Which SCO is better? - SCO

This is a discussion on Which SCO is better? - SCO ; I have many clients running on 5.0.5 and I need to move them to something a little more current. Because of the nature of their applications, I still have to retain the ability to run a.out (coff) executables, therefore, migrating ...

+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 16 of 16

Thread: Which SCO is better?

  1. Which SCO is better?

    I have many clients running on 5.0.5 and I need to move them to something a
    little more current. Because of the nature of their applications, I still
    have to retain the ability to run a.out (coff) executables, therefore,
    migrating them to Linux, Solaris, or any other flavor of Unix is currently
    out of the question.

    I've heard and read some fairly harsh statements about Version 6 SCO, and
    while I've tinkered with it a little bit, I am in no way knowledgeable
    enough to pass judgement.
    My questions are, what are some of the pros and cons of Version 6 as
    compared to 5.0.7? If you had your druther's, which of the two would be
    your choice? Is Version 6 close enough to 5 to be at least visually
    seamless from the user's standpoint. Are there any hidden landmines in
    Version 6 that no one wants to mention?

    Just some of your 2 cents will be greatly appreciated?

    Thanks
    JP



  2. Re: Which SCO is better?

    On Tue, May 13, 2008, JP wrote:
    >I have many clients running on 5.0.5 and I need to move them to something a
    >little more current. Because of the nature of their applications, I still
    >have to retain the ability to run a.out (coff) executables, therefore,
    >migrating them to Linux, Solaris, or any other flavor of Unix is currently
    >out of the question.
    >
    >I've heard and read some fairly harsh statements about Version 6 SCO, and
    >while I've tinkered with it a little bit, I am in no way knowledgeable
    >enough to pass judgement.
    >My questions are, what are some of the pros and cons of Version 6 as
    >compared to 5.0.7? If you had your druther's, which of the two would be
    >your choice? Is Version 6 close enough to 5 to be at least visually
    >seamless from the user's standpoint. Are there any hidden landmines in
    >Version 6 that no one wants to mention?


    We have been using 5.0.6a for years now without problems, largely
    because it doesn't require new licensing and Just Works(tm). I
    have not tried runnig 80286 COFF binaries under VMware Server,
    but have not had any problems with other COFF binaries.

    Bill
    --
    INTERNET: bill@celestial.com Bill Campbell; Celestial Software LLC
    URL: http://www.celestial.com/ PO Box 820; 6641 E. Mercer Way
    Voice: (206) 236-1676 Mercer Island, WA 98040-0820
    Fax: (206) 232-9186

    We maintain that the very foundation of our way of life is what we call
    free enterprise, said Cash McCall, but when one of our citizens
    show enough free enterprise to pile up a little of that profit, we do
    our best to make him feel that he ought to be ashamed of himself.
    -- Cameron Hawley

  3. Re: Which SCO is better?



    On Tue, 13 May 2008, JP wrote:

    > I have many clients running on 5.0.5 and I need to move them to something a
    > little more current. Because of the nature of their applications, I still
    > have to retain the ability to run a.out (coff) executables, therefore,
    > migrating them to Linux, Solaris, or any other flavor of Unix is currently
    > out of the question.


    The Linux kernel supports a.out and ECOFF binaries. Support for this may
    not be included in many distributions, but if you are prepared to build
    your own kernel, you should be able to run this type of binary. That may
    not solve your problem, but you should be aware of the possiblity.

  4. Re: Which SCO is better?

    On Tue, 13 May 2008 12:02:01 -0400, JP wrote:

    > I have many clients running on 5.0.5 and I need to move them to
    > something a little more current. Because of the nature of their
    > applications, I still have to retain the ability to run a.out (coff)
    > executables, therefore, migrating them to Linux, Solaris, or any other
    > flavor of Unix is currently out of the question.


    Have you tried linux with the following enabled?

    "Kernel support for a.out and ECOFF binaries"


    stonerfish

  5. Re: Which SCO is better?

    On Tue, May 13, 2008, jellybean stonerfish wrote:
    >On Tue, 13 May 2008 12:02:01 -0400, JP wrote:
    >
    >> I have many clients running on 5.0.5 and I need to move them to
    >> something a little more current. Because of the nature of their
    >> applications, I still have to retain the ability to run a.out (coff)
    >> executables, therefore, migrating them to Linux, Solaris, or any other
    >> flavor of Unix is currently out of the question.

    >
    >Have you tried linux with the following enabled?
    >
    >"Kernel support for a.out and ECOFF binaries"


    In my experience, the last version of Linux that we have been able to use
    the linux-abi was SuSE 9.0 Pro, and that does not support 80286 Xenix
    binaries. The last new OpenServer install we did was replacing an
    OpenDesktop 2.0 system with a FilePro application where a major bit of it
    was ancient Xenix 286 code, for which source was not available.

    I have heard that development on the linux-abi is stalled, but I may be out
    of date on that.

    We are running SCO OpenServer 5.0.6a with VMware Server on CentOS 5.1.

    Bill
    --
    INTERNET: bill@celestial.com Bill Campbell; Celestial Software LLC
    URL: http://www.celestial.com/ PO Box 820; 6641 E. Mercer Way
    Voice: (206) 236-1676 Mercer Island, WA 98040-0820
    Fax: (206) 232-9186

    The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be
    properly armed. -- Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist Papers at 184-188

  6. Re: Which SCO is better?

    On 13 May, 17:02, "JP" wrote:
    > I have many clients running on 5.0.5 and I need to move them to something a
    > little more current. Because of the nature of their applications, I still
    > have to retain the ability to run a.out (coff) executables, therefore,
    > migrating them to Linux, Solaris, or any other flavor of Unix is currently
    > out of the question.
    >
    > I've heard and read some fairly harsh statements about Version 6 SCO, and
    > while I've tinkered with it a little bit, I am in no way knowledgeable
    > enough to pass judgement.
    > My questions are, what are some of the pros and cons of Version 6 as
    > compared to 5.0.7? If you had your druther's, which of the two would be
    > your choice? Is Version 6 close enough to 5 to be at least visually
    > seamless from the user's standpoint. Are there any hidden landmines in
    > Version 6 that no one wants to mention?
    >
    > Just some of your 2 cents will be greatly appreciated?


    JP,

    I would recommend OpenServer 6 with Maintenance Pack 3 applied.

    Please see:

    http://www.sco.com/products/openserver6/features.html

    for a list of features and benefits, and see:

    http://www.sco.com/support/docs/open...ion/index.html

    for migration and upgrade documentation. SCO can also provide you
    with email support on any upgrade issues you encounter.

    You can download and evaluate OpenServer 6.0.0 from:

    http://www.sco.com/support/update/do...se.php?rid=161

    The one issue to be aware of is that you cannot in-place upgrade to
    OpenServer 6 from OpenServer 5, you will need to do a fresh install
    upgrade instead.

    Let me know if you need clarification of any of the above.

    Regards,

    John

  7. Re: Which SCO is better?

    On May 14, 1:02 am, jbol...@sco.com wrote:
    > On 13 May, 17:02, "JP" wrote:
    >
    >
    >
    > > I have many clients running on 5.0.5 and I need to move them to something a
    > > little more current. Because of the nature of their applications, I still
    > > have to retain the ability to run a.out (coff) executables, therefore,
    > > migrating them to Linux, Solaris, or any other flavor of Unix is currently
    > > out of the question.

    >
    > > I've heard and read some fairly harsh statements about Version 6 SCO, and
    > > while I've tinkered with it a little bit, I am in no way knowledgeable
    > > enough to pass judgement.
    > > My questions are, what are some of the pros and cons of Version 6 as
    > > compared to 5.0.7? If you had your druther's, which of the two would be
    > > your choice? Is Version 6 close enough to 5 to be at least visually
    > > seamless from the user's standpoint. Are there any hidden landmines in
    > > Version 6 that no one wants to mention?

    >
    > > Just some of your 2 cents will be greatly appreciated?

    >
    > JP,
    >
    > I would recommend OpenServer 6 with Maintenance Pack 3 applied.
    >
    > Please see:
    >
    > http://www.sco.com/products/openserver6/features.html
    >
    > for a list of features and benefits, and see:
    >
    > http://www.sco.com/support/docs/open...ion/index.html
    >
    > for migration and upgrade documentation. SCO can also provide you
    > with email support on any upgrade issues you encounter.
    >
    > You can download and evaluate OpenServer 6.0.0 from:
    >
    > http://www.sco.com/support/update/do...se.php?rid=161
    >
    > The one issue to be aware of is that you cannot in-place upgrade to
    > OpenServer 6 from OpenServer 5, you will need to do a fresh install
    > upgrade instead.
    >
    > Let me know if you need clarification of any of the above.
    >
    > Regards,
    >
    > John


    I've migrated a large app from 5.0.5 to 6.0.0. By and large it did
    not introduce many new issues. Reviewing my migration notes, some of
    the things I ran into:

    1. Some configuration files moved, e.g., sendmail
    2. "scoansi" emulation dropped
    3. Some commands changed output format a bit, e.g., ls, ps, df.
    4. Some kernel-dependent programs such as BackupEdge have to be
    updated.
    5. There are somewhat different collections of utilities. E.g.,
    "top" is out but they provided "rtpm".

    On the plus side, the 6.0.0 vxfs filesystem is much faster than
    5.0.5's htfs.

    For non-technical reasons 6.0.0 was preferred to 5.0.7 so I didn't
    really look at the latter deeply.

    --RLR

  8. Re: Which SCO is better?

    ThreeStar typed (on Wed, May 14, 2008 at 10:30:29AM -0700):
    | I've migrated a large app from 5.0.5 to 6.0.0. By and large it did
    | not introduce many new issues. Reviewing my migration notes, some of
    | the things I ran into:
    |
    | 1. Some configuration files moved, e.g., sendmail
    | 2. "scoansi" emulation dropped
    | 3. Some commands changed output format a bit, e.g., ls, ps, df.
    | 4. Some kernel-dependent programs such as BackupEdge have to be
    | updated.
    | 5. There are somewhat different collections of utilities. E.g.,
    | "top" is out but they provided "rtpm".
    |
    | On the plus side, the 6.0.0 vxfs filesystem is much faster than
    | 5.0.5's htfs.
    |
    | For non-technical reasons 6.0.0 was preferred to 5.0.7 so I didn't
    | really look at the latter deeply.

    I have no idea what there was by way of any "emulator" for scoansi
    in OSR 5.0.6 or 5.0.7. All I know by that name are entries in the
    termcamp and termlib files. While they disappeared in the original
    6.0.0 release, the scoansi entries returned as the default console value
    of $TERM with the first MP (which can now be skipped in favor of the
    third MP).

    --
    JP

  9. Re: Which SCO is better?

    On Thu, 15 May 2008, Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote:
    > Please do not suggest that I have misread someone's post without
    > verifying that your interpretation is, in fact, correct.
    >
    > Also, OpenServer 6.0 is not the latest UNIX OS from SCO. UnixWare
    > 7.1.4 is. While that's a minor release, rather than a major release,
    > is the newer OS actually that much better than 5.0.7?


    Actually

    OpenServer 6 is the latest release in the OpenServer series. It is based
    on UnixWare 7.1.4, or should I say used as a starting point. A lot
    was taken from UnixWare 7.1.4 and made to work like OpenServer 5.0.X.

    Latest OS's

    OpenServer 6 OpenServer Series
    UnixWare 7.1.4 UnixWare Series orignally for USL/Novell.

    Eventually merged into what was code named Fusion.


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

  10. Re: Which SCO is better?

    On Thu, 15 May 2008, Boyd Lynn Gerber wrote:
    > On Thu, 15 May 2008, Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote:
    > > Please do not suggest that I have misread someone's post without
    > > verifying that your interpretation is, in fact, correct.
    > >
    > > Also, OpenServer 6.0 is not the latest UNIX OS from SCO. UnixWare
    > > 7.1.4 is. While that's a minor release, rather than a major release,
    > > is the newer OS actually that much better than 5.0.7?

    >
    > Actually
    >
    > OpenServer 6 is the latest release in the OpenServer series. It is based
    > on UnixWare 7.1.4, or should I say used as a starting point. A lot
    > was taken from UnixWare 7.1.4 and made to work like OpenServer 5.0.X.
    >
    > Latest OS's
    >
    > OpenServer 6 OpenServer Series
    > UnixWare 7.1.4 UnixWare Series orignally for USL/Novell.
    >
    > Eventually merged into what was code named Fusion.


    Fusion will be a new SCO product, but with the Bankrupcy and all I have
    not idea when it will be released, if ever(for those that believe SCO is
    dead).

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

  11. Re: Which SCO is better?

    On 16 May, 02:22, Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote:
    > Please do not suggest that I have misread someone's post without
    > verifying that your interpretation is, in fact, correct.


    Nico,

    What the customer wrote was:

    > >My questions are, what are some of the pros and cons of Version 6 as
    > >compared to 5.0.7?


    OK, from my reading this could be 5.0.6 or 6.0.0?

    > > If you had your druther's, which of the two would be
    > >your choice? Is Version 6 close enough to 5 to be at least visually
    > >seamless from the user's standpoint.


    OK as I read this version 6 is OpenServer 6.0.0.

    > >Are there any hidden landmines in
    > >Version 6 that no one wants to mention?


    So it would seem from my reading that the customer means
    6.0.0 and not 5.0.6.

    Sorry if my original reply offended you.

    > Also, OpenServer 6.0 is not the latest UNIX OS from SCO. UnixWare
    > 7.1.4 is. While that's a minor release, rather than a major release,
    > is the newer OS actually that much better than 5.0.7?


    OpenServer 6.0.0 is a later version of Unix in terms of release
    date than UnixWare 7.1.4.

    Regards,

    John


  12. Re: Which SCO is better?

    On 16 May, 02:43, Boyd Lynn Gerber wrote:
    > On Thu, 15 May 2008, Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote:
    > > Please do not suggest that I have misread someone's post without
    > > verifying that your interpretation is, in fact, correct.

    >
    > > Also, OpenServer 6.0 is not the latest UNIX OS from SCO. UnixWare
    > > 7.1.4 is. While that's a minor release, rather than a major release,
    > > is the newer OS actually that much better than 5.0.7?

    >
    > Actually
    >
    > OpenServer 6 is the latest release in the OpenServer series. *It is based
    > on UnixWare 7.1.4, or should I say used as a starting point. *A lot
    > was taken from UnixWare 7.1.4 and made to work like OpenServer 5.0.X.
    >
    > Latest OS's
    >
    > OpenServer 6 * * * * * *OpenServer Series
    > UnixWare 7.1.4 * * * * *UnixWare Series orignally for USL/Novell..
    >
    > Eventually merged into what was code named Fusion.


    6.0.0 was released in 2005. I see no hint of a 6.0.1 release ever
    happening.

    7.1.4 was released in 2004: I misread the timeline and assumed that
    MP3 for 7.1.4 was a distinct release, which it's really not. So your
    point that OpenServer 6 was based on Unixware 7.1.4 seems quite
    reasonable, and I was mistaken about Unixware being the most recent.

    Good catch, and thank you for the correction.

  13. Re: Which SCO is better?

    On 16 May, 07:35, jbol...@sco.com wrote:
    > On 16 May, 02:22, Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote:
    >
    > > Please do not suggest that I have misread someone's post without
    > > verifying that your interpretation is, in fact, correct.

    >
    > Nico,
    >
    > What the customer wrote was:
    >
    > > >My questions are, what are some of the pros and cons of Version 6 as
    > > >compared to 5.0.7?

    >
    > OK, from my reading this could be 5.0.6 or 6.0.0?
    >
    > > > If you had your druther's, which of the two would be
    > > >your choice? *Is Version 6 close enough to 5 to be at least visually
    > > >seamless from the user's standpoint.

    >
    > OK as I read this version 6 is OpenServer 6.0.0.
    >
    > > >Are there any hidden landmines in
    > > >Version 6 that no one wants to mention?

    >
    > So it would seem from my reading that the customer means
    > 6.0.0 and not 5.0.6.
    >
    > Sorry if my original reply offended you.


    Apology fully accepted. I'm just surprised that you would think
    *anyone* would refer to OpenServer 5.0.6 as 'version 6'. That seems a
    very, very clear reference to OpenServer 6.0.0. Have you perhaps heard
    people refer to 5.0.6 as 'version 6' somewhere?

    > > Also, OpenServer 6.0 is not the latest UNIX OS from SCO. UnixWare
    > > 7.1.4 is. While that's a minor release, rather than a major release,
    > > is the newer OS actually that much better than 5.0.7?

    >
    > OpenServer 6.0.0 is a later version of Unix in terms of release
    > date than UnixWare 7.1.4.
    >
    > Regards,
    >
    > John


    Thank you, John. I misread the timeline of Unixware releases and
    thought the 7.1.4, MP3 was a distinct release, which it was not. Boyd,
    who is pretty cool, also corrected me on that.

  14. Re: Which SCO is better?

    Boyd Lynn Gerber wrote:
    > On Thu, 15 May 2008, Boyd Lynn Gerber wrote:
    >
    >>OpenServer 6 OpenServer Series
    >>UnixWare 7.1.4 UnixWare Series orignally for USL/Novell.
    >>
    >>Eventually merged into what was code named Fusion.

    >
    >
    > Fusion will be a new SCO product, but with the Bankrupcy and all I have
    > not idea when it will be released, if ever(for those that believe SCO is
    > dead).


    The point, here, is that the latest Unix kernel that The SCO Group had
    full rights to distribute *without* paying royalties to any third party
    is the OpenServer 5.0.7 Unix kernel (SVR3.2 based, no loadable
    kernel-module support, 2 GB file limit, old file-system...). The
    problem, here, is that the Unixware 7.* kernel included into the core of
    OpenServer 6 is Novel's intellectual property, and The SCO Group is only
    a distributor of such intellectual property, *and* has to pay royalties
    to Novel for it.

    Remember how long it took for the original SCO to get rid of paying
    royalties to MicroSoft for the original Xenix and its compiler, etc.?
    Well, it very well could be that now The SCO Group is in the same
    situation, but now owning royalties to Novel for every copy sold of both
    UnixWare *and* OpenServer.

    It is, in fact, an interesting way to fall from the king of the hill
    (isn't it, McBride?), to the lowest condition of a mere reseller of
    other's product. Well done!!

  15. Re: Which SCO is better?

    On May 14, 3:51 pm, Jean-Pierre Radley wrote:
    > ThreeStar typed (on Wed, May 14, 2008 at 10:30:29AM -0700):
    > | I've migrated a large app from 5.0.5 to 6.0.0. By and large it did
    > | not introduce many new issues. Reviewing my migration notes, some of
    > | the things I ran into:
    > |
    > | 1. Some configuration files moved, e.g., sendmail
    > | 2. "scoansi" emulation dropped
    > | 3. Some commands changed output format a bit, e.g., ls, ps, df.
    > | 4. Some kernel-dependent programs such as BackupEdge have to be
    > | updated.
    > | 5. There are somewhat different collections of utilities. E.g.,
    > | "top" is out but they provided "rtpm".
    > |
    > | On the plus side, the 6.0.0 vxfs filesystem is much faster than
    > | 5.0.5's htfs.
    > |
    > | For non-technical reasons 6.0.0 was preferred to 5.0.7 so I didn't
    > | really look at the latter deeply.
    >
    > I have no idea what there was by way of any "emulator" for scoansi
    > in OSR 5.0.6 or 5.0.7. All I know by that name are entries in the
    > termcamp and termlib files. While they disappeared in the original
    > 6.0.0 release, the scoansi entries returned as the default console value
    > of $TERM with the first MP (which can now be skipped in favor of the
    > third MP).
    >
    > --
    > JP


    Not seeing that behavior with my MP3 boxes. "ansiemul" is the
    default. But gotta run to catch a bus now.

    --RLR

  16. Re: Which SCO is better?


    "JP" wrote in message
    news:XXiWj.467$qH4.464@nlpi061.nbdc.sbc.com...
    >I have many clients running on 5.0.5 and I need to move them to something a
    >little more current. Because of the nature of their applications, I still
    >have to retain the ability to run a.out (coff) executables, therefore,
    >migrating them to Linux, Solaris, or any other flavor of Unix is currently
    >out of the question.
    >
    > I've heard and read some fairly harsh statements about Version 6 SCO, and
    > while I've tinkered with it a little bit, I am in no way knowledgeable
    > enough to pass judgement.
    > My questions are, what are some of the pros and cons of Version 6 as
    > compared to 5.0.7? If you had your druther's, which of the two would be
    > your choice? Is Version 6 close enough to 5 to be at least visually
    > seamless from the user's standpoint. Are there any hidden landmines in
    > Version 6 that no one wants to mention?
    >
    > Just some of your 2 cents will be greatly appreciated?
    >
    > Thanks
    > JP
    >
    >


    Well, I must say, I didn't intend to start a firestorm over symantecs, but I
    guess that's what I did. I'm an old timer who goes back, waaay back,
    having started programming on mainframes in the early 70's ........ er, I
    mean early 1970's. I have always referred to SCO releases by their major
    release version first, then by the subordinate point number only if needed,
    hence, SCO 3.2 as opposed to 3.2v4.2, SCO 5 as opposed to SCO 5.0.5, SCO 6
    as opposed to SCO 6.0. Therefore, when I was asking for information on SCO
    5.0.7 as compared to SCO 6, I was in fact asking for a comparison of a
    specific point release (5.0.7) and how it compares with SCO 6.0. Sorry
    about the confusion, it all made sense to me.

    At any rate, I find the responses interesting and varied and appreciate all
    those who contributed - even if they get a little over-zealous and
    passionate.

    Thanks
    JP



+ Reply to Thread