More evidence supporting my comments regarding SCO ... - SCO

This is a discussion on More evidence supporting my comments regarding SCO ... - SCO ; Apparently, I'm not the only one to have a poor opinion of SCO's capabilities: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/12/04/sco_no_ha/...

+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 12 of 12

Thread: More evidence supporting my comments regarding SCO ...

  1. More evidence supporting my comments regarding SCO ...

    Apparently, I'm not the only one to have a poor opinion of SCO's
    capabilities:
    http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/12/04/sco_no_ha/

  2. Re: More evidence supporting my comments regarding SCO ...


    Joe wrote:
    > Apparently, I'm not the only one to have a poor opinion of SCO's
    > capabilities:
    > http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/12/04/sco_no_ha/


    Are you trying to start a fight?

    I don't know if there are any rah-rah SCO supporters left here. There
    might be (I'm ready to be surprised), but an awful lot of the people
    who frequent this group saw the light long ago and are under no
    illusions about SCO or its products.

    SCO systems were most of what I did for many years. But I have fewer
    and fewer SCO customers left and I'm often the one who helps them move
    on. Unfortunately, some are stuck - they have ancient apps that can't
    be moved or that have prohibitive relicensing costs. I remain
    committed to trying to help them for as long as I can.

    There's also the issue of "it if ain't broke..". Some SCO systems do
    perfectly fine at their allotted task. They *could* be switched to
    Linux or whatever, but any switch costs time and money, so the owners
    are just leaving it be for now. I do always advise them to be prepared
    ( see http://aplawrence.com/Linux/nearing_end.html for some pointers)
    but I agree there is often no reason to jump ship immediately.

    By the way, for those moving off SCO or operating in mixed
    environments, I have a bunch of helpful stuff at
    http://aplawrence.com/cgi-bin/indexget.pl?Conversion

    --
    Tony Lawrence
    Unix/Linux/Mac OS X Resources
    http://aplawrence.com


  3. Re: More evidence supporting my comments regarding SCO ...


    Joe wrote:

    >
    > I do understand and can respect your position. What I have a problem with
    > is the questions like "I want to install on
    > my SCO box", or "I want to install new SCO box for capability" -- or
    > rather, I have a problem with responses that don't include: "you might be
    > better to install a Linux/BSD box to do this"


    Fair enough.. but I really think nowadays that pretty much "goes
    without saying".

    Yeah, now and then I have made posts that specifically said that.
    You'd have to be just a little crazy to set up a new
    webserver/mailserver or fileserver using SCO today..

    But when someone needs to add a harddrive, or implement ssh (though I
    have often suggested a little Linux box as a landing point for ssh) or
    the like, I don't always feel the need to point out the obvious.

    Feel free to follow me around and do this :-)



    --
    Tony Lawrence
    Unix/Linux/Mac OS X Resources
    http://aplawrence.com


  4. Re: More evidence supporting my comments regarding SCO ...

    In Joe:

    [Snip...]

    > broken link on its home page within a day (still broken as I type this),
    > that indicates a problem.


    Amazing to me: fix is a quick text edit on a b0rked link, simply making

    cluster

    to be instead

    clustering

    or somesuch. Even pointyhairs as *INEPT* as Ralphie and Darl could arrange
    something that simple, no? IMO, it's a rather obvious display of straws in
    the wind. More like sheetmetal shrapnel in a tornado, actually.

    Anybody without a "Plan B" for when (not if--when) SCOX vanishes in a poof
    of bankruptcy smoke has their head stuck in their nether regions.

    JMO; YMMV...

    --
    Regards, Weird (Harold Stevens) * IMPORTANT EMAIL INFO FOLLOWS *
    Pardon any bogus email addresses (wookie) in place for spambots.
    Really, it's (wyrd) at airmail, dotted with net. DO NOT SPAM IT.
    Kids jumping ship? Looking to hire an old-school type? Email me.

  5. Re: More evidence supporting my comments regarding SCO ...


    Harold Stevens wrote:
    > In Joe:
    >
    > [Snip...]
    >
    > > broken link on its home page within a day (still broken as I type this),
    > > that indicates a problem.

    >
    > Amazing to me: fix is a quick text edit on a b0rked link, [...]


    Looks fixed now.

    Jonathan Schilling


  6. Re: More evidence supporting my comments regarding SCO ...


    Tony Lawrence wrote:
    > Joe wrote:
    > > Apparently, I'm not the only one to have a poor opinion of SCO's
    > > capabilities:
    > > http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/12/04/sco_no_ha/

    >
    > Are you trying to start a fight?
    >
    > I don't know if there are any rah-rah SCO supporters left here. There
    > might be (I'm ready to be surprised), but an awful lot of the people
    > who frequent this group saw the light long ago and are under no
    > illusions about SCO or its products.
    >
    > SCO systems were most of what I did for many years. But I have fewer
    > and fewer SCO customers left and I'm often the one who helps them move
    > on. Unfortunately, some are stuck - they have ancient apps that can't
    > be moved or that have prohibitive relicensing costs. I remain
    > committed to trying to help them for as long as I can.
    >
    > There's also the issue of "it if ain't broke..". Some SCO systems do
    > perfectly fine at their allotted task. They *could* be switched to
    > Linux or whatever, but any switch costs time and money, so the owners
    > are just leaving it be for now. I do always advise them to be prepared
    > ( see http://aplawrence.com/Linux/nearing_end.html for some pointers)
    > but I agree there is often no reason to jump ship immediately.
    >
    > By the way, for those moving off SCO or operating in mixed
    > environments, I have a bunch of helpful stuff at
    > http://aplawrence.com/cgi-bin/indexget.pl?Conversion
    >
    > --
    > Tony Lawrence
    > Unix/Linux/Mac OS X Resources
    > http://aplawrence.com



    I still like SCO Openserver. That might brand me as a boob &
    simpleton, but I am both.

    SCO systems have a rep for working flawlessly for years. Customers
    take their servers for granted after a while because they seldom reboot
    them.

    In the past, I have worked with various versions of Linux, but each
    version seemed to be a beta with promises of better things to come.
    That was years ago when I stopped watching the Linux versions roll by.
    I should probably dig into the chaos and get a clue however, otherwise
    I might risk being content too long.

    My unabridged "I HATE LINUX" list:

    (1) Too many flavors and versions of flavors (Strawberry v9.3,
    Chocolate v15.7b, Souza v47.8)
    (2) I don't like the fact that Al Kader can download the source and use
    their advanced knowledge of logic-N-stuff to crack into my customer's
    systems.
    (3) I perceive that Linux is less hacker proof than SCO because SCO has
    fewer systems installed. Many people don't even know what SCO is.
    That's ok with me.
    (4) Will my apps work as is? rmcobol & Informix RDS.
    (5) I don't like change.
    (6) I'm old.
    (7) I'm getting older.

    In a perfect world, my cat would still be a kitten and Islamic fascists
    would be dead. I would still look forward to a better tomorrow as the
    days before me far outnumbered the days behind me. This would be a
    world where songs have melody and lyrics (not death threats). Women
    would be different (and better) from men, and Doritos come in a 16oz
    bag. Yogurt is sold in 8oz containers and Gasoline sells for
    50cent/gal because nobody would need it, or want it. People would take
    walks in the evening and they would smile and say "hello" as they meet
    and greet each other. The word "Professional" would be a positive
    description (not just a synonym for hooker), and all the children would
    be above average. Amen.


  7. Re: More evidence supporting my comments regarding SCO ...



    On Wed, 6 Dec 2006, XeniXman wrote:

    >
    >
    > SCO systems have a rep for working flawlessly for years. Customers
    > take their servers for granted after a while because they seldom reboot
    > them.


    I seen uptimes of over 1 year on Linux machines, with reboots only
    necessary for kernel updates. Much longer uptimes are also reported.

    >
    > In the past, I have worked with various versions of Linux, but each
    > version seemed to be a beta with promises of better things to come.
    > That was years ago when I stopped watching the Linux versions roll by.
    > I should probably dig into the chaos and get a clue however, otherwise
    > I might risk being content too long.
    >
    > My unabridged "I HATE LINUX" list:
    >
    > (1) Too many flavors and versions of flavors (Strawberry v9.3,
    > Chocolate v15.7b, Souza v47.8)


    So pick one that you like and use it. Actually, you should probably pick
    two: an RPM-based distro and a deb-based distro.

    > (2) I don't like the fact that Al Kader can download the source and use
    > their advanced knowledge of logic-N-stuff to crack into my customer's
    > systems.


    Using your logic, we don't see any cracks of Windows.....

    > (3) I perceive that Linux is less hacker proof than SCO because SCO has
    > fewer systems installed. Many people don't even know what SCO is.
    > That's ok with me.


    That may be true as far as the OS goes, but what about the applications?
    It seems to me that binaries for popular Internet facing apps tend to lag
    other OSes.

    > (4) Will my apps work as is? rmcobol & Informix RDS.


    Excellent point. An OS is no use if the apps are not supported on it.

    > (5) I don't like change.


    Change is a fact of life.

    > (7) I'm getting older.


    Isn't everyone? However, some years ago, I realised that if I let age
    determine what I felt I could do, then I might as well lie down and die
    right then. What I find interesting is that many posters in Linux forums
    appear to be quite old: they have worked on old Unix systems, or they are
    retired, etc.


    >
    > and all the children would
    > be above average. Amen.


    Ah, another listener of the Prairie Home Companion!

    >
    >


  8. Re: More evidence supporting my comments regarding SCO ...

    Jd wrote:
    > On Wed, 6 Dec 2006, XeniXman wrote:
    >
    > > My unabridged "I HATE LINUX" list:
    > >
    > > (1) Too many flavors and versions of flavors (Strawberry v9.3,
    > > Chocolate v15.7b, Souza v47.8)

    >
    > So pick one that you like and use it. Actually, you should probably pick
    > two: an RPM-based distro and a deb-based distro.



    How does one choose? I generally don't like to install an OS at a
    customer site that I don't trust, and it's difficult to trust one until
    I install it at a customer site. Just because a demo box boots and
    doesn't crash doesn't mean it will hold up when 30 users pile in for a
    month or two of normal activity. The nightmare scenario for me is to
    install a system and start hearing about data corruption and random
    quirks a few weeks later. This nightmare can only be made perfect when
    it happens on a first time install of an OS. Some people say I'm
    paranoid. I'm one of them.

    BTW: "deb-based distro"? what language is that? neo-latin?



    >
    > > (2) I don't like the fact that Al Kader can download the source and use
    > > their advanced knowledge of logic-N-stuff to crack into my customer's
    > > systems.

    >
    > Using your logic, we don't see any cracks of Windows.....






    The internet was forged on unix systems, but windows has made the
    mistake of basing the OS on the internet. The internet has become a
    default part of Windows - which means that the hackers of the world
    (Al Kader & Friends ) are now part of windows.

    It still seems that that SCO treats the internet as the separate thing
    as it should be (IMO). I'm not sure about Linux.





    >
    > > (3) I perceive that Linux is less hacker proof than SCO because SCO has
    > > fewer systems installed. Many people don't even know what SCO is.
    > > That's ok with me.

    >
    > That may be true as far as the OS goes, but what about the applications?
    > It seems to me that binaries for popular Internet facing apps tend to lag
    > other OSes.





    There are still many applications that don't require the internet. "My
    perfect network design" has a separate application server that is
    ignorant of the internet. IOW: data that is absolutely vital to
    company survival is kept on boxes that are as isolated as possible.
    Unix is a wonderful thing for this.

    for security sake: I grieve the loss of dumb terminals on serial
    lines.

    I also understand the needs of world wide data access. It is a tap
    dance in which the system people must give the users what they want
    without giving Al Kader his desires. Unfortunately, the sysadmin has
    often caved to corporate bullies who want everything. These same
    bullies then blame the sysadmin when heck breaks from the depths. It's
    a lot like being a manager of a fast food shop. Responsibility that
    exceeds salary, and imagined power over nothing. LOL.





    > > (4) Will my apps work as is? rmcobol & Informix RDS.

    >
    > Excellent point. An OS is no use if the apps are not supported on it.
    >
    > > (5) I don't like change.

    >
    > Change is a fact of life.
    >
    > > (7) I'm getting older.

    >
    > Isn't everyone? However, some years ago, I realised that if I let age
    > determine what I felt I could do, then I might as well lie down and die
    > right then. What I find interesting is that many posters in Linux forums
    > appear to be quite old: they have worked on old Unix systems, or they are
    > retired, etc.
    >





    That's one way to look at age. Another is that I've seen lots of
    things come and go that I never really needed. Most of the trails
    I've treked have been for nothing. Sometimes a person can gain more by
    standing still. The hard part is knowing when to move.





    >
    > >
    > > and all the children would
    > > be above average. Amen.

    >
    > Ah, another listener of the Prairie Home Companion!
    >




    I love a good story about Lutheran socials. {snicker}.




    > >
    > >



  9. Re: More evidence supporting my comments regarding SCO ...

    On Fri, 8 Dec 2006, XeniXman wrote:
    > Jd wrote:
    > > On Wed, 6 Dec 2006, XeniXman wrote:
    > >
    > > > My unabridged "I HATE LINUX" list:
    > > >
    > > > (1) Too many flavors and versions of flavors (Strawberry v9.3,
    > > > Chocolate v15.7b, Souza v47.8)

    > >
    > > So pick one that you like and use it. Actually, you should probably pick
    > > two: an RPM-based distro and a deb-based distro.

    >
    > How does one choose? I generally don't like to install an OS at a
    > customer site that I don't trust, and it's difficult to trust one until
    > I install it at a customer site. Just because a demo box boots and
    > doesn't crash doesn't mean it will hold up when 30 users pile in for a
    > month or two of normal activity. The nightmare scenario for me is to
    > install a system and start hearing about data corruption and random
    > quirks a few weeks later. This nightmare can only be made perfect when
    > it happens on a first time install of an OS. Some people say I'm
    > paranoid. I'm one of them.


    For Linux I prefer SUSE. Novell just release OpenSUSE 10.2. It is really
    good. I highly recommend it if you want a linus distro. Novell also has
    SLES/SLED Server/Desktop with 1 year support contract.

    Choose the OS based on the applications you want/need to run. I used all
    the various OS's for what they do best. Everyone has a place/niche. Let
    your applications point you to what you need.

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

  10. Re: More evidence supporting my comments regarding SCO ...

    On Fri, Dec 08, 2006, XeniXman wrote:
    >Jd wrote:
    >> On Wed, 6 Dec 2006, XeniXman wrote:
    >>
    >> > My unabridged "I HATE LINUX" list:
    >> >
    >> > (1) Too many flavors and versions of flavors (Strawberry v9.3,
    >> > Chocolate v15.7b, Souza v47.8)

    >>
    >> So pick one that you like and use it. Actually, you should probably pick
    >> two: an RPM-based distro and a deb-based distro.

    >
    >How does one choose? I generally don't like to install an OS at a
    >customer site that I don't trust, and it's difficult to trust one until
    >I install it at a customer site. Just because a demo box boots and
    >doesn't crash doesn't mean it will hold up when 30 users pile in for a
    >month or two of normal activity. The nightmare scenario for me is to
    >install a system and start hearing about data corruption and random
    >quirks a few weeks later. This nightmare can only be made perfect when
    >it happens on a first time install of an OS. Some people say I'm
    >paranoid. I'm one of them.


    We have been installing Linux in mission-critical applications since
    September 1997, and have *NEVER* had problems with ``data corruption or
    random quirks''. We used Caldera Linux systems from the first release of
    CND 1.0 through early 2002 when we switched to SuSE as it appeared that
    Caldera wouldn't remain a viable option. At the time of the switch,
    I evaluated all of the major distributions available at the time, and
    decided that SuSE was the best engineered of those available.

    We made the switch about the same time I read an article in SysAdmin
    magazine about the OpenPKG.org portable packaging system, an RPM based
    system that's totally independent of the underlying vendor's packaging
    system, and one that provides packages for a wide variety of Unix and
    Linux systems.

    OpenPKG solved many of the problems that I had experienced since the mid
    1980s as we used a lot of open source software (a Stallman zealot might
    say we were running GNU/Xenix, GNU/OpenServer, GNU/NCR, GNU/SunOS, etc.).
    We have always used open source software to provide a stable set of
    programs that don't vary from vendor to vendor. The problem we had before
    going to OpenPKG is that we usually broke the vendor's updates as we had
    replaced so many components of the OS (e.g. SCO's brain-dead MMDF MTA).

    Most of the systems we have installed since 1998 have been Linux,
    with a few FreeBSD systems thrown in for flavor, and Mac OS X for
    desktop applications since 2002 or so. We still have a few OpenServer
    installations we support as they depend on third party software that's
    either unsupported or only runs on OpenServer or Windows.

    These systems vary from small business installations with fewer than 10
    users to ISPs with tens of thousands of users, and uptimes are typically
    measured in years rather than days (our in-house FreeBSD 4.8 system had
    been up 895 days when a power failure that exceeded the UPS capacity
    caused it to shut down).

    ....
    >The internet was forged on unix systems, but windows has made the
    >mistake of basing the OS on the internet. The internet has become a
    >default part of Windows - which means that the hackers of the world
    >(Al Kader & Friends ) are now part of windows.


    No. Windows is based on a BDPL (Brain-Damaged Program Loader)
    that was designed to make hobbyist hardware usable in a private,
    single-user environment. It was never designed to work in a hostile
    network enviornment whereas Unix was designed originally by the phone
    company to be used as a multi-user system where security has always been
    a major issue. Windows 98 and earlier never have had any real security
    as the underlying system provides no concept of user level permissions
    or restrictions.

    Later versions of Windows, based on NT, has provisions for real security,
    but a combination of Microsoft's policies of making things as easy to use
    as possible with no training, third party software written by people who
    don't have a clue about multi-user systems or security so have to be run
    with Administrator priviledges, and the difficulties of writing secure
    monolithic software, have left what seems to be an infinite variety of
    security holes.

    >It still seems that that SCO treats the internet as the separate thing
    >as it should be (IMO). I'm not sure about Linux.


    It would be wise to learn something about Linux before expounding at
    length about how bad it is.

    ....
    >There are still many applications that don't require the internet. "My
    >perfect network design" has a separate application server that is
    >ignorant of the internet. IOW: data that is absolutely vital to
    >company survival is kept on boxes that are as isolated as possible.
    >Unix is a wonderful thing for this.


    That's certainly a Good Idea(tm), and it's certainly the best way
    to configure any mission-critical application that doesn't require
    connection to the outside world. Even when one requires network
    interface, it's easy enough to have the critical data on a private
    LAN that's inaccessible directly with the dual-homed Internet facing
    server making its connections via that LAN without having any trusted
    relationship with the application server(s).

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

    The only logical reason to take guns away from responsible people is to
    give irresponsible people an edge in the perpetration of their crimes
    against us. -- The Idaho Observer, Vol. 1, No. 2 February 1997

  11. Re: More evidence supporting my comments regarding SCO ...

    Bill Campbell wrote:

    [SNIP]
    > single-user environment. It was never designed to work in a hostile
    > network enviornment whereas Unix was designed originally by the phone
    > company to be used as a multi-user system where security has always been
    > a major issue. Windows 98 and earlier never have had any real security

    [SNIP]
    No, UNIX was designed to play games on - MoonLander, IIRC. The security
    model was more of a "well, Multics does all this clever stuff, but I
    just want to make sure that xyz next door can't delete my files, and
    implement it by next Tuesday."

    The security model on Windows, of course, is fundamentally flawed due to
    the requirement that any partially-trained amoeba can use it to control
    an enterprise environment (most other models go no lower than the
    canonical monkey!).

    Cheers,
    Gary B-)

    --
    __________________________________________________ ____________________________
    Armful of chairs: Something some people would not know
    whether you were up them with or not
    - Barry Humphries

  12. Re: More evidence supporting my comments regarding SCO ...

    XeniXman wrote:
    > Jd wrote:
    >> On Wed, 6 Dec 2006, XeniXman wrote:
    >>
    >>> My unabridged "I HATE LINUX" list:
    >>>
    >>> (1) Too many flavors and versions of flavors (Strawberry v9.3,
    >>> Chocolate v15.7b, Souza v47.8)

    >> So pick one that you like and use it. Actually, you should probably pick
    >> two: an RPM-based distro and a deb-based distro.

    >
    >
    > How does one choose? I generally don't like to install an OS at a
    > customer site that I don't trust, and it's difficult to trust one until
    > I install it at a customer site. Just because a demo box boots and
    > doesn't crash doesn't mean it will hold up when 30 users pile in for a
    > month or two of normal activity. The nightmare scenario for me is to
    > install a system and start hearing about data corruption and random
    > quirks a few weeks later. This nightmare can only be made perfect when
    > it happens on a first time install of an OS. Some people say I'm
    > paranoid. I'm one of them.
    >
    > BTW: "deb-based distro"? what language is that? neo-latin?


    deb-based would be the software packgage system, Top choice IMHO.
    debian stable for servers, rock solid! (debian.org), ubuntu for
    desktops (ubuntu.com)

    >
    >>> (4) Will my apps work as is? rmcobol & Informix RDS.

    >> Excellent point. An OS is no use if the apps are not supported on it.
    >>

    debian stable with abi modules
    (http://ace-host.stuart.id.au/russell...atch-linuxabi/)
    runs our multi user SCO rmcobol apps with no problems.

    Glenn

+ Reply to Thread