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.
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
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."
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.
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).
Maybe it was your poor grammar and inability to spell that caused your navigational woes.
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.
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.
Why on earth would a small player buy another small player just to get rid of a little competition? It's like a small hardware store buying another small hardware store to put them out of business, even though both stores are next to Home Depot and business already sucks.
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
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*
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
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
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.
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.
Interesting idea... don't think you'll ever find a CP/M or Xenix CD, but I could be wrong. Back then, all they put on CD was large shareware collections (PC-SIG, etc.) Wasn't much need when the OS of the day could fit on a 360K floppy. So unless you stretch your scope to early Windows and NetWare versions, not sure what more you would find out there on CD. Old Slackware, maybe? ;)
I'd have a personalized plate on my car, but "toxic bachelor" won't fit into 7 letters.
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
Doesn't HP-UX borrow from the AT&T source? That will still make it to IA-64 eventually, since HP is abandoning every other processor architecture (well, except for IA-32). Irix is still being ported too, but AIUI it was mostly written from the ground up by SGI (even if they might be paying royalties to call it "Unix" anyway).
"(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:
>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
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
So its no big market loss.
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
Welcome to the real Unix world. This was SOP for Unix systems - loadable modules are a recent development on the Unix timeline.
McDonalds was using Xenix 286 (on AT&T 386 WGS boxes) because of a bug in the original 386 math co-processor (remember those things?). Xenix 386 would crash with the faulty co-processor installed. Rather then try to remove ~1200 co-processors (already in stores) it was decided that it was cheaper/easier to just use the 286 version (SCO came out with a fix/workaround after the 286 version was already distributed)...
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...