First of all, who is going to believe a word you say when you can't even express your opinion intelligently. I say "Hell No" to your not so well informed comments. You say things like you actually know what you are talking about and then maybe I'll care about what you have to say.
Incorrect. Microsoft doesn't anything near 30%+ of SCO. The last time SCO dealt with Microsoft was in the late 80's with MS XENIX. Over the past couple of years SCO has done whatever possible to distance themselves from Microsoft. One major accomplishment was to remove all XENIX legacy compatibility from SCO products, so that paying licensing fees to MS could be terminated. Microsoft does still hold stock in SCO, but nowhere near the level you mentioned. Microsoft has no say in the things that SCO does. End of story.
I would like to know what lead you to say that SCO hasn't been doing well lately? I have seen no indication. The stock has hit a 52 week high recently and they had a good last quarter.
I don't think this is a good thing. It can only make CDNOW worse. The merger of CDNOW and Musicblvd was one of the worse things to happen to online music selling. I loved Musicblvd's format and prices and that all disappeared.
You can possibly use a telnet application on a Palm Pilot to access the machine through the serial port. I've seen something similar done with the Pilot.
Your point is well taken. Yes, it's true it wasn't originally developed by SCO, but their sar is completely based on the original SVR4.2 code. The thing you have to understand is that UnixWare includes the code that came from AT&T Bell Labs -> USL -> Novell. Another thing is that many of the developers Yes, sar did exist in SVR3.x.
Microsoft owns some piece of SCO. Not as large a piece as some make it out to be. They have not shaped the decisions of SCO in the past and will not in the future. There is no chance of a MS-Linux product that is tied in with SCO. The only tie Microsoft has with SCO was there royalty licensing contract for XENIX code in SCO OSs. That contract no longer exists and therefore no more ties to Microsoft.
That statement is incorrect. The Monterey project that includes SCO, IBM, and Sequent will use technology from all three Operating Systems. That includes UnixWare, AIX, and PTX.
Would you like to tell me where you got that info from? I don't see it being that much if at all. Even if they do hold that much stock, it doesn't mean it governs what the company does. I can't believe people keep bringing up this stuff. Someone tell me how this means anything at all besides more FUD.
Can we same from you? I think so. An immature comment doesn't warrant an immature response. I just don't believe in saying non-intelligent things no matter what someone says.
Don't know where they found XENIX because SCO hasn't been selling it. In fact they removed support for XENIX from their UnixWare product in version 7.0.1.
Not true because of how the kernel was developed around the hardware. It would take a lot of work to get it to run on x86 hardware. Lets just say I've spoken to AIX developers as part of my work. If you can give me reasons for why it would work really well if it ran on "our hardware" then let me know. Right now you haven't backed up a thing you've said.
I'm sorry, but I have to point something out to you. AIX is well tuned for the specific hardware it supports. And of course all that hardware is developed by IBM. You don't know how much firmware is in their PPC servers, that leaves less work for the OS. Plus, from the viewpoint of Linux and SCO there is a lot more hardware to support from many more manufacturers.
Everyone has to keep it straight what product they are talking about. UnixWare 7 as of release 7.0.1 does not have any XENIX/Microsoft code in it. It is pure System V.
Point taken and I would tend to agree with you. But, you are basing your opinion on a product that isn't even sold anymore. The ones that are in competition with Linux are OpenServer 5 and even more so UnixWare 7. Support for IDE is there in both. I'm not so sure if I agree with your comment that SCO's hardware support is lousy. They support the hardware that is found in servers. Not the hardware that is found in many desktop type systems.
Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft is not a participant in the UDI specification. Take a look at the UDI project homepage to see who is participating.
First of all, who is going to believe a word you say when you can't even express your opinion intelligently. I say "Hell No" to your not so well informed comments. You say things like you actually know what you are talking about and then maybe I'll care about what you have to say.
Incorrect. Microsoft doesn't anything near 30%+ of SCO. The last time SCO dealt with Microsoft was in the late 80's with MS XENIX. Over the past couple of years SCO has done whatever possible to distance themselves from Microsoft. One major accomplishment was to remove all XENIX legacy compatibility from SCO products, so that paying licensing fees to MS could be terminated. Microsoft does still hold stock in SCO, but nowhere near the level you mentioned. Microsoft has no say in the things that SCO does. End of story.
I would like to know what lead you to say that SCO hasn't been doing well lately? I have seen no indication. The stock has hit a 52 week high recently and they had a good last quarter.
I don't think this is a good thing. It can only make CDNOW worse. The merger of CDNOW and Musicblvd was one of the worse things to happen to online music selling. I loved Musicblvd's format and prices and that all disappeared.
I'm just putting this out as a choice and am not going to give any opinions. I have not personally used it.
SCO Tarantella
You can possibly use a telnet application on a Palm Pilot to access the machine through the serial port. I've seen something similar done with the Pilot.
Finally someone that makes sense with the lack of a relationship between SCO and Microsoft. Thanks for the good explanation.
Yes, Linux binary compatibility is there through lxrun. My point was that there will not be a Linux distro from the combined efforts of SCO and MS.
Your point is well taken. Yes, it's true it wasn't originally developed by SCO, but their sar is completely based on the original SVR4.2 code. The thing you have to understand is that UnixWare includes the code that came from AT&T Bell Labs -> USL -> Novell. Another thing is that many of the developers Yes, sar did exist in SVR3.x.
What is your basis that Sun's SAR implementation is better? I'm curious.
Microsoft owns some piece of SCO. Not as large a piece as some make it out to be. They have not shaped the decisions of SCO in the past and will not in the future. There is no chance of a MS-Linux product that is tied in with SCO. The only tie Microsoft has with SCO was there royalty licensing contract for XENIX code in SCO OSs. That contract no longer exists and therefore no more ties to Microsoft.
At the end of the article there are comments from readers at linuxtoday. I see those as being reasonable compared to some of the things said here.
http://linuxtoday.com/stories/5788_flat.html
The New Jersey comment is unwarranted. Cut it out.
That statement is incorrect. The Monterey project that includes SCO, IBM, and Sequent will use technology from all three Operating Systems. That includes UnixWare, AIX, and PTX.
Would you like to tell me where you got that info from? I don't see it being that much if at all. Even if they do hold that much stock, it doesn't mean it governs what the company does. I can't believe people keep bringing up this stuff. Someone tell me how this means anything at all besides more FUD.
Can we same from you? I think so. An immature comment doesn't warrant an immature response. I just don't believe in saying non-intelligent things no matter what someone says.
I'd love to hear why you think so. Why isn't SCO on the map? What product exactly did you work on/with?
I'd really like to hear what you didn't like. I'm curious to see what was wrong with it. Any examples would be appreciated.
Don't know where they found XENIX because SCO hasn't been selling it. In fact they removed support for XENIX from their UnixWare product in version 7.0.1.
Not true because of how the kernel was developed around the hardware. It would take a lot of work to get it to run on x86 hardware. Lets just say I've spoken to AIX developers as part of my work. If you can give me reasons for why it would work really well if it ran on "our hardware" then let me know. Right now you haven't backed up a thing you've said.
I'm sorry, but I have to point something out to you. AIX is well tuned for the specific hardware it supports. And of course all that hardware is developed by IBM. You don't know how much firmware is in their PPC servers, that leaves less work for the OS. Plus, from the viewpoint of Linux and SCO there is a lot more hardware to support from many more manufacturers.
The thing is don't you have to do that with every other OS except Linux. This isn't just a SCO issue.
Everyone has to keep it straight what product they are talking about. UnixWare 7 as of release 7.0.1 does not have any XENIX/Microsoft code in it. It is pure System V.
Point taken and I would tend to agree with you. But, you are basing your opinion on a product that isn't even sold anymore. The ones that are in competition with Linux are OpenServer 5 and even more so UnixWare 7. Support for IDE is there in both. I'm not so sure if I agree with your comment that SCO's hardware support is lousy. They support the hardware that is found in servers. Not the hardware that is found in many desktop type systems.