Slashdot Mirror
SCO Reorganizes, Issues Profit Warning
Recently, Jay Maynard wrote: "According to this story in Computerworld, SCO is reorganizing to increase investment in its Tarantella software and Linux, and reduce investment in its core Unix business. They expect to report "significant losses" after reorganization costs. They blame Y2K delays for the slowdown. The story also appears in C/NET."
... and open-source (GPL/LGPL) Tarantella, thus propelling them to the forefront in the thin WinClient market.
Otherwise, I give 'em a year. They've lost the Intel/Unix OS battle, with Linux and BSD and other freely available *nixes cutting into their market. That leaves Tarantella, and in that regard they're competing against Microsoft...
So the only thing I figure they can do is get on the OSS bandwagon as soon as possible. I dunno what else they could do to maintain any form of economy.
; -- the corruption of government starts with its secrets. a truly free people keep no secrets. --
Actually, well built systems are more reliable than people. Always are.
There is a lot of interest in the airline industry these days concerning the possible use of fully automatic flight systems for commercial and other flights. These systems have been shown to be more reliable, and the level of fault tolerance is impressive (it better be...).
Initially pilots would still be there to baby sit the autopilot.. but it would handle take off, flight, landing.
Some companies are even proposing no pilots whatsoever and solely automated flight systems.. Though I doubt that will catch any time soon.
So, as far as safety and ability in a statistical sense, computers always outperform humans in such critical tasks. The higher the time sensitivity and complexity, the larger their advantage.
The mind boggles. The reason why competition is considered a Good Thing is it produces better products that people want at lower costs. In the case of Linux or *BSD versus Unix(tm), it is clear that Unix(tm) has a cost disadvantage. So, in order for Unix(tm) to retain market share, people really have to want it. In the particular case of SCO, if SCO can be (or could have been) a service organization that people would be willing to pay for, then...they'd pay for it.
I think you miss the point almost completely. You suggest that it's nice to have a diversity of operating systems, and I think most people agree with that. Now think of what Unix fragmentation was really about. It wasn't about competition. It couldn't have been. I forget which sage said this, but the rule has always been:
Competition does not consist of being different, but, rather, of being the same.
Now think of why we had Unix fragmentation: because they ran on different hardware, and vendors had a motive for making it difficult to switch platforms once you'd developed for [name of company here]. Suppose you'd liked Irix for some reason, but wanted to run it on your bullet-proof HP box: couldn't do it. You had to run HP/UX. HP/UX and Irix themselves did not compete, rather the hardware/software monoliths sort of competed. But even there, the companies took great pains to develop their own little market niches because by being different, they didn't have to compete.
OK, so now what happens when Linux gets ported to a new platform? Yup, you now have some real competition: for Digital Unix or Solaris/x86 or what have you to survive, they have to be better than, better supported than, or cheaper than Linux. If they are none of these things in a given niche, then they will (and should) die.
Babar
Wasn't the CEO of SCO one of thoese bozo's who was blasting Linux about a year ago...hmmmm lets go here for a quick read ... then hop over here for more.
Here's my favorite quote from the brilliant SCO CEO:
Q: Do you consider Linux friend or foe?
A: Linux is a religion. It's like considering the Catholic Church a competitor. I'm not a religion; I'm a commercial operating system.
Hmmmm... so now they are tanking in a major way and singing a different tune. Well, I guess maybe they should have been a little more forward thnking about a year ago. I say screw em, if you refuse to change with the times you will get left behind. I would think that a "smart" CEO would try to capaitalize on the popularity of Linux ( like IBM did.. ) instead of burying you head in the sand and acting like you are the shit. So now they are going to reorganize... hhmpf.
It just goes to show that people who post replies here don't know dick about operating systems. I was a engineering consultant and software engineer for 3 years at SCO, so I think I can say I know a bit about the company. Well, here's the big surprise: some of their stuff sucks, and some of it works really well.
That isn't a surprise to anyone who really knows about the computer industry - companies all have problems. SCO's marketing is horrible - they can't sell their way out of a paper bag. Yet, people keep buying it. You know why? Because SCO OpenServer 5.x is one of the most stable and reliable Intel OS platforms you can buy. It just works, and it works forever.
Course, it's not the fastest, or the slickest, or the coolest. You really think the business world cares about all the nifty little features in Linux? They don't - they care about the bottom line. When you need stability, SCO can deliver.
So maybe you're thinking I'm some sort of SCO evangelizer? No. I don't use SCO products at all now that I've left the company. I use Linux and FreeBSD. Since I'm not running a bank, I am willing to sacrifice some reliability for all the cool little features you get with these OSes. Plus, FreeBSD is at least as stable as SCO OpenServer.
Finally, let me note that you can run all the Open Source goodies on SCO platforms. I was one of the developers who worked very hard to make that happen. Check out SCO Skunkware for the details.
> I had to deal with them a decade ago and I
> found their pricing scheme to be confusing and
> annoying.
It still is. As part of my job I unfortunately
have to do pre-sales configs on SCO servers.
Customer: I need a copy of SCO Unix.
Me: Openserver 5, Unixware 2 or Unixware 7?
Customer: Can you give me parts for all three?
Me: Well, if its Openserver, we would need to know
if they want host edition, enterprise edition,
or desktop edition. We would also need to
know how many users they have, as well as how
many processors the machine has.
Customer: Oh. What about Unixware 2?
Me: Unixware 2 is a little easier. We would need
to know whether they want the application
server or the personal server. And again we
would need a user and a processor count.
Customer: Hrmm... Is Unixware 7 any easier?
Me: No, actually its worse. This one has a lot
more editions - base, business, departmental,
enterprise and data center.
Customer: How do we know which one to get?!?
Me: It depends on how many users, the number of
CPUs, how much memory you have, whether you
need Windows file and print serices, whether
you need a bundled backup software, whether
you need a volume manager...
Customer: Nevermind. I'll call my customer back
and get more information.
And that isn't even dealing with upgrades, which
are even messier.
I can only guess that those who ask this question are not craftsmen, nor have they spent time around one.
To a layman, a tool is a tool. A cheap, shoddy screwdriver does as good a job as a well-crafted expensive one. Heck... a hammer might do as well.
But the right tool means much more to a craftsman. A craftsman has a much better understanding of their work than a layman and is therefore capable of doing a lot more; assuming they have the right tools. Good tools might enable a craftsman to get a particular job done faster. They might enable the craftsman to do better quality work. Or they may be the requirement the craftsman needs to be able to do the work to begin with. Take away his tools and a craftsman's work suffers. It is therefore not surprising a craftsman can be very particular about their tools. They may even be passionate about them.
This idea is universal. You can apply it to any situation where a tool is used by skilled hands.
I drive my car to work daily and think little more of it. I even occasionally manage to get regular maintenance done on time. For me, the car is a practical tool I use to get around in. A friend of mine spent almost every weekend tweaking his car. And it showed. His car performed much better than mine ever had. It was even apparent when he offered to work a bit on my car. He was passionate about cars. I wasn't. But I knew if I needed help with my car, I could turn to him (and he had a heck of a tool box too).
When I started playing paintball, I did fine with a rental paintgun. But as I played the sport more and my proficiency increased, I bought my own. It was a better quality model than the rentals. And I would tweak it. I customized parts. I kept up on all the latest info on getting the most performance out of my gun. You'd almost think the sport itself was all about building paintguns. But ultimately, it was how you performed on the field. Having a paintgun that performed just the way I wanted it to without fail was vital to that peformance.
So what about the IT world?
Whether we administer networks and the systems that make them, or develop applications and operating systems... we are all craftsman. We have a level of skill that exceeds the layman. We know the differences between various operating systems and applications. We know the intricacies of using those tools. Performing our craft is much easier when we have access to well-made tools that provide the power that we need to do our work and that we are familiar with. Without those tools, our work suffers. Why shouldn't we be passionate about them?
I got an SCO Unixware 7 "media pack" with the "Free" Unixware 7 license awhile ago, and reading the EULA, this blew me away...
:)
This really is an excerpt from the EULA, I am NOT, I repeat, am NOT making this up...
RESTRICTIONS
The Software is not designed or intended for use in on-line control of aircraft, air traffic, aircraft navigation or aircraft communications; or in the design, construction, operation or maintenance of any nuclear facility. In addition, the Software is not intended for any activity relating to the design, development, production, sockpiling or use of nuclear, chemical or biological weapons, or missiles. SCO's disclaimer of any express or implied warranties as stated above applies to such uses as well as all others. You agree that You will not knowingly use the Software for such purposes
Now come on, can it really be any good if I cant use it to control that brand new B1 bomber I bought, or stockpile my nuclear weapons? Give me a break! Yet another reason for Linux!
-- iCEBaLM