Slashdot Mirror
Ransom Love on United Linux, SCO Unix
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. "
Well considering that SCO sucked why would they ever want to port it to IA-64. No they didn't by SCO to kill it. It was going to die anyway. They bought it for the Intellectual Property and some of the application software that SCO had developed. Also I understand they were interested in SCO's support division.
granted i've never used SCO myself, but if you're gonna buy a flavor of unix or what not, and don't want to develop and/or support it, the least you could do is release it to the public for free. I like my little OS collection on CD, and I wouldn't mind adding another one to the heap.
For some reason I read it as Random Love Unites Linux...
Je ne parle pas francais.
At long last, and hopefully every single one of my sco-using customers will finally see a reason to migrate from that.
SCO has got to be the single ugliest, un-friendliest, most incomplete and failure-prone unix i've ever used. I was called in to solve problems even the dedicated admins couldn't, and they always turned out to be windows-like, unexplainable glitches that took lots of kludging around to fix.
*sigh*
(from the article)
So OpenUnix will continue in parallel to OpenLinux?
Yes. Open Unix could well keep going in parallel to OpenLinux. We are not moving Open Unix onto Intel's 64-bit platform, but IA32 will be around for a long time yet.
Please read the articles before you post them....
-BlueLines
--BlueLines "The cost of living hasn't affected it's popularity." -anonymous
the first Unix I ever knew
more like, the worst Unix I ever knew
Are they still denying that they bought SCO just to kill SCO Unix or have they fessed up to it now? Where can we find info on Open Unix and SCO Unix? I have never heard of either.
FoundNews.com - get paid to blog.,
I mean why should they spend money porting SCO Unix to the IA-64, instead they should spend that effort porting United Linux to the IA-64, plus they have the capital behind them to do it with SuSe, Turbo and Connectiva behind them now. My question is are the 4 companies going to become one now?
"It takes many nails to build a crib, but one screw to fill it."
What a miserable piece of soft links. Just finding your way around the filesystem is a nightmare. You think your finding the right folder then you find out it's linked to another folder.
The icky scoansi terminal.
i would have cared 2 years ago, but i have converted all my cooporate servers to use linux with SCO ABI support patched in.
:)
Works like a charm
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!!
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.
Ransom Love
" 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"
Please people now is the time to rally behind the truely free distros out there. If your going to use linux use Redhat,Debian,Gentoo,Slackware,Mandrake, or any of the other fine binary/iso friendly distros out there.
While I applaud standards I don't think this is the way to go about it.
If you wanna get rich, you know that payback is a bitch
... SCO sucked? It was late to market with every major improvement of BSD, had obnoxious licensing restrictions enforced by code (which was easily overridable -- just drop in a Linux-derived /bin/login with some obvious patches), and did its best to be absolutely unusable as hell at all times. The only way to fix it without Linux was to install the unsupported Skunkware CD, which made life tolerable, but never fun. SCO's dead? Well, good riddance, say I. (Oh, and did I mention it derived from Microsoft's Xenix? All the more reason to stake the bugger.)
Dog is my co-pilot.
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."
Remember trying to get standard Unix source code to compile under SCO? Remember dinking with the makefiles, the oddball compiler flags, and non-standard libraries? I sure do. I remember how much I hated SCO and longed for a real Unix. The SCO compiler was closer to Microsoft QuickC (it was an MS compiler!) than it was to ATT cc. It was a royal pain in the ass to use, and I do not hold out nostalgia for those days of pain.
Remember that Caldera has finite resources, they cannot afford to port the system to many architectures. That might be a good move, considering the fact that Intel's IA-64 architecture has not made significant inroads into the market. Now if they move it to AMD's Hammer series or the alternative 64 bit extension to the IA-32 processor family that would make sense.
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).
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.
The wholesale company I work for used SCO Unix for 12 years. Our customers would dial into it with our windows software to order product. The last few years was a real pain in the butt. SCO Unix didn't have many device drivers, was hard to install even with the recommended hardware, and crashed too often.
Four years ago when I started working for the company, I recommended Linux. My boss didn't want to use it because at the time there were no companies that had decent support. Last year we finally switched to Red Hat. They have decent support. The only big problem with RH is being able to install from a backup tape. SCO unix had utilities for this that worked well. With Linux this is much more difficult.
We have been more than satisfied since the switch to Red hat.
Good Riddance to SCO. It was good at one point, but they let it fall to peices.
So, in case they really "kill off" SCO Unix, what happens to the source? There must be some things vaulable in there, I hope they are contributed to United Linux.
Even better would be to publish all of it as GPL code, but that will probably not happen because part of the code might be licensed from third parties. (Also, of course no GPL'ing will take place as long as IA32 Open Unix is "still around on the market"...)
I asked our CEO very shortly thereafter...So when are we migrating Oracle over to Linux? "Never!" was his reply. I suppose he didn't realize then that SCO was no longer going to be a viable option as a mission critical platform.
I certainly can't say it surprises me. I mean look at Caldera's track record. Maybe someone over at the new UnitedLinux should consider giving them the boot before they take that down the tubes too.
BTW...I'm not being a troll. I'm just a little over opinionated about this I suppose. It's just difficult to have any respect for a company that takes anything they have of any value and pisses it away.
Good lord, it's not dead yet? I had the 'opportunity' to work with SCO a year after I was introduced to Linux. Not what I would say I had in mind when I started studying Linux to get a UNIX job.Do I have tales to tell.
There are too many other projects out there right now for Caldera to be messing around with SCO. I think its attention should be on this United Linux thing (tacky name btw). Get that running on IA64 with enterprise features and reliability. Give SCO to the OSS developers that may want to borrow a few ideas. In addition, what does caldera have to gain from continuing work on an OS which is being replaced by more competent, open sourced equivalents (not quite equivalent)? I think it would help them to support the platform (for those unfortunate souls still clung to it) financially, but its time to phase it out. As for 'United Linux', I think I will keep my box 'United' with a clean copy of slack.
any OS that allows you to backspace over the login prompt needs to be destroyed!
I look forward to the time when all programs will be free and open and similiar to the standard Linux utilities (grep, more, fsck, and so forth) in that programs do one thing, and do it well. Once this happens, and programs are generally well-understood like engineering principles, law principles, or medical principles, then programmers will be there to provide a service, like engineers, lawyers, or doctors. I only see this happening once the programs' source is open.
We (programmers) need to continue to move toward the "programming as a service" scenario. We need to get away from the "write the program once and sell a million copies and get rich" philosphy.
Xenix? Microsoft?
Damn. Those Scientologists are everywhere.
:)
I would think a lot of things are not being ported, because it's bombing.
I suspected that Caldera bought SCO just to kill SCO Unix, even though they denied it at the time.
Actually that would be silly for them to do since SCO was already dieing. What they did was buy a company that gave them a base of customers who wanted to run Unix on x86. Furthermore they got access to any technology that SCO had developed. So to suggest they were just trying to off them seems simplistic. If they wanted to get rid of them, why would they still be offering upgrades?
This sig has been temporarily disconnected or is no longer in service
OpenUnix 8 is the successor to Unixware 7. Unixware was created by Novel based on the SysV R4 code, when SCO bought it they continued working on it and got it up to SysV R5. Then Caldera bought most of SCO, and created OpenUnix 8 which is a merger of the SVR5 Unixware and many features from Linux.
SCO OpenServer 5 is based on SysV R3. It does not suck, and it does do all of the things Bill Gates claims Windows does only better and much more stable.
If Caldera has no interest in porting Unix to the IA-64 platform, it is now time to open source the AT&T Unix code base. I would love to have several proprietary Unix features available to the world (pg for one)...
I've used SCO Unix since the OpenDesktop days and I like it!
Just my $0.02 worth.
I always had the feeling that SCO actually stood for "Symlinks, can't overdo". Then the engineers went on a mad spree to prove that statement incorrect.
/var/sys/SCO/install/SCO5432/HJ5678RTYrftyfgF 5w/etc/bin/opt/suck
Half or more of the files on the systems I had were symlinked by default to something like
include $sig;
1;
You aren't using a 'fucking' winmodem, are you? It takes no time at all to get it working if you are using the correct hardware. Just a thought.
*desperately desires karma*
I've got a collection of 'dead PC operating
system' CDs that'll make nice wall art some
day. I guess I'm defining "dead" as an
operating system that you can't buy anymore
or is otherwise unsupported today.
So far, I have original install CDs from:
SCO Openserver 5
NextStep
Novell UnixWare
OS/2
BeOS (but just a demo CD, sigh)
An old DOS CD
Anyone have any suggestions on CDs to add?
I'm still looking for a rare CD of a
rumored version of AIX that was for the PC,
not RS/6000. Never seen it, though. And
I missed out on the chance to get that
CP/M CD a while back.
If/when Caldera drives a stake through the heart of SCO Unix, it will bring an end to what was a very interesting journey for Unix in general. The trail of this version of Unix back to it's origin really strikes at the heart of where *ix is at this point in time. Going back to AT&T and Sun and the OSF (DEC/IBM/et al). Those of us who are old timers will silently mourn the day when it does pass, as it will represent a passing of a generation gone by.
sigh
Really? I've never had any trouble with wvdial on debian, or the kppp setup wizard on RedHat. That's what I've always admired about Linux: things Just Work. That hasn't been my experience with Windows, where it takes five minutes to whiz through the wizard, and then things almost work, and then you're screwed. Obviously our experiences have been very different.
Is there ANYONE on earth who thinks Linux is ready for the average person???
It takes 5 seconds to set this up under Windows.
Windows isn't ready for the average person. Neither is Linux (See what I said above). Some things work nicely under Windows, I'm sure, and I've found that most things work nicely under Linux, though obviously not for you. The fact is that the average person isn't ready to use complicated equipment like general purpose computers. Average people manage to kill themselves with toasters!
United Linux: If you aren't with us your with the Terrori-MS-sists.
It is either United Linux or those guys.
( Avoid those peace loving RedHatters... )
*wink*
Bitcoin pyramid: Join here: http://www.bitcoinpyramid.com/r/1427 it's FREE!
wE hAVe YoUR UniX. PlaCE tWEnty
THOusaNd DolLarS IN UnMArkeD
hUNdreD DollaR BiLLs in OuR
PaypAL AccouNT By JuNE 1St
or wE WiLL kiLL -9 IT.
~jeff
too bad you weren't logged in like the elite trolls
SCO UNIX did not suck and was an extremely stable UNIX(tm) for the Intel platform. It was an AT&T variant and was aien to a lot of folks who were BSDers. Suck it did not as long as a competent person admin'd it. It once had a emulation layer that allowed Win 3.x to run with all the apps. And STABLE. Xenix which was an M$ bastardized offshoot was a bit unstable, but worked just fine. I coded a lot of apps and admin'd on both SCO products. I saw my first Xenix running on an i286 with 3 meg of RAM and 10 meg of disk. It will be missed.
It's a little known fact that Sun Microsystems considered using SCO Xenix on their systems before deciding the write their own. The reason they wrote their own was that their main competitor, Apollo, had a fully System 7 compliant UNIX implementation, and DEC was rumored to be releasing that as well on their VAX hardware. Sun decided thta Xenix wasn't UNIX, so they wrote their own.
True story.
If tits were wings it'd be flying around.
Explain why the project I develop for has SCO Openserver running on $35,000 workstations then?
You'd be surprised who uses it and how much it is still prevalent...
The issue is not to compete with Red Hat but to look at how we can grow Linux on a worldwide basis.
Nice try to play up to the Linux community Mr. Love. Caldera buys SCO and whatever community spirit was with it went away, Here's what Love really should have said:
"Well, considering my big cakehole has pissed away any chance at the Linux community ever respecting me or my company, I have decided to gather the other distributions, in the spirit of 'unifying Linux for our customers' bring Linux into the next decade. Oh, and since I have no idea how OSS works (lost my copy of ESRs book), we'll make the distribution of the binaries illegal, because damnit, Red Hat keeps GPLing all their software, and we just can't have that."
Face it Love, Red Hat is successful because it caters to business needs, and CONTINUTES to GPL it's products. You're anti-OSS views are the reason no one wants to use Caldera. If you take from the community, you better give back.
Don't blame Redhat because you've made a poor investment in a proprietary Unix company. Sucks that SuSE is stuck with these guys.
Thank God!
Just my $0.02
OpenUNIX 8 is basically UnixWare with Linux binary support and some new driver stuff in it - SCO has been a supporter of Project UDI since the beginning, and this is there new kernel Device Driver Interface.
The old SCO 5, SVR3 based, file system symlinked to an ounce of it's life code base is called OpenServer. Still being sold, though I bet it's had a fork stuck in it for quite some time.
I agree. I would love to see something as complete as scoadmin on linux (redhat). You could configure just about everything from the command line, now all the RH utils are GUI based, requiring X11. It was nice to be able to ssh into a SCO box, and configure a printer. linuxconf had a text based interface, but it is no longer present in RH 7.3. What happened? What is a good text based config utility for RH (besides vi)?
When all else fails, the Standard Solution For MS-Windows Problems works for Linux as well.
Well, I did find:
/usr/sbin/setup
but that's still a far cry from scoadmin. Maybe I'll stick too vi, and editing files, and restarting services. At least with that method, if you break something, it's your fault, and not the admin tools fault (or bug, like a lot of the linuxconf modules)
United Linux == Limited Unix
--
If you moderate this, then your children will be next.
As much as I like SCO OperServer I knew it's days were numbered when SCO acquired and updated Unixware. But not porting OpenUnix (the successor to Unixware) to the IA-64 plaform is a big mistake. It will mean that the AT&T source will not be represented on Intel's new processor.
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.
Not quite. What became SCO developed Xenix along with Microsoft. Microsoft eventually lost interest (although into the early nineties there was a port of MS Word for SCO Unix) and the rights to the whole thing came to SCO, in exchange for some royalties of course. SCO Open Server (and Open Desktop, the deceased client version), the older and cruftier of SCO's Unices, is the direct descendant of Xenix. UnixWare (now Open Unix I guess) was originally developed by Novell, and is a more direct branch from the AT&T source.
"(Man) tries to live his own life as if he were telling a story. But you have to choose: live or tell." --Sartre
Of course you can do this. This is just a question of configuring your system properly. You need to edit your /etc/inittab and add apropriate -I parameters for your getty processes:
1:2345:respawn:/sbin/getty 38400 tty1 -I 'ESCcESC[?17;55;248cESC]RESC]P0681800'
2:23:respawn:/sbin/getty 38400 tty2 -I 'ESCcESC[?17;55;248cESC]RESC]P0686800'
3:23:respawn:/sbin/getty 38400 tty3 -I 'ESCcESC[?17;55;248cESC]RESC]P0005078'
4:23:respawn:/sbin/getty 38400 tty4 -I 'ESCcESC[?17;55;248cESC]RESC]P0681868'
5:23:respawn:/sbin/getty 38400 tty5 -I 'ESCcESC[?17;55;248cESC]RESC]P0006818'
6:23:respawn:/sbin/getty 38400 tty6 -I 'ESCcESC[?17;55;248cESC]RESC]P0006878'
Make sure that you enter a literal escape character for ESC (in vi you do this by preceding it with a CTRL-V, in emacs you must press CTRL-Q first).
After you have made these changes restart all your getty processes:
telinit q
killall -HUP getty
If you want to know what the escape sequences do, then here you go:
SCO sucks, end of story. Give me Solaris, Tru64 or even IRIX for that matter before you give me a crappy SCO box to admin. Of course Linux is a given, but even Windows would be better than SCO.
Now, the first Unix I ever knew is about to be no more.
Assuming it does actually go away at some point, so what? If you were to tell me that it was your favorite Unix I'd probably feel more sympathy (tempered by a lack of respect, of course ;-) ), but the fact that it was your first is no biggie. If it's any consolation, if it goes it will be in fine company. Version 6 Unix and SunOS were two that I'd liked that aren't being produced anymore. While I have very fond memories of playing with them, I would not trade what I've got now for either...
And, guess what? I'll happily kick what I've got now to the curb when a better *nix comes along... ;-)
>Indeed. There is no way a start-up could afford
>to buy an established competitor just to remove
>them from the market. That's what competition is
>for
you DO buy out your competitor when they start floundring - at the very least, you get a large portion of their customers at a fraction of the cost to you needed to acquire them through traditional channels (competition, sales force).
At best, you can absorb their "good" technologies, as well as take on some of their sharpest people in areas you need to strengthen.
Its a damn good way to grow a business.
... hi bingo
Timothy, did you actually READ the article?
"Open Unix could well keep going in parallel to OpenLinux. We are not moving Open Unix onto Intel's 64-bit platform, but IA32 will be around for a long time yet. "
-----
PGP Key ID 0xCB8FF658
I wonder if this is an anti-trust violation. Given that none of the 4 companies has a monopoly, I would guess not. They do say they are open to any company joining. So what if Microsoft joined?
now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
Well, what's to stop other party from creating a binary distribution? Called, say, "Untied Linux".
if they haven't already, why couldn't they open up something old, like SCO UNIX 3.2 v4.2 or something like that. Just a thought.
Read my sig if you like, but I'll never see yours, thanks to Discussions, Viewing, Disable sigs...
smash
I run: Windows, OS X, Linux, FreeBSD. Just because you have a hammer, doesn't mean everything is a nail.
I know that was a blatant troll, but it honestly made me laugh out loud. Very well done.
Dirty laundry list: /
Terminal settings
Two seperate, incompatible package systems
Crazy symlinks
Root's homedir is
Nazi license manager
For every problem, there is at least one solution that is simple, neat, and wrong.
After all, this was the only POSIX/UN*X/OS that could bear the name UNIX. Everything else is called something else: Solaris, AIX, Linux, BSD...
So its no big market loss.
What is it doing on these $35,000 workstations? Why does the application require SCO vs. Solaris, Irix, etc.?
Now, the first Unix I ever knew is about to be no more.
And I say good riddence! SCO was a miserable little Unix.
Derek
We've been running SCO for 6 years in over 700 locations and we've never had a problem with it. We use Virtual Disk Mirroring to do software disk mirroring, and AFPS/LMC which allows us to communicate to the Windows boxes in our environment. There still is an emulation layer (called Merge) which allows you to install and use Windows and Windows Apps on the SCO box. The bottom line is that for us, it's always been easy to use and administer.
Unfortunately, the writing is on the wall and it's only a matter of time before Caldera sucks the life out of SCO and gets rid of it. When they do, I too will mourn it's passing.
Open UNIX can join the ranks of FreeBSD and linux. I know I would develop for it. There would be nothing like a free OS that can officially and openly be called UNIX.
"Give orange me give eat orange me eat orange give me eat orange give me you." -Nim Chimpsky
Damn I couldn't stand... You seem not following slashdot lately.
Cray=Dead (replaced by beowulf)
SGI=Dead (DirectX and Nvidia rawks)
SCO= Yea, NASA and huge networks use it but I can't buy it for my home, so its dead.
and so on. Oh, Novell is dead too!
Who needs another x86-based Unix at this point?
Common Criteria environments x86 Unix options are fading fast.
~~ What's stopping you?
I have had bad luck with linuxconf messing up settings, and then having to go in with vi to fix the config files. It would be great if linuxconf was bug free, since I would prefer to use it.
Help me out here. Wasn't there some sci-fi book from a few years ago with a villan named Rasom Love. Somthing about finding life inside of black holes. There were people living in every corner of the solar-system where they had adapted to the habitat. Damn my memory is not helping me much.
I agree, SCO Unix was / is great. It was very stable so stable in fact that many voice systems ( PBX, Voice Mail, etc ) use it as the base OS.
Too bad it is going away.
And I've spent 8 hours trying to resolve a soundcard/video card conflict on a friend's Windows computer, so what's the point of all this crying? If you find Linux to be so hard for you, then don't use Linux. Trust me, attitudes like yours won't be missed.
-------
"Every artist is a cannibal, every poet is a thief."
Perhaps you'd simply have better luck with different hardware.
Anybody have a spare toaster???
Its really not their fault. Its users like you who insist on backwards compatibility. They originally put the words at the end (where normal stuff wouldn't interfere) but when they extended the word, the bits wound up in the middle. If you think that's bad, try programming an IDE controller directly. The sector address is broken into three or four parts scattered across 64 bits. Same thing for the GDT entries.
A deep unwavering belief is a sure sign you're missing something...
This means I can concentrate on writing new software or other activities instead of babysitting an unstable operating system.
I'd like to say the same about Linux, but Linux is changing too much. For example, my SCO Openserver systems were last reinstalled with a major hardware upgrade 2 years ago. I've gone through 2-3 versions of Redhat in that time, from 6.2 to 7.0, and then to 7.1, 7.2 and now 7.3.
I _love_ my Redhat systems, but the constant changes in the Linux community on the kernel level, the application level, and the distribution level make it very tough for anyone to pick a version, stick with it and gain confidence. This means as my Openserver systems go on for longer without problems, they gain my confidence and raise the bar as to OS quality. And each time I try a new Linux kernel, a new distribution level, I'm starting over and wondering what surprises I might have in store for me.
I'm hoping that, for me, Redhat 7.3 will be a strong, solid release and that combined with the 2.4.x series kernels slow and cautious development cycles, those of us that need to demonstrate long term stability will be able to deploy, test and enjoy.
$ HEAD http://ir.caldera.com/stock.cfm
200 OK
Date: Fri, 31 May 2002 23:53:38 GMT
Server: Microsoft-IIS/5.0
...
Wrong!!!
Solaris was originally derived from BSD.
I guess, I should have pointed out the distribution that I tested this on. This is for Debian Linux. The current release of util-linux is 2.11n, but as far as I remember the -I option has been there for ever. I did check, and it seems that Debian's getty program is based on agetty; so there is a chance that there are other versions of getty that have different command line parameters.
Since you said that you have access to mgetty I can make a suggestion that might work for you (I haven't tested this myself). It seems that mgetty can take a -i option to override the /etc/issue file that is displayed before prompting for the user's id and password. If you create seperate issue files for each virtual terminal, you should be able to stick the different escape sequences into these files. This is admittedly not as elegant as the original solution, but it should achieve the same effect.
In the future, it might help if you didn't complain, but rather replied with a question asking why you had problems replicating the configuration on your system (and please tell us, which distribution you are using). Before your next post, you might want to consult the Smart Questions FAQ. Oh, and please do let us know if my suggestion for mgetty worked, or if you need additional assistance.
Wait wait wait... Microsoft made a flavor of unix
and it sucked? But, they are infallable!
Just look at Windows ME; they are just one
quality product after another.
But, seriously, no one is buying or supporting the IA-64
from what I've seen; why would Caldera waste their
time with it?