From owner-freebsd-questions Mon Jan 4 07:51:27 1999 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) id HAA28552 for freebsd-questions-outgoing; Mon, 4 Jan 1999 07:51:27 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG) Received: from gateway.sitel.net ([206.24.48.67]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id HAA28539 for ; Mon, 4 Jan 1999 07:51:20 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from jsw@cywub.sitel.net) Received: from dns3.sitel.net by gateway.sitel.net via smtpd (for hub.FreeBSD.ORG [204.216.27.18]) with SMTP; 4 Jan 1999 15:50:55 UT Received: from dev2.sitel.net (mail1.sitel.net [10.252.249.17]) by www.sitel.net (8.6.11/8.6.6) with ESMTP id JAA10551; Mon, 4 Jan 1999 09:49:17 -0600 Message-Id: <199901041549.PAA26823@cywub.sitel.com> Subject: Re: SCO Unix vrs. FreeBSD To: freebsd@netsys.hn (FreeBSD Questions) Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1999 09:49:14 -0600 (CST) From: Jack Winslade Cc: freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG In-Reply-To: <199901041525.JAA24266@mail.netsys.hn> from "FreeBSD Questions" at Jan 4, 99 09:25:19 am X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL20] Content-Type: text Sender: owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG > Hello, I want to know why a License for SCO Unix cost that much and FreeBSD > is FREE? It's a commercial version of AT&T sysv unix. Keyword, 'commercial' intended to make $$$$$. > It is better? More things to do with? Not really, they had the market more or less cornered a few years ago as far as supported Intel-platform Unix is concerned. > We are a ISP that uses FreeBSD in our servers, but other ISP tell people > that we use free downloaded software form the Internet, and since that how > can we provide security or stability. I know FreeBSD is good, very good I > like it a lot. They also say 'why you don't buy a "real" Unix software, like > those you pay for?'. IMAO, those who say that cannot really know either SCO or FBSD. When FBSD/NBSD/etc. first came out, I would have to say that SCO was more stable, but the later releases of FBSD are certainly in the same league if not better. I've worked with both, and it seems like applications compile and install more cleanly on FBSD than on SCO. With SCO, lots of the stuff that comes with FBSD is extra, such as the c compiler. ;-) Also, there are lots of restricted (like 2-user) SCO releases around. The unlimited user license under SCO is (was) very expensive. The later FBSD versions can also run SCO binaries. I know of one case where an Informix SE license was moved from SCO to FBSD with very little hassle. They also tell me (the ubiquitous 'they') that Oracle runs fine under FBSD as well. Good day JSW To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-questions" in the body of the message