So when people start muttering "but Microsoft own SCO don't they" (ignoring the fact that Microsoft sold it's 12.3% share in January 2000) they're talking about the wrong SCO.
Question: Was SCO part of the anti-trust suits and related suits against MS? If so to what degree?
Yeah SCO was. It sued Microsoft and won. Twice.
Original SCO complaing to the European commission about Microsoft holding them to a license that ATT signed giving Microsoft a little bit of every SVR3.2 or later system for ever and ever. And SCO won. (Gota love that Microsoft way of papering over a defeat).
Caldera, now known as "Caldera D/B/A The SCO Group" sued Microsoft over anti-commercial suppression of DR-DOS. (That Caldera had bought just to get a bit of the action).
So, you're right. SCO was heavily involved in the various Microsoft anti-trust suits, as one of the more successful anti-Microsoft entities.
Oh dear, more paranoia turns out to be dubious.
Re:An overblown paper
on
OSI vs SCO
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
But much too hard for you to post these supposed errors. Go ahead. Show us how smart you are.
Much more polite to point out the errors to ESR, gives him a chance to fix them.
The current version (1.7 as I write) is more accurate than the earlier ones (I think 1.2 was the first I saw).
Originaly it had statements like (from memory, can't find the CVS copy online):
blah, blah, blah, ... enterprise features: JFS, LVM, SMP, NUMA, hotswap,... SCO Unix has none of these
The current version says
We can therefore state that of the component technologies for enterprise scaling, the Bell Labs codebase includes a journaling file system (in the form of the VxFS Veritas journaling file system) and LVM (in the form of VxVM). But SMP only entered the line in 1995 with UnixWare 2. PCI hot-swapping came in only in 1998 with Unixware 7.
So now he admits that UnixWare (the code that IBM had access to via Project Monterey) has all but one of the features in his checklist. (It has NUMA as well, but it takes a while to fix those position papers).
Re:I just read the whole thing
on
OSI vs SCO
·
· Score: 1
And don't forget to point out the errors you find to ESR. He does fix them. Slowly.
Re:a good explanation from....
on
OSI vs SCO
·
· Score: 1
Remember that a certain company does own some of SCO.
When is a company not a company... MS sold Xenix to SCO. Does that mean it was no longer Xenix?
Xenix is and never was a company. It's a software product.
What Caldera bought off SCO was:
45% of the revenues from sales of OpenServer
The copyright on the source code for UnixWare
All transferable licenses. (Apparently their was some problem with what the Reg called "The jewel in the crown", NSC, and Caldera were forced to abandon it. Compaq/HP are currently porting NSC (renamed to OpenSSI) to Linux.)
The employment contracts of the UnixWare and OpenServer programmers, support teams and so on
(Later on Tarentella sold the copyright to the OpenServer code as well, when Caldera realised that that was where the money was I guess).
Whether Tarentella owns a bit of Caldera (D/B/A The SCO Group) we know that Microsoft owns none of Tarentella: MS sells stake in SCO, and a chapter closes, that was January 2000! Before SCO sold its unix stuff to Caldera!
The MS code in Unix had to do with the booting of Unix type OSs on the standard IBM PC BIOS
Are you sure? Very early on in my Unix experience I ran Microport SYSTEM V 386, which was a SVR3 based system and it had no Microsoft copyright. The Microsoft copyright came in with SVR3.2, and the difference between SVR3 and SVR3.2 is the Xenix compatability. When the Microsoft copyright was removed from UnixWare and OpenServer the only functionality that was lost was the Xenix compatability.
From the Microsoft press release claiming victory (sic):
SCO's complaint concerned a contract originally negotiated in 1987 between Microsoft and AT&T for the development of the UNIX operating system. A principal goal of that contract was to help AT&T reduce fragmentation in the UNIX marketplace by creating a single merged UNIX product. To accomplish this goal, under the contract Microsoft developed for AT&T a new Intel-compatible version of UNIX that improved the program's performance and added compatibility with Microsoft's popular XENIX® operating system, which was at the time the most popular version of UNIX on any hardware platform. When completed in 1988, the merged product created by Microsoft was named "Product of the Year" by UnixWorld Magazine.
Doesn't sound like boot code. Does sound like SVR3.2 Xenix compatability layer.
You know, I'm getting pretty fed up with writing this.
The SCO that Microsoft used to own a bit of is not the same SCO that's suing IBM and selling licenses to Microsoft.
The original SCO sold it's Unix products (UnixWare and OpenServer) to Caldera. It then changed its name to Tarentella. Microsoft may or may not still own shares (I think not), but who cares, they're not part of the story.
Caldera, having decided to commit suicide by suing IBM now calls itself "Caldera D/B/A The Sco Group". D/B/A is supposed to read "doing business as", but I read it as "dead before arrival". I supposed you could call it CDBASG, but I refuse to call them "SCO".
Just to repeat: IT IS NOT SCO THAT IS SUING IBM. IT IS CALDERA.
Do not forget that Microsoft had licensed code in the Unix SVR4 kernel
Sorry, unable to parse.
Do you mean that Microsoft has a license to code in the SVR4 kernel? That's what they've just bought.
Or do you mean that some of the code in the SVR4 kernel was licensed from Microsoft? Yes, since SVR3.2 in fact. But SCO (the old one, not "Caldera D/B/A the SCO Group) won a judgement to get out of that license and remove the Xenix compatability code.
Who are these idiots that keep moderating comments like this "informative"? Does anybody here not know that "Microsoft used to own 11% of SCO".
But so what. It's not the same SCO. The SCO that's suing IBM, and selling a license to Microsoft, is "Caldera, trading as the SCO Group", an entirely different company.
Caldera are changing their name to SCO in order to confuse people. And it sure does work on Slashdot readers!
The problem is that people think "Caldera bought SCO". It didn't. Caldera bought some software from SCO (and the employment contracts of the poor slaves who write it). In order to cause maximum confusion SCO then renamed themselves Tarentella, and finaly Caldera have renamed themselves "Caldera, trading as The SCO Group".
The Microsoft Copyright vanished from Openserver and UnixWare 'cos SCO (the old SCO, the one Microsoft used to own a bit of) complained to the EC (European Commission) that the licensing deal that USL signed with Microsoft when they made Unix SVR3.2 compatible with Xenix was unfair, and won.
Duh, must remember to use the preview button, 5 is a note. I meant to say "'tis a pity that 5 is a note and not a coin", I find $5.75 a bit small for a note.
Another gem from the ESR paper, talking about "the Bell labs codebase", aka Unix SVR4.2MP:
Furthermore, as previously noted, many Unix developers possess copies of later versions of the historical Bell Labs source code. We can therefore state that of the component technologies for enterprise scaling, the Bell Labs codebase includes a journaling fiile system (in the form of the VxFS Veritas journaling file system), but none of SMP, LVM, NUMA, or hot-swapping.
You can state it, baby, but only if you've never read the code (or even the header files).
VxFS is licensed from Veritas, it's not part of the "Bell labs codebase".
SVR4.2MP does have SMP, LVM, NUMA, and hot-swapping.
$ find/usr/include -type f -print | xargs grep NUMA /usr/include/sys/metrics.h: * On CCNUMA, there is no global runqueue. We synthesize /usr/include/sys/metrics.h:/* On CCNUMA, the per-CG msf_file INUSE counts may go negative. */ /usr/include/sys/metrics.h:/* On CCNUMA, the per-CG CURRENT and INUSE counts may go negative */ /usr/include/sys/metrics.h:/* On CCNUMA, the per-CG counts may go negative */ /usr/include/sys/proc.h:#ifdef CCNUMA /usr/include/sys/vmparam.h:#ifdef CCNUMA /usr/include/sys/vmparam.h:#endif/* CCNUMA */ /usr/include/sys/vmparam.h: * Space for per-CG KL2PTEs in the CCNUMA kernel. /usr/include/sys/vmparam.h: * For the ccNUMA kernel: ...
Microsoft ported Unix (SVR2?) to the 286 and called it Xenix. (It's a bit more complicated than that, but that'll do).
SCO bought Xenix from Microsoft (and Microsoft bought some shares in SCO).
USL and SCO merged Xenix compatibility into SVR3 making SVR3.2
SCO started selling SCO Unix (it's version of SVR3.2) as well as SCO Xenix.
USL and Sun merged Sunos compatability into SVR3.2 making SVR4
Novell and USL brought out UnixWare, SVR4.2.
Novell bought UnixWare from USL as part of Ray Noorda's plan to kill Microsoft.
Noorda started a skunkware project (later called Caldera) to see if Linux would be a better Microsoft killer than UnixWare.
Novell abandoned the idea of killing Microsoft, leaving the landscape littered with it's WMD's (UnixWare, WP and so on).
Caldera, still waging an anti-Microsoft crusade, bought DR-DOS just so it could sue Microsoft for anti-competetive practices.
SCO bought UnixWare from Novell. Novell sold the "Unix" trademark to The Open Group.
SCO was now selling OpenServer (SVR3.2) and UnixWare (SVR4.2). (Xenix had been EOL'd at some point).
SCO, getting bored with paying Microsoft a license fee for every copy of UnixWare got the European comission to rule that the license deal with Microsoft was anti competetive, and ripped the Xenix compatability out of UnixWare 2.1.
SCO and IBM started project Monterey to merge SVR4.2 (UnixWare) and AIX, porting the resulting system to the Itanic.
IBM decided not to go ahead with Monterey, more or less at the moment it was finished.
SCO, failing to make much headway against Linux, and having some success with it's Tarentella web based application server, decided to get out of the Unix game. It sold OpenServer and UnixWare to Caldera and renamed itself Tarentella. (People were sold as well as software, effectively told by their employer that they were losers).
Caldera, making more money of OpenServer and UnixWare than Linux, but seeing the inevitable demise of this revenue stream, started looking for some other source of revenue.
The first idea was licensing the OpenServer and (to a lesser extent) UnixWare shared libraries to Linux vendors so people could keep running their legacy applications. (Sagans and Sagans of small and medium sized businesses use SCO OpenServer to run boring little apps that never get modified and just keep running).
Caldera realised that most people didn't give a fuck about the licenses, they just copied the libraries off the old OpenServer disk they had and ran them on their Linux machines.
Caldera decided to sart suing. Some genius decided to mix the library license violations with the still open wound of the Monterey cancellation and go for IBM. For the purposes of the lawsuit Caldera started to change it's name to SCO.
So there you have it. The SCO that's suing IBM is not the SCO that used to be partly owned by Microsoft, in fact it's a Novell spinoff that was created as part of a plan to kill Microsoft and became famous to Slashdot readers for suing Microsoft for killing DR-DOS.
Slashdot Mirror
SCO != The SCO Group
The SCO Group == Caldera
So when people start muttering "but Microsoft own SCO don't they" (ignoring the fact that Microsoft sold it's 12.3% share in January 2000) they're talking about the wrong SCO.
Original SCO complaing to the European commission about Microsoft holding them to a license that ATT signed giving Microsoft a little bit of every SVR3.2 or later system for ever and ever. And SCO won. (Gota love that Microsoft way of papering over a defeat).
Caldera, now known as "Caldera D/B/A The SCO Group" sued Microsoft over anti-commercial suppression of DR-DOS. (That Caldera had bought just to get a bit of the action).
So, you're right. SCO was heavily involved in the various Microsoft anti-trust suits, as one of the more successful anti-Microsoft entities.
Oh dear, more paranoia turns out to be dubious.
The current version (1.7 as I write) is more accurate than the earlier ones (I think 1.2 was the first I saw).
Originaly it had statements like (from memory, can't find the CVS copy online):
The current version says So now he admits that UnixWare (the code that IBM had access to via Project Monterey) has all but one of the features in his checklist. (It has NUMA as well, but it takes a while to fix those position papers).And don't forget to point out the errors you find to ESR. He does fix them. Slowly.
Not that has anything to do with this lawsuit, that is being brought by Caldera, or "Caldera D/B/A The SCO Group".
What Caldera bought off SCO was:
- 45% of the revenues from sales of OpenServer
- The copyright on the source code for UnixWare
- All transferable licenses. (Apparently their was some problem with what the Reg called "The jewel in the crown", NSC, and Caldera were forced to abandon it. Compaq/HP are currently porting NSC (renamed to OpenSSI) to Linux.)
- The employment contracts of the UnixWare and OpenServer programmers, support teams and so on
(Later on Tarentella sold the copyright to the OpenServer code as well, when Caldera realised that that was where the money was I guess).Whether Tarentella owns a bit of Caldera (D/B/A The SCO Group) we know that Microsoft owns none of Tarentella: MS sells stake in SCO, and a chapter closes, that was January 2000! Before SCO sold its unix stuff to Caldera!
From the Microsoft press release claiming victory (sic):
Doesn't sound like boot code. Does sound like SVR3.2 Xenix compatability layer.You know, I'm getting pretty fed up with writing this.
The SCO that Microsoft used to own a bit of is not the same SCO that's suing IBM and selling licenses to Microsoft.
The original SCO sold it's Unix products (UnixWare and OpenServer) to Caldera. It then changed its name to Tarentella. Microsoft may or may not still own shares (I think not), but who cares, they're not part of the story.
Caldera, having decided to commit suicide by suing IBM now calls itself "Caldera D/B/A The Sco Group". D/B/A is supposed to read "doing business as", but I read it as "dead before arrival". I supposed you could call it CDBASG, but I refuse to call them "SCO".
Just to repeat: IT IS NOT SCO THAT IS SUING IBM. IT IS CALDERA.
They're not even called "The SCO Group". The real name is "Caldera D/B/A 'The SCO Group'".
D/B/A is supposed to be read as "Doing Business As", but I prefer to read it as "Dead Before Arrival".
Do you mean that Microsoft has a license to code in the SVR4 kernel? That's what they've just bought.
Or do you mean that some of the code in the SVR4 kernel was licensed from Microsoft? Yes, since SVR3.2 in fact. But SCO (the old one, not "Caldera D/B/A the SCO Group) won a judgement to get out of that license and remove the Xenix compatability code.
Any more questions?
Yow! Rip van Winkle awakes!
Did you miss the last couple of elections?
The outcome of the Microsoft Anti-Trust case?
Go back to sleep now.
Who are these idiots that keep moderating comments like this "informative"? Does anybody here not know that "Microsoft used to own 11% of SCO".
But so what. It's not the same SCO. The SCO that's suing IBM, and selling a license to Microsoft, is "Caldera, trading as the SCO Group", an entirely different company.
Caldera are changing their name to SCO in order to confuse people. And it sure does work on Slashdot readers!
Well, appart from all the little errors.
Come to think of it it's almost as stupid as the "SCO" (Stupid Caldera Obfuscation) lawsuit.
Unix was written for 16 bit processors. It was later ported to 32 bit processors.
Never heard of the PDP11?
Can you point to one interesting difference between SVR4.2MP and SVR5?
I've written device drivers for SVR4.2MP systems compiled them and loaded and used them on so called SVR5 systems.
SVR4.2MP = UnixWare 2, 2.1
SVR5 = UnixWare 7, 7.1, 7.1.1, OU8, 7.1.3
The problem is that people think "Caldera bought SCO". It didn't. Caldera bought some software from SCO (and the employment contracts of the poor slaves who write it). In order to cause maximum confusion SCO then renamed themselves Tarentella, and finaly Caldera have renamed themselves "Caldera, trading as The SCO Group".
The Microsoft Copyright vanished from Openserver and UnixWare 'cos SCO (the old SCO, the one Microsoft used to own a bit of) complained to the EC (European Commission) that the licensing deal that USL signed with Microsoft when they made Unix SVR3.2 compatible with Xenix was unfair, and won.
Why would anybody bother remembering things that aren't true?
SCO Xenix was replaced by SCO OpenServer, which isn't Xenix.
I guess you think Linux is based on Minix?
Duh, must remember to use the preview button, 5 is a note. I meant to say "'tis a pity that 5 is a note and not a coin", I find $5.75 a bit small for a note.
Notes: 500, 200, 100, 50, 20, 10, 5
Coins: 2, 1, 0.50, 0.20, 0.10, 0.05, 0.02, 0.01
'tis a pity the 5 is a coin and not a note, but I guess they thought it'd scare the Greeks.
Slashdot readers, you couldn't invent 'em.
Knackered's insightful contribuition gets modded troll while the troll he's replying to gets modded "insightful".
This is not the SCO you are looking for.
The SCO that Microsoft used to own a bit of is now called Tarentella.
This SCO, "The SCO Group", is actualy Caldera, owned by Ray Noorda, an anti-Microsoft loon from way back.
By the way, when did Google get the job of replacing the SEC?
VxFS is licensed from Veritas, it's not part of the "Bell labs codebase".
SVR4.2MP does have SMP, LVM, NUMA, and hot-swapping.
UnixWare 2.1 was released by SCO in 1996
SCO went on to release UnixWare 7 and 7.1
SCO sold UnixWare to Caldera in 2001 (NOT 1996)
Microsoft ported Unix (SVR2?) to the 286 and called it Xenix. (It's a bit more complicated than that, but that'll do).
SCO bought Xenix from Microsoft (and Microsoft bought some shares in SCO).
USL and SCO merged Xenix compatibility into SVR3 making SVR3.2
SCO started selling SCO Unix (it's version of SVR3.2) as well as SCO Xenix.
USL and Sun merged Sunos compatability into SVR3.2 making SVR4
Novell and USL brought out UnixWare, SVR4.2.
Novell bought UnixWare from USL as part of Ray Noorda's plan to kill Microsoft.
Noorda started a skunkware project (later called Caldera) to see if Linux would be a better Microsoft killer than UnixWare.
Novell abandoned the idea of killing Microsoft, leaving the landscape littered with it's WMD's (UnixWare, WP and so on).
Caldera, still waging an anti-Microsoft crusade, bought DR-DOS just so it could sue Microsoft for anti-competetive practices.
SCO bought UnixWare from Novell. Novell sold the "Unix" trademark to The Open Group.
SCO was now selling OpenServer (SVR3.2) and UnixWare (SVR4.2). (Xenix had been EOL'd at some point).
SCO, getting bored with paying Microsoft a license fee for every copy of UnixWare got the European comission to rule that the license deal with Microsoft was anti competetive, and ripped the Xenix compatability out of UnixWare 2.1.
SCO and IBM started project Monterey to merge SVR4.2 (UnixWare) and AIX, porting the resulting system to the Itanic.
IBM decided not to go ahead with Monterey, more or less at the moment it was finished.
SCO, failing to make much headway against Linux, and having some success with it's Tarentella web based application server, decided to get out of the Unix game. It sold OpenServer and UnixWare to Caldera and renamed itself Tarentella. (People were sold as well as software, effectively told by their employer that they were losers).
Caldera, making more money of OpenServer and UnixWare than Linux, but seeing the inevitable demise of this revenue stream, started looking for some other source of revenue.
The first idea was licensing the OpenServer and (to a lesser extent) UnixWare shared libraries to Linux vendors so people could keep running their legacy applications. (Sagans and Sagans of small and medium sized businesses use SCO OpenServer to run boring little apps that never get modified and just keep running).
Caldera realised that most people didn't give a fuck about the licenses, they just copied the libraries off the old OpenServer disk they had and ran them on their Linux machines.
Caldera decided to sart suing. Some genius decided to mix the library license violations with the still open wound of the Monterey cancellation and go for IBM. For the purposes of the lawsuit Caldera started to change it's name to SCO.
So there you have it. The SCO that's suing IBM is not the SCO that used to be partly owned by Microsoft, in fact it's a Novell spinoff that was created as part of a plan to kill Microsoft and became famous to Slashdot readers for suing Microsoft for killing DR-DOS.