I'm Trashing NT - DO NOT BUY NT

I'm Trashing NT - DO NOT BUY NT

Post by Max » Thu, 01 Jan 1998 04:00:00



: Ok... I have a few questions... Large OEM? And who might those be?
: TechData? Infinity? And who do they typically sell to? Which end user out
: there buys 100 copies of operserver today?

: Let's use an example instead shall we? This "Large Client" Grand Cayman
: Government ran SCO for some time.  Recently, they have replaced SCO
: installs with 28 or more NT Servers running over 250 NT Workstation and
: Win95 Nodes at 1 location. Now, let's analyze Mr Liebermann's
: calculations and proposed SCO business plan.

: The average time that it took to bring a crashed SCO system there was
: approximately 2-3 days..sometime 1 week, due to either unqualified and/or
: unavailable support from SCO Large OEM marvelous annual contracts. SCO or
: the Large OEM cannot possibly support this type of environment without
: the smaller customer-from-hell who's livelyhood depend on client's such
: as these. The customer-from-hell is "exactly" who should, will and always
: provide the end support to the install base.  SCO is in the business of
: "making software" and insuring that there is support for those very
: customers-from-hell which ARE the ones suppoting the install base.  Large
: OEM's can't do it, they can't be on-site diagnosing problems, not can
: they do it in any way comparable to the small-customer-from-hell who is
: willing to go out there in an instant to save their reputation.

Nuts. There goes my dream of eventually supporting Unix in Cayman.

Patrick is right about this guys. Even those who dumped on him most
sounded depressed the last few posts lamenting that they have little
hope for SCO changing its errant ways, and even admitted to NT
installs.

SCO WAKE UP!!!!

: No disrespect to Mr. Liebermann at all, but his plan is an investment into
: tomorrow's suicide.
: You are dead wrong sir.  Likely the bulk of their money was indirecty
: received by the Large OEM, but the fact is, That market was generated by
: the multitude of small enterprise everywhere back in the Xenix Days and
: grew from there. SCO developed their x86 technology precisely for that
: market.

Accurate.

Unix is the better solution, but SCO's internal communication is abysmal,
as many people inside SCO, their resellers, consultants and customers
in general who have to negotiate that labyrinth all agree.

Somebody with some smarts needs to kick some ass!

 
 
 

I'm Trashing NT - DO NOT BUY NT

Post by Jeff Hym » Thu, 01 Jan 1998 04:00:00




> : Ok... I have a few questions... Large OEM? And who might those be?
> : TechData? Infinity? And who do they typically sell to? Which end user out
> : there buys 100 copies of operserver today?

> : Let's use an example instead shall we? This "Large Client" Grand Cayman
> : Government ran SCO for some time.  Recently, they have replaced SCO
> : installs with 28 or more NT Servers running over 250 NT Workstation and
> : Win95 Nodes at 1 location. Now, let's analyze Mr Liebermann's
> : calculations and proposed SCO business plan.

> : The average time that it took to bring a crashed SCO system there was
> : approximately 2-3 days..sometime 1 week, due to either unqualified and/or
> : unavailable support from SCO Large OEM marvelous annual contracts. SCO or
> : the Large OEM cannot possibly support this type of environment without
> : the smaller customer-from-hell who's livelyhood depend on client's such
> : as these. The customer-from-hell is "exactly" who should, will and always
> : provide the end support to the install base.  SCO is in the business of
> : "making software" and insuring that there is support for those very
> : customers-from-hell which ARE the ones suppoting the install base.  Large
> : OEM's can't do it, they can't be on-site diagnosing problems, not can
> : they do it in any way comparable to the small-customer-from-hell who is
> : willing to go out there in an instant to save their reputation.

> Nuts. There goes my dream of eventually supporting Unix in Cayman.

> Patrick is right about this guys. Even those who dumped on him most
> sounded depressed the last few posts lamenting that they have little
> hope for SCO changing its errant ways, and even admitted to NT
> installs.

> SCO WAKE UP!!!!

> : No disrespect to Mr. Liebermann at all, but his plan is an investment into
> : tomorrow's suicide.
> : You are dead wrong sir.  Likely the bulk of their money was indirecty
> : received by the Large OEM, but the fact is, That market was generated by
> : the multitude of small enterprise everywhere back in the Xenix Days and
> : grew from there. SCO developed their x86 technology precisely for that
> : market.

> Accurate.

> Unix is the better solution, but SCO's internal communication is abysmal,
> as many people inside SCO, their resellers, consultants and customers
> in general who have to negotiate that labyrinth all agree.

> Somebody with some smarts needs to kick some ass!

I have many friends on Grand Cayman cause I go there alot to Scuba.
My distributor there was moving more SCO in the past then present.
What ended up happening is MS came in and swept them off their feet
with Compaq|Dell partnerships... as wel as making available a few
MS-Engineers available for hire from Redmond. SCO is by no way dead
on Grand Cayman... but NT is coming on stronger there.

NationsBank still has lots and lots of UNIX floating around.

--
Thanks!
Jeff Hyman
President
                                .--.
__________________________  .-. |  |  __________________________________

 Cactus International, Inc. | |_|  | | | Sales:   (800) LONE-TAR
 13987 W. Annapolis Ct.  _  |___   |_| | Support: (301) 829-1622
 Mt. Airy, MD 21771    _| ~-    |   ___| Fax:     (301) 829-1623
 Jeffrey Hyman         \,  _}   |  |     FTP:     ftp.cactus.com
 CompuServe: 74710,2627  \(     |  |     WWW:     http://www.cactus.com
------------------------------- |  | -----------------------------------
                                |  |

 
 
 

I'm Trashing NT - DO NOT BUY NT

Post by Raymond N Shwa » Fri, 02 Jan 1998 04:00:00





>> I have many friends on Grand Cayman cause I go there alot to Scuba.
>> My distributor there was moving more SCO in the past then present.
>> What ended up happening is MS came in and swept them off their feet
>> with Compaq|Dell partnerships... as wel as making available a few
>> MS-Engineers available for hire from Redmond. SCO is by no way dead
>> on Grand Cayman... but NT is coming on stronger there.
>I don't recall MS going there at all, but I don't know everything that
>goes on at the glass house.  NT has this * habbit to sell its self.
>By they always have been huge DEC fan's and still are.      The computer
>services section of the gov there is taking on more clones for ready
>access to parts however (for some other reasons as well) DEC dist.
>channels seemed to have its problems.

        A few weeks ago the Wall Street Journal had a story about a major
deal Netscape had with one of the Big Five accounting firms (KPMG, I think)
to standardize on Communicator, NS Suite, etc. The firm advised Microsoft
they were likely to go with Netscape. Over subsequent weeks MS brought in
the Big Guns, offered one sweet incentive after another. In the end,
though Netscape had been advised the deal seemed to be theirs, Microsoft
won out. Netscape was never aware of what was going on behind the scenes.
 
 
 

I'm Trashing NT - DO NOT BUY NT

Post by Tony Lawrenc » Sat, 03 Jan 1998 04:00:00



> My concern is in the smaller enterprise and/or vertical markets.  This
> has shown drastic signs of being taken over.  And why ? I would be
> willing to bet the primary reason is believe it or not, "ease of use".

I think it was some Sun piece that said something like: "If all
you ever had to do with an OS is install it, NT would be a great
operating system".

There's a germ of truth there, but NT is easier to use in ordinary
administrator's use, also.  What's missing, of course, is
the command line control (though that's coming) and the access
to anything low-level.  There are points that can be made
to argue this, but at this time I don't think anyone can really
disagree that a skillful Unix person can accomplish more
than their equally skilled NT counterpart.

But so what? To exaggerate a tad, all that MOST sites need IS
installation.  That's as true of Unix sites as it is of NT
sites.  Again, we can have little skirmishes here and there,
but the battle goes to Microsoft: it's generally easier
and quicker to get a MS network up and doing useful work
than our Unix counterparts.

One reason is that Unix is always behind the curve.  When
EIDE drives came out, it was ages before there was anything
available from SCO to handle them.  But it isn't that sort
of thing that frustrates me: it's the stupid little things
that should have been nailed down and made "easy" years
ago.  This newsgroup tells the story plainly.  The same
complaints, the same problems, go on here year after year
after year.  How many thousand times more do we have to
tell people about "mx#0" before it gets into the rlpconf?
How many times do we tell people that netconfig has left
conflicting entries in hosts before somebody fixes it?
How many more people with give up trying to configure
PPP when all that 99% of them want is a simple connection
to their ISP, a connection that MS manages to accomplish
nearly flawlessly with a minimum of information from the
user?

True, we have much more control over our setups, and have
the ability to do so much more and tweak more performance
out of it.  We can control every aspect of our PPP connection,
from the modem initialization on.  Do most folks give a
damn?  Nope.

Not that we should ever lose that control.  We shouldn't.
But 90% or more of these things are simple, and the people
using them just want to get on with the show.  MS gives
them that; we don't.

Quote:> Less money to pay for less education (necessary).  The power is
> sacrified  over lower professional technical knowledge.  Not to sound
> arrogant or claim superiority at all, but it sickens me to no end to
> see a major  corporation's MIS department ran by GUI monkeys who has
> never seen a command line in their lives. Why hire pro's when you can
> hire high-school graduates? Besides, power and efficiency is not an
> issue...

I think that's over stating it a bit.  The MS administrators
I know are a bit more than just HS grads.  There is more
to know than just point and click.

Quote:>Intel will fix the inefficiency of MS's lousy code.

True.  But your choice of "lousy" says there is sin in that.
There isn't.  Advanced hardware lets you do more with less
coding effort.  That's a good thing, not a bad thing.

I sometimes see a problem in the Unix community that I don't
observe much in MS, and that's prissy folks who are very
concerned with the "rightness" of code.  They remind me
a bit of the Apple evangelists who told us all how our
user interfaces "must" work a few years back.  The code
must be "efficient", even when there is no reason for
it to be.  It must be "portable", even when there is no
intention of running it on another platform.  And of
course, everything must go in /usr/local :-)

MS writes shlock code.  MS writes inefficient code. MS
scatters their *anywhere and everywhere.  You can't port
most MS programs even if you do have the source. But so what?  
It's unimportant.  What's important is making the 90% part easy.
Satisfy 90% of the users and the other 10% have to fall
in line.  Then, slowly, MS fixes and adds features, slowly
satisfying the 10%.  In the meantime, our Unix boxes work
from the other direction, having overjoyed the power hungry
among us years ago, and slowly, slowly, oh so painfully
slowly, adding the ease of use that makes the majority
happy.

--

SCO ACE
Microsoft MCSE
http://www.veryComputer.com/

 
 
 

I'm Trashing NT - DO NOT BUY NT

Post by Danny Aldh » Sat, 03 Jan 1998 04:00:00


X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL2]


:       A few weeks ago the Wall Street Journal had a story about a major
: deal Netscape had with one of the Big Five accounting firms (KPMG, I think)
: to standardize on Communicator, NS Suite, etc. The firm advised Microsoft
: they were likely to go with Netscape. Over subsequent weeks MS brought in
: the Big Guns, offered one sweet incentive after another. In the end,
: though Netscape had been advised the deal seemed to be theirs, Microsoft
: won out. Netscape was never aware of what was going on behind the scenes.

This sort of thing happens with _every_ big deal. The vendors quote
to get themselves onto the short list. Then the buyer will publish the
short list, and ask the vendors to sharpen their pencils and come
up with a better deal. If MS came up with a better quote and
Netscape did not , then Netscape are not ready to play in the majors.

--
Danny Aldham           SCO Ace , MCSE , JAPH , DAD
Ban the neutral zone trap. It's killing our National sport.

 
 
 

I'm Trashing NT - DO NOT BUY NT

Post by Eric Hansso » Sun, 04 Jan 1998 04:00:00




> > My concern is in the smaller enterprise and/or vertical markets.  This

[snipped and portions below too ]

Quote:> This newsgroup tells the story plainly.  The same
> complaints, the same problems, go on here year after year
> after year.  How many thousand times more do we have to
> tell people about "mx#0" before it gets into the rlpconf?
> How many times do we tell people that netconfig has left
> conflicting entries in hosts before somebody fixes it?
> How many more people with give up trying to configure
> PPP when all that 99% of them want is a simple connection
> to their ISP, a connection that MS manages to accomplish
> nearly flawlessly with a minimum of information from the
> user?

My thoughts exactly. The GUI frontend should be made *really* easy,
for common tasks such as connecting to an ISP. We don't really need
to spend our time doing stuff like that. Just think about how easy it is
to add a printer in Windoze, most people have no stamina for delving into
the scripts. The ability to change a script should be present, but most
people won't mess with them anyway. Look, my sister (50+) just bought her
first ever computer complete with internet access, the only questions she
had to answer was username and passwd, then click connect and she was up
and running, no hassle, no editing, nothing (she couldn't manage that anyway).
How many times have we told someone to: 'do a Dejanews search for........?'
it really shouldn't be neccesary AD 1998.

Quote:> MS writes shlock code.  MS writes inefficient code. MS
> scatters their *anywhere and everywhere.  You can't port
> most MS programs even if you do have the source. But so what?
> It's unimportant.  What's important is making the 90% part easy.
> Satisfy 90% of the users and the other 10% have to fall
> in line.

Also please think about the sheer number of PC's out there,
*everyone* has at least one often two. What are they running?
It's not SCO thats for shure.
If SCO really wants to compete with W95/NT
they *have to be* user friendly. Darn it, just think about how long the games
for W95 has had multiplayer possibilities. We're happy right now to have
Doom ported to OSR5 (and a good thing too :-) ) but lets face it Doom is
years old now, my kids won't even touch Quake any more either.

--
eric
_________________________________________________________________
I'm an excellent driver.                        "Dustin Hoffman
                                                Rain Man "

 
 
 

I'm Trashing NT - DO NOT BUY NT

Post by Max » Sun, 04 Jan 1998 04:00:00


A whole lot of discussion was cut out about certain features lacking in
SCO... let me just say that they are all available under Linux,
including the DHCP server.

And we know that SCO actually approves of Linux being deployed where for
some reason Openserver can't be, rather than surrendering the site to NT
completely.

In any case most of the code is fairly portable to SCO once you have
the right GNU environment...

Let's just do it, folks. Knowing Linux is synergistic for deploying
(and redeploying) SCO product.

Max Southall
PRN Infosystems
Miami FL

 
 
 

I'm Trashing NT - DO NOT BUY NT

Post by Raymond N Shwa » Mon, 05 Jan 1998 04:00:00



>X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL2]

>:   A few weeks ago the Wall Street Journal had a story about a major
>: deal Netscape had with one of the Big Five accounting firms (KPMG, I think)
>: to standardize on Communicator, NS Suite, etc. The firm advised Microsoft
>: they were likely to go with Netscape. Over subsequent weeks MS brought in
>: the Big Guns, offered one sweet incentive after another. In the end,
>: though Netscape had been advised the deal seemed to be theirs, Microsoft
>: won out. Netscape was never aware of what was going on behind the scenes.
>This sort of thing happens with _every_ big deal. The vendors quote
>to get themselves onto the short list. Then the buyer will publish the
>short list, and ask the vendors to sharpen their pencils and come
>up with a better deal. If MS came up with a better quote and
>Netscape did not , then Netscape are not ready to play in the majors.

        I suggest you go back and review the story. The customer did *not*
publish that short list. They went back to *Microsoft* only with the news
they were about to lose the deal, and MS came back with a deal acceptable
to the customer. Netscape was never invited to better its own proposal.
 
 
 

I'm Trashing NT - DO NOT BUY NT

Post by Guy Stev » Mon, 05 Jan 1998 04:00:00




<snip>>

Quote:>  Look, my sister (50+) just bought her
> first ever computer complete with internet access, the only questions she
> had to answer was username and passwd, then click connect and she was up
> and running, no hassle, no editing, nothing (she couldn't manage that anyway).

This is not a feature of the user friendliness of the operating system, it is
simply that she was given no choice as to what ISP she would connect through,
unless she bought a different computer through a different dealer in which case
she probably would have been given free connection to another ISP.
Do you honestly expect SCO or any other Unix vendor to dictate to you which
ISP you are to connect to?
 
 
 

I'm Trashing NT - DO NOT BUY NT

Post by Eric Hansso » Tue, 06 Jan 1998 04:00:00





> <snip>>
> >  Look, my sister (50+) just bought her
> > first ever computer complete with internet access, the only questions she
> > had to answer was username and passwd, then click connect and she was up
> > and running, no hassle, no editing, nothing (she couldn't manage that anyway).
> This is not a feature of the user friendliness of the operating system, it is
> simply that she was given no choice as to what ISP she would connect through,

C'mon man I'm not dense. She was given the choice at the time of purchase.
Then they simply gave her the right CD to plunk in the drive :-),
hard is it ?

Quote:> Do you honestly expect SCO or any other Unix vendor to dictate to you which
> ISP you are to connect to?

I very much suspect that had she elected to install OSR5,
the installation wouldn't be quite as easy. (Proven here in this newsgroup
by the amount of mail generated by a simple PPP connection) If you don't
believe me, do a Dejanews search for 'connection to ISP or PPP config'

BTW that was the point of my post, ease of installation, user friendly.

--
eric
_________________________________________________________________
I'm an excellent driver.                        "Dustin Hoffman
                                                Rain Man "

 
 
 

I'm Trashing NT - DO NOT BUY NT

Post by Guy Stev » Wed, 07 Jan 1998 04:00:00







>> <snip>>
>> >  Look, my sister (50+) just bought her
>> > first ever computer complete with internet access, the only questions she
>> > had to answer was username and passwd, then click connect and she was up
>> > and running, no hassle, no editing, nothing (she couldn't manage that anyway).
>> This is not a feature of the user friendliness of the operating system, it is
>> simply that she was given no choice as to what ISP she would connect through,

> C'mon man I'm not dense. She was given the choice at the time of purchase.
> Then they simply gave her the right CD to plunk in the drive :-),
> hard is it ?

But that CD was made by the ISP, not the OS manufacturer. I am not saying that
installation can not be made more user friendly, buy don't use setting up
PPP as an example.
Quote:

> I very much suspect that had she elected to install OSR5,
> the installation wouldn't be quite as easy. (Proven here in this newsgroup
> by the amount of mail generated by a simple PPP connection) If you don't
> believe me, do a Dejanews search for 'connection to ISP or PPP config'

There probably wouldn't be so may posts if ISPs produced CD's with
installation scripts tailoring PPP specifically to connect to that ISP for
use with OSR5 or any other version of unix for that matter.
 
 
 

1. NT NT NT NT NT NT NT MT

Why is everyone comparing whatever operating system with NT?

**************************************************************************
*     / - -                           /-----/ /                          *
*    /____  /   / /----/ /----/      /       /     /----/ /---/ /----/   *
*        / / / / /----/ /----/      /       /---/ /----/ /   / /----/    *
*   ___ / /_/_/ /____  /____       /_____/ /   / /____  /   /  ____/     *

**************************************************************************
---
 t MR/2 t

2. Verify substring in shell var

3. LINUX, NT and DOS - LILO or NT boot pgm?

4. Routing problem. Please help

5. LINUX, NT and DOS - LILO or NT boot pg

6. net print /waiting

7. Dual booting DOS/NT & Installing Linux on PC running NT,

8. Just finished installing SuSE 8.0

9. Linux breaks NT's "Security" was Re: Warp NT and PC Mag ...

10. HELP: wrote Lilo to Win NT MBR, can't find my NT now ...

11. How do you duel boot NT & 2.6 from NT's OS loader.......

12. Can't access NT services on LAN thru Linux to NT

13. NT printer from RH7 - NT thinks it's Unix?