fawning sycophant of the One True Operating
>>System, there is nothing that CAN be said about Linux that
>>won't cause the morons who inhabit shlashdot to rise up in
>>anger.
>The surest sign of success is pollution and Linux is certainly
>successful. Some of SCO's statements are pure FUD (fear uncertainty
>doubt) and have more emotional appeal than logic behind them. Fine,
>welcome to the advertising business. However, in re-reading SCO's
>comments on Linux, I tried to determine how I would re-write them so
>that:
>1. It would be a bit more trueful and less FUD.
>2. It would not piss off the Linux community.
Well SCO still raised a lot of ire a year or so ago when they sent
out SCO mailers to a large number of people who were on Linux
related USPS mailling lists.
It's the old once-burned twice shy paradigm.
>I couldn't do it. It did't matter how I tried to re-write it, I still
>couldn't keep it objective, accurate and favourable to SCO. Perhaps a
>better writer could do it, but I couldn't. SCO shouldn't have said
>anything, but assuming there was some need to bash Linux, I don't know
>how to say anything about Linux without drawing criticism.
Effective marketing never bashes things - it just points out
why the proffered solution is superior to others, without naming
names. The insluting/denigrating methods used by talk show
hosts often fail quite miserably in a commercial marketplace.
>Slashdot is not inhabited by raving lunatics advocating the overthrow
>of commercial software. See:
That's a much milder term than Tony used to describe them :-)
>I don't know which is worse, SCO FUD, or Linux advocacy.
>I vaguely recall some of the parting words of Jack Tramiel, as he
>folded Commodore; "The fanatics never did us any good" (or something
>like that). I guess fanatics have their place, but why do they have
>to act like fanatics?
Wasn't that part of shifting the blame. A good line though.
Another classic line is George Morrow's "never trust a programmer
with a screwdriver".
Jeff Liebermann
Vermillion) wrote:
>Effective marketing never bashes things - it just points out
>why the proffered solution is superior to others, without naming
>names. The insluting/denigrating methods used by talk show
>hosts often fail quite miserably in a commercial marketplace.
Methinks you've been reading some text books from before the 1980's.
That was the generally accepted method prior to about 1985. The line:
"Our product is 100% better..."
was epidemic. The problem was that it raised the obvious question:
"Better than what"?
which eventually the "truth in advertising" advocates were forced to
answer. The only way was by mentioning or showing the competitors
products. To avoid outright criticism of the competitors product, the
adverts were usually humorous or at least entertaining. This is
called formula advertising and has nothing to do with marketting a
product. I've had nightmares with some wall to wall smile person
waving a box of SCO Unix and announcing "Twice the uptime, features,
and support. More power full than the leading competitor..." as if it
were soap.
I don't see any way of expounding on the superiority of SCO Unix
without mentioning the competition. One could be vague and refer to
it as "the leading throw away contender", but the references would be
obvious to anyone with a clue. Might as well be specific.
>>Slashdot is not inhabited by raving lunatics advocating the overthrow
>>of commercial software. See:
>That's a much milder term than Tony used to describe them :-)
I'm practicing my diplomacy. In reading the threads on slashdot, I
ran accross the usual rumors such as MicroSloth owns SCO. There was
also a very nice article on how someone ran accross the SCO table at
last months LinuxWorld. Just one problem, there was no SCO table.
Since when did Slashdot start intentionally stalling the page redraw
for exactly 8 seconds so that all I see is the stupid flash ads? This
sucks sufficiently to make me not want to go back.
>Wasn't that part of shifting the blame. A good line though.
That's what I thought at the time. I figured he had a bad attitude
about the collapse and was looking for someone to blame. I'm not so
sure any more. My guess is that he expected more from the Commadore
fanatics and was disappointed when they didn't buy into the concept of
using a game machine for business and paying business machine level
prices.
We may soon have a variation of this in the Linux community.
Eventually, the Linux distributors and vendors will need to make
money. However, the user community seems to preceed every feature and
function with the word free. The Red Hat stock prospectus talks about
beefing up the "services" part of the business. Let's see if the
fanatics are still loyal after being presented with the invoice.
Corel is pushing the concept of renting software. We'll see how that
plays.
Tom Parsons
| In article <H4PWN4N1pImRn4...@4ax.com>,
| Jeff Liebermann <je...@comix.santa-cruz.ca.us> wrote:
| >On Wed, 8 Sep 1999 14:11:48 GMT, Tony Lawrence <to...@aplawrence.com>
| >wrote:
|
| >>unless you are a fawning sycophant of the One True Operating
| >>System, there is nothing that CAN be said about Linux that
| >>won't cause the morons who inhabit shlashdot to rise up in
| >>anger.
|
| >The surest sign of success is pollution and Linux is certainly
| >successful. Some of SCO's statements are pure FUD (fear uncertainty
| >doubt) and have more emotional appeal than logic behind them. Fine,
| >welcome to the advertising business. However, in re-reading SCO's
| >comments on Linux, I tried to determine how I would re-write them so
| >that:
| >1. It would be a bit more trueful and less FUD.
| >2. It would not piss off the Linux community.
|
| Well SCO still raised a lot of ire a year or so ago when they sent
| out SCO mailers to a large number of people who were on Linux
| related USPS mailling lists.
Once more in the "keeping the record straight" vein.
SCO did >not< send out that mailer, it came from SCO Service-Sales,
an independent contractor working for SCO. Although the mailer didn't
come from SCO, SCO responded in the "old fashioned" way and issued an
apology.
--
==========================================================================
Tom Parsons t...@tegan.com Sysop, SCOForum-CompuServe
==========================================================================
Gumby
Gee...lets use that every time shall we!
Kinda like wearing a condom for protection.
SCO didn't fuck ya, it was the rubber baby! yaaa!
-Gumby
Tom Parsons <c...@tegan.com> wrote in message
news:1999090919...@tegan.com...
Tony Lawrence
> Once more in the "keeping the record straight" vein.
>
> SCO did >not< send out that mailer, it came from SCO Service-Sales,
> an independent contractor working for SCO.
Any intelligent person might ask why an independent
contractor has authority to send out mailings that have not
been blessed by the corporation whose intererests are being
(mis)represented.
Bill Vermillion
Jeff Liebermann <je...@comix.santa-cruz.ca.us> wrote:
>On Thu, 9 Sep 1999 15:21:58 GMT, bi...@wjv.com.REMOVEME (Bill
>Vermillion) wrote:
>>Effective marketing never bashes things - it just points out
>>why the proffered solution is superior to others, without naming
>>names. The insluting/denigrating methods used by talk show
>>hosts often fail quite miserably in a commercial marketplace.
>Methinks you've been reading some text books from before the 1980's.
Actually I stopped writing advertising copy in the late 1970s.
>That was the generally accepted method prior to about 1985. The line:
> "Our product is 100% better..."
>was epidemic. The problem was that it raised the obvious question:
> "Better than what"?
There are times you might want to show comarisons. but if you
say we are better than YYY - you have to know what the customer is
doing - because in that instance YYY may be the better solution.
>which eventually the "truth in advertising" advocates were
>forced to answer. The only way was by mentioning or showing the
>competitors products.
I've become spoiled recently by the salemen I've talked with.
These are real engineers who are selling equipment. They know the
firmware down to the byte level, and often have different insights.
This is definatly not a PC marketplace and no matter what the ads
say about how YYY is superior it's easy to find out how true it is.
> I've had nightmares with some wall to wall smile person waving a
>box of SCO Unix and announcing "Twice the uptime, features, and
>support. More power full than the leading competitor..." as if it
>were soap.
Won't sell a thing will it.
>I don't see any way of expounding on the superiority of SCO Unix
>without mentioning the competition. One could be vague and refer to
>it as "the leading throw away contender", but the references would be
>obvious to anyone with a clue. Might as well be specific.
The problem with comparisons is that if you only compare what you
do that is better than the competition, and then they look at
the competitions offering they might find that the features they
need are better met by the competition.
I don't think we've had a one OS fits all since CPM 1.4 :-)
(re Trameil and Commodore)
>>Wasn't that part of shifting the blame. A good line though.
>That's what I thought at the time. I figured he had a bad attitude
>about the collapse and was looking for someone to blame. I'm not so
>sure any more. My guess is that he expected more from the Commadore
>fanatics and was disappointed when they didn't buy into the concept of
>using a game machine for business and paying business machine level
>prices.
Maybe you were biases because of your knowledge of the sewing
machine industry. (private inside joke). (that was where Trameil
first made it big, was it not?).
I believe the next stop was Amiga. Gateway - the new owners
are supposed to debut the new Amiga after the first of the year,
but the CEO quit about two weeks ago. At least no-one
is reviving the ZX-80 from Sinclair.
>We may soon have a variation of this in the Linux community.
>Eventually, the Linux distributors and vendors will need to make
>money. However, the user community seems to preceed every feature and
>function with the word free. The Red Hat stock prospectus talks about
>beefing up the "services" part of the business. Let's see if the
>fanatics are still loyal after being presented with the invoice.
>Corel is pushing the concept of renting software. We'll see how that
>plays.
Sun is also talking about the 'rental market', are they not?
Bill Vermillion
Tom Parsons <c...@tegan.com> wrote:
>Bill Vermillion enscribed:
>| Well SCO still raised a lot of ire a year or so ago when they sent
>| out SCO mailers to a large number of people who were on Linux
>| related USPS mailling lists.
>Once more in the "keeping the record straight" vein.
>SCO did >not< send out that mailer, it came from SCO Service-Sales,
>an independent contractor working for SCO. Although the mailer didn't
>come from SCO, SCO responded in the "old fashioned" way and issued an
>apology.
But - the letter had an SCO logo on it. For the average person
it looked like it came from SCO. I never got an apology by mail,
but I still have the original letter - somewhere.
SCO contracted for this and it was SCO's responsibility to check
things that appeared to be under their name. Deniability does not
exist at that level.
Take the retractions you see in a newspaper. Someone is arrested,
or has some negative connotation applied with a picture in the
newspaper. The picture is wrong.
The next day = DEEP INSIDE THE PAPER = you see a small note
saying "the picture in yesterday's paper inadvertantly showed
a picture of John C Smith - while the person arrested for
molestation was John Q Smith.
Most people see the first flames - and never know about any
apologies.
The way to avoid this is to check and double check everthing that
goes out.
Kenneth McCormick
Recentky, greenslabofclay-...@yahoo.com said...
|Oh I love it when they pass the buck.
|Gee...lets use that every time shall we!
|Kinda like wearing a condom for protection.
|SCO didn't fuck ya, it was the rubber baby! yaaa!
|
|-Gumby
Oh behaave, Kevin.
Regards,
Kenny
|Tom Parsons <c...@tegan.com> wrote in message
|news:1999090919...@tegan.com...
|> Bill Vermillion enscribed:
|> | In article <H4PWN4N1pImRn4...@4ax.com>,
|> | Jeff Liebermann <je...@comix.santa-cruz.ca.us> wrote:
|> | >On Wed, 8 Sep 1999 14:11:48 GMT, Tony Lawrence <to...@aplawrence.com>
|> | >wrote:
|> |
|> | >>unless you are a fawning sycophant of the One True Operating
|> | >>System, there is nothing that CAN be said about Linux that
|> | >>won't cause the morons who inhabit shlashdot to rise up in
|> | >>anger.
|> |
|> | >The surest sign of success is pollution and Linux is certainly
|> | >successful. Some of SCO's statements are pure FUD (fear uncertainty
|> | >doubt) and have more emotional appeal than logic behind them. Fine,
|> | >welcome to the advertising business. However, in re-reading SCO's
|> | >comments on Linux, I tried to determine how I would re-write them so
|> | >that:
|> | >1. It would be a bit more trueful and less FUD.
|> | >2. It would not piss off the Linux community.
|> |
|> | Well SCO still raised a lot of ire a year or so ago when they sent
|> | out SCO mailers to a large number of people who were on Linux
|> | related USPS mailling lists.
|>
|> Once more in the "keeping the record straight" vein.
|>
|> SCO did >not< send out that mailer, it came from SCO Service-Sales,
|> an independent contractor working for SCO. Although the mailer didn't
|> come from SCO, SCO responded in the "old fashioned" way and issued an
|> apology.
|>
Gumby
Windoz 2000?
I won't try it until final release.
Anyone think this OS is going to just wipe the slate clean?
-Gumby (aka Kevin to Kenneth)
Bill Vermillion <bi...@wjv.com.REMOVEME> wrote in message
news:FHurL...@wjv.com.REMOVEME...
> In article <1999090919...@tegan.com>,
> Tom Parsons <c...@tegan.com> wrote:
> >Bill Vermillion enscribed:
>
> >| Well SCO still raised a lot of ire a year or so ago when they sent
> >| out SCO mailers to a large number of people who were on Linux
> >| related USPS mailling lists.
>
> >Once more in the "keeping the record straight" vein.
>
> >SCO did >not< send out that mailer, it came from SCO Service-Sales,
> >an independent contractor working for SCO. Although the mailer didn't
> >come from SCO, SCO responded in the "old fashioned" way and issued an
> >apology.
>
Tony Lawrence
>
> I wonder if we are so busy looking at SCO and Linux; we may be missing
> Windoz 2000?
> I won't try it until final release.
> Anyone think this OS is going to just wipe the slate clean?
>
Only Bill Gates, and of course the unbiased trade magazines
that thrive on MSOFT related advertising. Ever notice how
often there's an article about some company running such and
such software and somehow the OS doesn't get mentioned? 20
to 1 says it's because it wasn't MSOFT. THe "other" OS's
only get mentioned if there is no way to write the story
WITHOUT mentioning them.
Pick up any of the trade mags and see if you notice this :-)
Rick Campbell
about any unix operating system in that magazine.
Rick Campbell
Tony Lawrence wrote in message <37D97AC3...@aplawrence.com>...
Bill Campbell
>I wonder if we are so busy looking at SCO and Linux; we may be missing
>Windoz 2000?
>I won't try it until final release.
>Anyone think this OS is going to just wipe the slate clean?
Microsoft has had the opportunity to get it right at least since the
first Windows developer's conference I attended at the Westin Hotel in
Seattle, February 1984, and they either haven't tried, or couldn't.
See below....
Bill
--
INTERNET: bi...@Celestial.COM Bill Campbell; Celestial Systems, Inc.
UUCP: camco!bill PO Box 820; 6641 E. Mercer Way
FAX: (206) 232-9186 Mercer Island, WA 98040-0820; (206) 236-1676
URL: http://www.celestial.com/
``Good luck to all you optimists out there who think Microsoft can deliver
35 million lines of quality code on which you can operate your business.''
-- John C. Dvorak
Jeff Liebermann
<greenslabofclay-...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>I wonder if we are so busy looking at SCO and Linux; we may be missing
>Windoz 2000?
>I won't try it until final release.
>Anyone think this OS is going to just wipe the slate clean?
It doesn't matter. Most users of Windoze 95/98/NT will upgrade to
Windoze 2000 in the futile hope that there will be fewer bugs, better
stability, and more dancing paper clips. Whether it works or not
seems to be a minor consideration.
However, let's pretend that MicroSloth actually delivers on its
promises, Windoze 2000 works as advertised, and the GUM (great
unwashed masses) immigrate to the latest greatest OS en mass. What
can MicroSloth offer next? Not much methinks. Therefore, why bother
deliverying something that works well in 2000, when a buggy version
will sell more copies of Windoze 2001, followed by Windoze 2002, ad
nausium? Buggy software sells updates.
Naturally, nobody at MicroSloth will admit that their buggy software
will sell more updates than if the stuff worked in the first place.
Never mind that the Information Weak Magazine survey of Windoze 2000
early adopters, with sufficient spare time to fill out the survey,
resulted in "improved stability" being the number one requirement.
Microsloth can't give them what they want or they'll never want to
upgrade.
Don't believe it? I've got 3ea customers that insist that I make
their Xenix boxes play well into 2000 and beyond. Why? Because they
are utterly reliable, almost zero maintenance, and do everything they
need. They have their number one goal of reliability and are not
willing to give it up for any number of features and functions. If
Xenix had been an unstable abomination like NT4 SP5, it would have
been in the dumpster years ago instead of running well for 10 years.
Microsloth and SCO know all this but will never admit it. SCO has
tried everything short of violence to get customers to upgrade or
immigrate from OSR5 to UW7. New features, bigger servers, cool admin
tools, monster systems, and industrial strength hardware support were
not sufficient for most of my customers. They want reliable
mediocrity and not much more. SCO did a horrible thing by actually
delivering the stability that MicroSloth has been promising and is
paying the price with some conservative and paranoid tightwads as
customers.
Now, contrast that with the typical Microsloth customer. All they
want is stability, but all Microsloth offers are new features and
functions. They want the bugs to go away, and get more acronyms and
dancing paper clips instead. They want networking that will not lose
its shares or spray RAS garbage packets into the network, and get even
more protocols and IP mutations that will break. Microsloth may
listen to their customers, but they're doing what's most profitable
for Microsloth.
The effect is also self-perpetuating. Features get added faster than
bugs get fixed. It's a natural law or something. This effect
eventually results in a bloated monster OS with deteriorating
reliability. Windoze 98 was suppose to be mostly bug fixes. It's no
more stable than Windoze 95 and still requires substantial patching
and tweaking. The flakey applications that run on Windoze 98 don't
appear to be any more stable than running on Windoze 95. 98 is also
slower than 95. However, Windoze 98 is considerably bigger and is
therefore better? It's also amazing that NT is known to "crash less"
implying that it still crashes often. Crash less than what?
So what about the computers for the rest of us? Well, Apple tried to
push that and delivered yet another monster OS with the same upgrade
motivation. New features are nice, but the bug fixes are what the
customers really were after. The real "rest of us" were out buying
Palm Pilots. It has none of the baggage that the other OS's were
dragging around. Windoze compatibility was at the end of an optional
cable. What is there is rock stable, simple, easy to use, intuitive
and fast. 3Scum will eventually trash it by growing it into a bloated
"real" operating system, but meanwhile we have the stability we need.
So, there we have the logic:
In order to sell upgrades, it has to be noticeably buggy.
In order to be sufficiently buggy, it has to be big and bloated.
In order to look like an improvement, it has to have new features.
Now, get on with life and don't bother me.
# Jeff Liebermann 150 Felker St #D Santa Cruz CA 95060
# 831.336.2558 voice
# 831.426.1240 fax http://www.cruzio.com/~jeffl
# 831.421.6491 digital_pager je...@comix.santa-cruz.ca.us
Gumby
> stability, and more dancing paper clips. Whether it works or not
> seems to be a minor consideration.
more dancing paper clips...hah hahhh, I laughed loud at that.
That is sooo funny! and true!!!
...followed by Windoze 2002, ad
> nausium? Buggy software sells updates.
And oh does it get heavier! and heavier!
I just hope my Pentium XIV 100THz Intel processor, with 256Gb RAM, and 4.3Eb
Hard drive can hold up the 90Trillion lines of code the MicroSloth of the
future will deliver.
> Don't believe it? I've got 3ea customers that insist that I make
> their Xenix boxes play well into 2000 and beyond. Why? Because they
> are utterly reliable, almost zero maintenance, and do everything they
> need.
Ya I have a client I wrote a train passenger ticket system for. Its still
running on a 386 Xenix system 4Mb RAM. Still haven't heard from them!
I called to see if they wanted to upgrade pending year 2000.
"No thank you"
Stupid me, I wrote the software independant of the RTC.
BEOS is suppose to be the tight coded OS.
I have to agree that it seems more like another OS/2. I want to try it
anyway.
Just as I'm going to try Windoz 2000, I'll let you know what its like.
Nipples are getting tough I guess.
I spent two full days just learning the next generation of hardware and
software.
More acronyms, more standards, and more marketing bullshit to sift through.
If wheat was as hard to harvest, farmers would cut their wrists in
frustration.
-Gumby
Jeff Liebermann
<greenslabofclay-...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>more dancing paper clips...hah hahhh, I laughed loud at that.
>That is sooo funny! and true!!!
It's the little things the put "personality" into a product. The
dancing paper clip in Office 2000 can be optionally a dog or a cat.
This take an inherently boring machine, and gives it a personality.
Attempts to put a human face on the machine have resulted in customer
backlash at the "talking heads" type interface. Too much "big brother
inside" I guess.
Linux has also greatly benefited from the penguin connection. Without
the penguin, Linux would be yet another boring operating system for
nerds. The penguin gives it "personality". I guess why the Linux mob
on Slashdot are really angry at SCO is for defacing their precious
penguin with "I like SCO" across the belly. Methinks the hint is
obvious. SCO needs its own mascot and should not borrow others.
Somehow, a talking tree, as in the SCO logo, just doesn't work.
In keeping with the "personality" thing, SCO's new mascot should
reflect the personality of the company or product. For reasons too
weird to expound upon, nearby UCSC University has a banana slug as a
mascot. However, this would have unfavorable connotations for product
benchmarks. A two headed animal of some form might reflect the
current state of the Gemini merged product. There are lots of other
ideas.
>And oh does it get heavier! and heavier!
>I just hope my Pentium XIV 100THz Intel processor, with 256Gb RAM, and 4.3Eb
>Hard drive can hold up the 90Trillion lines of code the MicroSloth of the
>future will deliver.
I'm not worried. History has shown that anything too big for its
environment will break apart and continue to grow from the pieces
(mitosis). The best thing the government ever did for the
stockholders of AT&T was break it up into the baby bells. I guess the
same will happen to Microsloth after the Justice Dept gets done with
the dog and pony show. Some of the giant mergers will get balkanized
into smaller pieces after they're done collecting market share at the
expense of profits. It's the way things work.
Your next generation desktop may be a "lan in a box" or multiple
machines, in one box, holding an election to see which one gets to
chew on your code. It could be a thin client with all its storage at
the end of an RF link. It might be a collaborative conglomerator that
sucks unused CPU cycles from nearby machines that are idle. Use your
imagination.
>I called to see if they wanted to upgrade pending year 2000.
>"No thank you"
>Stupid me, I wrote the software independant of the RTC.
Yeah. I've seen the same thing. I asked a customer about installing
upgrades and Y2K fixes. I got:
"Dont touch it! It's working"
instead. Funny, that only happens at customers with lots of Windoze
experience.
>BEOS is suppose to be the tight coded OS.
>I have to agree that it seems more like another OS/2. I want to try it
>anyway.
Now wait a minute. Less than a week ago, you were expounding on how
wonderful Linux was compared to SCO Unix. Then, you ask about Windoze
2000. Now, you're into BeOS and OS/2. What's next, QNX? Just what
is it you want in an OS that SCO Unix doesn't deliver?
>If wheat was as hard to harvest, farmers would cut their wrists in
>frustration.
If it were easy, it would be no fun.
Learn by Destroying(tm).
--
Jeff Liebermann 150 Felker St #D Santa Cruz CA 95060
Bill Vermillion
Jeff Liebermann <je...@comix.santa-cruz.ca.us> wrote:
>On Sat, 11 Sep 1999 05:50:42 GMT, "Gumby"
><greenslabofclay-...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>... SCO needs its own mascot and should not borrow others Somehow,.
>a talking tree, as in the SCO logo, just doesn't work .
>.... A two headed animal of some form might reflect the current
>state of the Gemini merged product. There are lots of other ideas.
How about the 'pushmepullyou' from the original Dr Doolittle.
Looked like a llama with heads on both ends.
>>BEOS is suppose to be the tight coded OS. I have to agree that it
>>seems more like another OS/2. I want to try it anyway.
>Now wait a minute. Less than a week ago, you were expounding on
>how wonderful Linux was compared to SCO Unix. Then, you ask about
>Windoze 2000. Now, you're into BeOS and OS/2. What's next, QNX?
I was suprised by the QNX single floppy system that was out about 2
years ago. It's been change now. The original was an OS, a
browser, and a modem and/or network interface. A complete running
os and brower of a 1.44K floppy. They have taken the network
card support out - as there are so many - the old one supported
the 3c509 series. Add that to the SCO system, PicoBSD, and there
are more than just a couple of single floppy OSes out there.
Locally one person sells a firewall product based on BSD code,
that is fully ICSA certified, runs from one floppy, and can handle
over 30,000 address NAT translation in 32MB of RAM. (Global
Technology Associated - GTA). An impressive customer list with some
of the largest corporations in the world - with most of his sales
being outside the US.
(It's an amazing product. Anti-Spam, JAVA/Active-X blocking,
remote management with encrypted links. There are less than
a 1/2 dozen ICSA firelwalls that are OS based.)
No financial interest here - they are just friends of mine in the
computing community - and years ago when I was running a usenet
node I was their link to the outside world. Really good people.
Things like that prove that you can run without bloat if you
dont try to be all things for all people.
>Just what is it you want in an OS that SCO Unix doesn't deliver?
>>If wheat was as hard to harvest, farmers would cut their wrists in
>>frustration.
Didn't they do something similar a long time ago - eg blood of a
freshly killed animal to help the crops grow ?
>If it were easy, it would be no fun Learn by Destroying(tm) .
Kenneth McCormick
|>Now wait a minute. Less than a week ago, you were expounding on
|>how wonderful Linux was compared to SCO Unix. Then, you ask about
|>Windoze 2000. Now, you're into BeOS and OS/2. What's next, QNX?
|
|I was suprised by the QNX single floppy system that was out about 2
|years ago. It's been change now. The original was an OS, a
|browser, and a modem and/or network interface. A complete running
|os and brower of a 1.44K floppy. They have taken the network
|card support out - as there are so many - the old one supported
|the 3c509 series. Add that to the SCO system, PicoBSD, and there
|are more than just a couple of single floppy OSes out there.
Mmmm, qnx, that reminds me of the good old days. Ne2000's,
Netware 3.12, 3.2v4.2, things that worked. Qnx was the
OS used one of my UC physics courses, Computer Interfacing.
It worked so well for data gathering in a lean, reliable
unix, that we integrated it into our MAX, balloon borne,
cosmic microwave background anisotropy experiments at
90,000 feet over Texas and the South Pole.
|Locally one person sells a firewall product based on BSD code,
|that is fully ICSA certified, runs from one floppy, and can handle
|over 30,000 address NAT translation in 32MB of RAM. (Global
|Technology Associated - GTA). An impressive customer list with some
|of the largest corporations in the world - with most of his sales
|being outside the US.
That's a nice piece of software, Bill. Thanks for the tip.
...
|>>If wheat was as hard to harvest, farmers would cut their wrists in
|>>frustration.
|
|Didn't they do something similar a long time ago - eg blood of a
|freshly killed animal to help the crops grow ?
You can buy a nice 20 bag of cow's blood meal at your local nursery
for $20 US dollars - NPK of 12-0-0, good organics.
However there will be no blood letting at SCO these days.
Hear that Gumby? May I point you disbelievers to SCOC on the
nasdaq, which has the following market aspects (Sept. 12, 1999)
SCOC
Last Trade 11 Volume 763,300
Change - 15/16(-7.85%) Avg. Volume 566,000
Bid 11 Market Cap. $ 369.25 (mil)
Ask 11 1/16 P/E 28.2
Open 12 3/16 Div Yield N/A
Prev Close 11 15/16 Div/Shr N/A
Day's Range 11 - 12 1/4 Ex-Div N/A
52-wk Range 2.50 - 12.75 Market
^^^^^^^^^^^^
|
Now that is what you call In Good Shape as vs. In Trouble.
Isn't it more likely that Sun or somebody is looking to acquire
our beloved SCO?
Kenneth
Gumby
> is it you want in an OS that SCO Unix doesn't deliver?
Thanks.
Didn't know about that one.
Looks exactly like what I want.
http://qnx.com/iat/index.html
On the Holy Grail search for OSs I want something that is so tight it
reminds me of my first date.
When you consider the technology in our hardware, I just find current OS
boot speeds ridiculous.
If you strip down LINUX or SCO kernels, I'm sure it would boot fast.
Maybe its Intel inside? God help us!
I just can't wait for the new generation computers that boot in seconds NOT
minutes.
Program execution is instantaneous. Then again I could be dreaming to far
ahead.
Ah heck, I just may end up taking the C64 out of storage; at least it boots
faster!
-Gumby
Bill Vermillion
Gumby <greenslabofclay-...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>...What's next, QNX? Just what
>> is it you want in an OS that SCO Unix doesn't deliver?
>Thanks.
>Didn't know about that one.
>Looks exactly like what I want.
>http://qnx.com/iat/index.html
>On the Holy Grail search for OSs I want something that is so tight
>it reminds me of my first date. When you consider the technology in
>our hardware, I just find current OS boot speeds ridiculous.
>If you strip down LINUX or SCO kernels, I'm sure it would boot fast.
>Maybe its Intel inside? God help us!
>I just can't wait for the new generation computers that boot in
>seconds NOT minutes. Program execution is instantaneous. Then again
>I could be dreaming to far ahead.
Since I don't work around Linux I can't tell you what they have in
the small world. But in the BSD arena there is PicoBSD. A one
floppy solution. You could probably ROM it.
Bill
Bill Vermillion
McCormick <mrsm...@hotbot.com> wrote:
>Recentky, bi...@wjv.com.REMOVEME said... |In article
><EHvaNxi3BwcHmX...@4ax.com>, |Jeff Liebermann
><je...@comix.santa-cruz.ca.us> wrote:
>|I was suprised by the QNX single floppy system that was out about
>|2 years ago. ...
>Mmmm, qnx, that reminds me of the good old days. Ne2000's, Netware
>3.12, 3.2v4.2, things that worked. Qnx was the OS used one of my
>UC physics courses, Computer Interfacing. It worked so well for
>data gathering in a lean, reliable unix, that we integrated it into
>our MAX, balloon borne, cosmic microwave background anisotropy
>experiments at 90,000 feet over Texas and the South Pole.
Well you might be using QNX and not even know it. Two years ago
I stumbled onto their booth as part of an CIE (??) add-on to
Comdex. QNX is making a lot of embedded controler systems.
I saw one DBS receiver that was using their OS, and they also
embed it in video remote controls, along with a lot of other
things. That's just a heads-up on the current status.
They also were heavingly involved in Q-Sound (??) the spatial
effect emulation 3 dimensional audio fileds. That never went over
very big in the recording industry - some superstars used it,
Madonna cut an album on it, there was a Coke commercial on one of
the super-bowls that used it. Now you can see it in sound-cards
for PC's.
>|Locally one person sells a firewall product based on BSD code,
>|that is fully ICSA certified, runs from one floppy, and can handle
>|over 30,000 address NAT translation in 32MB of RAM. (Global
>|Technology Associated - GTA). An impressive customer list with
>|some of the largest corporations in the world - with most of his
>|sales being outside the US.
>That's a nice piece of software, Bill. Thanks for the tip.
The site by the way - is www.gta.com - I missed putting that in
there. Paul Emerson - the founder/owner is one of the good guys.
Warren Young
>
> In article <37D59F8B...@mail.com>,
> Warren Young <tan...@mail.com> wrote:
> >Gumby wrote:
>
> >was pretty weak in the "Unix on x86" market. I mean, really, who
> >installs Solaris x86? *BSD? Mere mosquitoes.
>
> BSD a mosquito? The worlds largest ftp site, www.cdrom.com, uses
> it exclusively. The limits are 6000 simultanous anonymous ftp
> users at one time. Running on a PII-450 as I recall. 1GB RAM
> and about 1/2TB file system.
I know this. I also know of a dozen other major success stories for the
BSDs and Linux. But you have to admit, until recently, SCO had them
cooked on sheer volume _and_ they charged serious money for their
product. I'm a Linux supporter, but I have to face the fact that its
price definitely has something to do with its sales numbers.
This implies that the people with big busy servers (and therefore lots
of cash) have historically chosen SCO systems over Linux and *BSD, as a
trend.
I'd still guess that SCO has more big sites than its x86 competition
combined. The real point of my post is that this is changing, very
rapidly.
--
= Warren Young: www.cyberport.com/~tangent | Yesterday it worked.
= ICBM Address: 36.8274040N, 108.0204086W, | Today it is not working.
= alt. 1714m | Windows is like that.
Warren Young
>
> When you consider the technology in our hardware, I just find current OS
> boot speeds ridiculous.
> If you strip down LINUX or SCO kernels, I'm sure it would boot fast.
> Maybe its Intel inside? God help us!
There's no doubt that there's room for improvement -- I remember ads in
the late 1980's for hard drives for Apple ][ machines. They bragged
that you could boot all the way to GSOS (or whatever the //gs's OS was
called) in 15 seconds. My current boxes all take about a minute.
But, this slowdown hasn't been for nothing. That 15-second //gs boot
included no power-on self-test to speak of, no searching the SCSI chain
(or chains!) for devices, no informational or splash screens pausing on
startup and no background programs starting.
I've got an Apple Macintosh SE/30 with a hard drive made two or three
years later than the production of //gses started. It boots in about 30
seconds. It's a much faster system (16 MHz 68030 in the Mac, 2.8MHz
65816 (16-bit 6502 derivative) in the GS) but it does more, and has more
facilities running at startup than a base GSOS install.
Today, I've got a 200 MHz AMD K6 based box with 128 MB of RAM at home
with two SCSI chains (mandated because I can only use two connectors on
a single card, and I need both internal styles and an external) and it
boots in about a minute. But again, it does more. The BIOS part of the
boot, including initializing the SCSI subsystems, takes about half that
time. Booting the OS clear to the GUI takes the rest.
So what have I bought over that //gs I lusted after a decade ago?
1. The enabling ability of lots of RAM that's dynamically configurable.
(In the //gs, RAM was more or less fixed-size, so the firmware didn't
need to scan the memory banks to find out what was there.)
2. An extremely configurable SCSI I/O subsystem. I can totally
reconfigure my system, turn it back on, and the firmware and OS won't
skip a beat. With the //gs, moving things around was not something you
had much choice in, and when you did, it required a lot of configuration
changes to get the OS to recognize the new state of things.
3. Basic hardware checks done at startup. A broken //gs just stopped
working right. A subtle failure (e.g. RAM corruption) might go
unnoticed for months.
4. Unix. Need I say more?
I need or want all of these things. If you can get by without them, I
suppose you can pare your system down to accommodate them.
But at a certain point, you enter embedded systems land. If you want a
tight, fast-booting web server, get a Cobalt RaQ or something like
that. The same goes for firewalls, mail servers and caching proxies:
you can buy prebuilt boxes that do just one thing very well. But, you
give up general-purpose capabilities, and commodity hardware prices.
Nothing is simple.
Brett Castleberry
http://sunsite.auc.dk/mulinux .
--
Brett G. Castleberry
bcc...@garnet.acns.fsu.edu
Tallahassee, Florida