Who will buy SCO - SCO

This is a discussion on Who will buy SCO - SCO ; I thought this might be an interesting exercise in guesswork. If SCO doesn't survive the Chap. 11, loses the Novell suit and never recovers who will buy what's left. I don't expect anyone to buy the company as a whole ...

+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 27

Thread: Who will buy SCO

  1. Who will buy SCO

    I thought this might be an interesting exercise in guesswork.

    If SCO doesn't survive the Chap. 11, loses the Novell suit and never
    recovers who will buy what's left. I don't expect anyone to buy the
    company as a whole with all the liabilities, but some company may see
    fit to purchase key assets for the existing revenue. There's about
    $20MM in revenue and I would assume most of the expense is legal fees
    and fat salaries. Of the $20MM how much is ScoSource revenue? $0? How
    much is growing revenue?

    JGD Management has made an offer (http://www.networkworld.com/news/
    2007/102507-sco-has-buyer.html). Will others bid? If JGD wins will
    they carve it up and sell the pieces?

  2. Re: Who will buy SCO

    John Van Ostrand wrote:

    > I thought this might be an interesting exercise in guesswork.
    >
    > If SCO doesn't survive the Chap. 11, loses the Novell suit and never
    > recovers who will buy what's left. I don't expect anyone to buy the
    > company as a whole with all the liabilities, but some company may see
    > fit to purchase key assets for the existing revenue. There's about
    > $20MM in revenue and I would assume most of the expense is legal fees
    > and fat salaries. Of the $20MM how much is ScoSource revenue? $0? How
    > much is growing revenue?
    >
    > JGD Management has made an offer (http://www.networkworld.com/news/
    > 2007/102507-sco-has-buyer.html). Will others bid? If JGD wins will
    > they carve it up and sell the pieces?


    When the hackers stop trying to steal source code,
    as they have for these products, their economic
    value is pretty much down the toilet.



  3. Re: Who will buy SCO

    John Van Ostrand wrote:
    > I thought this might be an interesting exercise in guesswork.
    >
    > If SCO doesn't survive the Chap. 11, loses the Novell suit and never
    > recovers who will buy what's left. I don't expect anyone to buy the
    > company as a whole with all the liabilities, but some company may see
    > fit to purchase key assets for the existing revenue.


    Key assets? What key assets?

    Unix copyrights? They don't own them. It's Novell's.

    UNIXware? They don't own it. It's Novell's.

    An old crusty System V Release 3.2 UNIX code branch, whose niche market
    Linux ate? Are you kidding me??!!!

    Nobody would use OpenServer even if it was GPL'ed by The SCO Group!

    The SCO headquartes should be demolished, and salt planted over them.

  4. Re: Who will buy SCO

    On Fri, 8 Feb 2008, Pepe wrote:
    > John Van Ostrand wrote:
    > > I thought this might be an interesting exercise in guesswork.
    > >
    > > If SCO doesn't survive the Chap. 11, loses the Novell suit and never
    > > recovers who will buy what's left. I don't expect anyone to buy the
    > > company as a whole with all the liabilities, but some company may see
    > > fit to purchase key assets for the existing revenue.

    >
    > Key assets? What key assets?
    >
    > Unix copyrights? They don't own them. It's Novell's.
    >
    > UNIXware? They don't own it. It's Novell's.


    Wrong they own all new development especially 7.x.x. Read the docs. You
    know where to find them. Read the ruling esp the part where every thing
    SCO creates from 1995 on is SCO's Please be accurate.

    You just show your finatics hat. There are reason to use different OS's.
    The applications really dictate what to use.


    --
    Boyd Gerber
    ZENEZ 1042 East Fort Union #135, Midvale Utah 84047

  5. Re: Who will buy SCO

    Boyd Lynn Gerber wrote:
    > On Fri, 8 Feb 2008, Pepe wrote:
    >>UNIXware? They don't own it. It's Novell's.

    >
    > Wrong they own all new development especially 7.x.x. Read the docs. You
    > know where to find them. Read the ruling esp the part where every thing
    > SCO creates from 1995 on is SCO's Please be accurate.


    The SCO Group owns the extensions they themselves have made to the
    UNIXware 2.x code (the so called SVR6), but those are still extensions
    over a core which itself is Novell's property, and therefore The SCO
    Group has to pay Novell royalties for every license sold of UNIXware.
    That is not the case with OpenServer, which is theirs 100%; however, oh
    pity, nobody wants it, and those who use it (because they have inherited
    the system from someone who has already retired) are fleeing out of that
    ship like there is no tomorrow (because, well, there is NONE!).

    Furthermore, with OpenServer 6 they are using the UNIXware kernel, and
    therefore they have even lost the product which was once theirs 100%.
    Double pity! Poor chaps!

    The "key asset" of The SCO Group is a UNIX System V Release 3.2 kernel
    branch (unable to even load drivers in-demand while running), last seen
    in OpenServer 5.0.7, which they should retake and build on to have a
    product 100% theirs. And do you know what?: it would be better to start
    from scratch.

    So, to reiterate. What key assets? There is nothing left but liability,
    sorrow and history.

    Who wants to buy bad taste in the mouth??

  6. Re: Who will buy SCO

    Pepe wrote:

    > Boyd Lynn Gerber wrote:
    >
    >> On Fri, 8 Feb 2008, Pepe wrote:
    >>
    >>> UNIXware? They don't own it. It's Novell's.

    >>
    >>
    >> Wrong they own all new development especially 7.x.x. Read the docs. You
    >> know where to find them. Read the ruling esp the part where every thing
    >> SCO creates from 1995 on is SCO's Please be accurate.

    >
    >
    > The SCO Group owns the extensions they themselves have made to the
    > UNIXware 2.x code (the so called SVR6), but those are still extensions
    > over a core which itself is Novell's property, and therefore The SCO
    > Group has to pay Novell royalties for every license sold of UNIXware.
    > That is not the case with OpenServer, which is theirs 100%; however, oh
    > pity, nobody wants it, and those who use it (because they have inherited
    > the system from someone who has already retired) are fleeing out of that
    > ship like there is no tomorrow (because, well, there is NONE!).
    >
    > Furthermore, with OpenServer 6 they are using the UNIXware kernel, and
    > therefore they have even lost the product which was once theirs 100%.
    > Double pity! Poor chaps!
    >
    > The "key asset" of The SCO Group is a UNIX System V Release 3.2 kernel
    > branch (unable to even load drivers in-demand while running), last seen
    > in OpenServer 5.0.7, which they should retake and build on to have a
    > product 100% theirs. And do you know what?: it would be better to start
    > from scratch.
    >
    > So, to reiterate. What key assets? There is nothing left but liability,
    > sorrow and history.
    >
    > Who wants to buy bad taste in the mouth??


    Are you talking about that "free beer" again? :-)

  7. Re: Who will buy SCO

    Pepe wrote:

    > Boyd Lynn Gerber wrote:
    >
    >> On Fri, 8 Feb 2008, Pepe wrote:
    >>
    >>> UNIXware? They don't own it. It's Novell's.

    >>
    >>
    >> Wrong they own all new development especially 7.x.x. Read the docs. You
    >> know where to find them. Read the ruling esp the part where every thing
    >> SCO creates from 1995 on is SCO's Please be accurate.

    >
    >
    > The SCO Group owns the extensions they themselves have made to the
    > UNIXware 2.x code (the so called SVR6), but those are still extensions
    > over a core which itself is Novell's property, and therefore The SCO
    > Group has to pay Novell royalties for every license sold of UNIXware.
    > That is not the case with OpenServer, which is theirs 100%; however, oh
    > pity, nobody wants it, and those who use it (because they have inherited
    > the system from someone who has already retired) are fleeing out of that
    > ship like there is no tomorrow (because, well, there is NONE!).
    >
    > Furthermore, with OpenServer 6 they are using the UNIXware kernel, and
    > therefore they have even lost the product which was once theirs 100%.
    > Double pity! Poor chaps!
    >
    > The "key asset" of The SCO Group is a UNIX System V Release 3.2 kernel
    > branch (unable to even load drivers in-demand while running), last seen
    > in OpenServer 5.0.7, which they should retake and build on to have a
    > product 100% theirs. And do you know what?: it would be better to start
    > from scratch.
    >
    > So, to reiterate. What key assets? There is nothing left but liability,
    > sorrow and history.
    >
    > Who wants to buy bad taste in the mouth??



    So they even have an eBay store.....

    http://stores.ebay.com/SCO-Sales-Ser...638.m118.l1247

    I'll never forget the computer store that was going out
    of business in suburban Chicago. With 2400 baud modems
    already available for around $250 they were trying to
    unload their stock of Hayes 300 baud modems for $800
    each the day before the sheriff came with his padlock.

    Craziness knows no bounds.



  8. Re: Who will buy SCO

    foolsrushout wrote:
    > John Van Ostrand wrote:
    >
    >> I thought this might be an interesting exercise in guesswork.
    >>
    >> If SCO doesn't survive the Chap. 11, loses the Novell suit and never
    >> recovers who will buy what's left. I don't expect anyone to buy the
    >> company as a whole with all the liabilities, but some company may see
    >> fit to purchase key assets for the existing revenue. There's about
    >> $20MM in revenue and I would assume most of the expense is legal fees
    >> and fat salaries. Of the $20MM how much is ScoSource revenue? $0? How
    >> much is growing revenue?
    >>
    >> JGD Management has made an offer (http://www.networkworld.com/news/
    >> 2007/102507-sco-has-buyer.html). Will others bid? If JGD wins will
    >> they carve it up and sell the pieces?

    >
    > When the hackers stop trying to steal source code,
    > as they have for these products, their economic
    > value is pretty much down the toilet.


    Nonsense. SCO has not demonstrated a *single line* of stolen code, despite the years of litigation and reported court orders to specify the code. Samples of code claimed to be infringing turn out to be from other, older, open source released products. They didn't own the software they alledge to have been infringed (Novell still owns AT&T SysV), they themselves published the Linux kernel under the GPL in their Caldera distribution and thus publishing any such code in question under the GPL, etc., etc., etc.

    SCO was already in serious trouble before the lawsuits: the sound of the shouting and the lawsuits have been the death knell for the company. The lawsuits and the quiet funding from Microsoft through third-party partnerships, may have actually extended the life of SCO for a few years beyond its previous destiny.

    But really, thee is *NO* cause for the theft accusation.

  9. Re: Who will buy SCO

    Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote:
    > foolsrushout wrote:
    >
    >> John Van Ostrand wrote:
    >>
    >>> I thought this might be an interesting exercise in guesswork.
    >>>
    >>> If SCO doesn't survive the Chap. 11, loses the Novell suit and never
    >>> recovers who will buy what's left. I don't expect anyone to buy the
    >>> company as a whole with all the liabilities, but some company may see
    >>> fit to purchase key assets for the existing revenue. There's about
    >>> $20MM in revenue and I would assume most of the expense is legal fees
    >>> and fat salaries. Of the $20MM how much is ScoSource revenue? $0? How
    >>> much is growing revenue?
    >>>
    >>> JGD Management has made an offer (http://www.networkworld.com/news/
    >>> 2007/102507-sco-has-buyer.html). Will others bid? If JGD wins will
    >>> they carve it up and sell the pieces?

    >>
    >>
    >> When the hackers stop trying to steal source code,
    >> as they have for these products, their economic
    >> value is pretty much down the toilet.

    >
    >
    > Nonsense. SCO has not demonstrated a *single line* of stolen code,
    > despite the years of litigation and reported court orders to specify the
    > code. Samples of code claimed to be infringing turn out to be from
    > other, older, open source released products. They didn't own the
    > software they alledge to have been infringed (Novell still owns AT&T
    > SysV), they themselves published the Linux kernel under the GPL in their
    > Caldera distribution and thus publishing any such code in question under
    > the GPL, etc., etc., etc.
    >
    > SCO was already in serious trouble before the lawsuits: the sound of the
    > shouting and the lawsuits have been the death knell for the company. The
    > lawsuits and the quiet funding from Microsoft through third-party
    > partnerships, may have actually extended the life of SCO for a few years
    > beyond its previous destiny.
    >
    > But really, thee is *NO* cause for the theft accusation.


    Thanks for introducing a new topic.


  10. Re: Who will buy SCO

    On Fri, 08 Feb 2008 19:37:05 +0100, Pepe wrote:


    >
    > Nobody would use OpenServer even if it was GPL'ed by The SCO Group!
    >
    > The SCO headquartes should be demolished, and salt planted over them.


    I, am not a systems person, just a lowly construction worker, but I know
    for a fact that the above is not true. I know of 2 property management
    companies that uses sco operserver. These companies employ maybe 100
    employees, and manage many commercial properties and apartments. I know
    they use open server because I have seen the monitors in the computer
    rooms. Maybe these are the last two companies on earth using sco, but I
    doubt it.

    sf

  11. Re: Who will buy SCO

    jellybean stonerfish wrote:
    > On Fri, 08 Feb 2008 19:37:05 +0100, Pepe wrote:
    >
    >>Nobody would use OpenServer even if it was GPL'ed by The SCO Group!

    >
    > I, am not a systems person, just a lowly construction worker, but I know
    > for a fact that the above is not true. I know of 2 property management
    > companies that uses sco operserver. These companies employ maybe 100
    > employees, and manage many commercial properties and apartments. I know
    > they use open server because I have seen the monitors in the computer
    > rooms. Maybe these are the last two companies on earth using sco, but I
    > doubt it.


    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.

    Inherited OpenServer installations are being migrated to some other
    platform as fast a budget allows.

    True, there will be remaining SCO systems in production for years to
    come. True, also, that won't be a desired situation by those responsible
    for such systems.

    Because, you know, nobody would use OpenServer even if it was GPL'ed by
    The SCO Group!

  12. Re: Who will buy SCO

    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.

    --
    Andrew Smallshaw
    andrews@sdf.lonestar.org

  13. Re: Who will buy SCO

    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.


    You know this how?

    >>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.


    Again, you know this how? Every Xenix system I've ever
    had anything to do with has been replaced by something
    much better and much faster.

    > "If it ain't broke, don't fix it" is the mantra of many sites.


    Till the boredom of waiting for pages to come up becomes
    intolerable.

    > You would have these sites go to the expense and hassle of migrating
    > to a different system simply to satisfy your own personal vendetta.


    Every old slow system I've ever dealt with has upgraded
    despite the costs. Those who haven't are failing businesses
    that won't be around much longer anyway, usually mon&pop
    operations down to being run by mon&pop alone.

    OS's amortize just like everything else. That you fail to
    understand the implications demonstrates you don't know
    much about business.

    >>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.


    Really. To borrow a phrase from Johnny Carson, "How
    obvious is it?" I don't think it obvious at all,
    indeed I believe the opposite is true, that only
    people already stuck and unable to afford migrating
    to something better are hanging on to this soon
    to be a chuckle in history OPS. If what you are
    saying were actually true, there would be lots
    of businesses still running Kaypro and Tandy and
    Osborne boxes sporting CP/M. Seen any lately? Have
    you even heard an urban legend about someone still
    running a successful business on one of those old
    boxes? How about PDP's which were a truly significant
    investment?

    > It is true that I myself have largely moved away from OpenServer
    > now but I still have fond memories of it.


    There ya go. Same holds true of ex-wives, remembering
    the good times, forgetting all the crap.

    > 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.


    Yes, and I remember the days of reboot every day or crash
    on the 2nd day.

    > Something
    > like SCOadmin is worth its weight in gold to many users.


    To idiots, sure.

    > Yes,
    > other platforms have their own GUI adminstrative tools but none
    > I've seen are as comprehensive or as reliable as SCOadmin.


    BS. Try making a parallel port device with anything
    other than a few "acceptable" address and interrupt
    combinations.

    > 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.


    I never had a problem doing anything at all to earlier
    systems where SU (me) had to roll his own. At least the
    SU actually understood the system. I think anything
    other than user applications should be the province
    of the priesthood, so there! Letting idiots perform
    advanced functions is a recipe for disaster.

  14. Re: Who will buy SCO

    On Tue, 12 Feb 2008, foolsrushout wrote:
    > 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.

    >
    > You know this how?


    The records on grokaw.

    > > >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.

    >
    > Again, you know this how? Every Xenix system I've ever
    > had anything to do with has been replaced by something
    > much better and much faster.


    Because I have every year about 5-10 calls asking what year to use so that
    the dates match up to the calander year. People who use SCO systems for
    the most part subscribe to the "If it ain't broke don't touch it" or "If
    it ain't broke, do not fix it". I have clients who are still using SCO
    UNIX 3.4v4.0 and 3.4v4.2 and ODT/OSR 2.0/3.0. There cad software only
    runs on this and no one makes newer versions of it. They refuse to go the
    MS route and there are not any really good CAD packages for linux. Get
    Auto Cad to port to linux or some UNIX variant and they will switch, but
    until then they will stick with there old SCO OS.

    > > "If it ain't broke, don't fix it" is the mantra of many sites.

    >
    > Till the boredom of waiting for pages to come up becomes
    > intolerable.


    No there are real applications that only work on SCO OS's, they do not
    exist on Linux or other UNIX varriants. So use kado and kadol
    applications and it only runs on SCO OS's. I just did an upgrade for one
    client. They paid the cadol people $100.00 for the new install key to run
    their applications. They are now running OpenServer 6.0. Their data base
    and application are running. They do use linux to connect from many
    locations to this server. But you can not get cadol to run on linux. It
    was done in about 1988. They refuse to create new versions. So the only
    choice is to run SCO OS's. The backwards compatibility does not exist in
    linux. Applications that ran on the first linux version will not run on
    today's linux. Linux kernel developers have a different mind set.
    Compatibility for old versions does not exist. The make changes for what
    they consider the best. I am not saying it is bad just an other mind set.
    Linux has it's applications and you have to choose what is best for the
    client based on their needs not the fanatic I have to move to linux.

    > > You would have these sites go to the expense and hassle of migrating
    > > to a different system simply to satisfy your own personal vendetta.

    >
    > Every old slow system I've ever dealt with has upgraded
    > despite the costs. Those who haven't are failing businesses
    > that won't be around much longer anyway, usually mon&pop
    > operations down to being run by mon&pop alone.


    And you know this how? I only hear from clients when something breaks or
    they need assistance. Some doing extremely well. They only upgrade or
    switch OS's based on the applications they need to use.

    > OS's amortize just like everything else. That you fail to
    > understand the implications demonstrates you don't know
    > much about business.


    Yes, but if it meets there needs and the application does not exist on
    Linux or an other UNIX OS they are not going to change. Get your facts
    straight. You want my customers to move to Linux or an other UNIX OS just
    because of what is currently happening. Fat chance! Till the application
    are on the other OS's they will not move.

    > > You might not, but it is obvious that other people still would.

    >
    > Really. To borrow a phrase from Johnny Carson, "How
    > obvious is it?" I don't think it obvious at all,
    > indeed I believe the opposite is true, that only
    > people already stuck and unable to afford migrating
    > to something better are hanging on to this soon
    > to be a chuckle in history OPS. If what you are
    > saying were actually true, there would be lots
    > of businesses still running Kaypro and Tandy and
    > Osborne boxes sporting CP/M. Seen any lately? Have
    > you even heard an urban legend about someone still
    > running a successful business on one of those old
    > boxes? How about PDP's which were a truly significant
    > investment?


    No! It is the applications. See above. You want my clients to stop
    using what they are just because of ... They will not. The training
    costs are too high. Not to mention the OS (windows), AutoCad for 30
    people, and the training to all 30 people just to get off SCO UNIX. What
    world do you live in, that forces people to something just for....

    > There ya go. Same holds true of ex-wives, remembering
    > the good times, forgetting all the crap.
    >
    > > 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.

    >
    > Yes, and I remember the days of reboot every day or crash
    > on the 2nd day.


    The only time they have to reboot is when the power goes off and it off
    longer than their backup plans. Some take power out for 2 days. The
    uptime are not valid because of the execeeding the kernel value. The last
    power outage wa 4 or 5 years ago. Before that the system had been up for
    8 years. When they need to replace the hardware they want to upgrade to
    OpenServer 6. They are currently running ODT 3.0. They have there
    backups for they can install on new hardware. They have the HW keys and
    serial number and stuff to do the reinstall. We did a system last year to
    make sure that when the HW fails they have an upgrade path. Till then
    they will continue to use the SW that works for their business. They are
    the ones using the OLD CAD system. It runs on OpenSever 6, but was
    orignally for OpenServer 3.0 or ODT 3.0. There is not equiv SW for linux
    or any other UNIX. So they will stay with what works for them. You want
    them to stop just because .... Wrong. They will do what is best for
    their business. I do have linux machines in their facilities, but they
    will not change this application. I said that the applications determine
    what OS is to be used. That has not changed, and probably never will.

    So stop making bad assumptions. Let our customer use what they need to
    get their jobs done. Yes, where a new system and applications do not
    require SCO OS's they use Linux or an other UNIX varriant. But till then
    they will use what is best for them. I can not dictate to them to change.
    I can only keep them aware of what is going on. And BTW I do. We all
    want to court case finished because until them things may change. The
    current state is Novell has many things, but it may change on court
    appeals. Till the case is all over, we do not know the final state of
    things. We do have to make our customer's aware of what is happening and
    the current state of things as you have pointed out. But you need to
    realize not everything is black and white. Customer have the right to
    make the choice that is best for them. If it looks like SCO is goint out
    of business they will purchase upgrades so that they will be able to run
    their applications on newer HW. But till the door closes, there are
    people that will buy upgrades or new versions, based on what is best for
    them.


    --
    Boyd Gerber
    ZENEZ 1042 East Fort Union #135, Midvale Utah 84047

  15. Re: Who will buy SCO

    Also you want them to have to pay someone to take all their work since the
    late 80's and have them pay someone to redraw all of it in AutoCad. It is
    not cost effective. You have 30-50 people have done plans and various
    drawing for about 30 years and then suddenly put them in a new system.
    Not very likely. Too many man years of work to really make the move. Now
    if or when they can no longer use their application, they may be willing
    to consider the cost. They have a 1-3 people that do you AutoCAD, but the
    vast majority of their work is done in the old CAD program. They force
    every new employee to learn the old CAD system, but allow a very few
    people to use AutoCAD where it meets their needs. The use of AutoCAD is
    dictated to them by their customers. They choose to do what is best for
    their needs. You would have them give that all up and move to an MS OS?
    I find that worse than using SCO. They have a different person handle all
    their MS needs. They spend over 4000 times the cost for support on their
    1-4 MS OS computers than on their over 40 SCO UNIX machines. There is no
    Linux program for them to use. You would have them move everything to MS
    and up their costs just to get off SCO OS's. I can not create a good
    business reason to move, or cost advantage. Can you. I am sure they
    would be glad to have one. I doubt you can make one. So let the
    application dictate the OS choice.

    Good Luck,

    --
    Boyd Gerber
    ZENEZ 1042 East Fort Union #135, Midvale Utah 84047

  16. Re: Who will buy SCO


    ----- 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?

    --
    Brian K. White brian@aljex.com http://www.myspace.com/KEYofR
    +++++[>+++[>+++++>+++++++<<-]<-]>>+.>.+++++.+++++++.-.[>+<---]>++.
    filePro BBx Linux SCO FreeBSD #callahans Satriani Filk!


  17. Re: Who will buy SCO

    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.




  18. Re: Who will buy SCO

    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.



    --
    ----------------------------------------------------
    Pat Welch, UBB Computer Services, a WCS Affiliate
    SCO Authorized Partner
    Microlite BackupEdge Certified Reseller
    Unix/Linux/Windows/Hardware Sales/Support
    (209) 745-1401 Cell: (209) 251-9120
    E-mail: patubb@inreach.com
    ----------------------------------------------------

  19. Re: Who will buy SCO

    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!


  20. Re: Who will buy SCO

    On Feb 13, 10:05*am, Boyd Lynn Gerber wrote:
    > On Tue, 12 Feb 2008, foolsrushout wrote:
    > > 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.

    >
    > > You know this how?

    >
    > The records on grokaw.
    >
    > > > >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.

    >
    > > Again, you know this how? Every Xenix system I've ever
    > > had anything to do with has been replaced by something
    > > much better and much faster.

    >
    > Because I have every year about 5-10 calls asking what year to use so that
    > the dates match up to the calander year. *People who use SCO systems for
    > the most part subscribe to the "If it ain't broke don't touch it" or "If
    > it ain't broke, do not fix it". *I have clients who are still using SCO
    > UNIX 3.4v4.0 and 3.4v4.2 and ODT/OSR 2.0/3.0. *There cad software only
    > runs on this and no one makes newer versions of it. *They refuse to go the
    > MS route and there are not any really good CAD packages for linux. *Get
    > Auto Cad to port to linux or some UNIX variant and they will switch, but
    > until then they will stick with there old SCO OS.
    >
    > > > "If it ain't broke, don't fix it" is the mantra of many sites.

    >
    > > Till the boredom of waiting for pages to come up becomes
    > > intolerable.

    >
    > No there are real applications that only work on SCO OS's, they do not
    > exist on Linux or other UNIX varriants. *So use kado and kadol
    > applications and it only runs on SCO OS's. *I just did an upgrade for one
    > client. *They paid the cadol people $100.00 for the new install key to run
    > their applications. *They are now running OpenServer 6.0. *Their data base
    > and application are running. *They do use linux to connect from many
    > locations to this server. *But you can not get cadol to run on linux. *It
    > was done in about 1988. *They refuse to create new versions. *So the only
    > choice is to run SCO OS's. *The backwards compatibility does not exist in
    > linux. *Applications that ran on the first linux version will not run on
    > today's linux. *Linux kernel developers have a different mind set.
    > Compatibility for old versions does not exist. *The make changes for what
    > they consider the best. *I am not saying it is bad just an other mind set.
    > Linux has it's applications and you have to choose what is best for the
    > client based on their needs not the fanatic I have to move to linux.
    >
    > > > You would have these sites go to the expense and hassle of migrating
    > > > to a different system simply to satisfy your own personal vendetta.

    >
    > > Every old slow system I've ever dealt with has upgraded
    > > despite the costs. Those who haven't are failing businesses
    > > that won't be around much longer anyway, usually mon&pop
    > > operations down to being run by mon&pop alone.

    >
    > And you know this how? *I only hear from clients when something breaks or
    > they need assistance. *Some doing extremely well. *They only upgrade or
    > switch OS's based on the applications they need to use.
    >
    > > OS's amortize just like everything else. That you fail to
    > > understand the implications demonstrates you don't know
    > > much about business.

    >
    > Yes, but if it meets there needs and the application does not exist on
    > Linux or an other UNIX OS they are not going to change. *Get your facts
    > straight. *You want my customers to move to Linux or an other UNIX OS just
    > because of what is currently happening. *Fat chance! *Till the application
    > are on the other OS's they will not move.
    >
    > > > You might not, but it is obvious that other people still would.

    >
    > > Really. To borrow a phrase from Johnny Carson, "How
    > > obvious is it?" I don't think it obvious at all,
    > > indeed I believe the opposite is true, that only
    > > people already stuck and unable to afford migrating
    > > to something better are hanging on to this soon
    > > to be a chuckle in history OPS. If what you are
    > > saying were actually true, there would be lots
    > > of businesses still running Kaypro and Tandy and
    > > Osborne boxes sporting CP/M. Seen any lately? Have
    > > you even heard an urban legend about someone still
    > > running a successful business on one of those old
    > > boxes? How about PDP's which were a truly significant
    > > investment?

    >
    > No! *It is the applications. *See above. *You want my clients to stop
    > using what they are just because of ... *They will not. *The training
    > costs are too high. *Not to mention the OS (windows), AutoCad for 30
    > people, and the training to all 30 people just to get off SCO UNIX. *What
    > world do you live in, that forces people to something just for....
    >
    > > There ya go. Same holds true of ex-wives, remembering
    > > the good times, forgetting all the crap.

    >
    > > > 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.

    >
    > > Yes, and I remember the days of reboot every day or crash
    > > on the 2nd day.

    >
    > The only time they have to reboot is when the power goes off and it off
    > longer than their backup plans. *Some take power out for 2 days. *The
    > uptime are not valid because of the execeeding the kernel value. *The last
    > power outage wa 4 or 5 years ago. *Before that the system had been up for
    > 8 years. *When they need to replace the hardware they want to upgrade to
    > OpenServer 6. *They are currently running ODT 3.0. *They have there
    > backups for they can install on new hardware. *They have the HW keys and
    > serial number and stuff to do the reinstall. *We did a system last year to
    > make sure that when the HW fails they have an upgrade path. *Till then
    > they will continue to use the SW that works for their business. *They are
    > the ones using the OLD CAD system. *It runs on OpenSever 6, but was
    > orignally for OpenServer 3.0 or ODT 3.0. *There is not equiv SW for linux
    > or any other UNIX. *So they will stay with what works for them. *You want
    > them to stop just because .... *Wrong. *They will do what is best for
    > their business. *I do have linux machines in their facilities, but they
    > will not change this application. *I said that the applications determine
    > what OS is to be used. *That has not changed, and probably never will.
    >
    > So stop making bad assumptions. *Let our customer use what they need to
    > get their jobs done. *Yes, where a new system and applications do not
    > require SCO OS's they use Linux or an other UNIX varriant. *But till then
    > they will use what is best for them. *I can not dictate to them to change.
    > I can only keep them aware of what is going on. *And BTW I do. *We all
    > want to court case finished because until them things may change. *The
    > current state is Novell has many things, but it may change on court
    > appeals. *Till the case is all over, we do not know the final state of
    > things. *We do have to make our customer's aware of what is happening and
    > the current state of things as you have pointed out. *But you need to
    > realize not everything is black and white. *Customer have the right to
    > make the choice that is best for them. *If it looks like SCO is goint out
    > of business they will purchase upgrades so that they will be able to run
    > their applications on newer HW. *But till the door closes, there are
    > people that will buy upgrades or new versions, based on what is best for
    > them.
    >
    > --
    > Boyd Gerber
    > ZENEZ * 1042 East Fort Union #135, Midvale Utah *84047


    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. What the
    operating system does is operate in a stable manner on good HP
    hardware with plenty of grunt for our 50 users. We have a fully
    redundant system remotely located which updates via rsync 3 times per
    day. If SCO ceases to exist tomorrow then I dont care - I never call
    SCO on the phone, I dont e-mail them directly. The documentaation
    with SCO is good for most things. If i ever needed any advice i asked
    in this group comp.unix.sco.misc and get excellent pointers and
    solutions. We also run Linux for a VPN server. I find linux
    newsgroups to be full of noise - ask a question and you get script
    kiddies giving all manner of misleading or useless advice. Then
    morons with no qualifications and a free distro from some magazine
    asking lots of very basic questions that they should be able to
    resolve if they read the man page or had basic unix skills. I find
    that annoying.

    In my business we prioritise new projects and upgrades on the basis of
    the need or the competitive advantage obtained. I see no need or
    advantage to hit the big red panic button to rush out and port our
    primary system to a different flavour OS. Our business is strong our
    people are talented and our shareholders get great returns, would they
    appreciate the cost effort and risks to move a business system to a
    different platform given our circumstances and our priorities for
    optimisation elsewhere in the business? I dont think so.

    Regards

    James

+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast