Hi, I'd like to ask for help. We're a young company running a crucial
application under SCO Unix V/386 Rel 3.2 v4.2 on an old PC. We did have
two systems -- one as a backup but it has just died. That leaves us
very vulnerable but we don't have money or manpower to move to an
entirely new system just yet. We're also lacking a working copy of the
OS -- old, dead distribution media ...

My question is this: is there any way of 'cloning' our remaining system
to another machine (even if we have to find/buy old hardware to do so)?

OR might our applications run under a more modern version of
Unix/Linux, with moderate tweaking? Given the code runs on an Intel box
(386), would it run on more 'modern' hardware?

I'm pretty OK with software, hardware, Windows, etc., but not so
familiar with Unix. I'd be happy to dig/learn/spend a reasonable amount
of money on sorting out a short-term solution to tide us over until we
can migrate to a newer system. I'd be VERY grateful for any advice.

[ Post a follow-up to this message ]

DemonBuilder wrote:
> Hi, I'd like to ask for help. We're a young company running a crucial
> application under SCO Unix V/386 Rel 3.2 v4.2 on an old PC.
[...]
> OR might our applications run under a more modern version of
> Unix/Linux, with moderate tweaking? Given the code runs on an Intel box
> (386), would it run on more 'modern' hardware?

A shot in the dark: http://netbsd.gw.com/cgi-bin/man-cgi?compat_ibcs2

Regards

ND

[ Post a follow-up to this message ]

Thanks for your quick response Nino. I've just had a quick look at the
link you mentioned. Presumably the idea is to obtain and set up NetBSD
on a PC and run iBCS2 to emulate the SCO environment, hopefully
enabling us to run our application. Is that right?



DB

Nino Dehne wrote:
> DemonBuilder wrote: 
crucial[vbcol=seagreen] 
> [...] 
box[vbcol=seagreen] 
>
> A shot in the dark: http://netbsd.gw.com/cgi-bin/man-cgi?compat_ibcs2
>
> Regards
>
> ND

[ Post a follow-up to this message ]

DemonBuilder wrote:
> Thanks for your quick response Nino. I've just had a quick look at the
> link you mentioned. Presumably the idea is to obtain and set up NetBSD
> on a PC and run iBCS2 to emulate the SCO environment, hopefully
> enabling us to run our application. Is that right?

Yes. This should work if your app is not reliant on very specific kernel
features. For example, I use NetBSD's compat_linux to run an anti-virus
scanner which integrates with the native Postfix just nicely.

Actually, I'm a bit suspicious about the combination of "young company",
"crucial app on ancient UNIX" and "no money or manpower to migrate" with
"no OS media" on top of that.

I wish you luck, anyway.

ND

[ Post a follow-up to this message ]

DemonBuilder <bob.yorke@virgin.net> wrote:
> Hi, I'd like to ask for help. We're a young company running a crucial
> application under SCO Unix V/386 Rel 3.2 v4.2 on an old PC. We did have
> two systems -- one as a backup but it has just died. That leaves us
> very vulnerable but we don't have money or manpower to move to an
> entirely new system just yet. We're also lacking a working copy of the
> OS -- old, dead distribution media ...

> My question is this: is there any way of 'cloning' our remaining system
> to another machine (even if we have to find/buy old hardware to do so)?

> OR might our applications run under a more modern version of
> Unix/Linux, with moderate tweaking? Given the code runs on an Intel box
> (386), would it run on more 'modern' hardware?

Most Opensource un*x runs SCO-code by an "emulation-kit". You might need
SCO-libraries, but you already own the right to these(as you have
a valis sco-license right?).

BSD/OS did SCO emulation, FreeBSD does, Linux most likley does.

Why don't you locate an knowledgebal consultant, install an un*x
from the above set, and tries to copy your app there ?

If you have trouble contacting i knew that www.freebsd.org has a listing
of "consultants" that might help.

> I'm pretty OK with software, hardware, Windows, etc., but not so
> familiar with Unix. I'd be happy to dig/learn/spend a reasonable amount
> of money on sorting out a short-term solution to tide us over until we
> can migrate to a newer system. I'd be VERY grateful for any advice.

If you are located in the scandinavia area i would be more then happy
to assist ...


--
Peter Håkanson
IPSec  Sverige      ( At Gothenburg Riverside )
Sorry about my e-mail address, but i'm trying to keep spam out,
remove "icke-reklam" if you feel for mailing me. Thanx.

[ Post a follow-up to this message ]

On 12 Dec 2004 12:33:15 -0800, DemonBuilder <bob.yorke@virgin.net> wrote:
> Hi, I'd like to ask for help. We're a young company running a crucial
> application under SCO Unix V/386 Rel 3.2 v4.2 on an old PC. We did have
> two systems -- one as a backup but it has just died. That leaves us
> very vulnerable but we don't have money or manpower to move to an
> entirely new system just yet. We're also lacking a working copy of the
> OS -- old, dead distribution media ...

Ouch.  Your boss needs to spend some money, and soon.

> My question is this: is there any way of 'cloning' our remaining system
> to another machine (even if we have to find/buy old hardware to do so)?

Smartass, non-helpful answer: "Call SCO".  Slightly less smartass,
potentially helpful answer, "learn how to use dd and/or dump/restore and
dupe what you have".  I assume you have backups, if not, then that should
be your TOP priority, right now.  Get the backups running, and restore
onto a new system.  That gets you a good backup/restore setup, gives
you the disaster recovery that you _desperately_ need right now, and
gets you migrated to hardware made during this century.

> OR might our applications run under a more modern version of
> Unix/Linux, with moderate tweaking? Given the code runs on an Intel box
> (386), would it run on more 'modern' hardware?

Probably.  Maybe vmware would be a useful thing to use for this - run the
SCO system _within_ a linux or windows system, as a virtual machine.
vmware's hardware abstraction layer is _very_ good.

> I'm pretty OK with software, hardware, Windows, etc., but not so
> familiar with Unix. I'd be happy to dig/learn/spend a reasonable amount
> of money on sorting out a short-term solution to tide us over until we
> can migrate to a newer system. I'd be VERY grateful for any advice.

man dump
man ufsdump (I doubt it)
man tar

I don't speak SCO, and they're not held in high regard in the industry
these days for obvious reasons, but one or more of these should do.  If
you need a SCO guru to talk to, I know a guy, and my email does work.

Dave Hinz

[ Post a follow-up to this message ]

Thanks for your suggestions everyone -- they are much appreciated. It
looks like I have quite a few avenues to explore, and I have my fingers
crossed! :o)

DemonBuilder

[ Post a follow-up to this message ]

DemonBuilder wrote:
> Thanks for your suggestions everyone -- they are much appreciated. It
> looks like I have quite a few avenues to explore, and I have my fingers
> crossed! :o)
>
> DemonBuilder
>
This is not unusual for Unix.  There are usually two or more ways to do
anything.

I am a Linux user but for a job like this I normally recommend one of
the BSDs because they are designed from the ground up (and then reviewed
back down to the ground and re-implemented as needed back to the top
again) as server platforms and because they rival SCO in it's
near-legendary stability and uptime.  Another advantage is that they
have an internal consistency in program naming and documentation that is
not matched in Linux and thus the learning curve will be less steep.  I
am unaware of the internals of SCO so I don't know how they compare to
it in that respect.

My impression is that FreeBSD has the edge in stability, OpenBSD in
variety of platforms supported and NetBSD in security.  This is partly
subjective and partly the stated design goal of each version.  They
should all have iBCS-2 functionality and don't need even middle of the
road hardware to be functional, much less high end equipment.
Nonetheless good hardware will serve you the longest and most reliably
and can be had for a reasonable cost.

Good luck with your project.

Lynn

[ Post a follow-up to this message ]

Begin  <BE0wd.7503$E_6.4850@trnddc04>
On 2004-12-15, Lynn <nevermind@rubberdomain.net> wrote:
[snippety]
> I am a Linux user but for a job like this I normally recommend one of
> the BSDs because [...]

(<ObPedant> I'd write that ``*BSDs'' since BSD itself is distinct and
mostly of historical interest now </> )


[snip!]
> My impression is that FreeBSD has the edge in stability, OpenBSD in
> variety of platforms supported and NetBSD in security.

I think you mixed up OpenBSD and NetBSD here. FreeBSD I'd say has its
edge more in sheer amount of Stuff in its ported applications collection,
as well as support for i386 hardware (notably network drivers) and lots
of documentation. But anyway. I think I'd try NetBSD first, then try and
find out about FreeBSD 4.* (10, currently) and iBCS2. Even if FreeBSD is
a bit easier to install. My experience is that both are not hard if you
a) have an idea what is going on with peecees and their bootprocess and
b) read the installation notes very carefully, preferrably twice, before
your first install.


--
j p d (at) d s b (dot) t u d e l f t (dot) n l .

[ Post a follow-up to this message ]

jpd wrote:
> Begin  <BE0wd.7503$E_6.4850@trnddc04>
> On 2004-12-15, Lynn <nevermind@rubberdomain.net> wrote:
> [snippety]
> 
>
>
> (<ObPedant> I'd write that ``*BSDs'' since BSD itself is distinct and
>  mostly of historical interest now </> )
>
>
> [snip!]
> 
>
>
> I think you mixed up OpenBSD and NetBSD here. FreeBSD I'd say has its
> edge more in sheer amount of Stuff in its ported applications collection,
> as well as support for i386 hardware (notably network drivers) and lots
> of documentation. But anyway. I think I'd try NetBSD first, then try and
> find out about FreeBSD 4.* (10, currently) and iBCS2. Even if FreeBSD is
> a bit easier to install. My experience is that both are not hard if you
> a) have an idea what is going on with peecees and their bootprocess and
> b) read the installation notes very carefully, preferrably twice, before
> your first install.
>
>
Thank you for your comments.  I defer to your experience and knowledge
in this area.  I haven't really kept up with it for some time and may be
relying on old information and mixing up some details as well.

Lynn

[ Post a follow-up to this message ]