Posted by
CmdrTaco
on from the emulate-the-competition dept.
jgalun writes "ZDNN is reporting that SCO UnixWare 7 will run Linux software. Yet another victory for Linux. "
There is some interesting quotes from SCO folk in there regarding
Linux at the Enterprise level. SCOs been a sinking ship for
a while though.
40 comments
Not really a victory for Linux
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
The fact that SCO users can run Linux binaries really doesn't mean anything to the majority of Linux users.
More than anything, it's a victory for SCO users, since they get access to a wider range of precompiled binaries. But that doesn't really contribute anything to Linux or to its users.
re: Not really a victory for Linux
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Sure it is: something about Linux has been accepted as a standard by another party.
The nice part is that it appears to have been accepted by customer demand, rather than by winning a traditional shoveware battle. It will by another victory for Linux when some PHB notices that fact.
Re:Not really a victory for Linux
by
J4
·
· Score: 1
it is a victory because if a business is using a Linux app on SCO the likelyhood that a Linux box will be deployed somewhere in the organization increases in a big time fashion. Chances would be _real_good_ there would be at least 1 Linux box used as an app server for whatever it is they are using. Eventually the PHB's will be looking to increase profits by cutting costs and will become aware of the irony of paying for their NOS when they could be running their apps in a native environment gratis. Then they can all pat themselves on the back for being so smart. Short term I think it may be a win-win situation but I don't see this as being terrific for SCO in the long run.
SCO propaganda
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
what a load of bull, I've used SCO and it is garbage compaired to Linux. Linux is not as ready as SCO, my ass. i work for a corporate subdivision that schedules weekly reboots of over 400 sco boxes just to deal with their flakey os (on a wan btw). they're just full of it. needless to say, i'm pushing proposals for replacing sco with linux. ps unixware is even worse tham openserver.
Who cares?
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
I want my _Linux_. Who cares about SCO?
What is the point
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Hi, I'm a self-respecting Unix person who works for SCO, and I think you're very wrong. Unixware 7 is a very reasonable Unix and, to be honest, the company is pretty cool. There are a lot of people within the company who run Linux on their work machines (I switched last week from Unixware 7), and the higher-ups are fully aware of, and respect Linux and the free softare community. SCO Skunkware is a good collection of 'ports' of free software to SCO OSs, and (AFAIK) we now recommend certain Skunkware packages to customers, rather than SCO tools (e.g. the mtools)
We have been a member of Liux International for around a year now, which seems to have been ignored, as opposed to other commercial Unix vendors whose membership is big news.
We are not the enemy, trust me. There is more than enough room in the world for expensive, big-name Unixes and free Unixes.
SCO is our enemy
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Wasn't it SCO the evil company that mailed Linux users with an offer for a discounted version of Openserver? Features of SCO's product included strong technical points such as: "SCO has a defined direction, Linux does not". Bah.
No --- What is *YOUR* point?
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
What is wrong with a company trying to better itself (would you rather it get worse?). If anything this is a compliment to Linux.
Now for a person that makes such strong statements you didn't seem to give any arguments to support your opinions. Why is that? What credentials do you have that make you such an expert on Unix's?
A self-respecting person.
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
I am a self-respecting UNIX kernel programmer who works for SCO. I also contribute to the Linux kernel, as do others here. Providing UnixWare7 with the ability to run Linux binaries should be seen as flattery towards Linux, not as a reason to flame the employees of a company who you do not know (unless we turned you down at a job interview?).
Yea. SCO started it.
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
It was posted on slashdot like 3 months into it's life. SCO sent out a bunch of mail to users who are edging towards Linux to try to convert them to SCO. (Which was met by an amusing counterattack which was basically the same document but with the two OSes juxtaposed. 'You save $2400!!!'
/me digs for the article (hope it's still there)
Bah. Guess not.
Well, basically, SCO let it be known that they've sunken to the level of trying to take business away from an Open/Free OS. Gee, if that doesn't say company in trouble (or one that thinks it is) I don't know what does.
If anyone wants to let actions speak louder than words, I believe they are (or were) nicely tied into Microsoft at one point. (Xenix, they may have even licensed code from them. I'm just operating on hearsay, though).
Michael Bacarella mbac[at]nyct[dawt]net
Yeah for Linux!
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
That's one step closer for Linux in it's attempt at total monoplization on the *NIX market. Pretty soon, no one will have a choice in the OS they run.
After all, why would anyone actually want to run something besides Linux? People are foolish in thinking they should have a choice. After all, Linux is perfect in every way. Linux Torvalds is God, you must all bow down and worship him.
Seig Heil. Heil Linux!
SCO and others need Linux...
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Last week I attended a panel debate (On the NordU99 conference in Stockholm). The panel consisted of people from SCO, HP, IBM, SUN and a swedish Linux support company called Signum Support.
Upon the question on why Unix never got hold of the desktop, they all (except from signum) started looking like wictims and what they basically said was that they expected that Linux would get some nice killer apps (like Corel WorkOffice etc..), then they would implement the feature to run Linux binaries on their OSes, especially the dude from SCO gave me this impression...
Of course, they wasn't as straight about it, but basically that's what they said... Scary isn't it?
SCO propaganda
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Hmmm.. Maybe you are the problem. We have about 6 times that many SCO boxes and we don't have a regular reboot plan in place. And yes, they are on a WAN. And yes, they get significant use. I know that a significant portion of them had uptimes of 248 days, but that's another story.
What is the point
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
I think the point is that you are a not-too-subtle SCO Troll.
SCO is garbage.
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
As an admin that admins several different UNIX variants, I can say with a certain amount of satisfaction that SCO is the absolute WORST UNIX variant in existance. It is SUCH a pain in the ass to admin. And I don't know why, but whenever I have to use SCO for anything I always come away feeling like I have used a very flimsy and shoddy product.
SCO can do what they want...they are indeed a sinking ship. What I don't understand is why their ship didn't hit bottom YEARS ago. ANYTHING is better than SCO...
As for the Linux compatibility layer, this is nothing new. Go to the SCO site and do some searching around, you'll find a link to another site showcasing something similar to iBCS under linux. But I guess that now that Linux is the buzzword, SCO has to somehow try to grab some of the glory that their stagnant, boring and unstable OS lacks.
This sucks..that sucks...bleah
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Maybe if you people would spend more time solving real world problems instead of bashing operating systems that can solve them you'd have a different, much more sane, viewpoint.
I love Corvette's, but that doesn't mean I drive one to work every day.
SCO propaganda
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
It's undoubdtedly your organization that's the problem. First of all, there's no such OS as "SCO", so the fact that you use that term indicates your cluelessness. SCO is a company that makes several very different OSes, e.g. UnixWare and OpenServer.
I use OpenServer at an ISP; I see uptimes in the hundreds of days on machines that get a pounding.
My guess is that you're comparing a 7-year old version of "SCO" with your current version of Linux and thinking that's valid. Shall we compare a current version of "SCO" with a 7-year old version of Linux? Oh wait, Linux wasn't even around then, was it?
What is the point
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Well, the place where SCO resides here in the UK does not make the impression as they would be dying... something they seem to do for some years now. Anyway, it's a Unix company so I wish them well and the ability to run Linux binaries will actually help the user. One reason people prefer other systems finally are the costs and this will help to reduce them.
Unix first, (tm) second
And I thought SCO belongs to Microsoft.
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
... aehm, no. Not *all* belongs to M$ though they still hold some shares. Guess Billy wants to spare something for a rainy day... just in case;-)
SCO IS the reason the PC UNIX market died!
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
As one who has worked with and administered many of the SCO "Unix" products before they bought Unixware, I can say that, when people say "UNIX" is ugly, "UNIX" is slow, or "UNIX" is very hard to administer, I am sure this was from experiance with such 'enligntened' products as Xenix, SCO ODT, etc...
Essentially, it was really slow, ugly, and hard to use. It was the worst "UNIX" source licensee product in the marketplace. This is the legacy SCO gives us in the market for PC UNIX's and why it is so hard to re-ignite the PC UNIX market and so easy for Microsoft to market against it. I could imagine that if SCO had not existed in the marketplace, NT would not be seriously considered a UNIX replacement by any serious professional today. Many people did come running and screaming from the junk SCO put out with smart marketing and remember how horrible it was. Sounds like a familiar story, doesn't it? Now people are running screaming away from NT systems that also fail to live up to promise, performance, etc...
SCO vs Linux in the end.
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
The amazing thing is that companies like Data General are ditching their own Unix and going with SCO in the future (another of the reasons I left).
For those who have not used it, DG/UX is a pleasure to look after. It's just really well put together, tends to be a little short on software, but it's *clean* and easy to port to but the DG pointy hairs are ditching it in favour of SCO!
DG isn't the only company doing this either.
Relax, it was a *joke*
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
I was the AC who posted about NT being the best solution. I had thought I had put in several obvious clues that I was just *joking* (how many times have you seen "balkanization", "company with direction", "poor performance", "toy OS", "pimply-faced 14 year olds"!?!?) but obviously those who followed up weren't bright enough to catch on.
(I thought my mention of "Rebooting is just part of the computing experience, deal with it!" and "As if a Pentium is *meant* to handle more than 1 user at a time" were brazenly obvious attempts to garner some laughs).
Unfortunately, what could have turned into a very entertaining thread was cut short by the censorous person who put them as level -2. -2!!! No foul language, nothing...
People, people... tsk tsk.
Relax, it was a *joke*
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
I surely see your point, and I recognize your right and authority to retro-moderate comments. However, perhaps the moderators would consider:
- "Flat Mode" should contain *all* comments, regardless of level. I was quite surprised to discover that it did not. - Less moderation. SlashDot reports the news, but the comment section is a great place to not only swap ideas back and forth but to perhaps have some fun! This kind of moderation detracts from that.
SlashDot is otherwise great, however.
SCOS
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
I'll give it 6 months to live.
Hi Alan
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
How are you?
No Subject Given
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
"ZDNN is reporting that SCO UnixWare 7 will run Linux software. Yet another victory for Linux."
"Linux will run Windows 3.1 software. Yet another victory for Windows."
What is the point
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
The program I'm porting from DOS to Linux was a port from DOS to OpenServer until about a month ago. The reason we switched was not the free-ness (as in "free beer") of Linux, but because the Linux distros provide a lot of software out of the box. SCO provided various tools on various CDs, without much clear integration. Linux isn't necessarily better than SCO (hell, "Linux" is just a kernel), but because it's opensource, the distributers have an incentive to make their GNU/Linux system as easy and neato as possible. With SCO, it was just, "Here's our window manager and a copy of vi; I think the C compiler is somewhere on one of these other CDs; you can download Emacs from this URL." So given that it would save the boss money and be a lot nicer to use, we switched over to Linux.
Misatakes, mistakes...
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Ironically, even most of the Linux users seems to disagree:-(
Luckily, WINE isn't as good as the win16/win32s emulation was in OS/2 _yet_.
My understanding is that Unixware holds more of the Intel/Unix market than any other commercial vendor. Is that what you meant by lowest? How much actual experience do you have outside of Linux?
-- Lurking at the bottom of the gravity well, getting old
Misatakes, mistakes...
by
cesarcardoso
·
· Score: 1
Oh dear. Those SCO guys is making the same error that IBM made with OS/2 2.x and OS/2 3: happily stating that the possibility of running the binaries of another OS is a strong point of your OS. Remember OS/2? IBM said that OS/2 run Win16 apps better than Windows. The result: nobody developed for OS/2, only for Windows, because it runs on Windows and OS/2. Soon people will complain that nobody makes nothing for SCO. They should know why.
-- Cesar Cardoso can be found at cesar at zyakannazio dot eti dot br (or at least I believe so)
This only makes sense for all Unices to do
by
Mike+Greaves
·
· Score: 1
How could any flavor but Linux set the standard for compatibility? I guess a *BSD could - theoretically - if they had more market share, but a commercial flavor never could.
The source code for the reference implementation should be open in order to easily get really good compatibility among all implementations.
Linux will not be the only Unix implementation left - far from it. But Linux will be THE reference implementation of Unix for commodity desktop applications.
It will take more time - for Linux/SPARC, Linux/MIPS, etc. become more prevalent and mature. But then Solaris, Irix and everyone else will follow.
Then office apps will cover all Unices with just one source code base, little source configuration and just one binary version per processor family.
OpenServer is not a fantastic viciously cool mindblowing product, but it works for the most part if you do things the SCO way. Like AIX, OpenServer is not the UNIX most likely to be chosen for a project by a seasoned admin with wide experience with a number of different UNIXen its a bit odd to admin, and skills taken from Solaris, BSD variants and Linux are liable to mess you up instead of help you. But its not the sort of horrifying abomination that NT is. SCO's purchase of UnixWare can only be seen as a good thing. UnixWare foundered under Novell. Its was barely supported, inexpertly maintained, mismarketed and essentially treated like a red headed stepchild. SCO has put real energy into UnixWare, and whether or not their company survives has become tied to the success of UnixWare. Why is that a good thing? Because UnixWare is the one and only direct line decendant of ATT SysV, and it would have been evil and stupid if Novell had just let it die like it seemed they were going to. So is this a win for Linux? Um... not really... but its a win for *nix, because it helps to keep one more flavor alive.
I'm a self-respecting Unix person who works for Ingram Micro supporting SCO (as well as HP-UX and Linux in an unofficial capacity).
I'll admit that my we haven't had a huge amount of experience with Unixware, as most customers are staying with Openserver, but what experience I have had does not impress me.
First, why is it that you cannot set up dial-in and dial-out on the same port? And why does the first serial port always reset to PPP irregardless of what you have configured it as?
And why don't the ported administation tools reflect differences in the two operating systems (e.g. the username field in the accound administrator only accepts 8 character usernames whereas the rest of the tools accept 256 iirc.
And on that note, why is there little to no error handling in the tcl admin tools. I've had to go through dozens of tcl stack dumps from admin tools that wouldn't even start, only to discover it was because of a bad entry in a config file.
Openserver is even worse - the 5.0.5 print subsystem is 100% fubar, fixing a mistake in adding a device often requires editing half a dozen files some of which are C code, the amird driver in rs504c and 5.0.5 somehow screws up all console logins except for X's login, etc.
It is understandable why you would suggest skunkware tools over your own, as SCO tar doesn't have support for backup of empty directories or special files; cpio in one of its incarnations (I do not recal which) hangs when piped to more, etc.
And SCO has a major problem with support. A fair amount of techs working on the priority lines are definitely talented, but a lot of the front line support is imho (as well as most people I deal with) utter carp.
I knew this for some time already. A SCO representative showed a demo to the local Unix user's group last year, and he mentioned the so-called 'Linux compatibility layer' in the upcoming release of Unixware 7. The irony of course is that Linux has its own SCO binary compatibility modules, iBCS. Apparently there are now more apps for Linux than for SCO.
Microsoft and Unix.....
by
NikoDemous
·
· Score: 1
Actually, SCO and M$ have an agreement that stipulates that M$ will not create another Unix OS to compete with SCO (it actually bars them from the creation of a Unix OS period according to my attorney who is a intellectual properties attorney) so M$ shot itself in the foot with this one becuause I'll take any Unix over NT any day!
Yeah, only Linux propoganda is allowed on slashdot. NT is Bad and Evil and Can't Do Anything and Clubs Baby Seals. Anything NT does well is a troll because NT can't do anything well. No thought toward anything positive in NT is allowed, because there is nothing positive.
Nice little lockstep march, ain't it?
-- I've finally had it: until slashdot gets article moderation, I am not coming back.
And I thought SCO belongs to Microsoft.
by
BiGGO
·
· Score: 1
isn't it?
--
---
I'm going to live forever, or die in the attempt.
SCO is the lowest of the Uni*s. SCO is not a company that any self respecting Unix person would want to associate themselves with. The fact that they can now run Linux binaries simply means that they are trying to make themselves look better. They are dying, and they are trying to do anything to stay alive. As for Net BSD running Linux binaries, well that I can live with. The *BSD's are very respectable Uni*s. Linux takes alot of it's cue's from the *BSD flavors, so It's cool that Linux can give something back in the way of available binaries. Just say NO to SCO.
PS, No offence to you SCO admins and programmers, Hey, we all have to do what we have to do. It's SCO I don't like, not the people forced to use it.
-- -Master Switch, one more element in the machine
I work for a large company selling an Oracle on SCO solution.
Since they're forcing us in to a replace, but not upgrade from OpenServer to UnixWare, we're taking the opportunity to evaluate Linux. Let's just say that the baroqueness of SCO's installation, upgrading, and licensing schemes have us strongly considering Linux. I suspect that Linux might out perform UnixWare 7, too. Not that I'm pushing it internally at all, of course:-).
All that being said, I really like SCO supporting linux apps, since it should encourage more people to develop for linux first, then let the SCO compatibility layer handle the 'port' to SCO.
Now, if only TokenRing under Linux is more stable than TokenRing under OpenServer 5...
I've never used SCO. I don't see why everyone can't just use what they want instead of being flamed by everyone else saying it sucks. That's a matter of oppinion and/or the admin.
Ever used AIX? We have 2 aix machines where I work and I really don't like it. I have my own linux machine at work. This kinda reminds me of the distribution wars. I use debian. I've seen redhat, but I wasn't impressed. That doesn't mean that someone else won't be.
Hi, I'm 010110001010, pleased to meet you.
--
Lab test show that use of micro$oft causes deadly cancer in lab animals.
Slashdot Mirror
The fact that SCO users can run Linux binaries really doesn't mean anything to the majority of Linux users.
More than anything, it's a victory for SCO users, since they get access to a wider range of precompiled binaries. But that doesn't really contribute anything to Linux or to its users.
what a load of bull, I've used SCO and it is garbage compaired to Linux. Linux is not as ready as SCO, my ass. i work for a corporate subdivision that schedules weekly reboots of over 400 sco boxes just to deal with their flakey os (on a wan btw). they're just full of it. needless to say, i'm pushing proposals for replacing sco with linux. ps unixware is even worse tham openserver.
I want my _Linux_. Who cares about SCO?
Hi, I'm a self-respecting Unix person who works for SCO, and I think you're very wrong. Unixware 7 is a very reasonable Unix and, to be honest, the company is pretty cool. There are a lot of people within the company who run Linux on their work machines (I switched last week from Unixware 7), and the higher-ups are fully aware of, and respect Linux and the free softare community. SCO Skunkware is a good collection of 'ports' of free software to SCO OSs, and (AFAIK) we now recommend certain Skunkware packages to customers, rather than SCO tools (e.g. the mtools)
We have been a member of Liux International for around a year now, which seems to have been ignored, as opposed to other commercial Unix vendors whose membership is big news.
We are not the enemy, trust me. There is more than enough room in the world for expensive, big-name Unixes and free Unixes.
Wasn't it SCO the evil company that mailed Linux users with an offer for a discounted version of Openserver? Features of SCO's product included strong technical points such as: "SCO has a defined direction, Linux does not". Bah.
What is wrong with a company trying to better itself (would you rather it get worse?). If anything this is a compliment to Linux.
Now for a person that makes such strong statements you didn't seem to give any arguments to support your opinions. Why is that? What credentials do you have that make you such an expert on Unix's?
I am a self-respecting UNIX kernel programmer who works for SCO. I also contribute to the Linux kernel, as do others here.
Providing UnixWare7 with the ability to run Linux binaries should be seen as flattery towards Linux, not as a reason to flame the employees of a company who you do not know (unless we turned you down at a job interview?).
It was posted on slashdot like 3 months into it's
life. SCO sent out a bunch of mail to users who
are edging towards Linux to try to convert them
to SCO. (Which was met by an amusing counterattack
which was basically the same document but with
the two OSes juxtaposed. 'You save $2400!!!'
/me digs for the article (hope it's still there)
Bah. Guess not.
Well, basically, SCO let it be known that they've
sunken to the level of trying to take business
away from an Open/Free OS. Gee, if that doesn't
say company in trouble (or one that thinks it is)
I don't know what does.
If anyone wants to let actions speak louder than
words, I believe they are (or were) nicely tied
into Microsoft at one point. (Xenix, they may have
even licensed code from them. I'm just operating
on hearsay, though).
Michael Bacarella
mbac[at]nyct[dawt]net
That's one step closer for Linux in it's attempt at total monoplization on the *NIX market. Pretty soon, no one will have a choice in the OS they run.
After all, why would anyone actually want to run something besides Linux? People are foolish in thinking they should have a choice. After all, Linux is perfect in every way. Linux Torvalds is God, you must all bow down and worship him.
Seig Heil. Heil Linux!
Last week I attended a panel debate (On the NordU99 conference in Stockholm). The panel consisted of people from SCO, HP, IBM, SUN and a swedish Linux support company called Signum Support.
Upon the question on why Unix never got hold of the desktop, they all (except from signum) started looking like wictims and what they basically said was that they expected that Linux would get some nice killer apps (like Corel WorkOffice etc..), then they would implement the feature to run Linux binaries on their OSes, especially the dude from SCO gave me this impression...
Of course, they wasn't as straight about it, but basically that's what they said... Scary isn't it?
Hmmm..
Maybe you are the problem.
We have about 6 times that many SCO boxes
and we don't have a regular reboot plan in place.
And yes, they are on a WAN.
And yes, they get significant use.
I know that a significant portion of them had
uptimes of 248 days, but that's another story.
I think the point is that you are a not-too-subtle SCO Troll.
As an admin that admins several different UNIX variants, I can say with a certain amount of satisfaction that SCO is the absolute WORST UNIX variant in existance. It is SUCH a pain in the ass to admin. And I don't know why, but whenever I have to use SCO for anything I always come away feeling like I have used a very flimsy and shoddy product.
SCO can do what they want...they are indeed a sinking ship. What I don't understand is why their ship didn't hit bottom YEARS ago. ANYTHING is better than SCO...
As for the Linux compatibility layer, this is nothing new. Go to the SCO site and do some searching around, you'll find a link to another site showcasing something similar to iBCS under linux. But I guess that now that Linux is the buzzword, SCO has to somehow try to grab some of the glory that their stagnant, boring and unstable OS lacks.
Maybe if you people would spend more time solving real world
problems instead of bashing operating systems that can
solve them you'd have a different, much more sane, viewpoint.
I love Corvette's, but that doesn't mean I drive one to work
every day.
It's undoubdtedly your organization that's the problem. First of all, there's no such OS as "SCO", so the fact that you use that term indicates your cluelessness. SCO is a company that makes several very different OSes, e.g. UnixWare and OpenServer.
I use OpenServer at an ISP; I see uptimes in the hundreds of days on machines that get a pounding.
My guess is that you're comparing a 7-year old version of "SCO" with your current version of Linux and thinking that's valid. Shall we compare a current version of "SCO" with a 7-year old version of Linux? Oh wait, Linux wasn't even around then, was it?
Well, the place where SCO resides here in the UK does not make the impression as they would be dying ... something they seem to do for some years now. Anyway, it's a Unix company so I wish them well and the ability to run Linux binaries will actually help the user. One reason people prefer other systems finally are the costs and this will help to reduce them.
Unix first, (tm) second
... aehm, no. Not *all* belongs to M$ though they still hold some shares. Guess Billy wants to spare something for a rainy day ... just in case ;-)
As one who has worked with and administered many of the SCO "Unix" products before they bought Unixware, I can say that, when people say "UNIX" is ugly, "UNIX" is slow, or "UNIX" is very hard to administer, I am sure this was from experiance with such 'enligntened' products as Xenix, SCO ODT, etc...
Essentially, it was really slow, ugly, and hard to use. It was the worst "UNIX" source licensee product in the marketplace. This is the legacy SCO gives us in the market for PC UNIX's and why it is so hard to re-ignite the PC UNIX market and so easy for Microsoft to market against it. I could imagine that if SCO had not existed in the marketplace, NT would not be seriously considered a UNIX replacement by any serious professional today. Many people did come running and screaming from the junk SCO put out with smart marketing and remember how horrible it was. Sounds like a familiar story, doesn't it? Now people are running screaming away from NT systems that also fail to live up to promise, performance, etc...
The amazing thing is that companies like Data General are ditching their own Unix and going with SCO in the future (another of the reasons I left).
For those who have not used it, DG/UX is a pleasure to look after. It's just really well put together, tends to be a little short on software, but it's *clean* and easy to port to but the DG pointy hairs are ditching it in favour of SCO!
DG isn't the only company doing this either.
I was the AC who posted about NT being the best solution. I had thought I had put in several obvious clues that I was just *joking* (how many times have you seen "balkanization", "company with direction", "poor performance", "toy OS", "pimply-faced 14 year olds"!?!?) but obviously those who followed up weren't bright enough to catch on.
(I thought my mention of "Rebooting is just part of the computing experience, deal with it!" and "As if a Pentium is *meant* to handle more than 1 user at a time" were brazenly obvious attempts to garner some laughs).
Unfortunately, what could have turned into a very entertaining thread was cut short by the censorous person who put them as level -2. -2!!! No foul language, nothing...
People, people... tsk tsk.
I surely see your point, and I recognize your right and authority to retro-moderate comments. However, perhaps the moderators would consider:
- "Flat Mode" should contain *all* comments, regardless of level. I was quite surprised to discover that it did not.
- Less moderation. SlashDot reports the news, but the comment section is a great place to not only swap ideas back and forth but to perhaps have some fun! This kind of moderation detracts from that.
SlashDot is otherwise great, however.
I'll give it 6 months to live.
How are you?
"Linux will run Windows 3.1 software. Yet another victory for Windows."
The program I'm porting from DOS to Linux was a port from DOS to OpenServer until about a month ago. The reason we switched was not the free-ness (as in "free beer") of Linux, but because the Linux distros provide a lot of software out of the box. SCO provided various tools on various CDs, without much clear integration. Linux isn't necessarily better than SCO (hell, "Linux" is just a kernel), but because it's opensource, the distributers have an incentive to make their GNU/Linux system as easy and neato as possible. With SCO, it was just, "Here's our window manager and a copy of vi; I think the C compiler is somewhere on one of these other CDs; you can download Emacs from this URL." So given that it would save the boss money and be a lot nicer to use, we switched over to Linux.
Ironically, even most of the Linux users seems to disagree :-(
Luckily, WINE isn't as good as the win16/win32s emulation was in OS/2 _yet_.
My understanding is that Unixware holds more of the Intel/Unix
market than any other commercial vendor. Is that what you meant
by lowest? How much actual experience do you have outside of
Linux?
Lurking at the bottom of the gravity well, getting old
Oh dear. Those SCO guys is making the same error that IBM made with OS/2 2.x and OS/2 3: happily stating that the possibility of running the binaries of another OS is a strong point of your OS.
Remember OS/2? IBM said that OS/2 run Win16 apps better than Windows. The result: nobody developed for OS/2, only for Windows, because it runs on Windows and OS/2.
Soon people will complain that nobody makes nothing for SCO. They should know why.
Cesar Cardoso can be found at cesar at zyakannazio dot eti dot br (or at least I believe so)
How could any flavor but Linux set the standard for compatibility? I guess a *BSD could - theoretically - if they had more market share, but a commercial flavor never could.
The source code for the reference implementation should be open in order to easily get really good compatibility among all implementations.
Linux will not be the only Unix implementation left - far from it. But Linux will be THE reference implementation of Unix for commodity desktop applications.
It will take more time - for Linux/SPARC, Linux/MIPS, etc. become more prevalent and mature. But then Solaris, Irix and everyone else will follow.
Then office apps will cover all Unices with just one source code base, little source configuration and just one binary version per processor family.
-- Mike Greaves
OpenServer is not a fantastic viciously cool mindblowing product, but it works for the most part if you do things the SCO way.
Like AIX, OpenServer is not the UNIX most likely to be chosen for a project by a seasoned admin with wide experience with a number of different UNIXen its a bit odd to admin, and skills taken from Solaris, BSD variants and Linux are liable to mess you up instead of help you.
But its not the sort of horrifying abomination that NT is.
SCO's purchase of UnixWare can only be seen as a good thing. UnixWare foundered under Novell. Its was barely supported, inexpertly maintained, mismarketed and essentially treated like a red headed stepchild.
SCO has put real energy into UnixWare, and whether or not their company survives has become tied to the success of UnixWare.
Why is that a good thing?
Because UnixWare is the one and only direct line decendant of ATT SysV, and it would have been evil and stupid if Novell had just let it die like it seemed they were going to.
So is this a win for Linux? Um... not really... but its a win for *nix, because it helps to keep one more flavor alive.
I'm a self-respecting Unix person who works for Ingram Micro supporting SCO (as well as HP-UX and Linux in an unofficial capacity).
I'll admit that my we haven't had a huge amount of experience with Unixware, as most customers are staying with Openserver, but what experience I have had does not impress me.
First, why is it that you cannot set up dial-in and dial-out on the same port? And why does the first serial port always reset to PPP irregardless of what you have configured it as?
And why don't the ported administation tools reflect differences in the two operating systems (e.g. the username field in the accound administrator only accepts 8 character usernames whereas the rest of the tools accept 256 iirc.
And on that note, why is there little to no error handling in the tcl admin tools. I've had to go through dozens of tcl stack dumps from admin tools that wouldn't even start, only to discover it was because of a bad entry in a config file.
Openserver is even worse - the 5.0.5 print subsystem is 100% fubar, fixing a mistake in adding a device often requires editing half a dozen files some of which are C code, the amird driver in rs504c and 5.0.5 somehow screws up all console logins except for X's login, etc.
It is understandable why you would suggest skunkware tools over your own, as SCO tar doesn't have support for backup of empty directories or special files; cpio in one of its incarnations (I do not recal which) hangs when piped to more, etc.
And SCO has a major problem with support. A fair amount of techs working on the priority lines are definitely talented, but a lot of the front line support is imho (as well as most people I deal with) utter carp.
I knew this for some time already.
A SCO representative showed a demo to the local Unix user's group last year, and he mentioned the so-called 'Linux compatibility layer' in the upcoming release of Unixware 7.
The irony of course is that Linux has its own SCO binary compatibility modules, iBCS. Apparently there are now more apps for Linux than for SCO.
Actually, SCO and M$ have an agreement that stipulates that M$ will not create another Unix OS to compete with SCO (it actually bars them from the creation of a Unix OS period according to my attorney who is a intellectual properties attorney) so M$ shot itself in the foot with this one becuause I'll take any Unix over NT any day!
Nick
LSG
Yeah, only Linux propoganda is allowed on slashdot. NT is Bad and Evil and Can't Do Anything and Clubs Baby Seals. Anything NT does well is a troll because NT can't do anything well. No thought toward anything positive in NT is allowed, because there is nothing positive.
Nice little lockstep march, ain't it?
I've finally had it: until slashdot gets article moderation, I am not coming back.
isn't it?
---
I'm going to live forever, or die in the attempt.
SCO is the lowest of the Uni*s. SCO is not a company that any self respecting Unix person would want to associate themselves with. The fact that they can now run Linux binaries simply means that they are trying to make themselves look better. They are dying, and they are trying to do anything to stay alive. As for Net BSD running Linux binaries, well that I can live with. The *BSD's are very respectable Uni*s. Linux takes alot of it's cue's from the *BSD flavors, so It's cool that Linux can give something back in the way of available binaries. Just say NO to SCO.
PS, No offence to you SCO admins and programmers, Hey, we all have to do what we have to do. It's SCO I don't like, not the people forced to use it.
-Master Switch, one more element in the machine
I work for a large company selling an Oracle on SCO solution.
:-).
Since they're forcing us in to a replace, but not upgrade from OpenServer to UnixWare, we're taking the opportunity to evaluate Linux. Let's just say that the baroqueness of SCO's installation, upgrading, and licensing schemes have us strongly considering Linux. I suspect that Linux might out perform UnixWare 7, too. Not that I'm pushing it internally at all, of course
All that being said, I really like SCO supporting linux apps, since it should encourage more people to develop for linux first, then let the SCO compatibility layer handle the 'port' to SCO.
Now, if only TokenRing under Linux is more stable than TokenRing under OpenServer 5...
I've never used SCO. I don't see why everyone can't just use what they want instead of being flamed by everyone else saying it sucks. That's a matter of oppinion and/or the admin.
Ever used AIX? We have 2 aix machines where I work and I really don't like it. I have my own linux machine at work. This kinda reminds me of the distribution wars. I use debian. I've seen redhat, but I wasn't impressed. That doesn't mean that someone else won't be.
Hi, I'm 010110001010, pleased to meet you.
Lab test show that use of micro$oft causes deadly cancer in lab animals.