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. "

25 of 246 comments (clear)

  1. SCO is gone by codeguy007 · · Score: 4, Informative

    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.

  2. title by Dionysus · · Score: 5, Funny

    For some reason I read it as Random Love Unites Linux...

    --
    Je ne parle pas francais.
  3. good riddance by Roadmaster · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

    1. 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.

  4. Caldera's Not Killing Off SCO! by BlueLines · · Score: 5, Informative

    *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
  5. SCO should die by juan2074 · · Score: 5, Funny

    the first Unix I ever knew
    more like, the worst Unix I ever knew

  6. 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!!

  7. 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.

  8. Why I will never use United Linux... by bogie · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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
    1. Re:Why I will never use United Linux... by Phexro · · Score: 3, Informative

      Uh, this is pretty common practice. For example, you can compile all the source that makes up Red Hat and distribute binaries of it, you just can't call it "Red Hat".

      I assume that they made this decision to try and increase their sales of official boxed products, versus having everyone download a free ISO. There's nothing to stop you from compiling the whole system, building an ISO, and distributing it under the name "Divided Linux".

    2. Re:Why I will never use United Linux... by erat · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Excuse me, but what exactly is your beef?

      All you're restricted from using is the brand. This is a problem? I guess you also can't sleep at night because Linux can't use the UNIX trademark?

      Who cares?? Compile the sources and say they're "UnitedLinux compatible". As long as you don't say "compliant" (which implies passing the certification tests) everything should be peachy.

      You're reading drama into a situation that has none. Promote your favorite distros as much as you want, but don't do so at the unnecessary expense of others, especially when those others are putting forth an honest effort to help Linux.

    3. Re:Why I will never use United Linux... by Jason+Earl · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Exactly right. This is nothing more than yet another wacky hare-brained Caldera scheme to get people to pay more for Free Software without having to actually do more. United Linux is nothing more than a binary version of the LSB plus some additional, fairly basic, packages. Each of the distributions that is participating will have these packages installed and available. Clearly this is not a revolutionary idea. Caldera, and their new compadres are trying to set this package up to be the "new standard" because they know that otherwise folks will continue to use RedHat as the de-facto standard.

      However, Caldera continues to overlook the reason that RedHat became the de-facto standard. That reason is simple. They wrote cool software and gave it away. Because of RedHat's policy of writing GPLed software, their software became the standard and their technology has been adopted by pretty much every other distribution (in one form or another). By and large Linux users, and Linux customers in general, aren't interested in being locked into a single distribution. Nor are they interested in paying per seat licensing fees. Apparently they also aren't interested in purchasing support from companies that sell distributions that rely on such tactics.

      You would think that years of being beaten over the head with a clue stick by the folks at RedHat would have knocked some sense into Mr. Love, but apparently some folks are just amazingly slow learners.

    4. Re:Why I will never use United Linux... by Znork · · Score: 3, Insightful

      My guess: because there are dozens of other distributions that do distribute ISO images for free.

      I wont be using (or even trying) united linux either. I'll stick with Redhat and Debian for home use and Redhat for corporate use. The price of buing another Linux distribution is small, but with corporate purchasing involved, the difference between Redhat and, for example, SuSE isnt a few bucks, it's several hundred dollars worth of paperwork time and several weeks to go through processing. Unless I pay for it myself.

      So, give me a complete ISO download to speed up implementation projects and I can dump the support contract through purchasing, without the red tape that comes automatically with an incoming pricetag to a large corporation.

      It's not a question of price. It's completely a question of convenience, and if it isnt convenient it's not what's going to get installed.

  9. Is it worth mentioning that by Scareduck · · Score: 3, Informative

    ... 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.

  10. 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."
  11. 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).

  12. 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?

  13. No Weeping here. by LowellPorter · · Score: 4, Informative

    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.

  14. Re:LINUX FUCKING SUCKS by brsmith4 · · Score: 3, Informative

    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*

  15. ransom note by jeffehobbs · · Score: 5, Funny


    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

  16. Re:Most people will miss this interesting footnote by buckeyeguy · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Yeah, but having done the SVR3 generation of Unix (incl. older Dynix/PTX for Unisys platforms, egaaaaddds), it's better to look back and say "wow, I'm glad I don't have to deal with the quirks anymore". Or the days where making it Internet ready meant you had to hack somebody's BSD sockets package to get things connected... hehe, when 'networking' meant UUCP. Those are good old days I can do without.

    --
    I'd have a personalized plate on my car, but "toxic bachelor" won't fit into 7 letters.
  17. 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.

  18. Differently Colored Virt. Terminal (Was: ScoAdmin) by markus · · Score: 4, Informative
    Another cool thing about SCO (out of the 3 good things I can say about it) was that the colors of vitual terminals changed. When we migrated to Linux my boss hits ctrl+alt+F2 and says "Hey, they're all the same color!". Is there a way to do this in Linux? it's actually sort of usefull...

    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:

    • ESCc clears the screen.
    • ESC[?17;55;248c gives you a non-blinking red block cursor.
    • ESC]R resets the current palette to its default values.
    • ESC]P0RRGGBB changes the color for the first entry in the palette (i.e. for the background color).
  19. Re:Not well known by edhall · · Score: 5, Informative

    It's not well known, because it isn't true.

    Sun's OS derived directly from BSD. One of Sun's founders, Bill Joy (now their Chief Scientist), was one of the primary developers of BSD and one of the people responsible for getting BSD to run on the 68000 (which was the processor used in the first Suns).

    At the time, Apollo didn't even run Unix, but rather their own OS named "Domain." To compete, Apollo modified Domain to support a Unix emulation (including a switching mechanism based on conditional symlinks). Domain didn't die until HP bought Apollo, though I believe they did ultimately port native Unix to Apollos just before then.

    -Ed