Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > NZ Computing > UNIX person req'd, ChCh, to copy files to CDR

Reply
Thread Tools

UNIX person req'd, ChCh, to copy files to CDR

 
 
Have A Nice Cup of Tea
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      03-18-2006
On Sat, 18 Mar 2006 13:07:56 +1300, -=rjh=- wrote:

> I would have thought that the best option is to try to write to tape,
> isn't tar a pseudo standard? Should be accessible from Windows or Linux
> with a compatible tape drive fitted. Maybe.


I don't think the TAR format has changed over the years. Anything that can
read TAR archives will be able to untar them.

So, yeah - write to tape, and take that device and put it into a Linux box
and read it in.


Have A Nice Cup of Tea

--
1/ Migration to Linux only costs money once. Higher Windows TCO is forever.
2/ "Shared source" is a poison pill. Open Source is freedom.
3/ Only the Windows boxes get the worms.

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Have A Nice Cup of Tea
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      03-18-2006
On Sat, 18 Mar 2006 13:14:39 +1300, http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/(E-Mail Removed)y wrote:

> Also setting up anything on SCO is hard work, its nothing like other
> Linux/Unixes.....it is real odd....


And yet SCO Unix claims to be the original sVr4 Unix.

Or is it BECAUSE SCO Unix is the original Unix that it is so strange?


Have A Nice Cup of Tea

--
1/ Migration to Linux only costs money once. Higher Windows TCO is forever.
2/ "Shared source" is a poison pill. Open Source is freedom.
3/ Only the Windows boxes get the worms.

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
thingy@nowhere.commy
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      03-18-2006
Have A Nice Cup of Tea wrote:
> On Sat, 18 Mar 2006 13:14:39 +1300, (E-Mail Removed)y wrote:
>
>
>>Also setting up anything on SCO is hard work, its nothing like other
>>Linux/Unixes.....it is real odd....

>
>
> And yet SCO Unix claims to be the original sVr4 Unix.
>
> Or is it BECAUSE SCO Unix is the original Unix that it is so strange?
>
>
> Have A Nice Cup of Tea
>


Dunno how original it is, seemes based on xenix from what I recall they
seemed similar, and that is also quite old.

Quite why SCO thinks it has a claim on Linux I dont know, quite
different....

Must admit it was a bold play, if immoral, funny how the land of the
free seems so often come down to land of the freedom to sue and not much
else. So often it depends on how much money you have not very free
really....

regards

Thing
 
Reply With Quote
 
-=rjh=-
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      03-18-2006
(E-Mail Removed)y wrote:
> Have A Nice Cup of Tea wrote:
>> On Sat, 18 Mar 2006 13:14:39 +1300, (E-Mail Removed)y wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Also setting up anything on SCO is hard work, its nothing like other
>>> Linux/Unixes.....it is real odd....

>>
>>
>> And yet SCO Unix claims to be the original sVr4 Unix.
>>
>> Or is it BECAUSE SCO Unix is the original Unix that it is so strange?
>>
>>
>> Have A Nice Cup of Tea
>>

>
> Dunno how original it is, seemes based on xenix from what I recall they
> seemed similar, and that is also quite old.
>


Its starting to come back to me now - I thought the original SCO (Santa
Cruz Operation) bought Xenix from MS, and developed it into SCO Linux.
So yes, it is based on Xenix. But I could be wrong.

The system I was involved with was godawful to use, but the entire
company - *everything* - sales, production, scheduling, dispatch,
accounts, payroll, wordprocessing etc - was all done on one standalone
high end Wang system. A 386 with 16MB of ram, IIRC. Running 16
terminals. There were no other PCs in the place.

'course, you tell that to young people today, and they don't believe you


> Quite why SCO thinks it has a claim on Linux I dont know, quite
> different....
>


Seems that that SCO is a different company.


> Must admit it was a bold play, if immoral, funny how the land of the
> free seems so often come down to land of the freedom to sue and not much
> else. So often it depends on how much money you have not very free
> really....
>
> regards
>
> Thing

 
Reply With Quote
 
Have A Nice Cup of Tea
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      03-18-2006
On Sat, 18 Mar 2006 15:19:34 +1300, (E-Mail Removed)y wrote:

>> And yet SCO Unix claims to be the original sVr4 Unix.
>> Or is it BECAUSE SCO Unix is the original Unix that it is so strange?

>
> Dunno how original it is, seemes based on xenix from what I recall they
> seemed similar, and that is also quite old.


Xenix? Wasn't that sold to oldSCO many years ago?


> Quite why SCO thinks it has a claim on Linux I dont know, quite
> different....


Indeed.

I've been following the Caldera/newSCO vs IBM case quite closely, along
with related cases, such as the stuff with the Canopy Group, owned by the
fellow who founded Novell.

I have the impression that SCO is a front for a nasty attack on Linux by
some other corporation. There are too many things that don't add up, or
that are too convenient, or that are just plain wrong to even hope that
SCO could have a genuine case. The fact that newSCO has been playing up to
the general public, has been lying to the court, has not actually
presented any specific evidence of infringement, has not even been able to
demonstrate that it genuinely owns the IP that it claims is being
infringed, and did not respond to the immediate offer to remove ANY and
ALL infringing code (if such code exists which most likely does not).

And then it substantially cuts development work on its Unix systems, while
at the same time claming they are its flagship products.

As a Linux company it was not viable. As a Unix company it has no long
term viability - closed source UNIX on Intel hardware is a dying market.
Even before Linux became strong enough to challenge any other OS, the *BSD
Unices were around and doing very well indeed.


> Must admit it was a bold play, if immoral, funny how the land of the
> free seems so often come down to land of the freedom to sue and not much
> else. So often it depends on how much money you have not very free
> really....


Bold it certainly is. Bare-faced... almost certainly that too.

There appears to have been a recent divergence of opinion between SCO and
its lawyers, and there have recently been a considerable number of really
dumb legal mistakes made by SCO.

I think the recent anouncement by SCO about its new "Me inc." stuff is
nothing more than an attempt to move capital and resources out of reach of
IBM in the (almost certain) event that SCO will loose bigtime against IBM.

I mean, it's just too convenient. And, let's face it, WHO would actually
genuinely want to do business with a company which sues its customers on a
whim?


Have A Nice Cup of Tea

--
1/ Migration to Linux only costs money once. Higher Windows TCO is forever.
2/ "Shared source" is a poison pill. Open Source is freedom.
3/ Only the Windows boxes get the worms.

 
Reply With Quote
 
thingy@nowhere.commy
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      03-18-2006
-=rjh=- wrote:
> (E-Mail Removed)y wrote:
>
>> Have A Nice Cup of Tea wrote:
>>
>>> On Sat, 18 Mar 2006 13:14:39 +1300, (E-Mail Removed)y wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> Also setting up anything on SCO is hard work, its nothing like other
>>>> Linux/Unixes.....it is real odd....
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> And yet SCO Unix claims to be the original sVr4 Unix.
>>>
>>> Or is it BECAUSE SCO Unix is the original Unix that it is so strange?
>>>
>>>
>>> Have A Nice Cup of Tea
>>>

>>
>> Dunno how original it is, seemes based on xenix from what I recall
>> they seemed similar, and that is also quite old.
>>

>
> Its starting to come back to me now - I thought the original SCO (Santa
> Cruz Operation) bought Xenix from MS,


This was my recollection dunno how true, if I could be bothered I'd
google. If that is the case and Unix for NT is based on Xenix then it
could be a reasonable reason for MS paying off SCO when it did (kills 2
birds with one stone), hmm 3, one for any residual conflict with the
different unixes, gives sco a handout to fight Linux, PR opportunity for
MS showing how its a good IP believer....

and developed it into SCO Linux.
> So yes, it is based on Xenix. But I could be wrong.


SCO Unix, there is nothing SCO about Linux except where SCO uses OSS to
run on SCO Unix. Kind of an oxy-moron, why run pay to run sco unix with
OSS applications on top when you can run all OSS.....IMHO.

This will apply to Sun, why run Solaris OS with OSS software....there is
not huge if any advantage in doing so....in fact given Sun's real
commitment to linux a client should be thinking twice, either run
Solaris or run Linux and dont go near Sun for it...just look at Cobalt
etc....total screw up....

regards

Thing










 
Reply With Quote
 
Have A Nice Cup of Tea
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      03-18-2006
On Sat, 18 Mar 2006 16:49:06 +1300, -=rjh=- wrote:

> (E-Mail Removed)y wrote:
>> Have A Nice Cup of Tea wrote:
>>> On Sat, 18 Mar 2006 13:14:39 +1300, (E-Mail Removed)y wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> Also setting up anything on SCO is hard work, its nothing like other
>>>> Linux/Unixes.....it is real odd....
>>>
>>>
>>> And yet SCO Unix claims to be the original sVr4 Unix.
>>>
>>> Or is it BECAUSE SCO Unix is the original Unix that it is so strange?
>>>
>>>
>>> Have A Nice Cup of Tea
>>>

>>
>> Dunno how original it is, seemes based on xenix from what I recall they
>> seemed similar, and that is also quite old.
>>

>
> Its starting to come back to me now - I thought the original SCO (Santa
> Cruz Operation) bought Xenix from MS, and developed it into SCO Linux.
> So yes, it is based on Xenix. But I could be wrong.


OldSCO never produced a version of Linux.


Have A Nice Cup of Tea

--
1/ Migration to Linux only costs money once. Higher Windows TCO is forever.
2/ "Shared source" is a poison pill. Open Source is freedom.
3/ Only the Windows boxes get the worms.

 
Reply With Quote
 
Have A Nice Cup of Tea
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      03-18-2006
On Sat, 18 Mar 2006 16:49:06 +1300, -=rjh=- wrote:

>> Quite why SCO thinks it has a claim on Linux I dont know, quite
>> different....

>
> Seems that that SCO is a different company.


NewSCO used to be known as Caldera until it purchased the Unix server
business from the Santa Crus Operation. Shortly after that it renamed
itself to "The SCO Group inc".

SCO, however, continues in business and renamed itself as "Tarentalla",
and was subsequently purchased by Sun Microsystems.

Thus, OldSCO is now a part of Sun, and NewSCO is a completely different
business, altho' it wants people to think it is OldSCO - even tho' it
isn't.


Have A Nice Cup of Tea

--
1/ Migration to Linux only costs money once. Higher Windows TCO is forever.
2/ "Shared source" is a poison pill. Open Source is freedom.
3/ Only the Windows boxes get the worms.

 
Reply With Quote
 
thingy@nowhere.commy
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      03-18-2006
Have A Nice Cup of Tea wrote:
> On Sat, 18 Mar 2006 15:19:34 +1300, (E-Mail Removed)y wrote:
>
>
>>>And yet SCO Unix claims to be the original sVr4 Unix.
>>>Or is it BECAUSE SCO Unix is the original Unix that it is so strange?

>>
>>Dunno how original it is, seemes based on xenix from what I recall they
>>seemed similar, and that is also quite old.

>
>
> Xenix? Wasn't that sold to oldSCO many years ago?


Thats is how I remember it, yes, MS sold Xenix to SCO.
>
>>Quite why SCO thinks it has a claim on Linux I dont know, quite
>>different....

>
>
> Indeed.
>
> I've been following the Caldera/newSCO vs IBM case quite closely,


Yep, me too....

along
> with related cases, such as the stuff with the Canopy Group, owned by the
> fellow who founded Novell.


Ray Norda.

> I have the impression that SCO is a front for a nasty attack on Linux by
> some other corporation.


Na, not in IT terms anyway. I think MS and Sun etc took the opportunity
to join in, as it suited, them. But I think the main reason was
financial, to bag IBM into buying out SCO or getting royalties for ever,
lets face it IBM says it got them 16 Billion last year from Linux, with
a 35% annual growth, if SCO/Canopy could get only 1% of that for doing
nothing per year that is a nice income.

Im sure the main play was Canopy etc seeing the opportunity to buy
something for a few million ie dirt cheap in their terms yet with the
possibility of very huge returns. Yes, high risk (though I am not sure
if they understood just how high) gambling in effect that IBM would
decide $10~20million to buy SCO was cheap. Trouble is as usual these
people only see what they want to see and only think in the immediate
context of the situation and not overall. IBM does it overall, it knows
if it didnt fight this one it would be in fights for ever and/or paying
out for ever, plus the opportunity to use Linux to knee cap MS would not
happen.

There are too many things that don't add up, or
> that are too convenient, or that are just plain wrong to even hope that
> SCO could have a genuine case.


AS it has panned out, in 2003/2004 though it looked like SCO had
something, of course it now looks like nothing, but if your habit is too
hide under a rock......

The fact that newSCO has been playing up to
> the general public, has been lying to the court, has not actually
> presented any specific evidence of infringement, has not even been able to
> demonstrate that it genuinely owns the IP that it claims is being
> infringed, and did not respond to the immediate offer to remove ANY and
> ALL infringing code (if such code exists which most likely does not).


This one decided for me SCO had no case, all they had to do was show a
decent sized bit of real copying, say a program, a few million lines of
code (heck even 100,000) and people would have bought in, then they
could have strung it a bit, but no they have nothing, even the judges
see it (must **** the judges off, here they are busy peole yet here is
sco wasting everyones time). When SCO looses I think there will be a
payback. The judges will be the ones to determine if and how much of
IBM's expenses SCO will have to pay back. I think it will be huge and I
think it will go beyond SCO's pockets, hopefully IBM will rake in
Canopy, McBride and they will have to pay out......

> And then it substantially cuts development work on its Unix systems, while
> at the same time claming they are its flagship products.


It is dead.....everyone knows it....dead man walking.

8><----

> There appears to have been a recent divergence of opinion between SCO and
> its lawyers, and there have recently been a considerable number of really
> dumb legal mistakes made by SCO.


SCO? surely it is SCO's lawyers making the mistakes?

> I think the recent anouncement by SCO about its new "Me inc." stuff is
> nothing more than an attempt to move capital and resources out of reach of
> IBM in the (almost certain) event that SCO will loose bigtime against IBM.


Me Inc will be a non-event it is too small, a product developed too late
by a company with even less business morals than MS.

> I mean, it's just too convenient. And, let's face it, WHO would actually
> genuinely want to do business with a company which sues its customers on a
> whim?


yes, exactly.

> Have A Nice Cup of Tea


regards

Thing


 
Reply With Quote
 
-=rjh=-
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      03-18-2006
Have A Nice Cup of Tea wrote:
> On Sat, 18 Mar 2006 16:49:06 +1300, -=rjh=- wrote:
>
>> (E-Mail Removed)y wrote:
>>> Have A Nice Cup of Tea wrote:
>>>> On Sat, 18 Mar 2006 13:14:39 +1300, (E-Mail Removed)y wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Also setting up anything on SCO is hard work, its nothing like other
>>>>> Linux/Unixes.....it is real odd....
>>>>
>>>> And yet SCO Unix claims to be the original sVr4 Unix.
>>>>
>>>> Or is it BECAUSE SCO Unix is the original Unix that it is so strange?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Have A Nice Cup of Tea
>>>>
>>> Dunno how original it is, seemes based on xenix from what I recall they
>>> seemed similar, and that is also quite old.
>>>

>> Its starting to come back to me now - I thought the original SCO (Santa
>> Cruz Operation) bought Xenix from MS, and developed it into SCO Linux.
>> So yes, it is based on Xenix. But I could be wrong.

>
> OldSCO never produced a version of Linux.
>

My mistake, I meant SCO Unix, of course. It wouldn't be Linux if it was
based on Xenix.
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
what is Deep Copy, shallow copy and bitwises copy.? saxenavaibhav17@gmail.com C++ 26 09-01-2006 09:37 PM
is dict.copy() a deep copy or a shallow copy Alex Python 2 09-05-2005 07:01 AM
Slow copying of files from CDR ... Ronnie Davis Computer Support 0 11-30-2004 11:45 AM
Reading picture files from CDR disk Root Computer Support 3 03-06-2004 09:34 AM
Help with vidoe files burned to CDR Jack Slater Computer Support 7 02-10-2004 02:00 AM



Advertisments