SCO Office Server - SCO

This is a discussion on SCO Office Server - SCO ; I'm running on SCO OpenServer 6.0.0 with MP1 installed. I am trying to install a demo copy of SCO Office Server (4.1.0Ga). I run 'custom' logged in as root from the command prompt, when the license manager panel appears, I ...

+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 16 of 16

Thread: SCO Office Server

  1. SCO Office Server

    I'm running on SCO OpenServer 6.0.0 with MP1 installed.

    I am trying to install a demo copy of SCO Office Server (4.1.0Ga).

    I run 'custom' logged in as root from the command prompt, when the
    license manager panel appears, I select 'defer' to install the 60 day
    demo, after which I get the error:

    "(\) The custom+ binary (backend) process has died."

    Clicking [details] reveals this line:

    " Assertion failed: path != NULL, file "dbaseStanza.C", line 484 "

    and custom is thrown back to the command prompt.

    Any suggestions from anyone on where to look to fix this?

    --
    Robin Grayson

  2. Re: SCO Office Server

    On Thu, 18 Aug 2005 15:11:04 +0100, Robin Grayson
    wrote:

    | I'm running on SCO OpenServer 6.0.0 with MP1 installed.
    |
    | I am trying to install a demo copy of SCO Office Server (4.1.0Ga).
    |
    | I run 'custom' logged in as root from the command prompt, when the
    | license manager panel appears, I select 'defer' to install the 60 day
    | demo, after which I get the error:
    |
    | "(\) The custom+ binary (backend) process has died."
    |
    | Clicking [details] reveals this line:
    |
    | " Assertion failed: path != NULL, file "dbaseStanza.C", line 484 "
    |
    | and custom is thrown back to the command prompt.
    |
    | Any suggestions from anyone on where to look to fix this?

    I should also have mentioned that on a previous attempt to install
    this, custom did get to the final stages, but I killed off the process
    after waiting 3+ hours for it to complete.

    I've obviously corrupted something, but I'm not sure where to look.

    --
    Robin Grayson

  3. Re: SCO Office Server

    Unfortunately, Sco Office does not run on Open Server 6.

    Fabio


  4. Re: SCO Office Server

    On 18 Aug 2005 07:45:29 -0700, fabiog@venmar.com wrote:

    | Unfortunately, Sco Office does not run on Open Server 6.
    |
    | Fabio

    I presumed since it ran on 5.0.7 it would also run on 6.0.0 given that
    OSR6 is supposed to be backwards compatible? Is this really the case?

    --
    Robin Grayson

  5. Re: SCO Office Server

    According to the SCO folks at Forum, Office will not yet run on 6.
    They are working on it, but not yet.

    Fabio


  6. Re: SCO Office Server

    On 18 Aug 2005 08:00:28 -0700, fabiog@venmar.com wrote:

    | According to the SCO folks at Forum, Office will not yet run on 6.
    | They are working on it, but not yet.
    |

    Fantastic.
    --
    Robin Grayson

  7. Re: SCO Office Server

    Robin Grayson wrote:

    > On 18 Aug 2005 08:00:28 -0700, fabiog@venmar.com wrote:
    >
    > > According to the SCO folks at Forum, Office will not yet run on 6.
    > > They are working on it, but not yet.
    > >

    >
    > Fantastic.


    Might I suggest a Linux Server and Open Office?

  8. Re: SCO Office Server

    On Mon, 22 Aug 2005 21:10:46 -0500, "Meat Loaf"
    wrote:

    | Robin Grayson wrote:
    |
    | > On 18 Aug 2005 08:00:28 -0700, fabiog@venmar.com wrote:
    | >
    | > > According to the SCO folks at Forum, Office will not yet run on 6.
    | > > They are working on it, but not yet.
    | > >
    | >
    | > Fantastic.
    |
    | Might I suggest a Linux Server and Open Office?

    After a few years of having nothing at all to do with writing software
    for SCO, when OSR6 was released I started to remember "the good old
    days" and figured I'd try to do my bit to push SCO again.

    When I saw Office Server for SCO, I figured it might be a better
    alternative to Exchange, which I find a real pig to administer when
    things go wrong.

    Unfortunately, Office Server only appears to run on OSR 5.0.7 which I
    don't have (and am not prepared to buy at this point). The last
    version of SCO I bought was OSR 5.0.6, and now OSR 6.0, neither of
    which this will run on.

    I've got mixed feelings about pushing SCO .. part of me thinks why
    bother, is it worth the effort, nobody seems that interested in it
    anymore, but then the other part of me has an overwhelming urge to
    jump on the "SCO Revival" bandwagon.

    Sorry this didn't relate to your reply ... I've not looked at Open
    Office for Linux, I'll do a search and see what it's about. Thanks for
    the info.

    --
    Robin Grayson

  9. Re: SCO Office Server

    Meat Loaf wrote:
    > Robin Grayson wrote:
    >
    >
    >>On 18 Aug 2005 08:00:28 -0700, fabiog@venmar.com wrote:
    >>
    >>
    >>> According to the SCO folks at Forum, Office will not yet run on 6.
    >>> They are working on it, but not yet.
    >>>

    >>
    >>Fantastic.

    >
    >
    > Might I suggest a Linux Server and Open Office?


    You might, but then they'd have nothing that provides the functions of
    SCO Office.

  10. Re: SCO Office Server

    On Tue, 23 Aug 2005 09:09:31 +0000 (UTC), Ian Wilson
    wrote:

    | Meat Loaf wrote:
    | > Robin Grayson wrote:
    | >
    | >
    | >>On 18 Aug 2005 08:00:28 -0700, fabiog@venmar.com wrote:
    | >>
    | >>
    | >>> According to the SCO folks at Forum, Office will not yet run on 6.
    | >>> They are working on it, but not yet.
    | >>>
    | >>
    | >>Fantastic.
    | >
    | >
    | > Might I suggest a Linux Server and Open Office?
    |
    | You might, but then they'd have nothing that provides the functions of
    | SCO Office.

    I did have a look at the Open Office website, but it's not what I was
    after - that appears to be an alternative to Microsoft Office.

    I have a Cobalt RaQ mailserver which I want to get rid of as it is no
    longer a supported platform, and would rather stay away from exchange
    if possible.

    I know I can achieve the same functionality on OSR6 as I can on the
    Linux Cobalt RaQ, but would like to move forward and have the benefits
    of shared diaries etc that tie in with outlook.



    --
    Robin Grayson

  11. Re: SCO Office Server

    Ian Wilson wrote:
    > Meat Loaf wrote:
    >
    >> Robin Grayson wrote:
    >>
    >>
    >>> On 18 Aug 2005 08:00:28 -0700, fabiog@venmar.com wrote:
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>> According to the SCO folks at Forum, Office will not yet run on 6.
    >>>> They are working on it, but not yet.
    >>>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> Fantastic.

    >>
    >>
    >>
    >> Might I suggest a Linux Server and Open Office?

    >
    >
    > You might, but then they'd have nothing that provides the functions of
    > SCO Office.


    :-)

    But perhaps he doesn't need all that functionality.

    Besides, he CAN run Bynari (which is what ScoOffice really is) on Linux
    (see http://aplawrence.com/Unixart/scoofficemail.html )

    I sell a lot of Kerio mailservers, which also provide Exchange like
    capability on Linux or Mac or Microsoft:
    http://aplawrence.con/Unixart/keriomailserver.html


    --
    Tony Lawrence
    Unix/Linux/Mac OS X resources: http://aplawrence.com
    Geek Yard Sale: http://geekyardsale.com

  12. Re: SCO Office Server

    On Wed, 24 Aug 2005 12:28:23 -0400, Tony Lawrence
    wrote:

    | Besides, he CAN run Bynari (which is what ScoOffice really is) on Linux
    | (see http://aplawrence.com/Unixart/scoofficemail.html )
    |
    | I sell a lot of Kerio mailservers, which also provide Exchange like
    | capability on Linux or Mac or Microsoft:
    | http://aplawrence.con/Unixart/keriomailserver.html

    Hi Tony,

    Thanks for the information about those products; I didn't know about
    the Bynari product, I will certainly look into them.

    I'm downloading Kerio Mailserver as I write.

    --
    Robin Grayson

  13. Re: SCO Office Server

    Robin Grayson wrote:
    > On 18 Aug 2005 08:00:28 -0700, fabiog@venmar.com wrote:
    >
    > | According to the SCO folks at Forum, Office will not yet run on 6.
    > | They are working on it, but not yet.
    > |
    >
    > Fantastic.


    Robin - you wrote to me in private email about this, but my reply bounced:

    Delivery to the following recipient failed permanently:

    robin@digisoft.uk.com

    Technical details of permanent failure:
    TEMP_FAILURE: Could not initiate SMTP conversation with any hosts:
    [gw194.rg-net.com (10): Destination address required]

    Sorry..

  14. Re: SCO Office Server

    Robin Grayson wrote:

    > I've got mixed feelings about pushing SCO .. part of me thinks why
    > bother, is it worth the effort, nobody seems that interested in it
    > anymore, but then the other part of me has an overwhelming urge to
    > jump on the "SCO Revival" bandwagon.


    Talk about flogging a dead horse! I'm amazed that anyone is still
    actually bothering to update any software on SCO OS'. The company is
    pretty much dead - virtually no development going on at all, and what
    has been released is so far behind Linux/BSD, even Microsoft(!) that
    there's no sane reason for anyone to want to pay for the garbage. SCO
    have been caught lying time and again, and even admitted now to using
    Linux code in their "Linux personality" cludge - essentially stealing
    from the open source community. SCO continue to prop up their wobbly
    offerings by adding Open source software, while all the time claiming
    that the GPL is "unconstitutional" (staggering hypocrisy!)

    You'd be just as productive migrating to the Commodore 64, or Sinclair
    ZX81 or something - they have better future prospects than SCO.

    If you really are "pushing SCO" onto customers, you should be bloodywell
    ashamed of yourself...

  15. Re: SCO Office Server et. al.

    Smashcat wrote:

    > Robin Grayson wrote:
    >
    >
    >>I've got mixed feelings about pushing SCO .. part of me thinks why
    >>bother, is it worth the effort, nobody seems that interested in it
    >>anymore, but then the other part of me has an overwhelming urge to
    >>jump on the "SCO Revival" bandwagon.

    >
    >
    > Talk about flogging a dead horse! I'm amazed that anyone is still
    > actually bothering to update any software on SCO OS'.
    >
    > If you really are "pushing SCO" onto customers, you should be bloodywell
    > ashamed of yourself...



    Mr. Smachcat. Try to see the real picture vs. the one you might read
    about in PC mags.

    I am a Computer consultant and have been working with SCO products since
    Xenix came on 8" disks. I have running my own integration company since
    1992 (worked with my father's Computer company for years before that).
    We work mostly with small business.

    The real picture is compatibility and stability. These are the two
    words to success in the OS biz. SCO OSs have such a large installed
    base. Over the years, they have created a big wave of momentum.

    Many of these installs are running custom code that has been in use for
    many years. Unfortunately, hardware does not have the longevity of
    software. Clients need their servers upgraded every 5 years or so.
    They don't "want" to do it. They have to. When they do, they don't
    "want" to spend anymore than is necessary to just keep the status quo.
    "Just get me running." they tell me.

    When I first opened up my NFR of OSR6 and installed it, what do you
    think I spent the next 2 days doing? Checking out the new cool KDE
    desktop, perhaps? No. I was interested to see if they had remembered
    key word one. I proceeded to install and test applications from as far
    back as the early '90s-- all successfully I might add. (Except for the
    annoying move from scoconsole to at386-ie emulation on the console.)

    I just did my first installation. They are running an old filepro 4.5
    based system that we pulled off their old 5.0.2 system. They have a
    brand new server, we recabled and dumped the serial terminals and
    printers for IP-based and we put in bulletproof Microlite-based backup
    procedure.

    This client, like nearly all SCO users I come across, is happy again.
    Happy to be able to just go on doing what works for them with the least
    possible expense. (They didn't even want internet access!)

    Though I agree that "pushing SCO" may not be the best thing at this
    particular time, there is still a very big need for their products.

    I also believe that their latest actions demonstrate they too realize
    that putting new product on the shelves--while leveraging off their
    existing base--is the road to survival. Not the court room.

    HTH,
    Dan

    P.S. I'm waiting for SCO Office on OSR6 too.

  16. Re: SCO Office Server et. al.

    In article ,
    Boss wrote:
    >Smashcat wrote:
    >
    >> Robin Grayson wrote:
    >>


    >>>I've got mixed feelings about pushing SCO .. part of me thinks why
    >>>bother, is it worth the effort, nobody seems that interested in it
    >>>anymore, but then the other part of me has an overwhelming urge to
    >>>jump on the "SCO Revival" bandwagon.

    >>
    >>
    >> Talk about flogging a dead horse! I'm amazed that anyone is still
    >> actually bothering to update any software on SCO OS'.
    >>
    >> If you really are "pushing SCO" onto customers, you should be bloodywell
    >> ashamed of yourself...

    >


    >Mr. Smachcat. Try to see the real picture vs. the one you might read
    >about in PC mags.


    >I am a Computer consultant and have been working with SCO
    >products since Xenix came on 8" disks. I have running my own
    >integration company since 1992 (worked with my father's Computer
    >company for years before that). We work mostly with small
    >business.


    >The real picture is compatibility and stability. These are the two
    >words to success in the OS biz. SCO OSs have such a large installed
    >base. Over the years, they have created a big wave of momentum.


    >Many of these installs are running custom code that has been in use for
    >many years. Unfortunately, hardware does not have the longevity of
    >software. Clients need their servers upgraded every 5 years or so.
    >They don't "want" to do it. They have to. When they do, they don't
    >"want" to spend anymore than is necessary to just keep the status quo.
    >"Just get me running." they tell me.


    And they keep on running.

    I thought I had a client who migrated from OSR5. I migrated
    to an OSR5 for the Y2K event, as their vendor was working on
    getting things running on NT.

    Then I was there in 2002, as the upgrade was 'almost ready'.

    I figured I had seen the last of them.

    About 18 months ago they moved their office and called me when
    their modems weren't working. [They hadn't labeled things correctly
    and had things set up wrong]. The upgrade was almost ready.
    And that left me with 1 OSR5 client, who has since moved to SuSE.

    And three days ago I got a call from the first client.

    They needed to get their XP machines up and running with Samba
    as they only had 2 Windows 98 accessing it and those were dog slow.

    I asked about the update. It seems the data conversion house
    can't seem to get it 'right' as they have two pharmacies that run
    in that company. And the data conversion firm can't seem to get
    these into separate data bases. :-(

    I wondered why, and asked if it was to be an SQL application and
    the vendor told them 'they didn't need that until they get bigger'
    - which I think was a way of saying "we don't know how to do that".

    But I put in some security patches, put in an updated Samba.

    And the client commented he almost hated to have people see his
    computer room as the SCO machine is so old - and the previous
    on-site computer person had broken the clips for the front cover
    so it's guts are visible.

    But he said "It just keeps on running". And he's gone through at
    least 2 NT server since the Y2K upgrade on the OSR5.

    The systems just don't go away. However, after the last three
    times I've been there in the past 4 years thinking it was the last
    time I'd see them, I'm beginning to wonder.

    Bill

    --
    Bill Vermillion - bv @ wjv . com

+ Reply to Thread