Re:Flashy features was never SCO
on
Endgame For SCO
·
· Score: 1
It's not the lack of flashy features that's clobbering SCO. Most of the flashy features are specifically for workstations, not servers. Duz the name "OpenServer" kinda imply that it's a server, not a client? Or do you think that the server business really needs sound, games, weird devices, and removeable peripherals?
SCO's business plan was to license flashy features from independent vendors on the theory that they could bring them to market faster than any competitor. Just type "copyrights" on any SCO box. The plan worked for quite a while but fell apart when MS started its "ebrace, extend, and destroy" policy of feature mutation. It forced SCO to change from a feature bundler into feature developer, something it did rather poorly. A few other reasons were:
1. It's difficult to compete with a free product.
2. MS dumped $72million worth of stock in Feb 2000. Novell did it slowly over most of 1999.
3. Failed to supply a workstation/client product and emphasized the high end server market, not realizing that a client was necessary for a complete solution. When Windoze desktops replaced the SCO client, the obvious question was why bother with an SCO server?
4. Lack of trained and experienced personnel to maintain the SCO servers. Most such people get their experience on the desktop Unix boxes first. Without a free/cheap client, there was no access to SCO servers for the hacks, geeks, and service guys to "learn by destroying". The Skunkware open source stuff and Free licenses were a big help, but came too late with little followup and rah-rah.
I have my own opinions about what to do next. However, with a 30% drop in stock value after announcing a $.55/share loss, methinks the options are rather limited.
Re:SCO isn't lying about Y2K
on
Endgame For SCO
·
· Score: 1
I deal with about 15 assorted SCO OSR5 machines. I had a problem with ONE of these machines on Feb 29 and that turned out to be an application problem, not a bios or operating system problem.
Slashdot Mirror
It's not the lack of flashy features that's clobbering SCO. Most of the flashy features are specifically for workstations, not servers. Duz the name "OpenServer" kinda imply that it's a server, not a client? Or do you think that the server business really needs sound, games, weird devices, and removeable peripherals?
SCO's business plan was to license flashy features from independent vendors on the theory that they could bring them to market faster than any competitor. Just type "copyrights" on any SCO box. The plan worked for quite a while but fell apart when MS started its "ebrace, extend, and destroy" policy of feature mutation. It forced SCO to change from a feature bundler into feature developer, something it did rather poorly. A few other reasons were:
1. It's difficult to compete with a free product.
2. MS dumped $72million worth of stock in Feb 2000. Novell did it slowly over most of 1999.
3. Failed to supply a workstation/client product and emphasized the high end server market, not realizing that a client was necessary for a complete solution. When Windoze desktops replaced the SCO client, the obvious question was why bother with an SCO server?
4. Lack of trained and experienced personnel to maintain the SCO servers. Most such people get their experience on the desktop Unix boxes first. Without a free/cheap client, there was no access to SCO servers for the hacks, geeks, and service guys to "learn by destroying". The Skunkware open source stuff and Free licenses were a big help, but came too late with little followup and rah-rah.
I have my own opinions about what to do next. However, with a 30% drop in stock value after announcing a $.55/share loss, methinks the options are rather limited.
I deal with about 15 assorted SCO OSR5 machines. I had a problem with ONE of these machines on Feb 29 and that turned out to be an application problem, not a bios or operating system problem.