Because it's bullshit?
> The SCO Group, which holds all the intellectual property rights to the
> Unix operating system,
Well, except the name, and the fact that the externaly visible
interfaces are publicly availavle standards...
> on Thursday filed suit against IBM for more
> than $1 billion in the State Court of Utah alleging that IBM made
> "concentrated efforts to improperly destroy the economic value of
> Unix, particularly Unix on Intel, to benefit IBM's new Linux services
> business."
As opposed to SCO's (Caldera's) old Linux services business...
> "SCO is in the enviable position of owning the UNIX operating system,"
> said Darl McBride, president and CEO, SCO, in an interview with eWeek
> Thursday.
What an idiot. UNIX (TM) is owned by the Open Group. Caldera (SCO)
own the USG source code, UnixWare isn't even certified as Unix 98!
http://www.opengroup.org/regproducts/xx.htm
(Amusingly AIX 5L is!)
> McBride said the bottom line was that SCO owned the source code to
> Unix and the right to that operating system.
No, the source code to _A_ Unix.
> "IBM has been happily giving part of the AIX code away to the Linux
> community,
Like what, for example? Can anyone quote a line of code?
SCO (Caldera) is dead. They just commited suicide.
>
> SCO (Caldera) is dead. They just commited suicide.
I'm still using OSR5 and their Linux and support number of clients running
OSR5 but I'm afraid you might be right. Too bad.
>> SCO Group Slaps IBM with $1B Suit
>Because it's bullshit?
Before you say that you should read the documents filed with the
suit. Exhibits 1 thru 5 are the signed license agreements.
Exhibit 6 specifies the contractual breaches in the contract, and
the remedied to be made, or have the IBM licenses terminated on
June 13,2003. That would mean, that unless the actions specified
in that document are followed that IBM can no longer ship AIX.
Read the documents they submitted to court.
Available at http://www.sco.com/scosource.
>> The SCO Group, which holds all the intellectual property
>> rights to the Unix operating system,
>Well, except the name, and the fact that the externaly visible
>interfaces are publicly availavle standards...
These are the intellectual property rights and source codes.
It's not what you call it, it's whats in the source, and violation
of trade secrects and failure to protect the source.
>SCO (Caldera) is dead. They just commited suicide.
Well they did a good job taking MS to court. One of the few people
that every won going against Microsoft. Judgement award was never
revealed and the only clue was the MS said it would affect that
quarters earning by x cents, which figured out to be about
a $150,000,000 payment to Caldera.
--
Bill Vermillion - bv @ wjv . com
You should, before citing them - nothing in them documents the complaint
itself other than by unsupported allegations. No one other than a complete
idiot would take that seriously.
--
Thomas E. Dickey <dic...@radix.net> <dic...@herndon4.his.com>
http://dickey.his.com
ftp://dickey.his.com
>Read the documents they submitted to court.
>Available at http://www.sco.com/scosource.
It's a pity that Caldera re-organized the SCO web pile. There was
quite a few pages in the Project Monterey section on what IBM was
expected to supply as their part of the deal. As near as I can
recall, IBM didn't provide any of the items they promised. Once IBM
had what they wanted, they neatly and unilaterally terminated the
agreement.
--
Jeff Liebermann 150 Felker St #D Santa Cruz CA 95060
(831)421-6491 pgr (831)336-2558 home
http://www.LearnByDestroying.com WB6SSY
je...@comix.santa-cruz.ca.us je...@cruzio.com
> "Gary L. Burnore" <gbur...@databasix.com> a écrit dans le message de
> news: b4amrf$76b$2...@blackhelicopter.databasix.com...
>> McBride said the bottom line was that SCO owned the source code to Unix
>> and the right to that operating system.
>
> No, the source code to _A_ Unix.
>
And a pretty old one at that.
>> "IBM has been happily giving part of the AIX code away to the Linux
>> community,
>
> Like what, for example? Can anyone quote a line of code?
>
> SCO (Caldera) is dead. They just commited suicide.
And not a moment too soon. (Apologies to Bela Lubkin. He's cool. His
company isn't.)
-----------== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Uncensored Usenet News ==----------
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----= Over 100,000 Newsgroups - Unlimited Fast Downloads - 19 Servers =-----
I'm reading them.
What does this mean?
" 41. Shared libraries are by their nature unique creations based on
various decisions to write code in certain ways, which are in great part
random decisions of the software developers who create the shared library
code
base. There is no established way to create a specific shared library and
the
random choices in the location and access calls for "hooks" that are part of
the
creation of any shared library. Therefore, the mathematical probability of
a
customer being able to recreate the SCO OpenServer Shared Libraries without
unauthorized access to or use of the source code of the SCO OpenServer
Shared
Libraries is nil."
What are these "hooks" of which they speak? Are they claiming that people
write code for undocumented interfaces in SCO libraries? SCO shared
libraries
are written by "random choice"? That explains a lot.
Here's another one (talking about project Monterey):
"51. Prior to this time, IBM had not developed any expertise to run
UNIX
on an Intel chip and instead was confined to its Power PC chip."
Error of fact, AIX 1.x ran on IBM PS/2 386 based machines in 1988.
This is the big lie:
"86. It is not possible for Linux to rapidly reach UNIX performance
standards for complete enterprise functionality without the misappropriation
of UNIX code, methods or concepts to achieve such performance, and
coordination
by a larger developer, such as IBM."
Right.
A small piece of misinformation:
" 92. Thereafter, on December 20, 2000, IBM Vice President Robert
LeBlanc disclosed IBM’s improper use of confidential and proprietary
information
learned from Project Monterey to bolster Linux as part of IBM’s long term
vision,
stating:
``... AIX 5 has the best of Monterey. Linux cannot fill that need today,
but over
time we believe it will. To help out we’re making contributions to the open
source movement like the journal file system. ...''"
sounds like old Robert's admitting it doesn't it? Except that IBM wrote
JFS, not
AT&T, Novell, SCO or Caldera, and in fact the version of JFS ported to Linux
came from OS/2 not AIX.
Since the source of Linux is freely available it should be simple to point
out
the lines of code, ideas and so on that were copied from (what? OpenServer?
UnixWare? AIX? Monterey? AIX5L?).
I heard rumours to that effect, along the lines of SCO "producing"
the memory and I/O code while IBM was to add the high availability
and compiler, along with porting applications.
Mike
--
Michael Brown
The Kingsway Group
>Jeff Liebermann wrote:
>>
>> On Sat, 08 Mar 2003 02:25:33 GMT, b...@wjv.comREMOVE (Bill Vermillion)
>> wrote:
>>
>> >Read the documents they submitted to court.
>> >Available at http://www.sco.com/scosource.
>>
>> It's a pity that Caldera re-organized the SCO web pile. There was
>> quite a few pages in the Project Monterey section on what IBM was
>> expected to supply as their part of the deal. As near as I can
>> recall, IBM didn't provide any of the items they promised. Once IBM
>> had what they wanted, they neatly and unilaterally terminated the
>> agreement.
>I heard rumours to that effect, along the lines of SCO "producing"
>the memory and I/O code while IBM was to add the high availability
>and compiler, along with porting applications.
>Mike
Trust me(tm). It's not a rumor. Foundit:
http://stage.caldera.com/monterey/
Here's the laundry list:
http://stage.caldera.com/monterey/facts/page6.html
It's a short list. Unfortunately, the actual contract seems to
missing. URL's pointing to IBM's Monterey pages come up 404.
As far as my spys can tell me, IBM didn't do any of the items
promised. "Key Elements":
IBM will sell and market UnixWare 7 globally, and support a
substantial ISV recruitment program.
IBM will move a broad range of IBM and AIX middleware to UnixWare 7.
IBM will supply SCO with AIX enterprise technologies for UnixWare 7.
SCO will supply IBM with UnixWare 7 APIs and technologies for AIX.
IBM NUMA-Q (formerly Sequent) will contribute data-center technologies
- including its multipathing, partitioning, and clustering
technologies - and sell the high-end UnixWare ptx Edition.
IBM and SCO will jointly develop a 64-bit UNIX operating system.
Intel will support UnixWare 7 and the new Project Monterey IA-64 UNIX
System as the leading UNIX System for the Intel hardware platform.
I remember some of the pages and sales material. Now it is Japanese poetry.
You step into the stream.
But the water has moved on. The page is not here.
What is IBM purpose in this? Unixware/AIX5L is worth $$$ to resell,
Linux helps HW sales which are at low margin. Why kill the higher
end OS to try to enter the Linux market?
I may be inviting a OS flame war, but I have run Openserver, Linux from
0.99 up, VMS, AIX, RSX11-M, and Unixware. I have training and certification
on each, and have/had customers running successfully. Unixware is a
solid OS and worth the money. IBM should know this. The combination of
SCO OS, IBM support and applications would have gone forward.
Yet it seems IBM turned this down to be and "also ran" in the Linux
market.
Well there's no web server there that I can find.
The way I remember things is that IBM pulled out of Monterey
when iNTEL delayed their new chips [ probalby the ones that became
Itanium] for the second time and IBM went ahead with their Power
series.
Does that ring any bells with anyone?
Bill
Try the Wayback Machine at http://www.archive.org. Just enter the URL
in the box above the "Take Me Back" button, then click the button. This
is a great site for stuff like this.
--
Roger Cornelius rac...@tenzing.org
Check out:
http://linux.rice.edu/pipermail/rlug-discuss/2000-August/000557.html
http://www.vnunet.com/News/104419
Then with the annoumcent of SCO group Caldera there was talk
of reviving Project Monterey
http://www.informationweek.com/story/IWK20020830S0023
Just googling around it looks like the project started to fall
apart when iNTEL delayed the Itanium from it's year 2000 release
for several months - then further delays.
All links to Project Monterey at IBM have evaporated the links
giving 404's.
Or Dynix/ptx from Sequent that was bought by IBM. Unlike UnixWare it
actually does scale on NUMA hardware.
Most of that stuff is also bullshit. The folks in IBM LTC that work
onm the kernel are mostly ex Sequent, not ex AIX folks. Now
Sequent also had a SVR4 source license for Dynix/PTX, but in fact
most of the scalability changes in SVR4.2 SM / ES actually come from
Sequent! (Just take a look at the Authors of the VFS and VM design
documents for SVR4.2 ES / MP).
AIX OTOH was only developed with a SVR3 source license up to AIX4,
and neverless the actual kernel does not resemble SVR3 or SVR4 at
all, and although I'm not sure I think they even only used it for userland
not the kernel.
AIX5L (that project Monterey) had additional components licenses from
SCO UnixWare like procfs or bfs - but IBM has very strict policies
that the AIX5 and Linux groups basically don't communicate. For example
I was involved in the JFS/Linux project which is very similar to the JFS2
in AIX5L because they're both based on JFS in OS/2 - when there were
bugs found in the old OS/2 codebase they weren't able to inform the
AIX folks about it or send patches. Similarly I wasn't able to get
information about the layout used for Posix ACL on AIX when I started to
implement those for Linux.
IBM isn't foolish..
The AIX5L (aka Monterey) VM and I/O code is absed on AIX4 although
basically everyone agreed the SVR5 code would fit better.
What's the point?
I mean: SCO is dead, Caldera is dying, and this suit can only help Microsoft
Windows against every Unix OS.
I'd like to put Linux on our customers' server, but I can't, and I'm forced
to use Windows 2000. I wouldn't trust Caldera or SCO, anyway, neither woud
our customers. If IBM supports Linux better, then our customers are going to
trust it.
So IHMO, SCO vs. IBM is like SCO helping Microsoft.
> Read the documents they submitted to court.
> Available at http://www.sco.com/scosource.
There is no doubt that IBM has an SVR2/SVR3 license that they used source
from in AIX for the PS/2 and RT. And they should also have further licenses
relating to UNIX SVR5 as used in the Monterrey project, that never shipped.
However, as far as I can tell, AIX for the Power family of processors is not
shipped as containing any IP related to the UNIX SVRx source trees. It does
contain BSD source, but that is no longer encumbered.
Also, IBM does not ship its own distribution of Linux. They seem to use SuSe
and Redhat.
--
r...@rmkhome.com http://www.rmkhome.com/~rmk
> The AIX5L (aka Monterey) VM and I/O code is absed on AIX4 although
> basically everyone agreed the SVR5 code would fit better.
And AIX 4 and 5 do not ship with SCO UNIX trademarks.
--
r...@rmkhome.com http://www.rmkhome.com/~rmk
> AIX OTOH was only developed with a SVR3 source license up to AIX4,
> and neverless the actual kernel does not resemble SVR3 or SVR4 at
> all, and although I'm not sure I think they even only used it for userland
> not the kernel.
Looking at AIX 4 documents seems to say that are not shipping under a
SVR3 or later trademark.
--
r...@rmkhome.com http://www.rmkhome.com/~rmk
UNIX is not SCO's trademark anyway..
What I can say from AIX5 documents is that the licensed SVR5 components
require an existing SVR3 source license. I can't say whether IBM has
used that for AIX4.
What's actually more interesting is that IBM bought Sequent, and many IBM
engineers that work on the linux kernel are from Sequent. And Sequent
does have and use a SVR4 source license, and what's more important is that
lots of the scalability work in SVR4.2 ES / MP did came from Sequent.
> Also, IBM does not ship its own distribution of Linux. They seem to use SuSe
> and Redhat.
They also shipped Caldera OpenLinux when I still worked at SCAldera :)
I haven't heard of IBM ever shippind SCO Linux 4 - it would be rather
pointless anyway as it's the same as SuSE SLES8 on SuSE actually has the
knowhow behind that product unlike SCAldera who decided to get rid of
their German Linux engineering group last year.
> UNIX is not SCO's trademark anyway..
1. That is true.
2. What I meant is that I can't find reference to SCO copyrights on AIX
materials (paper docs and CDROMs) that I have in my possesion.
--
r...@rmkhome.com http://www.rmkhome.com/~rmk