The point being that Microsoft has produced software that is widely in use. Hence it must fill some sort of purpose. There may also be a chance that Microsoft has come up with something quite extraordinary which we haven't figured out yet. Microsoft has already been a player in the 64 bit market with a 32 bit operating system. DEC and Microsoft had a deal where they were supporting eachother. And besides the implementation of Windows NT on Alpha being a complete joke, some people used it. Much thanks to FX!32, which could run 32 bit Intel binaries on the Alpha.
If Microsoft hasn't done this, the Win64 implementation would be just that. A Windows with no apps. If Microsoft has done something like this where the 32 -> 64 bit subsystem learns executions and accellerates them by translation to raw 64 bit micro architecture, it might be quite interesting. As far as I know, Linux doesn't have such an implementation and Linux development flurishes when Microsoft has something that Linux doesn't.
If you would just tell a compiler to produce 64 bit binaries you would suffer terrible performance and bloated binaries. You have to do a significant amount of porting, where 32 bit integers become 64 bit integers and so on. Once your code has also been optimized, you will reap performance gains. Prior to such efforts, 64 bit is only slowing you down.
Windows NT for Alpha was never 64 bit. Ever. It was 32 bit which was loaded through a special boot loader (ARC). Without the ARC boot loader there was no way one could boot NT. Later on came AlphaBIOS with the cheaper OEM boards. Same thing though, only a true 64 bit operating system could load through the SRM.
Part of this information is retrieved from a person I know and part of it is fiction. The relevance to the XFree thing is the last two paragraphs.
So here is the thing.
Trident has filed a patent for a technology that they want to use in their new line of chips. We can all agree on how evil patents are, but they are allowed to file patents. In order to use a patent pending status, you can't disclose source code or specs. That being freely available invites others to implement the technology. So to be awarded a patent one must take reasonable steps to prevent others from copying the design. If that isn't being done, the patent can be considered void in a patent lawsuit. After that, the technology is considered Public Domain.
If Trident wishes that this patent goes through, they need to take this action. Otherwise somebody can simply retrieve a spec from them and/or work out the source code and reimplement in another chip.
I could care less if Microsoft subsidised this or not. Trident is allowed to publish specs if they want to and withold them if they so desire. This is their right.
All I know is that I will not be purchasing any Trident products in the future. This is my right. Until the day that legislators tell me that I MUST buy a Trident product I am not going to complain about this. There are plenty of other chip makers out there and they make good stuff. In my opinion, Trident chips have always been flaky and low budget.
I wonder if Windows 2000 Advanced Server Limited Edition is about as much 64 bit as Windows 95 is 32 bit.
Undoubtedly parts of this version of Windows 2000 has to remain 32 bit for compatibility. Or is Microsoft going to port Microsoft Office to 64 bit Windows as well? Unless Microsoft has implemented some type of FX!32 (DECs 32 -> 64 bit layer which "learns" and accellerates), this release of Windows may potentially be quite useless. One of the reasons people use Windows is the availability of applications.
I can't for the life of me think that this is anything different from a marketing release where Microsoft can say "We're in the future, we're 64 bit". But it's nevertheless interesting that Microsoft has gotten something out the door that is 64 bit. Let's see how well Microsoft entrenches itself in the datacenters. My guess is that the 64 bit x86 (Intel or AMD) will become far cheaper than the Sun counterparts and thus taking over a lot, but not everything. But will Windows be the preferred platform or is Linux going to hit Microsoft where it hurts? Or perhaps Microsoft will make this.NET thing so popular that Windows will make it all the way to world domination?
In either case, from a technical standpoint I will observe how Windows 64 bit is going. Very interesting indeed.
I would argue this. First off, these ancient utilities have been hacked to support threading etc. This makes them incompatible with the legacy UNICES. The value of these two tools are in my opinion purely educational.
The GNU versions of grep and awk are much better than the original UNIX variants. Also, people have had access to the GNU versions for a long time and they are well within their capabilities to support any of the arguments/options that their UNIX counterparts do. With that out of the world, what does this whole Open Sourcing of grep and awk mean?
It's rather like throwing us Linux users a bone. Nothing more. The aforementioned utilities are aged and not terribly useful. Granted, this is a start. But until we see some SVR5 kernel source code and perhaps some POSIX implementation code, this is nothing more than getting a headline on slashdot.
I think Caldera expects some immediate return here. Regretfully they can't expect this in terms of monetary means. I am not going to buy Caldera Linux because they are nice and release two utilities.
What could potentially be useful is the regex engine. Even though the DFA and NFA engines are both pretty specified and there are GNU implementations of both DFA and NFA compliant engines, there are the matters of POSIX regex which are implemented halfway. This regex engine has been POSIX certified which means that implementational considerations may be dealt with. That is if Caldera was going to use GPL for this. If Caldera uses its own license, which pretty much restricts people from using derivative code, it's rather useless anyway except for educational purposes.
Now when I see an anonymous CVS repository containing the kernel, threading library implementation et al and these are signed with GPL/BSD compliant licensing, then I'll jump. Before that, I'll just sit tight.
The source code is available as "the SkunkWorks" collection. This can be purchased for a nominal fee plus s/h on CD or downloaded from the Caldera site. They're in compliance.
The big deal is that Open UNIX is nothing more than SCO UnixWare.
I've said it in a few other posts. Caldera Open UNIX is a repackaged, rehashed SCO UnixWare. That's all. The kernel is the UnixWare SVR5 kernel. Slow and buggy and a pain to work with.
Caldera Open UNIX is nothing but SCO UNIX relabeled. GNU tools have been available for SCO UNIX for quite some time. I wouldn't say that SCO UNIX has "real meat" anywhere. It's the same buggy slow hog it has always been.
Yes, but licenses can be changed. There are always ways around something one does not wish to honor. There is no love lost between Microsoft and Sun and should Microsoft obtain this it could deliver a fatal blow to Sun.
I maintain two SCO UnixWare 7.1.1 servers and they do run like dogs. Linux is much faster and arguably better. Granted, UnixWare has VxFS included, but these days when we have JFS and XFS ported to Linux, that's really a non-issue too.
The SVR5 implementation of UnixWare had to be rehashed in order to increment version numbers and issue a new product. So Caldera slaps in a few things:
1) Fix apparent bugs
2) Attach more integrated GNU packages to the main distro
3) Update the Linux emulator to support more system calls
But this does not in my opinion warrant a whole new major version number. They have done pretty much nothing else with the distro. I will not be upgrading the 7.1.1 servers here as they will be phased out, but also because there is really no reason to.
Caldera is doing nothing but reselling the SCO product line. Of course they are, since there is an installed base and they can charge the same as SCO charged for it. The Linux business is, just as somebody very insightfully said, hurting them. They can't demand license fees, because all one has to do is to go to RedHat. They can't fix their distribution too much, because they become incompatible with RedHat that way. They can't charge much more than RedHat for their distro either, because not that many people would buy it. Perhaps OpenLinux is a bit ahead of its time? Probably so, but that doesn't solve their problems.
I think Caldera is realising that it has at least a temporary cash cow with SCO and thus tries to get its moneys worth. It seems to be forgetting that the business practices of SCO practically brought them to their knees and Caldera is just walking in their foot steps. The only difference is the name. Which I by the way find is pretty lame. There is nothing Open about SCO UNIX and there never was. The development kit is aged and not very good at all. SCO managed to sign some contracts with third party vendors to include some apps with their distro. These are still coming for Open UNIX. Compaq has an agreement with SCO (Caldera too?) as an OEM. This means that a customer can buy a Compaq server with Open UNIX rather than Windows NT/2000. But the sales of these are very slim.
If I was on the board of Caldera, I would swiftly make some changes in the licensing schema of Open UNIX. Granted, it can't be GPLed because of thirdparty proprietary code. But I would definately make it more available. They charge for a media kit ($65) and only give a single user license to non-commercial use. That is an enforced license which means that the system only accepts one concurrent login. This is useless for the hobbyist, so they aren't spreading the word. They have to make UNIX as exciting as Linux in order to prevail. Sure, charge the big corporations license fees. But the small businesses and home users who want a UNIX server should have to pay nothing for it.
Caldera can't do this because they would lose money that way. Some old SCO shops aren't that big and would then fall under the clause of a free OS. That means that the distribution may go up but it doesn't give them a larger revenue stream right away. Look at Sun and the free Solaris offer. Lots more people use it now, but Sun can't start charging for it unless it's for a huge server (8+ CPUs). Sun has revenue from other things, mainly their hardware. Caldera only sells software. A big catch 22.
If Caldera continues like this, they will either have to sell of the SCO division or perish. What if they can't sell it off? Will SCO UNIX become abandonware or can it be opened before they close the doors? Will SCO UNIX (read SVR5) die and be buried because it can't be opened? Would be a terrible loss.
Then there is the conspiracy deal. What if Microsoft would buy the UNIX copyright and codebase? They could stash the code in the trash can and be done with that threat. Sun could have its license revoked or perhaps be charged so much for license fees that they couldn't maintain SVR4 Solaris anymore. I know they aren't paying any royalties now, but surely that could be circumvented... That would be the true extinction of UNIX as we know it. Good in one way, but bad in others.
What if Sun bought the copyright? Or IBM? Whoever will own it in 10 years, will the codebase be opened? Who knows, but I will be following this subject over the next few years.
Let's see. Everybody who feels guilty buys 3 games. That means Loki might make a little extra dough to stay around for a little longer. But what's the difference? As harsh as it may seem, Loki is a business and as such they have to make money. The chance of Joe grabbing a Linux copy of Quake 3 (except by mistake) is pretty slim. Some Quake nerds I know do like Linux but are far more proficient in tuning Windows to the way they like it.
So how long would Loki last anyway? They have proprietary code that they port with no chance of Open Sourcing. They have to make money or die. They have to make you and I WANT their products. Without demand any business fails. There are so many companies out there with completely awesome ideas and great products. Especially in the consumer market we see a lot more tension than ever before. Take netaddress.com for instance. For the longest time (YEARS!) they provided a free e-mail service to whomever wanted it. When they suddenly realise that they aren't making money they start to charge for it. What do people do? They sure as hell don't start coughing up dough for it. They run over to hotmail.com and get signed up with Microsoft. It makes me think of "bought" friends. As long as you have cash, people love you. When you're out, you're no longer any good to them. While the context is not applicable to the Loki situation, they do try to cater to a consumer market. And a very condensed one at that. There are tons of Linux users out there and most of them are using it because it is a cost effective alternative. These users live in countries where Cable Modems and Pentium 4's don't fall off of trees. Most of these people don't have the fattest 3D accellerators and CPUs available. I imagine that the average Linux box is a Pentium II something with a fairely limited amount of RAM. Not only does Loki cater to Linux geeks, but the ones with the neat Linux machines. I can't imagine that this market is that great.
I am not going to buy any copies of games that I'll never play. I have a pretty decent machine which could handle it all, but I have no interest to play games. Loki's cause is great, but if they can't make money, why should I feel bad?
I am not very savvy with what the differences between various OpenSource databases are, but I have a couple of thoughts.
Oracle is the database of choice when entering the big league. A few people are going to say that SQL Server is just as good or better, but what one usually sees is Oracle on Solaris. Oracle and Sun are in bed with eachother. If it weren't for one or the other, they would probably have had a much harder time. Sure, VERITAS is in there and gets sloppy seconds too. But the strategic corporate harmony is with Oracle and Sun. Oracle people like sun, because Oracle likes Sun. Sun people like Oracle, because Sun touts Oracle as being the best.
So now that Oracle has let Red Hat in the door to "watch", why would they jump out of this and slam the door after themselves. Why should Oracle maintain their RDBMS for Red Hat, now that Red Hat can't even stay away from offering an RDBMS? Sun and Oracle seem to have a secret code with eachother:
Sun: I swear that no Database product shall wear my name...
Oracle: I swear that no Operating System/Hardware produced by me shall compete with Sun...
Bottom line is, that Sun and Oracle already have a good reputation out there among pointy-haired bosses. Red Hat had lots of fun during the.com days and even though they are profitable, I am sure that the reputation up along the corporate ladder isn't the same.
How many Red Hat Database licenses can Red Hat sell? How long does the product need to live before it is viable with everybody in the top layer so that sales start taking off? We've got NuSphere MySQL and at least a few companies supporting PostgreSQL if that's something that is needed. Why buy Red Hat's?
Don't get me wrong, I think it's cool that Red Hat has balls... But will they succeed with this one?
The changelog speaks about VxFS... Has it been ported or something? Not that I really care about VxFS too much anymore, but it would be funny to see VERITAS start making commitments to porting stuff to Linux. How would such an implementation take shape? Since it'll probably be a bit hard to convert from ext2fs/xfs/reiserfs to VxFS, I'm thinking that they'll have to do a ''Red Hat a'la SGI'' installer... Closed Source (tm) of course with lots of expensive licenses to buy, but that's another story.
True, but then again this product is being revamped to be a PC Workstation platform, good for running Lotus SmartSuite et al.
This company is really not targeting that market segment if you ask me.
Also, why in the world would somebody with that important of an application (assuming that it's a hospital with a gazillion medical records) do an OS upgrade? Everybody knows that things break with new OSes. This one isn't even made by IBM anymore...
While most operating system bigots stick with what they know and want, I'll try to not do that too much. Well, a little bit.
So I heard from a friend of mine that BeOS is the next best thing since sliced bread. I am uncertain as to if I can agree with that. I understand that most of the GNU suite of software compiles on BeOS and is directly usable, but there are other things that people use that don't work with BeOS. I am talking about using it as a server. Linux has LVS, which works somewhat good in lieu of a rather nasty ARP bug which exists in the Linux kernel. Does BeOS support cheap load balancing a'la Linux? I sure haven't seen that. Why spend $69.00 or whatever BeOS costs, to do the same thing, or less than a $5.00 Linux CD?
So how does somebody think that taking over a relic such as OS/2 (which has been funded for a long time by IBM, past its expiration date) is going to generate revenue? Especially with that type of price tag. They most likely will not be able to sell to pointy-haired bosses who like Windows(R) or Solaris(R). And they most likely will not be able to sell to Open Source people who like to get stuff for free and with source code. So this leaves them to sell to Joe Bloe and his Compaq Presario, well short of a select few that still use OS/2 and find it useful. Well let's assume that there are a few people who actually buy this for the hell of it.
So how this company will successfully have Joe purchase this product ($279.00) will be interesting. Especially since he already got Windows with his computer and if he is savvy enough, he might install one of those Linux distributions he got with his PCWorld magazine. To add to it all we have the infamous driver issue. Will eComStation actually have support for that pesky Presario CD-ROM controller, which doesn't work with anything short of Compaq's Windows drivers?
Or are they going to try to not concentrate too much on retail and go after OEM deals?
I don't want to screw up your perfectly good joke, but I believe that this article is speaking of ASP as Application Service Provider, rather than Microsofts Active Server Pages.
Unless of course I am wrong, in which case I am very interested to know how the people that jumped on the JSP and PHP bandwagon are doing, respectively. =)
I think you may have missed my point. Evolution in our careers depend on the food chain. In order for it to work, we need the dummies. These are supported by smarter people who know how to use applications.
But there is always a superset as long as there is a subset. The market is based on the stupidity, but that doesn't mean that one can't evolve. I am sure that you would agree that people do get with the program eventually and hence must be replaced by new "less knowledgeble" people.
So yes, you are right but I doubt that you read my incomprehensible and ambiguous English for what I meant it to be. =)
Not to be too cynical, but this could just as well be a Bad Thing(tm).
If we are to de-layer society a little, it is because of the technically inept that I have a job. And all of you that work with technology. If everybody knew how to use nmh/vi/cal (in that order) there wouldn't be a need for Outlook, in which case lots of Responce Center technicians would be out of work. This of course, would apply to several sectors.
Somebody made a complaint that users are a bit too stupid. Well, yes they are. But remove that stupidity, or just simply raise the bar a little and all of the sudden we would have a myriad of people fairely knowledgeble and a technical elite. This isn't good either, because of market saturation. We need those dummies! Think about that next time you help somebody locate a file in a DOS shell.
"Knowledge is always good - in moderation." - von Stauffen
"RNext for the Mac ? That's kind of a surprise. The MacOS client has been deteriorating for about four years now."
My bad. Appears that the MacOS client will not be included in RNext.
"Q: Does the Linux Notes server come with the Exchange emulation/Outlook client compatiblity features ? I read about this a while ago. If so, that would mean you could replace an Exchange server running Windows with a Linux box running Domino, and still keep Outlook for Windows."
Outlook is a MAPI client, which Domino supports. The level of support is however, questionable. I just recently started trying out RNext and I haven't tried an Outlook client with it yet. My guess is that some functionality will be implemented according to IBMs strategy of supporting foreign clients. There will of course still be a designer and a Notes client, but some sites only use the messaging part of Notes, so it actually takes less effort to maintain a specific client than making the server compatible with it. But again, I am merely speculating at this point, since I haven't tried it out yet.
The classic solution was to use HP's OpenMail, but since that product is being discontinued and sales are to cease, it's probably not a very good idea to invest in that.
Sorry for the ambiguous and probably useless answer. =)
I just got off the phone with a friend of mine who said that they are working on a client for RNext.
This will be made available after the release of RNext and its associated Windows/Mac clients.
But what people need to realise is that the reasons for the client taking so long, are good.
1) Lotus uses a widget set which is based on MFC. Bitch to port to Linux.
2) IBM sees little corporate strategy at this point to maintain a client for Linux, since, despite what everybody says, Windows is very dominant on the PC desktop.
3) iNotes is being pushed to be used more and more. This means that local clients may become obsolete soon. Right now the iNotes client is built on top of a bunch of MFC code, such as Windows DLLs and so forth, so it's not usable in Netscape/Linux quite yet. But it will change in the near future.
4) IBM/Lotus wants to put more effort into developing the server, rather than the client. Reason is that some people like Outlook. Others like something else. The point with Notes and especially RNext is increased interoperability for "BYOC" (Bring Your Own Client).
Why not have these kids read books, or get a job or something like that? Parents in the US today, let their kids play violent games all day long. In fact, indirectly they subsidise this activity. They buy kids games for birthdays, Christmas etc etc etc etc etc etc etc.
This is not the fault of game companies per say. It is 90% the fault of the parents. No wonder kids grow up to be violent non-thinking zombies. There are no bad children, just bad parents.
Stop buying these games for the kids and the problems will eventually go through a metamorphosis to something less severe.
I use Speakeasy today and I am very happy with what they have done for me so far. I am unliekly to switch unless something severe happens. But Speakeasy serves through Covad, so I am thinking that the possibility is there...
If things go south, I'll buy a T1. I am too used to good connectivity with SDSL and I refuse to use cable. I can get a decent T1 provisioning with an 8 IP subnet for $500.00/mo. I would most likely miss Speakeasy's excellent support. Such as how fast they are with making reverse DNS reflect my announcing DNS.
But there are alternatives and T1's aren't so expensive anymore that an average guy like myself can't have one.
Slashdot Mirror
The point being that Microsoft has produced software that is widely in use. Hence it must fill some sort of purpose. There may also be a chance that Microsoft has come up with something quite extraordinary which we haven't figured out yet. Microsoft has already been a player in the 64 bit market with a 32 bit operating system. DEC and Microsoft had a deal where they were supporting eachother. And besides the implementation of Windows NT on Alpha being a complete joke, some people used it. Much thanks to FX!32, which could run 32 bit Intel binaries on the Alpha.
If Microsoft hasn't done this, the Win64 implementation would be just that. A Windows with no apps. If Microsoft has done something like this where the 32 -> 64 bit subsystem learns executions and accellerates them by translation to raw 64 bit micro architecture, it might be quite interesting. As far as I know, Linux doesn't have such an implementation and Linux development flurishes when Microsoft has something that Linux doesn't.
Other than that, I share your sentiment.
Alex
If you would just tell a compiler to produce 64 bit binaries you would suffer terrible performance and bloated binaries. You have to do a significant amount of porting, where 32 bit integers become 64 bit integers and so on. Once your code has also been optimized, you will reap performance gains. Prior to such efforts, 64 bit is only slowing you down.
Alex
Windows NT for Alpha was never 64 bit. Ever. It was 32 bit which was loaded through a special boot loader (ARC). Without the ARC boot loader there was no way one could boot NT. Later on came AlphaBIOS with the cheaper OEM boards. Same thing though, only a true 64 bit operating system could load through the SRM.
Alex
Part of this information is retrieved from a person I know and part of it is fiction. The relevance to the XFree thing is the last two paragraphs.
So here is the thing.
Trident has filed a patent for a technology that they want to use in their new line of chips. We can all agree on how evil patents are, but they are allowed to file patents. In order to use a patent pending status, you can't disclose source code or specs. That being freely available invites others to implement the technology. So to be awarded a patent one must take reasonable steps to prevent others from copying the design. If that isn't being done, the patent can be considered void in a patent lawsuit. After that, the technology is considered Public Domain.
If Trident wishes that this patent goes through, they need to take this action. Otherwise somebody can simply retrieve a spec from them and/or work out the source code and reimplement in another chip.
I could care less if Microsoft subsidised this or not. Trident is allowed to publish specs if they want to and withold them if they so desire. This is their right.
All I know is that I will not be purchasing any Trident products in the future. This is my right. Until the day that legislators tell me that I MUST buy a Trident product I am not going to complain about this. There are plenty of other chip makers out there and they make good stuff. In my opinion, Trident chips have always been flaky and low budget.
Alex
I wonder if Windows 2000 Advanced Server Limited Edition is about as much 64 bit as Windows 95 is 32 bit.
.NET thing so popular that Windows will make it all the way to world domination?
Undoubtedly parts of this version of Windows 2000 has to remain 32 bit for compatibility. Or is Microsoft going to port Microsoft Office to 64 bit Windows as well? Unless Microsoft has implemented some type of FX!32 (DECs 32 -> 64 bit layer which "learns" and accellerates), this release of Windows may potentially be quite useless. One of the reasons people use Windows is the availability of applications.
I can't for the life of me think that this is anything different from a marketing release where Microsoft can say "We're in the future, we're 64 bit". But it's nevertheless interesting that Microsoft has gotten something out the door that is 64 bit. Let's see how well Microsoft entrenches itself in the datacenters. My guess is that the 64 bit x86 (Intel or AMD) will become far cheaper than the Sun counterparts and thus taking over a lot, but not everything. But will Windows be the preferred platform or is Linux going to hit Microsoft where it hurts? Or perhaps Microsoft will make this
In either case, from a technical standpoint I will observe how Windows 64 bit is going. Very interesting indeed.
Alex
I would argue this. First off, these ancient utilities have been hacked to support threading etc. This makes them incompatible with the legacy UNICES. The value of these two tools are in my opinion purely educational.
Alex
The GNU versions of grep and awk are much better than the original UNIX variants. Also, people have had access to the GNU versions for a long time and they are well within their capabilities to support any of the arguments/options that their UNIX counterparts do. With that out of the world, what does this whole Open Sourcing of grep and awk mean?
It's rather like throwing us Linux users a bone. Nothing more. The aforementioned utilities are aged and not terribly useful. Granted, this is a start. But until we see some SVR5 kernel source code and perhaps some POSIX implementation code, this is nothing more than getting a headline on slashdot.
I think Caldera expects some immediate return here. Regretfully they can't expect this in terms of monetary means. I am not going to buy Caldera Linux because they are nice and release two utilities.
What could potentially be useful is the regex engine. Even though the DFA and NFA engines are both pretty specified and there are GNU implementations of both DFA and NFA compliant engines, there are the matters of POSIX regex which are implemented halfway. This regex engine has been POSIX certified which means that implementational considerations may be dealt with. That is if Caldera was going to use GPL for this. If Caldera uses its own license, which pretty much restricts people from using derivative code, it's rather useless anyway except for educational purposes.
Now when I see an anonymous CVS repository containing the kernel, threading library implementation et al and these are signed with GPL/BSD compliant licensing, then I'll jump. Before that, I'll just sit tight.
Alex
The source code is available as "the SkunkWorks" collection. This can be purchased for a nominal fee plus s/h on CD or downloaded from the Caldera site. They're in compliance.
The big deal is that Open UNIX is nothing more than SCO UnixWare.
Alex
I've said it in a few other posts. Caldera Open UNIX is a repackaged, rehashed SCO UnixWare. That's all. The kernel is the UnixWare SVR5 kernel. Slow and buggy and a pain to work with.
Alex
Caldera Open UNIX is nothing but SCO UNIX relabeled. GNU tools have been available for SCO UNIX for quite some time. I wouldn't say that SCO UNIX has "real meat" anywhere. It's the same buggy slow hog it has always been.
Alex
Yes, but licenses can be changed. There are always ways around something one does not wish to honor. There is no love lost between Microsoft and Sun and should Microsoft obtain this it could deliver a fatal blow to Sun.
I maintain two SCO UnixWare 7.1.1 servers and they do run like dogs. Linux is much faster and arguably better. Granted, UnixWare has VxFS included, but these days when we have JFS and XFS ported to Linux, that's really a non-issue too.
The SVR5 implementation of UnixWare had to be rehashed in order to increment version numbers and issue a new product. So Caldera slaps in a few things:
1) Fix apparent bugs
2) Attach more integrated GNU packages to the main distro
3) Update the Linux emulator to support more system calls
But this does not in my opinion warrant a whole new major version number. They have done pretty much nothing else with the distro. I will not be upgrading the 7.1.1 servers here as they will be phased out, but also because there is really no reason to.
Caldera is doing nothing but reselling the SCO product line. Of course they are, since there is an installed base and they can charge the same as SCO charged for it. The Linux business is, just as somebody very insightfully said, hurting them. They can't demand license fees, because all one has to do is to go to RedHat. They can't fix their distribution too much, because they become incompatible with RedHat that way. They can't charge much more than RedHat for their distro either, because not that many people would buy it. Perhaps OpenLinux is a bit ahead of its time? Probably so, but that doesn't solve their problems.
I think Caldera is realising that it has at least a temporary cash cow with SCO and thus tries to get its moneys worth. It seems to be forgetting that the business practices of SCO practically brought them to their knees and Caldera is just walking in their foot steps. The only difference is the name. Which I by the way find is pretty lame. There is nothing Open about SCO UNIX and there never was. The development kit is aged and not very good at all. SCO managed to sign some contracts with third party vendors to include some apps with their distro. These are still coming for Open UNIX. Compaq has an agreement with SCO (Caldera too?) as an OEM. This means that a customer can buy a Compaq server with Open UNIX rather than Windows NT/2000. But the sales of these are very slim.
If I was on the board of Caldera, I would swiftly make some changes in the licensing schema of Open UNIX. Granted, it can't be GPLed because of thirdparty proprietary code. But I would definately make it more available. They charge for a media kit ($65) and only give a single user license to non-commercial use. That is an enforced license which means that the system only accepts one concurrent login. This is useless for the hobbyist, so they aren't spreading the word. They have to make UNIX as exciting as Linux in order to prevail. Sure, charge the big corporations license fees. But the small businesses and home users who want a UNIX server should have to pay nothing for it.
Caldera can't do this because they would lose money that way. Some old SCO shops aren't that big and would then fall under the clause of a free OS. That means that the distribution may go up but it doesn't give them a larger revenue stream right away. Look at Sun and the free Solaris offer. Lots more people use it now, but Sun can't start charging for it unless it's for a huge server (8+ CPUs). Sun has revenue from other things, mainly their hardware. Caldera only sells software. A big catch 22.
If Caldera continues like this, they will either have to sell of the SCO division or perish. What if they can't sell it off? Will SCO UNIX become abandonware or can it be opened before they close the doors? Will SCO UNIX (read SVR5) die and be buried because it can't be opened? Would be a terrible loss.
Then there is the conspiracy deal. What if Microsoft would buy the UNIX copyright and codebase? They could stash the code in the trash can and be done with that threat. Sun could have its license revoked or perhaps be charged so much for license fees that they couldn't maintain SVR4 Solaris anymore. I know they aren't paying any royalties now, but surely that could be circumvented... That would be the true extinction of UNIX as we know it. Good in one way, but bad in others.
What if Sun bought the copyright? Or IBM? Whoever will own it in 10 years, will the codebase be opened? Who knows, but I will be following this subject over the next few years.
Alex
Let's see. Everybody who feels guilty buys 3 games. That means Loki might make a little extra dough to stay around for a little longer. But what's the difference? As harsh as it may seem, Loki is a business and as such they have to make money. The chance of Joe grabbing a Linux copy of Quake 3 (except by mistake) is pretty slim. Some Quake nerds I know do like Linux but are far more proficient in tuning Windows to the way they like it.
So how long would Loki last anyway? They have proprietary code that they port with no chance of Open Sourcing. They have to make money or die. They have to make you and I WANT their products. Without demand any business fails. There are so many companies out there with completely awesome ideas and great products. Especially in the consumer market we see a lot more tension than ever before. Take netaddress.com for instance. For the longest time (YEARS!) they provided a free e-mail service to whomever wanted it. When they suddenly realise that they aren't making money they start to charge for it. What do people do? They sure as hell don't start coughing up dough for it. They run over to hotmail.com and get signed up with Microsoft. It makes me think of "bought" friends. As long as you have cash, people love you. When you're out, you're no longer any good to them. While the context is not applicable to the Loki situation, they do try to cater to a consumer market. And a very condensed one at that. There are tons of Linux users out there and most of them are using it because it is a cost effective alternative. These users live in countries where Cable Modems and Pentium 4's don't fall off of trees. Most of these people don't have the fattest 3D accellerators and CPUs available. I imagine that the average Linux box is a Pentium II something with a fairely limited amount of RAM. Not only does Loki cater to Linux geeks, but the ones with the neat Linux machines. I can't imagine that this market is that great.
I am not going to buy any copies of games that I'll never play. I have a pretty decent machine which could handle it all, but I have no interest to play games. Loki's cause is great, but if they can't make money, why should I feel bad?
Alex
And I never ended up installing it. Perhaps I can sell my copy on eBay for beaucoup bucks now? =)
I am not very savvy with what the differences between various OpenSource databases are, but I have a couple of thoughts.
.com days and even though they are profitable, I am sure that the reputation up along the corporate ladder isn't the same.
Oracle is the database of choice when entering the big league. A few people are going to say that SQL Server is just as good or better, but what one usually sees is Oracle on Solaris. Oracle and Sun are in bed with eachother. If it weren't for one or the other, they would probably have had a much harder time. Sure, VERITAS is in there and gets sloppy seconds too. But the strategic corporate harmony is with Oracle and Sun. Oracle people like sun, because Oracle likes Sun. Sun people like Oracle, because Sun touts Oracle as being the best.
So now that Oracle has let Red Hat in the door to "watch", why would they jump out of this and slam the door after themselves. Why should Oracle maintain their RDBMS for Red Hat, now that Red Hat can't even stay away from offering an RDBMS? Sun and Oracle seem to have a secret code with eachother:
Sun: I swear that no Database product shall wear my name...
Oracle: I swear that no Operating System/Hardware produced by me shall compete with Sun...
Bottom line is, that Sun and Oracle already have a good reputation out there among pointy-haired bosses. Red Hat had lots of fun during the
How many Red Hat Database licenses can Red Hat sell? How long does the product need to live before it is viable with everybody in the top layer so that sales start taking off? We've got NuSphere MySQL and at least a few companies supporting PostgreSQL if that's something that is needed. Why buy Red Hat's?
Don't get me wrong, I think it's cool that Red Hat has balls... But will they succeed with this one?
The changelog speaks about VxFS... Has it been ported or something? Not that I really care about VxFS too much anymore, but it would be funny to see VERITAS start making commitments to porting stuff to Linux. How would such an implementation take shape? Since it'll probably be a bit hard to convert from ext2fs/xfs/reiserfs to VxFS, I'm thinking that they'll have to do a ''Red Hat a'la SGI'' installer... Closed Source (tm) of course with lots of expensive licenses to buy, but that's another story.
What do you think?
True, but then again this product is being revamped to be a PC Workstation platform, good for running Lotus SmartSuite et al.
This company is really not targeting that market segment if you ask me.
Also, why in the world would somebody with that important of an application (assuming that it's a hospital with a gazillion medical records) do an OS upgrade? Everybody knows that things break with new OSes. This one isn't even made by IBM anymore...
While most operating system bigots stick with what they know and want, I'll try to not do that too much. Well, a little bit.
So I heard from a friend of mine that BeOS is the next best thing since sliced bread. I am uncertain as to if I can agree with that. I understand that most of the GNU suite of software compiles on BeOS and is directly usable, but there are other things that people use that don't work with BeOS. I am talking about using it as a server. Linux has LVS, which works somewhat good in lieu of a rather nasty ARP bug which exists in the Linux kernel. Does BeOS support cheap load balancing a'la Linux? I sure haven't seen that. Why spend $69.00 or whatever BeOS costs, to do the same thing, or less than a $5.00 Linux CD?
So how does somebody think that taking over a relic such as OS/2 (which has been funded for a long time by IBM, past its expiration date) is going to generate revenue? Especially with that type of price tag. They most likely will not be able to sell to pointy-haired bosses who like Windows(R) or Solaris(R). And they most likely will not be able to sell to Open Source people who like to get stuff for free and with source code. So this leaves them to sell to Joe Bloe and his Compaq Presario, well short of a select few that still use OS/2 and find it useful. Well let's assume that there are a few people who actually buy this for the hell of it.
So how this company will successfully have Joe purchase this product ($279.00) will be interesting. Especially since he already got Windows with his computer and if he is savvy enough, he might install one of those Linux distributions he got with his PCWorld magazine. To add to it all we have the infamous driver issue. Will eComStation actually have support for that pesky Presario CD-ROM controller, which doesn't work with anything short of Compaq's Windows drivers?
Or are they going to try to not concentrate too much on retail and go after OEM deals?
I don't want to screw up your perfectly good joke, but I believe that this article is speaking of ASP as Application Service Provider, rather than Microsofts Active Server Pages.
Unless of course I am wrong, in which case I am very interested to know how the people that jumped on the JSP and PHP bandwagon are doing, respectively. =)
Alex
I think you may have missed my point. Evolution in our careers depend on the food chain. In order for it to work, we need the dummies. These are supported by smarter people who know how to use applications.
But there is always a superset as long as there is a subset. The market is based on the stupidity, but that doesn't mean that one can't evolve. I am sure that you would agree that people do get with the program eventually and hence must be replaced by new "less knowledgeble" people.
So yes, you are right but I doubt that you read my incomprehensible and ambiguous English for what I meant it to be. =)
Not to be too cynical, but this could just as well be a Bad Thing(tm).
If we are to de-layer society a little, it is because of the technically inept that I have a job. And all of you that work with technology. If everybody knew how to use nmh/vi/cal (in that order) there wouldn't be a need for Outlook, in which case lots of Responce Center technicians would be out of work. This of course, would apply to several sectors.
Somebody made a complaint that users are a bit too stupid. Well, yes they are. But remove that stupidity, or just simply raise the bar a little and all of the sudden we would have a myriad of people fairely knowledgeble and a technical elite. This isn't good either, because of market saturation. We need those dummies! Think about that next time you help somebody locate a file in a DOS shell.
"Knowledge is always good - in moderation." - von Stauffen
"RNext for the Mac ? That's kind of a surprise. The MacOS client has been deteriorating for about four years now."
My bad. Appears that the MacOS client will not be included in RNext.
"Q: Does the Linux Notes server come with the Exchange emulation/Outlook client compatiblity features ? I read about this a while ago. If so, that would mean you could replace an Exchange server running Windows with a Linux box running Domino, and still keep Outlook for Windows."
Outlook is a MAPI client, which Domino supports. The level of support is however, questionable. I just recently started trying out RNext and I haven't tried an Outlook client with it yet. My guess is that some functionality will be implemented according to IBMs strategy of supporting foreign clients. There will of course still be a designer and a Notes client, but some sites only use the messaging part of Notes, so it actually takes less effort to maintain a specific client than making the server compatible with it. But again, I am merely speculating at this point, since I haven't tried it out yet.
The classic solution was to use HP's OpenMail, but since that product is being discontinued and sales are to cease, it's probably not a very good idea to invest in that.
Sorry for the ambiguous and probably useless answer. =)
Alex
I just got off the phone with a friend of mine who said that they are working on a client for RNext.
This will be made available after the release of RNext and its associated Windows/Mac clients.
But what people need to realise is that the reasons for the client taking so long, are good.
1) Lotus uses a widget set which is based on MFC. Bitch to port to Linux.
2) IBM sees little corporate strategy at this point to maintain a client for Linux, since, despite what everybody says, Windows is very dominant on the PC desktop.
3) iNotes is being pushed to be used more and more. This means that local clients may become obsolete soon. Right now the iNotes client is built on top of a bunch of MFC code, such as Windows DLLs and so forth, so it's not usable in Netscape/Linux quite yet. But it will change in the near future.
4) IBM/Lotus wants to put more effort into developing the server, rather than the client. Reason is that some people like Outlook. Others like something else. The point with Notes and especially RNext is increased interoperability for "BYOC" (Bring Your Own Client).
Just thought it might be interesting...
Alex
Why not have these kids read books, or get a job or something like that? Parents in the US today, let their kids play violent games all day long. In fact, indirectly they subsidise this activity. They buy kids games for birthdays, Christmas etc etc etc etc etc etc etc.
This is not the fault of game companies per say. It is 90% the fault of the parents. No wonder kids grow up to be violent non-thinking zombies. There are no bad children, just bad parents.
Stop buying these games for the kids and the problems will eventually go through a metamorphosis to something less severe.
Alex
I use Speakeasy today and I am very happy with what they have done for me so far. I am unliekly to switch unless something severe happens. But Speakeasy serves through Covad, so I am thinking that the possibility is there...
If things go south, I'll buy a T1. I am too used to good connectivity with SDSL and I refuse to use cable. I can get a decent T1 provisioning with an 8 IP subnet for $500.00/mo. I would most likely miss Speakeasy's excellent support. Such as how fast they are with making reverse DNS reflect my announcing DNS.
But there are alternatives and T1's aren't so expensive anymore that an average guy like myself can't have one.
Alex