Just let SCO convince you by comparing some stacks

LOL!

Some aftermath from the MySQL Users conference I attended just a week ago: I just got some 'informative' mail from SCO, promoting their SCAMP Stack (Google it if you like).

The mail contains a link to a promotional article, advertising the SCAMP stack. Although I recall that SCO has bad standing due to them instantiating a lawsuit against IBM and RedHat (among others), claiming that these companies have violated a non-disclosure agreement with SCO by donating UNIX code to the Linux community, I read the paper anyway.

At the bottom, their article contains a graph comparing TCO for SCAMP, LAMP and WIMP stacks for over a 5 year period. The funny thing is that they totally mess up on the WIMP stuff. I thought that "WIMP" (in this context that is) usually means: Windows, IIS, Mysql and Perl or PHP (or poth :). Now, check out their graph:

• The label underneath the WIMP bar inside the graph sais: "XP + SQL", indicating a Windows XP and Microsoft SQL Server combination


• The caption on the right top of the graph explains WIMP as "...Window, IIS, MySQL and Perl and PHP..."


• The legend beneath the caption defines WIMP as "...Microsoft Windows 2003 Server Standard Edition + SQL Server 2005 Standard edition + Essential support"

Now, that's at least three mistakes too much:

1. What are we talking about, Windows XP or Windows 2003 Server? That really matters, considering that one of them is a Server product and not a homepc os


2. Again, what are we talking about, MS SQL 2005 or MySQL?


3. If we really are talking about MS SQL 2005 - that product has not been around for 5 years - more like 7 to 8 months if we're talking GA

Anyone to enlighten me on this subject?