Slashdot Mirror
SCO Answers Questions About Linux
customer demand?
(Score:5, Interesting)
by Signal 11
Will SCO be contributing / open-sourcing any technology and/or patents that it holds as part of its Linux adoption effort?
Also, did your market research pan out - is Linux really being used in large businesses or is it still primarily used by small startup companies strapped for cash?
McCrabb:
SCO is accelerating its participation in, and contributions to, the Open Source Community. In some cases, we will be taking current technology that we think is needed in the Linux market and driving it forward as the project maintainers. Right now, we are focusing on bringing some of our high-performance Intel development tools to Linux.
In other cases, we will make some sources available as reference documents, without a specific intention of driving them forward as projects. For instance, we think there is an interest in seeing the source to lex and yacc under an Open Source license -- but as flex and bison are already active projects, we see no value in our making a competitive investment. Someone else would be welcome to pick them up, if they saw a need.
There is no doubt that the low cost of Linux is a factor in creating new market demand. There is a solid interest among larger companies who want to take advantage of the Linux momentum. In general, larger businesses are less sensitive to price as a primary factor in deploying an OS. These businesses are more interested in criteria like reliability, availability, and scalability.
Software
(Score:5, Interesting)
by chazR
One of the reasons that SCO operating systems have been so popular is that there are a lot of applications (Tetra, Informix, etc.) that run on them. These are used very widely (particularly in manufacturing industry in my experience)
As you seem to be embracing open source, will you be encouraging the suppliers of this software to port their applications to open source operating systems?
And how will you sell the idea of open source to the traditionally conservative manufacturing sector?
McCrabb:
ISVs port applications where they see opportunity and market demand. ISVs also appreciate robust support and encouragement from the platform before they invest in a port. Linux is experiencing tremendous momentum and attracting ISVs who have never ported applications to SCO Unix platforms. To leverage this activity, SCO is currently developing better Linux binary compatibility for our existing Unix platforms.
SCO concentrates on offering choice. Customers want solutions, and we want to be in a position to give them the broadest range of options. If the solution includes Open Source components, SCO will be in a position to support it.
Linux as the next SCO Unix?
(Score:5, Insightful)
by bbk
What does your future roadmap for SCO Unix look like? - Are you going the SGI path and gradually phasing out your own Unix in favor of Linux, or are you pursuing a parallel development path of both OSs? What features currently in SCO that are not in Linux do you feel are necessary for wider corporate acceptance of Linux?
McCrabb:
Our formal product roadmap is undergoing a complete overhaul. When we begin to outline our OS deliverables for the next 18 months, you will see that UnixWare 7 and SCO OpenServer 5 will continue moving ahead. Look forward to new developments as well.
Enterprises building their businesses on a server platform are interested in reliability and availability. Although we believe in a high degree of reliability that comes from the level of code inspection provided by the Open Source Community, we feel it needs to be quantified with benchmarking statistics like MTBSS. This opens a number of possible further improvements -- journalizing file systems, support for hot-plug PCI, multi-path I/O -- things that make is easier to never bring the system down, or to recover the system more quickly.
How will SCO Survive?
(Score:5, Interesting)
by DG
According to the principles of Open Source software development described in The Cathedral and the Bazaar (amongst others), for each "class" of software where there exists significant community interest, the Open Source version of the software will at first lag behind its Closed Source counterpart (in terms of features, reliability, etc) but as time progresses, the Open Source software will eventually surpass the Closed Source software.
Once this happens, there's no looking back - the Open Source software has far more developers and debuggers working on the project than even the richest and largest Closed Source software house could ever hope to employ.
If one could somehow graph "quality" of a given software project, one would see that Closed Source software increases linearly, whereas Open Source increases exponentially.
Given that the Linux "quality and features" line is either close to or already across the SCO Unix "quality and features" line, and given that SCO Unix and Linux compete in the same ecological niche, there is really very little reason to put further effort into developing/supporting SCO Unix - Linux has (or is about to) "win" and once "won", SCO Unix will never be able to make up the lost ground.
How then does SCO plan on surviving as a corporate entity when their primary product is outclassed by an Open Source, "free beer" version of the same thing?
(This isn't a borderline troll, I am genuinely curious how SCO intends to survive. They are perhaps the first "major" single-product company to butt heads with a mature Open Source project. How they handle the situation may predict what will happen to other such companies when their single product encounters a similarly mature Open Source version of the same thing - perhaps Adobe (Gimp) in a couple of years?)
McCrabb:
Eric Raymond's analysis is incisive and compelling, but I don't think all the votes are in. Products are more than the sum of their technologies - they involve a network of relationships with resellers, ISVs, and customers.
We believe that proprietary software will continue to thrive and interact with the Open Source Movement. At the same time, we are structuring our business in such a way that will allow us to participate in many of the still developing Open Source business models. Tarantella for Linux and our Linux Professional Services offerings are just two examples of this. We are also looking to develop more proprietary technologies, called serverware, that can be deployed one level up from the operating system. You will see us produce more serverware products that are designed for multiple Linux and Unix platforms in the near future.
Monterey and Linux
(Score:5, Interesting)
by randombit
As most people know, SCO is working with IBM and Sequent (which IIRC IBM bought a while back) to develop a new 64 bit Unix. How will these two OSes work together on your systems? Are you planning on using Linux only on low-end machines, while Monterey runs on IA-64, or will Linux be a "stopgap OS" to run on your systems until Monterey is finished?
McCrabb:
Monterey and Linux-64 will be an important platform for the Itanium market. Both are expected to be available in the same time frame. Customers demand that Monterey have the ability to run Linux applications. This will be an important area of interoperability that we will stress with the Monterey product line.
SCO & Linux: Past vs. Present Opinions
(Score:5, Interesting)
by Jon Trowbridge
In the past, SCO and its representatives has made a number of statements about Linux (and free software in general) that many of us saw as FUD. In the most infamous example, these statements included:
"Linux at this moment can be considered more a play thing for IT students rather than a serious operating system..."
"The future of Linux is very uncertain... As there are such a large number of developers it is virtually impossible to predict what form Linux will take thus putting the future security of your business at risk."
"Currently there are over forty distributions of Linux... and as a result there is no single standard. Potentially, this means that software written for one system will not work on another."
Statements like these damaged SCO's credibility among the community that it now appears to be trying to embrace.
Do you/SCO still stand by these statements and opinions? If not, what changed your mind? Do you still assert that these statements were true when they were being made by SCO representatives --- or, in retrospect, do you admit that it was not accurate, but was just marketing FUD?
McCrabb:
Our view of Linux has evolved and we no longer stand by the one-dimensional stereotypes made in the past. We made mistakes - one-sided characterizations of Linux - and these statements are no longer operative. We know that Linux is here to stay.
However, we are not ready to flip to the view that sees Linux as the be-all, end-all of operating system software. When making comparisons between Unix and Linux platforms, there are still meaningful and significant areas where Linux falls short. We see ourselves as being in a position to help address these areas.
With our investments throughout the Linux Community, we care about the success of the Linux market more than ever. This being the case, we are very concerned about fragmentation. This is why we stand whole-heartedly behind the Linux Standard Base.
What does "Linux" mean?
(Score:5, Interesting)
by jd
In the eyes of Caldera, it is a proprietary system with no proprietor, an open closed system closed system with a bottom-up top-down design.(Escher would have been proud!) In the eyes of SGI and IBM, it seems to be a way to showcase their technology and get free bug-fixes in the deal. To Red Hat, it's a means to sell support. To VA Linux, it becomes a means to sell cheaper, faster hardware, especially in the embedded and server markets.
What, then, is Linux to SCO?
McCrabb:
First, it's a marketplace for us to sell our Linux Professional Services. There is a great demand for companies that have no idea how to add the power of Linux to their complex computing environments.
Second, a platform for Tarantella and other potential serverware products.
Further, it's an opportunity to enter new markets with our existing Unix platforms and future Linux-based products.
Price/performance?
(Score:5, Interesting)
by rc-flyer
I have been a long-time user and reseller of SCO products. One of my big concerns is the high cost of SCO Unix for a small installation. Small in this case is a single machine in an office network environment with a few machines networked to the system.
Considering that a good Linux installation is either free or less than $150, will the movement of SCO into the Open Source arena mean that the price of the O/S will drop? How will the new marketplace affect the price of SCO's products?
McCrabb:
It's clear that Linux will introduce changes into the pricing equation, especially in the SMB market. The details remain to be seen. SCO is committed to its resellers and recognizes that they are being challenged to adapt to some of the new terms of this marketplace. SCO will have products that speak to all levels of the market at prices that compete on the terms of the particular market.
In an attempt to avoid total obsolescence as the Unix market shakes out in response to open source systems, SCO wants to be closely associated with Linux so that it becomes a choice that people will consider when looking for a commercial Unix to supplement or replace Linux systems.
I've seen clients "upgrade" servers that have become important from FreeBSD to BSDI, or from Linux to Solaris, for example, for reasons mainly relating to management perception - they feel more comfortable using a commercial product, basically.
If SCO has ties to Linux users through the products and services it provides, it is better able to position itself as being a logical upgrade for users looking for a commercial alternative.
[looks at the UnixWare 7 box on the shelf and laughs]
I've seen some impressive uptimes and some seemingly bulletproof implementations, but tt's not my ball of wax either.. It's BSD for servers and Linux for playtime..
.sig: Now legally binding!
this one at all:
A modular IP4 stack. Linux -should- be capable of running as an
IPv6-only system.
Why?
with the goal of making a true SCO Linux/Unix (they own the Unix trademark, no?)
UNIX® is a registered trademark of Open Group, but if SCO were successful in bringing the GNU/Linux system up to the Single UNIX® Specification, it could license the trademark.
Will I retire or break 10K?
You write--
More advanced encryption. IPSec's cool, but the FreeSWAN team can't do everything on their own. EnSKIP needs =SERIOUS= work to be usable - I don't know who's maintaining it now, but it's web site died of terminal chronitis. And the International Patches need updating, and adding to. There are more FREE encryption algorithms on heaven and earth than drempt of by the current maintainer.
I reply--
Free != Good. Bad crypto is generally agreed to be far worse than no crypto at all, and as soon as we put every algorithm under the sun in the kernel, people whine(correctly) about bloat.
I'd much rather have development on faster yet still provably secure RNG's--particularly hardware RNG's--than Yet Another Untrusted Algorithm.
Symmetric Algorithmwise, DES and 3DES are about the only game in town for customer satisfaction, though IDEA, Twofish, and CAST-128 each have their own adherents. The RC series is generally used because it's cheap and ridiculously easy--people can both code it themselves(sometimes in Javascript) *and* trust it. Rare combo.
Assymmetrically, nobody trusts much more than the old standbys--Diffie Helman and RSA. Elliptical Curve Cryptography, a field basically based on the presumption that there's no Diffie-Helman style way to simplify their equation and thus far fewer bits are necessary for identical keystrengths, is still maturing--and it's been around for years now!
Hashwise, MD5 is standard but kind of grumbled about, and SHA-1 is trusted but people generally don't like the NSA involvement. RIPEMD-160 is about the only other hash I've heard that actually has some mass behind it.
XOR is unfortunately still disturbingly common. *Sigh* poor coders writing their own algorithms *sigh*...
Anyway, I flat out say: Keep the number of algorithms in the kernel low, for the minimum reason of forcing people to STOP USING AWFUL ONES.
That being said, John Gilmore *himself* is funding IPSec work for Linux, but it's quite a chore. Given the ridiculously successful pppd and rp-pppoe projects, part of me wonders just how much of IPSec really should be done in the kernel.
Yours Truly,
Dan Kaminsky
DoxPara Research
http://www.doxpara.com
These answers were as sanitized, bleached-white, corn-flakes with no sugar, blue pants/white shirt/red tie/wingtips, cut short combed across the top, Reader's Digest, go to bed at 9PM inoffensive as any comments that I've read in a long time.
That scares me! From the answers, I can't tell anything about the man (or was it a woman? I can't tell!) who wrote them. He gave us nothing really personal, nothing to indicate that he has a different opinion than me about anything. I find that disappointing. Interviews with ESR or RMS at least let you find out what the person really thinks, and what their values might be.
If tits were wings it'd be flying around.
How do these large businesses justify buying MS "innovations" if they are more interested in criteria like reliability, availability and scalability?
Several possible reasons:
I could go on. Some of the reasons are obvious - if your product is aimed at Windows, you have to develop on Windows at least some of the time. On the other hand, the people who pay for the hardware/software may be disjoint from the team of people who really use the machines. Or there is the usual catch that if you deploy an office-load of Windows machines so that the employees will have a familiar platform to work on, there is a natural bias to round it off with a Windows server. The availability of other options may not even be explored. And with MS moving towards greater 'integration' of server and client machines (i.e. Windows 2000 Active Directory, MS Kerberos, etc.) that trend will stay.
Cheers,
Toby Haynes
Anything I post is strictly my own thoughts and doesn't necessarily have anything to do with the opinions of IBM.
I got a little kick out of this section which seems to have escaped proof-reading.
:)
"... There is a great demand for companies that have no idea how to add the power of Linux to their complex computing environments."
I think LinuxOne has already wrapped up this market
-OT
First, if you're on a complex corporate LAN and want to make maximum use of the network and the machines, you're going to be better off with IPv6 as the protocol (as it's much more efficient). But, in that case, the IPv4 stack, which is large to start off with, is now hogging space in the computer, both for the now-useless code, and for the router table that will never be used. Makes much more sense to free up those resources for modules that are needed.
Secondly, if you're running an extranet (ie: a virtual network of computers that depend on an external network to connect together), but DON'T want any security risks, you have two choices:
- Have OpenBSD on the gateways, with ultra-paranoid firewalls & proxies, with ALL the attendent uncertainty, bottleneck, overheads, etc.
- Use IPv6-only machines, which have NO IPv4 stack.
The first solution depends on you filling holes faster than crackers can find them. The latter depends ONLY on the fact that you can't crack a machine you can't see, address or talk to.Last, but by no means least, nobody's going to encourage the application writers, the ISPs or the backbone routers to support IPv6 until a significant number of -popular- sites are not available any other way.
If Slashdot and Freshmeat were to migrate to IPv4/IPv6 tomorrow, for example, and then aim to go pure IPv6 in, oh, a year, I'd give good odds on every major corporation, backbone router and ISP on the face of the planet to have an IPv6 stack within a week, with or without authorization. (Not because of the dangers of being Slashdotted, but because the techies in charge of the routers are very likely Slashdot and Freshmeat addicts.)
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
So far, SCO has been scared to death of Linux. I've been to a VAR conference in the mid '90's where the quote was "Linux? Linux? Linux is for people who want their tech support from Finland!". A year or so back, one of their officers railed against Red Hat's fraudulent business model ("they're selling you an OS that they don't own!").
They don't have to be scared anymore. They can ride this train all the way to the bank, and unseat Red Hat besides.
Here's the plan. Start by making SCO Unix Linux-compatible. That is, put a patch into SCO to allow it to run Linux x86 binaries, and then release a copylefted patch to allow Linux boxen to run SCO binaries. Then, start merging their source with that of their favorite distro, with the goal of making a true SCO Linux/Unix (they own the Unix trademark, no?). The SCO distro, with a lot of basis in SCO code, will have been built from the ground up to be server use, not home use. SCO Linux will be industrial-strength Linux.
SCO takes on the business plan of any distro. But (and this is the biggie), they have more employee-centuries experience selling it, employee-centuries building it, and a bigger intercorporate distribution network than any two Linux distributions put together. Finally, they have corporate trust. From the suit perspective: why buy a support contract from those hippie-dudes at your average Linux distro when you can deal with the suits at SCO Linux?
SCO makes money increasing their market share (though losing in licensing fees), they free up their development army to do support (since most of the fixes come from the outside when you're a Linux distro), the suits sleep easy with the SCO reputation behind their purchase, and the geeks get a platform with all the advantages of Linux plus SCO's own extras regarding industrial strength use. Everybody goes home happy.
--The basis of all love is respect
> As I understand it, the biggest difference
> between the MPL and the GPL is that with the MPL
> you have to assign the changes back to Netscape.
The *NPL* gives Netscape special rights to redistribute your changes in closed source products (not the same thing as assigning changes back to Netscape). Substantial new code (i.e. new files) being added to Mozilla by third parties is generally being added under the *MPL*, which is similar to the NPL but gives Netscape no special rights.
> As I further understand it, this is because
> Netscape wants to make money from your work (if
> it was to "benefit the community" they would let
> you distribute your own copy of Moz)
They do let you distribute your own copy of Moz (both NPL and MPL licensed code), so your comment is basically wrong.
It's true that Netscape wants to be able to release closed-source products based on their own source code, even after it has been modified by others, thus the NPL. This does not seem to be a big deal.
Even RMS agrees that the NPL and MPL are free software licenses.
Seems fairly content free. Kinda like this post.
I can't say I really expected anything else though. The answers were obviously filtered very heavily by legal and/or other staff. They are too dry and form factor to be anything else.
-dennis towne
Alter Aeon Multiclass MUD - http://www.alteraeon.com
They feel the heat in the market place, they see their customers switching over to Linux or BSD, so they've realized they need to 1) take Linux seriously, and 2) worry about making money with it. But they still haven't understood that "you don't want to compete with a successful open source project unless you're MUCH better". and SCO and Unixware do have some strong points over Linux, but they're not MUCH better, certainly not in a way that Linux can't thoroughly catch up in a matter of, say, six months. SGI saw it and did the right thing: keep improving IRIX, but for the long term see Linux as its replacement. IBM saw it and did the right thing: dump their proprietary webserver and switch to Apache. I believe SCO will end up having to do the same with their OSs, and the longer it takes them, the more money they'll waste in the process.
(Apologies for catchphrase theft.)
All of these read like a marketing guy putting out "Oh, Linux, how cute...". Talking about how there's stuff that they don't want to compete with (I'd love to see lex, personally). And the line about "We believe that proprietary software will continue to thrive and interact with the Open Source Movement." sounded very much like getting added on "Especially if we can stick in stuff that we can charge megabucks for." Note their commentary about hot-plug PCI, and journaling filesystems.
The bit about 'What is Linux to SCO'... jd, that was a brilliant question. He danced around that pretty well. "Well, it's something we can sell, and something we can sell stuff with, and something we can sell stuff with later."
I'm seeing way more Marketroidisms in here than I'd hope to see. Too bad we couldn't ask an admin at SCO.
----
Brazil has decided you're cute.
Many might take issue with the brevity of the replies, but it seems to me that he answered the question pretty straight-up.
The biggest thing I took from this is that SCO doesn't actually know what they're going to do in the future, and that playing an awful lot of the current plan by ear.
--
Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.
My take on these answers is that the guy did answer them in a straightforward, sensible fashion.
Linux is not the end-all-be-all of operating systems technology, nor will it be for a long, long time (if ever).
There are many issues to discuss, including the availability issue. Issues such as hot-plug PCI, journalling filesystems, etc. are not just playtoys; they are real, necessary technologies that will bar entry into the "enterprise". Linux does not currently have these technologies in its repertoir (though they are being worked diligently on).
When Linux has this stuff, then it can compete feature-for-feature with commercial Unices. Until then, it cannot. That's not to say that it has no place beside them - it obviously does - and that's not to say that it won't eventually catch up - it obviously will.
That is the reason SCO is showing interest in Linux, and why Monterey will require Linux binary compatibility. They expect Linux to be a large share of that market, and a growing concern.
But, we should welcome their input with open arms. Though SCO's stuff has lacked in flexibility and performance in the past, they do have some great technology, and my theory is that they will eventually contribute it.
The more, the merrier.
--Corey
Not only will they not deserve liberty or safety, Mr. Franklin, they will be DENIED both!
That's sweet. That is like business school poetry or something. Or maybe something Data would say. Where do they get that kind of stuff, is there a book I can get? I'd like to start including phrases like that in my vocabulary and probably some of my poetry.
This is my signature. There are many signatures like it but this one is mine..
I think that your three points are dead on, but I'm not sure that this means that they 'get it'. I just remember a quote from Warren Buffett, quoting someone else about Noah. "You get more points for building arks than for predicting rain". In other words, they may or may not understand the realities of Open Source, but even if they do, that doesn't mean that SCO as an institution can adapt.
Let's have some sympathy for SCO. They face a competitor with more developers, more QA people and a larger, faster growing market share. Their opponent's costs are zero, and their price is extremely reasonable (not zero-- remember support and equipment costs for linux users). This competitor has not only outsourced everything, it has also somehow gotten its customers to do product development!
Everything SCO does is influenced by its business model. The problem is that it turns out that software is better made and sold the way healthcare is than the way milk is. Look how Apple thrashed around before Gil Amelio and later Steve Jobs went in and performed major surgery.
The problem is that profit opportunities presented by Linux are tremendous, but require companies to rethink themselves. Providing server tools and hood ornaments will work for a while, but eventually they have to start thinking of software as a service. This means reworking everything-- sales/marketting, management, development, QA, everything. You're practically building a brand new company from scratch.
Someday, maybe next year, maybe in ten years, the Open Source paradigm will be replaced by something better. It will require all of us to reevaluate our assumptions. It won't be easy, because we won't even recognize the newcomer until it is too late. In fact, that replacement might already be out there. When that time comes, we'll each have to decide how ourselves and our companies will react.
Maybe we'll ignore the problem and use our by-then-significant power to try to put off the inevitable (MS). Maybe we'll give the problem lip service, try to make changes at the margins so that we can keep going more or less as we are (SCO, IMHO, and plenty of others). Or maybe we'll realize that this is the Way Things Will Be, and refocus completely. (Netscape? maybe...)
When all our treasured assumptions are trashed by something new on the horizon, will we adapt or wait until it is too late? "Destruction is easy, and Creation is hard" goes the cliche-- well Change is the hardest one of them all.
I don't envy SCO's position, and I totally understand their cautious tone. I don't blame them for being wary. Nope, not one bit.
McCrabb:
It's clear that Linux will introduce changes into the pricing equation
Translation:
Were screwed
McCrabb:
There is a great demand for companies that have no idea how to add the power of Linux to their complex computing environments.
Translation:
We know nothing about Linux and have no idea how to use it.
McCrabb
We care about the success of the Linux market more than ever.
Translation:
Linux saved our ass and every other Unix.
McCrabb:
Customers demand that Monterey have the ability to run Linux applications.
Translation:
Without Linux compatibility nobody will want it.
McCrabb:
SCO *will have products that speak to all levels of the market at prices that compete on the terms of the particular market.
Translation:
*We are really screwed!
-- Ted tsikora@powerusersbbs.com
The answer posted to my question is brief, as one expects from sound-bite journalism, but reading between the lines we can get a fair idea of SCO's current plans:
1) They think there needs to be someone between "the customer" and Linux, and they want to be one of those people. Conclusion: Either an SCO Linux distribution, or a "strategic partnership" relationship with an established distribution.
2) It seems they realize that the raw OS space is going or gone - points for that. They can't just come out and say it with new versions of Unixware et al on the way, but it does seem they're starting to get a glimpse of the forest.
3) They're thinking "value-add" - stuff that runs on top of Linux that provide services not normally provided by a stock distribution. I can't think of anything in this space not already served by a good existing Free app (webserver? LDAP server?) or someone with huge market share (Oracle?) but perhaps the end-goal is systems integration.
For their sake, I hope the long-term plan IS systems integration and other services, because if they're thinking of new sever-side "killer apps" then their lunch is going to get eaten AGAIN as soon as the Free version of whatever-it-is is developed.
How 'bout that - maybe SCO is starting to Get It.
Want to learn about race cars? Read my Book
What did you expect??
/. forum that the PR department wouldn't read it through first?
This is an interview with a President, not with an engineering team leader.
The only game there is to play here is the "let's see if we can generate loads of comments on slashdot and be told that we have a 'clue' by some teenagers."
It's a game not worth playing.
They got asked strategic questions, and they gave strategic answers. Would you rather that SCO was a company where no-one vetted what a President released as public relations? Do you really think that if the CEO of VA Linux or Red Hat writes to a
-----
This was all bizspeak ("remain to be seen", "product space", "ISV", "relationships") except for the first answer. That one answer alone made this interview worthwhile, I think. SCO Gets It.
That answer indicates they clearly aren't trying to be like Netscape (*gasp* he's about to drag the queen through the mud!) and get free development and bugtesting but continue to reap the commercial profits solely for themselves*. "Current project maintainers" and "code available as a reference not as competition" sounds like exactly what we like: Make your IP available to us because a rising tide lifts all boats.
*As I understand it, the biggest difference between the MPL and the GPL is that with the MPL you have to assign the changes back to Netscape. As I further understand it, this is because Netscape wants to make money from your work (if it was to "benefit the community" they would let you distribute your own copy of Moz). If I'm wrong, let me know. In any case, my above point about SCO remains the same.
--
Have Exchange users? Want to run Linux? Can't afford OpenMail?
Linux MAPI Server!
http://www.openone.com/software/MailOne/
(Exchange Migration HOWTO coming soon)
While on the SCO topic, I recently purchased a product called Win4Lin, which I guess, is a port of SCO Merge to Linux. This product is similar to VMWare, where you actually have to own a licensed copy of Win95/98, and load it in. Where it shines is performance. I have this running on my modest Pentium-120, with 96MB of RAM, and it seems fast. In fact, it boots Win98 second edition faster than a P-300 at work! Sound support is forthcoming, but so far it has run everything I've thrown at it! I'm very impressed, and the price is only $49.95. If you still have a few Win apps. which may never see the light of day on Linux (like my wifes greeting card software), I'd highly reccommend it. Not to mention that having a native windows color printer driver, is much better than anything ghostscript can currently do for me. Check it out here.
I saw SCO's booth at the Linux Expo in Madrid last week, and asked how they relate to Linux. Their answer was "we sell software for it, and we'll sell more of it". Next thing they were giving me a demo copy of OpenServer and another of UnixWare, and practically begging me to install them and test them out!! so I wouldn't count on SCO actively supporting Linux very much so far. not that they have an obligation either...
Shall we read inbetween the lines for a moment (this is for the people that have a disorder and can "hear" "marketing speak")
It's clear that Linux will introduce changes into the pricing equation,
Linux is cost effective as hell and making everyone look bad, including us!
especially in the SMB market.
and Linux sure is kicking Microsoft's ass, anyone that can stand to MS is one tough mofu. When Microsoft is out cold and we kick them? Can we stand behind Linux and mouth Microsoft and have Linux protect us from getting hurt?
The details remain to be seen.
We have no clue what we are doing, everyone here has been walking around a circle confused. Bob had a paper bag on his other day, it took him 2 hours to get it off, it was funny watching him run into things and paw at it.
SCO is committed to its resellers and recognizes that they are being challenged to adapt to some of the new terms of this marketplace.
We are starting to freak out, when need something here man! Can I use my lifeline to call someone? NO NO Regis this isn't our final answer! Come on, help old Gil out.
SCO will have products that speak to all levels of the market at prices that compete on the terms of the particular market.
We have a really good marketing and PR team and use them to save our arses.
btw, this is a joke
"`Ford, you're turning into a penguin. Stop it.'" -THHGTTG