SEO

With the chapter 11 filing and other recommendations, what is a good,
long time viable alternative to SCO OpenServer?

On Oct 4, 11:27 am, smlunatick <yves...@gmail.com> wrote:
> With the chapter 11 filing and other recommendations, what is a good,
> long time viable alternative to SCO OpenServer?

Daytimer.

smlunatick <yveslec@gmail.com> hath wroth:

>With the chapter 11 filing and other recommendations, what is a good,
>long time viable alternative to SCO OpenServer?

For long term, probably a mainframe. It really depends on how you
long you consider long term and what you're doing with OpenServer. For
data dumpsters, I've been using NAS (network attached sewer). For
servers that require services and application servers, FreeBSD or
Windoze 2000/2003 server, depending on the service, application, and
religious mix. For desktops, mostly Windoze 2000 or XP, and a weird
mix of Linux mutations. There's no single solution that works for
everything.

However, I have a question: Why do you consider chapter 11 to be
justification for a move from OSR5? I can see it if you're a software
developer and OpenServer is one of your target platforms. However, if
you're currently running OSR5, and it works, I don't see much reason
to switch to something else. I still have several 3.2v5.0.4
customers. Also one Xenix customer. I'm still running ODT 3.2v4.2 in
my office. Except for MMDF (which I'm too lazy to fix), everything
works just fine.


--
Jeff Liebermann jeffl@cruzio.com
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

On Thu, Oct 04, 2007, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
>smlunatick <yveslec@gmail.com> hath wroth:
>
>>With the chapter 11 filing and other recommendations, what is a good,
>>long time viable alternative to SCO OpenServer?
>
>For long term, probably a mainframe. It really depends on how you
>long you consider long term and what you're doing with OpenServer. For
>data dumpsters, I've been using NAS (network attached sewer). For
>servers that require services and application servers, FreeBSD or
>Windoze 2000/2003 server, depending on the service, application, and
>religious mix. For desktops, mostly Windoze 2000 or XP, and a weird
>mix of Linux mutations. There's no single solution that works for
>everything.

Most of our servers have been running on Linux or FreeBSD for years (it's
not like the future of SCO hasn't been in doubt for at least five years).
Our first mission-critical Linux installation at a customer's was done in
September 1997, and we have been moving our customers from SCO Xenix and
OpenServer to Linux for the last decade, first Caldera, then SuSE, and
we're starting to use CentOS now.

We've done a few FreeBSD systems, and have one in-house that has only been
rebooted once in the last four years, that due to an extended power failure
in the wee hours of the morning so it wasn't switched to generator before
the UPS batteries died.

We still have one OSR 5.0.6a system in-house for support for the few
OpenServer systems our customers still have in use, but most of them have
been moved to Linux or FreeBSD over the last 5 or 6 years.

All of our in-house desktops are running Mac OS X, and we have migrated
many of our customer's desktops to it as well including a bunch that were
running diskless Linux boxes primarily as data entry terminals.

>However, I have a question: Why do you consider chapter 11 to be
>justification for a move from OSR5? I can see it if you're a software
>developer and OpenServer is one of your target platforms. However, if
>you're currently running OSR5, and it works, I don't see much reason
>to switch to something else. I still have several 3.2v5.0.4
>customers. Also one Xenix customer. I'm still running ODT 3.2v4.2 in
>my office. Except for MMDF (which I'm too lazy to fix), everything
>works just fine.

The biggest issue is hardware on the older systems. Currently available
hardware often doesn't support things like the ISA Specialix multi-port
boards we used on many of our SCO Xenix and OpenServer installations, not
to mention things like customer running 80286 Xenix binaries. Even
discounting the problems of support for '286 binaries, there are often
timing issues running old SCO binary applications on new fast hardware.

We still have a Xenix and an OSR 3.2v4.2 system in the rack in case I need
to do some kind of hardware recovery, but neither of these has been booted
in years.

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

We contend that for a nation to try to tax itself into prosperity is like a
man standing in a bucket and trying to lift himself up by the handle.
-- Winston Churchill

On Oct 4, 3:26 pm, Jeff Liebermann <je...@cruzio.com> wrote:
> smlunatick <yves...@gmail.com> hath wroth:
>
> >With the chapter 11 filing and other recommendations, what is a good,
> >long time viable alternative to SCO OpenServer?
>
> For long term, probably a mainframe. It really depends on how you
> long you consider long term and what you're doing with OpenServer. For
> data dumpsters, I've been using NAS (network attached sewer). For
> servers that require services and application servers, FreeBSD or
> Windoze 2000/2003 server, depending on the service, application, and
> religious mix. For desktops, mostly Windoze 2000 or XP, and a weird
> mix of Linux mutations. There's no single solution that works for
> everything.
>
> However, I have a question: Why do you consider chapter 11 to be
> justification for a move from OSR5? I can see it if you're a software
> developer and OpenServer is one of your target platforms. However, if
> you're currently running OSR5, and it works, I don't see much reason
> to switch to something else. I still have several 3.2v5.0.4
> customers. Also one Xenix customer. I'm still running ODT 3.2v4.2 in
> my office. Except for MMDF (which I'm too lazy to fix), everything
> works just fine.
>
> --
> Jeff Liebermann je...@cruzio.com
> 150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
> Santa Cruz CA 95060http://802.11junk.com
> Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

I have to disagree to some extent. Yes, there's no reason to dump a
working system. However, this is far past the time when you should BE
READY to dump it.

You don't want to be flailing around at the last minute trying to
figure out what to do. Start investigating alternatives now, research
at your leisure, and be ready to move under your terms. See

http://aplawrence.com/OSR5/selfdefense.html
http://aplawrence.com/Blog/B831.html

I also have a small pile of articles related to converting from SCO at
http://aplawrence.com/cgi-bin/indexget.pl?Conversion

------------------- clipped -------------------
| Most of our servers have been running on Linux or FreeBSD for years (it's
| not like the future of SCO hasn't been in doubt for at least five years).
| Our first mission-critical Linux installation at a customer's was done in
| September 1997, and we have been moving our customers from SCO Xenix and
| OpenServer to Linux for the last decade, first Caldera, then SuSE, and
| we're starting to use CentOS now. ^^^^

Thread drift?

Bill,

What drives ones decision as to which version of Linux to use.
Specifically with SuSE. Does having Novell behind the SuSE scene play
any major factor in your decision process?

TIA,
- Jeff H
------------------- clipped -------------------

Tony Lawrence <pcunix@gmail.com> hath wroth:

>I have to disagree to some extent. Yes, there's no reason to dump a
>working system. However, this is far past the time when you should BE
>READY to dump it.

Let's go through the current excuses for my customers still old
hardware and software:
1. The business is being sold. This is not a good time for changes.
2. I'm ready to retire. Let my kids decide what they want to do.
3. Business sucks. I don't have the money to do anything more than
tread water.
4. The current stuff works for us. We don't need anything better.
5. Moving applications from a terminal to a desktop means all new
desktops (and wiring) for everyone. Maybe later.

There are a few others, but that's roughly what's stopping any
upgrades. Incidentally, I also keep two Novell 3.1 servers alive.
There's no question that all of these customers should kicked into the
21st century, but I don't run their business or make their decisions.
I could go on strike and refuse to work on the old junk, or raise my
rates for old junk, but I won't do that.

>You don't want to be flailing around at the last minute trying to
>figure out what to do.

Actually, it's easier to deal with the old systems. The main
advantage is the very small sizes of the OS and applications. For
example, the Xenix system fits in about 500MBytes, most of which is
data. My ODT3 box is only 1.5GBytes, most of which is spam. The
typical 3.2v5.0.x system is running about 2GBytes, again mostly data.
I backup these as image files to portable NAS drive dumpster. If I
need to do "maintenance", I just restore the image file. Old hardware
is always a problem, but I disposed of the exotic cards and
controllers long ago. Most of these systems have a backup machine
sitting nearby waiting for an image reload. I don't like doing it
this way, but it does get the system back online quickly.

>Start investigating alternatives now, research
>at your leisure, and be ready to move under your terms.

Around 2001, I scribbled quotes for replacement hardware and software
to each of my SCO Unix/Xenix customers. I gave everyone the choice of
a Windoze or Linux upgrade path. I revise these quotes regularly as
things change. I've done trial application transplants to Linux and
found numerous surprises and complications (bbx4 runtimes). My
remaining customers are well aware of the costs and alternatives.
However, it's their decision and I won't force them into doing
anything.

>http://aplawrence.com/OSR5/selfdefense.html
>http://aplawrence.com/Blog/B831.html
>
>I also have a small pile of articles related to converting from SCO at
>http://aplawrence.com/cgi-bin/indexget.pl?Conversion

Very nice. I wish I had known about those when I was trying to
transplant various SCO applications to Linux. However, I don't think
any of it will be used by me. If history repeats itself, most of my
customers will choose the Windoze path because they have existing
Windoze machines. That implies that the SCO applications will be
replaced rather than transplanted to a new operating system.

--
Jeff Liebermann jeffl@cruzio.com
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

Jeff Hyman <scolist@cactus.com> hath wroth:

>------------------- clipped -------------------
>| Most of our servers have been running on Linux or FreeBSD for years (it's
>| not like the future of SCO hasn't been in doubt for at least five years).
>| Our first mission-critical Linux installation at a customer's was done in
>| September 1997, and we have been moving our customers from SCO Xenix and
>| OpenServer to Linux for the last decade, first Caldera, then SuSE, and
>| we're starting to use CentOS now. ^^^^
>
>Thread drift?

You expected this to remain on topic? Surely you jest. Even the
mention of Linux is guaranteed to create a flame war over a multitude
of ever expanding topics. All I wanted to know is why SCO Chapter 11
constitutes sufficient justification for abandoning OSR5, and nobody
has addressed that question directly.

>Bill,
> What drives ones decision as to which version of Linux to use.
>Specifically with SuSE. Does having Novell behind the SuSE scene play
>any major factor in your decision process?

I'm not Bill, but I do have a comment. The choice of operating system
is not mine. Even with Linux, it's the applications vendor that
forces the choice. Few commerical vendors will suppport every known
Linux mutation available (in a multitude of languages). For self
defense and to keep things sane, most will support one or two Linux
mutations and then only on specific platforms. If Novell goes out of
its way to make the application vendors happy, then they get
supported. If Novell can effectively remove part of the support load
from the applications vendor, then even better. However, if Novell
waits for the applications vendor to do everything, then SUSE ends up
looking like an expensive alternative to what would normally be a
"free" operating system.

Things are a bit different for transplanting applications from OSR5 to
one of the Linux mutations. In my case, the applications are all dead
or unupported. No new versions are available unless the customer
wants to go to Windoze. Moving applications is all seat of the pants
hacking. OS vendor support is useful, but not terribly interesting to
my very small customers.

I'll keep my opinions on the various Linux mutations to myself for
fear of creating additional topic drift.

--
Jeff Liebermann jeffl@cruzio.com
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

On Sat, Oct 06, 2007, Bill Vermillion wrote:
>In article <00cf01c807c7$f39bf5f0$6800000a@venti>,
>Brian K. White <brian@aljex.com> wrote:
>
>>> Actually, it's easier to deal with the old systems. The main
>>> advantage is the very small sizes of the OS and applications. For
>>> example, the Xenix system fits in about 500MBytes, most of which is
>>> data.
>
>>Just to point out for those unfamiliar with Xenix, the OS itself
>>is actually under 50, heck, under 10!. An entire Xenix filesystem
>>can not even exceed 512M, though you can have multiple 512M fs's
>>mounted for a total system that exceeds 512M.
>
>Actually less than that. I had one site with seven Xenix systems
>running on Tandy 3000's - 286 machines - that had 20MB HDs and we
>had a lot of room left for the data - word processor, spread sheet,
>filepro, and ?? [forgot what the 4th major ap was]
>
>My first Xenix [on a 16] had a 76K [ that's K ] kernel.

The first Xenix for the Tandy Model 16 came on 3 8 inch 640k floppies with
the Development system on another. The first hard drives for the Model
II/16 systems were 8 Meg, and Xenix installed with enough room left to
actually do some work.

I did a few classes on Xenix for other Radio Shack managers in the D.C.
area, telling the managers that they had time to read the Tandy manual
while the disks were loading.

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

Virtually everything is under federal control nowadays except the
federal budget. -- Herman E. Talmadge, 1975

In article <00cf01c807c7$f39bf5f0$6800000a@venti>,
Brian K. White <brian@aljex.com> wrote:
>
>* cd burner - put down the Lagavulin.
>
Why on earth would I want to do this? Unless your asking me to
pick up a dramm of Macallans 25.



Sorry, couldn't resist!

Dave