In article <1189798437.651291.130320@r29g2000hsg.googlegroups. com>,
eaglealan64 wrote:
>Time to move to Linux guys.
>
>http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/070914/laf040.html?.v=101
>

Why, when even if we had to, would we not go to something far better
like FreeBSD or Solaris.


Dave "Not into Distro of the Week Fever" Gresham

In article <1189798437.651291.130320@r29g2000hsg.googlegroups. com>,
eaglealan64 wrote:
>Time to move to Linux guys.
>
>http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/070914/laf040.html?.v=101
>

A lot of companies have filed chapter 11 and emerged successfully.
Delta Airlines, K-Mart, United Airlines, and dozens of others.

Chapter 11 lets you keep operating while working out the details
needed to continue operation and emerge from bankruptcy.

And there are better OSes for servers to migrate to than
Linux IMO.

Bill
--
Bill Vermillion - bv @ wjv . com

----- Original Message -----
From: "David Gresham"
Newsgroups: comp.unix.sco.misc
To:
Sent: Friday, September 14, 2007 5:54 PM
Subject: Re: SCOX are bankrupt


> In article <1189798437.651291.130320@r29g2000hsg.googlegroups. com>,
> eaglealan64 wrote:
>>Time to move to Linux guys.
>>
>>http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/070914/laf040.html?.v=101
>>
>
> Why, when even if we had to, would we not go to something far better
> like FreeBSD or Solaris.
>
>
> Dave "Not into Distro of the Week Fever" Gresham

but but but... they're so kewwwwl and prettttty

-bkw

Bill Vermillion wrote:

> A lot of companies have filed chapter 11 and emerged successfully.
> Delta Airlines, K-Mart, United Airlines, and dozens of others.
>
> Chapter 11 lets you keep operating while working out the details
> needed to continue operation and emerge from bankruptcy.

Just keep telling yourself that. Chapter 11 doesn't protect companies from
court judgments, especially when it comes to conversion.

"to our utter distruction" (ralph yarro) indeed

> And there are better OSes for servers to migrate to than
> Linux IMO.

But wait, didn't linux steal all of SCO's code? Isn't Linux an unauthorized
clone of SCO unix? That's what they kept saying.

"Linux doesn't exist. Everyone knows Linux is an unlicensed version of
Unix," - Kieran O'Shaugnessy

What are you all going to do when SCO software is completely unsupported?
Novell "owns" the copyrights to SCO's Unix, and Novell wants you to go to
Linux.

--
BMO

In article ,
Boyle M. Owl wrote:
>Bill Vermillion wrote:
>
>> A lot of companies have filed chapter 11 and emerged successfully.
>> Delta Airlines, K-Mart, United Airlines, and dozens of others.
>>
>> Chapter 11 lets you keep operating while working out the details
>> needed to continue operation and emerge from bankruptcy.

>Just keep telling yourself that. Chapter 11 doesn't protect companies from
>court judgments, especially when it comes to conversion.
>
>"to our utter distruction" (ralph yarro) indeed

>> And there are better OSes for servers to migrate to than
>> Linux IMO.

>But wait, didn't linux steal all of SCO's code? Isn't Linux an unauthorized
>clone of SCO unix? That's what they kept saying.

>"Linux doesn't exist. Everyone knows Linux is an unlicensed version of
>Unix," - Kieran O'Shaugnessy

There are only a few verrsion of Unix [officially sanctioned and
licensed to use the name] and one of the latest additions to
that fold - certified by opengroup.org in May - is Apple's version
of OS/X - the forthcoming 'Leopard' aka OS/X 10.5.

>What are you all going to do when SCO software is completely
>unsupported? Novell "owns" the copyrights to SCO's Unix, and
>Novell wants you to go to Linux.

I've made a decent amount of money over the years supporing
unsupported/defunct products.

As to Novell wanting users to to to Linux - I'll stick with
my FreeBSD servers. One was up for over 700 days running mail
services. The only patches were for some programs which only
needed a recompile and install without bringing the OS down.

And as for Novell's version of Linux - SuSE - my impression is they
changed things just for the sake of change to differentiate
themselves from other.

Don't forget that Solaris 10 is now FREE.

And that's a SysV environment that's pretty standard.

Bill
--
Bill Vermillion - bv @ wjv . com

On Sat, Sep 15, 2007, Bill Vermillion wrote:
>In article ,
>Boyle M. Owl wrote:
>>Bill Vermillion wrote:
....
>There are only a few verrsion of Unix [officially sanctioned and
>licensed to use the name] and one of the latest additions to
>that fold - certified by opengroup.org in May - is Apple's version
>of OS/X - the forthcoming 'Leopard' aka OS/X 10.5.
>
>>What are you all going to do when SCO software is completely
>>unsupported? Novell "owns" the copyrights to SCO's Unix, and
>>Novell wants you to go to Linux.
>
>I've made a decent amount of money over the years supporing
>unsupported/defunct products.
>
>As to Novell wanting users to to to Linux - I'll stick with
>my FreeBSD servers. One was up for over 700 days running mail
>services. The only patches were for some programs which only
>needed a recompile and install without bringing the OS down.
>
>And as for Novell's version of Linux - SuSE - my impression is they
>changed things just for the sake of change to differentiate
>themselves from other.

Most of the difference I've found with SuSE are excellent
administration tools in yast2 -- at least since SuSE 8.0 when
they went away from the monolithic configuration file to a system
that allows one to edit normal text files which then are honored
by yast2 where the older systems nuked any manual changes.

I've been doing a fair amount with CentOS for the last month or
so, and have had some surprises with things that CentOS doesn't
support by default (e.g. Firewire and xfs file systems which I've
been using in SuSE for several years).

Let's not forget that it was Novell that hammered the nails in
SCO's coffin.

Bill
--
INTERNET: bill@celestial.com Bill Campbell; Celestial Software LLC
URL: http://www.celestial.com/ PO Box 820; 6641 E. Mercer Way
FAX: (206) 232-9186 Mercer Island, WA 98040-0820; (206) 236-1676

Lord, the money we do spend on Government and it's not one bit better
than the government we got for one third the money twenty years ago.
Will Rogers

On Sep 15, 7:41 am, "Boyle M. Owl"
wrote:
....
> What are you all going to do when SCO software is completely unsupported?
> Novell "owns" the copyrights to SCO's Unix, and Novell wants you to go to
> Linux.
>
> --
> BMO

The possibilities are:
1. SCOg emerges from bankruptcy largely intact
2. SCOg emerges from bankruptcy with different ownership (creditors)
3. SCOg is liquidated with its assets (i.e., whatever the heck it was
that Novell sold to SCO) sold off.

In any of the alternatives UnixWare, OpenServer, and presumably ME
still exist, still run, and are still owned by someone. Indeed, since
any of the alternatives imply some sort of resolution of the lawsuits
and clarification of ownership the products might be better off.

The only outcome that might cause an immediate need to switch is if
someone buys it just to bury it. At the moment I'm thinking of Whole
Foods buying Wild Oats and immediately closing down our beloved
neighborhood store.

--RLR

On Mon, Sep 17, 2007, ThreeStar wrote:
>On Sep 15, 7:41 am, "Boyle M. Owl"
> wrote:
>...
>> What are you all going to do when SCO software is completely unsupported?
>> Novell "owns" the copyrights to SCO's Unix, and Novell wants you to go to
>> Linux.
>>
>> --
>> BMO
>
>The possibilities are:
>1. SCOg emerges from bankruptcy largely intact
>2. SCOg emerges from bankruptcy with different ownership (creditors)
>3. SCOg is liquidated with its assets (i.e., whatever the heck it was
>that Novell sold to SCO) sold off.
>
>In any of the alternatives UnixWare, OpenServer, and presumably ME
>still exist, still run, and are still owned by someone. Indeed, since
>any of the alternatives imply some sort of resolution of the lawsuits
>and clarification of ownership the products might be better off.
>
>The only outcome that might cause an immediate need to switch is if
>someone buys it just to bury it. At the moment I'm thinking of Whole
>Foods buying Wild Oats and immediately closing down our beloved
>neighborhood store.

More to the point is Microsoft's buying several Unix accounting
software companies, then killing the Unix versions.

Bill
--
INTERNET: bill@celestial.com Bill Campbell; Celestial Software LLC
URL: http://www.celestial.com/ PO Box 820; 6641 E. Mercer Way
FAX: (206) 232-9186 Mercer Island, WA 98040-0820; (206) 236-1676

One of the common failings among honorable people is a failure to
appreciate how thoroughly dishonorable some other people can be, and how
dangerous it is to trust them.
- Thomas Sowell

On Mon, 17 Sep 2007, ThreeStar wrote:

> On Sep 15, 7:41 am, "Boyle M. Owl"
> wrote:
> ...
>> What are you all going to do when SCO software is completely unsupported?
>> Novell "owns" the copyrights to SCO's Unix, and Novell wants you to go to
>> Linux.
>>
>> --
>> BMO
>
> The possibilities are:
> 1. SCOg emerges from bankruptcy largely intact
> 2. SCOg emerges from bankruptcy with different ownership (creditors)
> 3. SCOg is liquidated with its assets (i.e., whatever the heck it was
> that Novell sold to SCO) sold off.

Just a couple more, without much thought about it:
4. Given the APA, Novell regains control of the Unix assets and shuts it
down, in favor of Novell's Linux assets.
5. The Unix team disperses and the Unix products cannot be developed and
supported.

>
> In any of the alternatives UnixWare, OpenServer, and presumably ME
> still exist, still run, and are still owned by someone. Indeed, since
> any of the alternatives imply some sort of resolution of the lawsuits
> and clarification of ownership the products might be better off.

Have you seen what the total employee count is down to now (~120)? There
cannot be many coders left, so the future viability of SCO's Unix products
has to be very low.

On Sat, 15 Sep 2007, Bill Campbell wrote:

> On Sat, Sep 15, 2007, Bill Vermillion wrote:
>
> Let's not forget that it was Novell that hammered the nails in
> SCO's coffin.

By doing what? Responding to a lawsuit that SCO's management started? Get
a grip!

In article ,
Whoever wrote:
>
>
>On Sat, 15 Sep 2007, Bill Campbell wrote:
>
>> On Sat, Sep 15, 2007, Bill Vermillion wrote:
>>
>> Let's not forget that it was Novell that hammered the nails in
>> SCO's coffin.
>
>By doing what? Responding to a lawsuit that SCO's management started? Get
>a grip!

Your attribution makes it look like I said that, which I did not.

It was 'the other bill' who wrote that.

Bill


--
Bill Vermillion - bv @ wjv . com

On Sep 17, 1:38 pm, ThreeStar wrote:
> The possibilities are:
> 1. SCOg emerges from bankruptcy largely intact
> 2. SCOg emerges from bankruptcy with different ownership (creditors)
> 3. SCOg is liquidated with its assets (i.e., whatever the heck it was
> that Novell sold to SCO) sold off.
>
> In any of the alternatives UnixWare, OpenServer, and presumably ME
> still exist, still run, and are still owned by someone. Indeed, since
> any of the alternatives imply some sort of resolution of the lawsuits
> and clarification of ownership the products might be better off.

Given that (a) the judge in SCO v. Novell confirmed that Novell holds
the UNIX copyrights, (b) the Novell -> Santa Cruz deal specifically
sends it all back to Novell if the other side goes bankrupt and (c)
that SCO owes some (likely major) percentage of the Sun & Microsoft
monies to Novell as SVRX fees, option 1 is very unlikely.

Option 3 is a non-starter since SCO never owned the copyrights; they
could sell whatever additions they made to the SVRX base for Unixware,
and their ME stuff, but how much is that actually worth?

Given Options 1 and 3 are shot, what's left for anyone to run under
option 2?

Novell technically has back the UNIX business from SCO as of the
Chapter 11 filing Friday. Their lawyers are arguing with the
bankruptcy judge to let Kimball back in Utah set the amount of money
owed them before proceeding with the Chapter 11, so the bankruptcy
judge will have the full financial story (plausible). SCOX is walking
dead; anyone not planning a migration to a more viable platform ASAP
is only fooling themselves.

On Tue, 18 Sep 2007, Bill Vermillion wrote:

> In article ,
> Whoever wrote:
>>
>>
>> On Sat, 15 Sep 2007, Bill Campbell wrote:
>>
>>> On Sat, Sep 15, 2007, Bill Vermillion wrote:
>>>
>>> Let's not forget that it was Novell that hammered the nails in
>>> SCO's coffin.
>>
>> By doing what? Responding to a lawsuit that SCO's management started? Get
>> a grip!
>
> Your attribution makes it look like I said that, which I did not.
>
> It was 'the other bill' who wrote that.

My apologies for the incorrect editing by me.

On Sep 18, 7:55 am, "rkhallo...@gmail.com"
wrote:
> On Sep 17, 1:38 pm, ThreeStar wrote:
>
> > The possibilities are:
> > 1. SCOg emerges from bankruptcy largely intact
> > 2. SCOg emerges from bankruptcy with different ownership (creditors)
> > 3. SCOg is liquidated with its assets (i.e., whatever the heck it was
> > that Novell sold to SCO) sold off.
>
> > In any of the alternatives UnixWare, OpenServer, and presumably ME
> > still exist, still run, and are still owned by someone. Indeed, since
> > any of the alternatives imply some sort of resolution of the lawsuits
> > and clarification of ownership the products might be better off.
>
> Given that (a) the judge in SCO v. Novell confirmed that Novell holds
> the UNIX copyrights, (b) the Novell -> Santa Cruz deal specifically
> sends it all back to Novell if the other side goes bankrupt and (c)
> that SCO owes some (likely major) percentage of the Sun & Microsoft
> monies to Novell as SVRX fees, option 1 is very unlikely.
>
> Option 3 is a non-starter since SCO never owned the copyrights; they
> could sell whatever additions they made to the SVRX base for Unixware,
> and their ME stuff, but how much is that actually worth?
>
> Given Options 1 and 3 are shot, what's left for anyone to run under
> option 2?
>
> Novell technically has back the UNIX business from SCO as of the
> Chapter 11 filing Friday. Their lawyers are arguing with the
> bankruptcy judge to let Kimball back in Utah set the amount of money
> owed them before proceeding with the Chapter 11, so the bankruptcy
> judge will have the full financial story (plausible). SCOX is walking
> dead; anyone not planning a migration to a more viable platform ASAP
> is only fooling themselves.

Don't be a FUD merchant.

Bankruptcy law governs the distribution of assets, and that includes
supposed reversion of rights under a contract clause. You can't
contract away your right to file bankruptcy. Even if the clause has
meaning in the current circumstances, which I doubt, the automatic
stay left whatever Unix rights SCO acquired in their hands.

--RLR

In article ,
Whoever wrote:
>
>
>On Mon, 17 Sep 2007, ThreeStar wrote:
>
>> On Sep 15, 7:41 am, "Boyle M. Owl"
>> wrote:
>> ...
>>> What are you all going to do when SCO software is completely unsupported?
>>> Novell "owns" the copyrights to SCO's Unix, and Novell wants you to go to
>>> Linux.
>>>
>>> --
>>> BMO
>>
>> The possibilities are:
>> 1. SCOg emerges from bankruptcy largely intact
>> 2. SCOg emerges from bankruptcy with different ownership (creditors)
>> 3. SCOg is liquidated with its assets (i.e., whatever the heck it was
>> that Novell sold to SCO) sold off.

>Just a couple more, without much thought about it: 4. Given the
>APA, Novell regains control of the Unix assets and shuts it down,
>in favor of Novell's Linux assets.

>5. The Unix team disperses and the Unix products cannot be
>developed and supported.

Which leave the current Unix vendors locked into their presenet
licenses - which includes HP, Sun, IBM? and others.

And then there is FreeBSD which sprang from the Version 7 and
System III, and feels a lot like true Unix. And it was freed
from the bonds of AT&T and the original licenses in a
trial where each sued the other.

Unix is not going to go away - even if Novell attempts to shut it
down - which seem ridiculous on the face of it.

Bill
--
Bill Vermillion - bv @ wjv . com

On Sep 19, 11:41 am, ThreeStar wrote:
> Don't be a FUD merchant.
>
> Bankruptcy law governs the distribution of assets, and that includes
> supposed reversion of rights under a contract clause. You can't
> contract away your right to file bankruptcy. Even if the clause has
> meaning in the current circumstances, which I doubt, the automatic
> stay left whatever Unix rights SCO acquired in their hands.
>
> --RLR

Kimball had ALREADY RULED in Novell's favor a couple of weeks ago; all
SCO is holding at this point for copyrighted material is whatever
they've added since the Novell contract. They're perfectly able to
market that, or ME, for whatever they can get.

Then add that (a) they filed immediately before the bench trial in
Utah as to how much they owed back to Novell and (b) without that
hanging over them, they'd be marginally solvent. This won't look good
to either judge.

The only FUD has been four-plus years of the current management trying
to claim ownership of Linux while reaching for your wallet.

rkhalloran@gmail.com wrote:

> anyone not planning a migration to a more viable platform ASAP
> is only fooling themselves.

I don't imagine that any of the regular readers of c.u.s.m. are
particularly surprised by recent events. Current threats to the
viability of what was the Unix business of the Santa Cruz Operation have
their roots nearly fifteen years ago.

Thanks for your concern, but I don't think anyone in c.u.s.m. has been
sleepwalking for those fifteen years!

"RedGrittyBrick" wrote in message
news:1pidnTF5AuUROWzbnZ2dnUVZ8vSdnZ2d@bt.com...
> rkhalloran@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > anyone not planning a migration to a more viable platform ASAP
> > is only fooling themselves.
>
> I don't imagine that any of the regular readers of c.u.s.m. are
> particularly surprised by recent events. Current threats to the
> viability of what was the Unix business of the Santa Cruz Operation have
> their roots nearly fifteen years ago.
>
> Thanks for your concern, but I don't think anyone in c.u.s.m. has been
> sleepwalking for those fifteen years!
>
>
Not only are they up to date on the state of this case, they are also very
knowledgable of where to take their software, their customers, and their
future business. More importantly, this whole sordid affair simply brings
to the forefront the need to never get too comfortable with what you have.
First it was AT&T passing the reins of SysV to another Vendor, then that
Vendor hands it over to yet another. In turn that third Vendor then
abandons Xenix, ultimately aborts Unix (in favor of Linux) then corrupts the
whole corporate package with poor management decisions driven by greed and
the desire for power. This is just one more saga of big business in the
hands of incompetence. It will happen again, you can bet on it. Not this
Vendor but another, not this Unix but another, not this year but another.