Who will buy SCO - SCO

This is a discussion on Who will buy SCO - SCO ; James_Szabadics wrote: > People need to realise that successful business needs software that > can do what you need it to do to achieve your plans. In our market > our business is consistently very successful yet we use SCO ...

+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 1 2
Results 21 to 27 of 27

Thread: Who will buy SCO

  1. Re: Who will buy SCO

    James_Szabadics wrote:

    > People need to realise that successful business needs software that
    > can do what you need it to do to achieve your plans. In our market
    > our business is consistently very successful yet we use SCO as the
    > platform to run our primary business database software.


    I would bet you won't be using SCO in two years from now. What are you
    going to do when you don't get drivers for new HBA to connect to your
    SAN? What are you going to do when security updates stop flowing? What
    are you going to do if you want to certify your business ISO-900x and
    you are running a dead OS?

    You won't be using SCO for long, if you know what you're doing.


  2. Re: Who will buy SCO

    foolsrushout wrote:
    > Pat Welch wrote:
    >
    >> foolsrushout wrote:
    >>
    >>> Brian K. White wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "foolsrushout" <666@hotmail.com>
    >>>>
    >>>>> Every old slow system I've ever dealt with has upgraded
    >>>>> despite the costs.
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>> Let me get this straight... you are, proud? of such inefficiency?
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> Reading and comprehension problems? Or just
    >>> don't like the observation so you attack
    >>> the person?
    >>>
    >>> Get real.
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>

    >>
    >> Troll.
    >>
    >>
    >>

    >
    > Thank you!
    >


    The inefficiency of upgrading a working system which is facing a
    dead-end future is far out-weighted by the possibilities you open up
    when going with any viable alternative with a future.

    Therefore, the high cost of migration is very little when compared to
    the high window of growth and business opportunity you get by such
    migration.

    I hope having the message chewed up for you helps.

    You can now proceed to "plonk" me too.

    Thank you!

  3. Re: Who will buy SCO

    On Feb 14, 11:37*am, Pepe wrote:
    > James_Szabadics wrote:
    > > People need to realise that successful business needs software that
    > > can do what you need it to do to achieve your plans. *In our market
    > > our business is consistently very successful yet we use SCO as the
    > > platform to run our primary business database software.

    >
    > I would bet you won't be using SCO in two years from now. What are you
    > going to do when you don't get drivers for new HBA to connect to your
    > SAN? What are you going to do when security updates stop flowing? What
    > are you going to do if you want to certify your business ISO-900x and
    > you are running a dead OS?
    >



    SNIP ^ You won't be using SCO for long, if you know what you're doing.

    I think the scenario you describe falls into the "upgrade based on
    need" situation. Sure one day it will be replaced. It will be
    evaluated at least twice annually against all other priorities. Each
    person will have to evaluate their own circumstances to determine when
    the time to move or how long they wish to get continued return on
    investment and put energy elsewhere.


  4. Re: Who will buy SCO

    On 12 Feb, 21:48, Andrew Smallshaw wrote:
    > On 2008-02-11, Pepe wrote:
    >
    >
    >
    > > An inherited systems installation is not the same as a brand-new
    > > installation. Today, nobody would use OpenServer for a new project even
    > > if it was GPL'ed by The SCO Group.

    >
    > Rubbish. *If no-one was doing fresh installs then there wouldn't
    > be _any_ sales. *This is clearly not the case.
    >
    > > Inherited OpenServer installations are being migrated to some other
    > > platform as fast a budget allows.

    >
    > Again this is nonsense. *A lot of people don't upgrade their systems
    > as often as you seem to think. *It isn't just OpenServer - there
    > are still a fair number of XENIX systems out there for instance.
    > "If it ain't broke, don't fix it" is the mantra of many sites.
    > You would have these sites go to the expense and hassle of migrating
    > to a different system simply to satisfy your own personal vendetta.
    >
    > > Because, you know, nobody would use OpenServer even if it was GPL'ed by
    > > The SCO Group!

    >
    > You might not, but it is obvious that other people still would.
    > It is true that I myself have largely moved away from OpenServer
    > now but I still have fond memories of it. *OSR5 is fairly reliable
    > - my uptimes were limited by hardware upgrades, and has a lot of
    > polish and creature comforts that you don't get elsewhere. *Something
    > like SCOadmin is worth its weight in gold to many users. *Yes,
    > other platforms have their own GUI adminstrative tools but none
    > I've seen are as comprehensive or as reliable as SCOadmin. *For
    > many sites that it much more important than ticking boxes on feature
    > lists since it means than routine things like adding users, printers
    > etc can be done without calling up the expensive consultant.


    The remaining sales are to people like me, involved in doing a
    migration and who need a working server to do development and testing
    work with as part of the migration.

    SCOadmin is a *wrapper* for a set of interfaces that would have been
    exciting in the early 90's.

    SCOadmin is precisely where Linuxconf and YaST were, 6 years ago.
    SCOadmin violates numerous of Eric Raymond's guidelines on open source
    (and other!) GUI's, titled the "Luxury of Ignorance". Its reliance on
    Netscape FastTrack to do network configurations is one of the
    stupidest things I've ever seen, only matched by the user interface
    nightmare that is configuring new disks.



  5. Re: Who will buy SCO

    On 14 Feb, 02:37, Pepe wrote:
    > James_Szabadics wrote:
    > > People need to realise that successful business needs software that
    > > can do what you need it to do to achieve your plans. *In our market
    > > our business is consistently very successful yet we use SCO as the
    > > platform to run our primary business database software.

    >
    > I would bet you won't be using SCO in two years from now. What are you
    > going to do when you don't get drivers for new HBA to connect to your
    > SAN? What are you going to do when security updates stop flowing? What
    > are you going to do if you want to certify your business ISO-900x and
    > you are running a dead OS?
    >
    > You won't be using SCO for long, if you know what you're doing.


    VIrtualize it. I'm in hte midst of testing VMware for OpenServer 5.

  6. Re: Who will buy SCO

    Pepe wrote:
    > James_Szabadics wrote:
    >
    >> People need to realise that successful business needs software that
    >> can do what you need it to do to achieve your plans. In our market
    >> our business is consistently very successful yet we use SCO as the
    >> platform to run our primary business database software.

    >
    >
    > I would bet you won't be using SCO in two years from now. What are you
    > going to do when you don't get drivers for new HBA to connect to your
    > SAN? What are you going to do when security updates stop flowing? What
    > are you going to do if you want to certify your business ISO-900x and
    > you are running a dead OS?
    >
    > You won't be using SCO for long, if you know what you're doing.


    Two things come into play here.

    The first is religion. "Believers" are convinced one way
    or the other.

    The second is that besides the more obvious support and
    certification along with liabilities to stockholders in
    the event of losses incurred due to system failures of
    obsolete OS/software combinations there is, as I
    mentioned before, depreciation and the tax implications
    that are the front office bible with its own set of
    commandments and secondary rules. (i.e. A lighting fixture
    that is plugged in can be written off as an expense. The
    same identical fixture when hardwired must be depreciated.)

    What I get out of this thread is that most of the techies
    here haven't a clue about the bigger picture of business
    operation in the USA economic climate.

    Most techies appear to be in love with what they do know
    and fearful of things less familiar. I'd bet that the ones
    in love with SCO would gladly spend their employer's last
    dime supporting the failing software publisher than to
    learn the new tricks necessary to the progress of the
    firm they work for. They forget that migration to newer
    software also means enlarging their department at least
    for the duration, and that experience in migrating their
    department looks very good on their resume. But of course
    if they're that lazy they are probably too busy with
    makework to look after their own futures anyway.

    I now await additional plonks from folks afraid to look
    outside their own little cubicle. What? Me worry? :-)

  7. Re: Who will buy SCO

    James_Szabadics wrote:

    heavy snippage


    > What would you business do - the 6 month SCO
    > replacement of an ERP system that is still supported running on 1997
    > hardware or do the production machines controls upgrade, lift
    > production efficiency and retire the 1998 NT 4 optimiser systems?
    >
    > Hmmm tough decision isnt it.....


    Begin planning the migration to different OS platforms even
    while the present setup is running adequately. Today is not
    too soon to begin.

+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 1 2