Much of the attention over the last month may have been around Apple's new iPhones. But Samsung recently launched a beast of a flagship smartphone that goes head to head with the best from Apple. After a couple of weeks trying it out, here's how we found the Galaxy Note 8.
As 2017 draws to a close, it's a good time to take stock of the current state of the smartphone market by examining the vital statistics of leading vendors' flagship handsets. Apple's iPhone 8, 8 Plus and X, Samsung's Galaxy S8/S8+ and Galaxy Note 8. ..
Samsung Electronics said Thursday it was planning to launch in the second half of this year a new flagship phone, leading to speculation that the company is planning an alternative to the ill-fated Galaxy Note7 that had to be recalled last year.
The launch of a new flagship smartphone this year and continuing sales of the Galaxy S8 and S8+ will help Samsung counter Apple’s launch of a new version of its iPhone. Apple usually unveils new phones in September.
Samsung does announce a S series phone in the first half of the year and a Note series in the second half," said Kiranjeet Kaur, research manager for client devices at IDC Asia/Pacific.
Samsung makes 2 flagship phones a year whereas Apple only release one. It's been this way for years. Unfortunately for Samsung last year's Note 7 was problematic.
Maybe even Samsung think the difference is not worth the extra price, so that display was not included in their Note 8. It's not as if it was day and night between the two.,
How do you know that the price difference were in the displays? The price difference at retail of the phones is about $100 ($999 vs $899) but you can get the Note 8 cheaper. The iPhone X does have basically a miniaturized Kinect module that the Note 8 doesn't so that adds to their cost. But what I do know they were both tested by DisplayMate and they decided the iPhone X is better.
Samsung had the best display for years, beating Apple for all the recent years. Now, Apple may have a slight edge from November 2017 onwards, but I expect Samsung to take back the crown in April with their next flagship. Maybe Apple wanted to have the crown for a few months as a condition to switch to Samsung displays.
Again my point is not that Apple has a display that Samsung doesn't in a false dichotomy. My point is that Samsung doesn't ALSO have the same display and hence title. Or maybe buying a part and sticking it into your phone isn't all it takes to get the most out of a part?
Of course, most users don't want accurate colours, they want popping colours and high contrast. When Google made accurate colours the default on the Pixel 2 people complained that it was too dull and flat looking.
Some users don't want accurate colors. I would be you that a professional would.
DisplayMate compared the calibrated screen in the iPhone to the uncalibrated screen in the Note 8.
Please show me in the DisplayMate analysis of the Note 8 where what you say is true. It doesn't appear in the iPhone X analysis as them comparing anything to the Note 8. In the both analyses, both phones are tested under the same calibration modes.
FTA: "What makes the iPhone X the Best Smartphone Display is the impressive Precision Display Calibration Apple developed"
Um, no. What the author actually wrote: "Apple's display is the best because of the calibration of their phones." What you read: "We cheated by calibrating the iPhone X and not the Note 8." Please read the Note 8 analysis again. What the author is talking about is probably the calibration to the standards as not all phones/manufacturers have the same settings or goals. Nowhere does the author mention they had to perform some sort of special calibration per Apple's instructions.
You missed the point. If all it took to get "best display" was buying a display, why doesn't a Samsung phone have at least tied score with the iPhone X? For example, the Note 8 only came out 6 weeks before the iPhone X. Or maybe there is some engineering to be done.
And what do you base that assumption? Samsung seems to maintain at least two lines of "flagship phone": the S and the Note. One has pen and is bigger and one does not and is slightly smaller.
I can guarantee you that they don't. I can also guarantee that Apple does not, either. See the way it works in a business is that stakeholders for a project sit down and figure out the specifications needed to make that product successful. Once they have made those decisions, they build the product according to those specifications. They do not seek out parts and suppliers that are able to grossly exceed those specifications if it causes an increase in cost. Even if the cost increase is only $0.10 they would not pay for the most expensive part when they're planning on using millions of units of those parts. If every company used the absolute best parts they could get their hands on, you would not be able to afford the products they're selling. It would greatly limit your choices and purchasing power. It could also greatly decrease their profit margins.
Again, I'm not saying Samsung should use the best parts for every single model of phone. I'm asking why Samsung didn't use the best display for their flagship phone if it's that easy just to stick in a part. Or is the process of using a part involve engineering and optimization, perhaps?
Also you are not taking into consideration the fact that Samsung's flagship phone went into production almost a year ago so that they could meet their March release date. It's quite possible that this screen technology was not ready when Samsung started production in 2016.
The Note 8 was released 6 weeks before the iPhone X. Samsung maintains multiple lines of "flagship phone". The S8 was released in March.
And what forbade IBM from selling that display to anyone willing to buy it? Nothing. That was my point. Apple using a display from Samsung does not preclude Samsung from using the same display. Or maybe Apple did apply some engineering to make the display better. That buying a part and putting it into a product isn't enough.
Also to understand that Apple doesn't exactly have an overwhelming advantage when it comes to Samsung components when competing with Samsung. I'm pretty sure Samsung Displays division isn't forced to sell their best displays only to Apple. The question then is why does Apple have the best display (made by Samsung) and why doesn't Samsung smartphones also have the same display.
No, I asked if the other poster was saying that. The whole quote was: "So you're saying that it would profit Samsung more to sell a component to Apple that the best instead of using it within the same company to drive sales of their smartphones?
There are a few ways to make products. One is to use off-the-shelf components and piece them together to make your own product. This completely off-the-shelf model tends to be quick and produce lower cost products since there is very little R&D overhead incurred. But it tends toward 'me too' products with little / no innovation in hardware.
Yes but only applies to hardware where there is anything to innovate. That doesn't apply to commodity hardware. For example, what R&D improvements could Apple gain by making their own RAM? Not much. Open multiple phones of the same model and you might get RAM from multiple suppliers.
What Puls4r is alluding to is that Apple's R&D develops some great components, then gives those components to others to manufacture (like Samsung and TSMC making Apple's signature ARM processors, or Samsung making Apple's 'improved' display. What Puls4r is contending is that Apple is giving their potential competitors an advantage by giving them the know-how (and paying them to develop the tooling and process needed) to make better products without them incurring the R&D cost, information and technique they can then employ on their own competing products (even if not exactly copy, but take the learning about what improvements are possible, etc...).
The flaw in that logic is that only Apple "gives away R&D" because Apple is the only one does this. Every single smartphone manufacturer outsources some part. Some component makers also do this. For example, Qualcomm doesn't manufacture their own processors as they have no fabs; they sell their designs. Also the other flaw is the assumption that no one in the industry does any sort of research on their competitor's product. If Apple manufactured their own ARM processors, you'd bet Samsung and Qualcomm would dissect it as soon as it came on the market. How is that different than today? There's no difference. Qualcomm and Samsung probably dissect every single Apple Ax processors when they come on the market. For Samsung they probably dissect the TSMC variants to gain advantages over TSMC. And I bet you Samsung dissects Qualcomm processors as well.
If anything Apple has an advantage because while they can buy components from their competitors, no competitor can buy their components. For example Apple will never sell their ARM processors to competition directly. You want an Apple Ax processor you have to buy the whole phone. Samsung still sells their ARM processors to their competitors although it may not be their top end ones.
. Apple has managed to convince consumers that there is extra value to their products for 10 years and the competition between Apple and other manufacturers benefits us all right?
No. Apple like any other brand needs to convince everyone that their product is worth it. As for extra value, do you mean besides the years of software updates Apple iPhones seem to have which are longer than their Android counterparts? You mean besides a software library that doesn't have a reputation for malware?
High-end components have better margin. Apple sell more high-end phones compared to Samsung, so yes, selling high-end components through Apple is more profitable than selling them through the S and Note lines.
The major flaw in your premise is that nothing says that Samsung Display division must only sell the best displays to one and only one customer.
Finally, what makes you think that Samsung would put the best display they could make on their phones?
Because then the your premise is that Samsung doesn't want to put the best components in their phones.
Samsung sell plenty of phones, not all of them have the same display - clearly they don't think that they need to put the absolute best display on every phone they ship.
I never said that they need to put the best display in every single phone. I said why wouldn't Samsung have the best display in their phone namely their flagship phone.
It's entirely plausible that they chose a somewhat lower end part for their phone than the one Apple specced into theirs. Why would that be weird?
It would mean that you are saying Samsung doesn't always use the best parts.
Your assertion relies on the assumption that this display is in fact the latest that Samsung could offer to anyone. Also you are kinda ignoring that the Galaxy Note 8 was only released 1 month prior to the iPhone X
So you're saying that it would profit Samsung more to sell a component to Apple that the best instead of using it within the same company to drive sales of their smartphones? I just want to be clear that's what you're saying.
The question is why you would post as an AC? But to counter to your point that's like saying Porsche can't compete against a broad and open market. They only makes sports cars and make themselves the most expensive choice. They should make more mini-vans for soccer moms. And to also counter your point it's not factually true. Can you get an iPhone cheaper than a Samsung or LG? Have you heard of the SE, 6, 6 Plus, 7, 7 Plus? I mean it's not like Apple doesn't have 8 models going from $350 to $999.
They constantly position themselves in a magical made-up segment, like that guy who shoots the wall of a barn then goes and draw the target around his bullet holes.
A made-up segment? They target the high end for computers and the phones cover a broad spectrum. So what? Why are you mad that Apple goes after a very specific market?
The only people making it an Apple vs. Samsung competition are the Apple advocates. For everybody else, the smartphone business is a whole bunch of suppliers, and weird Apple off in their own headgame.
Um, you mean besides the poster above who is clearly pro-Samsung and anti-Apple? I wouldn't call him an Apple advocate. It would seem that contrary to OP's assertion that would give Apple an advantage: They can get whatever component they want from a competitor but no competitor buys components from them as they never sell them.
Apple can't compete against a broad and open market. They always narrow the comparison to themselves and the most expensive choice 'The Rest of Us' could choose.
I would say the iPhone is strong contrary to your point. You want a smartphone not made by Apple; you have plenty of choice: Apple still makes a lot of money and is a powerful player in the smartphone market.
They have. For years, Samsung had the best display on its own phone. It just didn't made Slashdot headlines because it wasn't Apple.
And it also gave Apple iPhone 7 the best LCD display in previous years. But you've missed my point: Why would Apple have the best Samsung display over Samsung phones?
If it's that easy then why doesn't a Samsung phone have the the best smartphone display according to DisplayMate? Maybe there might have been some improvements made by Apple. Also it might be the case that Samsung as very large corporation with different markets and divisions might not have total synergy and cooperation across different divisions.
Because Samsung actually makes their own products, and Apple GIVES AWAY every last bit of their research because they can't make their own.
I'm sorry but I did miss the Great Apple Giveaway that they had at Apple HQ last week where every one of their competitors go to take all the research they could carry. Basically none part of what you said is true because the secretive Apple I know isn't above suing people to prevent their research from getting out. I seem to recall them firing an engineer recently because daughter posted a video taken at Apple HQ of an iPhone X prototype. That's the secretive Apple I know.
Outsourcing manufacturing fails every, single, time. You give away your technology, teach others to make it, and then get yourself toasted as they figure out how to make it better, cheaper, faster, or just copy it so they don't have to pay for an R&D budget
Yes because Samsung has never outsourced a single product or component to another country or company, ever. Oh wait, they have. You can open any Samsung product and see this.
Indeed. The sobering thing though is the Sphinx, claimed to be 4000 years old exhibits the weathering of a structure 35000 or more years old and erosion from thousands of years of rain when there hasn't been rain on the Giza plateau for about 8000 years(IIRC).
According to whom? The last I read about weathering of the Sphinx was not due to rainfall but runoff of rainfall which is different.
Anyone who has been following this case for 14 years now
We don't use SysV anymore. It's about systemd now.:-)
What the heck are you talking about? The current case has nothing to do with Linux and is only dealing with SVR4 and AIX back in the days of Project Monterrey. And systemd is a replacement for SysV init. It has nothing to do with KornShell, ELF, SVR4 print, etc.
Of the 294 items in the Final Disclosure there are only 10 left in the case. Items 194-203. All of them deal with parts of SVR4 that IBM had put into AIX. The Appeals Court does not say that SCO's claims have been proven; they are saying that the claims should be heard in court as they were previously dismissed by the district judge. The items are:
System V Package and Installation Tools from UnixWare/SVR4
System V Truss technology
SVR4 print subsystem
System V ELF code
System V atdialer code
System V route.c code
System V Korn Shell
System V header files
System V commands
Man pages
From what I can tell some of those are needed for compatibility like ELF and header files. Korn shell, SVR4 print, and man pages are things that are way older than SCO's provenance.
Slashdot Mirror
Much of the attention over the last month may have been around Apple's new iPhones. But Samsung recently launched a beast of a flagship smartphone that goes head to head with the best from Apple. After a couple of weeks trying it out, here's how we found the Galaxy Note 8.
As 2017 draws to a close, it's a good time to take stock of the current state of the smartphone market by examining the vital statistics of leading vendors' flagship handsets. Apple's iPhone 8, 8 Plus and X, Samsung's Galaxy S8/S8+ and Galaxy Note 8. . .
Samsung Electronics said Thursday it was planning to launch in the second half of this year a new flagship phone, leading to speculation that the company is planning an alternative to the ill-fated Galaxy Note7 that had to be recalled last year.
The launch of a new flagship smartphone this year and continuing sales of the Galaxy S8 and S8+ will help Samsung counter Apple’s launch of a new version of its iPhone. Apple usually unveils new phones in September.
Samsung does announce a S series phone in the first half of the year and a Note series in the second half," said Kiranjeet Kaur, research manager for client devices at IDC Asia/Pacific.
Samsung makes 2 flagship phones a year whereas Apple only release one. It's been this way for years. Unfortunately for Samsung last year's Note 7 was problematic.
Maybe even Samsung think the difference is not worth the extra price, so that display was not included in their Note 8. It's not as if it was day and night between the two.,
How do you know that the price difference were in the displays? The price difference at retail of the phones is about $100 ($999 vs $899) but you can get the Note 8 cheaper. The iPhone X does have basically a miniaturized Kinect module that the Note 8 doesn't so that adds to their cost. But what I do know they were both tested by DisplayMate and they decided the iPhone X is better.
Samsung had the best display for years, beating Apple for all the recent years. Now, Apple may have a slight edge from November 2017 onwards, but I expect Samsung to take back the crown in April with their next flagship. Maybe Apple wanted to have the crown for a few months as a condition to switch to Samsung displays.
Again my point is not that Apple has a display that Samsung doesn't in a false dichotomy. My point is that Samsung doesn't ALSO have the same display and hence title. Or maybe buying a part and sticking it into your phone isn't all it takes to get the most out of a part?
Of course, most users don't want accurate colours, they want popping colours and high contrast. When Google made accurate colours the default on the Pixel 2 people complained that it was too dull and flat looking.
Some users don't want accurate colors. I would be you that a professional would.
DisplayMate compared the calibrated screen in the iPhone to the uncalibrated screen in the Note 8.
Please show me in the DisplayMate analysis of the Note 8 where what you say is true. It doesn't appear in the iPhone X analysis as them comparing anything to the Note 8. In the both analyses, both phones are tested under the same calibration modes.
FTA: "What makes the iPhone X the Best Smartphone Display is the impressive Precision Display Calibration Apple developed"
Um, no. What the author actually wrote: "Apple's display is the best because of the calibration of their phones." What you read: "We cheated by calibrating the iPhone X and not the Note 8." Please read the Note 8 analysis again. What the author is talking about is probably the calibration to the standards as not all phones/manufacturers have the same settings or goals. Nowhere does the author mention they had to perform some sort of special calibration per Apple's instructions.
You missed the point. If all it took to get "best display" was buying a display, why doesn't a Samsung phone have at least tied score with the iPhone X? For example, the Note 8 only came out 6 weeks before the iPhone X. Or maybe there is some engineering to be done.
And what do you base that assumption? Samsung seems to maintain at least two lines of "flagship phone": the S and the Note. One has pen and is bigger and one does not and is slightly smaller.
I can guarantee you that they don't. I can also guarantee that Apple does not, either. See the way it works in a business is that stakeholders for a project sit down and figure out the specifications needed to make that product successful. Once they have made those decisions, they build the product according to those specifications. They do not seek out parts and suppliers that are able to grossly exceed those specifications if it causes an increase in cost. Even if the cost increase is only $0.10 they would not pay for the most expensive part when they're planning on using millions of units of those parts. If every company used the absolute best parts they could get their hands on, you would not be able to afford the products they're selling. It would greatly limit your choices and purchasing power. It could also greatly decrease their profit margins.
Again, I'm not saying Samsung should use the best parts for every single model of phone. I'm asking why Samsung didn't use the best display for their flagship phone if it's that easy just to stick in a part. Or is the process of using a part involve engineering and optimization, perhaps?
Also you are not taking into consideration the fact that Samsung's flagship phone went into production almost a year ago so that they could meet their March release date. It's quite possible that this screen technology was not ready when Samsung started production in 2016.
The Note 8 was released 6 weeks before the iPhone X. Samsung maintains multiple lines of "flagship phone". The S8 was released in March.
And what forbade IBM from selling that display to anyone willing to buy it? Nothing. That was my point. Apple using a display from Samsung does not preclude Samsung from using the same display. Or maybe Apple did apply some engineering to make the display better. That buying a part and putting it into a product isn't enough.
Also to understand that Apple doesn't exactly have an overwhelming advantage when it comes to Samsung components when competing with Samsung. I'm pretty sure Samsung Displays division isn't forced to sell their best displays only to Apple. The question then is why does Apple have the best display (made by Samsung) and why doesn't Samsung smartphones also have the same display.
No, I asked if the other poster was saying that. The whole quote was: "So you're saying that it would profit Samsung more to sell a component to Apple that the best instead of using it within the same company to drive sales of their smartphones?
There are a few ways to make products. One is to use off-the-shelf components and piece them together to make your own product. This completely off-the-shelf model tends to be quick and produce lower cost products since there is very little R&D overhead incurred. But it tends toward 'me too' products with little / no innovation in hardware.
Yes but only applies to hardware where there is anything to innovate. That doesn't apply to commodity hardware. For example, what R&D improvements could Apple gain by making their own RAM? Not much. Open multiple phones of the same model and you might get RAM from multiple suppliers.
What Puls4r is alluding to is that Apple's R&D develops some great components, then gives those components to others to manufacture (like Samsung and TSMC making Apple's signature ARM processors, or Samsung making Apple's 'improved' display. What Puls4r is contending is that Apple is giving their potential competitors an advantage by giving them the know-how (and paying them to develop the tooling and process needed) to make better products without them incurring the R&D cost, information and technique they can then employ on their own competing products (even if not exactly copy, but take the learning about what improvements are possible, etc...).
The flaw in that logic is that only Apple "gives away R&D" because Apple is the only one does this. Every single smartphone manufacturer outsources some part. Some component makers also do this. For example, Qualcomm doesn't manufacture their own processors as they have no fabs; they sell their designs. Also the other flaw is the assumption that no one in the industry does any sort of research on their competitor's product. If Apple manufactured their own ARM processors, you'd bet Samsung and Qualcomm would dissect it as soon as it came on the market. How is that different than today? There's no difference. Qualcomm and Samsung probably dissect every single Apple Ax processors when they come on the market. For Samsung they probably dissect the TSMC variants to gain advantages over TSMC. And I bet you Samsung dissects Qualcomm processors as well.
If anything Apple has an advantage because while they can buy components from their competitors, no competitor can buy their components. For example Apple will never sell their ARM processors to competition directly. You want an Apple Ax processor you have to buy the whole phone. Samsung still sells their ARM processors to their competitors although it may not be their top end ones.
. Apple has managed to convince consumers that there is extra value to their products for 10 years and the competition between Apple and other manufacturers benefits us all right?
No. Apple like any other brand needs to convince everyone that their product is worth it. As for extra value, do you mean besides the years of software updates Apple iPhones seem to have which are longer than their Android counterparts? You mean besides a software library that doesn't have a reputation for malware?
High-end components have better margin. Apple sell more high-end phones compared to Samsung, so yes, selling high-end components through Apple is more profitable than selling them through the S and Note lines.
The major flaw in your premise is that nothing says that Samsung Display division must only sell the best displays to one and only one customer.
Finally, what makes you think that Samsung would put the best display they could make on their phones?
Because then the your premise is that Samsung doesn't want to put the best components in their phones.
Samsung sell plenty of phones, not all of them have the same display - clearly they don't think that they need to put the absolute best display on every phone they ship.
I never said that they need to put the best display in every single phone. I said why wouldn't Samsung have the best display in their phone namely their flagship phone.
It's entirely plausible that they chose a somewhat lower end part for their phone than the one Apple specced into theirs. Why would that be weird?
It would mean that you are saying Samsung doesn't always use the best parts.
Your assertion relies on the assumption that this display is in fact the latest that Samsung could offer to anyone. Also you are kinda ignoring that the Galaxy Note 8 was only released 1 month prior to the iPhone X
So you're saying that it would profit Samsung more to sell a component to Apple that the best instead of using it within the same company to drive sales of their smartphones? I just want to be clear that's what you're saying.
The question is why you would post as an AC? But to counter to your point that's like saying Porsche can't compete against a broad and open market. They only makes sports cars and make themselves the most expensive choice. They should make more mini-vans for soccer moms. And to also counter your point it's not factually true. Can you get an iPhone cheaper than a Samsung or LG? Have you heard of the SE, 6, 6 Plus, 7, 7 Plus? I mean it's not like Apple doesn't have 8 models going from $350 to $999.
They constantly position themselves in a magical made-up segment, like that guy who shoots the wall of a barn then goes and draw the target around his bullet holes.
A made-up segment? They target the high end for computers and the phones cover a broad spectrum. So what? Why are you mad that Apple goes after a very specific market?
The only people making it an Apple vs. Samsung competition are the Apple advocates. For everybody else, the smartphone business is a whole bunch of suppliers, and weird Apple off in their own headgame.
Um, you mean besides the poster above who is clearly pro-Samsung and anti-Apple? I wouldn't call him an Apple advocate. It would seem that contrary to OP's assertion that would give Apple an advantage: They can get whatever component they want from a competitor but no competitor buys components from them as they never sell them.
Apple can't compete against a broad and open market. They always narrow the comparison to themselves and the most expensive choice 'The Rest of Us' could choose.
I would say the iPhone is strong contrary to your point. You want a smartphone not made by Apple; you have plenty of choice: Apple still makes a lot of money and is a powerful player in the smartphone market.
They have. For years, Samsung had the best display on its own phone. It just didn't made Slashdot headlines because it wasn't Apple.
And it also gave Apple iPhone 7 the best LCD display in previous years. But you've missed my point: Why would Apple have the best Samsung display over Samsung phones?
If it's that easy then why doesn't a Samsung phone have the the best smartphone display according to DisplayMate? Maybe there might have been some improvements made by Apple. Also it might be the case that Samsung as very large corporation with different markets and divisions might not have total synergy and cooperation across different divisions.
Because Samsung actually makes their own products, and Apple GIVES AWAY every last bit of their research because they can't make their own.
I'm sorry but I did miss the Great Apple Giveaway that they had at Apple HQ last week where every one of their competitors go to take all the research they could carry. Basically none part of what you said is true because the secretive Apple I know isn't above suing people to prevent their research from getting out. I seem to recall them firing an engineer recently because daughter posted a video taken at Apple HQ of an iPhone X prototype. That's the secretive Apple I know.
Also, are you sure Samsung makes all of their own products? You mean for years they didn't say buy processors from Qualcomm, displays from LG, memory from Toshiba, etc.
Outsourcing manufacturing fails every, single, time. You give away your technology, teach others to make it, and then get yourself toasted as they figure out how to make it better, cheaper, faster, or just copy it so they don't have to pay for an R&D budget
Yes because Samsung has never outsourced a single product or component to another country or company, ever. Oh wait, they have. You can open any Samsung product and see this.
And the multiple fines against Qualcomm by multiple countries had nothing to do with that low price? It's all because of Apple. Sure, whatever.
Indeed. The sobering thing though is the Sphinx, claimed to be 4000 years old exhibits the weathering of a structure 35000 or more years old and erosion from thousands of years of rain when there hasn't been rain on the Giza plateau for about 8000 years(IIRC).
According to whom? The last I read about weathering of the Sphinx was not due to rainfall but runoff of rainfall which is different.
Who cares.
Anyone who has been following this case for 14 years now
We don't use SysV anymore. It's about systemd now. :-)
What the heck are you talking about? The current case has nothing to do with Linux and is only dealing with SVR4 and AIX back in the days of Project Monterrey. And systemd is a replacement for SysV init. It has nothing to do with KornShell, ELF, SVR4 print, etc.
Of the 294 items in the Final Disclosure there are only 10 left in the case. Items 194-203. All of them deal with parts of SVR4 that IBM had put into AIX. The Appeals Court does not say that SCO's claims have been proven; they are saying that the claims should be heard in court as they were previously dismissed by the district judge. The items are:
From what I can tell some of those are needed for compatibility like ELF and header files. Korn shell, SVR4 print, and man pages are things that are way older than SCO's provenance.