Professional Web Applications Themes

New to SCO, not *NIX - SCO

I'm new to SCO. I've got OpenServer 5.0.5 on a box. Problem is, when I installed it I saw no options for networking. It detected my network card (3c595) during the install. But now I'm logged in as root, and no networking of any kind is installed. ifconfig not found, all the normal networking tools aren't there. How do I install TCP/IP networking? Also, is there any kind of package management system for OpenServer? I'm kinda in a rush, so anyone with input would be greatly appricated. :) -Chris...

  1. #1

    Default New to SCO, not *NIX

    I'm new to SCO. I've got OpenServer 5.0.5 on a box. Problem is, when I
    installed it I saw no options for networking. It detected my network
    card (3c595) during the install. But now I'm logged in as root, and no
    networking of any kind is installed. ifconfig not found, all the
    normal networking tools aren't there. How do I install TCP/IP
    networking?

    Also, is there any kind of package management system for OpenServer?

    I'm kinda in a rush, so anyone with input would be greatly appricated.
    :)

    -Chris
    ee99ee Guest

  2. #2

    Default Re: New to SCO, not *NIX

    On Wed, Sep 24, 2003, ee99ee wrote: 

    Run ``netconfig'' which should allow you to configure the NIC if networking
    is installed (I've never seen an OpenServer system without networking, but
    then we have only installed the Enterprise versions).
     

    SCO has its own package management system, custom aka symlink hell. I've
    ported RPM and OpenPKG to OpenServer.

    Bill
    --
    INTERNET: COM Bill Campbell; Celestial Software LLC
    UUCP: camco!bill PO Box 820; 6641 E. Mercer Way
    FAX: (206) 232-9186 Mercer Island, WA 98040-0820; (206) 236-1676
    URL: http://www.celestial.com/

    In Germany they first came for the Communists and I didn't speak up because
    I wasn't a Communist. Then they came for the Jews, and I didn't speak up
    because I wasn't a Jew. Then they came for the trade unionists, and I
    didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist. Then they came for the
    Catholics, and I didn't speak up because I was a Protestant. Then they came
    for me -- and by that time no one was left to speak up.
    -- Pastor Martin Niemoller
    Bill Guest

  3. #3

    Default Re: New to SCO, not *NIX

    ee99ee typed (on Wed, Sep 24, 2003 at 05:18:03PM -0700):
    | I'm new to SCO. I've got OpenServer 5.0.5 on a box. Problem is, when I
    | installed it I saw no options for networking. It detected my network
    | card (3c595) during the install. But now I'm logged in as root, and no
    | networking of any kind is installed. ifconfig not found, all the
    | normal networking tools aren't there. How do I install TCP/IP
    | networking?

    Explain in detail how "It detected my network card during the install".

    Does running 'licenseMgr' disclose that you've got "SCO OpenServer
    Enterprise System"?

    | Also, is there any kind of package management system for OpenServer?

    There's "custom".

    | I'm kinda in a rush, so anyone with input would be greatly appricated.
    | :)

    If you're new to SCO, why did you start with an older and now unsupported
    version?

    --
    JP
    Jean-Pierre Guest

  4. #4

    Default Re: New to SCO, not *NIX

    When I had the option to setup a network card, I had 3 options. They were
    Auto, Manual, or Defer (or something that means the same and starts with D).
    I hit Auto, and it came back and put a new option in the list called 3c595
    (which is the card I have). I consider that "it detecting it".

    licenseMgr discloses I have SCO OpenServer Host System.

    Why did I start with an older version? Because that's what the systems run
    that I'm going to be dealing with. Unsupported? Interesting.... how old is
    5.0.5 exactly?

    Thanks for the fast responce by the way! :-)

    -Chris

    "Jean-Pierre Radley" <com> wrote in message
    news:jpr.com... 


    Chris Guest

  5. #5

    Default Re: New to SCO, not *NIX

    On Wed, 24 Sep 2003 22:35:17 -0400, "Chris Miller"
    <net> wrote:
     
    >[/ref]
    <flipped top-post>
     

    Well, that pretty much kills your networking options - Enterprise
    supports what you are looking for, Host does not. See
    http://www.sco.com/products/openserver507/family/

    There are upgrade paths, but in-place upgrades have not always been as
    successful as many would like, and the licensing to do so can be
    extremely difficult to understand: See
    http://aplawrence.com/Unixart/ipuvsfreshinstall.html

    (In fact, since you're new to SCO, Tony's site is a great place to
    start)
     

    (trying to get brain working... can't think that far back...) I would
    have to say about 5 years now, but that's a guess(TM).
     


    Scott McMillan

    Scott Guest

  6. #6

    Default Re: New to SCO, not *NIX

    Oh well. Thanks for the info. :-)

    One question: Who in their right mind would use an OS that doesn't support
    networking at all?

    -Chris

    "Scott McMillan" <net> wrote in message
    news:com... [/ref][/ref]
    I [/ref][/ref]
    no [/ref][/ref]
    appricated. [/ref][/ref]
    unsupported 
    > >[/ref]
    > <flipped top-post>
    > [/ref]
    D). [/ref]
    3c595 
    >
    > Well, that pretty much kills your networking options - Enterprise
    > supports what you are looking for, Host does not. See
    > http://www.sco.com/products/openserver507/family/
    >
    > There are upgrade paths, but in-place upgrades have not always been as
    > successful as many would like, and the licensing to do so can be
    > extremely difficult to understand: See
    > http://aplawrence.com/Unixart/ipuvsfreshinstall.html
    >
    > (In fact, since you're new to SCO, Tony's site is a great place to
    > start)
    > [/ref]
    run [/ref]
    is 
    >
    > (trying to get brain working... can't think that far back...) I would
    > have to say about 5 years now, but that's a guess(TM).

    >
    >
    > Scott McMillan
    >[/ref]


    Chris Guest

  7. #7

    Default Re: New to SCO, not *NIX

    > > >> | I'm new to SCO. I've got OpenServer 5.0.5 on a box. Problem is,
    when [/ref][/ref]
    network [/ref][/ref]
    and [/ref][/ref]
    install". [/ref][/ref]
    OpenServer? [/ref]
    > appricated. [/ref]
    > unsupported [/ref][/ref]
    were [/ref][/ref]
    with [/ref]
    > 3c595 
    > >
    > > Well, that pretty much kills your networking options - Enterprise
    > > supports what you are looking for, Host does not. See
    > > http://www.sco.com/products/openserver507/family/
    > >
    > > There are upgrade paths, but in-place upgrades have not always been as
    > > successful as many would like, and the licensing to do so can be
    > > extremely difficult to understand: See
    > > http://aplawrence.com/Unixart/ipuvsfreshinstall.html
    > >
    > > (In fact, since you're new to SCO, Tony's site is a great place to
    > > start)
    > > [/ref]
    > run [/ref][/ref]
    old 
    > >
    > > (trying to get brain working... can't think that far back...) I would
    > > have to say about 5 years now, but that's a guess(TM).
    > > [/ref][/ref]
     
    support 

    People who primarily use Serial communications, not Network. JPR is right,
    *OVER* 5 years old. I started with this company 5 years ago, and machiens
    had been installed with OSR505 earlier in the year.

    If you only need serial TTY's and are using intelligent (or not) serial
    cards (stallion, digi, etc. etc.), then who needs a network card?

    However, in most modern systems, yes, it is a bit odd.

    bkx


    Stuart Guest

  8. #8

    Default Re: New to SCO, not *NIX

    On Wed, 24 Sep 2003 23:11:43 -0400, "Chris Miller"
    <net> wrote:
     

    I think the real question is "who would use SCO?" Anyone possessed of
    any moral fibre would try their damndest to convince the uninformed,
    or ignorant victims of SCO to convert over to one of the free (and
    technically superior) alternatives. As you've probably already found,
    SCO's primary objective is milking as much money as possible from
    their pretty outdated and undersupported OS... Actually, no their
    primary objective is to do whatever Microsoft pay them to, and make
    the management rich through stock manipulation - but that's another
    matter...

    You have to wonder if you really wish to become involved with the sort
    of sbag company that actually tries to fleece you for more money to
    add this new fangled "networking" support in the 21st century, don't
    you?

    If you're in a position to infuence IT direction at your company, it's
    practically your DUTY to force a migration away from the dead husk of
    SCO (let's face it, as a software company they died long ago; and as
    an IP house, they're clumsy, greedy, and about to become extinct). In
    fact, any direction away from SCO is good, apart from Microsoft of
    course, who are probably worse.
    --
    FyRE < "War: The way Americans learn geography" >
    FyRE Guest

  9. Moderated Post

    Default Re: New to SCO, not *NIX

    Removed by Administrator
    Chris Guest
    Moderated Post

  10. Moderated Post

    Default Re: New to SCO, not *NIX

    Removed by Administrator
    FyRE Guest
    Moderated Post

  11. #11

    Default What if the one in a millon chance SCO is right?

    On Thu, 25 Sep 2003, FyRE wrote: 
    >
    > I think the real question is "who would use SCO?" Anyone possessed of
    > any moral fibre would try their damndest to convince the uninformed,
    > or ignorant victims of SCO to convert over to one of the free (and
    > technically superior) alternatives. As you've probably already found,
    > SCO's primary objective is milking as much money as possible from
    > their pretty outdated and undersupported OS... Actually, no their
    > primary objective is to do whatever Microsoft pay them to, and make
    > the management rich through stock manipulation - but that's another
    > matter...
    >
    > You have to wonder if you really wish to become involved with the sort
    > of sbag company that actually tries to fleece you for more money to
    > add this new fangled "networking" support in the 21st century, don't
    > you?
    >
    > If you're in a position to infuence IT direction at your company, it's
    > practically your DUTY to force a migration away from the dead husk of
    > SCO (let's face it, as a software company they died long ago; and as
    > an IP house, they're clumsy, greedy, and about to become extinct). In
    > fact, any direction away from SCO is good, apart from Microsoft of
    > course, who are probably worse.
    > --
    > FyRE < "War: The way Americans learn geography" >[/ref]


    What if SCO does prove it is right, you have assume they are wrong, which
    has not been proven. I am not saying they are right, but what if you are
    proved wrong. I do not see them as an extinct SW company. Only time will
    tell, but they have shown plans to do developement and add staff. So
    although we may not like how they are doing things publicly. They still
    may have a legal claim to be determined by the courts. From what I have
    seen in the past and where less than 2% of code was used they lost. This
    is a legal matter of which I believe neither of us is really qualified to
    speak on leagal matters.

    The customer is always king! We have to do what the customer wants. We
    make money providing the services they want.



    --
    Boyd Gerber <com>
    ZENEZ 1042 East Fort Union #135, Midvale Utah 84047

    Boyd Guest

  12. #12

    Default Re: What if the one in a millon chance SCO is right?

    On Thu, 25 Sep 2003 11:12:11 -0600, Boyd Lynn Gerber
    <com> wrote:

    [...]
     [/ref]
     

    Well let's look at events so far shall we? SCO are bleeding money as
    Linux installs replace their expensive alternatives. Suddenly Darl
    McBride pops up as CEO and immediately sets the legal teams into
    motion to try to find some way to profit from the ancient UNIX
    codebase they bought dating from way back in the 60s. Fast forward a
    few months, and SCO fall out with IBM as some goofball in their IT
    dept wrongly think Linux has SCO proprietory code in the kernel and
    IBM put it there. Fast forward past all of McBride's threats and lies,
    and we get to the SCO annual conference where we *finally* see some
    "evidence". SCO's crack cryptography department fiendishly encrypt
    SCO's source code using an algorythm not unlike ROT13, but it's still
    cracked by the Open source crowd. The "evidence" is that Linux
    includes BSD code, and so does SCO's code. This is far from evidence.
    It makes Darl and co look like the clowns they are and I'm guessing
    someone got fired back in Utah.

    Here's a few bullet points about this whole SCO circus:

    1) If they had evidence, why not show some of the strongest at their
    conference, instead of something that made them appear utterly
    incompetent?

    2) SCO claimed some team of mathmaticians from MIT compared their
    source tree to the Linux 2.4.x kernels, but MIT themselves know
    nothing of this. SCO refused to name any of the "mathmaticians"...

    3) A plaintive in a case such as this must do all in their power to
    prevent continuing violations of their IP. SCO have refused every
    single call to list the code that infringes on their IP. Hell, they
    were until VERY recently still distributing Linux THEMSELVES!

    4) Darl's continuing lies and misrepresentations to the press. Why
    bother making yourself look like a complete asshat IF you really do
    have a case?

    5) The SCO management continue to sell shares just as quickly as SEC
    will allow. Doesn't exactly inspire confidence, does it?

    5b) The biggest buyers of shares are Canopy group associations, AND
    companies with very close links to Microsoft. In fact MS and Sun (who
    would also benefit from Linux disappearing) have both been throwing
    money at SCO - and some suggest are actually pulling the strings to
    make monkey-boy Darl dance around for the media.


    But OK, let's suspend disbelief and the huge mountain of evidence
    against them and suppose there is some proprietory code in the Linux
    kernel. Here's what will happen:

    Step 1: It is removed in less than 24 hours (probably much less).
    Step 2: There is no step 2.

    The OS community does not want proprietory code in their work.
    Certainly not SCO's. It's actually offensive to think that this
    companys source was infecting the kernel tree. We WANT SCO to show
    evidence of just where they think it is, so it can be extracted and
    sent straight to the bit-bin.
     

    I am not a lawyer, but seeing a bunch of boneheads dancing around
    squealing "you stole from us! b-b-but we're not going to tell you what
    you stole, oh no!" doesn't convince me of their truthfulness. Reading
    Darl's blatant lies doesn't convince me either. Knowing that Bill
    Gate's wife is on the board of one of the biggest shareholders of
    SCO's stock (recently) doesn't convince me either, somehow.

     

    Yes, we have to think of the customers. So how do you think the
    customers feel when they see their software supplier spouting garbage
    in public, facing a mountain of lawsuits, being banned from making
    libellous statements in (for example) Germany or face jail. Sending
    out threats to their customers. Sending out demands for money for
    software they're perfectly entitled to use already (Linux licences)
    AND intimating that if said customer doesn't cough up the money now,
    it'll be double the amount later? You think this action will attract
    more business.

    SCO are dead as a software company, there's no doubt about that. They
    rely upon GPL'ed code (such as Samba) to prop up their aging operating
    systems. They now have no community backing. The alternatives
    surpassed them long ago, and this is unlikely to improve as they
    continue exchanging programmers for lawyers. It's so transparently
    obvious that I'm surprised you haven't realised yet. SCO's unix has no
    future at all. If they did manage to win any claim, their offending
    code would be removed, and so no revenue stream. IBM have launched a
    countersuit against them, and once Linux is out of their firing line,
    Microsoft and Sun will cease funding their court charades. In fact,
    history has shown that whenever IBM shows the "patent" card, the
    target is toast - IBM have been doing this for a LONG time, and tend
    to win.

    But I'm guessing you're just patting your remaining customers on the
    head, taking their money and turning them back around to wander out
    the door without any inkling about the total mess SCO's management
    have made as they gut the company to make themselves rich. I'd feel
    damned ashamed if I allowed anyone to buy a new software solution
    involving their overpriced, underpowered and dead-ended products. I'd
    feel that way because it's my duty as an IT expert to advise my
    customers about the best direction to take in the future. I like my
    concience clear in the morning, but if you can live with yourself,
    making a quick buck by fleecing a few "rubes" then, carry on for as
    long as you can, I guess. When the "rubes" figure out they have an
    expensive lemon on their hands, people such as myself get the new
    business...

    --
    FyRE < "War: The way Americans learn geography" >
    FyRE Guest

  13. #13

    Default Re: What if the one in a millon chance SCO is right?

    Damn. I was I was as creative and long-winded as that. Good job.

    -Chris

    "FyRE" <demon.ku.oc.x> wrote in message
    news:com... [/ref]

    >
    > Well let's look at events so far shall we? SCO are bleeding money as
    > Linux installs replace their expensive alternatives. Suddenly Darl
    > McBride pops up as CEO and immediately sets the legal teams into
    > motion to try to find some way to profit from the ancient UNIX
    > codebase they bought dating from way back in the 60s. Fast forward a
    > few months, and SCO fall out with IBM as some goofball in their IT
    > dept wrongly think Linux has SCO proprietory code in the kernel and
    > IBM put it there. Fast forward past all of McBride's threats and lies,
    > and we get to the SCO annual conference where we *finally* see some
    > "evidence". SCO's crack cryptography department fiendishly encrypt
    > SCO's source code using an algorythm not unlike ROT13, but it's still
    > cracked by the Open source crowd. The "evidence" is that Linux
    > includes BSD code, and so does SCO's code. This is far from evidence.
    > It makes Darl and co look like the clowns they are and I'm guessing
    > someone got fired back in Utah.
    >
    > Here's a few bullet points about this whole SCO circus:
    >
    > 1) If they had evidence, why not show some of the strongest at their
    > conference, instead of something that made them appear utterly
    > incompetent?
    >
    > 2) SCO claimed some team of mathmaticians from MIT compared their
    > source tree to the Linux 2.4.x kernels, but MIT themselves know
    > nothing of this. SCO refused to name any of the "mathmaticians"...
    >
    > 3) A plaintive in a case such as this must do all in their power to
    > prevent continuing violations of their IP. SCO have refused every
    > single call to list the code that infringes on their IP. Hell, they
    > were until VERY recently still distributing Linux THEMSELVES!
    >
    > 4) Darl's continuing lies and misrepresentations to the press. Why
    > bother making yourself look like a complete asshat IF you really do
    > have a case?
    >
    > 5) The SCO management continue to sell shares just as quickly as SEC
    > will allow. Doesn't exactly inspire confidence, does it?
    >
    > 5b) The biggest buyers of shares are Canopy group associations, AND
    > companies with very close links to Microsoft. In fact MS and Sun (who
    > would also benefit from Linux disappearing) have both been throwing
    > money at SCO - and some suggest are actually pulling the strings to
    > make monkey-boy Darl dance around for the media.
    >
    >
    > But OK, let's suspend disbelief and the huge mountain of evidence
    > against them and suppose there is some proprietory code in the Linux
    > kernel. Here's what will happen:
    >
    > Step 1: It is removed in less than 24 hours (probably much less).
    > Step 2: There is no step 2.
    >
    > The OS community does not want proprietory code in their work.
    > Certainly not SCO's. It's actually offensive to think that this
    > companys source was infecting the kernel tree. We WANT SCO to show
    > evidence of just where they think it is, so it can be extracted and
    > sent straight to the bit-bin.

    >
    > I am not a lawyer, but seeing a bunch of boneheads dancing around
    > squealing "you stole from us! b-b-but we're not going to tell you what
    > you stole, oh no!" doesn't convince me of their truthfulness. Reading
    > Darl's blatant lies doesn't convince me either. Knowing that Bill
    > Gate's wife is on the board of one of the biggest shareholders of
    > SCO's stock (recently) doesn't convince me either, somehow.
    >

    >
    > Yes, we have to think of the customers. So how do you think the
    > customers feel when they see their software supplier spouting garbage
    > in public, facing a mountain of lawsuits, being banned from making
    > libellous statements in (for example) Germany or face jail. Sending
    > out threats to their customers. Sending out demands for money for
    > software they're perfectly entitled to use already (Linux licences)
    > AND intimating that if said customer doesn't cough up the money now,
    > it'll be double the amount later? You think this action will attract
    > more business.
    >
    > SCO are dead as a software company, there's no doubt about that. They
    > rely upon GPL'ed code (such as Samba) to prop up their aging operating
    > systems. They now have no community backing. The alternatives
    > surpassed them long ago, and this is unlikely to improve as they
    > continue exchanging programmers for lawyers. It's so transparently
    > obvious that I'm surprised you haven't realised yet. SCO's unix has no
    > future at all. If they did manage to win any claim, their offending
    > code would be removed, and so no revenue stream. IBM have launched a
    > countersuit against them, and once Linux is out of their firing line,
    > Microsoft and Sun will cease funding their court charades. In fact,
    > history has shown that whenever IBM shows the "patent" card, the
    > target is toast - IBM have been doing this for a LONG time, and tend
    > to win.
    >
    > But I'm guessing you're just patting your remaining customers on the
    > head, taking their money and turning them back around to wander out
    > the door without any inkling about the total mess SCO's management
    > have made as they gut the company to make themselves rich. I'd feel
    > damned ashamed if I allowed anyone to buy a new software solution
    > involving their overpriced, underpowered and dead-ended products. I'd
    > feel that way because it's my duty as an IT expert to advise my
    > customers about the best direction to take in the future. I like my
    > concience clear in the morning, but if you can live with yourself,
    > making a quick buck by fleecing a few "rubes" then, carry on for as
    > long as you can, I guess. When the "rubes" figure out they have an
    > expensive lemon on their hands, people such as myself get the new
    > business...
    >
    > --
    > FyRE < "War: The way Americans learn geography" >[/ref]


    Chris Guest

  14. #14

    Default Re: New to SCO, not *NIX

    Chris Miller wrote: 

    Use a serial terminal server. Chase IOLANs used to be good for this sort
    of thing. http://www.perle.com/terminal/index.html. I think its the
    "reverse telnet access" you need (i.e telnet to a serial port on the
    server). These are often used to provide network access to Unix server
    serial consoles (i.e. headless equivalent of Windows KVM).


    --
    Ian Wilson

    Ian Guest

  15. #15

    Default Re: What if the one in a millon chance SCO is right?

    FyRE wrote: [/ref]

    >
    > Well let's look at events so far shall we? SCO are bleeding money as
    > Linux installs replace their expensive alternatives. Suddenly Darl
    > McBride pops up as CEO and immediately sets the legal teams into
    > motion to try to find some way to profit from the ancient UNIX
    > codebase they bought dating from way back in the 60s. Fast forward a
    > few months, and SCO fall out with IBM as some goofball in their IT
    > dept wrongly think Linux has SCO proprietory code in the kernel and
    > IBM put it there. Fast forward past all of McBride's threats and lies,
    > and we get to the SCO annual conference where we *finally* see some
    > "evidence". SCO's crack cryptography department fiendishly encrypt
    > SCO's source code using an algorythm not unlike ROT13, but it's still
    > cracked by the Open source crowd. The "evidence" is that Linux
    > includes BSD code, and so does SCO's code. This is far from evidence.
    > It makes Darl and co look like the clowns they are and I'm guessing
    > someone got fired back in Utah.
    >
    > Here's a few bullet points about this whole SCO circus:
    >
    > 1) If they had evidence, why not show some of the strongest at their
    > conference, instead of something that made them appear utterly
    > incompetent?
    >
    > 2) SCO claimed some team of mathmaticians from MIT compared their
    > source tree to the Linux 2.4.x kernels, but MIT themselves know
    > nothing of this. SCO refused to name any of the "mathmaticians"...
    >
    > 3) A plaintive in a case such as this must do all in their power to
    > prevent continuing violations of their IP. SCO have refused every
    > single call to list the code that infringes on their IP. Hell, they
    > were until VERY recently still distributing Linux THEMSELVES!
    >
    > 4) Darl's continuing lies and misrepresentations to the press. Why
    > bother making yourself look like a complete asshat IF you really do
    > have a case?
    >
    > 5) The SCO management continue to sell shares just as quickly as SEC
    > will allow. Doesn't exactly inspire confidence, does it?
    >
    > 5b) The biggest buyers of shares are Canopy group associations, AND
    > companies with very close links to Microsoft. In fact MS and Sun (who
    > would also benefit from Linux disappearing) have both been throwing
    > money at SCO - and some suggest are actually pulling the strings to
    > make monkey-boy Darl dance around for the media.
    >
    > But OK, let's suspend disbelief and the huge mountain of evidence
    > against them and suppose there is some proprietory code in the Linux
    > kernel. Here's what will happen:
    >
    > Step 1: It is removed in less than 24 hours (probably much less).
    > Step 2: There is no step 2.
    >
    > The OS community does not want proprietory code in their work.
    > Certainly not SCO's. It's actually offensive to think that this
    > companys source was infecting the kernel tree. We WANT SCO to show
    > evidence of just where they think it is, so it can be extracted and
    > sent straight to the bit-bin.

    >
    > I am not a lawyer, but seeing a bunch of boneheads dancing around
    > squealing "you stole from us! b-b-but we're not going to tell you what
    > you stole, oh no!" doesn't convince me of their truthfulness. Reading
    > Darl's blatant lies doesn't convince me either. Knowing that Bill
    > Gate's wife is on the board of one of the biggest shareholders of
    > SCO's stock (recently) doesn't convince me either, somehow.

    >
    > Yes, we have to think of the customers. So how do you think the
    > customers feel when they see their software supplier spouting garbage
    > in public, facing a mountain of lawsuits, being banned from making
    > libellous statements in (for example) Germany or face jail. Sending
    > out threats to their customers. Sending out demands for money for
    > software they're perfectly entitled to use already (Linux licences)
    > AND intimating that if said customer doesn't cough up the money now,
    > it'll be double the amount later? You think this action will attract
    > more business.
    >
    > SCO are dead as a software company, there's no doubt about that. They
    > rely upon GPL'ed code (such as Samba) to prop up their aging operating
    > systems. They now have no community backing. The alternatives
    > surpassed them long ago, and this is unlikely to improve as they
    > continue exchanging programmers for lawyers. It's so transparently
    > obvious that I'm surprised you haven't realised yet. SCO's unix has no
    > future at all. If they did manage to win any claim, their offending
    > code would be removed, and so no revenue stream. IBM have launched a
    > countersuit against them, and once Linux is out of their firing line,
    > Microsoft and Sun will cease funding their court charades. In fact,
    > history has shown that whenever IBM shows the "patent" card, the
    > target is toast - IBM have been doing this for a LONG time, and tend
    > to win.
    >
    > But I'm guessing you're just patting your remaining customers on the
    > head, taking their money and turning them back around to wander out
    > the door without any inkling about the total mess SCO's management
    > have made as they gut the company to make themselves rich. I'd feel
    > damned ashamed if I allowed anyone to buy a new software solution
    > involving their overpriced, underpowered and dead-ended products. I'd
    > feel that way because it's my duty as an IT expert to advise my
    > customers about the best direction to take in the future. I like my
    > concience clear in the morning, but if you can live with yourself,
    > making a quick buck by fleecing a few "rubes" then, carry on for as
    > long as you can, I guess. When the "rubes" figure out they have an
    > expensive lemon on their hands, people such as myself get the new
    > business...
    >
    > --
    > FyRE < "War: The way Americans learn geography" >[/ref]


    I think I recognize the style, and the meaning of the tag line ;-)

    Did you used to be the Iraqi Minister of Information?

    All this debate over code was getting boring, just like the war
    coverage, until you came along. Keep up the good entertainment.

    Mike

    --
    Michael Brown

    The Kingsway Group
    Mike Guest

  16. Moderated Post

    Default Re: What if the one in a millon chance SCO is right?

    Removed by Administrator
    Boyd Guest
    Moderated Post

  17. #17

    Default Re: What if the one in a millon chance SCO is right?

    Boyd Lynn Gerber wrote:

    <clipped implausible story>
     

    Huh?

    I notice you are unable to contest a single point made by the OP and your
    only argument has to do with some fictional event in your distant past.

    Excuse me but <cough> *BULL* <cough>.

    What has your fictional story got to do with Darl & Co being a pack of
    opportunistic rats bailing out of their sinking software business hoping
    for a golden parachute by litigation?

    SCO's claims are bogus, unsubstantiated, unfounded in fact, without merit, a
    tissue of lies and damn lies!

    Even their attack on the GPL is an outrageous argument that no attorney
    would dare present before a sitting judge.

    Listen Boyd, you obviously like your chosen OS company but you are also
    obviously not nearly as bright as you would have us believe.

    If you think you really have some information to contribute in support of
    your position, please hold forth - but I am not buying the stifled genius
    pose, you just ain't got the bones Boyd.

    8^)

    Best regards,

    Brian

    Brian Guest

  18. Moderated Post

    Default Re: What if the one in a millon chance SCO is right?

    Removed by Administrator
    Bill Guest
    Moderated Post

  19. #19

    Default Re: What if the one in a millon chance SCO is right?

    On Fri, 26 Sep 2003 11:31:09 -0600, Boyd Lynn Gerber wrote:

    [...]

    No are so blind you can not even begin to be objective.

    [...]

    AFDASDFQWEQWERQEFASDFQADSFQEQEWRAFSD is wrong for what 

    [... more ranting and raving...]

    I think it was right about here that Boyd's head exploded.

    The truth hurts, doesn't it, Boyd? I can easily provide references to
    articles backing my statements in the original post, in fact just about
    anyone could find mountains of FUD and outright lies that continue to
    spew from Darl McBride's face every day with a quick google search. The
    latest gem, as I recall, was Darl claiming that HP's decision to offer
    legal protection for it's customers against any of SCO's ludicrous claims
    was in fact a good thing for SCO, since it "proved they were right". Maybe
    this kind of utter stupidity explains the appearance of
    http://www.weLoveTheSCOInformationMinister.org/

    As for my "conspiracy theories", well, try www.groklaw.com, where the paralegals
    and other community members have been spending a lot of time piecing
    together the puzzle of why SCO seem to eager to self destruct.

    BTW Boyd, swearing and shouting your way around usenet is unlikely to
    convince anyone that you're not trying to fleece your customers by
    convincing them that SCO, a dying company, is a good long term investment.
    I consider your actions almost criminal.


    FyRE Guest

  20. #20

    Default Re: What if the one in a millon chance SCO is right?

    On Fri, 26 Sep 2003, Brian wrote: 
    >
    > Huh?
    >
    > I notice you are unable to contest a single point made by the OP and your
    > only argument has to do with some fictional event in your distant past.[/ref]

    The problem is the facts really are not yet know on the IP or all of this
    mess. Until it is in court and everything place and all in the open none
    of us really know all the details. We all agree that what SCO is doing
    appears to be totally crazy. Their attorney are probably telling them to
    keep quite and they are not. SCO Groups upper management(Corp) seem to be
    clowns and fools. As most of the linux experts I know say, let them
    continue to do what they are doing they are their own worst enemies.

    Personally I like what HP did. I think it is the best road. When all is
    said and done they probably will not spend a dime.
     

    Nothing, I was not refering to them but FyRE. You are doing just like
    him. ASSUME'ing the story was fictional. The story is real. I made a
    big mistake. I chimed out infront of all the masses touting the merits of
    my cause and how wrong he was. Think of the teacher as being Darl & Co.

    The teacher was a total idiot. Doing just like Darl & Co. I do have a
    lot of respect for the SW developers and technical people at SCO. To lump
    them in with the others is totally wrong.
     

    My point exactly. 20+ years later he is still teaching at a University.
    The teacher was full of lies and such. He had no business teaching the
    subject. The Univesity had the final say. I got the C- and nothing I did
    or ever do will change it.

    What will matter is the outcome after all is said and done.
     

    Maybe maybe not! We do not know. The GPL has never been tested in court.
    I do know! But in some countries it could be proved to be lacking.

    In this case it will be the legal system that decides what the outcome
    will be. It may be totally different. This is yet to be seen.
     

    I use all the OS's. I do not claim to be bright or all knowning. I claim
    to know I make mistakes. I am flawed. I do not claim to be an expert,
    just someone that knows I do not know everything! Or better said I know I
    do not know it all! I know enough to know I need to know more. I know I
    have a lot to learn. I know that Only time will show what is and what is
    not.

    When this whole thing is finished then we all will know. Till then all
    is ...

    This newsgroup is/was for assisting those with problems. This group has
    always been a great resource for those that needed it for what ever
    reason. All this crap is starting to get real OLD. If a war on things is
    needed alt... is a better place. I am sick of posts that have nothing to
    do with the subject or problem. Just another ... It was like I used to
    do in High School. I would intentionally go sit in the middle of the
    opposing teams fans and yell for the my team. I must admit I still get
    a kick out of it. I will go to a game where I really do not care who wins
    or looses and cheer for the opposite side just for fun to see how many
    features I can ruffle. This is what I see happening here.

    None of us knows all the facts.

    Read what Ransom Love says...

    http://eletters.eweek.com/zd/cts?d=79-225-2-3-6016-28708-1

    I feel a lot the same way. I think a lot of this goes back to the way IBM
    played SCO in project Montery. I truely beleive most of this would have
    been avoided if IBM had played fair. I think that the greedy kept his
    dream of a unified or better Unix/Linux vision from happening. This will
    be my last rant on the subject.

    --
    Boyd Gerber <com>
    ZENEZ 1042 East Fort Union #135, Midvale Utah 84047

    Boyd Guest

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139