Bill Vermillion wrote:
> In article <1152282611.474308.38300@s13g2000cwa.googlegroups. com>,
> <frcorey@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >Bill Vermillion wrote:
> >> In article <1152217202.443294.83790@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups. com>,
> >> <frcorey@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >Jeff Hyman wrote:
> >> >> frcorey@gmail.com typed (on Wed, Jul 05, 2006 at 03:13:43PM -0700):
> >> >> | Well, since no one wants any of this junk I will just post the license
> >> >> | codes and toss the stuff in the garbage.
> >> >> |
> >> >> | This is all for 2.X software:
> >> >> |
> >> >> | Netscape Enterprise Server
> >> >> | License Number: 2EI039657
> >> >> | License Code: fjjwksvp
> >> >> |
> >> >> | SCO Internet Server
> >> >> | License Number: 2EI028941
> >> >> | License Code: mpycavud
> >> >> |
> >> >> | SCO Unixware Personal Edition
> >> >> | Serial Number: UW220000001264
> >> >> | Activation Key: 4kqSHcwtbRo
> >> >> |
> >> >> | SCO Unixware Application Server - 5 Users
> >> >> | Serial Number: UW520000002576
> >> >> | Activation Key: sf3SVjoeHG2
> >> >> |
> >> >> | SCO Unixware Application Server - Unlimited Users
> >> >> | Serial Number: UUU50000000296
> >> >> | Activation Key: hHZ2INVJ2u-
> >> >> |
> >> >> | To make a Unlimited User Server, You have to install as a 5 user first!
> >> >> |
> >> >> | This all for newer software:
> >> >> |
> >> >> | Your License Numbers and License Information for your single-user copy
> >> >> | are displayed below. You will need to enter all of the license
> >> >> | information below during your installation.
> >> >> |
> >> >> | SCO UnixWare 7
> >> >> | License Number: 2GI066003
> >> >> | License Code: hwmtuhmq
> >> >> | License Data: k0;mqq3fpq
> >> >> |
> >> >> | SCO Vision2K License Number: 02815-08021-96137-33488
> >> >> |
> >> >> | SCO OpenServer 5.0.5 Enterprise System
> >> >> | License Number: 1NC053090
> >> >> | License Code: cuzldjpu
> >> >> | License Data: c1;g0;k1;q1;mxpk5nh
> >> >> |
> >> >> | SCO OpenServer 5.0.5 Development System
> >> >> | License Number: 2NC020280
> >> >> | License Code: hhdfnohh
> >> >> | License Data: g0;k0;q1;mbbx2x7
> >> >> |
> >> >> | SCO Vision2K License Number: 02815-08021-96137-33488
> >> >> |
> >> >> | enjoy
> >> >>
> >> >> Interesting post.
> >> >> I am just curious: Is it OK/legal to post such information
> >> >> on a public forum? I would become upset if anyone posted
> >> >> a LONE-TAR S/N and Registration information as our form clearly
> >> >> states that the information is considered confidential. Doesn't
> >> >> SCO Registration have any statements about that information
> >> >> being confidential?
> >> >>
> >> >> PS: I'm not trying to get anyone in trouble here, but just on
> >> >> a fact finding mission.
> >> >>
> >> >> Best Regards,
> >> >> Jeffrey Hyman, CEO/Pres.
> >> >> .--.
> >> >> ___________________________ .-. | | _____________________________________
> >> >> Lone Star Software Corp. | | | | .-. Home of World Famous LONE-TAR(tm)
> >> >> Cactus International, Inc. | |_| | | | Backup Software for UNIX and LINUX
> >> >> Sales: 800.525.8649 _ |___ |_| | 24x7 Support Available
> >> >> Support: 301.829.1622 _| ~- | ___| RESCUE-RANGER(tm) and AIR-BAG(tm)
> >> >> http://www.LONE-TAR.com \, _} | | Disaster Recovery Software
> >> >> -------------------------- \( -- | | --------------------------------------
> >> >> | |
> >> >
> >> >well, maybe I should not have posted the reg info for sighlt older
> >> >software.
> >> >but no one supports the unixware 2.X anymore, even lone star I heard.
> >> >you can't even get replacement media or codes from SCO and no one sells
> >> >software for it anymore too. hmm, I remember lonetar from the SCO
> >> >school
> >>
> >> >I was at in the early 90's. teacher mad uss us CPIO for all our
> >> >operations.
> >>
> >> >Sco is a money pit, I spent thousands for 2.X and they wanted
> >> >thousands more to update to current versions, and they would not
> >> >make me my old unlimited user license which cost a arm and a leg.
> >> >now we use linux for our church.
> >>
> >> There was quite a jump in price for Unixware 2.x from SCO compared
> >> to the 2.x version I have in Novell red boxes.
> >>
> >> Bill
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> Bill Vermillion - bv @ wjv . com
>
> >yeah, novell is another gem.
> >my church was donated a 25 user netware 6.0 and novell said we can not
> >sell it,
> >trade it, give it, etc it.
>
> Well netware is totally different from their Unixware.
>
> I thought it was funny when they went to the first big trade show
> and announced a waterproof Unix.
>
> It was one of the first distributed on CDs, and the 'show folks'
> doing the demo had the CDs in goldfish bowls full of water.
>
> It's biggest problem from my POV was that it still had most of the
> clunky, non-intuitive interfaces that AT&T sprange upon the world
> with their Sys VR2 - back in about 1986. 10+ years later it wass
> still clunky.
>
> Bill
>
>
> --
> Bill Vermillion - bv @ wjv . com

I miss all the floppys!
feed them in one by one and if say, number 24 is bad, you start all
over.
and SCO had lots of bad floppys too.

On 2006-07-09, Bill Campbell <bill@celestial.com> wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 08, 2006, Bill Vermillion wrote:
>>
>>It's biggest problem from my POV was that it still had most of the
>>clunky, non-intuitive interfaces that AT&T sprange upon the world
>>with their Sys VR2 - back in about 1986. 10+ years later it wass
>>still clunky.
>
> Clunky, but familiar to people accustomed to other Novell interfaces.

The same criticism was made by the UnixWare community about the
'OperServerisms' in UW7. Although I switched from OpenServer so don't
really understand the problem...

--
Andrew Smallshaw
andrews@sdf.lonestar.org

On Thu, 06 Jul 2006 13:41:40 -0400, Jeff Hyman wrote:

> Bill Campbell typed (on Thu, Jul 06, 2006 at 10:26:01AM -0700):
> | On Thu, Jul 06, 2006, Jeff Hyman wrote:
> | >frcorey@gmail.com typed (on Wed, Jul 05, 2006 at 03:13:43PM -0700):
> | >| Well, since no one wants any of this junk I will just post the license
> | >| codes and toss the stuff in the garbage.
> | >|
> | ...
> | >
> | >Interesting post.
> | >I am just curious: Is it OK/legal to post such information
> | >on a public forum? I would become upset if anyone posted
> | >a LONE-TAR S/N and Registration information as our form clearly
> | >states that the information is considered confidential. Doesn't
> | >SCO Registration have any statements about that information
> | >being confidential?
> |
> | I wouldn't post this type of information since I would think it
> | would be a violation of whatever contract might exist for
> | proprietary software. IMHO, it's one thing to sell or give away
> | licenses privately (once per license :-), quite another to post
> | them to a usenet news group.
> |
> | BTW Jeff -- quoting the license info in your post probably wasn't
> | a Great Idea(tm).
> |
> | Bill
>
> Bill,
>
> I figured the cat was already out of the bag... but I can see
> where I could have or should have "---- clipped ----" it out.
>
> - Jeff H

/rant

What does it really matter?? Once the lawsuit is over and IBM & Novell
are picking through the rotten bones of tSCOg, who is going to care?
There's noone out there crazy or stupid enough to develop any software for
OpenServer/UnixWare anymore so the license codes are worth less than a
product key for Windows ME. Don't get me wrong, I loved SCO when it was
still SCO (Santa Cruz Operation), but now that it's just tSCOg spiraling
down the toilet, why would anyone care??

Just my $0.02

/end rant

In <pan.2006.07.11.03.38.19.183933@lemail.addressuspa m.mer> Chad G:

[Snip...]

> now that it's just tSCOg spiraling down the toilet, why would anyone care??

Sad, really. Reminds me of the scene in A Christmas Carol where they're
quibbling over the "worth" of (the deceased) Scrooge's clothes, etc.

Thanks, Darl and Ralph. Enjoy your "proceeds" from this debacle.

--
Regards, Weird (Harold Stevens) * IMPORTANT EMAIL INFO FOLLOWS *
Pardon any bogus email addresses (wookie) in place for spambots.
Really, it's (wyrd) at airmail, dotted with net. DO NOT SPAM IT.
Kids jumping ship? Looking to hire an old-school type? Email me.

In article <1152480107.248227.204870@s13g2000cwa.googlegroups .com>,
<frcorey@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>Bill Vermillion wrote:

[Huge hunks snipped - wjv]


>> It's biggest problem from my POV was that it still had most of the
>> clunky, non-intuitive interfaces that AT&T sprange upon the world
>> with their Sys VR2 - back in about 1986. 10+ years later it wass
>> still clunky.
>>
>> Bill
>>
>>
>> --
>> Bill Vermillion - bv @ wjv . com

>I miss all the floppys! feed them in one by one and if say,
>number 24 is bad, you start all over. and SCO had lots of bad
>floppys too.

Well if you thought installing SCO from floppies, you should
have tried IBM AIX for Intel machines. Besides coming in
a 8.5x11 binder with a lot of floppies, after you read them all in
to install the base pieces, you had to install the updates/patches.

Now that required feeding in all the floppies you had put in
before, so the system could find the patches, and you had to
do this about three times as I recall.

It was easily and 8-hour job of shoving in floppies over and over
again.

The only good thing I could say about AIX on Intel [for their Model
80's and above] was they had great manuals.

Bill



--
Bill Vermillion - bv @ wjv . com