Re: No longer supporting Unixware / Open Server
From: Bill Vermillion (bv_at_wjv.comREMOVE)
Date: 01/30/04
- Next message: Bob Bailin: "Re: USB floppy"
- Previous message: tony_at_pcunix.com: "Re: No longer supporting Unixware / Open Server"
- In reply to: Joe Dunning: "Re: No longer supporting Unixware / Open Server"
- Next in thread: Joe Dunning: "Re: No longer supporting Unixware / Open Server"
- Reply: Joe Dunning: "Re: No longer supporting Unixware / Open Server"
- Reply: Brian K. White: "Re: No longer supporting Unixware / Open Server"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2004 19:35:01 GMT
In article <cz2Sb.179512$na.292957@attbi_s04>,
Joe Dunning <joedunning1234_removethis@hotmail.com> wrote:
>On 28 Jan 2004 19:47:26 -0800, Brian K. White <brian@aljex.com> wrote:
>>joe@blahblah.invalid (Joe Dunning) wrote in message
>news:<soXRb.46152$U%5.240446@attbi_s03>...
>>> On 28 Jan 2004 10:42:47 -0800, Brian K. White
>>> <brian@aljex.com> wrote:
>>> >And people wonder why I refuse to allow linux into the professional
>>> >work environments I'm responsible for? Happily though, I happen to
>>> >already know that your attitude is merely one of a very vocal but
>>> >happily very minor minority.
>>> How many posts have I seen on this newsgroup justifying SCO
>>> installations as "in the best interests of my customers"?
>>> Now you say that you absolutely refuse to allow Linux into
>>> the ">work environments I'm responsible for". No technical
>>> justification for this, just your opinion on the attitudes of
>>> Linux users. Well, that's really a good justification of the
>>> best interests of your customers, isn't it?
>>> I mean, obviously Google, Amazon and others are suffering
>>> from their use of Linux aren't they? Yet, you believe you
>>> know better than the IT managers of those companies. Oh, yes,
>>> that's the way of the future: absolutely refuse to allow Linux
>>> installations. I wish I had your foresight.
>>> Brian, you have shown that you are merely an SCO zealot.
>>google amazon et al, can afford to have full time 24/7 on-site IT
>>staff that can immediately deal with the vagaries of life with linux,
>Linux does not need 24/7 support. If you think that you are
>showing your ignorance. On the other hand, I don't see any
>SCO installations in Netcraft's list of machines with longest
>uptimes.
You say Linux does not need 24/7 support. You also say that you
don't see any SCO installation on Netcraft's list of machines with
longest uptimes. Well I don't see any Linux machines there
either. In the top 50 it is almost overwhelming BSD/OS [that's the
commercial supported version]. There are about a 1/2 dozen running
FreeBSD, and that's it. Even the Sun machines used to pop up there
now and then.
I support several OSes including a dwindling number of SCO clients.
But personally I'd never put SCO up as primarily a web server where
it would even be in running for being on one of those lists. It's
a good office/business server, but from my POV it is not what I'd
consider a server to use in and applications like you'd see on
Netcraft. So I don't see the point of bringing in Netcraft and
Linux. Am I missing something there.
>>and to highly customize their linux installations to minimize those
>>vagaries in the first place. The "technical justifications" are many
>>and I rarely get past the first one or two before a client decides
>>"Never mind I don't need that!" in those instances when they ask me to
>>explain our particular choice of OS.
That sounds like the customers needs vs wants were not specified
before the installation started. That's not a good way to go with
any OS, but I have seen many customers that start out that way.
Part of my job I feel is discussing with the customer so everything
is known beforehand.
>> Yes, I do tell them the PRO's as well as the cons, no I do not
>>invent or even exagerate the cons, yes I have used and continue
>>to use linux myself enough to be quite knowledgeable about it
>>from first hand experience.
>So we are to believe that you honestly tell your customers about the
>pros and cons of Linux vs. SCO yet you also state that:
>>> >.... I refuse to allow linux into the professional
>>> >work environments I'm responsible for?
>These two statements cannot be reconciled. You have shown your true
>attitude here: you have some irrational bias against Linux and you are
>most likely doing your customers a disservice when you advise them.
All Brian said was that he refuse to allow it in the environments
for which he's responsible. That's not much difference from
someone who has a bias saying "I will never own a Ford" [or
whatever the object of derision will be].
He's not doing them a dis-service if they want him to work for them
and he's not comfortable working in that environment. If the
customer wants Linux and he doesn't care to support it, he should
point them to someone who does.
>Either that or you are lying about not allowing linux into "the
>professional work environments [you are] responsible for"
Isn't just his preference of which OS to support?
>Even other posters on this newsgroup don't agree with you. How many
>posts have we seen from multiple posters in this very newsgroup who say
>that that SCO is dying and they are migrating customers to Linux.
And there are others who have migrated to other platforms other
than Linux - though Linux is the 'hot' brand now.
Bill
-- Bill Vermillion - bv @ wjv . com
- Next message: Bob Bailin: "Re: USB floppy"
- Previous message: tony_at_pcunix.com: "Re: No longer supporting Unixware / Open Server"
- In reply to: Joe Dunning: "Re: No longer supporting Unixware / Open Server"
- Next in thread: Joe Dunning: "Re: No longer supporting Unixware / Open Server"
- Reply: Joe Dunning: "Re: No longer supporting Unixware / Open Server"
- Reply: Brian K. White: "Re: No longer supporting Unixware / Open Server"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Relevant Pages
|
