Re:Maybe it time to start working on HURD
on
Back To SCO
·
· Score: 1
True enough.
The tone and trend has been less and less about issues which _MIGHT_ be legitimate with IBM, or whomsoever, and more and more about slandering the leading lights of the OSS movement.
Given this general trend I half expect Darl to start casting aspersions on ESR's mom, RTS's mom, etc. etc.
<Tongue_firmly_in_cheek>After all, the depleted morals of these individuals could only be the result of their upbringing.</Tongue_firmly_in_cheek>
What I find to be even more telling is Mr. McBride's repeated insistence that the OSS model is flawed, and that the resulting business model is flawed.
Well, leaving aside the truth or fallacy of these claims, who put the idea in Mr. McBride's head that he is the one with the answers?
Looking at SCO, I would suggest Mr. McBride is the last person who should be making these suggestions. If the same statement were to be made by, say, an influential individual at Red Hat, or even IBM, I would be more inclined to give this position it's due. But, SCO couldn't make money as a Linux vendor, sells one of the most expensive, but least capable genetic Unixes, and were it not for the current media circus, would probably be filling for Chap 11 protection right about......now.
So, Mr. McBride, there is the old adage about glass houses and the throwing of Stones by those who dwell within. Perhaps if SCO demonstrated their ability to _CREATE_ and _INNOVATE_ instead of count coup on the _CREATIONS_ and _INNOVATIONS_ of others, SCO would be a healthy example of Closed Development. But as long as SCO is the champion of IP, Closed Development, and in general focusing not on the _CREATING_ but the _SUING_, and failing miserably at both, I see no reason for anyone to take your position as anything more than sour grapes.
However running Microsoft Virtual Server does have some merits from a business perspective (vendor viability, reduced licensing costs etc). Any thoughts on merits/benefits/downside of using either of the technology stacks?"
Okay, you mention two "merits" here, let's discuss these:
Vendor Viability: Sure, M$ is quickly maturing to the realm of death and taxes, abhorrent but inevitable. However, the benefit of this vendors perceived longevity needs to be balanced against the companies oft stated desire to monoplize Operating Systems. Even the announcement stresses the migration benefits of MSVS. While the claims may be dubious, the goal is not, to provide an environment which encourages migration to an M$ environment.
The other item to balance off against this is the vendor's long-standing history of OS issues and application exploits. In the same week that M$ release five security advisories, many to do with flagship applications, I can't believe anyone would seriously be considering MSVS as an alternative.
Reduced Licensing Costs: Compared to what? Running Vmware on 2k3? But, VMWare also runs on Linux, and if you have the in-house expertise to handle Linux, why would you incur the higher OS cost of using 2k3? Why would you take the higher overhead of an M$ OS for your host OS?
The benefits to me seem minimal, and more than offset by the attendant liabilities.
Sorry, UnixWare and OpenServer failed because they "suck". Sorry, I can't come up with a better adjective for their current line up. Poor scalability, waaaaaay over priced, heck, it makes Microsoft look charietable with their license pricing and they have next to no ISV and IHV support. No wonder SCO is dying.
Hear, hear!
I remember my first Linux installation...
I got a set of Slackware CDs from the MIS, a sort of joke gift he thought. I retired to my lab and immediately scavenged some hardware to give it a shot.
Gods! I was impressed. After a few hours poking around here and there my first considered reaction was: 'This thing is a UNIX-killer.'
At the time I was an SE/FE in an SCO-shop, back in the 3.2r4.2 days... In every way, even then (late '93 or early '94, there was snow, that's about all I remember...) that Slackware box was a breath of fresh air. The supported hardware was good, covering a reasonable cross section of common to high end parts 'n' peripherals, certainly more extensive than SCO. And the hits kept coming, networking included, at no added cost, several compilers, also at no added cost. A mind-boggling array of software, almost too much.
Within a week I had that little puppy, built out of spare parts humming along-side the production servers. That box eventually housed the company's first permanent internet connection, and matured into their first proxy/firewall.
Over the years I've used many Linux distributions, and have had the unfortunate responsibility of assessing follow offerings from SCO. Each and every time I would select another distro and compare the two. Consistently I found myself disappointed with the SCO offerings.
Now, almost ten years later, there are still a few SCO machines around, clustered in a little corner of the server closet, under the Caldera VSP certificate and stuffed Tux holding a sign which reads:
ABANDON HOPE, ALL YE WHO LOG ON HERE!
Slashdot Mirror
True enough.
The tone and trend has been less and less about issues which _MIGHT_ be legitimate with IBM, or whomsoever, and more and more about slandering the leading lights of the OSS movement.
Given this general trend I half expect Darl to start casting aspersions on ESR's mom, RTS's mom, etc. etc.
<Tongue_firmly_in_cheek>After all, the depleted morals of these individuals could only be the result of their upbringing.</Tongue_firmly_in_cheek>
What I find to be even more telling is Mr. McBride's repeated insistence that the OSS model is flawed, and that the resulting business model is flawed. Well, leaving aside the truth or fallacy of these claims, who put the idea in Mr. McBride's head that he is the one with the answers? Looking at SCO, I would suggest Mr. McBride is the last person who should be making these suggestions. If the same statement were to be made by, say, an influential individual at Red Hat, or even IBM, I would be more inclined to give this position it's due. But, SCO couldn't make money as a Linux vendor, sells one of the most expensive, but least capable genetic Unixes, and were it not for the current media circus, would probably be filling for Chap 11 protection right about... ...now.
So, Mr. McBride, there is the old adage about glass houses and the throwing of Stones by those who dwell within. Perhaps if SCO demonstrated their ability to _CREATE_ and _INNOVATE_ instead of count coup on the _CREATIONS_ and _INNOVATIONS_ of others, SCO would be a healthy example of Closed Development. But as long as SCO is the champion of IP, Closed Development, and in general focusing not on the _CREATING_ but the _SUING_, and failing miserably at both, I see no reason for anyone to take your position as anything more than sour grapes.
Sorry, UnixWare and OpenServer failed because they "suck". Sorry, I can't come up with a better adjective for their current line up. Poor scalability, waaaaaay over priced, heck, it makes Microsoft look charietable with their license pricing and they have next to no ISV and IHV support. No wonder SCO is dying. Hear, hear! I remember my first Linux installation... I got a set of Slackware CDs from the MIS, a sort of joke gift he thought. I retired to my lab and immediately scavenged some hardware to give it a shot. Gods! I was impressed. After a few hours poking around here and there my first considered reaction was: 'This thing is a UNIX-killer.' At the time I was an SE/FE in an SCO-shop, back in the 3.2r4.2 days... In every way, even then (late '93 or early '94, there was snow, that's about all I remember...) that Slackware box was a breath of fresh air. The supported hardware was good, covering a reasonable cross section of common to high end parts 'n' peripherals, certainly more extensive than SCO. And the hits kept coming, networking included, at no added cost, several compilers, also at no added cost. A mind-boggling array of software, almost too much. Within a week I had that little puppy, built out of spare parts humming along-side the production servers. That box eventually housed the company's first permanent internet connection, and matured into their first proxy/firewall. Over the years I've used many Linux distributions, and have had the unfortunate responsibility of assessing follow offerings from SCO. Each and every time I would select another distro and compare the two. Consistently I found myself disappointed with the SCO offerings. Now, almost ten years later, there are still a few SCO machines around, clustered in a little corner of the server closet, under the Caldera VSP certificate and stuffed Tux holding a sign which reads: ABANDON HOPE, ALL YE WHO LOG ON HERE!