Which UNIX offering from SCO is typically used as a web/internet server?
OpenServer or UnixWare?

Tony Bourke <tony_NOSPAM_AT@vegan.net> wrote in message news:<kCxhb.61899$nU6.10805605@twister.nyc.rr.com> ...
> Which UNIX offering from SCO is typically used as a web/internet server?
> OpenServer or UnixWare?

Thats hard to say- probably depends alot on what amount of traffic you
expect, what other jobs you are running, sql? java?..

UnixWare is touted as the more "Enterprise" level of OS and openserver
is the behind the scenes workhorse for the SMB...

Jim

Are they EOLing any of them?

I'm doing an evaluation, but I want to use the one that represents a
multi-use web server, DB server, etc. My testbed system is a dual-proc
box.

Tony

Jim Bonnet wrote:

> Tony Bourke <tony_NOSPAM_AT@vegan.net> wrote in message news:<kCxhb.61899$nU6.10805605@twister.nyc.rr.com> ...
>
>>Which UNIX offering from SCO is typically used as a web/internet server?
>>OpenServer or UnixWare?
>
>
> Thats hard to say- probably depends alot on what amount of traffic you
> expect, what other jobs you are running, sql? java?..
>
> UnixWare is touted as the more "Enterprise" level of OS and openserver
> is the behind the scenes workhorse for the SMB...
>
> Jim

On Fri, 10 Oct 2003 19:56:34 GMT, Tony Bourke
<tony_NOSPAM_AT@vegan.net> wrote:

>Are they EOLing any of them?

I assume you don't read the news, have failed to consider better
alternatives and apparently have no idea of what you're doing or why
you're doing it.

SCO are going to be EOL'ed period. Not just the products; the company.
Using SCO OS' for web services is just plain ridiculous - even SCO use
Linux for their website. What possible reason is there for using an
expensive, proprietary, and outdated OS for a website when obvious
better choices are staring you in the face? You're just pouring your,
or your clients money down the drain.

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

Only a fool makes such assumptions and passes judgement without
evaluations...

Now, anyone have a recommendation with which one to select? OpenServer
or UnixWare? Which would be best for an SMP web server/SQL server?
Which stands up best to other operating system offerings?

Cheers,

Tony

FyRE wrote:

> On Fri, 10 Oct 2003 19:56:34 GMT, Tony Bourke
> <tony_NOSPAM_AT@vegan.net> wrote:
>
>
>>Are they EOLing any of them?
>
>
> I assume you don't read the news, have failed to consider better
> alternatives and apparently have no idea of what you're doing or why
> you're doing it.
>
> SCO are going to be EOL'ed period. Not just the products; the company.
> Using SCO OS' for web services is just plain ridiculous - even SCO use
> Linux for their website. What possible reason is there for using an
> expensive, proprietary, and outdated OS for a website when obvious
> better choices are staring you in the face? You're just pouring your,
> or your clients money down the drain.
>

Tony Bourke wrote:
> Only a fool makes such assumptions and passes judgement without
> evaluations...

SCO uses Linux to power their own webservers - what does that tell you?

Further, their is such an abundance of evidence that you must be a fool to
have missed it.

Best regards,

Brian

FyRE <FyRE@toktik.demon.ku.oc.x> wrote:
>On Fri, 10 Oct 2003 19:56:34 GMT, Tony Bourke
><tony_NOSPAM_AT@vegan.net> wrote:

>>Are they EOLing any of them?

>I assume you don't read the news, have failed to consider better
>alternatives and apparently have no idea of what you're doing or why
>you're doing it.

>SCO are going to be EOL'ed period. Not just the products; the company.


That's just so dumb, and so ignorant.

i understand that you hate SCO, and I understand why. I'm sure very
few of us are happy about this: as I have said many times, they
may have real justification for their actions, but that does not
necessarily mean it was the right thing to do. I'm of the opinion
that there were better ways to handle this, but last I checked, I'm
not in charge. Unless my wife says so, of course. Whatever she says
I'm in charge of, I definitely am.

SCO estimates that there are a couple of million extant installations
out there. They no doubt estimate on the high side, but revenues
indicate that there is at least a significant percentage that
really are still running and that upgrade at least once in a while.
Surprising as it may be to you, there's even new business now and
then: nothing like it was years ago, but that it happens at all
in this crappy economy and with all the competition and all this
negative crapola is something.

No matter what happens, the products will survive as long as they
would have anyway. I agree that betting on SCO being here in
2038 is a long shot, but it's only slightly less likely than
Microsoft surviving that long too. But the products won't
disappear because of this, even if they have nothing real to
use in court and end up paying out on countersuits. It's
possible (though I think unlikely) that the assets could
end up in someone elses hands, but regardless, SCO products
will still be sold for a number of years at least. Who knows,
they might even outlast the Evil Empire yet.. wouldn't that
be a hoot?

Don't let your emotions destroy your judgement. It just makes
you look foolish.

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

On Sat, Oct 11, 2003, Tony Bourke wrote:
>Only a fool makes such assumptions and passes judgement without
>evaluations...
>
>Now, anyone have a recommendation with which one to select? OpenServer
>or UnixWare? Which would be best for an SMP web server/SQL server?
>Which stands up best to other operating system offerings?

We built and sold our InterRack(rg) systems to ISPs based on OpenServer
from 1994 through 1998 when we switched to Caldera OpenLinux. While you
can use either OpenServer or UnixWare (OpenUnix) for web services, you will
spend far more time trying to get things working, and performance will not
be as good as on a Linux or FreeBSD system on given hardware. We have been
using SuSE Linux since late 2002 when Caldera/SCO appeared to want out of
the Linux business.

Our switch from OpenServer to Linux was done many years before the current
SCO debacle, and was done purely for technical reasons.

Bill
--
INTERNET: bill@Celestial.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/

``I don't make jokes, I just watch the Government and report the facts...''
Will Rogers

I appreciate the suggestions, but I'm looking specifically for which of
SCO's offerings that users would use a web server, and not what web
servers would be better than anything SCO has to offer.

Religious ferver and opinions aside, I'm just looking for some basic
information, and I'm not looking to start a war, or involve myself in
the current war.

Thanks,

Tony

Bill Campbell wrote:

> On Sat, Oct 11, 2003, Tony Bourke wrote:
>
>>Only a fool makes such assumptions and passes judgement without
>>evaluations...
>>
>>Now, anyone have a recommendation with which one to select? OpenServer
>>or UnixWare? Which would be best for an SMP web server/SQL server?
>>Which stands up best to other operating system offerings?
>
>
> We built and sold our InterRack(rg) systems to ISPs based on OpenServer
> from 1994 through 1998 when we switched to Caldera OpenLinux. While you
> can use either OpenServer or UnixWare (OpenUnix) for web services, you will
> spend far more time trying to get things working, and performance will not
> be as good as on a Linux or FreeBSD system on given hardware. We have been
> using SuSE Linux since late 2002 when Caldera/SCO appeared to want out of
> the Linux business.
>
> Our switch from OpenServer to Linux was done many years before the current
> SCO debacle, and was done purely for technical reasons.
>
> Bill
> --
> INTERNET: bill@Celestial.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/
>
> ``I don't make jokes, I just watch the Government and report the facts...''
> Will Rogers

On Sat, 11 Oct 2003 17:15:03 +0000 (UTC), tony@aplawrence.com wrote:

[...]

>>SCO are going to be EOL'ed period. Not just the products; the company.
>
>That's just so dumb, and so ignorant.
>
>i understand that you hate SCO, and I understand why. I'm sure very
>few of us are happy about this: as I have said many times, they
>may have real justification for their actions, but that does not
>necessarily mean it was the right thing to do. I'm of the opinion
>that there were better ways to handle this, but last I checked, I'm
>not in charge. Unless my wife says so, of course. Whatever she says
>I'm in charge of, I definitely am.

;-) I'm hearing that... Funny how I only get to be in charge of the
crap stuff though; like taking out the garbage...

[...]

>No matter what happens, the products will survive as long as they
>would have anyway. I agree that betting on SCO being here in
>2038 is a long shot, but it's only slightly less likely than
>Microsoft surviving that long too. But the products won't
>disappear because of this, even if they have nothing real to
>use in court and end up paying out on countersuits. It's
>possible (though I think unlikely) that the assets could
>end up in someone elses hands, but regardless, SCO products
>will still be sold for a number of years at least. Who knows,
>they might even outlast the Evil Empire yet.. wouldn't that
>be a hoot?

While it's true that I find SCO's actions absolutely repugnant, and
personally see no benefit in using their products; indeed I feel it's
an incredibly bad business decision, almost on par with switching over
to BeOS 3 years ago, I honestly don't believe SCO will be around in
ANY form within 2 years. 3 at most.

It's not just that they've lied, libled, misquoted, stolen code,
pumped and dumped stock, alienated the entire open source community
and acted like complete assholes in public. It's not even that their
products are now trailing the opensource alternatives by a long long
way. No, the reason is that Darl and his gang gambled on getting rich
quick(er) by forcing IBM to buy them out, but it's all backfiring big
time! IBM have played the famous "patent" card, neatly covering ALL of
SCO's product line. If (when) IBM win the case, SCO as a company will
have no products to sell (not that they're developing a whole lot - if
anything - now). I'm not a lawyer, but I'm guessing that if some other
company bought up the carcase of SCO once Darl has finished gutting
it, the new owners would be prevented from offering the patent
infringing code too. When a tiny company like SCO start taking
pot-shots at the World's largest computer company with little (maybe
no) evidence to back up their case, the writing's on the wall.

Speaking of evidence, I've also noticed they've already started
stalling for time to produce anything in both the IBM and Redhat
cases. Doesn't look good, does it? They've been planning this for
months now (since a few weeks after Darl took up his current position
it's reported), so why are they suddenly scrabbling around for facts?
Doesn't look good, does it? ;-)

I'll be absolutely overjoyed to see this company crushed flat, with
absolutely nothing left to show it ever existed. Of course, many here
in this forum have a vested interest in making money by pushing SCO at
customers who'd be far better off going with something else, which is
why they continue to defend this debacle. However, literally millions
of people in the World of IT will be overjoyed to see them splattered
all around the court-rooms.

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