«

y wrote:
> -=rjh=- wrote:
>> y wrote:
>>
>>> Have A Nice Cup of Tea wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Sat, 18 Mar 2006 13:14:39 +1300, 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

Yes, SCO Unix predated Linux by years. I meant SCO Unix.

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
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

In article <441b4fb1$>, says...
> Have A Nice Cup of Tea wrote:
> > On Fri, 17 Mar 2006 19:39:27 +1300, y wrote:
> >
> >> Lots of Unixes use tar so you may find the tape is readable in Linux at
> >> least. I wouldnt bet on its ability to support cdrs but you never know...
> >
> > Or he could set up a NFS server on the UNIX box and a NFS client on a
> > Linux box and do all the cd burning from the Linux box.
> >
> >
> > Have A Nice Cup of Tea
> >
>
> You are assuming a network, the OP makes no mention of that. I think
> these systems are commonly standalone (and for good reason), the Wyse
> terminals are serial.
>
> 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.
>
> The other option is to write to floppies (depending the number of files
> involved) as although the process when I last used SCO Unix to do this
> is convoluted, it does work.

Yes - you're onto it. That's how it's currently worked - backup tape,
and yep one or two users (find out Monday) know how to write to floppy
on the 'Server'. But that's one file at a time!

Cheers for the info on the tar format, will check into it and see if I
can read this (given I can make a new backup tape) - (The system hasn't
been used for 4 years .

--
Duncan

On Sat, 18 Mar 2006 17:24:02 +1300, y wrote:

>> 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.

I have just looked it up. OldSCO originally licenced Xenix (based on Unix
system V release 3) from Micro$oft (who had licenced it to many different
platform developers), and that formed the original basis of SCO Open
Server.

Later, AT&T merged several strands of Unix - Xenix and BSD and a few
others - into Unix System V release 4. SCO's Open Server had many of the
features that were n sVr4, but they were based on SCO's own source code.

OldSCO much later purchased what can best be described as a franchise for
Unix on Intel from Novell, and thus got the use of sVr4 code and UnixWare.


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.

y wrote:
> Dave Doe wrote:
>
>> In article <lq1qe3->,
>> y says...
>>
>>> Dave Doe wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> Is there anyone reading this that can provide some support for a
>>>> client that requires their old WP files to be written to CDR - in
>>>> Christchurch?
>>>>
>>>> The OS (could get more details on Monday) is: UNIX (Sun UNIX I
>>>> think). The client Wyse terminals logon to a Wordperfect Shell.
>>>>
>>>> The Server PC is a 200MZ PC w' tape backup and CD. I am hoping that
>>>> the OS could support a CDR - and we could swap in a CDR and burn a
>>>> CD with the files on it. I doubt I could read the tape via a
>>>> Windows PC - but don't know for sure.
>>>>
>>>> You can contact me at (this email address
>>>> will be deleted in a few weeks or if it gets spam, whichever comes
>>>> first
>>>>
>>>
>>> More likely to be SCO Unix since this "200Mhz PC" suggests an Intel box,
>>

Been a while

Plug in pc via serial port

Telnet in via terminal prog.

Pull files through with zmodem

Burn

Slow, but works.

On Sat, 18 Mar 2006 17:46:46 +1300, y wrote:

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

Yeah - that's him.


>> 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.

Darl McBride is on record (http://darlmcbride.com) as saying that they
want to kill Linux dead. (words to that effect - I'd need to look it up
again)


> I think MS and Sun etc took the opportunity
> to join in, as it suited, them.

How would killing Linux be to Sun's advantage? Sun has released huge
quantities under Open Source licences of one sort or another.


> 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.

Quite!


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.

On Sat, 18 Mar 2006 17:46:46 +1300, y wrote:

>> 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?

The question is why would lawyers in a firm with such a (former)
reputation for being really sharp make so many really REALLY dumb and
*basic* mistakes?

I think that part of it is that SCO mislead the lawyers into thinking they
actually had a case and the lawyers have only recently found out that this
is not the case.


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.

On Sat, 18 Mar 2006 17:57:02 +1300, -=rjh=- wrote:

>>> 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.

The original version of SCO Open Server was basically a licenced Xenix on
32bit Intel.


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.

Have A Nice Cup of Tea wrote:
> On Sat, 18 Mar 2006 17:46:46 +1300, y wrote:
>
>
>>along
>>
>>>with related cases, such as the stuff with the Canopy Group, owned by the
>>>fellow who founded Novell.
>>
>>Ray Norda.
>
>
> Yeah - that's him.
>
>
>
>>>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.
>
>
> Darl McBride is on record (http://darlmcbride.com) as saying that they
> want to kill Linux dead. (words to that effect - I'd need to look it up
> again)

Pipe dream, there is no way he could kill Linux, more talk on his part
to frighten end users into buying licences, I so hope he gets his come
uppance, he deserves it.

He is a commercial minded person thinking in commercial terms, yes you
can stop a commercial company (RIM v NPT) while you get huge damages and
royalties for life....in reality even a commercial product does not get
often killed, it just pays up for ever.

Anyway, he couldnt stop linux, it is not commercial, delay its next
major release at worst while the offending code was exorcised
yes......delay adoption, yes, but not to SCO's advantage, only MS would
have been a winner.

Actually that is quite critical in business terms 2 or 3 years of delay
would have given MS a huge lead (growth into the datacentre) that Linux
would never have recovered from. In that 2 or 3 years more low life
would have crawled out looking for a payout, it could have ended up
un-ending. MS would be the only true winner, SCO is dead either way.


>>I think MS and Sun etc took the opportunity
>>to join in, as it suited, them.
>
>
> How would killing Linux be to Sun's advantage? Sun has released huge
> quantities under Open Source licences of one sort or another.

Yes. and usually licences with huge strings attached.

Lets examine Sun's dislike of Linux,

Solaris Unix is de-facto the Unix of the Datacentre and web (1996~2002)
(and apache is a serious web platform and runs best on Linux and i86
hardware even MS's own studies show apache on Linux wins)

5 ~ 6 years ago the i86 hardware was cheap and cheerful compared with
Sun's un-questionable high quality hardware, good performance and highly
stable OS. Both Linux and MS were not good enough to seriously challenge
Solaris(Unix), and the hardware was not there....

Role over those 5 years, i86 hardware is now really good. The quality of
Dell kit for instance is easily there with Sun's. Sun at the same time
could not compete with Intel's R&D, it shows in its poor performing
CPUs, its use of PC commodity hardware (PCI bus and connectors) and
general hardware build quality ie there is no substantiual difference
between Dell and Sun at least in the up to 8 CPU market where 90%+(?) of
the sales are anyway.

Now if you are in A Unix shop, MS even today is not a serious choice, if
Linux was delayed or killed off Sun would benefit the most, MS would
gain but Sun would loose a small % only. Instead here we have Linux
eating out Sun's current 1~4 CPU market share in Unix shops (right now
we are into the second wave of y2k hardware replacement and its going
i86 and Linux/MS).

Then there is the new work and biggest growth, application servers are
all over the place, hell we are putting in new servers to do new things
so fast....Linux and Windows is winning here, Solaris (Unix) is not
getting a serious lookin in terms of turnover....

If Linux was not there it would be Sun and MS all the way.....eventually
MS would eat out Solaris, but again it is those 3~5 years delay Sun
would gain while before happens.....

If you look at Wellington, Sun's operation used to have 5 or 6 Solaris
engineers supporting thier hardware/software, now in 3 or so years there
are 2....

Gen-i, Computerland, EDS, all the biggest NZ service suppliers, are MS
shops, the deals have been done......

IBM and some small players are doing Linux, Novell in Wgtn is a 6 or 8
man non-event, Redhat is not even here in NZ, I ring OZ for support.....

I am not sure where HP NZ are....some signs of Linux adoption but in
services terms HP is not big so can probably be discounted.

And Sun is where?

Not sure what Solnet does these days? Linux and MS I believe....legacy
Sun to Government depts that stick to Sun beyond reason....seems some
HODs are anally pro Sun, at what point they get their marching orders I
dont know.....

So yes I think Sun on balance strongly dislikes Linux, Linux has done
far more damage to Sun's business model and profits than MS has to date
(if Linux had not been there though a bigger % would have gone MS so its
a moot point). As normal with a big organisation there are pro and anti
camps (EDS was incredible for that, the pro-MS camp won with a vengence)
and one or other shows through on occasion making Sun look like it is
wobbling......

For NZ I think it is going to be interesting. Worst case with
Telecom/gen-i/Computerland being the dominant player and MS focused and
based, I suspect NZ is going to be one of MS's strongholds relatively
speaking in terms of less losses to Linux....

Most of the 3rd world, Asia, Russia & China (in a big way) and even
Europe I see as going Linux. The USA I dont know, depends on how
successful MS's lobbying is not how good their product is.

I am enjoying watching it.

regards

Thing

On Sun, 19 Mar 2006 09:56:50 +1200, y wrote:

>> Darl McBride is on record (http://darlmcbride.com) as saying that they
>> want to kill Linux dead. (words to that effect - I'd need to look it up
>> again)
>
> Pipe dream, there is no way he could kill Linux, more talk on his part
> to frighten end users into buying licences, I so hope he gets his come
> uppance, he deserves it.

Yep...


> He is a commercial minded person thinking in commercial terms, yes you
> can stop a commercial company (RIM v NPT) while you get huge damages and
> royalties for life....in reality even a commercial product does not get
> often killed, it just pays up for ever.

I think he does not understand the diffeence between Open, colaborative
development methods and closed competitive development.


> Anyway, he couldnt stop linux, it is not commercial, delay its next
> major release at worst while the offending code was exorcised
> yes......delay adoption, yes, but not to SCO's advantage, only MS would
> have been a winner.
>
> Actually that is quite critical in business terms 2 or 3 years of delay
> would have given MS a huge lead (growth into the datacentre) that Linux
> would never have recovered from. In that 2 or 3 years more low life
> would have crawled out looking for a payout, it could have ended up
> un-ending. MS would be the only true winner, SCO is dead either way.

LOL - yep. And the delightful thing is, that none of this has slowed the
uptake of Linux.

I think that the next thing that should happen is that the documentation
of Linux and other Free, Open Source projects should be considerably
improved. It documentation is hindering uptake, then we should fix it. )

And I might just do that. )


>> How would killing Linux be to Sun's advantage? Sun has released huge
>> quantities under Open Source licences of one sort or another.
>
> Yes. and usually licences with huge strings attached.
>
> Lets examine Sun's dislike of Linux,

<snip - good canvas of Sunny things>

> So yes I think Sun on balance strongly dislikes Linux, Linux has done
> far more damage to Sun's business model and profits than MS has to date
> (if Linux had not been there though a bigger % would have gone MS so its
> a moot point). As normal with a big organisation there are pro and anti
> camps (EDS was incredible for that, the pro-MS camp won with a vengence)
> and one or other shows through on occasion making Sun look like it is
> wobbling......

Interesting you say that, because most of the *nix people I know who used
to work for EDS think it is a bad company to work for and were really glad
to leave it behind.


> For NZ I think it is going to be interesting. Worst case with
> Telecom/gen-i/Computerland being the dominant player and MS focused and
> based, I suspect NZ is going to be one of MS's strongholds relatively
> speaking in terms of less losses to Linux....
>
> Most of the 3rd world, Asia, Russia & China (in a big way) and even
> Europe I see as going Linux. The USA I dont know, depends on how
> successful MS's lobbying is not how good their product is.

Micro$oft is a very political corporation. I suspect that the USA will
remain a M$ stronghold even if the rest of the world move on to the "yet
more excellent way".


> I am enjoying watching it.

Yeah - me too. )


Have A Nice Cup of Tea

--
"The key benefit of open technologies such as open source software is
freedom of choice."

Have A Nice Cup of Tea wrote:
> On Sun, 19 Mar 2006 09:56:50 +1200, y wrote:
>
>
>>>Darl McBride is on record (http://darlmcbride.com) as saying that they
>>>want to kill Linux dead. (words to that effect - I'd need to look it up
>>>again)
>>
>>Pipe dream, there is no way he could kill Linux, more talk on his part
>>to frighten end users into buying licences, I so hope he gets his come
>>uppance, he deserves it.
>
>
> Yep...
>
>
>
>>He is a commercial minded person thinking in commercial terms, yes you
>>can stop a commercial company (RIM v NPT) while you get huge damages and
>>royalties for life....in reality even a commercial product does not get
>>often killed, it just pays up for ever.
>
>
> I think he does not understand the diffeence between Open, colaborative
> development methods and closed competitive development.
>
>
>
>>Anyway, he couldnt stop linux, it is not commercial, delay its next
>>major release at worst while the offending code was exorcised
>>yes......delay adoption, yes, but not to SCO's advantage, only MS would
>>have been a winner.
>>
>>Actually that is quite critical in business terms 2 or 3 years of delay
>>would have given MS a huge lead (growth into the datacentre) that Linux
>>would never have recovered from. In that 2 or 3 years more low life
>>would have crawled out looking for a payout, it could have ended up
>>un-ending. MS would be the only true winner, SCO is dead either way.
>
>
> LOL - yep. And the delightful thing is, that none of this has slowed the
> uptake of Linux.
>
> I think that the next thing that should happen is that the documentation
> of Linux and other Free, Open Source projects should be considerably
> improved. It documentation is hindering uptake, then we should fix it. )
>
> And I might just do that. )
>
>
>
>>>How would killing Linux be to Sun's advantage? Sun has released huge
>>>quantities under Open Source licences of one sort or another.
>>
>>Yes. and usually licences with huge strings attached.
>>
>>Lets examine Sun's dislike of Linux,
>
>
> <snip - good canvas of Sunny things>
>
>>So yes I think Sun on balance strongly dislikes Linux, Linux has done
>>far more damage to Sun's business model and profits than MS has to date
>>(if Linux had not been there though a bigger % would have gone MS so its
>>a moot point). As normal with a big organisation there are pro and anti
>>camps (EDS was incredible for that, the pro-MS camp won with a vengence)
>>and one or other shows through on occasion making Sun look like it is
>>wobbling......
>
>
> Interesting you say that, because most of the *nix people I know who used
> to work for EDS think it is a bad company to work for and were really glad
> to leave it behind.

Add me in, ex-eds unix....but I dont think the dislike of EDS it is
restricted to Unix people.....

regards

thing