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?"

Comments

Well...

[His name cannot be s]

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.

Leaving sco behind will let you focus.

[sshack]

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".

This is Everyday Stuff

[nathanh]

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?

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.

Wrong place to ask

[BenjyD]

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?