I think Brian makes some excellent points here
From: "Brian K. White" <firstname.lastname@example.org> Newsgroups: comp.unix.sco.misc Subject: Re: 5.0.6 retirment (Re: SCO 507 + MYSQL) Date: 30 Sep 2005 20:53:14 -0400 Message-ID: <028801c5c622$7aec6e70$6600000a@venti> References: <0vC_e.email@example.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <433C113C.7BE3D781@att.net> <email@example.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <email@example.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org> X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2180 ----- Original Message ----- From: "E Arredondo" <email@example.com> Newsgroups: comp.unix.sco.misc Sent: Friday, September 30, 2005 1:26 PM Subject: Re: 5.0.6 retirment (Re: SCO 507 + MYSQL) > > <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote in message > news:email@example.com... >> Dan, >> >> Existing support agreements on OpenServer 5.0.6 purchased before >> the 31st of December 2005 will be honoured until they expire. >> >> You will not be able to purchase a new support agreement or >> renew an existing one after the 31st of December 2005. >> >> All OpenServer 5.0.6 model numbers (including user bumps and >> upgrades) will no longer be available past the 31st December 2005. >> >> Upgrades to OpenServer 5.0.7 and OpenServer 6.0.0 are not >> affected by this upcoming retirement. >> >> Let me know if you have any further questions. >> >> Regards, >> >> John >> > > Dan, > > I think from Dec31st 2005, end-users have to use *key generators* (with > registration codes) available from crack websites to bump your 506's > licenses up because the no availability of support. > > I don't support the use of key generators in any manner, this is just for > record. For user counts no one has to do anything on 5.0.5 and 5.0.6 For host->enterprise and to add more cpu's, yes you are right. Frankly I am very dissapointed by this. I'm ok though as long as 5.0.7 is "never" retired that completely. 6.x is a completely different product that has been hacked and hammered and stretched on a toffee maker until it mostly looks & smells like Open Server. But it's not open server, and I can't claim 10 years of poking around inside it to my customers and I see too many problem reports here and elsewhere for me to go anywhere near it except for my own testing. Now way am I buying it for a customer. No way am I putting myself in the position of being responsible for it working as well as I _know_ OSR5 does. I don't mind too horribly having my choice of 5.0.6 and 5.0.7 removed so that now I can only use 5.0.7. But if the day comes too soon when I'm forced to jump to 6 and I don't feel like 6 is stable and well tested and that I know a lot about it's guts so that I can confidently tell my customers that I can handle any problem that might come up without lying or stretching, then I simply won't. It's been long run, and good the whole time, and I hate to have to start living in the chaos with everyone else, but if I do have to suffer unexpected and unexplained problems and breaks with backwards compatibility, and systems that have changed recently so that I no longer have very in depth knowledge of them, well then I might as well at least not pay thousands of dollars per box for the privilege. The whole selling point of SCO is that rabid, maniacal backwards compatibility and the massively proven stability. With 6.0 that's all gone, and if I have to put up with risk, why should I pay a lot for it? I pay a lot for the absense of risk and nothing else. Certainly not the performance. OSR5 performs like a tank. A tank is great when you value solidity over speed. But if I can't have my tanks any more then why should I continue to pay the tank company for Linux/FreeBSD style trucks? Maybe I should be looking at Solaris-x86 if I'm not yet willing to adopt the life of chaos that is Linux. I'm not saying 6.0 is a bad product. I'm sure it's great. But it's new, untested, still evolving, unknown how much or how long it will continue to evolve. And If I have to suffer a change, and possibly a life of continuing change and continuing to have to react to new problems after that, well that is already available from several sources for free. I was and am willing to pay a lot for, and live without contemporary levels of performance for, the bedrock of Open Server. It's just such a stress free, worry free life. But that is it's _only_ selling point! Take that away and it has no selling point as far as I'm concerned. After it's been around a while and I've had good luck with test boxes for a while and I haven't seen any reports of things that "used to work but doesn't on the new" box for a while, then I'll be perfectly happy to start using and paying for 6.0, but that won't be soon. So let's hope 5.0.7 isn't cut off for a long time. Really ever. The day it becomes impossible to legitimately buy a 5.0.x user licence or cpu licence is the day I decide it must be ok to start [ removed so the overly literal cannot give me grief ] at least to continue using your own paid-dearly-for copy. I don't believe it's right to force all those installed sites to replace their OS just because they need to add another user. That's not what they signed-on for when they paid, a lot, more anything else on the same hardware except Unixware in fact, for OSR5. SCO is changing the deal. Brian K. White -- firstname.lastname@example.org -- https://www.aljex.com/bkw/ +++++[>+++[>+++++>+++++++<<-]<-]>>+.>.+++++.+++++++.-.[>+<---]>++. filePro BBx Linux SCO FreeBSD #callahans Satriani Filk!
Got something to add? Send me email.
Show me your flowchart and conceal your tables, and I shall continue to be mystified. Show me your tables, and I won't usually need your flowchart; it'll be obvious. (Fred Brooks, The Mythical Man Month)