At https://www.darlmcbride.com/, SCO's CEO explains why he thinks OpenServer 6 is better than Linux.
He makes some valid points, but misses the big picture. He should know better himself: if technical superiority meant anything in the real world, then Unixware would have been SCO's best selling product. Of course it wasn't, and was always a mighty small wedge of pie on SCO's own sales charts.
Darl says that OpenServer actually costs less than Linux. He bases that on the support model pricing of companies like RedHat. Sure, that's true: if you buy support for Linux, you pay for it every year, and that's much more than the simple base price of SCO's product.. but Darl conveniently forgets that plunking down the $1,399.00 or so for OpenServer 6 entitles you to nothing but the media and a license key. You get no support from SCO, and even have to pay extra for some updates that might be included in (for example) RedHat's support fees. There are also legions of folks capable of supporting themselves with Linux: they truly do pay nothing. So there is truth to what Darl asserts, but it's not as simple as he tries to make it.
If I were Darl, I'd go the RedHat route. Give the product away, while at the same time making it just a little difficult to obtain totally free, and sell yearly support at different levels. It doesn't even have to be open source; few customers really care about that. This strategy would put SCO head to head with RedHat et al. and the rest of his arguments might have some traction with some customers. Existing customers who are now phasing out SCO just might stick around if that were the sales model for Openserver 6.
Got something to add? Send me email.
More Articles by Tony Lawrence © 2009-11-06 Tony Lawrence
Technology is both a tool for helping humans and for destroying them. This is the paradox of our times which we're compelled to face. (Frank Herbert)