Professional Web Applications Themes

"Ancient" SCO? - SCO

Well according to the following account up at Groklaw by an attendee at a pitstop of SCO's current travelling circus roadshow, SCO don't just claim to own "Ancient UNIX" code - they're still using it! I knew SCO's OS' were pretty backward, but even I didn't believe they still lacked PAM, 2 gig+ files and various other "innovations" from the early 90's. Why does anyone buy this junk??! I guess it shows just how much of the company cashflow has been diverted away from the development staff, and into the ever-growing legal teams. It's astonishing to think that SCO believe ...

  1. #1

    Default "Ancient" SCO?

    Well according to the following account up at Groklaw by an attendee
    at a pitstop of SCO's current travelling circus roadshow, SCO don't
    just claim to own "Ancient UNIX" code - they're still using it!

    I knew SCO's OS' were pretty backward, but even I didn't believe they
    still lacked PAM, 2 gig+ files and various other "innovations" from
    the early 90's. Why does anyone buy this junk??! I guess it shows just
    how much of the company cashflow has been diverted away from the
    development staff, and into the ever-growing legal teams. It's
    astonishing to think that SCO believe Linux couldn't have become the
    World leading *NIX without their scabby old code from the 70's. If
    Linux managed to implement NFS over TCP then why couldn't SCO, with
    their priceless, jealously guarded super-duper source code? ;-)


    Copied From:

    http://www.groklaw.com/article.php?story=20031007204535495


    Begin paste:---

    First City-to-City SCO Show Report Is In, and Yes, It's HP-Sponsored

    Tuesday, October 07 2003 08:45 PM EDT

    A guy in Canada is nice enough to fill us in on the SCO Show from its
    first stop there:
    "It was mostly a room full of SCO resellers. And they were not too big
    on having a love in. Nothing hostile, however not one positive comment
    for the morning's session. During the 'we be so profitable' section of
    the spiel, one reseller in the crowd asked 'where does the money come
    from?' The response was largely a pointer to the SCO source
    initiative. The response? 'What you are profitable in will not make me
    profitable.' Wow. That was good. One raised the points that this
    quibble is hurting his business. SCO's stance is that they'd love to
    settle this tomorrow (har har). Stance not bought by aforementioned
    reseller - the paraphrased retort was 'litigation will resolve nothing
    that I am interested in. SCO needs to adapt to the times, or it will
    perish'. Wow wow. People seem to get this. I like it.

    "I now know how retro SCOs OSes are. Riotous, riotous stuff. How they
    had the ya-yas to declare Linux an infant OS in need of their IP is
    beyond me. Upcoming features? PAM. files larger than 2 gigs. NFS over
    TCP. The 80's called, they want their features back. NTPv4 was a
    listed big feature on a slide of 10 to 15 upcoming enhancements. How
    does an NTP enhancement get mentioned as a 'big' feature? Wow. I never
    knew it was this bad. Maybe I should lend my old 486 running Debian
    from '97 to Pizza Hut - it sounds like they could use the upgrade.
    Even the guy presenting was a leelte embarrassed by the state of the
    OS. When mentioning PAM support his comment was "finally!". A crowd
    member picked up on this & asked "when you say 'PAM - finally!', who
    are you implying you are behind?". The response was pretty generic,
    other than to point out that rigorous certification testing was a
    portion of the delay. Also of note was the volume of OpenSource
    software in the box - OpenSSL/SSH, Apache, Samba, CUPS, Gimp-print,
    bash ... you name it. Maybe their idea of building a super-OS involves
    a fistful of RPMs. He tried to convey his amazement at the fantastic
    future of UnixWare by telling the crowd that they would someday be
    able to print in colour from their colour printer (thanks to features
    in gimp-print)."

    I don't want to burst any SCO bubbles, but if McBride is right when he
    said, "At the end of the day, the GPL is not about making software
    free; it's about destroying value," why then, are is SCO distributing
    Samba and the Gimp, both GPL'd software?

    Guess how many people showed up? Less than 20. That left more than 40
    seats empty. And yes, HP is a sponsor, he says. A Groklaw reader,
    mdchaney, called Blake Stowell today, and he confirmed:

    "I just called Blake Stowell at SCO and asked if HP was sponsoring the
    road show. He said that they definitely were. I asked why their name
    wasn't on the web site. His response was that they had asked to have
    it removed from the web site, but they were definitely still a
    sponsor. HP just lost a laptop sale."

    If you're curious about just how behind the times System V was in 2001
    compared to other UNIX versions, you might find this "2001 UNIX
    Function Review" of interest, available as either a pdf or as html.
    They came in dead last, comparing Solaris 8, HP-UX 11i, Tru64 UNIX
    5.1, AIX 4.3.3, and UnixWare 7.1.1. On page two of the doent,
    comparing scalability, it says this about UnixWare:


    End paste:---
    --
    FyRE < "War: The way Americans learn geography" >
    FyRE Guest

  2. #2

    Default Re: "Ancient" SCO?

    FyRE <demon.ku.oc.x> wrote in message news:<com>... 

    Well, the Groklaw account was obviously from someone with an axe
    to grind. And in places it conflates SCO's two OS products, UnixWare
    and OpenServer. UnixWare generally has more advanced technology
    than OpenServer (it's UnixWare that's the subject of the IP disputes).

    So for example >2Gb files is a feature that UnixWare has had for
    many years now, but that OpenServer has lacked. Next year's
    "Legend" release of OpenServer will remedy that.

    In other cases, yes UnixWare has been missing features that other OSes
    have. I think most SCO resellers, partners, etc. would agree that the
    SCO->Caldera->SCO changes of name and direction resulted in lost
    UnixWare momentum. PAM is an example of that. So SCO is now adding it in.
    (And your objection is?)

    These are examples of the ongoing development work that you claim doesn't
    exist.

    Jonathan Schilling
    J. Guest

  3. #3

    Default Re: "Ancient" SCO?

    FyRE <demon.ku.oc.x> wrote: 
     

    The article was by someone with no understanding of WHY OSR5 has
    lacked these features. Aside from technical issues that Bela and
    others keep telling us will make it very hard to do, SCO at
    one time was trying to phase out OSR5 and push people to Unixware,
    which has had large files, large memory models etc. for some time.

    That these things will now be added to OSR5 is an indication of it's
    value to the folks who use it: they wouldn't let SCO kill it off,
    so now they have to add features that should have been put in years
    ago but were not because of the planned phase out.

    That shows how GOOD OSR5 is, not how backward it is.


    --
    com Unix/Linux/Mac OS X resources: http://aplawrence.com
    Get paid for writing about tech: http://aplawrence.com/publish.html

    tony@aplawrence.com Guest

  4. #4

    Default Re: "Ancient" SCO?

    > That these things will now be added to OSR5 is an indication of it's 

    I don't know if I would consider the fact that a relic like OSR5 is around
    to be a testiment to it's worthiness as a product, but rather proof that
    some of these corps who use it have custom designed apps which would cost
    them significant amounts of money to port. Why would someone willingly use
    an obsolete and overpriced OS when there are plenty of better options out
    there otherwise?


    David Guest

  5. #5

    Default Re: "Ancient" SCO?

    On Thu, Oct 09, 2003, David Chait wrote: 
    >
    >I don't know if I would consider the fact that a relic like OSR5 is around
    >to be a testiment to it's worthiness as a product, but rather proof that
    >some of these corps who use it have custom designed apps which would cost
    >them significant amounts of money to port. Why would someone willingly use
    >an obsolete and overpriced OS when there are plenty of better options out
    >there otherwise?[/ref]

    Because it works now, and they don't want to spend a lot of money to
    ``fix'' something that isn't broken.

    The vast majority of OpenServer customers are running accounting and
    database applications, and perhaps e-mail servers. Their functions are
    critical to the operation of the business, and the last thing the business
    owner wants to do is have somebody messing around with it. Many of these
    businesses will never have a problem with a 2gb file system limit, or any
    of the other limitations of OSR5 (hell, they could probably still use their
    old Xenix systems if it weren't for the y2k issues).

    We still have a half-dozen or so customers who are still running OpenServer
    because they have 3rd party applications that aren't supported or won't run
    on Linux. I've just put together an OSR 5.0.6 system for one of these who
    was running a FilePro application on 3.2v4.2 (ODT 3.0) where the old box
    was destroyed in a fire. We have to run it on OSR5 because it has compiled
    programs with no source code that are 286 a.out binaries that won't run on
    anything else.

    Bill
    --
    INTERNET: COM Bill Campbell; Celestial Software LLC
    UUCP: camco!bill PO Box 820; 6641 E. Mercer Way
    FAX: (206) 232-9186 Mercer Island, WA 98040-0820; (206) 236-1676
    URL: http://www.celestial.com/

    That rifle on the wall of the labourer's cottage or working class flat is
    the symbol of democracy. It is our job to see that it stays there.
    --GEORGE ORWELL
    Bill Guest

  6. #6

    Default Re: "Ancient" SCO?

    "David Chait" <stanford.edu> wrote in message news:<bm4rnr$aef$Stanford.EDU>... 
    >
    > I don't know if I would consider the fact that a relic like OSR5 is around
    > to be a testiment to it's worthiness as a product, [...]
    > Why would someone willingly use
    > an obsolete and overpriced OS when there are plenty of better options out
    > there otherwise?[/ref]

    "Obsolete" is only meaningful relative to intended purpose. For example,
    the C programming language is 30 years old and by any measure of modern
    programming language design is "obsolete". Yet vendors still ship
    C compilers and a significant number of applications are still written
    in C. If a language or an OS is the right fit for a job, who cares
    if some alternative language or OS has more whiz-bang features?

    "Overpriced" is also only meaningful within a total project/product/
    ownership cost perspective.

    Jonathan Schilling
    J. Guest

  7. #7

    Default Re: "Ancient" SCO?

    David Chait <stanford.edu> wrote: [/ref]
     

    Then why would they pressure SCO to add these features?

    --
    com Unix/Linux/Mac OS X resources: http://aplawrence.com
    Get paid for writing about tech: http://aplawrence.com/publish.html

    tony@aplawrence.com Guest

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 1
    Last Post: April 24th, 01:27 PM
  2. CFINPUT type="radio" w/ "value" requires "label"
    By Iceborer in forum Macromedia ColdFusion
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: February 21st, 06:16 PM
  3. #26162 [NEW]: $a="0abcdefg";if ($a==0) echo "OK"; result is "OK" ?!
    By zhuminglun at yahoo dot com dot cn in forum PHP Development
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: November 7th, 12:04 PM
  4. "Start" "Program" "Menu" list is empty
    By Pete in forum Windows XP/2000/ME
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: July 10th, 10:42 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139