Slashdot Mirror
Big Guns Unite To Unify Unix
MikeDartt writes "Wired reports that Compaq has just joined IBM and SCO in Project Monterey, which is an attempt to get a single UNIX distro that will run on Merced. Perhaps I'm naive, but why get behind a new *NIX as well as Linux, esp. when the latter is both more open and more fashionable? "
Why should anyone consider paying for
unixware licenses so they can run
products written for a free operating system?
Unixware is a dead end.
You continually contrast Unix with Linux. Please stopping spreading these self-serving marketing lies. Linux is merely another flavor of Unix.
Afraid of a little competition?.
OK, the reason is plain and simple. Linux doesn't
safeguard Intellectual Property issues. Anything
you tweak to get extra oomph out of Merced is for
everybody to see including our dear friends MS.
Any compiler tweaks are for everybody to see. You
think that SCO/IBM/Compaq/Sequent want to do the
work so that VA Research can benefit?. Big Blue
isn't stupid. They are making money hand over fist
selling AIX to Large Enterprise customers.
The bottom line is that they don't want to have
a commodity OS for their high end customers.
Why are you imploring IBM/SCO/Compaq to do the
work for VA?. Seems like you guys don't have
enough PhDs working for you!.
Sorry but DG/UX is Data General's Unix. DU or Digital Unix (once OSF/1 and now Tru64 ((aint that lame)) is what Compaq now fouls up.
More likely a repackaged System V with SCO's involvment.
>happy? - no - because the AIX kernel is an >archaic piece of crap that is heavily tied to a >proprietary system.
>However IBM have got the marketing muscle to make it suceed.
I'm a big Linux fan, but when Monterey comes along, Linux has to go from my machine(s).
AIX/Monterey would offer me :
- A very good logical Volume manager
- A very modern OS (your comments are correct for AIX V3.2., not for V4.3.)
- System management via commandline, GUI AND Web
- Linux binary compatible
HP was the one to pull away form this deal, not SCO. Maybe they know something these other vendors will just have to figure out.
a) Unless your company generates millions of dollars of profit for one of the big commercial companies they can pretty much ignore you. Chances are high you're already too built in into their systems to switch to another supplier, in form of investment, knowledge and software.
b) In my experience, average roundtrip times from bug discovery to bugfixing is in the region of 2-6 months for commercial suppliers. And that is with support contracts.
c) If you have an important problem with Linux, go hire a consultant to fiz it. After all, you have the source. Try doing that with AIX or Solaris.
The needs of the buisness may not be the same as some of us, but a large percentage of the free software crowd are employed in big corporations. Some of us have realized that the commercial vendors suck. And sometimes they suck so bad that even a loosely coupled volunteer project can do better in their spare time.
The big corporations are constantly taking chances. Anyone involved in computers is. And using commercial vendors doesnt help that. With Linux, you at least have the last recourse of fixing things yourself or hiring someone to do it.
No it doesn't. What it does is *HEALS* the Unix
market.
The "Unified Unix" for Heavy-Duty UNIX use...
Linux/BSD for Medium/Light and Home Unix use...
NT and HURD will be pretty much out of the picture....
Coincidentally, DG previously had a pact with Compaq to drop DG/UX in favour of Digital Unix (it wasn't called Tru64 Unix then; but it was no longer called OSF/1 nor Ultrix). I wonder what becomes of that...
the Unix called OSF was a single unix from a combination of Digital, IBM and HP
It was created as a standard when Sun/Solaris looked to become stronger than any one of these heavyweights. wrangles ensued, and digitl renamed it digital-UNix as the others fell back on their own proprietry. The only 'standard' which survives is CDE and motif
long term agreement where the companies involved have a culture invested in proprietry notions seems to be doubtful.
Pay attention to SGI. Do you really think they are going to be supporting IRIX much longer? They are looking into dropping MIPS, so what's that leave? According to SGI it leaves Xeon's running NT.
SCO's actually had a remarkable turnaround. They've lifted Compaq's (formerly Digital's OpenVMS) awesome clustering technology, they've introduced Data Center versions of their software that scales to 32 nodes (optimized for 16!), they have the deal with IBM, and they continue to be the leading Intel-based Unix. Not bad for a patched-up version of the crustiest Unix around!
I'd buy stock in them anyday.
If it has binary compatibility why would anybody pay for something they can get for free, or a least a nominal cost? I wouldn't. Companies might.
Let's copy all the good features we have! Let's make lots of emulators to run their binaries! AND LET'S AVOID THEM PUTTING THE IA-64 SPECS IN THE APPENDIX H!!!
(note: see x86.org if you didn't get the appendix H reference).
Resistence is futile! LINUX WILL WIN IN THE LONG RUN!!! Hahahahahahaha...
Really? DG/UX seems to be doing fine. I believe there is even an intel version. OSF/1 and Ultrix were two seperate products. Ultrix was a vanilla 4.3BSD (well later versions included SYSVism). Anyone want to pester Compaq to release older Ultrix code (hell remove lmf and why not dump 4.5 codebase)? I mean they don't even make money off of support for the product.
.. ok actually it is not but it will in future.
The envisaged project may be somewhat a mix of a
real SVR4 (Unixware) system and a BSD'ed (AIX)
self made development. It's like mixing two
absolutly different kind of systems together. Not
only the API is different, the commands are also
not compatible and you will find there different file formats and linkers (ELF vs. XCOFF)
I am not sure how they will manage the re-
unification or whatever they intent to do.
Let's say good bye to this project, it is DEAD !!
Anybody is remebering the project of HP and SCO,
to bring their UNIX'es together. The project
was cancelled, even this aim was not so
ambitions like the current of SCO and IBM.
Last not least, does anybody know a project, initiated and led together by IBM, DEC/Compaq,
HP and SUN) that succeeded ???? (CDE or Motif).
I think IBM is trying hard to compete the success
of LINUX. It is just propaganda of those, who do
not see the complexity of this job. Maybe they
want to show their customers, that they intent to
get back the inititiave for the development of
professional operating systems.
So be realistic:
Big projects of big partners produce small
solutions and end up in big quarrel.
Monterey is a stillbirth !!!!
It's about blaming the IT guy/gal who chose the software vendor. The lawsuit argument has been refuted countless times. But if something goes horribly wrong, there has to be a fall guy. In the corporate world, there has to be someone to blame. A corporation can't blame a whole internet community, but they can blame (but not sue) a vendor with a name and headquarters, and they can blame (and fire) their IT person who recommended the faulty software.
Some definitions (for the record):
Responsibility: It's your fault, but you keep your job.
Blame: It's your fault and you're fired.
PHBs are responsible. IT people are blamed.
a) You should see some of the hoops our head Solaris admin has to go through. Commercial Unix doesn't do squat for softening the learning curve of unix.
b) When's the last time you heard of ANYONE successfully suing an OS vendor? This FUDsome remark gets bandied about all the time. However, noone has ever substantiated the remark.
Alternately, one could use SDL if one wants the whole shebang for low level game coding.
SDL is what Hopkins FBI and CivCTP (linux) are built on.
There are many more Unixes around that the ones you mention.
Can you say "Hedging your bets?"
As part of Project Monterey, UnixWare 7 was recently updated to include Linux binary application compatibility. This allows our UNIX customers to benefit from the application innovations coming out of the Linux community. And, Linux applications are easily ported to the complete Monterey product line. The result is an increased availability of solutions for our customers, and a larger customer base for Linux applications.
Furthermore, the increasing popularity of Linux in the education and research community, coupled with the resulting increase in new applications and skills, will benefit both the Linux and UNIX communities at large.
Nice argumentation but the reality bites.
.. other nonsense that will not help you at all
Iff any commercial vendor would be in the same
situation you suggested, nothing else will
happen. If the bug can not be fixed (due to
a lack of human ressources or a bad design) then
you can put pressure on that supplier, but you
will receive
* dummy solutions
* nice t-shirts
* a visit of the marketing chief telling you that
he is soo sorry
*
I got the impression, that you never went into
such situations, or you never tasted Microsoft or
IBM.
Wake up from you marketing dreams, reality looks
different !!! The question is, to increase
quality of the product/system and to decrease the
duration of finding and killing a bug. You never
find a better solution to Open Source, because
the stuff at commercial vendors are also human
beeings
HURD is a *JOKE* Who's going to fuck with it
outside the rabid FSF members? Certainly not the
Linux/BSD users because HURD will always lag
behind both Linux and the BSD's, and quite
frankly a lot of people who run Linux and the
BSD's don't particlarly care for the people who run the FSF (but really like the ideas behind it)
and want as little to do with these guys as possible.
The whole stupid GNU/Linux issue is an example of this.
Did Compaq ever attempt to explain their reasoning behing using that name? Obviously the "64" refers to its 64...uh...bit-ness, but what's "Tru"? Is it a reference to something else, a clever second meaning that's gone right over my head?
Or is it just a not-so-clever misspelling of "true"? The "true-ly 64 bit" UNIX? What's that supposed to mean? What is their target market here, six year olds?
I will never understand marketing.
Why not simply use the FFS filesystem from Berkeley? It's faster than JFS, and just as stable. Not to mention that when used with the softupdates technology, it blows anything that's out there.
Or, if you feel that you really need journalling, use the LFS filesystem from Berkeley.
Or, just use the existing JFS.
Please, don't add yet another fs to the fray when perfectly good alternatives exist already.
Fine.
It just won't be too long before it becomes obvious that they should have spent the money and time enhancing Linux instead.
> It's based on System V, that SCO got from Novell
No it isn't, IBM would not sign the deal unless Monterey was based on AIX. Does this make SCO engineers happy? - no - because the AIX kernel is an archaic piece of crap that is heavily tied to a proprietary system. However IBM have got the marketing muscle to make it suceed.
yes, this is going to be a linux killer in the corporate world unless
1) linux adds those features
2) monteray is too expensive
I don't see the point either really. But, I know many of us would not like big companies coming and and trying to standardize Linux (even a lot of people didn't want the free software community itself to standardize Linux with LSB, etc.).
Standards are good as long as they allow you to do what you wish with software/hardware. I really believe Linux needs a standard API for sound and other things.
Not quite done that.
Novell bought Wordperfect for sums similar to what you mention, not UnixWare.
Novell bought Unix (note, I *mean* Unix, not Un*x) from AT&T for a couple hundred million, and sold it to SCO for half its purchase price. A much better investment than Wordperfect!!
Also, IMHO, even though I'm a Java fan, I don't think Java will ever replace any operating system entirely.
It should also be noted that Data General's Unix offering, DG/UX is probably going to die as part of this plan, as DG has, at least potentially, signed onto the SCO bandwagon as well. The reason I mention it is because DG/UX is probably best multi-processor Unix around, designed with SMP and NUMA in mind, and more scalable than just about anything out there. It will be nice if it the death of DG/UX leaves a void for Linux...but of course, Linux needs to be good enough to fill that void.
Lets see looks like it a chance for IBM Global to make more money off consultanting and I am sure these other companies have the same idea.
Get someone else to spend the money to develop it. Probally SCO. And we the other companies will announce we officially support it, so we (other companies) can make lots of money off setups, etc.
And let use not forget the price of SCO. I to have had to manage SCO boxes. Talk about getting the most for your money I have seen some SCO boxes that are 386 based with around 16 Megs of memory.
Most companies want to spend as little as possible on a computer and then keep it forever. No matter how slow or comberousome it is. This explains why alot of those SCO boxes are out there.
Yup, I agree that this is NOT new.
It's the next step in the beFUDdlement
process. OSF was one example. Designed
to serve as a short-term "monkeywrench"
to slow down whoever has the initiative.
[Last time Sun & AT&T, this time Linux.]
IT bores me to F**KING TEARS ! The only
saving grace is thet Linus will NOT
attempt to insist that the world pay him
royalties. AT&T did, and the answer (OSF)
worked JUST ENOUGH to stop AT&T SVR4
(and Solaris) from domination.
This time there is no single entity that will
benefit from Linux. This time, methinks,
the be-FUDdlement will NOT work. The
"ultimate" UNIX that these folks are planning
will fall FLAT ON IT'S FACE.
These BIG GUNS will wind up shooting themselves.
JB
--
Because Linux will never be widely accepted or used in major corporations or businesses as it currently is. It boils down to the argument of OSS vs CSS: no legitimate, accountable support for the product and the absense of a profit motive.
Linux isnt going to be maligned by this new flavor, in fact, its going to be enhanced by it. In addition, current Linux users are the most fertile ground to hoe when the beta testing begins. And if they can get people to suggest fixes to bugs as well as identifying them, so much the better.
It looks like the positioning for Monterey is to take the FUD-driven "high road". Their ideal customer is somebody who regards Linux as an effort of hobbyists and college kids, marginally stable, minimally supported, an interesting source of innovation but unsuitable for a business setting. They'd be open to taking useful tidbits from the Linux world but would not want to become an inhabitant.
It's based on System V, that SCO got from Novell, who got it from ATT Bell Labs (who is now Lucent!) The AIX parts will amount to SMITS, and some other "enhancements". None of the broken, non-Unix-stuff-posing-as-a-Unix from IBM is expected in the mix. This is IBM's bid to get away from maintaining AIX, while still having a *nix platform for SP2, etc. Of course, the way organizations are set up, with SP2s as front ends to mainframe DBS, AIX will be her for the Y2038 problem!
"Flyin' in just a sweet place,
Never been known to fail..."
Try being light hearted about it. Fashionable, get it? After all, you don't see any other unix with a loveable mascot that goes great on any clothing item, do you?
I strongly remember at least two *previous* announcements from SCO that they would be producing
a next generation unix. The last project was `gemini' which was SCO and HP (which makes sense
since they're fairly central to mercede) which was announced with similar hooplah and then disappeared.
I simply doubt that SCO has the time and engineering manpower to pull-off the claims they
make. Even if they could their strength in legacy systems would be of little help in capturing new
customers!
I'm not sure that selling an OS is a money maker. That was there reason HP gave for dropping HP-UX. Selling the services that go with an OS, that can bring in the dollars. Which is why HP has brought back HP-UX.
They are just looking to share the pain of development while fighting for the same market. This is much like Sommerset was for the PowerPC.
But like several others have mentioned, don't expect everyone to play together well. It wouldn't be the first time a "grand unified unix" project fell through.
- doug
AIX has jfs and a logical volume manager that will need to be supported in the Montery thingie. I'm willing to be that all of them have a list of "value added" (ie proprietary) features that must be supported to get the existing customers to upgrade.
Note that I'm not saying that Linux can't do these things, just that it isn't compatible with existing systems. As I mentioned in another thread, I'd like to see "them" add some compatibility stuff to Linux as optional packages (something like 2.2.5.aix3) to bridge Linux and older applications.
- doug
IBM has said that it didn't develop its own OS for PCs or buy out MS because of the ongoing anti-trust suit that they were in. They hoped that letting someone else in on the low margin OS (my copy of DOS 2.1 cost $33) would "prove" that they weren't a monopoly without hurting revenue. I think IBM thought it was in control of Microsoft by threatining to pull DOS from it's PCs. OS/2 debunked that one.
Note that I'm not saying IBM wouldn't let others do the dirty work, just that they want control. CMS was developed at Cambridge, but IBM funded it and grabed it when it wanted it.
- doug
Actually, AIX really isn't too bad once you get used to it.
In my experience, it's quite stable, not too slow, and has a number of nice features. I liked having a good journalling filesystem and being able to resize disk partitions on the fly. I also liked being able to use SMIT (the graphical admin tool) to figure out how to do some of the more obscure things.
It does have some downsides, though; it was often hard to port software to AIX from other unixes, error messages were often surprisingly cryptic, and sometimes things seemed to be done a particular way for no other reason than to be different.
But, overall, it was actually pretty good. Sometimes I miss having an RS6K on my desk, even though the Linux box that replaced it is much, much faster.
Something else occured to me as I was re-reading it again.
Linux already DOES what this new 'super-Unix' will be able to do. Basically, it looks to me like they are going to add some of the features of Unixware and PTX.
Not only can Linux run on all of the systems listed, it can run on MORE..
-- I'm the root of all that's evil, but you can call me cookie..
Tell me something.. If that 'someone to sue' line works, then why hasn't any of the major trading sites sued the software makers that created their trading systems? No law suits for OS failure is ALLOWED by the LICENCE of 99.99 % of current OS licences anyway..
-- I'm the root of all that's evil, but you can call me cookie..
And they are getting few and far between. By the time they finish this new *nix, I'm betting that Linux WILL have the features..
-- I'm the root of all that's evil, but you can call me cookie..
Based on AIX? Anyone know why they chose this particular flavor of Unix to grow from?
Based on personal opinion : EEEEEWWWWWWWW!!!
-- I'm the root of all that's evil, but you can call me cookie..
That's just wonderfull, but why BUY the Porche that can optionally run on propane when you can buy a propane car that can ALREADY do 300 mph?
(Ok, bad analogy, but hey..)
I just don't see a commercial reason for this system, beside's of course, the companies not wanting to invest money in porting all by themselves.
Speaking of which, who will own this new system? Who get's the profits from it's sale?
-- I'm the root of all that's evil, but you can call me cookie..
We do have a standard API for sound.
I believe Linux is currently using OSS Compatibility.... (last I looked..) I'm not sure.. last time I checked how my mp3's play in linux...... nevermind..
ChiefArcher
The license doesn't have to allow you to. Ever since the turn of the century the US has gradually been passing laws that make some aspects of contracts unenforcable. Not that you could sue the software vendor for ANYTHING, but really what the license says isn't necessarily what your rights really are....
Side note, for the purpose of this reply, 'high end' means the hardware alone costs several million, while 'low end' means it costs a few thousand.
From a short-term financial point of view, there's little motivation for people like Sun, to make a complete 'conversion' to Linux. Also, think about this - the Unix vendors are generally big on the high-end (enterprise, data-center level) while Linux is big at the small end, which is also where Microsoft is big at. So, Linux is/will be hurting Microsoft more than the Unix vendors. Also, because most Linux's development is at the low end, it doesn't have 'enterprise' level features (I mean Enterprise, not server), and for Enterprise customers there's little that Linux offers over the 'costly' Unixs (the software is generally pretty cheap compared to the hardware) and they're the kind of people who least like to change - why do you think the mainframe hasn't died off yet?
Because for Compaq their 'Tru64' unix doesn't comprise than many Alpha sales, they're the most likely to drop it. However, for the others, it's kinda different - first, they simply couldn't just move everything to Linux, they'd have to add features first, which means either waiting for the Linux community to do it (probably in an incompatible way with how they did it), or do it themselves, which costs. In fact the development costs for each of the commercial unix companies could be pretty bad - remember they have to re-test everything, etc, retrain their staff, convince their own development teams (quite a few of which might just leave), get their solutions government certified again, and so on. Then they have to persuade their customers to change, which means big costs for the customers, with probably little improvement from a functionality point of view.
This would takes years, and cost billions. There'd be quite a few customers who would not want to change either, pretty much no matter what, and quiet a few customers might 'defect' to other commercial unixs. They'd also have to continue supporting both their own Unix and Linux for a while (Sun is still supporting Solaris 2.3, which has been around for over 5 years), which probably means taking on extra staff...
Unless there is huge pressure from their customers (very little so far), the commercial unix guys aren't going to make big changes anytime soon. Things will slowly change over time though. Already the commercial guys are making it easier to run Linux on their own hardware. Sun have already announced and demonstrated software to let Linux apps run under Solaris. Pretty minor projects. Linux will first start to 'attack' the commercial guys at the low end, and slowly (over many many years) work up towards the high end. Likewise, the vendor's efforts to accommodate, integrate with, and 'combat' Linux will increase.
Still, the above companies aren't going to feel financially pinched by Linux until it starts reducing their hardware sales. And since for mid to high-end hardware, it's mostly the proprietary guys anyway, as long as they don't loose out to new companies in this area (like Dell), since they'll be still selling their profitable hardware (whatever OS it runs) they're probably not going to be hurting for quite some time...
To sum up, Linux is attack the low end, the home ground of Microsoft the principal competitor for the proprietary guys, while have the high end, which tends to be very conservative and moves slowly. That is why Linux will out sell the commercial guys in numbers, but make much less revenue for quite a few years to come.
In my view, sales is not the best place from which to understand business.
The point you miss is that any largish organisation will employ a VAR or possibly a Linux distributor (who are ultimately just glorified VARS) direct or even a hardware manufacturer when considering a new project.
The business will enter into a contract with the supplier in order to plan, implement and support the project.
At this point, the business has someone who is accountable. The model is exactly the same as with any other operating system. You can not sue the OEM, you can only sue your supplier and if you use a supplier for a major project without a solid contract then you definately eat quiche.
The "Linux is not accountable" argument is pure fiction.
Best regards
Mark
Actually, no. They had an agreement with SCO to use UnixWare, which presumably puts them in the Monterey camp. DG now sell NT, Intranetware and UnixWare on the low end and medium size servers, and DG/UX on their high end stuff. DG/UX is somewhat of a minimalist Unix -- it doesn't ship with much in the way of useful toys out of the box. However, it's incredibly stable, scales well to huge numbers of CPUs (128, last time I looked), has a nice LVM, and is techincally very sound. Sadly, I'm not convinced about their commitment to Unix. They're concentrating almost entirely on NT these days (as well as on their stunning storage products).
"The invisible and the non-existent look very much alike." -- Delos B. McKown
why not just put that development effort into ADDED the 'missing' stuff to Linux?
:o(
Oh yeah.. they'd have to sell it...
Bah. Latter-day versions of AIX aren't bad, and there are some features which I like very much which are poorly-implemented/expensive/unavailable on other platforms..
Since when was this about making fashion statements?
"How many light bulbs does it take to change a person?" --BMcC-->
BSD has that cute li'l daemon, don't they?
"How many light bulbs does it take to change a person?" --BMcC-->
With the UNIX market as fragmented as it is currently, some defragmentation probably wouldn't hurt. Sun, Linux, & BSD will certainly go their own way, and I suspect HP will as well, so it won't be much threat to having some healthy diversity...
And now, "The Standard Software License Tidbit", performed by the Glyph.
Ahem...
THIS SOFTWARE AND DOCUMENTATION IS PROVIDED "AS IS", WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EITHER EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. THE ENTIRE RISK AS TO THE QUALITY AND PERFORMANCE OF THE SOFTWARE IS WITH YOU, AND YOU ASSUME THE ENTIRE COST OF ALL NECESSARY SERVICING, REPAIR, OR CORRECTION.
While this license tidbit is copied verbatim from the Iomega Zip[(tm), (r), (c), whatever] drive software, I believe that many other commercial pieces of software carry the exact same disclaimer.
This license is preposterous (how can you sell something without the implied warranty of merchantability??) but it is on lots of software and I assume that it is legally sound, since equivalent legalese shows up on every box of commercial software I've ever seen.
However, it *doesn't* give you someone to sue. You can explicitly *not* sue the vendor who sold you the software that you're using because you agreed not to by using it!!
I wish to be corrected, because I'd like to sue Microsoft for software of sub-merchantable (is that a word?) quality.
I think that this argument is largely FUD coming from corporations though, so PHB's can have a sense of security.
(If I am wrong, please correct me, but please also answer this: if it's not legally binding, why do they bother?)
Glyph Lefkowitz - Project leader, Twisted Matrix Labs
Writer, Programmer - Not a member of the TSU
This is hardly a "unified" Unix, more like 3
weak versions of Unix that are probably going to
lose out to stronger versions like Linux or
Solaris on their own in the long term.
Hence "unification", to try to forestall that.
Yup. Another yawn. I was at Digital when we tried to unify our UNIX with SCO - it was called the Ace Initiative. Talk about "impedance mismatch". I saw the manager that proposed that boondogle take a hike down to HP and start the same project there. When IBM started talking about ganging up with SCO last summer I could see this guy's face behind it.
This one is probably doomed. Every *NIX development group that I've ever met has been arrogant beyond belief (present company included) and mixing any two of them has been like oil and water.
Not to worry.
I think the best long term strategy for Linux is to nail down that Mom & Pop desktop (& set-top) market with kernel 2.2 while the kernel heavies continue to roll in bigger and better enterprise features.
ccb (ex decvax!ccb, ccb@osf.org, etc.)
http://linux.u cs.indiana.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/9812.1/0135. html
It is /proc/cpuinfo and dmesg output from a 14 cpu (6927 bogomips) sparc server with 2gigs of ram and a huge chain of scsi disks. There has also been talk of Sun giving kernel hackers access to bigger systems.
My point? Find a system or a market segment that linux doesn't support, then wait a year or so and I bet you it will support it.
Does anyone seriously think that Monterey is going to be any different than SVR4 or OSF/1?
Can we say Novell Unixware?? Wasn't this what was tried back in the early 90's???
And what happend? SCO bought it. I think Netware bought it from AT&T for, like, $1 bil. and then sold it for $50 mil - or something like that.
I don't think *nix will ever be unified and whatever... Maybe everyone should be working with Sun to make Java unified instead...
Haven't we heard this before? First, Sun and AT&T got together to create a unified Unix to be called System V Release 4.
Rather than go along, IBM, HP, and DEC created the OSF and pledged that they would create a single Unix, OSF/1, and that they all would run it. Whoops! They lied. Only DEC followed through and shipped OSF/1, er, Digital Unix, um, Tru64.
So now we have IBM, which dissed the SVR4 effort and misled with the OSF effort, claiming it will lead yet another effort. Why should we believe them this time?
It's not clear to me that large scale SMP is where enterprise computing is going, or even ought to be going, in the long run. SMP is kind of a kludge that lets people extend existing software and hardware to an environment with some parallel processing. A likely long-term path is a large number of processors without shared memory but with very fast networking. Linux isn't much better at that either, but neither is any of the other current crop of operating systems.
I like to state things in the extreme, and so I often misrepresent the point I'm trying to make. I think this is one of thosde cases.
No, a company wouldn't 'sue' a software vendor if the product failed - unless the vendor gave explicit assurance that such a failure would not happen.
When I exaggerate by saying 'sue', I intend for that to mean 'to hold accountable'. This does not neccesarily mean, to have the ability to take losses out of the vendor's hide, but to have some leverage in negotiations and subsequent business dealings.
As one tack pointed out, support contracts provide this sort of accountability. There is not such an animal with Linux. Red Hat may offer support, but it just does not waft the same, does it?
-- What you do today will cost you a day of your life.
...IBM is too much of a control freak to allow something as important as an OS to be developped by someone else...
Maybe you don't know IBM as well as you thought. How do you think Bill Gates got to where he is today....That's right remember the whole mess from years ago when MS was developing DOS and their deal with IBM?
"...Beer..."
...IBM is too much of a control freak to allow something as important as an OS to be developped by someone else...
Maybe you don't know IBM as well as you thought. How do you think Bill Gates got to where he is today....That's right remember the whole mess from years ago when MS was developing DOS and their deal with IBM?
"...Beer..."
Do you seriously still believe that "someone to sue" line? Show me _any_ software license for an operating system that allows you to sue anyone. All of them explicitly disclaim all warranties. This myth has been dubunked so many times. I can't
believe anyone is still repeating it.
Compaq may be joining the project, but they aren't dumping their existing product.
In fact, they just announced today that Tru64 UNIX runs on simulated Merced chips. The press release hasn't hit their web page yet, though.
It's interesting to see someone touting support for linux applications. I think it's the first time that I've seen this; I've gotten too used to FUD surrounding this topic in the opposite light.
In many of the same ways that the rest of IBM's involvement with the linux community will be beneficial, comments such as these are great evidence against some of the more common (misconceived) arguments against greater adoption of linux.
This isn't such a bad thing if part of its message elevates linux to the status of something to be pursued and imitated.
-- Scott
(disregard by URL, btw).
Having one dominant product a.k.a. a monopoly is bad, regardless of who owns the product. It stifles innovation etc. (see Microsoft). If Linux becomes the only Unix, the variance in the Unix community will disappear and it will be Windows of a different brand. Same old cookie cutter applications.
Also the existence of viable competitors reduce the chance of complacency and benefit all involved. So as much as you may abhor prop software, you should herald this development as it should benefit us all. As will HURD.
OTOH, these companies are as united as OPEC, the question is how long before the first knife.
Woe be on to them, all who rise against poor people, shall perish in a the end. Buju Banton
My shrink's secretary uses a Xenix box.
As part of Project Monterey, UnixWare 7 was recently updated to include Linux binary application compatibility.
This looks good, not only are they somewhat unifying Unix, but they are expressing that they are going to have inherent linux binary support. T
Once I thought I was wrong...I was mistaken.
Yes, I think Linux is headed in this direction. (No, I'm not too excited about Monterey.)
My point is only that claiming Linux is a realistic high-end system today or in the short-term future is dishonest.
The fact that Linux has once booted on a system with 14 cpus doesn't mean it can actually process a lot of IO on a big system (32+ cpus?), and 2 gigs of RAM is small where I work.
Like you, I was excited when I saw this, bacause I'd like to see free software on big iron.
I agree, which is why I run Linux when and where I can.
The only point I'm trying to make is that rabid Linux enthusiasm shouldn't cause us to say unrealistic things about it. People who claim that Linux is fine for the high-end are people who have never worked with high-end systems.
Whether or not high-end systems matter much is a totally separate issue, as you've pointed out.
Obviously, this business model makes no sense for OS vendors such as Microsoft. But for companies which make their money selling boxes (that is to say, hardware vendors) this makes a great deal of sense, to me at least.
Well,
IBM produces AIX, and sco sucks (I've seen only one box, but I almost throw it out the window).
Maybe sco just realized how bad they sucked, or IBM bullied them around a bit.
Papi
- Chernobyl used windows
I basically agree with this, but I hereby ask the entire Internet to stop with this specious argument that "companies need someone to sue when things go bad!"
READ those license agreements! They ALL have a specific disclaimer of responsibility for damages and/or loss arising from the use or misuse of software. Furthermore, they specifically disallow all warranties, specific and implied, including the implicit (by long legal tradition) warranty of merchantability and fitness.
This means that even if the product doesn't do a single thing it claims to be able to do, THE USER HAS NO LEGAL GROUNDS FOR SUIT!
Now, while I am not a lawyer, nor am I aware of any case in which a court has upheld a shrinkwrap software license agreement, I am also not aware of a case where any corporation has ever brought suit for loss or damage arising out of the use and or misuse of a software product. Not one.
Please flame me mercilessly if I am wrong.
Exhausted in Minneapolis
evilpenguin
Reading the story and then moving on to the IBM site, you'll notice that they make no claims for 'another Linux distro'. If you follow the Linux link on the IBM page you'll find a nice little pat on the back for Linux. Monterey will have 'Linux binary' compatibility so that the new developments in the Linux community will run on Monterey.
--
Linux developers don't have much access to these systems. Correct me if I'm wrong.
Or is there already a project in development that I should know about?
--
--
Nowadays, the question "Why not Linux?" is often being answered simply: "Because it's great at what it's designed to do."
Despite what the press might claim, a major chunk of the server market does not fall under the category of "enterprise", and this is where OS's such as Linux can be quite appealing.
But please tell me SCO and Digital Unix are going to bite the dust to make room for this new one?
But please tell me SCO and Digital Unix are going to bite the dust to make room for this new one?
And NetBSD/OpenBSD run on even more than Linux. :)
I don't think of it so much as someone to sue,
but someone to blame. With Linux the responsibility
falls on your own shoulders, and that's no fun.
Way better to blame your ignorance on the vendor.
Regards,
Tim
This could be pretty good, as long as Microsoft doesn't up the ante. With Unix and Linux penetrating the workstation market now Microsoft might make the windoze line incompatible with anything related to Linux and Unix. It is possible for them to change standards. I hope Unix and Linux can produce an alternative before micrsoft releases some tool of destruction such as the ever distant windows 2000.
Madhatter --It's no wonderland out there.
right on!
Linux needs a fair bit of work until it can run on 64 CPUs or more, handle very big files, directories and databases and such
interestingly, SGI has stated that they want to migrate such features from Unicos and Irix into Linux and put the result back into the open
it'll be very interesting to watch events over the next two years or so...
SGI migration charts from the past few months show that they will continue to support some version of IRIX on their server and supercomputing class machines for quite some time to come. While it may be true that IRIX is going to disappear from the desktop, the point is that the profit margins on OS and OS Care deals are too high for these large vendors for them to abandon them totally. The point isn't that SGI is ditching IRIX, but rather that these vendors answer only to themselves, which is why we should support Linux and FreeBSD.
Dojo: defanging browsers so you don't have to
>Why should anyone consider paying for
>unixware licenses so they can run
>products written for a free operating system?
Because not all corporate IT departments (and
for sure not too many small businesses) have a
Linux/Unix guru on staff. If you have a Unixware
license, you can run to SCO --or maybe IBM, once
this Project Monterey business is wrapped up--
for help. That may not mean squat to someone who
is totally on top of their own install at home,
but to a business support means a lot.
>But please tell me SCO and Digital Unix are
>going to bite the dust to make room for this new
>one?
There hasn't been much talk about Digital Unix
since CPQ ate DEC, and ditto for SCO Unix now
that SCO has Unixware to play with. My impression
of the whole project is that they aren't so much
trying to fold AIX and Unixware and SCO Unix
together as they are trying to make it easier for
all the various products to port between flavors.
Down the line, though, I could see Project
Monterey serving as the groundwork for YAUOS that
would supersede the three versions mentioned
above. But that's the future.
It's very simple to anyone who works in a business environment. Those in charge (be they Pointy Haired Bosses or cool dudes) require the one thing that Linux cannot deliver: Accountability.
If you buy a commercial *nix and it pukes on you, you have legal recourse with the vender for repairs. If Linux (or FreeBSD or any other "free" OS) pukes on you, you are sh!t out of luck. Maybe it can be fixed, and maybe that bug gets addressed in three years. There is NO ONE you can put pressure on to "get it fixed and get it fixed now!".
Businessmen (and women) know that with purchasing dollars comes the power to withhold that money. To many of them Linux is not an acceptable solution no matter what it's technical merits may be.
As someone who has been in the business sector (from computer sales to banking) it is easy for me to see the reasons why corporations act the way they do.
If I was setting up a non-mission critical server in my workplace (say an intranet WWW server or some such), or in a school I'd suggest Linux from the word go.
If I was setting up a mission critical server (or system) in a business environment I wouldn't touch Linux.
The needs of business are not the same as many of you. They can't afford to take chances.
Boobies never hurt anyone. - Sherry Glaser.
*thud*
Wow, haven't had a good laugh like this in a long time. I am not alone in that I thnk that -any- company that spends time developing Unix from scratch today, when there are such great open source ones like Linux available, are simply foolish.
Well, anyhow, later...
Chris DiBona
Evangelist, VA Research
--
Grant Chair, Linux Int.
VP, SVLUG
Co-Editor, Open Sources
Open Source Program Manager, Google, Inc.
Because there is a long tradition of charging money for it.
Linux, for all it's strengths, is free, and thereby not a profit generating product. With companies such as HP and Intel investing in RedHat, they're getting on the good side of future UNInix developers, who will abandon Linux for a paycheck. They're willing to invest in a free unix as a proof of concept for technologies to be rolled into an 'industrial strength' unix later, complete with support from all the big names in the industry.
To them, Linux isn't really a contender, because end users have no time to learn it and deal with it's support model. Corporate clients NEED to have someone to sue if things go bad. So, these guys are willing to sink some money into Linux development, first to flesh out the hirable talent, and second to get some ideas off the ground for free.
They have no problem with pumping some money into Linux, to keep a lively grass-roots testbed for ideas, and to foster goodwill with people who are more than willing to write those pesky device drivers. But let's not delude ourselves, these big corporations are in business to make money, by selling products and support. They didn't get all this money that they've invested in Linux by giving money to non-profit developers and hobbyists.
They still don't get it. They are so in the habit of selling software, that they're willing to reinvent the wheel to keep on doing it. Why, oh why, can't they just sell hardware and free software? Well, hardware, being the only source of profit, would get real expensive, real fast. And with all those brilliant programmers out there, optimizing free software for the existing hardware, who would want to buy new hardware??
Really, do we need Merced?
Point being, as long as software can be sold, it will be sold. And if Linux could unify unix, why can't they - with the added bonus of support, accountability and $$.
-- What you do today will cost you a day of your life.
So the number of separate Unixes is decreasing.
We'll have Monterey, Solaris, HP-UX, Linux, and BSD.
The corporate giants will do all they can to hang on to the Unix market, and providing a more unified front against NT and Linux is just another step along the way.
It's not about a meaningless number on a piece of paper. It's about real workloads.
I'm talking about doing online data wharehousing of terabyte-sized databases. Big I/O, and high availability.
You can tell me "well, Linux could have terrabytes of disks hooked up to it" but that doesn't mean it's actually gonna handle that kind of workload. It won't.
Do you think I'm picking on your favorite OS? I'm not, and it's my favorite OS, too.
We have seen this effort at least twice before. The Open Systems Initiavtive was one effort. Can't even rememeber who all signed on to that one, but I know it included at least two of the heaviest hitters in the Unix world...
It fell apart.
I really do think that Linux is a better place to hang our collective hat. Unless this new Unix is also free source. Then I say they can fight it out on their merits.
Not to stir up mud, but I have to admit that I still hope Hurd gets more developers and we see some of that out there soon... I am no more a Linux partisan than a Unix partisan -- all I know is Windows stinks. Linux doesn't stink. Windows is proprietary. Linux is not. I'm a programmer. Wherever I find it easiest to write software that solves problems is where I will go. Today, that's Unix at work (where my employer pays the proprietary price tag -- hey, if they want to!) and Linux at home and on my desktop at work where free, powerful, and source access are just what I need for maximum productivity.
So, Linux now! Hurd soon! Monterey? We shall see...
(I know NT is also not approved, but it is and will become the defacto standard before Linux does if there is no viable commercial UNIX competition.)
Can you say "There are some things Linux can't do yet?"
DrLunch.com The site that tells you what's for lunch!
The reason why they stay with SCO and don't move to another OS, even if they want to, is that their custom applications work on SCO, are only guaranteed to work on SCO, and (most importantly) are only _supported_ under SCO.
Never underestimate the power of legacy to shape current needs.
Well, we're here at the turn of the 21st century, and what OS is the world using? Unix, just as for the past 30 years.
Yes, it's true there have been other operating systems. Before Unix, there was Multics. After Unix came a plethora of others, with a few that became relatively widespread. There was VMS (and still is, but it's very niche), and later NT, as two of the most popular. Apple has tried to push MacOS as a server operating system, but until MacOS X (which is a real Unix) they've never made one.
Many Unixes came: AT&T Unix begat newer releases, BSD, eventually SVRx. SVRx and BSD splintered off into many different Unixes, including Solaris, Ultrix, UnixWare, FreeBSD, NetBSD, OpenBSD and NetBSD to name some of the more prominent. Linux was created as a Unix clone, modeled very loosely on Minix, another Unix clone.
Why do we think of certain Unixes when we say "Unix"? There are certainly the most prominent of the industry, especially the free (not just as in free beer!) leading the way. Commercial Unixes also have their place, running on the latest and greates hardware from Big Name Companies making Big Irons.
But why did Unix make such a comeback? There's no revolution of computing freedom, but with FreeBSD and Linux leading the way, Free operating systems started making a buzz. It started as a "grassroots" movement back in the 80's with the GNU project, but before that came the true Unix communities over the Arpanet, campuses, the BSD project (a truely free Unix distribution), and various groups.
In all of this, though, we've seen death. The death of many proprietary Unix-alikes was partially due to the rise of the new Free ones. This isn't truely a bad thing, seen much as evolution, but has started negativity against commercialism. Nowadays, the best talent IS with the Free operating systems (and some remaining proprietary operating systems, such as BSD/OS, BeOS, MacOS X [still not Free]), so commercial Unix vendors, hawking their inferior wares, are disappearing.
Have commercial vendors stopped innovating? No, that would never happen. Have the free operating system groups' hackers innovated more? Of course. More great minds give birth to more great designs. The out with the old, in with the GNU (pardon the pun) is a good thing. It allows the companies that dealt mostly with selling Unix to concentrate on other things (Sun sells hardware, Java, Jini, etc), and work more well on them.
The only real problems are with the Unix vendors who base their entire business on selling the operating system, or support for such. Support is important, but not for a dying system. The last reach at life is upon the old commercial Unix vendors. The UDI is an example of this: since people aren't going to work on free drivers for [insert commercial Unix here], maybe they'd write drivers for UDI under the guise that it's open. The UDI design was made only for the vendors themselves, in hope that others would make drivers for UDI (and not any random Freenix). So vendors could now back up their bogus claims of superiority by also saying they have the best hardware support. This is not going to work; it's too transparent.
And of course, we have mergers! Mergers are the sign of a dying company more often than not. Sorry, commercial Unix is disappearing faster and faster. Commercial vendors for things other than operating systems are now again noticing Unix, and starting to move away from the horrid Windows platforms. Apple now even has their chance to beat Microsoft with an operating system _BETTER_ than theirs, including the "clicky clicky" administration tools that make NT the choice for braindead administrators and companies being coupled to a real kernel and API. I don't see exactly why Apple released the source, but maybe you all do.
Losers: commercial Unix suppliers, commercial suppliers of inferior operating systems (*cough Microsoft cough*)
Winners: the free Unixes, commercial software suppliers (programmers not having to use terrible tools, APIs, etc. anymore as they can work with something good), hackers having more code to work with and wonderful new projects all the time, users and corporations with better systems
What we are experiencing now is a true revolution to benefit US, not the titans holding business power.
Brian Fundakowski Feldman
That is the main reason for this latest strain of Unix.
Do you think IBM/SCO/whomever is going to look at one of its customers and say "switch to Linux, but all of your custom software will break"? Of course not. Will Linus allow the kernel to bend over backwards for compatibility with AIX/SCO/whatever? Again, that isn't going to happen. For the moment there is no bridge between Linux and existing customized *ix software.
The goal of these companies is to reduce development costs, without losing customers or what they view as "value added" features. I doubt if any of 'em make money on the OS. I bet they'd all jump to any less expensive platform (Linux, *BSD, DR-DOS, CP/M) if they thought it wouldn't alienate existing customers. And that means that existing applications have to keep on chugging.
The thing I'd like to see is for them to push these custom libraries to be more Linux like, and then put a few people and adding layers on top of Linux to build compatiblity. If you need some funky AIX program that plays games and doesn't stick to POSIX specs, just add jfs support and an AIX kernel module and off you go. I'm not saying that this would be trivial, or even do-able.
But I doubt if they would do this. While IBM has started to work with Linux, I think that it is more of a anyone but Microsoft approach. IBM is too much of a control freak to allow something as important as an OS to be developped by someone else.
- doug
Will Linux ever get there? Of course! Fact is it's not now. Companies need to base their plans for the future on things they control, and they don't, can't, and never will control Linux.
We hope...
--
The horse is stolen! Quick, lock the barn!
Bruce Perens.
Right - this was an announcment from the hardware (Proliant) division, not DEC.
--
Business. Numbers. Money. People. Computer World.
Corporate clients NEED to have someone to sue if things go bad.
This is a favorite piece of FUD and almost the most inaccurate. Companies very rarely are able to sue an information technology vendor over buggy or not up-to-spec hardware and software. Services, on the other hand, are quite prone to lawsuits.
A company wouldn't sue IBM if their S/390 came down--they would threaten to dump their $10 million support contracts and hardware lease contracts. Very rarely is the courtroom the place where customers resolve their operating system troubles.
--jon. Postel is dead. May we all mourn his, and our, loss.
Agreed. My father is a JOAT[1] on a large (1000 site) SCO application on point-of-sale systems around the country. To you give an idea of what SCO can do, they were running 50 COBOL developers on a three-way 486/33 system with 64MB of memory (this was an applicationDEC, which, BTW, is a nice piece of hardware). I would like to see any other system do that. This iss SCO SysV/386V3.2R4.2; they're working on upgrading to the latest version of UnixWare, but that is a lot of work and probably won't happen for a year or two. (The application here is using Micro Focus COBOL on 486/33 DECpc's with Maxpeed Maxtation terminals.)
--jon. Postel is dead. May we all mourn his, and our, loss.
And to think I missed that when I was using preview.
--jon. Postel is dead. May we all mourn his, and our, loss.
And, Linux applications are easily ported to the complete Monterey product line.
Actually, almost any decently written program (i.e. that uses autoconf) will run on GNU/Linux, the BSDs, SCO UnixWare 7, SCO SysV/386V3.2R4.2, Solaris, HP-UX, AIX, and probably OS/2 and possibly Windows as well. Monterey does nothing to change this other than add yet another operating system to autoconf's list of hundreds on the ash heap of computing history.
... will benefit both the Linux and UNIX communities at large.
Umm, GNU/Linux *is* the Unix community at large. There is more GNU/Linux on the desktop than any other Unix or Unix-like operating system (I consider Unix on the desktop to be running a Unix or Unix-like kernel, not NT or Windows or OS/2, on a desktop machine; Xservers on Windows PCs don't count).It would be far more useful for IBM and SCO to spend their time moving to a Linux kernel based (and GNU based) system, providing backwards compatibility with modules for SCO Uxware, SysV/386, and AIX backward compatibility.
Maybe I'll get AIX PS/2 binary support someday and be able to use my Image Adapter/A with X11R4.
Cheers,
Joshua.
--jon. Postel is dead. May we all mourn his, and our, loss.
Some really great beginning statements, but sorta sounded like you changed minds 2/3 of the way through...
/. seems to indicate that they are a dead/dying company, and I don't know how to argue that.
They didn't get all this money that they've invested in Linux by giving money to non-profit developers and hobbyists.
They still don't get it. They are so in the habit of selling software, that they're willing to reinvent the wheel to keep on doing it.
I would just like to continue the argument by sayin *do not* underestimate IBM. Their AIM alliance produced the PowerPC to good effect for them, even if they haven't used it to penetrate the home/desktop PC.
Likewise this strategy, while not apparently a Great Thing, could still have very much a use for IBM.
Anyway, IBM pushes a lot of new technology and capability that Linux just doesn't have the support for. Yet, as always. Eventually perhaps, and perhaps with some help from IBM, but for really huge enterprise level deployments, IBM needs something it can really depend on and can market for it's dependability. Something with their name on it, and not just for legal litigation purposes. They will be supporting things like hundreds of processors in a box, which Linux has no support for now or even in the near future. IBM deals with millions of transactions daily, and with extremely high performance technologies, and with extremely reliable servers.
Linux is fine for individuals, small businesses, even most average businesses.
But IBM's market is *worldwide* business models. 24/7 year round operation. Scaleable and redundant and reliant systems. Extremely process intensive business models.
I can't speak for SCO except they only gain by leeching off IBM here. Every comment on
Intel is big, but not nearly so big as IBM, I think, and this alliance gives them entry into much bigger markets with much higher profits than just desktop PCs and suck.
My 2 cents
AS
-AS
*Pikachu*
Cheers,
Joshua.
--jon. Postel is dead. May we all mourn his, and our, loss.
What we need is the ext3 filesystem. This will support, among other things, integral distribution across volumes (which is something the LVM does quite nicely), resizing of partitions, possibly while the system is running (to add new fixed disks on the fly, as I am wont to do), and journalling. Journalling will banish the dreaded hour-long fsck from computing forever more. (The JFS is so good I use it exclusively when I work on XFree86 in OS/2, because when the Xserver kills my OS/2 box, I just poke the power and the UJFS.DLL CHKDSK takes about five seconds to run, as opposed to the five minutes HPFS CHKDSK took.)
I need to get involved with the ext3 project. I've got too many things to do right now, but I need to learn serious kernel hacking one day here.
Cheers,
Joshua.
--jon. Postel is dead. May we all mourn his, and our, loss.
This project is NOT a plan to unify UNIX in general, but rather a plan to make a new UNIX for IA-64.
SCO has experience with x86 (and owns UNIX) and long ago announced that they will port it to IA-64. Now Compaq and IBM (and Sequent) announce that they will help with SCO's UNIX for the platform and ship it on their IA-64 servers. IBM also plans to port it to their RISC hardware. Compaq sees Monterey as a way to move Digital UNIX (or whatever they call it this month) forward.
In other words, Compaq and IBM don't want to spend a huge amount of money to port their UNIXes to IA-64 to compete with everyone else on that platform. If it works out, then they have a foot in the door. Otherwise, they can just dump it and move on. This is NOT a vote of confidence in IA-64's future!
Sun announced that they will port Solaris x86 to IA-64 and Fujitsu and NCR (if I remember correctly) jumped on their ship. HP will, of course, have HP-UX on IA-64. And Linux is also in development for the platform.
I'm sure Compaq, IBM, and everyone else will ship Linux pre-installed on their IA-64 servers when they come along. They're just covering the "proprietary UNIX" base at the same time in the cheapest possible way.
Note that I'm saying IA-64, not Merced. I've long believed that Merced would never ship in volume because of production delays and poor performance. Only the second-generation IA-64 part will have a chance of success. I'll stand by that prediction...
Linux is great. But enough dogma; it's not a high-end OS, and it won't be for quite some time.
The fact that it's the best OS for your PC today does NOT mean it's the best OS for an enterprise server today. Open source will eventually move into that space, I'm sure, but it isn't in there yet. (And no, a quad xeon isn't even close to high-end.)
Saying "why not Linux?" when it's perfectly obvious why not only serves to make Linux, a great OS, look like little more than a bunch of hype.
I don't think this is exactly right: If the software vendor had absolutely no obligations whatsoever, the contract between the vendor and customer might be considered "unsupported by consideration" (ah, legal jargon) and therefore unenforceable as a contract.
More common, I think, are limitation of liability clauses which state that the vendor's liability is limited to a refund of the purchase price of the software license. Such limitations are common in many other industries as well, and are regularly enforced by courts.
[You might feel that such limitations are unconscionable, and should therefore be ignored by the courts. The standard reply is while courts can readily tell whether a contract is supported by some valuable consideration on both sides, it's not a court's job to evaluate whether a contract is a good deal -- it's the market's. If you don't like the terms of the software license, you should find another software vendor. That's the argument, anyway.]
Incidentally, contrary to evilpenguin's comment, it is not at all uncommon for businesses to sue their software vendors; in particular, many vendors have been (or anticipate being) sued as a result of the Y2K problem. Read a recent 10-Q or 10-K from any major software vendor for a discussion of this issue. It's relatively rare, I think, for ordinary consumers to sue software vendors, but you can read about one such case at the web site of the Milberg Weiss law firm (search with the keyword Issokson -- it's a Y2K case).
There are a number of reasons why UNIX vendors would not be unifying behind Linux as the "unified" UNIX.
1) These vendors have invested huge amounts of development effort in putting together their own implementations. They will not just walk away from their own design decisions because of Linux's rising market share.
2) Despite the increasing popularity of Linux, newer, high-performance commodity and custom hardware devices are driven by proprietary UNIX implementations first. This may be changing but it still has a ways to go before it changes (if it ever does IMHO).
3) Culturally, Linux is NIH (Not Invented Here). This may sound silly but its very pervasive and there are some convincing arguments why it will continue. The developers and customers for a given UNIX, even it they are closet Linux hackers, will take product to market with an in-house solution over Linux first because it has a critical mass within the organization that allows faster time to market.
4) Linux may incorporate many very modern OS features and implementation designs but other UNIX vendors will always believe, justified or not, they have a superior design. In such a case it may incumbent on Linux to adapt to their design rather than the other way around.
All of these factors may wane over time, but I doubt they will disappear completely. The short history of operating systems has never seen a single UNIX spec and I'm unconvinced it will happen now.
Later,
FM
Frank W. Miller