Ian Wilson wrote:
> Meat Loaf wrote:
>
>> Robin Grayson wrote:
>>
>>
>>> On 18 Aug 2005 08:00:28 -0700, fabiog@venmar.com wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> According to the SCO folks at Forum, Office will not yet run on 6.
>>>> They are working on it, but not yet.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Fantastic.
>>
>>
>>
>> Might I suggest a Linux Server and Open Office?
>
>
> You might, but then they'd have nothing that provides the functions of
> SCO Office.

:-)

But perhaps he doesn't need all that functionality.

Besides, he CAN run Bynari (which is what ScoOffice really is) on Linux
(see http://aplawrence.com/Unixart/scoofficemail.html )

I sell a lot of Kerio mailservers, which also provide Exchange like
capability on Linux or Mac or Microsoft:
http://aplawrence.con/Unixart/keriomailserver.html


--
Tony Lawrence
Unix/Linux/Mac OS X resources: http://aplawrence.com
Geek Yard Sale: http://geekyardsale.com

On Wed, 24 Aug 2005 12:28:23 -0400, Tony Lawrence <foo@pcunix.com>
wrote:

| Besides, he CAN run Bynari (which is what ScoOffice really is) on Linux
| (see http://aplawrence.com/Unixart/scoofficemail.html )
|
| I sell a lot of Kerio mailservers, which also provide Exchange like
| capability on Linux or Mac or Microsoft:
| http://aplawrence.con/Unixart/keriomailserver.html

Hi Tony,

Thanks for the information about those products; I didn't know about
the Bynari product, I will certainly look into them.

I'm downloading Kerio Mailserver as I write.

--
Robin Grayson

Robin Grayson wrote:
> On 18 Aug 2005 08:00:28 -0700, fabiog@venmar.com wrote:
>
> | According to the SCO folks at Forum, Office will not yet run on 6.
> | They are working on it, but not yet.
> |
>
> Fantastic.

Robin - you wrote to me in private email about this, but my reply bounced:

Delivery to the following recipient failed permanently:

robin@digisoft.uk.com

Technical details of permanent failure:
TEMP_FAILURE: Could not initiate SMTP conversation with any hosts:
[gw194.rg-net.com (10): Destination address required]

Sorry..

Robin Grayson wrote:

> I've got mixed feelings about pushing SCO .. part of me thinks why
> bother, is it worth the effort, nobody seems that interested in it
> anymore, but then the other part of me has an overwhelming urge to
> jump on the "SCO Revival" bandwagon.

Talk about flogging a dead horse! I'm amazed that anyone is still
actually bothering to update any software on SCO OS'. The company is
pretty much dead - virtually no development going on at all, and what
has been released is so far behind Linux/BSD, even Microsoft(!) that
there's no sane reason for anyone to want to pay for the garbage. SCO
have been caught lying time and again, and even admitted now to using
Linux code in their "Linux personality" cludge - essentially stealing
from the open source community. SCO continue to prop up their wobbly
offerings by adding Open source software, while all the time claiming
that the GPL is "unconstitutional" (staggering hypocrisy!)

You'd be just as productive migrating to the Commodore 64, or Sinclair
ZX81 or something - they have better future prospects than SCO.

If you really are "pushing SCO" onto customers, you should be bloodywell
ashamed of yourself...

Smashcat wrote:

> Robin Grayson wrote:
>
>
>>I've got mixed feelings about pushing SCO .. part of me thinks why
>>bother, is it worth the effort, nobody seems that interested in it
>>anymore, but then the other part of me has an overwhelming urge to
>>jump on the "SCO Revival" bandwagon.
>
>
> Talk about flogging a dead horse! I'm amazed that anyone is still
> actually bothering to update any software on SCO OS'.
>
> If you really are "pushing SCO" onto customers, you should be bloodywell
> ashamed of yourself...


Mr. Smachcat. Try to see the real picture vs. the one you might read
about in PC mags.

I am a Computer consultant and have been working with SCO products since
Xenix came on 8" disks. I have running my own integration company since
1992 (worked with my father's Computer company for years before that).
We work mostly with small business.

The real picture is compatibility and stability. These are the two
words to success in the OS biz. SCO OSs have such a large installed
base. Over the years, they have created a big wave of momentum.

Many of these installs are running custom code that has been in use for
many years. Unfortunately, hardware does not have the longevity of
software. Clients need their servers upgraded every 5 years or so.
They don't "want" to do it. They have to. When they do, they don't
"want" to spend anymore than is necessary to just keep the status quo.
"Just get me running." they tell me.

When I first opened up my NFR of OSR6 and installed it, what do you
think I spent the next 2 days doing? Checking out the new cool KDE
desktop, perhaps? No. I was interested to see if they had remembered
key word one. I proceeded to install and test applications from as far
back as the early '90s-- all successfully I might add. (Except for the
annoying move from scoconsole to at386-ie emulation on the console.)

I just did my first installation. They are running an old filepro 4.5
based system that we pulled off their old 5.0.2 system. They have a
brand new server, we recabled and dumped the serial terminals and
printers for IP-based and we put in bulletproof Microlite-based backup
procedure.

This client, like nearly all SCO users I come across, is happy again.
Happy to be able to just go on doing what works for them with the least
possible expense. (They didn't even want internet access!)

Though I agree that "pushing SCO" may not be the best thing at this
particular time, there is still a very big need for their products.

I also believe that their latest actions demonstrate they too realize
that putting new product on the shelves--while leveraging off their
existing base--is the road to survival. Not the court room.

HTH,
Dan

P.S. I'm waiting for SCO Office on OSR6 too.

In article <UChZe.523$yl.479@bignews1.bellsouth.net>,
Boss <ken@keysey.net> wrote:
>Smashcat wrote:
>
>> Robin Grayson wrote:
>>

>>>I've got mixed feelings about pushing SCO .. part of me thinks why
>>>bother, is it worth the effort, nobody seems that interested in it
>>>anymore, but then the other part of me has an overwhelming urge to
>>>jump on the "SCO Revival" bandwagon.
>>
>>
>> Talk about flogging a dead horse! I'm amazed that anyone is still
>> actually bothering to update any software on SCO OS'.
>>
>> If you really are "pushing SCO" onto customers, you should be bloodywell
>> ashamed of yourself...
>

>Mr. Smachcat. Try to see the real picture vs. the one you might read
>about in PC mags.

>I am a Computer consultant and have been working with SCO
>products since Xenix came on 8" disks. I have running my own
>integration company since 1992 (worked with my father's Computer
>company for years before that). We work mostly with small
>business.

>The real picture is compatibility and stability. These are the two
>words to success in the OS biz. SCO OSs have such a large installed
>base. Over the years, they have created a big wave of momentum.

>Many of these installs are running custom code that has been in use for
>many years. Unfortunately, hardware does not have the longevity of
>software. Clients need their servers upgraded every 5 years or so.
>They don't "want" to do it. They have to. When they do, they don't
>"want" to spend anymore than is necessary to just keep the status quo.
>"Just get me running." they tell me.

And they keep on running.

I thought I had a client who migrated from OSR5. I migrated
to an OSR5 for the Y2K event, as their vendor was working on
getting things running on NT.

Then I was there in 2002, as the upgrade was 'almost ready'.

I figured I had seen the last of them.

About 18 months ago they moved their office and called me when
their modems weren't working. [They hadn't labeled things correctly
and had things set up wrong]. The upgrade was almost ready.
And that left me with 1 OSR5 client, who has since moved to SuSE.

And three days ago I got a call from the first client.

They needed to get their XP machines up and running with Samba
as they only had 2 Windows 98 accessing it and those were dog slow.

I asked about the update. It seems the data conversion house
can't seem to get it 'right' as they have two pharmacies that run
in that company. And the data conversion firm can't seem to get
these into separate data bases. :-(

I wondered why, and asked if it was to be an SQL application and
the vendor told them 'they didn't need that until they get bigger'
- which I think was a way of saying "we don't know how to do that".

But I put in some security patches, put in an updated Samba.

And the client commented he almost hated to have people see his
computer room as the SCO machine is so old - and the previous
on-site computer person had broken the clips for the front cover
so it's guts are visible.

But he said "It just keeps on running". And he's gone through at
least 2 NT server since the Y2K upgrade on the OSR5.

The systems just don't go away. However, after the last three
times I've been there in the past 4 years thinking it was the last
time I'd see them, I'm beginning to wonder.

Bill

--
Bill Vermillion - bv @ wjv . com