Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Ransom Love on United Linux, SCO Unix

Posted by ryuzaki0 on from the a-falling-hammer-squashes-all-bugs dept.

tit4tat writes: "Caldera chief executive Ransom Love confessed to ZDNet UK that "[Caldera is] not moving Open Unix [i.e., the former SCO Unix] onto Intel's 64-bit platform...." I suspected that Caldera bought SCO just to kill SCO Unix, even though they denied it at the time. Now, the first Unix I ever knew is about to be no more. "

8 of 246 comments (clear)

  1. ScoAdmin by Da_man · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I have never used SCO Unix but I have a lot of experience with OpenServer. IMHO "scoadmin", the tool administring everything on a sco box, was a work of art.

    The transparent (to the user) method it had for Kernel compiles is something I would love to see Linux do. Not that I haven't cut a few Linux kernels myself, but it was very neat.

    Another great thing was the software installer, and driver support from major manufacturers. Download drivers from Compaq, go to scoadmin/software, add the new software and it would recompile the kernel if needed. Sweet!!

  2. SCO is dead by mongoks · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Why is this such a shock? Who needs another x86-based Unix at this point? The only thing that kept SCO alive was the system vendors who needed to be able to run on cheap hardware but didn't want to use a "free" OS.

  3. Sad, but I can't say it's unwarranted by marian · · Score: 3, Interesting

    My own experiences with SCO have all been awful. Having been forced to install it in order to qualify some products with it for a customer, it was a nightmare. The documentation is bad enough that it makes life more difficult that if it wasn't there in the first place. The people at SCO were universally unhelpful, even when we were contacting them to BUY their product. It was a disaster and I can't say I'm sorry to see it go.

    --
    "Suppose you were an idiot..... And suppose you were a member of Congress... But I repeate myself."
  4. Releasing only the source code? by Shisha · · Score: 3, Interesting

    In the article it says, that they will only release the source code, but that they will sell the binary distributuins. I guess that means no more downloading of ISO installation images.

    I'm wondering, though, what would they do if someone just decided to download the source code (I guess SRPMS), compile them and the install program and bang it all on a install CD?

    Apart from that I like the United Linux idea. The guy has a point about not competing in an area where there's no differentiator between the different distributions. I mean Apache will still be Apache, Squid will be Squid and Postfix..., you get the idea, no matter who packages it (I know that they sometimes apply extra patches, but on the whole, if it's important then all will have it).

  5. Open Source? by comcn · · Score: 3, Interesting

    So UnitedLinux will remain an open-source project?

    Absolutely. The only difference is that the UnitedLinux binaries will not freely distributed. People will be able to download the source code and compile their own binaries, but they will not be able to use the UnitedLinux brand.

    ...and...

    Caldera will provide the product through its reseller channel; one problem that resellers currently face is that Linux is free. This way we give them more of a profit motive to sell Linux, because by adopting UnitedLinux they can generate more revenue.

    Huh? So anyone can download the source and compile, (can't call it UnitedLinux, no problem), but you have to buy the binaries (no problem). Doesn't their business model fall apart when people start burning copies of the binary CDs for their friends?

    This is, of course, allowed by the GPL, which most of UnitedGNU/Linux will be licenced under, I assume.

    1. Re:Open Source? by Phexro · · Score: 3, Interesting

      It sounds like they are just raising the barrier to entry. If you want to download the source & build your own copy, go right ahead. But you already have to have Linux (possibly some othe *nix with a cross-compiler) installed, as well as the ability to compile all those packages. And I'd be surprised if they released tools that made it easy to build the binary installation CDs.

      Of course, anyone who already has a Linux box and the ability to compile all that source probably is going to be running something else already, and won't be inclined to switch. Besides, if you want to compile all that crap, why not just run Gentoo, LFS, or *BSD?

  6. My first time by Ratbert42 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Now, the first Unix I ever knew is about to be no more.

    Ironically, the first Unix I ever used was Microsoft Xenix on the 68000 Tandy.

  7. Re:good riddance by Doktor+Memory · · Score: 3, Interesting

    You need to learn an OS to be able to use it and understand it well.

    Indeed you do. For instance, want to know how to completely kill a SCO system (and I mean "restore from installation media" kill) with a single command?

    mv /opt /opt.old

    Why, might a sane person ask, would renaming /opt (which we tend to assume stands for optional for some strange reason like that it's defined as such by the SVR4 spec) completely destroy a running system? Well, let's just say that SCO's idea of what comprises "optional" system components includes things like "ld.so".

    I've learned many things about SCO in my time. First among them is that it will not be missed.

    --

    News for Nerds. Stuff that Matters? Like hell.