That would be true if it was the SCO "OpenServer" product. However, the product that they were giving away is SCO "Open Desktop" (ODT). How many desktop systems have SCSI? A small proportion of them.
My point was that SCO's hardware support is lousy.
No, GNU tools are better implementations than the Unix (SCO == Unix) equivalants. SCO is not trying to clone what the GNU project has done, it's the other way around.
I worked in a SCO shop from 1995-1997. We had a few Linux boxes, and even then, Linux was running circles around SCO Unix. Despite this, there were a number of very Pro-SCO people who thought this Linux thing was just a toy, and didn't belong in the corporate environment because it's not commercial.
At the 1996 Unix Expo, SCO had a booth giving away free CD-Roms of SCO Unix. I already had SCO experience, and although I preferred Linux even then, I thought It might be cool to have a SCO partition.
So I inserted the Boot disk, SCO was like, "Um, you have IDE hardware? What's that?". Well supposed SCO had patches on their website for IDE equiptment, but I decided that it probably wasn't going to be worth the trouble, so I never installed it!
The difference between SCO and the other Unix vendors is that the other guys also sell hardware, SCO doesn't. The other guys will be happy to sell Linux running on *their* hardware. Sun does seem worried about Linux too, though.
I worked in a shop where had both SCO Unix and Linux (1.2 at the time). Linux almost always ran circles around SCO. More throughput? I laugh. We had a UUCP link between a SCO Unix machine, on a P90 and Linux on a 486/66. (This was several years ago when such hardware was common). We couldn't have more than 38400 bps on the UUCP link because the SCO kernel would puke. Linux on the slower hardware had no such problem. There were other similar incidents, we had SCO boxes crash when you tried to change virtual consoles!!
Of course this was SCO Unix, not Unixware. I can't speak for SCO Unixware, but it has got to be better than SCO Unix.
If you need an app that runs on SCO but not Linux/BSD, or you need a real System V Unix system. Of course Solaris x86 fits that bill, but I think SCO has more marketshare than Solaris on Intel.
They are selling a Linux distribution. Creating a Linux distribution is a lot of work, and surely they are charging a fair price for what they do. It's not like they are selling sand at the beach.
Mpeg does me no good if the things I want to view are in AVI or Quicktime format. Granted that I don't view a lot of video on my computer, but when there is something that I do want to view, it is almost always in Quicktime format.
Well I'm a MediaOne customer in New England, so I guess I can expect this soon.;-(
BTW, every other cable provider I've been with has offered Comedy Central, Cartoon Network, Sci-Fi channel and a few others as part of basic cable. For some reason MediOne thinks these are pay channels, and charges $3 extra per month for them, anyone know why this is?
What concerns me is that programming will be tailored to the tastes of the majority. I believe that my viewing habits are in the minority. I tend to watch Nova and PBS, Discovery, etc... While most people prefer 90210, Friends and Baywatch.
They already are! Why do you think the networks put out such crap? Because they are carefully formulated to have something for many different demographic group.
I wouldn't worry about your favorites, though, PBS is not driven by ratings, well they are but not nearly to the extent that network TV is. The amount of pledge money a show brings in is more important than ratings.
As for things like the Discovery/History/Learning Channel/A&E, I think set top boxes will reveal that more people watch these than the Nielson diaries would indicate.
I don't know for sure, but in the past, Caldera has created a "lite" version of its distribution which has all of the non-free (in the monetary sense) software stripped out. This is most likely what will be available for download.
I remember reading an article in Salon (I think) about RMS. The author traveled to Stanford (I think) with RMS, and they went to the Bill Gates building so RMS could check his email. The author relates how RMS stuck his middle finger at the building before entering.
Two things come to mind: A Jupiter sized asteroid could not crash into earth, earth would crash into it. For an idea of relative sizes, take a basketball and a large (shooter marble).
Also, I'm sure that a Jupiter-sized asteroid would be considered a 'planet'
The scientific community will not be taken seriously on this for thirty years, then a five year study will take place, then remaining four years, special interests will stall the project.
But the planets' gravitational pull on our planet is smaller than the moon's, so planetary alignment cannot cause global catastrophe.
The last time an alighnment similar to the 5/5/2K event happened was like 2-4-1963, and somehow the planet survived. Also there was an April-1982 alignment that was supposed to destroy us as well.
Slashdot Mirror
That would be true if it was the SCO "OpenServer" product. However, the product that they were giving away is SCO "Open Desktop" (ODT). How many desktop systems have SCSI? A small proportion of them.
My point was that SCO's hardware support is lousy.
No, GNU tools are better implementations than the Unix (SCO == Unix) equivalants. SCO is not trying to clone what the GNU project has done, it's the other way around.
I don't think SCO comes with any GNU tools, but you can get them as add-ons.
More like they are selling prebuilt sandcastles at the beach, not just scooping up sand an packaging it.
I worked in a SCO shop from 1995-1997. We had a few Linux boxes, and even then, Linux was running circles around SCO Unix. Despite this, there were a number of very Pro-SCO people who thought this Linux thing was just a toy, and didn't belong in the corporate environment because it's not commercial.
At the 1996 Unix Expo, SCO had a booth giving away free CD-Roms of SCO Unix. I already had SCO experience, and although I preferred Linux even then, I thought It might be cool to have a SCO partition.
So I inserted the Boot disk, SCO was like, "Um, you have IDE hardware? What's that?". Well supposed SCO had patches on their website for IDE equiptment, but I decided that it probably wasn't going to be worth the trouble, so I never installed it!
The difference between SCO and the other Unix vendors is that the other guys also sell hardware, SCO doesn't. The other guys will be happy to sell Linux running on *their* hardware. Sun does seem worried about Linux too, though.
I worked in a shop where had both SCO Unix and Linux (1.2 at the time). Linux almost always ran circles around SCO. More throughput? I laugh. We had a UUCP link between a SCO Unix machine, on a P90 and Linux on a 486/66. (This was several years ago when such hardware was common). We couldn't have more than 38400 bps on the UUCP link because the SCO kernel would puke. Linux on the slower hardware had no such problem. There were other similar incidents, we had SCO boxes crash when you tried to change virtual consoles!!
Of course this was SCO Unix, not Unixware. I can't speak for SCO Unixware, but it has got to be better than SCO Unix.
If you need an app that runs on SCO but not Linux/BSD, or you need a real System V Unix system. Of course Solaris x86 fits that bill, but I think SCO has more marketshare than Solaris on Intel.
They are selling a Linux distribution. Creating a Linux distribution is a lot of work, and surely they are charging a fair price for what they do. It's not like they are selling sand at the beach.
I can't believe I'm defending RH here! :)
Mpeg does me no good if the things I want to view are in AVI or Quicktime format. Granted that I don't view a lot of video on my computer, but when there is something that I do want to view, it is almost always in Quicktime format.
There's not that I know of, but it IS something we need. An online database for tuning info on all aspects of the system.
Well I'm a MediaOne customer in New England, so I guess I can expect this soon. ;-(
BTW, every other cable provider I've been with has offered Comedy Central, Cartoon Network, Sci-Fi channel and a few others as part of basic cable. For some reason MediOne thinks these are pay channels, and charges $3 extra per month for them, anyone know why this is?
What concerns me is that programming will be tailored to the tastes of the majority. I believe that my viewing habits are in the minority. I tend to watch Nova and PBS, Discovery, etc... While most people prefer 90210, Friends and Baywatch.
They already are! Why do you think the networks put out such crap? Because they are carefully formulated to have something for many different demographic group.
I wouldn't worry about your favorites, though, PBS is not driven by ratings, well they are but not nearly to the extent that network TV is. The amount of pledge money a show brings in is more important than ratings.As for things like the Discovery/History/Learning Channel/A&E, I think set top boxes will reveal that more people watch these than the Nielson diaries would indicate.
This is not new. Ratings have been taken via diary and electronic device for a long time. Where do you think the "overnight" ratings come from?
Anyway, Nielson doesn't pay a whole lot.
I don't know for sure, but in the past, Caldera has created a "lite" version of its distribution which has all of the non-free (in the monetary sense) software stripped out. This is most likely what will be available for download.
I remember reading an article in Salon (I think) about RMS. The author traveled to Stanford (I think) with RMS, and they went to the Bill Gates building so RMS could check his email. The author relates how RMS stuck his middle finger at the building before entering.
When the company is bought out for "strategic" reasons, and the new management tells you "Don't worry, very little will change".
Two things come to mind: A Jupiter sized asteroid could not crash into earth, earth would crash into it. For an idea of relative sizes, take a basketball and a large (shooter marble).
Also, I'm sure that a Jupiter-sized asteroid would be considered a 'planet'
There's always the chance that our war heads will slightly alter the path, and make a collision with earth more likely.
The scientific community will not be taken seriously on this for thirty years, then a five year study will take place, then remaining four years, special interests will stall the project.
This will happen on 5-5-2000.
But the planets' gravitational pull on our planet is smaller than the moon's, so planetary alignment cannot cause global catastrophe.
The last time an alighnment similar to the 5/5/2K event happened was like 2-4-1963, and somehow the planet survived. Also there was an April-1982 alignment that was supposed to destroy us as well.
You forgot the pole shift of 5-5-1900!
I've heard several dates for it:
12-22-2011, 12-23-2011, 12-23-2012, and 12-24-2012.
Don't know which is correct
Oracle, and I think Netscape have committed to porting their App servers to Linux. In fact, the Oracle one may already be available.