What rubbish. That's the obosolete OpenSewer version of/bin/true.
On modern UnixWare systems we have:
!/sbin/sh
# Copyright (c) 1998 The Santa Cruz Operation, Inc.. All Rights Reserved. # # THIS IS UNPUBLISHED PROPRIETARY SOURCE CODE OF THE # SANTA CRUZ OPERATION INC. # # The copyright notice above does not evidence any actual or intended # publication of such source code.
# Copyright (c) 1984, 1986, 1987, 1988, 1989 AT&T # All Rights Reserved
# THIS IS UNPUBLISHED PROPRIETARY SOURCE CODE OF AT&T # The copyright notice above does not evidence any # actual or intended publication of such source code.
So you're claiming a microkernel has (can have) lower interrupt latency that a monolithic design.
Micro-kernels (e.g. QNX) put very little code in to the kernel and spend as little processing time as possible in kernel mode. This lets the kernel preempt the user program that is running when a critical interrupt comes in.
Even on monolithic systems interrupts preempt even kernel code, that's what an interrupt is.
Maybe you mean to say that high priority interrupts can interrupt low priority ones? But once again that's true in monolithic systems.
And in a microkernel system passing the interrupt to a user level task isn't allways a cheap process.
By the way Micro-kernels (e.g. QNX) put very little code in to the kernel isn't necessarily true, for a counter example see Mach!
Yes, but I wasn't commenting on "mission critical RTOS" features. I was just querying the claim that a microkernel was "faster" than a monolithic kernel sytstem.
AFAIK in general monolithic kernels are faster, they don't have the message passing overhead. But microkernels can be more stable, they have nice clear protection boundaries.
As for "systems that can do things better than Linux", they are legion. Linux is slowly approaching the state of goodness in some domains, but I personaly don't think it's there yet.
What actualy happened is more amusing. The continent used to be on "220V", the UK on "240V". Now they're both on "230V", but nobody changed voltage, they just changed the definition. It's 230V plus or minus 5%, so the UK is always at 230V + 5% = 240V and the Continent is at 230V - 5% = 220V.
this company, whom Microsoft has a huge interest in now,
What are you wittering on about?
I can see how you could claim that Microsoft has an interest in the outcome of the case, but what on earth makes you think Microsoft has "an interest" in the SCO Group (nee Caldera)?
Now, according the position paper put together by ESR, SCO's OpenServer doesn't contain NUMA and has crappy SMP.
Zero points for reading comprehension. SCO claim IBM ripped off this stuff from UnixWare, not OpenServer. Whether OpenServer has or does not have the features is irrelevant.
Ms Didio was looking at SVR4.1 code, an ancestor of SVR4.2MP (aka UnixWare).
No. They don't have NUMA to this day. UnixWare got SMP in '97, after Linux ('96.) They still support only 4 processors btw, although you'd never guess that from reading their complaint.
Please don't bother listening to ESR. His knowledge of Unix history is distinctly patchy.
UnixWare got both SMP and NUMA in SVR4.2 MP, in 1993.
There is no "4 processor limit" in UnixWare. For
example see this page UDI reference implementation status talking about testing the UDI project on 32 way SMP UnixWare systems.
Re:SCO still packs a punch?
on
SCO SCO SCO!
·
· Score: 1
No, but it is against the law for insiders to manipulate the value of a stock.
Re:SCO still packs a punch?
on
SCO SCO SCO!
·
· Score: 1
Better hope there's no paper trail then.
The difference between this and the dot-com debacle is that they are a publicly traded company, with existing shareholders who might find the idea of insider trading by management a little bit anoying.
Re:SCO still packs a punch?
on
SCO SCO SCO!
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
SCO's management almost certainly plans to hype the stock to the moon, and then quietly sell their stake in SCOX. Since they have several years before their case goes to court, they have plenty of time to slowly get rid of their holdings.
Right. And then they'll be able to spend all the money they made from their prison cells.
You realy think the only plan they have is to break the law in a stupidly obvious way and go straight to jail?
If trade secrets are the issue, then SCO is basically screwed. They might be able to go after IBM for improperly disclosing said trade secrets, but the information is no longer secret and they certainly can't go after anyone else for using code that contains said non-secret.
The SCO group are claiming that IBM leaked their trade secrets. There is no if about it.
They can only attack the company that leaked the secrets for leaking the secrets, that's the way secrets work.
But if they win against IBM I can't see how anybody could consider them "screwed". Or maybe you think winning $1,000,000,000 in cash is "being screwed"?
If trade secrets are the issue, then SCO is basically screwed. They
might be able to go after IBM for improperly disclosing said trade
secrets, but the information is no longer secret and they certainly
can't go after anyone else for using code that contains said non-secret.
Now this is crazy logic.
Read the SCO complaint. It's all about trade secrets:
FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
(Misappropriation of Trade Secrets--Utah Code Ann. 13-24-1 et seq.)
If SCO wins do you think they give a fuck that everyone knows their secrets? They're suing for 1 billion dollars. If they win they just retire to the beach.
Re:show us the CODE!
on
Today's SCO News
·
· Score: 5, Interesting
They've said they will, soon.
SCO ship a bunch of Linux stuff with their "LKP", (Linux Kernel Personality) add-on for UnixWare, and
according to The Inquirer they've written to say:
Secondly we [SCO] have begun examining the Linux RPM CD which we ship with the UnixWare Media Kits to expunge any material which is thought to have any IP issues...
Within a few weeks we expect to have completed the purging of the Linux Kernel RPM and will be remastering a new CD which will allow customers to begin receiving UnixWare 7.1.3 Media Kits with the needed LKP materials.
So, within a few weeks we'll be able to compare the old "Linux RPM CD" with the new one and find out what SCO/Caldera think was stolen.
As has been pointed out many times before, The SCO Group appear to hold no patents.
They seem to be claiming that two bad things were done
That people have been using thier OpenServer shared libraries without licenses (copyright violation)
(I'm betting that they've some internal memo or letter from some low level IBM guy telling one of his clients how to run some legacy app on Linux).
That IBM stole "enterprise UNIX Technology" (trade secrets) from UnixWare and copied them into Linux.
(Some statements even seem to imply code copying, which would be another breach of copyright).
You say:
Maybe I don't understand all the legalities, but I can't see how they can get much with the trade secrets angle. As other followups to this stated, they can really only collect damages from IBM for that, and they can't put the genie back in the bottle either.
But UnixWare and OpenServer are dead, there is no genie to put back in the bottle. A huge pile of cash is all they want.
Ah, I can post again, the sense of release, freedom, sheer unadulterated power...
I have no confirmation that Microsoft is divested from Tarentella, other than a declaration from Microsoft of their INTENTIONS to divest. Erm, you believe face up from an intention stated by MS that they will do something, that they actually followed through and did it?
Now this is paranoia. Microsoft might lie to a court, but to the SEC? They're not suicidal.
A little digging on Tarantella's web site and I find a pointer to all the SEC filings, including
Microsoft's form 13G which says:
NUMBER OF SHARES BENEFICIALLY OWNED BY EACH REPORTING PERSON WITH:
5. SOLE VOTING POWER: -0- 6. SHARED VOTING POWER: -0- 7. SOLE DISPOSITIVE POWER: -0- 8. SHARED DISPOSITIVE POWER: -0-
AGGREGATE AMOUNT BENEFICIALLY OWNED BY EACH REPORTING PERSON: 9. None
CHECK BOX IF THE AGGREGATE AMOUNT IN ROW (9) EXCLUDES CERTAIN SHARES 10. [ ]
PERCENT OF CLASS REPRESENTED BY AMOUNT IN ROW (9) 11. 0.0%
(reformatted to pass Slashdot lameness filter, sorry).
Which I read to say that as of 27 Jan 2000 Microsoft owned 0 (zero) shares of SCO.
and in my mind it establishes that SCO has no claim to the UNIX trademark.
You need ESR to tell you this? Novell gave the UNIX trademark the the Open Group when it sold the source code to SCO.
What ESR forgets is that all the UNIX based enterprise systems (except those clever buggers at SUN) were licensed from Caldera (as the successor to SCO, as the successor to Novell, as the sucessor to AT&T), so even though Caldera didn't sell many enterprise systems they got a few pennies from everything sold. It's the value of those licenses they're afraid of losing.
It may not be more than 3.1% of the market, but it's the only money they have. Just you try prying a grain of rice from the hands of a starving man.
Slashdot Mirror
On modern UnixWare systems we have:
Note the sexy #! line.Maybe you mean to say that high priority interrupts can interrupt low priority ones? But once again that's true in monolithic systems.
And in a microkernel system passing the interrupt to a user level task isn't allways a cheap process.
By the way Micro-kernels (e.g. QNX) put very little code in to the kernel isn't necessarily true, for a counter example see Mach!
Yes, but I wasn't commenting on "mission critical RTOS" features. I was just querying the claim that a microkernel was "faster" than a monolithic kernel sytstem.
AFAIK in general monolithic kernels are faster, they don't have the message passing overhead. But microkernels can be more stable, they have nice clear protection boundaries.
As for "systems that can do things better than Linux", they are legion. Linux is slowly approaching the state of goodness in some domains, but I personaly don't think it's there yet.
More stable? Arguable.
But faster? Can we have some evidence?
What actualy happened is more amusing. The continent used to be on "220V", the UK on "240V". Now they're both on "230V", but nobody changed voltage, they just changed the definition. It's 230V plus or minus 5%, so the UK is always at 230V + 5% = 240V and the Continent is at 230V - 5% = 220V.
I can see how you could claim that Microsoft has an interest in the outcome of the case, but what on earth makes you think Microsoft has "an interest" in the SCO Group (nee Caldera)?
Ms Didio was looking at SVR4.1 code, an ancestor of SVR4.2MP (aka UnixWare).
UnixWare got both SMP and NUMA in SVR4.2 MP, in 1993.
There is no "4 processor limit" in UnixWare. For example see this page UDI reference implementation status talking about testing the UDI project on 32 way SMP UnixWare systems.
No, but it is against the law for insiders to manipulate the value of a stock.
The difference between this and the dot-com debacle is that they are a publicly traded company, with existing shareholders who might find the idea of insider trading by management a little bit anoying.
You realy think the only plan they have is to break the law in a stupidly obvious way and go straight to jail?
Billions of dollars? You have some kind of evidence of this?
I guess Nasdaq could be wrong.
To be serious, seems to be plunging since 27/5, I wonder why :-)
Thanks Novell.
Nor do I play one on Steinfeld [sp?]
c (8461) said:
The SCO group are claiming that IBM leaked their trade secrets. There is no if about it.They can only attack the company that leaked the secrets for leaking the secrets, that's the way secrets work.
But if they win against IBM I can't see how anybody could consider them "screwed". Or maybe you think winning $1,000,000,000 in cash is "being screwed"?
In fact UnixWare 7 is only UNIX 95. Looks like SCO didn't bother to try for Unix98 with 7.1.
SCO ship a bunch of Linux stuff with their "LKP", (Linux Kernel Personality) add-on for UnixWare, and according to The Inquirer they've written to say:
So, within a few weeks we'll be able to compare the old "Linux RPM CD" with the new one and find out what SCO/Caldera think was stolen.They seem to be claiming that two bad things were done
- That people have been using thier OpenServer shared libraries without licenses (copyright violation)
- That IBM stole "enterprise UNIX Technology" (trade secrets) from UnixWare and copied them into Linux.
You say: But UnixWare and OpenServer are dead, there is no genie to put back in the bottle. A huge pile of cash is all they want.(I'm betting that they've some internal memo or letter from some low level IBM guy telling one of his clients how to run some legacy app on Linux).
(Some statements even seem to imply code copying, which would be another breach of copyright).
A little digging on Tarantella's web site and I find a pointer to all the SEC filings, including Microsoft's form 13G which says:
(reformatted to pass Slashdot lameness filter, sorry).Which I read to say that as of 27 Jan 2000 Microsoft owned 0 (zero) shares of SCO.
You don't known whether Tarentella owns any of Caldera.
You do know that Caldera has a history of crappy IP lawsuits to get money.
And you think Microsoft is behind this.
Ok, I can live with that.
What ESR forgets is that all the UNIX based enterprise systems (except those clever buggers at SUN) were licensed from Caldera (as the successor to SCO, as the successor to Novell, as the sucessor to AT&T), so even though Caldera didn't sell many enterprise systems they got a few pennies from everything sold. It's the value of those licenses they're afraid of losing.
It may not be more than 3.1% of the market, but it's the only money they have. Just you try prying a grain of rice from the hands of a starving man.