SEO

I would think there are a bunch of SCO users all over the world that
need to get out of SCO Openserver and into an OS that has a future. I
have a client who has been running SBT accounting on Foxpro Unix/SCO
for around 12 years. They are very happy with product and do not want
to change unless they can find something better.

So my task is to get Foxpro Unix running on any popular Linux kernel
that is recent. I am not very good at patches, and even worse at 'C'.
So when I try to install linux-abi nothing ever goes right, as was the
case today. Some have offered how-to's but they are quickly outdated.

I found some good links, but still beyond me to get it working:
Linux-abi on RedHat: http://ace-host.stuart.id.au/russell/files/linux-abi/
....on Debian: http://ace-host.stuart.id.au/russell...atch-linuxabi/
Sourceforge project: http://sourceforge.net/projects/linux-abi/

Is there anyone out there who has done this (linux-abi) on a recent
kernel, or is capable of doing it and would consider it as work for
hire?

Thanks,
Bob the Whiner

P.S. Yes Bill C., you were right, I did get linux-abi & Foxpro running
on SUSE 9.0, but I would like to get into a newer kernel that supports
SATA, USB, etc.

On Tue, Oct 09, 2007, OregonBob wrote:
>I would think there are a bunch of SCO users all over the world that
>need to get out of SCO Openserver and into an OS that has a future. I
>have a client who has been running SBT accounting on Foxpro Unix/SCO
>for around 12 years. They are very happy with product and do not want
>to change unless they can find something better.
>
....
>P.S. Yes Bill C., you were right, I did get linux-abi & Foxpro running
>on SUSE 9.0, but I would like to get into a newer kernel that supports
>SATA, USB, etc.

Have you considered running OSR5 under VMWare? I've seen several posts
from Bela talking about running various SCO systems with it.

If I had an Intel Mac, I would try it with Parallels (holding off while
waiting for Leopard -- and yes, BillV, I know about the Open Groups
certifying OS X 10.5).

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

Fix reason firmly in her seat and call to her tribunal every fact,
every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of a God;
because, if there is one, he must more approve of the homage of
reason, than that of blindfolded fear. --Thomas Jefferson

Bill Campbell wrote:

> On Tue, Oct 09, 2007, OregonBob wrote:
> >I would think there are a bunch of SCO users all over the world that
> >need to get out of SCO Openserver and into an OS that has a future. I
> >have a client who has been running SBT accounting on Foxpro Unix/SCO
> >for around 12 years. They are very happy with product and do not want
> >to change unless they can find something better.
> >
> ...
> >P.S. Yes Bill C., you were right, I did get linux-abi & Foxpro running
> >on SUSE 9.0, but I would like to get into a newer kernel that supports
> >SATA, USB, etc.
>
> Have you considered running OSR5 under VMWare? I've seen several posts
> from Bela talking about running various SCO systems with it.

I've been helping various people with running OSR5 under VMware -- some
of them for serious commercial purposes. Deployments are underway with
both VMware ESX Server (self-hosted) and on VMware Server (hosted on
Windows, though hosting on Linux should also work). I also operate OSR5
under VMware Workstation for various testing purposes. Although I
haven't tested under Player, ACE, or Fusion (the Mac hosted product), I
expect they will work equally well since the virtualization facilities
of all the hosted products are very closely related.

VMware's virtual hardware provides a stable platform on which OSR5 can
be expected to run smoothly for years past the end of availability of
OSR5-compatible physical hardware.

So, assuming you can live with the uncertainty about future sales,
support & development of the OSR5 part of the equation, you don't really
have anything to worry about with regard to hardware.

> If I had an Intel Mac, I would try it with Parallels (holding off while
> waiting for Leopard -- and yes, BillV, I know about the Open Groups
> certifying OS X 10.5).

.... or Fusion.

Full disclosure (already known to most in this newsgroup): I worked
for SCO for 15 years doing Xenix/Unix/OpenServer support and then
development; I now work for VMware doing development & maintenance on
VMware ESX Server.

>Bela<

On Oct 9, 1:13 pm, Bela Lubkin <fi...@armory.com> wrote:
> Bill Campbell wrote:
> > On Tue, Oct 09, 2007, OregonBob wrote:
> > >I would think there are a bunch of SCO users all over the world that
> > >need to get out of SCO Openserver and into an OS that has a future. I
> > >have a client who has been running SBT accounting on Foxpro Unix/SCO
> > >for around 12 years. They are very happy with product and do not want
> > >to change unless they can find something better.
>
> > ...
> > >P.S. Yes Bill C., you were right, I did get linux-abi & Foxpro running
> > >on SUSE 9.0, but I would like to get into a newer kernel that supports
> > >SATA, USB, etc.
>
> > Have you considered running OSR5 under VMWare? I've seen several posts
> > from Bela talking about running various SCO systems with it.
>
> I've been helping various people with running OSR5 under VMware -- some
> of them for serious commercial purposes. Deployments are underway with
> both VMware ESX Server (self-hosted) and on VMware Server (hosted on
> Windows, though hosting on Linux should also work). I also operate OSR5
> under VMware Workstation for various testing purposes. Although I
> haven't tested under Player, ACE, or Fusion (the Mac hosted product), I
> expect they will work equally well since the virtualization facilities
> of all the hosted products are very closely related.
>
> VMware's virtual hardware provides a stable platform on which OSR5 can
> be expected to run smoothly for years past the end of availability of
> OSR5-compatible physical hardware.
>
> So, assuming you can live with the uncertainty about future sales,
> support & development of the OSR5 part of the equation, you don't really
> have anything to worry about with regard to hardware.
>
> > If I had an Intel Mac, I would try it with Parallels (holding off while
> > waiting for Leopard -- and yes, BillV, I know about the Open Groups
> > certifying OS X 10.5).
>
> ... or Fusion.
>
> Full disclosure (already known to most in this newsgroup): I worked
> for SCO for 15 years doing Xenix/Unix/OpenServer support and then
> development; I now work for VMware doing development & maintenance on
> VMware ESX Server.
>
> >Bela<

Great idea Bill and Bela. But doesn't vmware slow down an application?
I only tried it running Windows Vista on a linux system. Everything
worked but it was slow. Of course I need SCO for foxpro database
crunching by about 20 simultaneous users, it isn't graphics of Vista.
Speed of database is important. Thanks for the idea. I am going to try
linux-abi on a few more kernels and distros. So far I failed at CentOS
5 (RedHat ES5) and a couple of others. Maybe I'll get lucky and a few
others are trying too.

In my search for a solution, Googling for an answer, I bumped into
numerous orphan users in the same boat. There needs to be a gathering.
The guys who have the technical abilities seem to succeed with
numerous kernels.

On Oct 9, 9:31 pm, Bob Meyers <oregon...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Oct 9, 1:13 pm, Bela Lubkin <fi...@armory.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Bill Campbell wrote:
> > > On Tue, Oct 09, 2007, OregonBob wrote:
> > > >I would think there are a bunch of SCO users all over the world that
> > > >need to get out of SCO Openserver and into an OS that has a future. I
> > > >have a client who has been running SBT accounting on Foxpro Unix/SCO
> > > >for around 12 years. They are very happy with product and do not want
> > > >to change unless they can find something better.
>
> > > ...
> > > >P.S. Yes Bill C., you were right, I did get linux-abi & Foxpro running
> > > >on SUSE 9.0, but I would like to get into a newer kernel that supports
> > > >SATA, USB, etc.
>
> > > Have you considered running OSR5 under VMWare? I've seen several posts
> > > from Bela talking about running various SCO systems with it.
>
> > I've been helping various people with running OSR5 under VMware -- some
> > of them for serious commercial purposes. Deployments are underway with
> > both VMware ESX Server (self-hosted) and on VMware Server (hosted on
> > Windows, though hosting on Linux should also work). I also operate OSR5
> > under VMware Workstation for various testing purposes. Although I
> > haven't tested under Player, ACE, or Fusion (the Mac hosted product), I
> > expect they will work equally well since the virtualization facilities
> > of all the hosted products are very closely related.
>
> > VMware's virtual hardware provides a stable platform on which OSR5 can
> > be expected to run smoothly for years past the end of availability of
> > OSR5-compatible physical hardware.
>
> > So, assuming you can live with the uncertainty about future sales,
> > support & development of the OSR5 part of the equation, you don't really
> > have anything to worry about with regard to hardware.
>
> > > If I had an Intel Mac, I would try it with Parallels (holding off while
> > > waiting for Leopard -- and yes, BillV, I know about the Open Groups
> > > certifying OS X 10.5).
>
> > ... or Fusion.
>
> > Full disclosure (already known to most in this newsgroup): I worked
> > for SCO for 15 years doing Xenix/Unix/OpenServer support and then
> > development; I now work for VMware doing development & maintenance on
> > VMware ESX Server.
>
> > >Bela<
>
> Great idea Bill and Bela. But doesn't vmware slow down an application?
> I only tried it running Windows Vista on a linux system. Everything
> worked but it was slow. Of course I need SCO for foxpro database
> crunching by about 20 simultaneous users, it isn't graphics of Vista.
> Speed of database is important. Thanks for the idea. I am going to try
> linux-abi on a few more kernels and distros. So far I failed at CentOS
> 5 (RedHat ES5) and a couple of others. Maybe I'll get lucky and a few
> others are trying too.
>
> In my search for a solution, Googling for an answer, I bumped into
> numerous orphan users in the same boat. There needs to be a gathering.
> The guys who have the technical abilities seem to succeed with
> numerous kernels.

The virtual environment presented by VMware on today's hardware is
faster than the native environment that the legacy SCO sysems ran on.
Just make sure there's adequate memory.

The only drawback I've encountered running on VMware is that it's easy
to corrupt the virtual disk with an improper shutdown. VMware
provides tools that let the host OS do that safely for supported guest
OS's. Is there some workaround for that?

--RLR

"RLR" wrote:

> > > Bill Campbell wrote:
> >
> > > > Have you considered running OSR5 under VMWare? I've seen several posts
> > > > from Bela talking about running various SCO systems with it.
> >
> > On Oct 9, 1:13 pm, Bela Lubkin <fi...@armory.com> wrote:
> >
> > > VMware's virtual hardware provides a stable platform on which OSR5 can
> > > be expected to run smoothly for years past the end of availability of
> > > OSR5-compatible physical hardware.
> >
> > Great idea Bill and Bela. But doesn't vmware slow down an application?
> > I only tried it running Windows Vista on a linux system. Everything
> > worked but it was slow. Of course I need SCO for foxpro database
> > crunching by about 20 simultaneous users, it isn't graphics of Vista.
> > Speed of database is important. Thanks for the idea. I am going to try
> > linux-abi on a few more kernels and distros. So far I failed at CentOS
> > 5 (RedHat ES5) and a couple of others. Maybe I'll get lucky and a few
> > others are trying too.
> >
> > In my search for a solution, Googling for an answer, I bumped into
> > numerous orphan users in the same boat. There needs to be a gathering.
> > The guys who have the technical abilities seem to succeed with
> > numerous kernels.
>
> The virtual environment presented by VMware on today's hardware is
> faster than the native environment that the legacy SCO sysems ran on.
> Just make sure there's adequate memory.
>
> The only drawback I've encountered running on VMware is that it's easy
> to corrupt the virtual disk with an improper shutdown. VMware
> provides tools that let the host OS do that safely for supported guest
> OS's. Is there some workaround for that?

You can certainly arrange for your virtual OSR5 to be shut down on
demand. That is, if you _know_ you are shutting down the virtualization
environment, you can take steps at the same time to shut down the VMs
even if they are not going to be able to respond to internal signals
from the virtualization environment.

What's that mean?

At the crudest level, it means: before you shutdown VMware, login to the
OSR5 VM as root and shut it down manually.

What refinements can you make on that?

Well, you can shutdown the OSR5 box remotely by doing:

ssh root@osr5vm shutdown -g0 -y # or whatever

So now you have something that you can script. Set things up so your
controlling host (host you're ssh'ing from) can ssh in to the VM's root
without needing to enter a password.

Now if you're shutting down the VMware environment under some sort of
script control, you can just do the OSR5 VM shutdown before the
environment shutdown, in the same script.

If VMware is being shutdown as part of a host OS shutdown, all host OS
shutdown facilities have ways to add scripted steps to the shutdown.
Research that, add a "shutdown my OSR5 VMs" step before it's going to
get to the VMware environment in which they run.

....

So yes, there are workarounds; you'll have to participate in researching
the exact details.

....

Meanwhile, to address an implied question: I think it would be possible
for an OSR5 guest OS to become receptive to the mechanisms VMware uses
to tell guest OSes to shutdown. I've done some experimentation with
running a Linux version of `vmware-guestd` under `lxrun`, for instance.
I don't have my research notes right now and this was nothing in any
shape to be used for serious purposes. What I want to convey is that
it's within the realm of technical possibility, if someone spends the
time/energy on working out the details.

>Bela<

Bob Meyers wrote:
> linux-abi on a few more kernels and distros. So far I failed at CentOS
> 5 (RedHat ES5) and a couple of others. Maybe I'll get lucky and a few
> others are trying too.

Bob,

When you and I talked about this and I mentioned iBCS - I also see I
download a patch for Linux-abi-2.6.18 which would be a patch for the
linux-abi using kernel-2.6.18 which I think is what you told me you got
for in the CentOS 5 Kernel.

As I said the last thing I tried was CentOS4 with a 2.6.9-22.0.1 kernel
and a linux-abi to match. I haven't tried the iBCS nor am I totally
conversant on the difference or change that was involved when it went
from linux-abi to iBCS.

bk

On Oct 10, 2:49 pm, Brian Keener
<bkeenerReMoVeAnTiS...@thesoftwaresource.com> wrote:
> Bob Meyers wrote:
> > linux-abi on a few more kernels and distros. So far I failed at CentOS
> > 5 (RedHat ES5) and a couple of others. Maybe I'll get lucky and a few
> > others are trying too.
>
> Bob,
>
> When you and I talked about this and I mentioned iBCS - I also see I
> download a patch for Linux-abi-2.6.18 which would be a patch for the
> linux-abi using kernel-2.6.18 which I think is what you told me you got
> for in the CentOS 5 Kernel.
>
> As I said the last thing I tried was CentOS4 with a 2.6.9-22.0.1 kernel
> and a linux-abi to match. I haven't tried the iBCS nor am I totally
> conversant on the difference or change that was involved when it went
> from linux-abi to iBCS.
>
> bk

Thanks Brian and yes my CentOS 5 is 2.6.18. That may be the one I
already tried. First problem I had was uname -r shows:
2.6.18-8.1.14.el5PAE, and it didn't have the same name in /usr/src/
kernel.

I'll keep at it and report any progress.

My latest greatest Ubuntu 7.10 is 2.6.23 That should be a challenge.

On vmware suggestion: Don't OS's on vmware run significantly slower
than normal? I did a Windows Vista on a linux with vmware. It worked
fine, very stable, but very slow too. Maybe it is because Vista is by
nature all graphic CPU work.

On Oct 11, 7:12 am, Bob Meyers <oregon...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Oct 10, 2:49 pm, Brian Keener
>
>
>
> <bkeenerReMoVeAnTiS...@thesoftwaresource.com> wrote:
> > Bob Meyers wrote:
> > > linux-abi on a few more kernels and distros. So far I failed at CentOS
> > > 5 (RedHat ES5) and a couple of others. Maybe I'll get lucky and a few
> > > others are trying too.
>
> > Bob,
>
> > When you and I talked about this and I mentioned iBCS - I also see I
> > download a patch for Linux-abi-2.6.18 which would be a patch for the
> > linux-abi using kernel-2.6.18 which I think is what you told me you got
> > for in the CentOS 5 Kernel.
>
> > As I said the last thing I tried was CentOS4 with a 2.6.9-22.0.1 kernel
> > and a linux-abi to match. I haven't tried the iBCS nor am I totally
> > conversant on the difference or change that was involved when it went
> > from linux-abi to iBCS.
>
> > bk
>
> Thanks Brian and yes my CentOS 5 is 2.6.18. That may be the one I
> already tried. First problem I had was uname -r shows:
> 2.6.18-8.1.14.el5PAE, and it didn't have the same name in /usr/src/
> kernel.
>
> I'll keep at it and report any progress.
>
> My latest greatest Ubuntu 7.10 is 2.6.23 That should be a challenge.
>
> On vmware suggestion: Don't OS's on vmware run significantly slower
> than normal? I did a Windows Vista on a linux with vmware. It worked
> fine, very stable, but very slow too. Maybe it is because Vista is by
> nature all graphic CPU work.

Oops, I just now noticed the vmware question was answered already,
thanks. Sorry for the repeat.

On Thu, Oct 11, 2007, Bob Meyers wrote:
>On Oct 10, 2:49 pm, Brian Keener
><bkeenerReMoVeAnTiS...@thesoftwaresource.com> wrote:
....
>On vmware suggestion: Don't OS's on vmware run significantly slower
>than normal? I did a Windows Vista on a linux with vmware. It worked
>fine, very stable, but very slow too. Maybe it is because Vista is by
>nature all graphic CPU work.

Vista probably isn't a great example as it's pretty much a pig on
anything except the fastest hardware.

I've attended several presentations by Microsoft people hyping
Vista, and my first reaction to most of their new features was
``I have had that on OS X for several years, and I don't need to
buy an expensive new machine to run it''.

One of my friends who works for Sun has one of the new Quad Mac
towers running Windows and Solaris under Parallels. His isn't
exactly a low-end machine with lots of RAM, a 23in monitor with
two 19in monitors on either side (yes I'm jealous, sitting here
on my 1.42GHz Mac Mini :-).

To get back on topic, given the relative efficiency of any of the
SCO systems, they should fly under VMWare.

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

Now if there is one thing that we do worse than any other nation, it is
try and manage somebody else's affairs. Will Rogers