NDS is now known as eDirectory.
Novell Suse offerings are a fully functional replacement for Netware and has been for a while. And they have their Novell Linux desktop and Suse stuff, which is in a Novell-based directory envrionement with all the bells and whistles. Novell has pretty much eliminated Windows and Netware as a dependancy for it's stuff.
Nope that the Linux community and IBM told them to take a flying leap. Novell told them that SCO didn't even own the 'IP' they were bitching about being stolen.
One thing that doesn't get mentioned enough with SCO vs IBM is that originally it had to do with IBM _realy_ screwing over SCO with something called 'Project Monterey'.
You see Unix had a problem. Originally Unix was very open, like all software of it's time. You could get books that were the print out version of the entire Unix operating system.
All software was like that because the software was sold with the computer. There wasn't enough market to sustain anybody doing pure software development. People made one-off operating systems to go with this or that computer and people programmed their own applications.
This is because most code was written in assembly. That is it was all very non-portable.
With Unix the major innovation was that it was rewritten into C programming language, which is very portable. So as computers evolved you could port Unix to newer machines. And since it was so open you could get the code yourself and do the port yourself.
So that environment is were we got BSD and things like TCP/IP and such.
This openness, portability, and the standardized network stack is what made Unix king and lack of that is what killed off all other operating systems of that era.
Now eventually you had enough computers that you could support closed source software development profitably. People bought rights to the the Unix source code and began hording the code from each other.
So Unix developers concentrated on the profitable high-end market and effectively killed off BSD through lawsuites and all of a sudden they started getting all incompatable and expensive.
And it just kept getting worse and worse and worse. they have things like the OpenGroup that tried to make rules about software compatability and things like that, but it never realy worked out.
So in the late 90's IBM, SCO, and Sequent decided to get together and make a single Unix operating system again.
This was a single Unix operating system that would scale from midrange computing to high end computing. IBM would take the high end with it's heavy hitting POWER computers, and SCO the low-end with it's x86 support. Intel was going to work on Itanium support and Sequent had their own computers (that ended up never going anywere)
It would be 32bit and 64bit. And applications programmed for x86 would work in POWER and visa versa. The grand old unified Unix.
IBM is a big company, SCO isn't. IBM can afford to do all sorts of things at the same time and SCO couldn't. This project Monterey was it's future.
So SCO put a lot of work into it and didn't actually release any products at the same time.
Project Monterey was, of course, a complete failure. And you know the main reason why?
LINUX.
Linux already did all that. It was unified and supported a crapload of platforms. It's open, it's compatable, and it's cheaper.
Project Trillian was a effort to make Linux scale into the high end. Namely make it work well on the Itanium platform that Intel was hoping would take over, but also they got a lot of help from IBM.
Trillian was a success. Monterey floundered.
Trillian delivered working code in 2000. Set the ship the same day that Intel was set to ship it's first proccessor.
Monterey disbanded in 2001. Utter failure and forgotten. SCO sold the business to Caldera (a Linux company) and went off on a totally different direction. Caldera turned into the new SCO.
THAT is why SCO originally sued IBM. It had to due with breach of contract when IBM just abandoned them for Linux.
But that didn't turn out and SCO should of given up there. So SCO went on to finish it's suicide march by pissing off every x86 Unix user in existance by trying to hurt Linux through it's IP claims.
At that time most of SCO customer's and all of the third party application developers supported and used Linux heavily in their businesses along side SCO's Unix.
Maybe SCO figured if they make Linux look iffy those application developers and those users would get scared and stop using Linux.
Well instead they all got pissed and stopped support SCO. Those that didn't get pissed, were still scared because it ment that the company they depend on for their businesses is busy pissing in the eye of the 60,000 pound gorilla that is IBM.
SCO is now dead in the water. The customers they still have are trying to find the easiest and cheapest way to get on Linux and they have virtually no application support for their newest Unix version.
Novell Suse offerings are a fully functional replacement for Netware and has been for a while. And they have their Novell Linux desktop and Suse stuff, which is in a Novell-based directory envrionement with all the bells and whistles. Novell has pretty much eliminated Windows and Netware as a dependancy for it's stuff.
Nope that the Linux community and IBM told them to take a flying leap. Novell told them that SCO didn't even own the 'IP' they were bitching about being stolen.
One thing that doesn't get mentioned enough with SCO vs IBM is that originally it had to do with IBM _realy_ screwing over SCO with something called 'Project Monterey'.
You see Unix had a problem. Originally Unix was very open, like all software of it's time. You could get books that were the print out version of the entire Unix operating system.
All software was like that because the software was sold with the computer. There wasn't enough market to sustain anybody doing pure software development. People made one-off operating systems to go with this or that computer and people programmed their own applications.
This is because most code was written in assembly. That is it was all very non-portable.
With Unix the major innovation was that it was rewritten into C programming language, which is very portable. So as computers evolved you could port Unix to newer machines. And since it was so open you could get the code yourself and do the port yourself.
So that environment is were we got BSD and things like TCP/IP and such.
This openness, portability, and the standardized network stack is what made Unix king and lack of that is what killed off all other operating systems of that era.
Now eventually you had enough computers that you could support closed source software development profitably. People bought rights to the the Unix source code and began hording the code from each other.
So Unix developers concentrated on the profitable high-end market and effectively killed off BSD through lawsuites and all of a sudden they started getting all incompatable and expensive.
And it just kept getting worse and worse and worse. they have things like the OpenGroup that tried to make rules about software compatability and things like that, but it never realy worked out.
So in the late 90's IBM, SCO, and Sequent decided to get together and make a single Unix operating system again.
This was a single Unix operating system that would scale from midrange computing to high end computing. IBM would take the high end with it's heavy hitting POWER computers, and SCO the low-end with it's x86 support. Intel was going to work on Itanium support and Sequent had their own computers (that ended up never going anywere)
It would be 32bit and 64bit. And applications programmed for x86 would work in POWER and visa versa. The grand old unified Unix.
IBM is a big company, SCO isn't. IBM can afford to do all sorts of things at the same time and SCO couldn't. This project Monterey was it's future.
So SCO put a lot of work into it and didn't actually release any products at the same time.
Project Monterey was, of course, a complete failure. And you know the main reason why?
LINUX.
Linux already did all that. It was unified and supported a crapload of platforms. It's open, it's compatable, and it's cheaper.
Project Trillian was a effort to make Linux scale into the high end. Namely make it work well on the Itanium platform that Intel was hoping would take over, but also they got a lot of help from IBM.
Trillian was a success. Monterey floundered.
Trillian delivered working code in 2000. Set the ship the same day that Intel was set to ship it's first proccessor.
Monterey disbanded in 2001. Utter failure and forgotten. SCO sold the business to Caldera (a Linux company) and went off on a totally different direction. Caldera turned into the new SCO.
THAT is why SCO originally sued IBM. It had to due with breach of contract when IBM just abandoned them for Linux.
But that didn't turn out and SCO should of given up there. So SCO went on to finish it's suicide march by pissing off every x86 Unix user in existance by trying to hurt Linux through it's IP claims.
At that time most of SCO customer's and all of the third party application developers supported and used Linux heavily in their businesses along side SCO's Unix.
Maybe SCO figured if they make Linux look iffy those application developers and those users would get scared and stop using Linux.
Well instead they all got pissed and stopped support SCO. Those that didn't get pissed, were still scared because it ment that the company they depend on for their businesses is busy pissing in the eye of the 60,000 pound gorilla that is IBM.
SCO is now dead in the water. The customers they still have are trying to find the easiest and cheapest way to get on Linux and they have virtually no application support for their newest Unix version.
#1 That's straight up FUD. The FSF and Novell are both more level headed than that.
#2 If it were true I would not go around calling it a good thing. It would be devastating to the Linux community if Distros couldn't make perfectly legal licensing deals without fear of reprisal.
It's legal. For now. :evil:
There's a reason why Novell lost some good engineers over this issue alone. It may be legal, but it isn't right.
PingSpike
Lifer
- Feb 25, 2004
- 21,756
- 600
- 126
Thats going to be the rub isn't it? They wanted MS off their back and probably make a little more money for themselves, but the deal pisses on the rest of the linux community and sets a bad precident. This is amplified by ballmar pranching around, frothing at the mouth about linux infringing on some patents or some such nonsense.
I think MS played this one well of course. The linux community will eat one of its own, novell, because it sort of has too now. As major projects switch to GPLv3, Novell will be left behind. This gives linux a bit of a black eye.
Novell, as usual, blew it big time. I can't fathom why companies that have carved out a niche align themselves with microsoft...there are so many examples of that company putting one arm around you while the other draws the knife. Everyone has to play with Microsoft, but they really should all keep them at arms length.
If the muhammed doesn´t go to the mountain, the mountain goes to muhammed.
I see thie problem easily solved if the communitty drop SAMBA and create a new protocol for shares usefull to everyone, an Idea that I have that is very simple.
A switch between NFS with a software in Windows and Linux and everything that can be fully redistributable to everyone, we can do a Virtual SCSI drive in every Windows ( Like Nero Imagedrive ), that is recognized as a SCSI device with the atribbute of a letter, that can be mountable to read and write, but, instead of the disc formed by an image of the disc, use a share located in an Linux computer, for Windows share to Linux, install the same convertion tool like if it´s an APACHE environment with special services like NFS. For the other systems, it can be done the same way.
Who will need SAMBA after that ?
Leave that Crap forever and the Novell/Microsoft agreement will not have any effectiveness nevermore.
If the problem is share with SAMBA, and they are claiming that the agreement is for that. Blow everything with a most robust system encapsulated like SMB is over TCP/IP. But more strong and more powerfull, more in line with the Linux style of solving interconectivity problems.
Simple.
I will post to FSF this IDEA.
I see thie problem easily solved if the communitty drop SAMBA and create a new protocol for shares usefull to everyone, an Idea that I have that is very simple.
A switch between NFS with a software in Windows and Linux and everything that can be fully redistributable to everyone, we can do a Virtual SCSI drive in every Windows ( Like Nero Imagedrive ), that is recognized as a SCSI device with the atribbute of a letter, that can be mountable to read and write, but, instead of the disc formed by an image of the disc, use a share located in an Linux computer, for Windows share to Linux, install the same convertion tool like if it´s an APACHE environment with special services like NFS. For the other systems, it can be done the same way.
Who will need SAMBA after that ?
Leave that Crap forever and the Novell/Microsoft agreement will not have any effectiveness nevermore.
If the problem is share with SAMBA, and they are claiming that the agreement is for that. Blow everything with a most robust system encapsulated like SMB is over TCP/IP. But more strong and more powerfull, more in line with the Linux style of solving interconectivity problems.
Simple.
I will post to FSF this IDEA.
The benefit to samba is that it's here, it works, and you don't have to install anything on the Windows machines. There are other shareable filesystems out there, you even mentioned one. The problem is they suck in one way or another. Samba does too, but it fufills more requirements than AFS or NFS.
Don't send ideas, send code. Ideas suck, implimentations rock.
And finally, the problem isn't with samba, it's with Novell. Novell ****** up. Plain and simple.
You are all right n0cmonkey, but Novell will not S..ck easily, Here in Brazil they call them the Real traitor of the Linux software, Novell = Judas, they did a party here in Campinas, show famous person and so on, but, for the users, its far more important here to have an (any)ubuntu technicians around here to solve the growing fast switch of the users from another distros.
They are all abandoning OpenSuse and all the related things from Novell after the agreement.
I'm not a programmer, but implementations rock. Most of my time is spent in Blender software modeling 3D... May be I should learn C++, It will be cool too.
They are all abandoning OpenSuse and all the related things from Novell after the agreement.
I'm not a programmer, but implementations rock. Most of my time is spent in Blender software modeling 3D... May be I should learn C++, It will be cool too.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 21K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter