Slashdot Mirror


An Objective Review of UnixWare 7.1.4

Roblimo writes "Yes, SCO is evil and all that, but in between lawsuits it still puts out a product called UnixWare. NewsForge decided to review the latest version -- 7.1.4 -- just like we would any other Unix-based operating system. To ensure impartiality, we hired respected freelancer Logan G. Harbaugh, who wrote: 'On the server side, UnixWare Enterprise edition is more expensive for 150 users than either Windows 2003 Server Datacenter Edition, any of the Enterprise Linux distributions, or Solaris, with fewer available applications, fewer drivers for recent HBAs and other new hardware, and no currently available 64-bit version for either Opteron or Itanium processors.'"

29 of 224 comments (clear)

  1. Re:objective? by jerw134 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Why? Just because someone casts Windows in a favorable light, they automatically lose their objectivity?

  2. ...Which may explain their new business model by ralphart · · Score: 1, Insightful

    ...as the neighborhood patent bully.

    1. Re:...Which may explain their new business model by RPoet · · Score: 2, Insightful

      SCO has no patents to bully around with, and hasn't done so either.

      --
      "Oppression and harassment is a small price to pay to live in the land of the free." -- Montgomery Burns.
  3. Of course your product is going to be inferior by guitaristx · · Score: 4, Insightful

    ...when you replace developers with lawyers.

    --
    I pity the foo that isn't metasyntactic
  4. Where would UnixWare be without OpenSource? by GGardner · · Score: 5, Insightful
    The new 7.1.4 version adds a number of new capabilities to UnixWare, including the common Unix printing system (CUPS), GIMP-print printer drivers, ESP Ghostscript PostScript and PDF interpreter and renderer, URW++ fonts, Java 2 Standard Edition (J2SE) 1.4.2, J2SE runtime environment, the Java Communications API 2.0, PostgreSQL 7.4.2, MySQL 3, Samba 3.0, Cdrtools, OpenLDAP (Lightweight Directory Access Protocol), and Compaq and Intel PCI hot-plug drivers.

    The funny thing is, for as much as our friends at SCO are threatened by OpenSource, OS is the only way that they can compete with larger entities like Sun and HP. Look at how many of the above list of new "features" are simply OSS ports. Think of how much work it would have been for SCO, and their handful of engineers to recreate these ports from scratch.

    1. Re:Where would UnixWare be without OpenSource? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The gentoo community does not do this by hand.

    2. Re:Where would UnixWare be without OpenSource? by aardvarkjoe · · Score: 4, Insightful
      I know this would be a slippery slope and not in the true spirit of the GPL, but it really pisses me off to see SCO doing what they're doing to Linux and then tout there new OS which includes a whole bunch of Open Source software!!
      Making decisions based solely on the fact that you're pissed off is a bad idea. This sort of restriction would only hurt open source; it wouldn't help anyone.
      --

      How can we continue to believe in a just universe and freedom to eat crackers if we have no ale?
    3. Re:Where would UnixWare be without OpenSource? by iamdrscience · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I know how you feel, but I still think it's a bad idea to do that. I mean, ignore this SCO situation and the other ridiculous lawsuits, and it's easy to imagine a company that uses GPL products having a legitimate legal complaint against an open source software author (i.e. the author really did outright steal from them).

      A clause like that just wouldn't work. I mean, really, it's not even worth discussing further once you think about it for a bit.

    4. Re:Where would UnixWare be without OpenSource? by neurojab · · Score: 2, Insightful

      >That said, something phrased like "Anyone that sues us has their license immediately revoked" would certaintly be interesting.

      Yeah, but I'm not sure it would be helpful. To succeed in court, you want the GPL to protect you, because it contains disclaimers about "fitness for a particular purpose" and such. If you revoke the license, those disclaimers would no longer apply either. It would have to be worded in such a way that only your priveledge to copy the software would be revoked, but the rest of the license would stand.

    5. Re:Where would UnixWare be without OpenSource? by alienw · · Score: 2, Insightful

      First, this would likely be legally unenforceble, which is why it is not possible to add it to the license. I am pretty sure that you cannot make someone agree to not sue you, which is what this would amount to. Besides, how do you even put something like that into precise terms?

      Also, free software is just that, and discriminating against users will simply make it non-free. What if I decide to refuse to license my software to people who buy Microsoft products? Or to people who openly support Bush? The point is, politics and discrimination don't belong in free software licensing.

  5. So, in other words by mhesseltine · · Score: 3, Insightful
    1. It costs more than competitive offerings.
    2. It runs fewer applications
    3. It doesn't support newer hardware
    4. It has a convoluted pricing structure

    After looking at these points, why are we to assume that SCO is losing money because of Linux infringing on their IP? Isn't it more likely that SCO has just lost touch with the market, and has been passed up by better competitors?

    --
    Overrated / Underrated : Moderation :: Anonymous Coward : Posting
    1. Re:So, in other words by Saeed+al-Sahaf · · Score: 4, Insightful

      We can assume exactly that. And, we can also assume that they have no interest in upgrading the quality and functionality of their offerings, because they are not in the business of selling software.

      --
      "Who are in control, they are not in control of anything - they don't even control themselves!" - Glen Beck
  6. I find it amusing by Talez · · Score: 4, Insightful

    That SCO is proclaiming the GPL to be the world's greatest evil while still shipping a billion GPL applications in the box.

    Or maybe it just thinks it "owns" the applications as well?

  7. SCO and the times by Billobob · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Looking at those pricing numbers, and the [lack of significant] advantage UnixWare has over, say, everything else, it seems that SCO is still stuck back in the glory days of Unix, when it was the only choice to run web servers and such on. Considering SCO is a company on the edge, you think they could at least slash the prices.

    --
    If you have to ask, you'll never know.
  8. Re:objective? by GeorgeMcBay · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Sounds pretty objective to me. The author's point is simply that the price seems out of whack with reality, and objectively that is absolutely correct. SCO needs to make a strong case as to what you're getting for the extra money when compared to Windows, Solaris, Linux (Enterprise Linux, with paid support), or any other OS you might choose. Nothing I've heard from SCO or seen for myself leads me to believe the price is justified compared to the competition. The support isn't significantly better. The reliability isn't significantly better. The number of available applications is much worse. Etc. And then you have the whole "will this company be around in a couple years" problem with SCO. Even ignoring the lawsuit fiascos, they've had a number of other business-related problems as of late (with Baystar, etc) that would pretty much ensure I'd never choose an SCO solution for a new project, even if it were cheaper instead of more

  9. Re:objective? by kfg · · Score: 2, Insightful

    That kinda depends on the audiance one is presenting too, since they're the ones that form a consensus on such things.

    Exactly the reason for an independant review.

    KFG

  10. Re:objective? by magarity · · Score: 4, Insightful

    From reading the comment, I'm not so sure

    So, exactly which part of "more expensive" and "fewer drivers" are not 100% quantifiable and objectively measured criteria? This is the measure of an objective interviewer, rather than comments like "The install process was confusing" and "The GUI sucked!"

  11. So who's going to buy it? by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Given SCO's behavior, really, I've got to wonder who'd purchase this. I'd think pretty much any Unix-leaning admin or CIO knows what SCO's been up to this past couple years, and will summarilly dismiss it whether it's good or not. Plus no Windows-leaning admin or CIO would buy it in the first place.

    So who is the target market?

    --
    #DeleteChrome
    1. Re:So who's going to buy it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      No one.

      SCO has only sued people it has done business with in the past. The logical conclusion of this is that SCO hits up ex-customers whenever they're hard-up for cash, and thus you experience the minimum liability from them if you never have any business dealings with SCO to begin with.

      At least, that's the message I personally am getting from them--I really can't speak for anyone else, anyhow.

  12. Re:objective? by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 3, Insightful

    You're watching too much FoxNews. "Objective" doesn't mean "slavish devotion to the subject". It means "without self-selecting bias regarding the subject". The human capacity for the true "objectivity" usually attributed to journalists and scientists is possible only perhaps in machines, or more likely in objects untouched by humans. But who wants to hear what they think?

    --

    --
    make install -not war

  13. Bastards killed Unix by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Unix, one of the peaks of engineering history, has fallen into the grubby paws of this band of hapless Utah lawyers. Of course coding is deprioritized - that only costs money, and is extraneous to the SCO business model. Help us, Obi-Wan, you're our only hope!

    --

    --
    make install -not war

  14. Seemed to be a "fair and balanced" review by Secrity · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The review seemed to be pretty vanilla, clued, thorough software review. The writer only looked only at the software that he was asked to review. Yeah, the review looked favorable -- as almost all software reviews do unless the software is total crap; reviewers tend to write about the good things. The part that I found really interesting was the level of detail (and the big numbers) included in the pricing information, most reviews show rather sketchy and incomplete pricing details. SCO prices everything ala-carte and seems to be going for the "we already got you by the balls" customers. What I took from the review was that the software is not necessarily crap but that you are going to pay for the privelege of using it.

  15. Re:The ACTUAL summary... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful


    It would make a good Web server or application server.


    I don't get it. For THESE exact applications what is the advantage over Linux or FreeBSD?

  16. Re:Infringes on Linux IP! by zod1025 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Seems to me that they would be liable for any sales incurred under a period of time in which they were non-compliant with the GPL. Such a scenario screams for a fat settlement check.

    --

    -ZOD-
  17. Re:SCO HR by superpulpsicle · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The thing that crossed my mind immediately.. if they can't engineer anything right. Why did people steal their sourcecode to begin with? That's where I am really scratching my head.

    So the money goes to the lawyers. The engineer puts out bad product with bad code. The lawyers sue others for stolen code. Isn't there something royally wrong with this picture.

  18. Re:Other than Evil and Badly Written, why? by MrChuck · · Score: 3, Insightful
    Mediocre to bad software backed by really poor customer support.

    What made strong impressions on me was events line:
    client has 10 xenix boxes. Client gets some network cards because they FINALLY want them to talk to each other. So they spent several hundred $$$/machine for cards, a bunch of Coax and 10 copies of Xenix TCP/IP software. I got to install.

    I spend the day working on the boxes, I'd pull the software, install, do the licensing, leave the license card. A little waiting for machines, so I run wires, and it's getting done.

    Oh, but the machines (all?) spew an "alert" that there is a duplicate key in use.

    Somewhere, I put the same key in twice.
    We call SCO. We get told (on Mon) that someone will "call you back before Thursday."

    Uh... no. surrounded by shrink wrap and a someone upset client...

    No love. I have to uninstall everything, reinstall. Another several hours.

    Next day, things network! Woo hoo! but...

    They login by project name. But they can't RCP. or rlogin. We put on passwords (isolated network in a secure room, no passwords). Kinda a PITA.
    Oh, project "pacific1" won't rsh/rlogin still. Nor a couple others. Still waiting for the "brand new customer" + VAR support call back.

    The CAD support people come through (ArrisCAD rules!). Seems "8 letter login names won't work. We know, it's stupid; we agree. Oh, and you can't extract the TCP software license key," so if I keep waiting for support, they'll tell me to do what I did.

    -----

    This sort of action was repeated over and over. When, later, UnixWare (1992ish) was foisten on me, the hole bad hack of YP and mounting NFS and every painful step just burned into my brain more and more that this was a Unix half owned by Microsoft and its sole purpose was to make people like DOS and Windows 3.0

    As soon as BSDI could run SCO binaries, I called the remaining (former clients) who still were stuck with SCO for some software lockin.

    I will maintain that the ONLY reason SCO classic sold stuff through the late 80s was because of software that only ran on it. And those people got locked in because it was the only unix that could run on a 286 back in the day.

    Move forward and the way to make money from SCO is to "pump and dump" - lawsuits about non-existent intellectual IP and the price goes up enough to sell a bunch of stock and pocket some cabbage.

    Sure, the JFS that IBM brought from OS/2 came from SCO. Right, I'll get on that. And the rest of the rot.

    Bad company that became obsolete (not EVERYBODY stopped innovating, mr sco) and got bought by a genius from Novell (remember when Novell I ruled the world doing the equiv of a stateful NFS and lpr for $10,000).

    Evil company; costly yet mediocre software.

  19. Re:Has anyone tried buying a SCO product lately? by pjrc · · Score: 2, Insightful
    If someone in the open source / free software community really wanted to put the hurt on SCO, one idea would be to set up a website where current SCO customers desiring low-cost assistance to migrate away from SCO can anonymously post about the scope of the project needed to port their code or adapt their systems.

    Advocates wishing to help a SCO customer migrate away could search for projects in their local area, where the work is within their expertise. In the last week or so, at least a few articles have quoted current SCO customers as saying that the cost to port their custom applications is something they haven't budgeted and it will take years to do... only because they need to spread the cost out.

    The idea would be to get these smaller and medium size businesses who have old system depending on SCO openserver and unixware in touch with advocates willing to assist at a low cost, for the good cause of helping to put SCO out of its misery.

    It's well known that SCO has lost 50% of its sales... and lots of SCO's remaining customers want to migrate away but can't afford it. SCO will gradually lose many of the remaining 50%, but their current plan to raise some cash by selling new versions with new hardware support and open source apps bundled is certain to bring in some money from all these poor folks who are running apps coded for SCO's systems and have likely been stuck with old hardware.

    Well, just a pipe dream as far as I'm concerned.... but maybe someone is working on such a thing already, or someone might do such a thing.

  20. Re:For what it's worth... by pjrc · · Score: 2, Insightful
    Actually, in the mid 90's, most unix systems did NOT ship a C compiler. Solaris and HP/UX definately did not. Others shipped a crippled non-ANSI compiler by default. Adding their good ANSI compiler was usually an option for about $2000.

    Of course, many people installed gcc rather than paying, and eventually gcc became very widespread.

    In any case, if you RTFA, it clearly says that UnixWare comes with a C compiler. Saddly, it isn't mentioned whether it's gcc or which proprietary one it might be.

  21. on the standard of discussion by chegosaurus · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The clueless, pointless SCO baiting in this thread is depressing. You all hate them, but I don't think many of you know why. You gobble up propaganda and follow the flock like children. I'm so sick of uninformed narrow mindedness and sad fanboys that I rarely look at the discussions following Linux stories any more. How many ways are there to say "linux r0x0rs SCO is teh SUX!!!!". Don't you think we've got the message by now?

    Yes, this is flamebait, but there are plenty of people round here who deserve flaming. Say something interesting or say nothing at all. We know the party line. We don't need you to trot it out again and underline it with a Monty Python quote.