Message ID: 259043
Posted By: leclite
Posted On: 2005-04-24 05:42:00
Subject: Unixware == worthless.
> Unixware code before IBM began contributing
to Linux?
Biff, there IS no usable code from Unixware, period. None, zero,
zippo. Its a load of crap that is totally worthless and unusable in Linux.
If you actually knew anything about OS'es you'd realize this.
For the
sake of argument, lets pretend that newSCO isn't a bunch of scam artists. Lets pretend
newSCO is still oldSCO and actually owns Unixware IP.
Suprise me. Tell me
what wonderful technologies existed in Unixware circa 1990 that Linux needed.
Nevermind, we all know you don't know jack
Message ID: 259057
Posted By: br3nsc
Posted On: 2005-04-24 09:14:00
Subject: Re: Unixware == worthless.
you know for us nontechies this is an
interesting post.
when i think of the linux kernel,there is a lot listed for
it,then the apps that go on top of it.
for unix i have no basic understanding.
what would be a good way for comparing the two since unix is proprietary?
br3n
Message ID: 259059
Posted By: manyhats23
Posted On: 2005-04-24 09:31:00
Subject: Re: Unixware == worthless.
>>
when i think of the linux kernel,there
is a lot listed for it,then the apps that go on top of it.
for unix i have no
basic understanding.
<<
Your understanding is correct. "Unix" is structured
the same way. There is a Unix kernel, and then there are applications that run on
top of the kernel. Many of the applications and utilities are common between Linux
and the "closed" Unices, in that the same utilities, for example, exist in both.
The "closed" part of the proprietary Unices is mostly in the Unix kernels (for
example, Solaris' kernel) rather than the applications. I can usually, with a little
effort, take a open source application and compile it to run on either Linux or
a closed Unix.
--m
Message ID: 259061
Posted By: br3nsc
Posted On: 2005-04-24 09:48:00
Subject: Re: Unixware == worthless.
ty
now a question that may sound silly?
how comparable would the code be.similar structure due to unix specifications i
know.but would same terminology be similar thruout because of that?
word for
word ,i have been told,is not possible?
so this is all very confusing.
i have
looked at bsd and linux similarities but it doesnt *appear* the same to me,but i
am not a coder?
it might use terms in both that are similar but they seem structured
differently?
and they are to the specification i think called *posix*?
br3n
Message ID: 259062
Posted By: peragirn
Posted On: 2005-04-24 10:05:00
Subject: Re: Unixware == worthless.
>> Many of the applications and utilities
are common between Linux and the "closed" Unices, in that the same utilities, for
example, exist in both.
<<
This is interesting because those utilities
were designed on the orginial closed AT&T unix. Now that wonderful contract that
SCO claims control over made sure that any third party program became public domain(aka
vi, and the like) Many of those programs over the years were then created for/from
the BSD's to replace the functions of an ever tightening grip by AT&T. Now the BSD's
and most other Unices were POSIX compliant. Even though they are different code,
they are designed to implent the same funcitonality. Hence why Linux when it came
around in 1991 Linus could easily port bash and the other toys.
Think of
the original unix as a Lego blocks. Great but tightly controled by Lego. Also you
can't have just one block you need a large variety of blocks to build functional
toys/buildings/ anything.
Over the yaers people saw things they wanted to
build but Lego wouldn't help them out(old coroparte poilcy actually) So other people
designed lego-compatible blocks, that could work with exsiting Lego's blocks. Now
since the new products weren't called Lego, but lego-like. The purists will only
use pure Lego, but many don't care so much about purity as functioinality. With
Lego-like blocks filling in gaps, and even duplicating core functions.
You
know I don't think that helps any. Oh well :-)
Message ID: 259065
Posted By: truth_in_government
Posted On: 2005-04-24
10:15:00
Subject: Re: Unixware == worthless.
h++p://www.unix.org/what_is_unix.html
"Today, the definition of UNIX ® takes the form of the worldwide Single UNIX
Specification integrating X/Open Company's XPG4, IEEE's POSIX Standards and ISO
C. Through continual evolution, the Single UNIX Specification is the defacto and
dejure standard definition for the UNIX system application programming interfaces.
As the owner of the UNIX trademark, The Open Group has separated the UNIX trademark
from any actual code stream itself, thus allowing multiple implementations. Since
the introduction of the Single UNIX Specification, there has been a single, open,
consensus specification that defines the requirements for a conformant UNIX system."
UNIX is therefore defined through sets of published standards and must be certified
for conformance to these standards to be capable of carrying the UNIX trademark
as a branding. The definition is broad and specifies kernel, libraries, interfaces
and commands and utilities. Caldera has maintained a "competing" specification that
is not endorsed by the open group and can be considered depreciated to which its
higher end UnixWare offering alledgedly conforms:
h++p://www.caldera.com/developers/devspecs/
note, however, that these documents no longer define a compliant UNIX system
and in fact are to be considered a partially compliant subset of an early version
of the SUS with nonconformant extensions. UnixWare itself is not compliant or certified
beyond the UNIX95 branding level, which effectively places it at SUS v.1 compliance.
OpenServer, which was apparently at the time of the Santa Cruz Operation's acquisition
of portions of Novell's USL assets intended to be integrated into a "merged product"
is compliant only to earlier "Base" and UNIX93 standards. One of the stated goals
of the Monterey project was to produce a UNIX98 branded oldSCO operating by incorporation
of IBM licensed code, a goal that seems to have been as sucessful as previous "merged
product" development into which Novell apparently invested ~$20MM.
Caldera's
best probability with achieving UNIX98 certification for one of its products actually
appears to have come out of its collaboration in development of Lasermoon Ltd's
Linux-FT, a product which was intended to achieve Open Group certification at XPG4
(equivalent to OpenServer's level of compliance) in a Linux distribution.
Caldera did obtain (third hand) certain licensing rights within a range
of source code which can be helpful in the development of a UNIX brand system, exactly
what the extent of those rights are and any restrictions that might apply are deliberately
obfuscated by them. The history of the "exercize" of those rights by Caldera subsequent
to their acquisition is a more interesting and fruitful study to make than any attempt
to analyze the thicket of partially revealed contractual agreements by which those
rights (whatever they are) were obtained.
Message ID: 259071
Posted By: div_2n
Posted On: 2005-04-24 11:07:00
Subject: Re: Unixware == worthless.
Maybe I can shed some light on this since
I have actually tinkered with Minix code and have peeked at Linux code.
First
a definition (in case you don't know):
algorithm - a series of unambiguous
step-by-step procedures for solving a problem in a finite number of steps
The reason I post that definition is that it is the "finite number of steps"
part that really gets us to the heart of the reality of programming and, as an interesting
side note, why software patents are just plain silly.
As algorithms increase
in complexity, the various ways in which the solution can be accomplished increase.
Maintaining efficiency, there is only so many ways you can concatenate or combine
two strings together. That is a relatively simple task. Compare that to process
scheduling, for example. There are a number of different ways you can manage which
process gets the attention of the CPU. Some are more efficient than others, but
there is more than one way to skin that cat.
How does this help answer your
question? If you assign the same simple programming problem to beginner computer
science students (combining two strings) then you will likely get some with almost
identical code. Some may be exactly identical as they may independently choose the
same variable names (StringA and StringB).
Assign the more complex task to
graduate level students (rewrite the process scheduler for Minix) and you will most
likely see some divergence. But unless a student develops a new algorithm, then
they will all be selecting one existing algorithm or another. So inevitably, you
will see some codea as similar EVEN THOUGH THEY WERE DEVELOPED INDEPENDENT (emphasis
for SCO junkies).
Now that I have thoroughly bored you, I will finish answering
your question. There are standards (POSIX) and common interfaces (think common error
codes) that UNIX and Linux share due to them being based on the same technological
underpinnings. Therefore, there will most likely be some coding overlap due to the
law of averages and due to some things being independent implementations of the
same simple idea.
It is my opinion that SCO finding these small overlaps
is what got them started in the first place. It is them discovering too late in
the game that these are, in fact, coincidental and not intentional (nor legally
tortious) that has them in the nasty position they are now in. It is this reality
that BIFF and others absolutely refuse to acknowledge. It is this fact that will
be SCO's undoing.
Message ID: 259091
Posted By: ColonelZen
Posted On: 2005-04-24 12:58:00
Subject: Re: Unixware == worthless.
It's both harder and easier than a source
code comparison. An operating system kernel or any program itself, in unix is a
collection of named elements called functions. In c these functions are the atomic
elements that the linker puts together into the program (or kernel). The compiler
builds these from source code separating out global elements which are shared by
all functions (and references to them) stack frame descriptions, and actual executable
code.
The existance of other languages add complexity but because unix is
built on C other compilers reduce what comes out of the language to this same model.
Now there are tools (nm, and ar to name two I remember using of the top of my
head) which "tear apart" a program to tell you what they're made up of.
Now
you can map the program into these functions map the globals and stack frames and
disssemble the executables. At that point you have essentially source code in assembler
... and if you've used the same tools to tear apart the different programs, the
conventions will be the same.
Now you can compare the dissasembled code the
same way you would do a source code comparison, except now all the practices and
bad habits of those dorky programmers are gone, there are no comments to skip, all
the complexity and value hiding in headers and macro's has disappeared. It's just
raw data to compare (well, I've simplified somewhat). Now you look for sequences
of execuatble code which match referencing corresponding values in the global and
stack frame areas. It's still complex but the "human element" has been almost completely
filtered out. There are ways to hide from this kind of comparison as well, but the
time and effort to do so is generally more trouble than rewriting the reference
code.
As said this is complex but trust me, IBM knows all about how to do
this!
Once done you can track correspondences in this comparison back to
the source code and check where it came from.
My bet is that IBM long ago
did this between SysV and Linux and *that's* when they decided to tell Darl to stuff
it.
I'd also bet BIG bucks that a third party has been hired to do exactly
this comparison between Linux and Legend and we'll hear a bit about it in the next
two months!
-- TWZ
Message ID: 259094
Posted By: br3nsc
Posted On: 2005-04-24 13:08:00
Subject: Re: Unixware == worthless.
< It is my opinion that SCO finding these
small overlaps is what got them started in the first place. It is them discovering
too late in the game that these are, in fact, coincidental and not intentional (nor
legally tortious) that has them in the nasty position they are now in. It is this
reality that BIFF and others absolutely refuse to acknowledge. It is this fact that
will be SCO's undoing.>
you are much more generous toward scox than i am.
i feel it was deliberate and not an accidental fault.they planned to reap big bucks
from the FUD fear of legal suits for the licenses.
that sorta collapsed right
off.now i agree they are scrambling to find something,but i sometimes wonder if
they are holding one little item that they feel may be enough to raise doubts and
get this before a jury.
scox will lose against IBM patent claims and a bunch
more claims but they only need one win of anything to keep sec and other regulators
off their backs.
br3n
Message ID: 259095
Posted By: bill_beebe
Posted On: 2005-04-24 13:13:00
Subject: UnixWare was Quite Excellent - in 1995
>> Its a load of crap...
And you, sir, are full of
*
Software Packaging Tools
* C Compilation System (CCS) for Pentium
* Enhanced
debugger (graphical UI)
* Library enhancements: support for MT/MP (multi-threading/multi-processor)
* Linker enhancements (shared libraries)
* C++ compiler
* Profiling tools
(fprof)
* X GUI (X11R5)
* Desktop Management Development
* Motif Development
(CDE and OSF/Motif 1.2.3)
* Kernel debugger (kdb)
* Windowing Korn Shell
* IHV (Independent Hardware Vendor) Development Kit
* Netware development - full
client support
* Network development - full
* Metric Access Support
UnixWare was an evolution of the very successful Univel (the joint venture between
AT&T and Novell) Unix that I had used before that (Consensys was a seller of the
Univel base package with their own extensions, again for $249). I never had a complaint
about UnixWare, and if I needed to I could fire it up today and work with it.
What did I have for Linux? I have very little dead-tree documentation from that
period, but starting in 1996 I did have O'Reilly's "Running Linux" bundled with
Redhat Linux 2.0, and I have official Redhat 4 with a publication date of August
1996 in the front cover.
Now. The reason I went with UnixWare at that time
was because UnixWare was backed by Novell, a much larger company than any Linux
distributor at the time, and because UnixWare was far more polished and mature than
Linux was. I had tried Linux before RH4, via InfoMagic (remember those guys?). Here's
what I had across a three year period before I got UnixWare:
June 1994:
Slackware 2.0, SLS 1.0.5, Debian 0.91 Beta, TAMU 1.0-A, Kernel sources up to 1.1.18,
and a preliminary version of WINE.
December 1994:
Slackware 2.1, SES 1.06,
Debian 0.91 Beta and kernel sources up to 1.1.72
March 1995:
Slackware
2.2, Bogus 1.01, SLS 1.06, Debian 0.91/3 and kernel sources up to 1.2.1
April
1996:
Red Hat 3.0.3 "Picasso" (ELF release), RH2.1 for DEC Alpha, Slackware 3.0,
Debian 0.93R6 and Kenrel sources up to 1.2.13 and 1.3.88
In fact, in looking
at other CD collections on my bookshelf, I see Red Hat Power Tools (RH4.1) from
1997, and more InfoMagic collections from 1998, 1999, and 2000. (InfoMagic finally
went away in 2001 after publishing a very bad final collection.)
For personal
use, Linux was great. For commercial use, Linux generally sucked unless it was in
very specific niche areas on the edge of the network. I didn't start to take Linux
seriously until I purchased my second "official boxed copy" of Redhat, version 5
in 1997 (Redhat had introduced kernel 2 with RH 4, but the overall distribution
was still not-quite-there-yet for me).
You can flame SCOX/SCOG all you want.
But UnixWare was and still is damn good. My positive feelings towards UnixWare under
Novell is why I have such positive feelings towards SuSE under Novell these days.
The quality of Novell SuSE of today compares quite favorably with the quality of
UnixWare circa 1996.
>> If you actually knew anything about OS'es...
You should practice what you preach.
Message ID: 259109
Posted By: leclite
Posted On: 2005-04-24 14:32:00
Subject: UnixWare was not Quite Excellent
>> Its a load of crap...
Sorry. I stand by my statement. It was a heap of crap. I wasn't using Linux
for serious work at the time, but i was using HP-UX and SunOS extensively.
UnixWare was a clunky toy in comparison.
There is a reason nobody liked
Unix on x86 until Linux matured. Its the same reason there aws (and is) ABSOLUTELY
nothing in Unixware that is worth porting to Linux. Period.
>> If you actually
knew anything about OS'es...
> You should practice what you preach.
You seem to enjoy complaining when somebody flames when that somebody isn't
you.
Allow me to retort:
Cram that attitude right up your ass.
Message ID: 259112
Posted By: raoulduke_esq
Posted On: 2005-04-24 15:19:00
Subject: Re: UnixWare was not Quite Excellent
<< There is a reason nobody
liked Unix on x86 until Linux matured. Its the same reason there aws (and is).>>
I'll second bill_beebe's comments. I've been running FreeBSD since 1994, version
1.5.x. I'm sorry that the start-up that I put on the net at the time couldn't afford
a fancy Sun, HP, or SGI box at the time. I had to scavange an old 486 as a mail,
FTP & file server. Back then, we had a class C address space because it was the
smalled block Netcom offered for busnesses. After I left, the idiots ran the company
into the ground and let the IP space registration lapse.
FreeBSD was the
natural step for someone that had been running & working on BSD and "cmunix" since
1982. And later, SunOs, Solaris, Ultrix & AIX. Once I could afford reasonable hardware
(AMD 486), I loaded FBSD and I've been running it ever since then. Works fine for
me.
raoul
Message ID: 259113
Posted By: div_2n
Posted On: 2005-04-24 15:23:00
Subject: Re: UnixWare was Quite Excellent - in 1
>> UnixWare was and still
is damn good. <<
Umm, no. It was and still is good at very strictly defined
tasks on strictly defined hardware and software.
There is a reason why the
ISV support never really took off for it. They found their niche in healthcare,
POS and maybe a few other areas and never really made a concerted effort to branch
out until recently. They did that by using OSS software.
Message ID: 259127
Posted By: ColonelZen
Posted On: 2005-04-24 17:45:00
Subject: Re: UnixWare was Quite Excellent - in 1
Back in '97 or '98 I was
the primary unix guy in a small to mid size biz. Our primary business system was
supported on two, and only tww flavors of unix - AIX and Unixware.
We were
upgrading and could (theoretically) have saved a few thou/yr in licensing costs
on unixware.
I remember telling my boss, ~"no we don't want to do that, (even
then I knew) SCO is pretty much a joke in the industry. AIX is well supported and
in a couple years Linux will be supported. Stay with AIX for now."
All my
predictions turned out correct.
I can't count the times I've toasted myself
for my prescience.
-- TWZ
The texts of these Yahoo Message Board posts have been licensed for copying and distribution by the Yahoo Message Board users "leclite", "br3nsc", "manyhats23", "peragirn", "truth_in_government", "div_2n", "ColonelZen", "bill_beebe", "raoulduke_esq" under the following license: License: CCL Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike v2.0.
Copyright 2005 Yahoo! SCOX. Messages are owned by the individual posters.