Re: FyRE, I'm Curious About You Too...
From: John Schmidt (js_at_saltmine.radix.net)
Date: Tue, 23 Dec 2003 18:17:45 -0500
On Tue, 23 Dec 2003, Eric Wood wrote:
> 1. I can't talk straight to the developers and get an issue resolved.
Okay, fair enough. I can't talk directly to the developers of Solaris
(my OS of choice) either, though. Does that make Linux a better OS?
> 2. I can't select from a myriad os configuration tools and a large selection
> of competing solutions (postfix vs exim vs sendmail vs qmail vs etc).
Why on earth not? You can build any of those *easily* under SCO.
> 3. I can't add cpus or free software raid solutions without being charged
> (last time I checked).
Who said anything about being charged? You said "I can't implement a
raid solution" - you didn't say "I can't implement a free raid
> 4. I can't get openssh working without bothering poor Jean-Pierre Radley to
> make a package. SCO themselves doesn't even provide a lot of the "take for
> granted" utilities - or the utilities are severly outdated.
Eh? What's so hard about downloading zlib, openssl, and openssh? All
three are as easy to build and install as
./configure; make; make test; make install
> 5. SCO patch/update management is almost as bad as OS/2's.
I can't speak to that - I've never used OS/2.
> I think you'll be humbled if saw a real point for point compare between
> Linux and SCO.
At what point did I say - or even imply - that I thought SCO was
superior to Linux? In fact, I wrote "I don't particularly care for
SCO's operating systems."
I'm also incapable of being humbled by software comparisons. Software
simply isn't important enough in my life.
> > 1) OS developers shouldn't presume to speak about company policy.
> > I know I don't speak for my employer's legal decisions.
> So they're not entitled to have a public opinion without being threatened?
I'm not aware of anyone being threatened - I haven't been following
this fiasco as closely as I could've, though. I'm not doubting you
on this one, I'm simply asking for a credible citation.
> Obviously we're not in their shoes, but I don't stay silent for anyone if I
> think FUD is going around. You may clam up with your employer's threats but
> that's not my personality.
I've never been threatened by my employer, actually.
> > But if you're going to slam them, do it with a bit more accuracy.
> You're absolutely right. Has this email been more accurate for you?
This email? While cusm is bi-directionally gated into a mailing list,
The headers sure look like we're both reading it through usenet
rather than email, Sparky.