Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Linux Software

Deciding Between SCO and Linux? 105

Posted by Cliff from the SCO'd-out-yet dept.
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This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Deciding Between SCO and Linux? More

Deciding Between SCO and Linux?

Comments Filter:

  • OK..... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Gaetano ( 142855 ) * on Friday July 18, 2003 @08:39PM (#6475700)
    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.

    • Re:OK..... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by XO ( 250276 ) <blade,eric&gmail,com> on Friday July 18, 2003 @09:05PM (#6475833) Homepage Journal
      I suppose just to play Devil's Advocate:

      I would presume from the post that they likely don't NEED any more software packages. They likely don't NEED more people with experience administering Linux.

      What they need is to maintain the existence that their business has, but get their shiny new RAID to work.

      What we know:
      (1) They currently run SCO, and everything they have runs in SCO
      (2) They need support for this shiny new RAID

      What we don't know:

      - How much the upgrade is going to cost them from SCO
      - If there are any gotchas that they will run into trying to run their applications within Linux
      - If the staff is capable of administrating Linux reasonably

      So, is it worth the money to investigate Linux? I certainly wouldn't change something that Works for a new Unknown, even if it is demonstrably cheaper, without putting in some serious Time and Effort to test the new Unknown, and that's going to eat up a lot of that Demonstrably Cheaper difference.

      As the article says, the programmers have demonstrated that Linux can process their information much faster, but do they need much faster? I mean really.. do I need a 2.5GHz P4 to word process, or can I continue using my P5/100 laptop? I highly doubt I would notice any difference except that the load time for OO.ORG would decrease from about Forever to about Half of Forever.

      I would say to start testing Linux. Make sure that Linux can do what needs to be done. But if you need it up and running --now-- with the new hardware, you're gonna have to go with SCO for now.. but I would definitely say get into the Linux testing right now, because as everyone else here points out, SCO may not be around when the lawsuits involving Linux are done!

      Trust me, I have no love for SCO, but look at things realistically with your mind, and not with just your heart.

      • I'm gonna say Linux hands down. Mind you I came from the SCO=evil thought line and this is just a rationalization. Here goes.

        1. Linux is low cost which means you can have alot of test systems. Each developer can have a Linux box in his cubicle. Having the ability to play with and test things on your own with out screwing everyone else up is a big benefit.

        2. Linux is more wide spread so much of the common software you use probably works better there anyway.

        3. Linux isn't going anywhere. Despight SCO's be
      • One could easily use a removable boot secter boot to test a linux install so I do not see the problem. I really think that a linux install would not be that much of a problem if the guys know how to use the server tools! They would not have to hose SCO right away. But as far as I am concerned the sooner the better.
        A dual P500 with a raid is no problem for Linux I use a dual P3 450 and my raid smokes.

    • Re:OK..... (Score:1, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward
      There are a lot more software packages that will run under linux,

      True, but it's not the software that caused you to buy a SCO box in the first place.

      Linux: More MP3 players, desktop doodads, dev tools
      SCO: More vertical market apps and sales terminal stuff, etc. (still!)

  • SMP... (Score:2, Informative)

    by BigBadDude ( 683684 )

    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 :)
    • Jesus dude, what the heck are you talking about? If by SMP you mean symmetric multiprocessing then yes, SCO OpenServer has supported that for as long as I can remember, which is about six years. The downside is that every CPU needs a separate license but we're not talking about that, are we?
      • . . . for as long as I can remember, which is about six years.

        Bartender, I'll have what he's having.

  • Well... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by His name cannot be s ( 16831 ) on Friday July 18, 2003 @08:45PM (#6475727) Journal
    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.

  • Simple (Score:4, Funny)

    by alph0ns3 ( 547254 ) on Friday July 18, 2003 @08:45PM (#6475730)
    Tell them if they choose SCO, _I_ will come to kill them.

  • I suggest you go for SCO! (Score:4, Funny)

    by BigBadDude ( 683684 ) on Friday July 18, 2003 @08:51PM (#6475758)

    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!
    • "If it works, don't fix it." is still true. If they are happy with SCO OpenServer, let them use it. Now the openserver is being updated again, there is no reason to just go and change to linux or anything else. And dude, you should know that OpenServer is not the newest version of SysV but it still is SysV :) If you want V7, get yourself a Minix.
    • "2. comes with a nice 1000 page EULA (that premits SCO to take your wife and kill your dog at time of their choice)."

      But, wait! Given your comment marked #2 above, we can't just "go for SCO"! We have to implement the following branching structure:

      if(wife.IsHot()){

      goWithSco.Decision = "Fuck, no!";

      }else if(wife.likesOral()){

      if(wife.doesntBite()||wife.swallows()){

      goWithSco.Decision = "Aw, HELLZ no!!!";

      }else{

      goWithSco.Decision = "Maybe";

      }

      }else if(wife.isADog){

      if(wife

  • Don't switch yet (Score:4, Informative)

    by reynaert ( 264437 ) on Friday July 18, 2003 @08:59PM (#6475797)
    If the programmers still have doubts, don't switch. It sounds like they just did a couple benchmarks, and didn't port the complete system yet. Until they demonstrate everything works on Linux, you should stick to SCO. Your first priority should be with the firm, not with your /. karma. So just do that little update to 5.0.7.

    (Unless that little update breaks your system. In that case you've got nothing to lose with switching :)

  • so now we know! (Score:3, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 18, 2003 @09:09PM (#6475859)
    you are the guy that purchased the single OpenServer license SCO sold between 1999 and 2003?

    shame on you for supporting the terrorists!
  • This question just promises to be a hot bed of contention rife with all the attendant pillaging and trolling... Oh wait thats me. Uh never mind ;-)

  • Here are some good reasons... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by MBCook ( 132727 ) <foobarsoft@foobarsoft.com> on Friday July 18, 2003 @09:13PM (#6475888) Homepage
    OK, how 'bout these #25 reasons?
    1. No future price hikes because Linux is free. Price for each version won't change.
    2. No planned obscelescence, you're in control. Run kernel 2.2 and use KDE 2.2 untill the end of time if you want.
    3. No forced bundles. What happens if SCO decides you can only buy their OS if you also but program X and a 1000 seat license for it (at $500 a pop)?
    4. Speaking of which, no per seat licenses. If SCO doesn't charge them now, how do you know they won't in the future?
    5. Upgrades are free. Security patches are free. It's ALL free.
    6. It's TRUELY open. You have a problem? Your techs can look at the code to see what's going on. You don't need to call in an expert from SCO.
    7. Need a feature? Add it! You can add it directly to the software, you don't need to do it as some hack script that you run things though.
    8. Not tied to a company. What happens if/when SCO goes out of business? You have to find a new company for support (costs more $$$), you'll have to switch to a different OS (costs more $$$).
    9. Linux has Tux, the cute/cool little mascot. What does SCO have?
    10. You get companies like IBM working to improve things like the core system (the kernel) and other programs (samba), and you get those improvements for FREE. That's NO $$$.
    11. Not tied to any specific architecture. What happens if SCO say "From now on if you want to run our OS, you must run it on our new SCOlding 7 processor." So you switch platforms (massive $$$), or you switch OS ($$$). You can buy x86s, IA-64s, x86-64s, PPCs, m68ks, Sparcs, ANYTHING.
    12. SCO's situation. Right now they are FUDing all over the place. If they lose the lawsuit, they could be out of business. Even if they survive, do you want to pay their legal bills? Why is it that since their stock price has gone up after this FUD thing, their seinor execs have been selling sizeable chunks of their stock offerings. Does that give YOU confidence in them?
    13. If they are affraid of the who SCO vs Linux thing, why not go with FreeBSD or OpenBSD?
    14. How long is the SCO EULA? Have your lawyers read everything in there? With Linux, all you have to fear is the GPL, and that's nothing to fear as it's harmless.
    15. SCO's OS is only now getting support for the Pentium 4 and such. Linux has supported the x86-64 line since before it was released. I think it was the same with IA64, and PPC-64, and others.
    16. How long will it take for SCO to add PCI-X and PCI Express when you get new servers that include them? Linux will have them soon, and you won't have to pay for it.
    17. Scalability. Linux can install and run on 386s with 8mb of ram and 100mb of hard drive. SCO want's a Pentium with 64mb and 400mb of hard drive.
    18. SCO's OS can only support 537gb per volume (so you couldn't have a 2tb raid). Linux supports terabyte sized disks, doesn't it?
    19. Linux supports just about any piece of hardware you're likely to be using. Are you using Adaptec RAID cards or chips? Adaptec maintains highly optomised drivers that they put in the kernel so you can get maximum performance out of your hardware. Do they do that with SCO?
    20. You said that Linux can to more transactions faster on your current systems than SCO. That means running Linux you can go longer between hardware upgrades. And when you upgrade that hardware, you can go longer before you need to upgrade again, and so on. Saves you $$$.
    21. You can train your interns in Linux, and since Linux is an "In Thing," you might get more qualified interns (or at least more eagre ones) applying which means that you get better people working for "expirance" (read: near free) than you might have now!
    22. Linux is being improved not only by hardware people like IBM, but all the numerous distos are trying to make things better. They also mean more choice so you can find something that fits you better that the somthing like SCO's product, where only one company is offering it. Even if you don't use RedHat, you still have
    • I don't know anyting about SCO's products or practices,

      Why not say that at the top of your comment text, rather than drag us through a 25 point rant first?

    • Re:Here are some good reasons... (Score:5, Funny)

      by Phleg ( 523632 ) * <stephen AT touset DOT org> on Friday July 18, 2003 @10:54PM (#6476296)
      Linux has Tux, the cute/cool little mascot. What does SCO have?

      A cadre of menacing lawyers?
    • "# SCO's OS can only support 537gb per volume (so you couldn't have a 2tb raid). Linux supports terabyte sized disks, doesn't it?"

      Not sure on the exact limits, but the largest I used it in was a 1.6tb array, first raid then LVM. (raid b0rked, not linux's fault.) iirc it was 8x200gig, and it ran great.
    • Linux has Tux, the cute/cool little mascot. What does SCO have?

      SCO has that cute Mickey Mouse ear logo... Hey, wait, does Disney know about that? Maybe someone ought to tell them.

    • No future price hikes because Linux is free. Price for each version won't change.

      Linux is NOT free! It costs money to develop, and people *are* getting paid for it. How could it be otherwise?

      You'll kill Linux by proclaiming it free (as-in-beer).

      No planned obscelescence, you're in control. Run kernel 2.2 and use KDE 2.2 untill the end of time if you want.

      But who's going to support kernel 2.2 and KDE 2.2 until the end of time? And why not run SCO until the end of time?! This point is rea

    • Re:Here are some good reasons... (Score:1, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward
      No future price hikes because Linux is free.
      Linux is only free if your time has no value. Commercial support for vendor Linux (like Red Hat) will increasingly be fore the "Professional" version of the OS and will cost more and more money. My budget for Red Hat Linux support is higher than my budget per node for Sun Solaris on Sparc systems. Anyone who would suggest a heavily used system for 100 people rely upon newsgrous is insane. That is clearly a situation for vendor support. That means $$. Better
    • Ok. This post is going to sound like I'm rambling at times and is lengthy, but most of what you say is FUD in and of itself. I tried my best to go off of the truths that I understand, but please correct me if there is something completely wrong somewhere.

      No future price hikes because Linux is free. Price for each version won't change.

      You aren't exactly comparing apples to apples. Yes both are operating systems. But with SCO, you have a source to go back to when problems arise that is ultimately liab

    • On point 9.:

      "Linux has Tux, the cute/cool little mascot. What does SCO have? "

      They have Darl(ing) McBride of course !

      Now he must be far more cute and cuddly than some old moth eaten penguin !

      I am sure that Darl can stir the kiddies onto greatness !

      What sort of a wanker name is DARL anyway ??!

      Rob.

      "For Every Pleasure There's a Tax."

  • is this a joke? Some kind of test? (Score:1, Flamebait)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Is somebody actually considering giving SCO actual MONEY??

    Okay, forget about the fact that they are trying to destroy the entire computer industry outside of Microsoft (i.e., Linux).

    How about the fact that actually paying money for a x86 Unix license (rather than just support) these days is an incredible waste of money??

    Find a Linux vendor like Red Hat that will give these guys support, and hook these guys up.

    Cripes, I was recommending Linux over SCO more than *5 years* ago, I thought by now SCO would f

  • Leaving sco behind will let you focus. (Score:5, Informative)

    by sshack ( 601726 ) on Friday July 18, 2003 @09:37PM (#6476009)
    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".

  • Ok, here's my exp (Score:2, Informative)

    by jsse ( 254124 )
    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 r
    • 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)
      That's 2.1, not 9.1!

      And BTW Oracle supports SuSE SLES 7+, and basically United Linux [oracle.com].

    • (I wish I'd use something else but Oracle only support RH)

      They also support United Linux. Look in the Oracle Linux FAQ, here [oracle.com] for example.

  • You must be new around here. The Slashdot community has collective flamed SCO each day for the past several months. What do you think? :)

  • Easy... (Score:4, Funny)

    by (H)elix1 ( 231155 ) <slashdot.helix@nOSPaM.gmail.com> on Friday July 18, 2003 @10:27PM (#6476187) Homepage Journal
    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??
  • A silly question. The only answer there can be:
    • A) Determine the cost of the SCO upgrade plus an estimate of any extra out of the ordinary HW/SW costs required by sticking with SCO plus the costs, positive or negative, of deferring the port to Linux (depending on how much longer you think SCO will be alive or how much longer whoever buys them out keeps SCO support alive.)
    • B) Determine the cost of porting all of the software you use to Linux plus the down time working out the kinks plus the difference in

  • migrating from SCO (Score:5, Insightful)

    by pb ( 1020 ) on Friday July 18, 2003 @11:15PM (#6476359)
    I'd suggest looking into UnitedLinux [unitedlinux.com]; heck, even SCO likes it [sco.com]! 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 [practical-tech.com]; 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.
    • Would just like to point out that in your second article, he says that it's a lot easier to move SCO --LINUX-- stuff to UnitedLinux than it is to say, RedHat. Also mentions that SuSE Enterprise Edition would be easier, too. sincei t is UL based.

      Doesn't say anything about ease of transfer from SCO UnixWare/OpenServer/Xenix/whatever else might be SCO branded to anything else.. though it does recommend getting the hell outta Dodge as far as that goes.

  • This is Everyday Stuff (Score:5, Insightful)

    by nathanh ( 1214 ) on Friday July 18, 2003 @11:20PM (#6476373) Homepage
    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.

    • Re:This is Everyday Stuff (Score:4, Interesting)

      by Chester K ( 145560 ) on Saturday July 19, 2003 @02:43AM (#6476883) Homepage
      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.

      Exactly. I'm glad to see a reasoned answer to this here, and rated 5. Upgrading Openserver 5.0.5 to 5.0.7 presented absolutely no technical challenges or incompatibilites with our software when we did it in my company.
      • In a previous life I had to really muck with SCO OpenServer, and 5.0.4 and up are pretty safe. Much as I like Linux, if you are on Openserver now, no reason to get off it until you have no other choice.

        Whatever you do, just stay the heck away from unixware. Now that stuff is just plain evil.
        • > Just stay away from UnixWare, that stuff is just plain evil

          What, and OpenServer is a fluffy bunny? No, I've worked long enough with the f**ing thing to know it's a dog of an OS. Probably not too bad for an ancient UNIX, but still pretty poor given the amount of devel and testing time involved.

          scohttp crashes out after a few days/weeks ; printing gets stopped up and the entire print system must be restarted ; changing hardware is a matter of extreme tip-toes, since if drivers are not removed at the ri
    • I't a good thing the whole world does not thing like this. we would all be running pI 133's with SCO!

  • same thing? (Score:4, Funny)

    by farnsworth ( 558449 ) on Saturday July 19, 2003 @12:46AM (#6476622)
    Deciding Between SCO and Linux?

    I read somewhere that they are the same thing. right?

  • Correct me if I'm wrong.. (Score:3, Interesting)

    by PFAK ( 524350 ) on Saturday July 19, 2003 @12:59AM (#6476657)
    But isn't OpenServ just a "SCO" version of Linux? Packaged as something that Linux isnt.

    As in, Linux kernel and GNU userland..
    • You ARE wrong. Big time.

      I've had the "privilege" of installing OpenServer. It is, IMHO, shite. I'd relate it to compost, but compost is usefull.

      I'm very happily consuming a bottle of Crown Royal, celebrating my un-recovery, and don't want to depress myself by thinking aboot the pain that OpenServer 5.0 caused me. 3 years ago. ;_;

      Suffice it to say that I'd rather use a Pharlap DOS extender than anything SCO has ever written themselves. Bleah.

      *pours another arf-and-arf in order to forget*

      Soko
    • Oh you are so wrong :) Seriously, SCO OpenServer hs nothing to do with linux besides the fact that the both can run on the same Intel hardware (in many cases). SCO OpenServer is a very old Unix that has been developed from the days of Microsoft Xenix (yes, Microsoft used to be a Unix company :)). Linux is something that a guy from finland put together and released to the opensource community and the rest is history..

  • It's obvious, really... (Score:5, Funny)

    by joto ( 134244 ) on Saturday July 19, 2003 @01:26AM (#6476714)
    I think the answer to your question is quite clear to anyone of the many distinguished gentlemen who frequent this stimulating electronic forum we call slashdot.

    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 [sun.com].

    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!

    • Sorry to burst your bubble, but you're talking about SCO Unixware, not SCO OpenServer. The OpenServer product which the original poster is referring to is the Xenix product. The one that you are referring to is the Unixware product which is the original Unix source that came to SCO from AT&T by way of Novell and Corel.

      Kris
    • Signed, Darl McBride

    • 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.

      True. To make your decision easier, you can think of Linux as the software equivalent of a bicycle, while SCO is the software equi

  • Just Do It. (Score:2, Interesting)

    by torpor ( 458 )

    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

  • Wrong place to ask (Score:5, Funny)

    by BenjyD ( 316700 ) on Saturday July 19, 2003 @06:11AM (#6477276)
    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?

  • Half Solved Already (Score:4, Insightful)

    by 4of12 ( 97621 ) on Saturday July 19, 2003 @07:36AM (#6477443) Homepage Journal

    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.

    • Re:Half Solved Already (Score:3, Insightful)

      by eap ( 91469 )

      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.

      It may not be this simple. If they only have one raid device, they can't run two machines simultaneously.

      Also, if it's a file server, keeping data on both machines in sync would be

    • AND THIS MAN IS A GENIUS!!!!!! That is what I am doing. 75 % of my apps are now on LUX.
    • Just made the leap from SCO 5.0.6 to Linux 2.4X The Switch was as easy as it could be.. meaning that research is needed. and testing is important. Our move was not fully supported by our software people but out move was needed as SCO does not support files larget that 2 gb. and out RMcobol database was growing fast. http://www.profdata.com was helpful in that they helped me get the needed runtime files and what not. As far as making the thing happen ... TEST EVERYTHING. We moved from a dual 800 pIII to a du

  • The best reason customers might not want to hear (Score:3, Insightful)

    by hey! ( 33014 ) on Saturday July 19, 2003 @10:06AM (#6477842) Homepage Journal
    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.

    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-d ay.

    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.
  • Don't fix it.

    Duh.

    So they have to upgrade their existing OS to support newer hardware. Big deal. This is common, even with Linux.

    They are running a business, and if it's not good for the business, switching is silly. Doesn't matter which OS we are talking about. I would say they same thing if they were thinking of dumping linux in favor of insert_os_here.

    Just upgrade the darn SCO and move on to more interesting problems.

  • WTF? (Score:2, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward
    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.
    • WTF Indeed! A surprisingly large proportion of the responses were technically sound and professional ... both for and against sticking with SCO!!

      (OK ... I don't think this is surprising at all. Perhaps you shouldn't either.)

  • Although it may be a pain to move to a linux platform as opposed to the SCO server, there could be many benefits. Linux being faster at processing requests is the most obvious of course, but at least you know that Linux will be supported for a long time to come. Support for distributions of SCO linux, as with microsoft products, is subject to the state of the company. If IBM manages to take SCO down in the legal battles, who will be there to support your software?

    Since you need to do some sort of upgrad

  • Other costs of going with closed-source (Score:1, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward
    I work for one of SCO's largest customers (we have something like 10,000 SCO boxes out in the field). Several years ago, we needed a small (10 line) change to the network code, so we could "talk" to another system. SCO provided the change, but they decided to charge us $50,000 for the Privilege.

    It was a simple change that an in-house developer could have done in a single afternoon, but unfortunately we didn't have that option.

  • Install the patch. Does it still work? if it does, then its perfect.

    Are there other processes that run on this machine that are sort of SCO dependant? Or does everything migrate perfectly over to the Linux side of things? If everything migrates over perfectly then it might be worth looking to.

  • If your firm decides to stay with SCO for may be various reasons like getting "corporate" support, or they may have been misinformed about the current lawsuit by SCO charged on IBM about the "misuse" of their code in Linux. Firstly, we're damn sure that SCO would under no circumstances win this lawsuit. Even "if" IBM settles the case off the court...do you think SCO would still remain as an unit of the IBM as compared to their acquired companies like Lotus and Rational ? Definitely not, they are sure to fir
  • First, I must agree with the other posts here. It is not good to migrate a fully functional system to an untested one. Make sure the developers completetly test on Linux. That said, if the application is like most I have worked with on SCO, the underlying OS won't make too much difference there.

    There are a couple of big reasons I see for migrations away from SCO, from the perspective of both the admin and the developer. I have a lot of clients on SCO, mostly running apps written in (seriously) Business
  • Personally I'd recommend doing what were going to do. Were planning on doing a minor upgrade now and then some time next year do a Major upgrade to the 2.6 Kernal.

    You don't want to move to Linux only to want to do another major upgrade in 6/9 months time. So I'd recommend doing the minor upgrade now. Do more testing and wait for 2.6 to come out. If 2.6 comes out in October you should be able to start testing you port. Wait for atleast Redhat and Suse to bring out a 2.6 version and wait a couple of months

Slashdot Top Deals

Our OS who art in CPU, UNIX be thy name. Thy programs run, thy syscalls done, In kernel as it is in user!

Close