Re: CUSM: SCO Schilling Solecism Solace (was Forbes.com: Linux Loyalists Leery)

From: Bill Campbell (bill_at_celestial.com)
Date: 04/05/04 

Date: Mon, 5 Apr 2004 21:59:48 GMT
To: sco-misc@lists.celestial.com, scomsc@xenitec.on.ca

On Mon, Apr 05, 2004, Lucky Leavell wrote:
>On Mon, 5 Apr 2004, "Bob Meyers" <oregonbob2000 at yahoo.com> wrote:
>> "Lucky Leavell" <scomisc@unixpress.com> wrote in message
>> news:Pine.LNX.4.58.0404050916570.10269@ris713.UniXpress.com...
>> >
>> > > I've never been a Red Hat fan. We moved everything to SuSE from Caldera
>> > > over the last couple of years when SCOG basically dropped supporting
>> Linux.
>> > >
>> > Same here. We tried both Red Hat and SuSE and found SuSE to be MUCH better
>> > for our purposes. I am moving most work from three SCO systems (OSR5 and
>> > UnixWare 7 ) and one Winders box to a SuSE 9.0 system. When I have time
>> > to mess with wine, I MAY be able to become a M$-free zone!
>>
>> What's so good about SuSE? Does it have a nice, easy-to-use gui for network
>> server setup?
>Yes
>
>> Do you have software updates, security and patches readily
>> available?
>Yes
>>
>> I tried Corel, Caldera, RedHat. I stuck with RedHat because it made it all
>> the way to production server, given my skill and resources.
>>
>I liked it better because of:
>
> 1. YaST - their sys admin tool (works in both character and GUI)
> gives me better control than Red Hat (examples: SuSEfirewall2
> and disk partitioning)
>
> 2. Security - has two DoD certifications and SuSEfirewall2
>
>among other things.

What he said.

>I am new to Linux too, having 15+ years with SCO, SVR4 and AIX. We tried
>both and SuSE just seemed to be smoother overall from the install to admin
>and usage.

I've been using Linux for almost ten years now, and became one of the first
Caldera resellers when Caldera started approaching SCO resellers. At the
time I liked Caldera because of their ``Linux for Business'' motto, because
we needed a stable Linux platform for commercial applications. We
installed our first mission-critical Linux system in a law firm in
September 1997, a system which was rebooted twice in the first 12 months,
the first time after six months when a janitor unplugged the server, the
second time when the computer's main board fried at one year.

Many of the Caldera Linux group in Germany ended up at SuSE after Caldera
purchased SCO, and weren't concentrating on Linux development (I think this
was also part of the UnitedLinux project).

I think that SuSE is probably the best engineered of the commercial Linux
distributions, and we use it for all our commercial installations.

I view many of the Linux distributions like Debian to be more suitable for
people who want to hack on their systems, and not as good for commercial
work where we want to spend time integrating Linux into customer's
business, not hacking on the OS.

Bill 

--
INTERNET:   bill@Celestial.COM  Bill Campbell; Celestial Software LLC
UUCP:               camco!bill  PO Box 820; 6641 E. Mercer Way
FAX:            (206) 232-9186  Mercer Island, WA 98040-0820; (206) 236-1676
URL: http://www.celestial.com/
``The man who produces while others dispose of his product is a slave.''
   Ayn Rand

Relevant Pages

  • Re: which linux? (not flame bait, thank you)
    ... > Portupgrade really helps with maintaining ports. ... I would like to have a little exposure to linux ... > keep my server and desktop running with the same versions, ... 'full' RH or SuSE install, but slightly behind the times, as is Debian, ...
    (freebsd-questions)
  • Re: Are there advantages of Linux over XP Pro.?
    ... Excuse my ignorance but what does KDE mean? ... dual-boot 98SE/XP PRO machine for a copy of Linux. ... small file server with RAID and Backup storage with the easy addition of ... The Mandrake 10.1 install was also painless, but the GUI would not run. ...
    (microsoft.public.windowsxp.general)
  • Re: Exchange 2003 and NT4 trusted domain
    ... > If you run Exchange 2003, you will need to install AD on at least on ... > use the server for Exchange. ... There would be no need to have a server at the remote ... There is a Linux box at each site ...
    (microsoft.public.exchange.connectivity)
  • Re: Exchange 2003 and NT4 trusted domain
    ... > If you run Exchange 2003, you will need to install AD on at least on ... > use the server for Exchange. ... There would be no need to have a server at the remote ... There is a Linux box at each site ...
    (microsoft.public.exchange.setup)
  • Re: Exchange 2003 and NT4 trusted domain
    ... > If you run Exchange 2003, you will need to install AD on at least on ... > use the server for Exchange. ... There would be no need to have a server at the remote ... There is a Linux box at each site ...
    (microsoft.public.exchange.admin)