I am an Aussie so put up with the language. Bugger me I know why M$ is so interested in licensing SCO's aged and one might say primitive UNIX. They have the most to lose. I think all of you that know UNIX and Linux appreciate the fact that M$ prime product, any thing based on the NT kernel, is actually a UNIX like OS. In fact the NT kernel and related libraries are based on a UNIX kernel, namely VMS. Now I reckon that if there is a true IP issue inlvolved in this swamp full of crocs. SCO is most probably going to shaft M$ for using lines of its so-called IP in the NT kernel, here they can make big dollars. They will never beat Linux, SCO has only a few hundred slaves (developers - SCO most probably pays them the same) working for them and Linux has a team of developers that numbers in the 10Ks that get payed little or nothing compared with their output. Therefore if SCO wants to jump in the billabong with the real crocs, the only place they will find themselves is under the biggest snag, saved up for a snack later. How do you all feel about this. SCO could have really made some good products, but it has lost a feeling for present enviroment. SCO! get out of your comfort zone and/or severe misconception suffering and have a look around instead of lying doggo under a tree. Regards Paul K
They have the most to lose. I think all of you that know UNIX and Linux appreciate the fact that M$ prime product, any thing based on the NT kernel, is actually a UNIX like OS. In fact the NT kernel and related libraries are based on a UNIX kernel, namely VMS.
It is my understanding that the original base for NT was written by Dec (Digital) engineers, and was VMS on a PC, until Microsoft took it in house. Can anybody confirm that? -- Lester Caine ----------------------------- L.S.Caine Electronic Services
It is my understanding that the original base for NT was written by Dec (Digital) engineers, and was VMS on a PC, until Microsoft took it in house. NT was written by a team of engineers headed up by Dave Cutler who was a
On Fri, 23 May 2003 11:33:01 +0100
Lester Caine
Hi Guys, Remember this one? HAL9000 from the movie 2001? HAL then add one letter and you get IBM Well, true to their past M$ took an idea from others: VMS then add one letter and you get WNT PeterB p.s. One who waits for true innovation from M$ will die dissapointed -- -- Proud to use SuSE Linux since 5.2 Loving using SuSE Linux 8.2 MyBlog http://vancampen.org/blog/ --
On Friday 23 May 2003 06:58, Peter B Van Campen wrote:
Hi Guys,
Remember this one?
HAL9000 from the movie 2001? HAL then add one letter and you get IBM
Well, true to their past M$ took an idea from others:
VMS then add one letter and you get WNT
PeterB
p.s. One who waits for true innovation from M$ will die dissapointed -- --
Proud to use SuSE Linux since 5.2
Loving using SuSE Linux 8.2
AHhhhhh! so that's it !! Not "N"ew "T"echnology, or some other garbage. That makes sense - lol. Curtis.
On Friday 23 May 2003 12:33, Lester Caine wrote:
They have the most to lose. I think all of you that know UNIX and Linux appreciate the fact that M$ prime product, any thing based on the NT kernel, is actually a UNIX like OS. In fact the NT kernel and related libraries are based on a UNIX kernel, namely VMS.
It is my understanding that the original base for NT was written by Dec (Digital) engineers, and was VMS on a PC, until Microsoft took it in house.
I thought that NT was bill's answer to OS/2 after he split from ibm. That is why there is still an os/2 directory in the system directory somewhere. Mike
Can anybody confirm that?
-- Lester Caine ----------------------------- L.S.Caine Electronic Services
-- Powered by SuSE 8.1 Kernel 2.4.19 KDE 3.1.1 Kmail 1.5.1 For SuSE Mondo/Mindi backup support go to http://www.mikenjane.net/~mike 3:50pm up 5 days, 22:15, 5 users, load average: 1.88, 1.76, 1.82
I thought that NT was bill's answer to OS/2 after he split from ibm. That is why there is still an os/2 directory in the system directory somewhere.
The two were being developed at the same time - weren't they? At the time it seemed more like Bill stringing IBM along while he got his hands on an alternative of his own. Obviously the 'former' got dropped in some reports on Dave Cutler's involvement - but his experiance obviously molded the starting point. It's a pity that Microsoft messed it up :) -- Lester Caine ----------------------------- L.S.Caine Electronic Services
On Fri, May 23, 2003 at 03:17:57PM +0100, Lester Caine wrote: : >I thought that NT was bill's answer to OS/2 after he split from ibm. : >That is why there is still an os/2 directory in the system directory : >somewhere. : : The two were being developed at the same time - weren't : they? At the time it seemed more like Bill stringing IBM : along while he got his hands on an alternative of his own. You're thinking of Windows 1.0. That, along with all versions of DOS (up to 4.x). Were co-developed between IBM & Microsoft. After Windows 1.0 they split. Microsoft went on to produce Windows386, Windows 3.1, etc. IBM created OS/2. However, WinNT was being touted as a "server" replacement and viable canidate for gov't and corporate contracts. To meet those goals, Microsoft used the IP for OS/2 1.0 that they had rights to and created posix.dll, which is really a stub of a stub. --Jerry ps--I think that's about it for me since none of this has anything to do with SuSE. Open-Source software isn't a matter of life or death... ...It's much more important than that!
On Fri, 23 May 2003 20:14:15 +1000
"Paul Ketelaar"
I am an Aussie so put up with the language.
Bugger me I know why M$ is so interested in licensing SCO's aged and one might say primitive UNIX.
It has nothing to do with Unix or SCO. Microsoft is battling the entire
OpenSource movement, and the SCO lawsuit is a major factor at the
moment.
--
Jerry Feldman
On Fri, May 23, 2003 at 08:14:15PM +1000, Paul Ketelaar wrote: : I am an Aussie so put up with the language. : : Bugger me I know why M$ is so interested in licensing SCO's aged and one : might say primitive UNIX. Keep in mind that while OpenServer may be "aged and primitive" that is not the case for UnixWare/SVR6. : They have the most to lose. I think all of you that know UNIX and Linux : appreciate the fact that M$ prime product, : any thing based on the NT kernel, is actually a UNIX like OS. In fact : the NT kernel and related libraries are based on a UNIX kernel, namely : VMS. Actually VMS and UNIX are two totally separate beasts. Though I do believe that OpenVMS may be POSIX compliant. What NT and VMS share is David Cutler, who designed both OS's. Parts of the NT architecture were originally co-developed by Microsoft and DEC. That's also part of the reason that the original releases of NT ran on both the x86 (lovingly referred to as i386 back then) and axp (alpha) platforms. --Jerry Open-Source software isn't a matter of life or death... ...It's much more important than that!
On Fri, 23 May 2003 09:00:56 -0400
Jerry A!
Actually VMS and UNIX are two totally separate beasts. Though I do believe that OpenVMS may be POSIX compliant. What NT and VMS share is David Cutler, who designed both OS's. Parts of the NT architecture were originally co-developed by Microsoft and DEC. That's also part of the reason that the original releases of NT ran on both the x86 (lovingly referred to as i386 back then) and axp (alpha) platforms. Not only is OpenVMS POSIX compliant, one of the engineers was talking about OpenVMS being branded as Unix98. I don't know if the branding will ever happen, but you are correect that VMS and Unix are two totally separate OS's. At Digital, the Unix and VMS people were kept very separated. It was rare for a VMS engineer to move over to the Unix (Ultrix on VAX and MIPS, and OSF1/Digital Unix/Tru64 Unix on Alpha) until more recently when Digital Unix started to be the number one OS (by sales) in the company. One might note that much of the VMS clustering technology was migrated to Tru64 Unix. -- Jerry Feldman
Boston Linux and Unix user group http://www.blu.org PGP key id:C5061EA9 PGP Key fingerprint:053C 73EC 3AC1 5C44 3E14 9245 FB00 3ED5 C506 1EA9
On Friday May 23 2003 6:14 am, Paul Ketelaar wrote:
I am an Aussie so put up with the language.
Bugger me I know why M$ is so interested in licensing SCO's aged and one might say primitive UNIX.
They have the most to lose. I think all of you that know UNIX and Linux appreciate the fact that M$ prime product, any thing based on the NT kernel, is actually a UNIX like OS. In fact the NT kernel and related libraries are based on a UNIX kernel, namely VMS.
More accurately, PRIMAS, which DEC never thought was good enough to replace VMS.
Now I reckon that if there is a true IP issue inlvolved in this swamp full of crocs. SCO is most probably going to shaft M$ for using lines of its so-called IP in the NT kernel, here they can make big dollars. They will never beat Linux, SCO has only a few hundred slaves (developers - SCO most probably pays them the same) working for them and Linux has a team of developers that numbers in the 10Ks that get payed little or nothing compared with their output.
Therefore if SCO wants to jump in the billabong with the real crocs, the only place they will find themselves is under the biggest snag, saved up for a snack later.
Yes.......call the "biggest snag" IBM. :)
How do you all feel about this.
SCO could have really made some good products, but it has lost a feeling for present enviroment. SCO! get out of your comfort zone and/or severe misconception suffering and have a look around instead of lying doggo under a tree.
It's too late. SCO is dead, and doesn't know it yet. Fred -- Powered by SuSE Linux 8.2 Pro & KMail 1.5.1 Never forget: At Microsoft, the engineering department are the Ferengi... The marketing and legal departments are the Borg!
They have the most to lose. I think all of you that know UNIX and Linux appreciate the fact that M$ prime product, any thing based on the NT kernel, is actually a UNIX like OS. In fact the NT kernel and related libraries are based on a UNIX kernel, namely VMS. Tt is true that NT is based on VMS because of Dave Cutler, but VMS is not a Unix kernel (although OpenVMS is POSIX compliant). The internal architecture of VMS is very different from Unix. Some of the key features of Unix were not in VMS, such as pipes, Unix style I/O redirection (I/O could be redirected, but in a different manner). The VMS style of shared libraries pre-dates Unix shared objects. And, most of VMS was not written in C (it was written in BLIS). Even the signalling mechanism was different. VMS used ASTs (Asynchronous System Traps) which were much more reliable than Unix signals. (This is just what I can think of from my VMS days). Open VMS incorporated some of
On Fri, 23 May 2003 20:14:15 +1000
"Paul Ketelaar"
participants (8)
-
Curtis Rey
-
Fred A. Miller
-
Jerry A!
-
Jerry Feldman
-
Lester Caine
-
Mike
-
Paul Ketelaar
-
Peter B Van Campen