FW: Sort of OT, but not really ... filePro and SCO vs. Linux

[John Esak]

This stuff should be on the list... I'm forwarding it here.

-----Original Message-----
From: Bill Campbell [mailto:bill at celestial.com]
Sent: Thursday, April 27, 2006 2:04 PM
To: John Esak
Subject: Re: Sort of OT, but not really ... filePro and SCO vs. Linux


John:

(this isn't to the FP list).

We have been basing our Linux systems on SuSE since switching
from Caldera almost five years ago.  In particular we're using
SuSE Linux Enterprise 9 for our Atrica servers, largely because
of extended maintenance and support (from your favorite company
Novell :-).  My experiences dealing with Novell have been
generally quite good.

One of the factors that led me to switch to SuSE as opposed to
other Linux distributions was that SuSE seemed to be the best
engineered of the distributions I've seen (many of the best
engineers from Calders'a German team went to SuSE after the SCO
acquisition).

When we made the switch from Caldera, I also made the decision to
build around the OpenPKG.org portable packaging system after
reading an article on this is SysAdmin magazine.  This has
enabled me to do minimal changes to the underlying OS.  As you
may know, my SCO installations have used a lot of open source
software for well over a decade now, and we did quite a bit of
customization on Caldera Linux as well to get things to my
liking.  Unfortuntately, before using OpenPKG, these changes
generally rendered vendor updates useless as I had changed many
things fundamental to their operation.  OpenPKG has simplified my
job immensely, and we now can switch Linux OS in about a day, and
use the same sources on Linux, FreeBSD, OS X, and OpenServer.

Our Linux uptimes have been comparable to our OpenServer systems,
possibly because of my normal tailoring the systems, using the
same OpenPKG versions of all server components on Linux, FreeBSD,
and on OpenServer.  Our uptime has mostly been limited to power
failures, with our FreeBSD 4.8 server having an uptime of 673
days, the day I installed a 3KVA Honda generator to get us
through power failures.

On Thu, Apr 27, 2006, John Esak wrote:
>
>Anyone who has read this list, or any of the communications forums about
>filePro over the past 20 years back to the first one on CompuServe...
knows,
>or should have easily gathered that I am a staunch SCO supporter. Not for
>any other reason than the O/S has been bulletproof for us with usual
uptimes
>of 200+ days being no problem... and shutting down only being required for
>some special maintenance or whatever. It has and does do its job well. I
>have used a couple different Linux systems for various and sundry tasks in
>the past, but not often. I do use 2003 server for many things and its RDP
>capability is just terrific. I'm truly not an O/S bigot of any kind. On the
>whole I would never have put in anything other than SCO though for large
>multiple user installations. Unfortunately, and I say that with great
>emphasis, that has to change. Here is a small edited shard of a note I just
>sent to FP Tech. Thought some of you in the same situation (or roughly the
>same) might find it interesting.
>---
>
>I'm making this note (edited a little) public because I think lots of
>people/companies are in the same position Nexus is in now. I am in NO way
>advocating that *anyone* switch from SCO, which I still think is a
>spectacular O/S and bargain for its cost over the years... I am just
>describing what I am going to do for this one long-time client... and some
>very brief, inadequate reasons. Just one quick pre-comment... the only
>reason we were moving from SCO 5.0.6 to SCO 6.0 at all in the first place,
>was that it broke the 2GB file size limit, and it had very fast Unix-based
>I/O drivers and file system. Two desirable, if not "necessary" features.
>Linux also has these "features" going for it.
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: John Esak [mailto:john at valar.com]
>Sent: Wednesday, April 26, 2006 11:43 AM
>To: Sales at Fptech. Com
>Cc: Rick Walsh
>Subject: Send me a quote... no lots of quotes... :-)
>
>
>
>Hi Janis,
>
>Hey listen. Here is my situation. Nexus has not loaded or even downloaded
>their new 5.6 version for their SCO 5.0.6 server yet. As I had told Bill
>Randall they are waiting for some drivers for their new 6.0 SCO server
>before they put in the new filePro upgrade/transfer. He essentially said no
>problem, we would work something out some way or another.
>
>It has been nearly 9 months since we got the new SCO server and several
(not
>just one) companies have refused to make drivers for their hardware running
>under SCO 6.0. For example we have an 8 port fax/modem card by Multitech in
>our old server that they will NOT be providing a driver for on SCO 6.0. So,
>we bought a Digiboard 4 port modem/fax board to replace it and they
>originally said yes, they would make a driver for SCO 6.0... but then after
>months and months backed down. Other things like FacetPhone and other cool
>products are harder and harder to implement on SCO. Therefore, I just made
>the decision for Nexus to bite the bullet on our costs for the SCO 6.0 O/S
>and switch that new machine over to Linux. At least this way, we are
working
>in an environment that is supported seemingly by everyone. I sort of hate
it
>because I still thing Linux has too many flavors and too many chefs making
>the soup... and feel just exactly opposite to the way most of the world
>views this "free/fee" GPL stuff... but that's not here or there anymore.
I'm
>a realist and I have to consider the future for my clients and myself. Long
>story short. Rick will shortly be completely wiping out the  Nexus SCO 6.0
>server which has just been sitting there doing nothing and putting some
kind
>of Linux on it. We'll do some investigation first, of course. Most everyone
>on this list thinks SuSe is the way to go. Dell (the brand of the server)
>supports RedHat... lots of considerations. (Don't think I would ever want a
>Dell tech coming in to fix any problem... so that isn't really important,
>but at least all the drivers for the stuff in the box would be certified
and
>ready-to-go.) I come from the days when RAID drivers for Linux were either
>non-existent or iffy, or worse. Too much rides on this particular server to
>be playing around with *anything* uncertain/untested. We may go with RedHat
>for just that reason alone. The things I've heard about SuSe seem okay,
>except that the usual glibbety-glop of versions, kernels, upgrades,
patches,
>etc., have swirled around that platform so fast it doesn't seem like it is
>really quite "stable" yet. I mean, the first I heard of it, the 9.0 version
>was pretty good... minutes later, the 9.1 came out and by the time we were
>testing that a year or so ago, people were saying, "Oh why aren't you using
>9.2?"  :-( and currently (seemingly minutes later again) it is 10.+... and
>do they mean the version from last week or yesterday? And further, the two
>o'clock version or the 4 o'clock one?  The security patches for "this
>program or that" come out as fast and as numerous as the Microsoft updates
>do, no matter what anyone says.  On top of these annoyances, the product is
>owned and operated by Novel. In my opinion one of the worst computer
>companies ever. They ruined there own network solution... they ruined
>WordPerfect after they bought it. They ruined Corel after they bought it.
>They ruined SCO-O/S's after they bought into them. They ruined real Unix
>after they bought into it... and now, they are playing with SuSe making
>claims and promises that are not happening anywhere near the time frame
they
>suggest.. and how is it I'm supposed to think they have magically turned
>their track record of ruining things around and will do great things with
>SuSe? Who knows... (please, don't answer that... I'm just ranting a
little.)
>
>It's all going to be one of those big "learning experiences". (Happily, I
>can just tell Rick to learn it... and keep doing the things I usually do.
>:-) [Now let's see, is that echo "Hello World"\n  or echo -n "Hello World"
>??? and ... OHGOD!!!! where is "setcolor"!!!!! What the hell is this
>"dircolors thing anyway?"  I mean after 20 years of GPL development you
>can't come up with anything better than that. The code the Linux crowd
>*should* have stole from sco is "setcolor". :-)
>
>Seriously, SCO has been essentially maintenance free for its whole lifetime
>with us, and I envision lots of change-over blues and hardships...
>especially with the thousands of shell scripts I've created for Nexus over
>the past two decades... but, it has to be done.
>
>SO:
>
>Therefore I need to get them a Linux license.
>
>1) Can you quote me on a "new" 64 user runtime, 10 user devsys version of
>5.6 for Linux.
>
>or:
>
>If you will allow it (as Bill mentioned he would) let us re-work the 5.6
>upgrade we bought for SCO 5.0.6. Here are some possible scenarios. I think
>the one I like most is the first one.
>
>2) Can you quote me on changing the 5.6 64 user runtime 10 user devsys
>version we just purchased to a 10 user runtime, 5 user devsys version,
still
>keeping it for SCO 5.0.6. Take the difference in cost for these two things
>and apply it to the cost of the new Linux system in quote #1 above. I will
>then use this 10user10devsys version to upgrade my personal SCO 5.0.6
>version at my house.
>
>3) Just apply the full price of the SCO version we just bought to the new
>Linux version in quote #1, and I'll buy the 10user10devsys upgrade for my
>home SCO 5.0.6 system separately.
>
>Those seem to be the 3 most logical, easiest things to do, right?
>
>Well, here are a complicated couple others which may be better, I'm not
>really sure.
>
>None of the above get us to the point of upgrading the existing 5.0.6 SCO
>version that is running now on the old server at Nexus. It will take us a
>good 3 months to move to the new Linux server I think and I would love to
>put up the new 5.6 filePro there while we are waiting. Can you check with
>Bill to see what he had in mind for this situation. In other words, we
would
>use the 64user10devsys that we just bought on the old server for 3 months
or
>so, and then when we move to the new Linux box, we turn off the old
license?
>(It could be quicker than 12 weeks, but I want to have some leeway.) Or, we
>pay to do the conversion from one O/S to another that Bud mentioned awhile
>ago?  Or, here's a weird one... we use the version as we bought it for the
>next 12 weeks or so on the old server. At the point where we move to the
>Linux box and don't need filePro on that old box anymore, the
64user10devsys
>license gets converted to a 10user5devsys version that I can move to my box
>at home. In this case, you would apply the difference in price of these two
>versions to the cost of the new 64user10devsys system we want for the new
>Linux server.
>
>We will purchase the new Linux 64user10devsys version immediately so we can
>be working it into place   over the next 3 month changeover.
>
>The old Nexus server will most likely be converted from SCO 5.0.6 to
Windows
>2003... in which case a version for filePro for it will most likely be
>ordered. In no case, now that we are switching to Linux, will that box stay
>operating with any *nix filePro version period.
>
>I know this all sounds complicated... but it really isn't. I've tried to
>clarify it as much as possible. Just sort of breaks down to how can we best
>make it through this next 12 weeks and not end up paying for two
>64user10devsys systems when all we really now need is 1 64user10devsys
Linux
>version, and one 10user5devsys SCO 5.6 version. Maybe send this note along
>to Bill for his advice.
>
>Thanks,
>
>John Esak
>The Valar Group
>(570) 384-2444
>
>
>P.S. Honestly, I don't want this to be any kind of a SCO/Linux war thread.
I
>was very leery of sending this note thinking that is what the "usual
>advocates" will turn it inot. I *really* hope not. In fact, no response at
>all would be just fine. I only want to put up one situation and one
>solution... in the hopes that people making the same kinds of decision will
>see what I *had* to do.
>
>_______________________________________________
>Filepro-list mailing list
>Filepro-list at lists.celestial.com
>http://mailman.celestial.com/mailman/listinfo/filepro-list
>

--
Bill
--
INTERNET:   bill at 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

``UNIX was not designed to stop you from doing stupid things, because that
would also stop you from doing clever things.'' -- Doug Gwyn