SEO

FyRE wrote:

> It's obvious that anyone still running their business on an SCO
> platform is either a cretin or completely uninterested in that side
of
> their business - and probably doomed to spend a lot of money
switching
> over before long. Once SCO is gone, it's very likely that MS will buy
> up their "IP" and spend a good deal of dev time creating tools to
> allow former SCO victimsH^H^H^H^H^H^H^clients to migrate to their
> platform. These people are sheep, they don't care about alternatives
> and wouldn't switch to Linux anyway. They're not worth bothering
> about; pitied maybe as they plow along in the ruts toward their
> inevitable fate: chained to MS CALs. Serves them right.

Talking through your hat again. In fact, many of my SCO customers have
switched to Linux. I expect that over the next few years more will.
Unfortunately, some will switch to Microsoft.

I'm thinking of one SCO customer in particular just now. Their app
doesn't run on Linux, but their are Microsoft and SCO versons. They
strongly dislike Microsoft. If they had their druthers, they'd run it
all on Macs, but the choice is Microsoft or SCO. They choose SCO. You
see that as evil, I see it as smart.

... (stuff deleted)

> The reward is personal of course. Virtually every SCO reseller is
> completely oblivious to this concept though. They're just pushing a
> product to make some cash, no matter how dirty the money is. They
> wouldn't care if 50% of the cash they paid/earned SCO went to fund
> some extremist terrorist group in [take your pick]; in fact the
> destination of their funding doesn't even enter their greedy little
> heads as they sit there counting the cash and laughing at the latest
> sucker left stuck with an SCO OS that's barely evolved since 1971.

Again, you have paid no attention to anything said. Few of us here
have any allegiance to SCO. We support customers, not vendors.
Customers are our interest, our concern, what we care about.

>
> >> is blinkering
> >> them to the fact their feeble excuses of "I'm just doing what I
need
> >> to earn a buck" doesn't wash with a great many people.
> >
> >That's a political opinion. Part of my reward system involves
making
> >enough money that I can afford to take lots of time off and do
whatever
> >the hell I please. You feel that involving SCO in that equation is
> >evil; I don't agree. As I've said many times, the decision of my
> >clients to run any OS at all is THEIR decision.
>
> And there you were screaming that you're nothing like a drug
dealer...
> "Hey, I'm just supplying these kids with a fix; they'd find it
> elsewhere anyway, so why shouldn't I profit?"

No. Again, we help people run their businesses. Some of them can
switch to Linux, some can't. That's a reality you continually ignore.

>
> >I don't like it when
> >they choose Microsoft, but it's not up to me to educate them on the
> >dangers of losing all competition. I can TRY, but if they don't
care,
> >that's just the cway it is. As to using SCO, again, none do unless
> >they have to.
>
> I turn down offers to write software for, or administer/support
> Microsoft shops. In fact, I did exactly that just over 2 weeks ago;
it
> was a pretty simple and lucrative job, but I told them I had no
> intention of developing for MS products and running on IIS+SQL
Server.
> I then explained why, and gave them the alternatives. Then I left
them
> to make a decision. I know they've not given the work to anyone else,
> and expect to receive another call ;-) It's a matter of self respect.

Again, that's a political opinion. I don't like Microsoft either, but
I'm not going to refuse to help someone who runs it. I do refuse
"pure" Microsoft work - I want Linux or Unix involved somehow. We both
have political opinions, but draw the line slightly differently.

>
> >> I'm sure a lot
> >> of the SCO resellers are now "studying" for their MSCEs already -
yet
> >> another good route for someone with no interest in tech, content
to
> >> "get by", bumbling through life with the least effort possible.
> >
> >Hmm.. actually I did the MCSE thing in 1995 or 1996.. but not for
> >those reasons. I also certified in Solaris and SCO, but only
because
> >certification seemed important back then..
> >
> >As much as I dislike Microsoft, I think your implication that people
> >who do that crap for a living are bumbling dolts is ridiculous.
>
> Every MSCE I've worked with - without exception - has been a
bumbler.
> The lack of the most basic problem solving skills, or general IT
> knowledge has been almost frightening at times. I'd be very surprised
> if the MSCE course consisted of anything beyond "Read 1st Dialog box
> then press button. Read 2nd Dialog box, then press button etc etc".

That just demonstrates your ignorance. The MCSE tests are actually
quite difficult.

I do agree that there are plenty of imcompetents - but that's just
because there is so much demand for Microsoft support that incompetents
are inevitable. However, I know intelligent and quite competent
Microsoft people.

... (stuff deleted)

>
> >> Let's say you find that Ford are funding the KKK, Israeli military
> >> operations and Martha Stewart. Would you still be proud driving
that
> >> Pinto down the street?
> >
> >I might not buy a new one, but if I already own it, I'm not going to
> >give it up because of that.
>
> Huh, well look into what happened to Ratners jewelers in the UK to
see
> how normal people react...
>
> [BTW, I'm not going to sink to the level of spelling flames, Tony]

Of course not. I didn't castigate you for that, did I? I simply
pointed out another of your "creative" spellings. I think it's funny
how some people never seem to give any thought to the obvious origin of
words that they butcher - but then perhaps "pall" wasn't in your
vocabulary to begin with?

Minor mistakes don't bother me - transpose an "ie" or confuse "your"
and "you're" or misuse "it's" and I can charge right on and barely
notice. A word like "apauled" stops me dead in my tracks :-)

But that's not important. What is important is your inability to
understand that you have a political opinon not necessarily shared by
the rest of the world. I see that as immaturity - perhaps when you are
older you will better understand.

--
Tony Lawrence

On 31 Jul 2004 11:33:14 -0400, "Mark Benavides" <mark@benavides.org>
wrote:

>Could you please take your pontificating private?
>
>Your current diatribes contribute nothing to this group.

Sorry Mark, I'd forgotten that this was your own personal newsgroup.
Had I kept in mind the fact that you're forced to read through each
article with a gun at your head I might have refrained from typing...

....oh wait...

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

On Sat, 31 Jul 2004 15:50:12 +0100, Tony Lawrence wrote
(in message <cegbj4$59a@odbk17.prod.google.com>):

>> It's obvious that anyone still running their business on an SCO
>> platform is either a cretin or completely uninterested in that side
> of
>> their business - and probably doomed to spend a lot of money
> switching
>> over before long.

> In fact, many of my SCO customers have
> switched to Linux. I expect that over the next few years more will.
> Unfortunately, some will switch to Microsoft.
>
> I'm thinking of one SCO customer in particular just now. Their app
> doesn't run on Linux, but their are Microsoft and SCO versons. They
> strongly dislike Microsoft. If they had their druthers, they'd run it
> all on Macs, but the choice is Microsoft or SCO. They choose SCO. You
> see that as evil, I see it as smart.

FWIW, that very much descibes my situation at work ! The main business app
run on OpenServer, when we last had the opportunity to 'upgrade' it was a
choice of SCO, MS, or IBM (AIX). AIX was out of the question on cost grounds,
and I persuaded them that MS would not be a good move, so we stuck with SCO.

We will still be on SCO for at least the next couple of years, for the simple
reason that you don't just decide "I'm going to change the main system" on a
whim - not when there's over 100 users supporting 300 employees, and a £30m
business across several countries ! We are already looking at the 'next step'
and preliminary indications are that the bill for an upgrade will be at least
£250,000. A switch to a different product will be very much more ! In either
case, there will be man months of internal effort involved in the
upgrade/switch.

So, we are very much "still running our business on an SCO platform". But we
are most certainly not "either a cretin or completely uninterested in that
side of our business".

BTW, SCO does NOT get a single penny from us for our continued use of the OS,
and I would be loath to pay them anything.

Simon

PS - The lawsuit may be visibly without supporting evidence etc, but since
when has that been any guarantee of a particular verdict in a court -
especially a US court ?

----- Original Message -----
From: "Simon Hobson" <simonsnews@thehobsons.codotuk>
Newsgroups: comp.unix.sco.misc
To: <distro@jpr.com>
Sent: Wednesday, August 04, 2004 3:44 PM
Subject: Re: Fallout from the SCO suits


> On Sat, 31 Jul 2004 15:50:12 +0100, Tony Lawrence wrote
> (in message <cegbj4$59a@odbk17.prod.google.com>):
>
> >> It's obvious that anyone still running their business on an SCO
> >> platform is either a cretin or completely uninterested in that side
> > of
> >> their business - and probably doomed to spend a lot of money
> > switching
> >> over before long.
>
> > In fact, many of my SCO customers have
> > switched to Linux. I expect that over the next few years more will.
> > Unfortunately, some will switch to Microsoft.
> >
> > I'm thinking of one SCO customer in particular just now. Their app
> > doesn't run on Linux, but their are Microsoft and SCO versons. They
> > strongly dislike Microsoft. If they had their druthers, they'd run it
> > all on Macs, but the choice is Microsoft or SCO. They choose SCO. You
> > see that as evil, I see it as smart.
>
> FWIW, that very much descibes my situation at work ! The main business app
> run on OpenServer, when we last had the opportunity to 'upgrade' it was a
> choice of SCO, MS, or IBM (AIX). AIX was out of the question on cost
grounds,
> and I persuaded them that MS would not be a good move, so we stuck with
SCO.
>
> We will still be on SCO for at least the next couple of years, for the
simple
> reason that you don't just decide "I'm going to change the main system" on
a
> whim - not when there's over 100 users supporting 300 employees, and a
£30m
> business across several countries ! We are already looking at the 'next
step'
> and preliminary indications are that the bill for an upgrade will be at
least
> £250,000. A switch to a different product will be very much more ! In
either
> case, there will be man months of internal effort involved in the
> upgrade/switch.
>
> So, we are very much "still running our business on an SCO platform". But
we
> are most certainly not "either a cretin or completely uninterested in that
> side of our business".
>
> BTW, SCO does NOT get a single penny from us for our continued use of the
OS,
> and I would be loath to pay them anything.
>
> Simon
>
> PS - The lawsuit may be visibly without supporting evidence etc, but since
> when has that been any guarantee of a particular verdict in a court -
> especially a US court ?
>

I'm in the same position you are in, except I'm a small business person. My
main application runs on SCO and it's a very good one that is updated
annually, the option is there to move to Windows platform at any time with
the same company. They would convert my current database for me if or when
I decide to move to Windows. But my SCO system runs like a top, I can
access it easily from the web or dialup when I'm not at the office. I'm
sorry that SCO is in it's current position, but my continued use also has
nothing to do with being a cretin either!!

Terry