News Group Posts

Main Index

I think Brian makes some excellent points here

From: "Brian K. White" <brian@aljex.com>
Newsgroups: comp.unix.sco.misc
Subject: Re: 5.0.6 retirment (Re: SCO 507 + MYSQL)
Date: 30 Sep 2005 20:53:14 -0400
Message-ID: <028801c5c622$7aec6e70$6600000a@venti>
References: <0vC_e.7370$6e1.2675@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com>   <1128006063.029151.110920@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>   <433C113C.7BE3D781@att.net>   <1128067809.702748.47520@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>   <1128087862.405884.171630@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <1128090669.311460.255330@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <jze%e.1390$lc1.706@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com>
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2180


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "E Arredondo" <atk@sbcglobal.net>
Newsgroups: comp.unix.sco.misc
Sent: Friday, September 30, 2005 1:26 PM
Subject: Re: 5.0.6 retirment (Re: SCO 507 + MYSQL)


>
> <jboland@sco.com> wrote in message 
> news:1128090669.311460.255330@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>> Dan,
>>
>> Existing support agreements on OpenServer 5.0.6 purchased before
>> the 31st of December 2005 will be honoured until they expire.
>>
>> You will not be able to purchase a new support agreement or
>> renew an existing one after the 31st of December 2005.
>>
>> All OpenServer 5.0.6 model numbers (including user bumps and
>> upgrades) will no longer be available past the 31st December 2005.
>>
>> Upgrades to OpenServer  5.0.7 and OpenServer 6.0.0 are not
>> affected by this upcoming retirement.
>>
>> Let me know if you have any further questions.
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> John
>>
>
> Dan,
>
> I think from Dec31st 2005, end-users have to use *key generators* (with 
> registration codes) available from crack websites to bump your 506's 
> licenses up because the no availability of support.
>
> I don't support the use of key generators in any manner, this is just for 
> record.


For user counts no one has to do anything on 5.0.5 and 5.0.6
For host->enterprise and to add more cpu's, yes you are right.

Frankly I am very dissapointed by this. I'm ok though as long as 5.0.7 is 
"never" retired that completely.

6.x is a completely different product that has been hacked and hammered and 
stretched on a toffee maker until it mostly looks & smells like Open Server.
But it's not open server, and I can't claim 10 years of poking around inside 
it to my customers and I see too many problem reports here and elsewhere for 
me to go anywhere near it except for my own testing. Now way am I buying it 
for a customer. No way am I putting myself in the position of being 
responsible for it working as well as I _know_ OSR5 does.

I don't mind too horribly having my choice of 5.0.6 and 5.0.7 removed so 
that now I can only use 5.0.7. But if the day comes too soon when I'm forced 
to jump to 6 and I don't feel like 6 is stable and well tested and that I 
know a lot about it's guts so that I can confidently tell my customers that 
I can handle any problem that might come up without lying or stretching, 
then I simply won't.

It's been long run, and good the whole time, and I hate to have to start 
living in the chaos with everyone else, but if I do have to suffer 
unexpected and unexplained problems and breaks with backwards compatibility, 
and systems that have changed recently so that I no longer have very in 
depth knowledge of them, well then I might as well at least not pay 
thousands of dollars per box for the privilege.

The whole selling point of SCO is that rabid, maniacal backwards 
compatibility and the massively proven stability. With 6.0 that's all gone, 
and if I have to put up with risk, why should I pay a lot for it?
I pay a lot for the absense of risk and nothing else. Certainly not the 
performance. OSR5 performs like a tank. A tank is great when you value 
solidity over speed. But if I can't have my tanks any more then why should I 
continue to pay the tank company for Linux/FreeBSD style trucks? Maybe I 
should be looking at Solaris-x86 if I'm not yet willing to adopt the life of 
chaos that is Linux.
I'm not saying 6.0 is a bad product. I'm sure it's great. But it's new, 
untested, still evolving, unknown how much or how long it will continue to 
evolve. And If I have to suffer a change, and possibly a life of continuing 
change and continuing to have to react to new problems after that, well that 
is already available from several sources for free. I was and am willing to 
pay a lot for, and live without contemporary levels of performance for, the 
bedrock of Open Server. It's just such a stress free, worry free life. But 
that is it's _only_ selling point! Take that away and it has no selling 
point as far as I'm concerned.

After it's been around a while and I've had good luck with test boxes for a 
while and I haven't seen any reports of things that "used to work but 
doesn't on the new" box for a while, then I'll be perfectly happy to start 
using and paying for 6.0, but that won't be soon. So let's hope 5.0.7 isn't 
cut off for a long time. Really ever. The day it becomes impossible to 
legitimately buy a 5.0.x user licence or cpu licence is the day I decide it 
must be ok to start [ removed so the overly literal cannot give me grief ] 
at least to continue using your own paid-dearly-for copy.

I don't believe it's right to force all those installed sites to replace 
their OS just because they need to add another user.
That's not what they signed-on for when they paid, a lot, more anything else 
on the same hardware except Unixware in fact, for OSR5. SCO is changing the 
deal.

Brian K. White  --  brian@aljex.com  --  http://www.aljex.com/bkw/
+++++[>+++[>+++++>+++++++<<-]<-]>>+.>.+++++.+++++++.-.[>+<---]>++.
filePro  BBx    Linux  SCO  FreeBSD    #callahans  Satriani  Filk!

Comments?

Jump to Comments

Many of the products and books I review are things I purchased for my own use. Some were given to me specifically for the purpose of reviewing them. I resell or can earn commissions from the sale of some of these items. Links within these pages may be affiliate links that pay me for referring you to them. That's mostly insignificant amounts of money; whenever it is not I have made my relationship plain. I also may own stock in companies mentioned here. If you have any question, please do feel free to contact me.

Specific links that take you to pages that allow you to purchase the item I reviewed are very likely to pay me a commission. Many of the books I review were given to me by the publishers specifically for the purpose of writing a review. These gifts and referral fees do not affect my opinions; I often give bad reviews anyway.

We use Google third-party advertising companies to serve ads when you visit our website. These companies may use information (not including your name, address, email address, or telephone number) about your visits to this and other websites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services of interest to you. If you would like more information about this practice and to know your choices about not having this information used by these companies, click here.