OT: Question re: SCO Use

[Jay R. Ashworth]

On Mon, Jun 20, 2005 at 06:20:14PM -0400, Tim Fischer wrote:
> Jay R. Ashworth wrote:
> >On Mon, Jun 20, 2005 at 04:58:47PM -0400, Tim Fischer wrote:
> >>You know, John's recent posts have brought up a good question to me.  
> >>Why SCO?
> >
> >Inertia.
> >
> >>          I mean, I've noticed a lot of SCO based questions here.  Both 
> >>FP shops that I've worked in were SCO shops when I started.  Is there 
> >>some old relationship between FP & SCO?  Is there a general consensus 
> >>here that SCO is better?  Easier?  Is it cheaper?  (I have no idea about 
> >>licensing with them.)
> >>
> >>Given SCO's current legal issues, I'm surprised that anyone would really 
> >>want to rely on their stability and I, for one, wouldn't want to give 
> >>them any of my money. 
> >
> >Us neither.  We have all but, maybe, 2 or our clients switched over to
> >Linux by now; each has something that won't reliably run on Linux (Real
> >World 9, in one case; I think the other one has *really old* Fourgen
> >menuing).  We'll eventually find a way to move them, too...
> >
> >but that's it, mostly: hardware or software that won't run on Linux, or
> >inertia.

> I can understand the legacy systems - that makes sense.  But aren't 
> people currently deploying SCO boxes?  Is it because their application 
> is tied to other apps that run only on SCO?  (As the two that you 
> described below.)

I dunno; I don't know that there are many people on here deploying new
installs of SCO: certainly it's been almost 5 years since we put one
out.

Cheers,
-- jra
-- 
Jay R. Ashworth                                                jra at baylink.com
Designer                          Baylink                             RFC 2100
Ashworth & Associates        The Things I Think                        '87 e24
St Petersburg FL USA      http://baylink.pitas.com             +1 727 647 1274

      If you can read this... thank a system administrator.  Or two.  --me