Professional Web Applications Themes

SCO.. any new users anymore? - SCO

Hello, I generally don't hangout in the SCO group, as I think SCO as a company has crossed the lone by a mile. But I was curious... are any new companies moving to SCO's products? If so... why? If so looses the IBM lawsuit, they will probably fade away, and if they win, any products they have now will TOTALLY change. Also, how many SCO customers are moving to other platforms? I'd think the only way to stop SCO is to remove their only source of income.. customers. I heard that if you contact Red Hat and are a current ...

  1. #1

    Default SCO.. any new users anymore?

    Hello,

    I generally don't hangout in the SCO group, as I think SCO as a
    company has crossed the lone by a mile. But I was curious... are any
    new companies moving to SCO's products? If so... why? If so looses
    the IBM lawsuit, they will probably fade away, and if they win, any
    products they have now will TOTALLY change.

    Also, how many SCO customers are moving to other platforms? I'd think
    the only way to stop SCO is to remove their only source of income..
    customers.

    I heard that if you contact Red Hat and are a current SCO customer,
    that they're offering some good deals to switch.

    Just a thought...
    Alex Guest

  2. #2

    Default Re: SCO.. any new users anymore?

    Alex <com> wrote: 
     

    It would probably be helpful if you visited groups.google.com and
    glanced over the last months or so's discussions in this area.

    --
    com Unix/Linux/Mac OS X resources: http://aplawrence.com
    Get paid for writing about tech: http://aplawrence.com/publish.html
    Tony Guest

  3. #3

    Default Re: SCO.. any new users anymore?

    Alex wrote: 

    Change how?
     

    Yes, we have new customers moving to SCO. Some of the ISVs have tried
    Linux, and decided to stay with SCO. Really, the only true complaint I
    hear about Unixware is that it cost money. The impression out in the
    field is that Linux is free, so can you copy some CDs for me? When we
    point out that Red Hat or Suse Enterprise releases are for sale, and
    cost hundreds of dollars, the cost of Unixware is not so much of an issue.

    I would imagine that if SCO does lose the lawsuit against IBM, the costs
    involved might be crippling. The company could be forced into chapter 11
    or bankruptcy, but someone would buy up the assets and carry on. SCO
    does have a large, and as you can infer from the posts here, a fairly
    loyal following. I have numerous customers running large servers, and
    can testify that Unixware is fast and solid. Yes it may cost $15 per
    year per employee, but it provides a fair value.

    No real complaints with Linux, it has improved remarkable in network
    speed, handling of multiprocessors and journaled filesystems in the
    last release. But I guess that is part of the lawsuit. If IBM, SGI,
    Sequent and others are given a free hand to contribute even more in
    the future then it may be the O/S of choice for everyone. Today, if
    someone is buying a $100,000 server with $250,000 in application
    software, I don't have a problem recommending $5000 of Unixware.


    What do you feel the advantage would be going to Red Hat?

    Mike

    --
    Michael Brown

    The Kingsway Group
    Mike Guest

  4. #4

    Default Re: SCO.. any new users anymore?

    On Fri, 21 Nov 2003 02:03:25 GMT, Mike Brown <ca> wrote: 

    Unless Unixware is better in some measurable way, then isn't that $5k
    Unixware license just wasted money?

    Joe Guest

  5. #5

    Default Re: SCO.. any new users anymore?

    Joe Dunning wrote: 
    >
    > Unless Unixware is better in some measurable way, then isn't that $5k
    > Unixware license just wasted money?[/ref]

    At least some people, who have tested and are very familiar with both
    Linux and Unixware, don't think so. This could change with the next
    release of Linux, but then again Unixware is changing also.

    Also, the "wasted" money could be the difference in cost between the $5K
    and whatever the Enterprise release costs over the next year AND the cost
    to upgrade to the next version. If Unixware is $5K, and the update license
    is $400, whereas Linux is $2K + $2K, then only $1.4K is wasted. All figures
    are imaginary, given as an example only. Yes, it is still money, and
    someone has to make that decision.

    Mike


    --
    Michael Brown

    The Kingsway Group
    Mike Guest

  6. #6

    Default Re: SCO.. any new users anymore?

    In article <Yrhvb.201836$ao4.715677attbi_s51>,
    Joe Dunning <com> wrote: [/ref]
     

    One my one really large client - who has grown so big they now have
    all their own people running the system - the move from OpenServer5
    to Unixware was a noticeable performance improvement.

    And on the above from Mike, if the SW vendor supports the OS
    then $5000 on a $350,000 outlay is a minor part. What could be a
    waste is migrating from one platform to another. All migrations
    I've seen have not been easy. Then the cost of training, or time
    lost in the learning curve, handling the difference in an OS move
    could be far more than the OS cost differences.

    OS choices should be made on sound business decisions, and personal
    opinions/biases should not be brought into play.
     
    to another then any personal reason for not changing should also be
    avoided.

    A slight drift here - but it applies to the business side of the
    argument.

    Many people keep saying "I don't need a XXMhz processor as I can
    get the job just fine with this one". I was performing work for
    one company for about 10i-15 hours/week for about 5+ years.
    Since I was not full-time I got the slowest machine handed down
    from others - even though I had my own office to work in.

    I figured out that slow machine cost them about $4000 more in time
    for me each year.

    In the announcement from iNTEL yesterday on their new processors
    and the comments on why 4GHz machines were needed, it was pointed
    out that in foreign countries there are people who will work
    for wages far less than in the US [but that is not meant to be
    US-Centric but think of leading global countries as opposed to
    advancing 3rd/2nd world countries.]

    But providing more powerful machines - which normally wont be used
    the low-paying areas - the workers become more productive and thus
    can compete - being based on amount of production based on hourly
    cost.

    These threads about SCO and their practices - whether in the end
    SCO is proven right or wrong in any of the areas - really are just
    like the religious OS wars so often conducted in other NGs, and few
    arguments are based on sound business arguments.

    If any of the SCO complaints are seen to be a threat to any
    particular business they need to carefully evaluate all
    possibilities and then make the choice based on sound business
    practices. For some it could mean abandoning the *n*x market
    completely and going with an MS implementation.

    That may be just the opposite effect of those espousing "get rid of
    anything related to SCO immediately" may wish to see.

    These long threads [and right now I'm guilty of adding to it]
    really need to have a comp.unix.sco.advocacy group, so that the
    technical exchanges that have been part of this NG since it's
    inception can continue to be productive for those who need them.

    Bill
    --
    Bill Vermillion - bv wjv . com
    Bill Guest

  7. #7

    Default Re: SCO.. any new users anymore?


    On Fri, 21 Nov 2003 17:05:01 GMT, Bill Vermillion <comREMOVE>
    wrote:
     [/ref]

    >
    >One my one really large client - who has grown so big they now have
    >all their own people running the system - the move from OpenServer5
    >to Unixware was a noticeable performance improvement.
    >
    >And on the above from Mike, if the SW vendor supports the OS
    >then $5000 on a $350,000 outlay is a minor part. What could be a
    >waste is migrating from one platform to another. All migrations
    >I've seen have not been easy. Then the cost of training, or time
    >lost in the learning curve, handling the difference in an OS move
    >could be far more than the OS cost differences.[/ref]

    According to Gartner, companies should be developing a plan to migrate
    off Unixware/Openserver within 2 years.


    Joe Guest

  8. #8

    Default Re: SCO.. any new users anymore?

    On Mon, Nov 24, 2003, Joe Dunning wrote: 
    >> 
    >>
    >>One my one really large client - who has grown so big they now have
    >>all their own people running the system - the move from OpenServer5
    >>to Unixware was a noticeable performance improvement.
    >>
    >>And on the above from Mike, if the SW vendor supports the OS
    >>then $5000 on a $350,000 outlay is a minor part. What could be a
    >>waste is migrating from one platform to another. All migrations
    >>I've seen have not been easy. Then the cost of training, or time
    >>lost in the learning curve, handling the difference in an OS move
    >>could be far more than the OS cost differences.[/ref]
    >
    >According to Gartner, companies should be developing a plan to migrate
    >off Unixware/Openserver within 2 years.[/ref]

    There were a few of us who were making that recommendation at
    least three years ago :-).

    Our only OpenServer customers now are those who depend on 3rd party
    applications that aren't available on Linux or other *ix platforms. SYSPRO
    recently made their MRP accounting software available on Linux (they say
    Red Hat only, but we're running it perfectly on SuSE 8.2 with very minor
    manual tweaking of the installation). This leaves us with one customer who
    still likes RealWorld accounting (there's no accounting for taste :-),
    another that's runnint a truly ancient FilePro application with supporting
    software that's compiled C code with no source and x286 binaries, and my
    own Unify RDBMS based accounting software which I need to get moved over to
    postgresql before I can ditch my OpenServer development platform.

    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/

    Those who cast the vote decide nothing.
    Those who count the vote decide everything. (Joseph Stalin)
    Bill Guest

  9. #9

    Default Re: SCO.. any new users anymore?

    On Mon, 24 Nov 2003 18:53:33 GMT, invalid (Joe Dunning)
    wrote: 

    With that in mind, I wonder if SCO considers the Gartner Group one of the
    unnamed conspirators who are undermining them. <GGGG>


    ================================================== =====================
    I'm Mike--James' Dad, hence "JamesDad". I use this nym in memory of my
    son James Webb (1992-2000) who died fighting leukemia. He was a greater
    man at 8 than some ever become. May his life, battle and story never be
    forgotten! More info at <http://www.themiraclekids.com/mem-james.htm>.
    *** Remove ARROGANCE Before Replying ***
    JamesDad Guest

Similar Threads

  1. License.Limit.Exceeded with 4x150 users licence andonly 300 real users
    By mm_patrick in forum Macromedia Flash Flashcom
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: November 18th, 01:30 AM
  2. License.Limit.Exceeded with 4x150 users licence and only300 real users
    By danielalamaison in forum Macromedia Flash Flashcom
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: November 14th, 08:04 PM
  3. Replies: 3
    Last Post: August 9th, 05:55 PM
  4. Question about internet users vs localy loged on users
    By Carrol in forum Windows Server
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: August 22nd, 08:37 AM
  5. Replies: 2
    Last Post: July 2nd, 01:48 PM

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