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

Discussion in 'NZ Computing' started by Dave Doe, Mar 17, 2006.

  1. Dave Doe

    Dave Doe Guest

    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 :)

    --
    Duncan
    Dave Doe, Mar 17, 2006
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Dave Doe

    Guest

    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,
    plus you have word perfect (could be pre-sco, ie Microsoft's Unix) but I
    could be wrong. It could be SUN OS but that is very very old. A sun
    spec'd box of that era cpu speed (an ULTRA 2) is going to be scsi based
    and the OS too old for a scsi cdr...it will have a 4 speed narrow scsi CD...

    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...

    What sort of tapes?

    regards

    Thing
    , Mar 17, 2006
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Dave Doe

    ~misfit~ Guest

    y wrote:
    > 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, plus you have word perfect (could be pre-sco, ie Microsoft's
    > Unix) but I could be wrong. It could be SUN OS but that is very very
    > old. A sun spec'd box of that era cpu speed (an ULTRA 2) is going to be
    > scsi
    > based and the OS too old for a scsi cdr...it will have a 4 speed narrow
    > scsi CD...
    > 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...
    > What sort of tapes?


    Christchurch is a long way away. I have an old Yamaha SCSI CD writer (4 x 4
    x 16) that still works that I've used as an external reader on a Sun box. I
    guess it would write too with the right software?
    --
    ~Shaun~
    ~misfit~, Mar 17, 2006
    #3
  4. Dave Doe

    Dave Doe Guest

    In article <>,
    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,


    Yep, now that you mention it - I think it is SCO UNIX. Can you help?

    --
    Duncan
    Dave Doe, Mar 17, 2006
    #4
  5. 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 :)


    Perhaps you can get at the machine over the network from another (live linux cd
    ?) machine and burn there.

    Sorry - I'm not in Chch.
    Mark Robinson, Mar 17, 2006
    #5
  6. 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

    --
    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, Mar 17, 2006
    #6
  7. Dave Doe

    -=rjh=- Guest

    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.
    -=rjh=-, Mar 18, 2006
    #7
  8. Dave Doe

    Guest

    Dave Doe wrote:
    > In article <>,
    > 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,

    >
    >
    > Yep, now that you mention it - I think it is SCO UNIX. Can you help?
    >


    Nope in Wellington, and I dont know sco very well.

    Can you get a command line shell?

    Does it have a working network card?

    ftp in?

    I am not sure what file system SCO uses but if all else fails I would
    install Linux on small IDE drive, take disk to site, open the box, move
    the master disk to the slave channel, install the drive as master and
    boot......from there mount the sco partition(s) and copy the data across
    to the ide disk. Remove drive, re-install in a box or a ext usb case and
    away you go.

    Other possibilities are Linux cdrom based distributions...

    I have done this on dying fat/ntfs hard drives never on a sco one though.

    There should be sco (ex-)re-sellers somewhere in CHCH who could help....

    regards

    Thing
    , Mar 18, 2006
    #8
  9. Dave Doe

    Guest

    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
    >


    Assuming he has a network card, it could be all serial lines....I have
    seen those as POS (point of sale) things very common to use SCO
    unix...with say 16 terminals....even 32....

    I did a Linux box about 5 years ago replacing a SCO (Xenix) one, 16 bit
    ISA card with a 16 port serial "black box" (Digi Card?) bolted onto it
    externally running to wyse terminals, RH 5.0 I think it was.....

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

    regards

    Thing
    , Mar 18, 2006
    #9
  10. Dave Doe

    Guest

    -=rjh=- wrote:
    > 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.


    I would expect tar on a sco box but you never know...assuming a dds1 or
    2 tape it should be readable via Linux with a similar drive, dds3s and
    dds4s should read backwards, even DLTs.

    regards

    Thing
    , Mar 18, 2006
    #10
  11. 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.
    Have A Nice Cup of Tea, Mar 18, 2006
    #11
  12. 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

    --
    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, Mar 18, 2006
    #12
  13. Dave Doe

    Guest

    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.

    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
    , Mar 18, 2006
    #13
  14. Dave Doe

    -=rjh=- Guest

    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, 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
    -=rjh=-, Mar 18, 2006
    #14
  15. On Sat, 18 Mar 2006 15:19:34 +1300, 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.
    Have A Nice Cup of Tea, Mar 18, 2006
    #15
  16. Dave Doe

    Guest

    -=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 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
    , Mar 18, 2006
    #16
  17. On Sat, 18 Mar 2006 16:49:06 +1300, -=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, 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.
    Have A Nice Cup of Tea, Mar 18, 2006
    #17
  18. 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.
    Have A Nice Cup of Tea, Mar 18, 2006
    #18
  19. Dave Doe

    Guest

    Have A Nice Cup of Tea wrote:
    > On Sat, 18 Mar 2006 15:19:34 +1300, 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 piss 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
    , Mar 18, 2006
    #19
  20. Dave Doe

    -=rjh=- Guest

    Have A Nice Cup of Tea wrote:
    > On Sat, 18 Mar 2006 16:49:06 +1300, -=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, 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.
    -=rjh=-, Mar 18, 2006
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. JB
    Replies:
    8
    Views:
    299
  2. JB
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    345
    Patrick Dunford
    Jul 10, 2004
  3. YAnewswatcher

    BigByte ChCh folding?

    YAnewswatcher, Feb 4, 2005, in forum: NZ Computing
    Replies:
    20
    Views:
    813
    Jerry
    Feb 7, 2005
  4. Steve
    Replies:
    9
    Views:
    346
    Lawrence DĀ¹Oliveiro
    Mar 31, 2005
  5. Christophe 83

    Windows Xp64 can't copy all files from unix???

    Christophe 83, Mar 5, 2008, in forum: Windows 64bit
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    402
    Carlos
    Mar 6, 2008
Loading...

Share This Page