Slashdot Mirror
Endgame For SCO
Gil Bates writes: "So, it looks like old SCO is finally on sale, and that provides an interesting chance to speculate again about the future of a company that had some good technologies, but couldn't respond successfully to challenges from Linux and Windows... Whoever acquires the rights to OpenServer and UnixWare needs to appreciate this fact and admit publicly that there will be no further work, besides bug fixes and sales of the existing versions, on these platforms. Instead, the focus will have to be on an immediate migration path to the next platform, almost definitely Linux. With this admission, the new vendor will certainly cannibalize short-term licensing revenue, but the longer-term benefits of acquiring a chunk of the SCO customer/reseller base will outweigh that (pretty damn small) opportunity loss. osOpinion has an extremely thought provoking editorial piece which expands upon this issue in detail."
"almost definitely Linux"
You've "almost definitely" never been involved in using Linux to host applications with hundreds or thousands of users simultaneously for a large company, where transactions running into millions of dollars take place every day, and you'd be "almost definitely" laughed out of the shop if you suggested it. You've also "almost definitely" never used SCO for anything. That was "definitely" one of the most stupid statements I've ever read.
You do realise that several old-school database companies use proprietary data and even partition formats to store their data more efficiently? That's part of what ReiserFS is about -- bring these efficiencies to a general purpose filesystem.
That aside, if you want an example, go visit Pick Systems. Incidentally, they support Linux -- but require(1) the use of their own partitions for data storage.
--- (1) You can also use dd- Michael T. Babcock (Yes, I blog)
Some thoughts from the history camp ...
From the comp.unix.xenix.sco FAQ:
Ahem, Microsoft.
- Michael T. Babcock (Yes, I blog)
I'm not at all certain that the problem for SCO is that their systems are being replaced by Linux systems (although that's possible, given that Linux offers some real advantages over UnixWare, including price). Rather, the real issue as I see it is this: most new purchases of UNIX for x86 hardware are now Linux rather than SCO: the UNIX-on-x86 market is growing rapidly and almost none of this growth is going to SCO. Thus, even though they're not losing huge chunks of their installed base, SCO's percentage market share is shrinking rapidly. The effects of this are unpleasant for SCO: application vendors increasingly choose to write for Linux rather than UnixWare.
The only article I can find in their press releases that's close is their announcement to split into three companies dealing with "e-Business servers, Tarantella and Internet professional services."
- Michael T. Babcock (Yes, I blog)
Actually, you gotta pay for the trademark. POSIX testing is already being funded for Linux, but once that's done, you gotta install CDE before TOG will let you call it UNIX. On that note, Red Hat Enterprise Edition could certainly be called UNIX, if Red Hat wanted to pay TOG's rediculous fees.
I can tell you one thing - I've been in a number of labs (brain imaging) here in Boston during the summers. A few years ago, every thing was SGI, SGI, SGI. Now, everything is linuxboxes. I haven't seen an exception yet.
"In 1991, on a 486/66"
Was that even possible? Sounds more like 1993. But what do I know?
The author has pretty good ideas for Novell participation. Novell is going to die unless they jump on Linux soon. There is no such thing as a new Novell installation, only big businesses are buying the upgrades. Netware really doesn't offer much, it is far too overpriced. Yes, it probably does file and print better than anyone else, but that hasn't been enough for at least three years now. For as much pissing and moaning I see on slashdot about MS pricing, Novell aint exactly a bargain.
Now, some Novell evangelist is going to reply and tell me about all the wonderful apps that Novell can run. "Can run" is the operative phrase. Try finding anyone to support them. Big businesses do, but small businesses don't. One of the reasons small businesses cant run the apps that Novell is capable of is that they haven't traveled down the road of the upgrade path. One of Novell's problems is that Netware 3.xx was such a great f&p server that these small businesses never had a reason to upgrade to 4.xx or 5.xx. Netware is fundamentally graying, and I just don't see a lot of people who can support it past file and print, while on the other hand, there are tons of people learning Linux and NT.
Novell's best bet is an cluster capable enterprise ready Linux distro that does all the brilliant NDS stuff. They ought to position it as bringing application serving functions for the low price of Linux while remaining integratable with Netware. I have seen a lot of small Novell shops bring in Linux for email or web, bnut in a standard distro (read: Red Hat), there is a lot more functionality for making the network MS friendly (samba!) than there is to make it Netware friendly. Invariable email and web becomes mission critical (supplanting file and print, thus devaluing Netware's importance), and people question why they continue to deal with Novell client software (keeping up wtih it is a full time job), when they could use the MS stuff, and talk to either samba, or NT.
matt
I hate to be the one to point it out, because I like having karma, but you neglected to mention that some folks may have moved from SCO to say.... Windows NT?
I know no one likes to hear that, and neither do I, but some companies are going for Windows-Only networks. It hurts me to see my company moving to an Outlook/Exchange server, running our Intranet on IIS and running our file servers with file and printer sharing.
I don't want to be the devil's advocate here, but I think it's important to realize some companys are dumping SCO and *nix completely. Their loss I guess.
Unix is mysterious, and ancient, and strong. It's made of cast iron and the bones of heroic programmers of old -
I'd say Linux/Nt are the ones killing sco. Any commercial Unix on a risc system wouldn't replace easily a i386 based system, but a cheaper/easier system that runs on the same computer...
/etc/passwd is a symlink to /deep/deeper/in/the/1/8/even/deeper/in/hell ?
I wouldn't blame Linux however, the only thing that is killing SCO is their products.
Has there been any new flashy features added within the last few years? Has the development staganeted?
It seems like they fell asleep, believing that they are something more professional than the free Linux/*bsd. and are just realizing, that in features, linux/*bsd have already left SCO far behind.
signatures pending - ansa@kos.to - (dont mail there)
Oh really?
Would you mind at least give some hardware names that are supported by SCO and not by Linux/*BSD?
Hetz (Heunique)
It's not just shops that use computer systems, don't forget. Here at Town Hall, we've got a SCO server in the basement that stores, well ... everything. All the tax records for the town, for everyone in the town, and everyone owning property in the town. I'm pretty sure it also stores all the information for the town's spending, and payroll for all town employees.
In case anyone's heard of it, it's mostly done through a program called MUNIS. I don't know if there's a MUNIS version for any other OS, or what trying to port the database would be like. What I do know is that MUNIS is, in my experience, a miserable beast that works fine just so long as you don't touch it. Not to mention, the server runs some proprietary programs that have been written specifically for our use.
I hope that, when and if SCO OSR5 goes away, there will at least still be support for it. Because if there isn't, I'm not sure if migrating to a different OS -- even a similar one like Linux -- would be easy, or even possible. (I'm trying to think of what it would involve, and I'm not liking it.)
Maybe we will be stuck in a time warp. We don't really have much of a choice.
--
--
"I personal[ly] think Unix is "superior" because on LSD it tastes like Blue." -- jbarnett
Not being an expert on SCO UNIX, I ask: If portions of SCO were Open Sourced, would any of it be of any use to Linux? Are there any features that SCO has that Linux doesn't?
#include "usual rant about how this would provide value to SCO/whoever owns SCO"
A quote:Total revenue dropped by nearly 50% from Q3 1999 to Q3 2000, while sales of Tarantella and professional services have supposedly increased.
Linux really has introduced a new business model to computing. Almost overnight, without any warning, several different technology companies have chosen Linux or some other publicly available OS (think Mach kernel on MacOSX) to be their foundation for a variety of products. This begs the question: Can the concept of an Operating System now be considered to be that of a general-purpose, standardized factory part and not a specialized, proprietary addition to be sold separately for a premium price?
In the earliest days of personal computing the Altair (or S-100) bus was the rage because it allowed for a common set of peripherals to be constructed for PC's. That paved the way for the AT bus and the concept of a whole common PC architecture, which pretty much exists today. Because of this, the profit margins on PC's are small.
Shouldn't the next logical step be a common OS architecture? Traditionally, an OS was something on which you could make a huge profit. When you buy a copy of MS-Windows at the local computer store, what's the cost of the media and packaging compared to the price? Pretty small. Sure you can say that MS is trying to recover R&D, but seriously, most of that was probably recovered a LONG time ago. Besides, you're LUCKY if you get the media with a new computer these days. It's mostly profit. Now in walks Linux, the product of a Grad School student gone berserk. It's free, stable and encourages others to transport it to other platforms. Suddenly, the corporate powers-that-be realize that they no longer have to pay MS, SUN and SCO to get a good, general purpose OS. Furthermore, they themselves can add to the development of Linux, ensuring for themselves a common development platform thereby lowering their own proprietary development costs.
So these people stop buying OS's. SCO, which had called themselves "an undifferentiated solution with price as the selling point" dies first. Price IS a way of differentiating your product; Linux, on that front, apparently does it better than SCO (it's free). Linux has taken over the low to medium end in server computing. How long before it encroaches on the high end? The surviving Linux companies today differentiate themselves by offering different services to different markets. The Linux companies don't sell Linux the OS; they sell Linux solutions to people. John Zedlewski's article talks about SCO selling of Tarantella, even though it's making money for the company. I think SCO should realize that there's far less money to be made in the general purpose OS market than there used to be. The money right now is to be made in special-purpose server/middleware and other application software.
But what of Microsoft? Aren't they suffering? Not in the desktop market. Linux doesn't have a simple, relatively fool-proof desktop anyone can use - yet. Additionally, MS's monopoly power will generate cash for the forseeable future. The server market is another story. Most low-end boxes that run Linux are boxes that don't run NT/2000. Sales of NT/2000 may be good, but not as good as they can be. Furthermore, for the sophisticated user, Linux flexibility far outstrips NT/2000's. Shell scripting, background apps and stablility are 3 big advantages that immediately come to mind. With the coming breakup of Microsoft, I wonder if, in ten years, it will be viewed more of as a spin-off than a break-up. Windows currently contributes 1/2 of MS's revenues, but would this still be the case 10 years from now if no breakup were to occur? The break-up will hurt MS now, but certainly won't kill it. And without Windows to worry about, what's to stop it from pushing into the UNIX/Linux markets?
I realize that there are niche products/markets where a proprietary OS is the best solution. But for the general purpose market, is this the future?
Here's a Forbes article on SCO's Linux plans.
Quote: So, the company is hitching its wagon to--what else?--Linux. SCO has been selling support services for Caldera (Nasdaq: CALD - news) and TurboLinux for about 6 months, and it has already given some intellectual property to the Linux open source community. But SCO hasn't yet taken the big step--distributing Linux.
But that's coming. Sources say it's working out an arrangement with France's MandrakeSoft to distribute its Linux-Mandrake operating system. SCO will use Linux-Mandrake as the base OS and add some features like clustering, which is a complex way to improve the performance and expansion of servers. MandrakeSoft also has offices in Altadena, Calif.
--
The post I was replying to was asking about Sun, who is definitely not a Monterrey partner. The scope of the conversation has shifted.
Actually I just checked SCO's pages, and it looks like Compaq is actually part of Monterey. The following is cut and pasted directly from a press release on SCO's site:
"Project Monterey, a UNIX operating system (OS) initiative led by IBM, along with SCO, Intel, Compaq and other industry leaders."
There are currently more Linux seats than there have ever been "UNIX" seats. While companies like SCO, who made their money selling a commercial UNIX for i386, are certainly getting hit hard, there is no underestimating the damage that Linux is doing to Windows NT.
The only reason that Windows NT is even considered, in most cases, is price, and Linux gives you UNIX features at an even lower price. Besides, Linux doesn't have to make a profit to survive. In other words, while the Linux firestorm may be especially hard on Microsoft's competitors this does not necessarily mean that this benefits Windows. After all, Linux is replacing Windows too, and Linux is going to be very resistant to Microsoft's usual tactics. Microsoft isn't going to be able to put economic pressure on Linux, GPL software is very resistant to embracing and extending, and they certainly aren't going to be able to undersell Linux. Nor is Microsoft going to be able to count on Intel to close the performance gap between Windows and Linux. After all, Linux runs on the same platform as Windows (and a whole lot more).
Microsoft was competing quite successfully against commercial Unix, but they have yet to come up with a tactic that is even somewhat useful against the Free Unixes. I would bet that Microsoft would give anything to be able to compete with the likes of SCO instead of Linux.
Here in Pgh there's an SGI-only brain imaging lab, but that was right down the hall from the lab I worked in, which was Linux and HP-UX. It was frankly pleasant to work on the SGIs (since we shared resources), but at the same time getting their Octane up to a dual processor system with a measly 256M RAM was apparently very expensive. We had a couple dual processor Linux machines with 256M, but they didn't handle high load as nicely :(
--Matthew
Monterey was to have a signified a shot in the arm for Unix vendors who are being beset by not only the growing market share of Linux and Windows NT. Industry momentum is building and commitment is growing for Monterey on IA-64, which will be "a leading, high volume, channel-ready, shrink-wrapped, UNIX operating system" as trumpeted by its developers.
Now that SCO is up for sale, will the momentum on the Monterey project be severely hampered? In addition, will the purchasers of the Santa Cruz Operation continue to work on the Monterey project or will they break off from the alliance and take a solo path such as Hewitt Packard and Sun in developing their next generation Unix distributions? Are the prospects of profit arising from the Monterey Project be enough incentive for another company to buy SCO?
Nevertheless, it is sad to see SCO leaving the BSD/*nix scene after their pioneering work in the earlier days and their philanthropy in providing free/lost-cost licenses to students long before Linux became prominent.
-- "I can't tell the future, I just work there." -- The Doctor
Because. The corporation is required to act in the interests of it's shareholders. This may be more important than you think.
They are *REQUIRED* to do this by law. If they were to give it away, they would have to be able to show how they were gaining shareholder value. Frankly, it would look like they were simply *giving* away something that belongs to the shareholdres. Yes. The shareholders *DO* own the company.
While Linux-based systems are infiltrating the server world, I question whether they are replacing current commercial unix systems or creating a new niche.
Both. Linux is also replacing current NT and NetWare systems, not just commercial UNIX.
While SCO's apparent demise (and possible upcoming resurrection?) may be due to a surge of Linux use, I would doubt it.
I wouldn't doubt it is a factor. I would share some of your skepticism that it is the only factor. It is also likely that such things as free Solaris x86 and the increasingly price competitive proprietary commercial UNIX hardware played a role. Both of those things are at least partialy because of Linux though.
More than likely, their business was merely not as profitable anymore in a developing industry.
That is probably partly it, at least to the point that their business was not as profitable anymore because their products have been comoditized.
I'd like to see statistics, to know whether people were replacing SCO systems with other commercial unix systems or Linux/*BSD.
That would definitely be interesting. I suspect that the answer would be that people are doing both, but given what I've seen, Linux is getting chosen fairly frequently by people migrating away from SCO's products as its price tag is attractive, and it runs on the same type of hardware.
It may be a bit pretensious to assume it was Linux pushing SCO out of the market.
Slightly, in that it is highly likely that there were other factors involved that shouldn't be completely discounted.
Nop. Thats just an opinion (look at the URL). If SCO would announce tommorow that they're for sale - then their stock price would be $0!
Hetz (Heunique)
I became the only person in the UK supporting Banyan's VINES on SCO Unix, and had real problems getting support from anyone knowledgable through the official channels. I felt things could be better. and had to learn everything by trial and error.
In 1995 I was tasked with setting up our DNS server on an existing SCO system which ran other tasks. The BIND implemenation shipped with the current SCO UNIX TCP/IP implemenation was ancient even then, and just wouldn't work with our then ISPs DNS. A few days of attempting to get help from SCO got me nowhere, so I grabbed a PC destined for use as a print server, upped the RAM slightly, snarfed Slackware via FTP, and had a working DNS server within a couple of hours, which not only ran quicker, but also had all the bits and pieces that cost SCO user an arm and a leg (TCP/IP, NFS, C compiler, nroff and so on). I started to relalise the SCO was overpriced junk.
We were still an official reseller/integrator/whatever, and still receive the glossy magazines, although they didn't come to me :-(. 3-4 years ago I finally saw one on a sales-droid's desk. Despite SCO being the magazine's title, over 75% of the magazine content was NT - and this was an official publication. I knew SCO had troubles.
I'm just suprised that they've lasted so long. Only the actions of suits in preferring SCO over Linux or *BSD ('We need someone to blame when things go wrong! - Waddya mean no-one;s sued Microsoft') has kept them afloat for so long.
I want them to either go out of business, or to suffer the ultimate fate bestowed upon the dead - a buyout from Computer Associates.
I will grant you that Windows NT still has a distinct advantage in application availability, and I will even grant you that there are a certain number of shops that are going to side with Microsoft no matter what they do.
This does not take away from the fact that Linux has become a force to be reckoned with in the server realm, and that it is even gaining acceptance in Microsoft's own backyard, the desktop operating system.
The reason for this is quite simple. Linux is less expensive, and it comes complete with an impressive array of programs (especially programming tools).
For years the Macintosh was a much more sophisticated machine than the IBM PC, and yet DOS reigned supreme because of one simple fact. Macintoshes were more expensive than commodity PCs running DOS, and DOS was essentially "good enough." In the end DOS + Windows not only surpassed the Macintosh in revenues, but they surpassed it in technology as well.
The same thing is happening again. Only this time the commodity platform is not Windows, it is Linux. For an ever increasing number of people Linux is "good enough," and the price is certainly right. Windows advocates have been explaining to me how Linux was doomed since 1995, and yet it continues to grow at an exponential pace. Even worse, for Windows anyhow, Linux is getting to the point where it is much harder to find Windows applications that don't have a functional equivalent Linux application. This is especially true when you are considering using Linux as a server.
Not to mention the fact that Microsoft's biggest customers (the hardware OEMs) would absolutely love to see Linux become the standard for the new Millenium. After all, why should Dell or Compaq have to pay Microsoft a tax to sell their own hardware. Especially when Linux is free.
>I hate to be the one to point it out, because I like having karma, but you neglected to mention that some folks may have moved from >SCO to say.... Windows NT? Good point. I interviewed at a company who had a SCO Unix app. It was a turn-key product for doctor offices. The interviewer mentioned they were planning on migrating this to NT. And no, they hadn't considered either Linux or *BSD. One of the reasons I decided I didn't want the job well before the interview was over. While I had been unemployed for a couple of months, I wasn't *that* desperate for work. Geoff
I think I see a trend here. Maybe for them it really would be easier to muzzle the entire internet than to produce p
I suspect I'm not in that unusual a company.
I must work for an unusual company, because there are a lot more new Linux installs than anything else. BTW, did your company formerly use SCO?
But go ahead and have a hype fest. At least you'll have your fantasies to keep your life fulfilling.
A Microsoft apologist talks about hype... Who is it that has paid millions of dollars on advertising, media events and grassroots... err astroturf campaigns? It is Microsoft that is all about hype and glitz.
Of course, all of this is probably tangential, seeing as how he copied verbatim significant portions of the article as his "summary". But, IMOO, the last sentance would not constitute a paraphrase or require attribution.
Of course, according to my writing teacher freshman year in college, every time you wiped your nose while typing, you should attribute it to someone, as they probably provided you with the idea.
"snort"- Prof. Mafi
"Sweet creeping zombie Jesus!"
-E
Send mail here if you want to reach me.
What killed SCO was two things: 1) Pricing, especially for educational institutions (for many years Microsoft practically GAVE NT to educational instutitions), and 2) availability of trained administrators and technicians. But SCO's management never saw these as problems, "SCO Unix is more stable than Microsoft products" was their attitude, and "people will pay more for a more stable product". As we all know, that's not true -- people might pay the SAME for a more stable product, but if they're paying MORE, they want to see flashy features for that money. That's what killed SCO -- they did not understand that stability doesn't sell, flashy features do.
-E
Send mail here if you want to reach me.
What SCO has is the copyright on the original AT&T System V code base. That is the main thing that IBM would want. If Monterrey is based on any of that code, as it almost surely would be, then it would give whoever owned it a leg up over their other partners as far as being able to market it (they wouldn't have to pay royalties, for one).
What about BSD? why not just opensource the entire technology and let the communities decide what they like. I for one, do not like my choices dictated to me.
While Linux-based systems are infiltrating the server world, I question whether they are replacing current commercial unix systems or creating a new niche. While SCO's apparent demise (and possible upcoming resurrection?) may be due to a surge of Linux use, I would doubt it.
More than likely, their business was merely not as profitable anymore in a developing industry. I'd like to see statistics, to know whether people were replacing SCO systems with other commercial unix systems or Linux/*BSD.
It may be a bit pretensious to assume it was Linux pushing SCO out of the market.
SCO has seemed to have finally discovered the Linux kernel. At the same time, SCO owns a wealth of proprietary technologies and licenses a bunch more. What to expect from this combination is something along the lines of "TurboLinux Enterprise Edition", with SCO's proprietary technologies and licensed technologies (including CDE) making their way into a Linux distro.
At the same time, the number of non-Linux members of The Open Group is shrinking. Expect to see The Open Group forced to open CDE in the same way that it opened Motif soon, and the UNIX trademark being "donated" to certain Linux distrobutions.
Note: This is wholly speculation and is for entertainment purposes only.
OK folks, here's the plan: We get roblimo to act as coordinator and the slashdot reader/contributor community conglomerates it's collective funding power to buy SCO for the open source world. Slashdot then becomes the maintainer of record and we all own a piece of it.
My office has been taken over by iPod people.
Gil Bates simply Cut N Pasted from the editorial, which obviously wasn't written by him.
Read before you flame.
It was a frankenstein at least till 96 when the last SCO I had to deal with met its demise. And it was obliged by a crosslicensing deal with MicroS..t to be a frakenstein till last year. So I guess it did not change a hell of a lot. Anyway the average number of more than 100 required hotfixes per release says something...
Baker's Law: Misery no longer loves company. Nowadays it insists on it
http://www.sigsegv.cx/
The big advantage that I see in this for Linux (or even BSD) is that there's lots of interesting hardware currently supported under SCO that's nary been touched by the Linux community. Getting this hardware and the associated applications running under Linux will only underscore the power of Unix.
Gil Bates did not author that phrase, he CUT and PASTEd it from the editorial. Please read the articles before you flame.
Gil Bates only found the article.
But SGI is indeed going to stop making IRIX boxes, and is going to try to convince everybody to move to Linux. The thing is that there won't be any "similar platorms" soon other than Linux - Linux runs on most of their proprietary hardware (at least on SPARC), and IRIX and HPUX are slowly dying. What you'll see as the next-big-thing in UNIX workstations is actually Linux on Itanium, and SCO wants a piece of that pie.
SCO Merge is ALREADY available for Linux. search linuxtoday for it.
Hetz (Heunique)
Although I will admit not having much recent experience with SCO. My nightmares still harken back to the very late 80's and early 90's with that frankenstein of a *NIX, Xenix.
I find it amusing that they have their hands on the child of Sys V, and wish luck to whomever ends up with it.
All in all, SCO has been missing the ball the entire time. First with their clunky and inept implementations of *NIX, and then with their inability to see the trends (right before their eyes) of the ever-encroaching open source community.
Score 1 for our team. And so long, Santa Cruz. Thanks for all the fish.
gitm
- The pen is mightier than the sword, the court is mightier than the pen, and the sword is mightier than the court.
What makes you so sure that SCO customers would immediately migrate to linux? SCO isn't/wasn't the only high-end mucho-money Unix out there, you know. They'll probably dribble over to Solaris, or AIX, or something else expensive, proprietary and closed, unless they're running a very small installation, in which case linux's cheapness might buy it a slice.
But don't think this is going to be some huge linux windfall, 'cause it ain't.
-grendel drago
Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
Thanks for replying, especially considering that I got the usual "Flamebait" moderation for pointing out the sometimes sad history of UNIX advocacy.
Are you kidding? Your post was intelligent and quite pointed. However, I have been using Linux professionally for nearly five years. Back then you had to be crazy (I prefer visionary) to think that Linux had a chance. As far as I am concerned Linux has already made it. Say what you will it is an important part of the architecture of the Internet, it is a cost effective solution for a wide array of problems, and it is gaining applications and abilities at an unprecedented pace. It is not the right tool for every job (my wife doesn't use it on her desktop, yet), but it gets closer to being "good enough" every day.
You may be right, but I suspect you are underestimating the effect of marketing forces. There were two powerful forces behind the PC; the fact that it was relatively inexpensive, and the fact that the corporate power of IBM was backing it. These forces are opposed in the case of Linux (with the corporate power now being Microsoft's, of course), instead of aligned, and it will at the minimum cause the rise of Linux acceptance to be noticably slowed (although IBM still has considerable clout in that area. Were IBM to start pushing a pre-loaded corporate Linux desktop, that prediction could well take on the air of "Dewey Defeats Truman" :)
The corporate power of IBM was backing their mainframes. PCs were a toy that were snuck into the enterprise by people trying to get their work done. The one redeeming factor that PCs had was that they were inexpensive enough to sneak in under the radar.
Does that sound familiar? Linux is penetrating the enterprise in almost exactly the same way. It generally starts out with a developer or two on a skunk works project and blossoms from there.
Even more important, however, is the fact that Linux also has quite a bit of industry support. IBM has Linux running on the S/390 (and just about everything else they sell). They have also donated quite a bit of software to the Free Software community. Dell has published SpecWeb99 scores running on Linux that destroy their Windows 2000 scores. SGI and SCO have practically abandoned their commercial *nixes for Linux. And the list goes on and on. The fact of the matter is that the only company that wouldn't benefit from an open platform for development is Microsoft. And while Microsoft is certainly chuck full of bright people, they don't have a monopoly on talent.
Not that Linux needs industry support. Most of the gains that Linux has made were accomplished without so much as a "How do you do?" from the computer indsustry. The question at this point isn't what Linux needs to do, it's numbers show that it is growing at a much better than merely healthy rate. The question is "what can Microsoft do that might somehow slow Linux down?" I personally don't see Microsoft doing anything that appears to have an impact on the growing Linux community.
Gnome and KDE get better every day, and I am already using Mozilla as my primary browser. All it will take from Microsoft is one slip and they will be a legacy system. Not only do they have to maintain their marketshare, but they have to upsell all of their customers on a regular basis to the newest and greatest software. If they don't maintain revenues they are as good as done, and in this particular battlefield older versions of Windows are much bigger competition than Linux. Linux, on the other hand, doesn't need to turn a profit, it doesn't need industry support, and there isn't very much that Microsoft can do that would convince the legion of Linux developers to develop instead for Windows.
Is Gil Bates a new Slashdot columnist? He's got the length AND the leaping to conclusions down...
We go from "SCO is on sale" to "SCO didn't/doesn't have a viable business model" to "new owners have to kill the product" (but not the business model?) to "migrate to a different product". From there we conclude, somehow, that there will be "longer-term benefits of acquiring a chunk of the SCO customer/reseller base", whatever that means.
How about we just have the summaries spell out the NEWS and leave the theorizing to the comment area?
--
Linux MAPI Server!
http://www.openone.com/software/MailOne/
(Exchange Migration HOWTO coming soon)
No statistics, but I know a lot of people who moved systems from SCO to Linux, and others who came to Linux for new systems because they were tired of SCO.
It really has to suck when you get letters from VARs saying things like not to bother about the support issue after all, we finally got frustrated enough to try it on Linux and it worked.
Personally I think that Caldera has to be interested. After all they are the Linux distributer who is most interested in targeting the VAR market...
Cheers,
Ben
My usual seat in the cluetrain is at A HREF="http://pub4.ezboard.com/biwethey.ht
What about HP, Compaq(Digital) and SGI? Sun are big in the UNIX market, but they aren't the only ones that IBM has to think about.
Funny, but I must have missed that press statement, and you don't link to one here, nor does the opinion column that you linked to.
and that provides an interesting chance to speculate again about the future of a company that had some good technologies, but couldn't respond successfully to challenges from Linux and Windows...
(Cough) FUD (Cough)
Whoever acquires the rights to OpenServer and UnixWare needs to appreciate this fact and admit publicly that there will be no further work, besides bug fixes and sales of the existing versions, on these platforms. Instead, the focus will have to be on an immediate migration path to the next platform, almost definitely Linux. With this admission, the new vendor will certainly cannibalize short-term licensing revenue, but the longer-term benefits of acquiring a chunk of the SCO customer/reseller base will outweigh that (pretty damn small) opportunity loss.
That has got to be one of the dumbest things I have ever read. Everybody here is a little dumber for having read it.
There is one reason, and one reason only, that anybody would want to buy SCO, and that is for their products... specifically, SVR4, UNIXWare, and Tarantella.
Nobody who wants to be YALD (Yet Another Linux Distributer) would have any reason to buy a non-Linux company. A friendly take-over of one of the smaller players (read: not Red Hat) would make a hell of a lot more sense.
As for the loopy idea of buying SCO's customer base... If, as you imply, the Linux and NT vendors are stealing these customers away so easilly that SCO is on its death-bed, how much could those relationships possibly be worth?
osOpinion has an extremely thought provoking editorial piece which expands upon this issue in detail.
No they don't. They have an extremely speculative rant that reminds me of the "Apple is dead" stories that ZDNet used to run every other week a couple years ago.
Linux is very cool, but we gotta tone this kind of zealotry down a little. One bad quarter != a dead company.
Information wants to be anthropomorphized.
Of course, part of the reason they couldn't sell it for a competitive price was because they were licensing other people's products as part of their product... the CDE license alone was as expensive as Windows 3.11... and that was only one of the components they licensed.
-E
Send mail here if you want to reach me.