Diamond Release ?
Tony Lawrence
http://www.integratedmar.com/ECL.cfm?item=DLY080304-02 tells of
SCO's plan for their "Diamond" release - the single OS that apparently
will be able to take on either Unixware or OpenServer personalities,
dependent upon the installer's desires - or perhaps even the users
wishes.
SCO has needed this for some time, though most of us are thinking
that it's a little late to be pushing on that barn door. A lot of
the horses are long gone, the rest are spooked, and the world is
switching to those dang horseless carriages to boot.
Aside from all that, let's pretend for a moment that this Linux
stuff all gets sorted out one way or another and SCO still has
customers in 2006. Jeff Hunsaker says (about Diamond)
"It might take the blinders off of partners"
Pardon me, Jeff, but if anyone has had blinders on about markets
and SCO's positioning therein, it hasn't been the partners and
resellers. We aren't the ones who didn't want a free or inexpensive
Unix for home users and students- if that had been available early
on you never would have had to worry about Linux. We aren't the
ones who went chasing after the big elephants with Unixware - we
knew that SCO's market was small to medium business and small
developers. We aren't the ones who told the world that OpenServer
would be discontinued, causing it to quickly lose even more support
from third party developers. Nor were we the ones who steadfastly
ignored the need for businesses to safely connect to the Internet,
have up to date and secure mail etc. until way past "too late".
And finally, we sure as heck were not the ones who decided that
suing IBM and trying to license Linux users was a brilliant idea.
No, Jeff, we aren't the blind ones. Look inward, Jeff. SCO made the
thorny bed it now lies on - against the advice and wishes of your
partners and resellers.
I hope Diamond gets to become reality. I hope that SCO can somehow
repair all the damage it has wrought. I hope.. well, many things.
Mostly I hope for a world not dominated by Microsoft. Whether SCO
is part of that or not is rather unimportant to me.
--
Tony Lawrence
http://aplawrence.com/Lawsuit/
J. L. Schilling
> (from http://aplawrence.com/Blog/B1037.html)
>
> http://www.integratedmar.com/ECL.cfm?item=DLY080304-02 tells of
> SCO's plan for their "Diamond" release - the single OS that apparently
> will be able to take on either Unixware or OpenServer personalities,
> dependent upon the installer's desires - or perhaps even the users
> wishes.
>
> SCO has needed this for some time, though most of us are thinking
> that it's a little late to be pushing on that barn door.
Yes, in hindsight, the Legend/Diamond approach is probably what
should have been done after SCO acquired Novell UnixWare back
in the mid-90s. I remember talking at SCOForum 96 with a reseller
who did dental applications, who thought Gemini (what became
UnixWare 7) was going to be an SVR4 kernel with an OpenServer
user space, and that's closer to Legend than to what Gemini
actually was.
But alas hindsight is easy ;-)
> [...] Jeff Hunsaker says (about Diamond)
>
> "It might take the blinders off of partners"
>
> Pardon me, Jeff, but if anyone has had blinders on about markets
> and SCO's positioning therein, it hasn't been the partners and
> resellers. We aren't the ones who didn't want a free or inexpensive
> Unix for home users and students- if that had been available early
> on you never would have had to worry about Linux.
Not sure about that -- Linux has other important characteristics
that have made it popular.
> We aren't the
> ones who went chasing after the big elephants with Unixware - we
> knew that SCO's market was small to medium business and small
> developers.
SCO saw the SMB market being threatened by MS and the enterprise
market on commodity hardware as being an wide-open and higher-margin
place to do business. It didn't fully work out, for various reasons,
but I think it was a defensible and reasonable attempt.
> We aren't the ones who told the world that OpenServer
> would be discontinued, causing it to quickly lose even more support
> from third party developers.
Agreed, a big mistake. Names, brands, appearances, look-and-feels,
compatibility, continuity are all important. SCO realizes now that
trying to migrate partners and users from OS A to OS B is counter-
productive to say the least.
That's why Legend and Diamond take the opposite approach: they
ensure that both OpenServer and UnixWare carry on, but look to
improve both while introducing common underlying technology
and thereby reducing internal development costs.
Jonathan Schilling
Tony Lawrence
> "Tony Lawrence" <pcu...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:<cerbug$7...@odak26.prod.google.com>...
> > (from http://aplawrence.com/Blog/B1037.html)
> >
> > http://www.integratedmar.com/ECL.cfm?item=DLY080304-02 tells of
> > SCO's plan for their "Diamond" release - the single OS that
apparently
> > will be able to take on either Unixware or OpenServer
personalities,
> > dependent upon the installer's desires - or perhaps even the users
> > wishes.
> >
> > SCO has needed this for some time, though most of us are thinking
> > that it's a little late to be pushing on that barn door.
>
> Yes, in hindsight, the Legend/Diamond approach is probably what
> should have been done after SCO acquired Novell UnixWare back
> in the mid-90s. I remember talking at SCOForum 96 with a reseller
> who did dental applications, who thought Gemini (what became
> UnixWare 7) was going to be an SVR4 kernel with an OpenServer
> user space, and that's closer to Legend than to what Gemini
> actually was.
>
> But alas hindsight is easy ;-)
It's not hindsight. Many of us were saying this back then.
>
> > [...] Jeff Hunsaker says (about Diamond)
> >
> > "It might take the blinders off of partners"
> >
> > Pardon me, Jeff, but if anyone has had blinders on about markets
> > and SCO's positioning therein, it hasn't been the partners and
> > resellers. We aren't the ones who didn't want a free or inexpensive
> > Unix for home users and students- if that had been available early
> > on you never would have had to worry about Linux.
>
> Not sure about that -- Linux has other important characteristics
> that have made it popular.
Not my point: Linux started working on Linux because he wanted to run
a real Unixy system but couldn't afford to buy one. If SCO hadn't been
such blind idiots about that, there might never have been a Linux at
all.
>
> > We aren't the
> > ones who went chasing after the big elephants with Unixware - we
> > knew that SCO's market was small to medium business and small
> > developers.
>
> SCO saw the SMB market being threatened by MS and the enterprise
> market on commodity hardware as being an wide-open and higher-margin
> place to do business. It didn't fully work out, for various reasons,
> but I think it was a defensible and reasonable attempt.
IMNSHO, it wasn't, I'm sorry. SCO completely misunderstood SMB and
their place in it. They paid no attention to what the resellers and
vendors were screaming for and went off hunting mastodons.
>
> > We aren't the ones who told the world that OpenServer
> > would be discontinued, causing it to quickly lose even more support
> > from third party developers.
>
> Agreed, a big mistake. Names, brands, appearances, look-and-feels,
> compatibility, continuity are all important. SCO realizes now that
> trying to migrate partners and users from OS A to OS B is counter-
> productive to say the least.
Sure. But did they listen to us when we told them that at every single
reseller meeting? Nope. Marketing droids with Masters degrees and no
clue about reality got attention though, didn't they?
>
> That's why Legend and Diamond take the opposite approach: they
> ensure that both OpenServer and UnixWare carry on, but look to
> improve both while introducing common underlying technology
> and thereby reducing internal development costs.
It's going to take more than Legend and Diamond to fix this. SCO needs
to repair the damage to its channel, fix the "day late, dollar short"
software problems, stop treating Skunkware like a bastard child, and
reorient themselves more toward services than product. And it needs to
be done very, very quickly.
I would like to think SCO can pull that rabbit of of its hat. While my
income no longer has much dependence on SCO products, I have a
nostalgic fondness that won't quite die - in spite of being beaten,
trod upon, kicked, stomped and worse.
--
Tony Lawrence
J. L. Schilling
>
> Not my point: Linus started working on Linux because he wanted to run
> a real Unixy system but couldn't afford to buy one. If SCO hadn't been
> such blind idiots about that, there might never have been a Linux at
> all.
Perhaps not a "Linux", but I think there would still be an open source
Unix clone OS today of some sort (from BSD, or GNU, or somewhere) ...
unless you think that Linux itself was a key tipping point to the whole
open source movement taking off.
> > Agreed, a big mistake. Names, brands, appearances, look-and-feels,
> > compatibility, continuity are all important. SCO realizes now that
> > trying to migrate partners and users from OS A to OS B is counter-
> > productive to say the least.
>
> Sure. But did they listen to us when we told them that at every single
> reseller meeting? Nope. Marketing droids with Masters degrees and no
> clue about reality got attention though, didn't they?
It's unfair to blame the strategy to migrate OSR5 users to UW7 on
marketing droids. That decision was made at the very top, including
Doug Michels. It was just felt that it was too expensive and confusing
a market message to maintain two OS lines going forward. (Which it is,
but forced migration is worse.) There's another school of thought
which says that if UnixWare 7 had just been named OpenServer 7, things
would have gone better. Maybe, maybe not.
> It's going to take more than Legend and Diamond to fix this. SCO needs
> to repair the damage to its channel, fix the "day late, dollar short"
> software problems, stop treating Skunkware like a bastard child, and
> reorient themselves more toward services than product.
The Skunkware point has already been taken -- many open source components
are now part of the fully supported OSes and are included in the base CDs.
And it's worth noting that no one from SCO said anything negative about
open source in general at this Forum. Indeed McBride said they were
intentionally toning down the rhetoric this year.
Jonathan Schilling
Tony Lawrence
> "Tony Lawrence" <pcu...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:<ceubic$8...@odak26.prod.google.com>...
> >
> > Not my point: Linus started working on Linux because he wanted to
run
> > a real Unixy system but couldn't afford to buy one. If SCO hadn't
been
> > such blind idiots about that, there might never have been a Linux
at
> > all.
>
> Perhaps not a "Linux", but I think there would still be an open
source
> Unix clone OS today of some sort (from BSD, or GNU, or somewhere) ...
> unless you think that Linux itself was a key tipping point to the
whole
> open source movement taking off.
Gawd yes. We're still waiting for Hurd, right? SCO didn't see the
demand because they were too busy hunting mastodons.
>
> > > Agreed, a big mistake. Names, brands, appearances,
look-and-feels,
> > > compatibility, continuity are all important. SCO realizes now
that
> > > trying to migrate partners and users from OS A to OS B is
counter-
> > > productive to say the least.
> >
> > Sure. But did they listen to us when we told them that at every
single
> > reseller meeting? Nope. Marketing droids with Masters degrees and
no
> > clue about reality got attention though, didn't they?
>
> It's unfair to blame the strategy to migrate OSR5 users to UW7 on
> marketing droids. That decision was made at the very top, including
> Doug Michels. It was just felt that it was too expensive and
confusing
> a market message to maintain two OS lines going forward. (Which it
is,
> but forced migration is worse.) There's another school of thought
> which says that if UnixWare 7 had just been named OpenServer 7,
things
> would have gone better. Maybe, maybe not.
No, it wouldn't. Until recently at least, Unixware was much more
difficult, and required much more IT investment. The reselers didn't
want to relearn Unix.
>
> > It's going to take more than Legend and Diamond to fix this. SCO
needs
> > to repair the damage to its channel, fix the "day late, dollar
short"
> > software problems, stop treating Skunkware like a bastard child,
and
> > reorient themselves more toward services than product.
>
> The Skunkware point has already been taken -- many open source
components
> are now part of the fully supported OSes and are included in the base
CDs.
And many more things are multiple releases old. Watch this newsgroup:
people are always looking for *current* ports - and they don't find
them. It's still a bastard child.
Probably several times a month I hear from someone wanting current
Apache, sendmail, ssh, ftp etc. These are rather important, but are
they there? Usually not, and if by some miracle they are, there will
be undocumented dependencies that will delay or sometimes even stop you
cold. Do you understand why when someone tells me they want to run a
web or mailserver on SCO I tell them not to?
>
> And it's worth noting that no one from SCO said anything negative
about
> open source in general at this Forum. Indeed McBride said they were
> intentionally toning down the rhetoric this year.
Oh, I'm sure that's going to improve relations magnificently :-)
--
Tony Lawrence
http://aplawrence.com/SCOFAQ/
J. L. Schilling
> >
> > The Skunkware point has already been taken -- many open source
> > components are now part of the fully supported OSes and are
> > included in the base CDs.
>
> And many more things are multiple releases old. Watch this newsgroup:
> people are always looking for *current* ports - and they don't find
> them. It's still a bastard child.
Yes, that has been an issue. That's part of the motivation of the
new "SCO Marketplace" initiative: create a little ecosystem where
SCO external developers who are interested in and capable of porting
and building these components can do so and get paid by SCO in the
process.
Jonathan Schilling
M. Leo Cooper
> That's part of the motivation of the
> new "SCO Marketplace" initiative: create a little ecosystem where
> SCO external developers who are interested in and capable of porting
> and building these components can do so and get paid by SCO in the
> process.
The "SCO Marketplace" is, according to the SCOG news release,
an "open bidding process" under *work-for-hire* license terms.
Good old work-for-hire. This means that the software developer loses all rights
to his work, all credit for having created it, and even his
name is deleted as author.
No self-respecting developer, or any creative person for that matter,
would seriously consider this . . . unless he were facing starvation, of course.
This is entirely consistent with the SCOG philosophy, and with their track record.
Wait and see how much of a "marketplace" this creates.
M.L.C.
Bill Vermillion
Cooper <thegr...@theriver.com.com> wrote:
>J. L. Schilling wrote:
>
>> That's part of the motivation of the new "SCO Marketplace"
>> initiative: create a little ecosystem where SCO external
>> developers who are interested in and capable of porting and
>> building these components can do so and get paid by SCO in the
>> process.
>
>
>The "SCO Marketplace" is, according to the SCOG news release, an
>"open bidding process" under *work-for-hire* license terms. Good
>old work-for-hire. This means that the software developer loses
>all rights to his work, all credit for having created it, and
>even his name is deleted as author. No self-respecting developer,
>or any creative person for that matter, would seriously consider
>this . . . unless he were facing starvation, of course.
Needing money to eat is a strong incentive. In the late 1960s'
all of Neil Diamond's first hit songs - Cherry, Solitary Man, and
his other first records were sold outright to Bert Burns - $500
for each record session and publishing rights.
He moved on after than and when Burt died Eileen moved Bang to
Atlanta from NYC. Diamond says he never regetted selling the
songs. He would have made more money if he had been given a
percentage, but the alternative is that perhaps no one would gone
to the expense/gamble with owning all of the pie.
And even if you didn't need money to eat I've met some who treat
programming as a job and are willing to work-for-hire and get a
steady paycheck.
Bill
--
Bill Vermillion - bv @ wjv . com
J. L. Schilling
> The "SCO Marketplace" is, according to the SCOG news release,
> an "open bidding process" under *work-for-hire* license terms.
> Good old work-for-hire. This means that the software developer loses all rights
> to his work, all credit for having created it, and even his
> name is deleted as author.
Not so. Changes to open source components under this process would have
exactly the same credit, licensing, etc. as anyone else changing the
same open source component. Consultants get paid for working on open
source all the time -- this is really no different than that.
> No self-respecting developer, or any creative person for that matter,
> would seriously consider this . . . unless he were facing starvation, of course.
Rubbish. A cathedral stonemason does work for hire, gets typically no
public credit, and doesn't own the cathedral after it's done. But I bet
they have a lot of self-respect.
Jonathan Schilling
Tony Lawrence
> M. Leo Cooper <thegr...@theriver.com.com> wrote in message
news:<cf5se7$tu1$1$207.20...@theriver.com>...
> > No self-respecting developer, or any creative person for that
matter,
> > would seriously consider this . . . unless he were facing
starvation, of course.
>
> Rubbish. A cathedral stonemason does work for hire, gets typically
no
> public credit, and doesn't own the cathedral after it's done. But I
bet
> they have a lot of self-respect.
I bet he was thinking more of the pariah classification that might be
put on anyone who did such work for SCO.
Still, I'm glad to hear that y'all have the intent of trying to make
this better - it's been a long time coming.
--
Tony Lawrence
FyRE
Schilling) wrote:
[...]
>> No self-respecting developer, or any creative person for that matter,
>> would seriously consider this . . . unless he were facing starvation, of course.
>
>Rubbish. A cathedral stonemason does work for hire, gets typically no
>public credit, and doesn't own the cathedral after it's done. But I bet
>they have a lot of self-respect.
Ridiculous analogy. A stonemason working on a cathedral would be a
very small cog in a very big machine constructing the building. He'd
be working alongside many other stonemasons, each producing around the
same amount of work, and combined they as a group would still be only
one part of the project.
A developer, writing a piece of software could be likened to the
architect. They ARE credited for their work; nobody else assumes
credit for the building, and they're free to work on other projects.
If a developer were stupid enough to work on a project for SCO, they'd
likely have serious problems finding work elsewhere (if they were
brave enough to admit to working for SCO). Once they've sold their
soul to the absolute asswipes in Utah, they'd be tainted. Any company
hiring them afterward could become another of Darl's targets for
"stealing" their "intellectual property" etc.
And before you make some feeble attempt to refute that, look at what's
already happening with SCO suing its own former licencees...
J. L. Schilling
> On 9 Aug 2004 08:14:45 -0700, jlsels...@my-deja.com (J. L.
> Schilling) wrote:
> >
> >Rubbish. A cathedral stonemason does work for hire, gets typically no
> >public credit, and doesn't own the cathedral after it's done. But I bet
> >they have a lot of self-respect.
>
> Ridiculous analogy. A stonemason working on a cathedral would be a
> very small cog in a very big machine constructing the building. He'd
> be working alongside many other stonemasons, each producing around the
> same amount of work, and combined they as a group would still be only
> one part of the project.
Not really. See for instance
http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/society_culture/architecture/architecture_medmason_01.shtml:
[The medieval stonemason was] a highly skilled lay craftsman who
combined
the roles of architect, builder, craftsman, designer and engineer.
[...]
Sounds pretty analogous to an experienced software developer to me.
> If a developer were stupid enough to work on a project for SCO, they'd
> likely have serious problems finding work elsewhere (if they were
> brave enough to admit to working for SCO).
This is silly. The industry is already full of ex-SCO and ex-Caldera
engineers. Someone looking to make a hire of a qualified person isn't
going to stop just because a few people like you might pitch a fit.
Jonathan Schilling
FyRE
Schilling) wrote:
>FyRE <Fy...@toktik.uk.com.invalid> wrote in message news:<i8g1j052b98coqsrn...@4ax.com>...
>> On 9 Aug 2004 08:14:45 -0700, jlsels...@my-deja.com (J. L.
>> Schilling) wrote:
>> >
>> >Rubbish. A cathedral stonemason does work for hire, gets typically no
>> >public credit, and doesn't own the cathedral after it's done. But I bet
>> >they have a lot of self-respect.
>>
>> Ridiculous analogy. A stonemason working on a cathedral would be a
>> very small cog in a very big machine constructing the building. He'd
>> be working alongside many other stonemasons, each producing around the
>> same amount of work, and combined they as a group would still be only
>> one part of the project.
>
>Not really. See for instance
>http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/society_culture/architecture/architecture_medmason_01.shtml:
>
> [The medieval stonemason was] a highly skilled lay craftsman who
>combined
> the roles of architect, builder, craftsman, designer and engineer.
>[...]
>
>Sounds pretty analogous to an experienced software developer to me.
Ah yes silly me. I was under the misapprehension that you were
actually referencing something vaguely current (ie, Stonemasons of
today, not 400 years ago). As far as I'm aware though, no single
"medieval stonemason" has ever built a cathedral on his own.
>> If a developer were stupid enough to work on a project for SCO, they'd
>> likely have serious problems finding work elsewhere (if they were
>> brave enough to admit to working for SCO).
>
>This is silly. The industry is already full of ex-SCO and ex-Caldera
>engineers. Someone looking to make a hire of a qualified person isn't
>going to stop just because a few people like you might pitch a fit.
Nice of you to cut all the text where I explain my point. Luckily I
(and anyone else) can find it by backing up a couple of articles. Here
it is again, just in case you mistakenly chopped the text out:
8<---- Restore original text ----
> >Any company
> >hiring them afterward could become another of Darl's targets for
> >"stealing" their "intellectual property" etc.
> >And before you make some feeble attempt to refute that, look at what's
> >already happening with SCO suing its own former licencees...
Just to clarify, Jonathan, any ex SCO employee; and by extension his
employer is a target for our friendly neighbourhood lawfirm in Utah.
They've worked on SCO products, seen the magical sourcecode SCO bought
from Caldera, and have learned from it (much as a paleontologist might
learn from looking at old dinosaur bones). What's to stop Darl and the
gang suddenly slithering over to the employees new place of work and
claiming said employee is distributing his knowledge of their
"Intellectual Property" by writing code for them? It's pretty much
what they're doing now.
jlsels...@my-deja.com
> "medieval stonemason" has ever built a cathedral > on his own.
No, but there did seem to be some similarities with your favorite
developement model:
[from the same URL]
Masons shared their secrets openly and many medieval buildings imitate
each other in style and technique. The choir at Lincoln Cathedral, for
instance, is similar to that at Ely, and both copy Westminster Abbey.
> Just to clarify, Jonathan, any ex SCO employee;
> and by extension his employer is a target for our
> friendly neighbourhood lawfirm in Utah.
Ok, I'll concede the point. ex-SCO engineers will all
be utterly unemployable and will have to retrain to do
something else. Being a stonemason seems pretty cool to me....
Jonathan Schilling