OT: RE: Unix Help re Samba - for filePro

[Fairlight]

In the relative spacial/temporal region of
Tue, Apr 13, 2010 at 09:05:19PM -0400, Brian K. White achieved the spontaneous
generation of the following:
> 
> He's going to OSR 6.0.0 not OSR 5.0.6

Ah, my mistake.  I misread the 5v6.  More like mentally mistranslated.

> 6.0.0 is the newest, but in my opinion worst thing he could do even
> though it's a major technical advance in many ways.

I wasn't fond of OSR6, but then I'm not fond of SCO in any event.  :)  My
biggest beef with it at the time I was on systems using it was that gcc
wasn't available at the time.  As I've maintained for years, without a
functioning devkit, *nix systems are next to useless for me.

I think JPR at some point said that he had one version or another of gcc
running under 6, eventually.

> I don't know any of that stuff for OSR6, but I DO for both OSR5
> and for openSUSE Linux, Ubuntu Linux, and FreeBSD. Also it's easy to
> look it up for any other Linux. And, whatever I didn't just happen to
> know, and was not well described in docs, I can and would also just spot
> check with a little direct experiment on OSR5 and Linux and FreeBSD, but
> not OSR6, because I have boxes running those others but not OSR6.

I summed this up for one client as, "If you want/need to deal with
heterogeneous environments and open source software, you want to be on
Linux or BSD, not SCO.  SCO will cost you an increasing amount of time and
money to maintain and (attempt to, given SCO's habit of leaving Apache and
other packages unpatched for huge stretches of time, and the lack of a gcc
that will actually compile it) keep secure."

They're still on SCO, and they still complain when it costs a mint to
update Apache, PHP, etc. due to a security exploit needing to be filled
before SCO -might- get around to it a year or so later.  Or when they need
open source software that doesn't like to compile for SCO.  Or when they
need anything that isn't stock on SCO, pretty much.

And yet, they blame Linux as an OS for every ill as being "impossible to
use," simply because they can't seem to use the vendor configuration tools
to configure samba or sendmail, and webmin (*puke*) isn't installed by
default.  My personal favourite is when they then proceed break sendmail
-on SCO- by using webmin. :) But hey, Linux is the problem child, right?
Riiight.

It's called, "Learn the subsystems and you don't have that problem."  

But I digress...  (Fairlight -never- digresses at home....  </airplane>)

Glad to see verification that SMB/CIFS shares aren't mountable on SCO.

mark->
-- 
Audio panton, cogito singularis,