I heard that SCO was offering a version of Open Server 5.0.4 for free, so I went
to their web site and found that they will send you the CD for $19 +s/h, and
that it is a single-user version that includes Motif. Is this worth getting? How
does SCO Open Server compare to Linux? I'm quite happy with my Redhat 4.1 setup,
but I'm curious about other UN*X systems, just to learn how they work. Has
anyone in this newsgroup taken up this offer from SCO? Finally, is Open Server
better than Unixware (also being offered for $19)?  Michael Corral
as...@detroit.freenet.org

In article: <5r40td$...@drn.zippo.com>  Michael Corral writes:
I used to support a few SCO OpenServer 5 machines. I found them to be
bad tempered beasts, and if you've been using Linux for a while, you
will find them to be somewhat lacking in features (necessities?). Their
main advantage seems to be commercial acceptance, and they are meant to
be very stable, although our ones crashed more times in a month than my
Linux box has in a couple of years! I spent a lot of my time looking for
SCO ports of software I had on Linux (such as BASH, GZIP etc). They are
also shipped without a compiler (though you can get GCC for them).

Just my opinion ....

--
*------------------+------------------------------*
| Peter Horton     |      p...@berserk.demon.co.uk |
+------------------+------------------------------+
| http://www.berserk.demon.co.uk (boot ROM stuff) |
*-------------------------------------------------*

Yes - depending.

I just got it to play with yet another un*x variant. So far I think it's
rather slower than Linux on the same machine -probably due to the vast
number of links they use. It's also not quite so good at matching up to
the more basic PC hardware. If you've a snappy scsi system with PCI 3CXX
network cards etc then you're away. I've had more trouble, still - it's
interesting to play with.

Hurd next. :)

--
Pat Thoyts                       Remove anti-spam from address to reply.
Tel: +44-(0)-1275-549414  http://pc0652.lars.bbsrc.ac.uk/~pat/home.shtml

Actually, the free SCO Openserver offering is quite nice. It includes
the development system which means you have the SCO 'C' compiler and
development libraries including OSF/MOTIF development. It is true that
the SCO distribution does not include tools like BASH & GZIP but you can
easily download them from the SCO FTP server or can order the Skunkware
CDROM from SCO at a nominal cost. SCO is quite easy to install and from
what I have seen, is very stable. Note, however, that the SCO system is
somewhat slower and requires more memory compared to Linux. The desktop
is not very nice but a lot of people, including me, downloaded the
FVWM/FVWM95 software from the SCO FTP site and installed it.

However, if you are satisfied with Linux, I think there is no reason to
move. Also, I have tried Free Unixware and it appears to be better than
Openserver in many respect and yes, you get all the free stuff like
bash, gzip, etc. from the SCO FTP server also. Unixware is somewhat more
picky about hardware from my experience.

--
/*********************************************************************
Amit Chatterjee
E-mail:  a s a v @ i x . n e t c o m . c o m (remove the blank spaces)

All opinions are mine, not NORTEL's.
*********************************************************************/

Pat Thoyts <Pat.Tho...@anti-spam.bbsrc.ac.uk> wrote in article
<33D8863A.2C506...@anti-spam.bbsrc.ac.uk>...

Unixware is supposed to be System V.4, Openserver is still basically V3.2.
Openserver was much easier to install
on my pc than Unixware, where I had to swap my new fast CD for my old
broken quad speed, and hang the Quad
speed off the harddisk as a slave before I could install it, and when I did
install it I found I had poor support for my
graphics card, a Cirrus Logic 542x.  So I junked the supposedly superior
Unixware and installed Openserver,
which took 6 hours on my 486DX-80.  I've kept OpenServer on, basically
because I'm the support guy at work for
our two customers who run Unix (both on SCO), and although we have a SCO
license, we don't run it in-house,
because the boss hates Unix.  So, purely for my own kudos, and sanity, I
bone up on SCO at home if faced with
a tricky support problem.  (Hope no-one from SCO is listening) because
apart from anything else I don't think
its a patch on Linux.  I use Linux because there are several academic
packages that interest me that are available
for Linux, but not as far as I know for SCO.  Besides, when you get bored
with one windowmanager on Linux
you can install another one.  With SCO you're stuck.  
In short I think it depends on your interests.  And the SCO offer is a
one-off.  You might not get the upgrades a year
from now.  With Linux, depending on developer availability/continued
interest you will. I just wish the software was
less ALPHA-BETA.0.xx.  I might be willing to pay for it then.

And I think Unix is better than Winxxx.  I've gone from a job developing
yawn 4GL/DBMS applications on Solaris
to one developing 4GL/DBMS application on Win95/DOS/Novell.  And I miss
awk, the shell, and even vi, especially vi.
I guess that unless, and perhaps even if I got into VBA, I'm going to
continue to find a shortage of useful, poweful
tools on Windows that help, not hinder software development.

In article <33D8E47A.2...@nortel.ca>,
        Amit Chatterjee  <chatt...@nortel.ca> wrote:

You don't even need to buy anything.

http://www.sco.com/skunkware
http://www.celestial.com

...are good sources of SCO-ported GNU (and other free) software for
download.

--
 Evan Leibovitch, Sound Software Ltd, located in beautiful Brampton, Ontario
Supporting PC-based Unix since 1985 / Caldera & SCO authorized / www.telly.org
         Do cosmonauts get seven years' bad luck for breaking a MIR?

In article <01bc9a2a$4038cee0$43ac9...@lsd1.demon.co.uk>,
        Mark Buckle <ma...@lsd1.demon.co.uk> wrote:

Not "supposed" to. It absolutely *is* SVR4.

But this means *nothing*!

All Unix vendors, no matter whether they started with the 3.2 codebase
from AT&T, or 3.0, or 4.2, or whatever, have made significant changes
in the years since. SCO's current source code is likely as different from
original 3.2 as UnixWare -- they just went in different directions.

Other versions of Unix, such as HPUX and AIX, are also based upon
older AT&T releases. But none of them have been standing still.

--
 Evan Leibovitch, Sound Software Ltd, located in beautiful Brampton, Ontario
Supporting PC-based Unix since 1985 / Caldera & SCO authorized / www.telly.org
         Do cosmonauts get seven years' bad luck for breaking a MIR?