Slashdot Mirror
SCO & Linux: If You Can't Beat 'Em
BugBBQ writes "The NetworkWorld Fusion News reports that SCO is going to jump on the bandwagon and produce its own Linux Distro. " The article also has some analysis of what the SCO folks could bring to the scene as well as what extras they have to add.
Which is make Linux attractive to the suits.
i t's-all-three thing we call Linux...
Love 'em or hate 'em, SCO are a "name" to the Men With Big Chequebooks. And being a "name" is far, far more important than having a decent product or any trifling considerations like that.
However, SCO UNIX isn't actually all that bad and has a half-decent, tried and true support infrastructure behind it. SCO also have quite a lot of money.
I would be very interested to try out SCO Linux, just to see what a commercial UNIX vendor makes of this weird now-it's-SysV-now-it's-BSD-now-it's-POSIX-omigod-
--
Peter
A Linux distro with all the quality, completeness and usability of Xenix!!!
My real problem with the hoopla of too many distros is bigger companies complaining about the lack of standards. People complain about companies like the one I work for or whoever only supporting selected few distributions...well...if every distribution wasn't so different it would be an issue. This doesn't bother me...its actually something I like. I like the fact that no one person's machine is like mine. But the more distributions there are trying to make themselves look unique the less they adhere to certain standards which have developed. Hell..what am I talking about. There aren't any standards. ;-) And here is the beauty of that..
The great thing is that those standards aren't as important if the software is open source. So maybe this lack of standardization is helping bring more companies to look into open sourcing their products...which in turn converts them (because they'd see the obvious beauty in open source immediately if they have half a brain)..Wow...what a thought..more distros bring more variety...more variety brings less standards...less standards help people to see the light!
So come on SCO...anyone else want to start a distribution? This is GREAT! I welcome them all!
I wonder what approach they will take to make sure their software is decoupled enough from the rest of the system to insure they don't run afoul of the GPL?
Either they open source (or free software for people obsessed with semantics) everything they have (a radical departure for their corporate culture), or they try to keep a clean boundry between the Linux/GNU system and their own proprietary software.
If they try and keep a boundry and maintain their own closed products, they are likely to do as much work trying to stay clear of the GPL and similiar licenses as they are to put the distribution together... Lets see, this product links to the c library, which is LGPL, so I can do that, but it requires this kernal modification, so I have to release that, but it requires this utility, which is GPL, so I have to include the source for that...
Their web page worries me a little, they sing the praises of open standards, but open standards != open source... both are good but they are apples and oranges.
I am not trying to slam any companies or criticize any of the licenses out there... I am just pointing out that all the current major Linux/Gnu distributions have avoided running afoul of any of the "open source" or "free" software licenses by making everything they add "open source" or "free" as well. If you release everything you add under the GPL or similiar license, you can't be violating the licenses. It keeps it relatively simple.
If they are the first to try to create a hybrid distribution, they will have some new ground to break and some work to do.
The problem they used to address was easier... we have this closed system and we are adding some open source / free software tools. Hard to violate the GPL in this case, just release the source to any GPL software you add. When things are turned around and you are trying to add closed source / non-free software to an open distribution, it is tougher to make sure you have not violated the GPL.
Just some thoughts...
Bill
Mathematically impossible requirements are technically not against policy.
Newsflash:
A vendor famous for its remarkably comical marketing dept, SCO shocked the entire unix world by jumping on the linux bandwagon after everyone else had, instead of standing alone and fighting it out as it generally does. "Our marketing dept. ran out of analogies and cliches," said a senior SCO executive on condition of anonymity. "So we jumped on the bandwagon to show we are not a flash in the pan".
SCO's CEO had been quoted a few years ago in Byte magazine ridiculing open source development for linux, using the analogy of holding a cup under a waterfall and waiting for the water to flow.
But having changed its mind, SCO outlined some of the features which would differentiate it from other distributions:
* README files with a neverending flood of press releases announcing "industry partnerships" and "strategic alliances".
* Industrial strength stick-to-it persistence. "Once we make a mistake, we repeat it until we get bored of it or people stop paying attention," said a SCO executive.
* Clueless marketroids included free with each upgrade.
* 20 year old icons, stored carefully in clingwrap in the secret SCO vault.
* Open Source Litigation to harness free legal support for SCO's battles with Microsoft over Xenix (not included with distribution, but free if you buy a $5 "I love SCO" bumper sticker).
Microsoft was the first commercial Unix licensee. They bought a license to Unix System III.
Now, you must remember that at this time Microsoft was a considerably smaller company. In fact, they only had a few dozen employees, hardly enough to handle their other product lines. So they contracted with a consulting outfit called The Santa Cruz Operation to port Unix System III to the various 16-bit microcomputers that were being introduced. The result was called "Xenix". Radio Shack had a version for their 68000-based business system, I believe Altos had a version for their 8086-based business system, but I don't recall Xenix being sold for standard "PC Clones" by Microsoft at that time -- it was, at the time, a strictly OEM deal, where an OEM wanting Unix had to go to Microsoft, pay money up front for the port, then Microsoft would pass along most of the money to SCO for SCO to do the actual work.
Eventually, Microsoft decided Xenix wasn't going to be particularly profitable, especially with IBM shoving tons of money at them to make OS/2 be foremost on their plate. They handed off Xenix to SCO in exchange for some cash, future royalties on future sales of Xenix that included Microsoft-paid-for work, and a large share of SCO stock (just hedging the bets in case Xenix DID take off).
So anyhow: yes, Xenix originally WAS a Microsoft product. But no, Microsoft didn't write Xenix (or at least not the majority of Xenix), though most of the early Xenix work was a "work for hire" done by SCO for Microsoft (and thus like all such "work for hire" was property of Microsoft). A fact which led to a lot of acrimony and lawsuits in later years.
-E
Send mail here if you want to reach me.