While what you say is true regarding most software (I've spent many a day cursing RedHat

, SCO seems to be one that I've _never_ liked. I've used it off and on since 199[2|3]. The only good thing SCO ever did for me was lead me to Linux (I was so desperate to find a replacement, I was willing to give it a try - this was in 1994, Linux was practically unknown, so you can see how desperate I was).
Much of my problem with SCO goes beyond the software itself and directly to the company. SCO Unix is way overpriced, undersupported, and somehow, bloated despite being light in features (how is _that_ possible?). I was bitten by a bug in mkdev tape that prevented my kernel from linking. Informing SCO of this resulted in a "not a bug" response. Hrm. So much for the theory about commercial software being better supported

I suppose if I had broke out my credit card I would have been pointed to a patch (which I later found on my own, but it didn't work - I had to reinstall anyway). This is unacceptable. I understand that a company can't provide free hand-holding, but they can at least be helpful.
Besides that, the filesystem layout is baroque (/var/opt/K/SCO/... etc), it's sloooow, forget the GUI (even the KDE on Skunkworks is so far out-of-date as to be irrelevant)... I could go on, but you undoubtedly already know the rest.
I'm working frantically to port our apps to Linux and hopefully, after that, I'll never have to see SCO again.