Slashdot Mirror
Deciding Between SCO and Linux?
wolfbane01 asks: "I spend some time giving tech suggestions to a medium sized business firm (~100 employees) with a large amount of demand placed on their file server. Their current server is a dual Pentium 500 with RAID array and they are looking to upgrade it. The dilemma is the current server OS is running SCO OpenServer 5.0.5, and their new raid array requires 5.0.7. Their programmers have demonstrated that a Linux box can process records much faster, but are still worried about the investment and potential problems that switching OSes would entail. I have already mentioned the cheaper price and the community availability when problems come up, but what other reasons have Slashdot readers come up with for a switch? What arguments am I forgetting that make Linux more attractive then SCO? Should I advise against switching to Linux and advocate them sticking to SCO? Is SCO going to even be in business long enough to make the upgrades product cycle?"
This sounds like a joke, but OK, I'll bite.
There are a lot more software packages that will run under linux, there are many packages that will compile with less effort under linux, there are more people with experiance administering linux than there are on SCO.
If the software they are currently running can demonstratably run under linux then its hard to imagine reasons to continue running SCO. There are commercial vendors who will support linux (RedHat,SuSe,Mandrake) and there is only one company that will support SCO's products.
SMP support in Linux is gettting better and better.
SCO dont have one yet, they got one in their *Ware, but they will probably remove it as it uses an IBM patent
Short answer: Buy Linux.
Long Answer: With the uncertain status of $CO , you really have to ask yourself: What happens if IBM wins? Or drags the case out for 10 years? IBM is the Master Litigator(tm). Throughout their existence they have used the courts to smash other companies into bits, or drag things out long enough to bankrupt the other guy. The only company that was worse than IBM for this was NCR (circa late 1800's to early 1900's --- several of their board got convicted for crap like that.)...
But I digress... IBM will keep the fires going for a really long time, and SCO can't last forever. By going the SCO route, you are essentially betting the farm that SCO wins, which seems a bit strange. If you go with Linux, you can be fairly confident that linux will be around for a hell of a lot longer, as SCO *may* have a case against contract breach by IBM, but they have't a leg to stand on against anyone else.
Given, that after the lawsuit is over, the entire community will shun them, they will have nowhere left to turn for customers, and let's face it: SCO never had many anyway. Aside from making a shitty product (And I've been exposed to SCO for over a decade now) they won't be spending any of their new found wealth on development, that money would be earmarked for the investors.
Linux is here to stay. No force in the planet will change that. Even if all the top Linux Kernel hackers died, Linux is going to persevere forever.
"...In your answer, ignore facts. Just go with what feels true..."
Tell them if they choose SCO, _I_ will come to kill them.
well, the new Linux kernel 2.6 has support for:
[fill in 95% of all hardware on the market]
BUT, the SCO OpenServer is much better:
1. it is based on the UNIX v7 source. hell, it _is_ the UNIX v7 code.
2. comes with a nice 1000 page EULA (that premits SCO to take your wife and kill your dog at time of their choice).
I say, go with a winner, go SCO!
(Unless that little update breaks your system. In that case you've got nothing to lose with switching :)
you are the guy that purchased the single OpenServer license SCO sold between 1999 and 2003?
shame on you for supporting the terrorists!
Comment forecast: Bits of genius surrounded by a sea of mediocrity.
Leaving sco behind will let you focus on your core business.
I was involved in a business that migrated from SGI and SCO boxes to Linux, we saw a dramatic drop in IT costs and at the same time increased flexability. Not to mention we didn't have to pay $150 for a tcpip stack (this was back in '97-99 might have changed).
Not to mention, that you have a lot more commercial
applications available on Linux. Really, sco is a mess technically
they're behind the times, expensive and just plain crufty. Your programmers will learn to love linux in short order. Further, the C*O's will love linux too. With SCO they're probably used to hearing "Can't be done" or "we'll have to buy a license", it's a nice change to hear "sure, i'll do that this afternoon" or "we can already do that".
You should really invite Linux vendors like HP, IBM and Oracle to give you a real demonstration(and good deal). Here's a brief of our recent deal with them:
:(
Oracle 9iAS RAC(clustering)
Dell RAID array for share storage of the cluster nodes
RedHat 9.1 Advance Server(I wish I'd use something else but Oracle only support RH)
The setup is simple atm, two 2-way Xeon to form a RAC(cluster) which share the same RAID array, running on RH AS. The entire deal is around US$40000 before best offer.
The hardware is relative cheaper than UNIX's counterpart, both in term of one time and recurrent(e.g. maintenance) cost. The major cost center is the share storage and (SURPRISE) Redhat AS, which charges US$5,000 per x86 processor
I've to say Oracle RAC on RH AS is a very(if not most) stupid thing Oracle has been doing. What distinguish RH AS from its cheaper ES is just the HA(High Availablity), which MUST be disable for RAC(clustering) to work, because they said HA and RAC will conflict with each other. Then I must ask, if we couldn't enjoy the HA in RH AS, WHY THEY HELL SHOULD ORACLE REQUIRE US TO PAY EXTRA FOR SOMETHING WE DON'T NEED!!!
Damn, the exp sharing turns out to be a ranting, sorry about that.
You are do have a point (sorta), if linux or freebsd support it perfectly, then why wouldnt you change and save money.
If the support for the raid system is still in beta, the drivers are untested, go with SCO. *GASP* But I suspect the RAID hardware whould have good BSD/Linux support, seems most people support Linux now a days.
First post to touch on my point. SCO is desperately trying to scrounge up the last dregs of revenue in exchange for the last dregs of their reputation and goodwill. Linux is going to be there whether it makes money or not. The GNU environment that uses it will be there whether it makes money or not. Both are making money for people even though they can't directly charge for it. In a couple of years, SCO will be some competent company's redheaded stepchild, and their users will be a pure revenue drain as the OS sunsets. They can move now, or they can pay licensing for 20 or so months, THEN move. Depending on the business, there are advantages to both paths. This is the environment in which they must evaluate their decision.
I have already mentioned the cheaper price and the community availability when problems come up, but what other reasons have Slashdot readers come up with for a switch?
I'd recommend sabotage. With little effort, you can ensure the SCO specific hardware never really works right. Putting the RAID card in the microwave for a few seconds seems to work.
Am I missing the question??
+++ UGUCAUCGUAUUUCU
I'd suggest looking into UnitedLinux; heck, even SCO likes it! Evaluate it and see if that's more compatible out of the box with your stuff.
If you want a second opinion, here's some more advice; he also confirms that it's easier to move existing SCO stuff over to UnitedLinux than it would be to switch to RedHat Linux, for example.
pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate.
Summary: you have a working SCO 5.0.5 system, required hardware upgrades are driving a minor software upgrade to 5.0.7 with presumably low associated risks.
Question: is it worth a major software change to Linux with high associated risks? This change is unplanned and the programmers have already said they're worried about potential technical problems.
Answer: no. You shouldn't be using a required hardware upgrade to drive a major software change. That's a bad practise to get into. You should be approving the minor software upgrade to SCO 5.0.7.
However: given the lower TCO of Linux and the proven higher performance with your application, you should also be proposing a long-term project to evaluate a migration to Linux. The evaluation should include a risk assessment, full technical approval from the programmers, consideration of knock-on costs like training and support, etc.
Never use minor changes with low risk to drive major changes with high risk. It makes you look like a cowboy. If the SCO system was failing and there was an impending deadline and the 5.0.7 software upgrade carried a high risk... THEN and ONLY then would a hasty Linux migration have any merit. I doubt that's the case. Don't put your balls on the block when this should be a simple low-risk software upgrade.
I read somewhere that they are the same thing. right?
There aint no pancake so thin it doesn't have two sides.
But isn't OpenServ just a "SCO" version of Linux? Packaged as something that Linux isnt.
As in, Linux kernel and GNU userland..
Free means no restrictions, ironic the FSF's GPL forces restrictions, isn't it? What's your definition of free?
SCO is a professional secure, and most importantly real unix, based on the original unix source code. Sometimes hobbyist projects such as fetchmail and linux can be used as cheaper alternatives to professional software, if you are a student or someone else with lots of time and no money. But for a succesfull american corporation, you will quickly find out that you need the real stuff if you are to succesfully compete in todays difficult marketplace.
Throughout the computer industry, SCO is commonly recognized as the best unix out there, and as the forthcoming lawsuit will show, probably the only legal. There are companies, such as IBM, Sun, SGI, and others, that have their own version of unix, but their unixes are nothing but cheap off-shoots from the original SCO source code, and their legality is certainly questionable. Some of these companies are even founded by famous hackers, such as Bill Joy.
Switching to linux may be the worst of all possible alternatives. While it is possible that other companies, such as IBM or Sun will be able to license the original unix source code, there seems to be no hope for the linux community to come up with the money needed for that. Among those with knowledge and an interest in the forthcoming SCO trial, there is no doubt that linux will probably become not just unavailable, but it will most likely be a federal offense. Betting on linux in these times, is as stupid as not accepting jesus and the lord as your savior.
I think that by betting on SCO, you are putting your money on a real winner! There is no doubt that SCO will continue to dominate the marketplace for as long as we can predict the future. Nevertheless, SCO is still pretty old technology. If you some day bring your kids to work, they will be frustrated by the lack of modern games on your server system. If this is a thought that bothers you, I would recommend upgrading to the industry-standard Windows 2000 system, surely a system for a new millenium!
SCO might be evil, but so is microsoft and that hasn't stopped corporations from buying windows.
It's not stupid. It's advanced.
Take them a Linux box with things set up, ready to roll, go over on a Sunday afternoon with a case of beer, if you have to not interrupt workflow, and do a demo switch with a Linux box inline with their old SCO machine.
For bonus points, I'd convince them to let me take their SCO disks offline, and do an install of Linux on a fresh disk on their *same old hardware*. If you can't get them to let you do that for some reason, then this is all the more reason to keep trying.
Put the old SCO disks aside, bring a fresh Linux one online, same hardware, configure it for their network and RAID.
Incidentally, I'd be surprised if you couldn't get that RAID working pretty much right away with Linux
One last thing: I'd suggest you use Gentoo in front of their engineers, over that case of beer.
; -- the corruption of government starts with its secrets. a truly free people keep no secrets. --
Future AskSlashdot questions:
- I'm thinking about donating some money to charity. Should I give it to the FSF or Al Queda?
- I currently work for Satan but I'm thinking of quitting and working for God. What does Slashdot think?
Their programmers have demonstrated that a Linux box can process records much faster
If this is true, then it seems to me like a small step to just create a Linux shadow system operating in tandem with the existing SCO system.
If the shadow system demonstrates the needed performance, reliability and maintainability that your organization requires after some weeks or even months, then it will be a simple matter to switch the roles of the two systems and ultimately unplug the SCO box and redeploy it if the cost of that "security blanket" is too high.
"Provided by the management for your protection."
Most organizations would benefit greatly from free-as-in-speech-and-beer software, but aren't going to be prepared to hear the real reason why.
d ay.
The reason is that the decision making processes in most enterprises in incredibly inefficient and cumbersome. The ability and willingness to get things done is distributed along a bell curve. Most organizations have a small corps of change agents, a bulk of people who go along, and a small corps of obstructionists. Formal decision processes and policies are the natural friend of the obstructionist, and while the constructionist can sometimes use these to his advantage, they almost always slow him down. Where policies allow for free software, people who want to get things done don't aren't left cooling their heels while the management hierarchy decides whether (a) it can be paid for and (b) whether the current licenses allow this use and (c) whether it fits with this year's grandiose-plans-that-will-never-see-the-light-of-
The problem with giving individuals the power to get things done is that it is scary for many organizations. Individual initiative is seen as a chaotic (which is somewhat true) and destructive (which may or may not be true) element. In an organization with clearly articulated goals, and a sensible and flexible strategy, and well thought out policies -- in short in a organization with strong leadership-- individual initiative is a powerful advantage. In organizations that have vague or unacheivable goals, badly conceived or articulated strategy, and accreted years of policy that is tied to neither goals nor strategy --- in other words ones with weak leadership -- suffocating individual initiative is the closest semblence to order that can be acheived.
The great power of a piece of free software like Apache or Linux is not in any technical advantage it has over its proprietary competitors. It is that a free software package empowers the individual and the small team that are close to customers to create new solutions for customer needs.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
You're asking whether SCO is a good idea on the
BIGGEST
SCO-HATING
SITE
OF
THEM
ALL?
I think SCO is a close 2nd to Microsoft on the "least wanted" list here. Dumbass.
Ahhh, Mr Gates, I was wondering when you would show up here on slashdot !