“Our clients have signed purchase orders for RedHat Linux ES, but the SCO upgrade path was a cheaper cost option.” Read the story at LinMagAU.
A Tale of 2 Operating Systems: SCO OpenServer Vs Red Hat Linux
About The Author
Eugenia Loli
Ex-programmer, ex-editor in chief at OSNews.com, now a visual artist/filmmaker.
Follow me on Twitter @EugeniaLoli
Fight the power! The conspirators of SCO shall known no victory.
🙂
Is that a blog or a column?
At least his clients chose wisely. I’m more worried about SCO than I am about Linux. This lawsuit against IBM most likey signals SCOs downfall as an independent company. I imagine it will be bought out soon, or later for a lot less money, when it goes bankcrupt.
Nice article. This author clearly grasps the important issues. That’s the difference between between writing about what they know, and people writing just to invite controversy or fill an editorial void.
Not certain if I agree with the statement, “There are no marketing gurus out there selling Open Source Software”. I tend to think that the open source movement has been very well marketed over the past 3 years.
no text 😉
I would second that! Redhat should get off their ass and show us some improvements!!
They made their decision based on 2 options presented with their associated costs. One option was to keep their existing operating system, SCO Open Server 5.05 and upgrade to the latest version. The other option was a move to RedHat Linux ES [1]
What about other operating systems? I would imagine that OS’ such as Solaris would fall into a similar price range? Why didn’t they consider Solaris? I think in this situation, that probably would have been the FIRST OS I would have looked at. Avoid SCO alltogether, and any IP issues that could arise with Linux.
I work with Solaris, and while I love it. It would cost a lot more for Sun Hardware and OS than RH would.
SCO is like the greedy farmer that became tired of collecting the golden eggs one at a time, so he decided to kill the goose and collect them all in one shot. But it didn’t work because… er, the goose waddled off to another farm that had 24×7 security.
They could run Solaris on Intel, but Sun doesn’t seem to be that interested in it. To use the “real” version of Solaris, they’d have to buy all new hardware. That would not be economically feasable in this case. That Sun hardware is really nice, but it seems to be turning into a millstone around Sun’s neck in some cases.
What about other operating systems? I would imagine that OS’ such as Solaris would fall into a similar price range? Why didn’t they consider Solaris? I think in this situation, that probably would have been the FIRST OS I would have looked at. Avoid SCO alltogether, and any IP issues that could arise with Linux.
Most likely it wasn’t considered because their application may not have been ported to Solaris.
While one may assume that it would easily port given the source code (which they don’t necessarily have), their vendor may have chosen to not do the port.
Solaris x86 claims that it can run Linux binaries, but why run Linux binaries on Solaris when you can run Linux binaries on Linux?
Now as to the future, should SCO flame out, then Solaris on Intel may well suddenly become very interesting to ISVs. Since SCO controls both SCO OpenServer and the Unixware lines, the death of SCO would potentially kill the two primary commercial Unix systems on Intel. Should they get badly disrupted, Sun could easily pounce and start offering an SCO Switchover service just like they’re offering an AIX switchover service.
SCO/Unixware have been SO dominant in the commercial Intel Unix sector (no, really!), it dwarfs the little effort Sun put into their platform. Add the pressure from the OSS Unix systems and it makes it that much more difficult.
However, if SCO/Unixware stumble hard, then the commercial Intel Unix market will break wide open very quickly. Hopefully Sun can react quickly enough with Solaris x86.
Of course no matter what happens to SCO, I don’t think that their Unix platforms are going to go anywhere. SOMEONE will snatch them up in a quick firesale if push comes to shove.
I don’t see people afraid to use Macs because of lawsuits based on they’re saying OS X is UNIX (they are being sued by SCO). Why should that stop someone from using Linux. If Linux goes down and it won’t, there will be a lot more problems than just being sued – there is quite a bit that depends on Linux that isn’t advertised.
The only people that might use SCO products are Microsoft users who want to escape the control of Microsoft yet are not allowed to use Linux.
I don’t see people afraid to use Macs because of lawsuits based on they’re saying OS X is UNIX (they are being sued by SCO). Why should that stop someone from using Linux. If Linux goes down and it won’t, there will be a lot more problems than just being sued – there is quite a bit that depends on Linux that isn’t advertised.
Actually, it’s The Open Group who are suing Apple (SCO doesn’t own the UNIX trademark), and The Open Group aren’t saying that OS X itself is illegal (unless it mentions UNIX somewhere, I suppose), just the marketing of OS X (claiming it is UNIX when it doesn’t meet The Open Group’s compatibility standards). If The Open Group wins, all I can imagine happening is that Apple has to not use the word UNIX anymore, and would have to pay The Open Group some money. Even if Apple goes bankrupt paying The Open Group damages or something, it would still be legal to use OS X (well, unless it contains the trademark UNIX somewhere in there, I suppose). The Apple thing is just about marketing, not about the code itself.
SCO, however, are saying that Linux itself contains source code from their product(s), which they didn’t give permission to include. If they win, that means that anyone who is using Linux is using SCO code without permission, and would have to stop, or would have to pay SCO for permission to use their code.
The other difference is that there is a company behind OS X, while there isn’t one behind Linux. So if there is a problem with Linux, there isn’t anyone to take the hit for your company, or to pay SCO to make it all better.
So SCO is saying that using Linux is the equivalent of listening to a pirated music CD – an illegal CD, even if the dodgy guy with the van (and we all know this is how SCO wants us to think of “those Linux people”) assured you that it wasn’t pirated.
The Open Group/OS X thing though is equivalent to listening to a CD by someone who sampled without permission, and the samples weren’t even used on the CD itself, but only in a music video for a song on the CD – so it doesn’t really affect you, aside from the fact that it might impact future output from your favourite artist.
That said, IANAL, so I probably have no clue of what I’m talking about.
can RedHat sue my company? If there is even the slightest chance, I will rather not share our experience.
RE: David Adams (IP: —.DNVTCO56.covad.net)
Why do you come to that conclusion when SUN is actually porting Solaris and their whole SUN One server line up to x86-64.
Add on top of that the fact that there will be opteron blades and servers soon, why have they got to lose?
RE: Will (IP: —.winstar.net)
Running Linux binaries? where is that feature? I was running 04/03 and couldn’t find a bloody thing that allowed me to do that. Btw, what I am talking about is the ability to run Linux applications out of the box without the need to download, perculate and modify things to get them working.
RE: Nick (IP: 207.66.52.—)
That is untrue. The arguement isn’t over whether or not it conforms to the standards, it is the fact that they claim it to be UNIX based when actual fact they haven’t had it certified. The issue isn’t over whether it conforms to the standard but whether Apple got their UNIX variant tested against the standard. IMHO, Apple should just simply pay the $150000 or what ever and get the blasted thing blessed by the OpenGroup/X.
that’s the real question going forward. Of course, if they’re are already using SCO then it would be stupid to switch before they need to.
Hi,
Thought I should address some of the issues raised and help fill in some detail that missed the article.
“Is that a blog or a column?”
A column cum blog I suppose. I have had some excellent success with Linux installed for Australian SMEs the last 4 years, and the organisers at Linmagau have seen fit to allow me space to discuss these and new issues in an anecdotal fashion… until someone kicks me off in disgust or outrage…;-)
“I’m more worried about SCO than I am about Linux.”
What I have tried to get accross in the article is that from my own perspective, we can sometimes get caught up in all the wrong places. By concentrating on the tangible virtues in Open Source (quality, stability et al), I have found that it really doesn’t matter who does what…
“Not certain if I agree with the statement, “There are no marketing gurus out there selling Open Source Software”. ”
When compared with the expensive PR machine at Microsoft, Oracle, Sun etc….it’s a mere shadow.
“What about other operating systems? I would imagine that OS’ such as Solaris would fall into a similar price range?”
Slightly dearer again but a worthy choice none the less… The main issue was support for their application. To do this on a Solaris box requires an Oracle DB…or expensive mods to the application. In the end, it was a practical issue.
Rgds
Brent Wallis
I don’t know the details of running Linux binaries on Solaris x86, only that it’s a bullet point on Suns list of features.
http://www.sun.com/lowcost/feature/x86-linux.html
“Linux compatibility–applications run on the Solaris x86 OS unmodified”