Re: SCO & On-Line

> pfinkel@cbnews.cb.att.com (paul.d.finkel) writes: > ... snip ... > Secondly, a new client is interested in a system running on an Intel > server. Does anyone have any experience with this combo: > SCO/Compaq/On-LIne? Any inherent weaknesses? thing to be concerned > about? We have been using this for a long time. SCO 3.2.4.2, Compaq Proliant 1500, OnLine 7.10.UC1, c4gl 6.00.UE3. It works reasonably well, but there are some extremely serious bugs in the engine and the 4gl compiler that you have to know about and use workarounds. We have started to move to SCO Openserver 5, OnLine 7.12.UC1 and c4gl 6.03.UC1 Some bugs in the engine have been fixed. We haven't had the time yet to test them all. We don't yet know if the 4gl bugs have been fixed, but have reason to belive they are. If it's a new customer you have no real option but SCO 5 and the latest OnLine/4gl for this. > Why this combination? I chose SCO in my belief that it is similiar to > UNIX V4.2.3 running on NCR. Well, I don't realy know about this, but SCO is still based on Unix V3.something as far as I know. We use SCO for price reasons, and the fact we can use standard PC server hardware. Our customers like that a lot better than having to buy some strange specialised Unix machine. You also generally have to pay a lot to get any significant better performance from a Sun, HP, IBM or other machine than from the PC server/SCO combination (see among others the latest TCP/C results for different databases and computers). > I chose Compaq at client's request. Compaq is one of the best alternatives for servers - possibly the best, but in my opinion it's still more important that you have someone who realy knows the ins and outs of SCO Unix. If you don't yourself you *need* to find someone. If you don't you should expect your whole project to come tumbling down at you very hard at some future time. SCO is not easy. (I don't know enough about other Unix's to say if they are much better.) > There > is also the possibility of using Win-NT, something I favor a lot less. This of course depends on the application and development language. Generally Informix is new to the NT arena yet, so it may be better to use SCO for this reason alone. My expectations is however that NT will be a much better alternative at some later time. After all Microsoft know a lot about how to make things simple and easy, while SCO seems to hardly have a clue about that. Installation, administration++ is very hard even in their newest products. But for now, clearly SCO. > Any thoughts, opinions, admonitions, suggestions or diatribes will be > wholeheartedly consumed and digested. > Please post and e-mail your reply. Nils.Myklebust@ccmail.telemax.no NM Data AS, Postbox 9090, Gronland, 0133 Oslo, Norway My opinions are those of my company