Big Guns Unite To Unify Unix 121
MikeDartt writes "Wired reports that Compaq has just joined IBM and SCO in Project Monterey, which is an attempt to get a single UNIX distro that will run on Merced. Perhaps I'm naive, but why get behind a new *NIX as well as Linux, esp. when the latter is both more open and more fashionable? "
Why unite *nix? (Score:1)
It looks like the positioning for Monterey is to take the FUD-driven "high road". Their ideal customer is somebody who regards Linux as an effort of hobbyists and college kids, marginally stable, minimally supported, an interesting source of innovation but unsuitable for a business setting. They'd be open to taking useful tidbits from the Linux world but would not want to become an inhabitant.
Based on AIX? (Score:1)
Er, more fashionable? (Score:1)
This is getting familiar (who trusts sco?) (Score:1)
a next generation unix. The last project was `gemini' which was SCO and HP (which makes sense
since they're fairly central to mercede) which was announced with similar hooplah and then disappeared.
I simply doubt that SCO has the time and engineering manpower to pull-off the claims they
make. Even if they could their strength in legacy systems would be of little help in capturing new
customers!
Profit? (Score:1)
They are just looking to share the pain of development while fighting for the same market. This is much like Sommerset was for the PowerPC.
But like several others have mentioned, don't expect everyone to play together well. It wouldn't be the first time a "grand unified unix" project fell through.
- doug
but it is more than just that (Score:1)
Note that I'm not saying that Linux can't do these things, just that it isn't compatible with existing systems. As I mentioned in another thread, I'd like to see "them" add some compatibility stuff to Linux as optional packages (something like 2.2.5.aix3) to bridge Linux and older applications.
- doug
anti-trust (Score:1)
Note that I'm not saying IBM wouldn't let others do the dirty work, just that they want control. CMS was developed at Cambridge, but IBM funded it and grabed it when it wanted it.
- doug
Based on AIX? (Score:1)
In my experience, it's quite stable, not too slow, and has a number of nice features. I liked having a good journalling filesystem and being able to resize disk partitions on the fly. I also liked being able to use SMIT (the graphical admin tool) to figure out how to do some of the more obscure things.
It does have some downsides, though; it was often hard to port software to AIX from other unixes, error messages were often surprisingly cryptic, and sometimes things seemed to be done a particular way for no other reason than to be different.
But, overall, it was actually pretty good. Sometimes I miss having an RS6K on my desk, even though the Linux box that replaced it is much, much faster.
I'm not convinced... (Score:1)
Linux already does these.. (Score:1)
Linux already DOES what this new 'super-Unix' will be able to do. Basically, it looks to me like they are going to add some of the features of Unixware and PTX.
Not only can Linux run on all of the systems listed, it can run on MORE..
Why unite *nix? (Score:1)
Why? (Score:1)
Based on AIX? (Score:1)
Based on personal opinion : EEEEEWWWWWWWW!!!
has linux binary compatibility (Score:1)
(Ok, bad analogy, but hey..)
I just don't see a commercial reason for this system, beside's of course, the companies not wanting to invest money in porting all by themselves.
Speaking of which, who will own this new system? Who get's the profits from it's sale?
Well.. (Standard API) (Score:1)
I believe Linux is currently using OSS Compatibility.... (last I looked..) I'm not sure.. last time I checked how my mp3's play in linux...... nevermind..
ChiefArcher
Why unite *nix? (Score:1)
agreed (Score:1)
Side note, for the purpose of this reply, 'high end' means the hardware alone costs several million, while 'low end' means it costs a few thousand.
From a short-term financial point of view, there's little motivation for people like Sun, to make a complete 'conversion' to Linux. Also, think about this - the Unix vendors are generally big on the high-end (enterprise, data-center level) while Linux is big at the small end, which is also where Microsoft is big at. So, Linux is/will be hurting Microsoft more than the Unix vendors. Also, because most Linux's development is at the low end, it doesn't have 'enterprise' level features (I mean Enterprise, not server), and for Enterprise customers there's little that Linux offers over the 'costly' Unixs (the software is generally pretty cheap compared to the hardware) and they're the kind of people who least like to change - why do you think the mainframe hasn't died off yet?
Because for Compaq their 'Tru64' unix doesn't comprise than many Alpha sales, they're the most likely to drop it. However, for the others, it's kinda different - first, they simply couldn't just move everything to Linux, they'd have to add features first, which means either waiting for the Linux community to do it (probably in an incompatible way with how they did it), or do it themselves, which costs. In fact the development costs for each of the commercial unix companies could be pretty bad - remember they have to re-test everything, etc, retrain their staff, convince their own development teams (quite a few of which might just leave), get their solutions government certified again, and so on. Then they have to persuade their customers to change, which means big costs for the customers, with probably little improvement from a functionality point of view.
This would takes years, and cost billions. There'd be quite a few customers who would not want to change either, pretty much no matter what, and quiet a few customers might 'defect' to other commercial unixs. They'd also have to continue supporting both their own Unix and Linux for a while (Sun is still supporting Solaris 2.3, which has been around for over 5 years), which probably means taking on extra staff...
Unless there is huge pressure from their customers (very little so far), the commercial unix guys aren't going to make big changes anytime soon. Things will slowly change over time though. Already the commercial guys are making it easier to run Linux on their own hardware. Sun have already announced and demonstrated software to let Linux apps run under Solaris. Pretty minor projects. Linux will first start to 'attack' the commercial guys at the low end, and slowly (over many many years) work up towards the high end. Likewise, the vendor's efforts to accommodate, integrate with, and 'combat' Linux will increase.
Still, the above companies aren't going to feel financially pinched by Linux until it starts reducing their hardware sales. And since for mid to high-end hardware, it's mostly the proprietary guys anyway, as long as they don't loose out to new companies in this area (like Dell), since they'll be still selling their profitable hardware (whatever OS it runs) they're probably not going to be hurting for quite some time...
To sum up, Linux is attack the low end, the home ground of Microsoft the principal competitor for the proprietary guys, while have the high end, which tends to be very conservative and moves slowly. That is why Linux will out sell the commercial guys in numbers, but make much less revenue for quite a few years to come.
Salesmen eat quiche (Score:1)
The point you miss is that any largish organisation will employ a VAR or possibly a Linux distributor (who are ultimately just glorified VARS) direct or even a hardware manufacturer when considering a new project.
The business will enter into a contract with the supplier in order to plan, implement and support the project.
At this point, the business has someone who is accountable. The model is exactly the same as with any other operating system. You can not sue the OEM, you can only sue your supplier and if you use a supplier for a major project without a solid contract then you definately eat quiche.
The "Linux is not accountable" argument is pure fiction.
Best regards
Mark
DG/UX by Data General, not Digital. (Score:1)
Actually, no. They had an agreement with SCO to use UnixWare, which presumably puts them in the Monterey camp. DG now sell NT, Intranetware and UnixWare on the low end and medium size servers, and DG/UX on their high end stuff. DG/UX is somewhat of a minimalist Unix -- it doesn't ship with much in the way of useful toys out of the box. However, it's incredibly stable, scales well to huge numbers of CPUs (128, last time I looked), has a nice LVM, and is techincally very sound. Sadly, I'm not convinced about their commitment to Unix. They're concentrating almost entirely on NT these days (as well as on their stunning storage products).
Why? (Score:1)
Oh yeah.. they'd have to sell it...
Based on AIX? (Score:1)
Er, more fashionable? (Score:1)
Er, more fashionable? (Score:1)
Defrag the market? (Score:1)
Someone to Sue (Score:1)
Ahem...
THIS SOFTWARE AND DOCUMENTATION IS PROVIDED "AS IS", WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EITHER EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. THE ENTIRE RISK AS TO THE QUALITY AND PERFORMANCE OF THE SOFTWARE IS WITH YOU, AND YOU ASSUME THE ENTIRE COST OF ALL NECESSARY SERVICING, REPAIR, OR CORRECTION.
While this license tidbit is copied verbatim from the Iomega Zip[(tm), (r), (c), whatever] drive software, I believe that many other commercial pieces of software carry the exact same disclaimer.
This license is preposterous (how can you sell something without the implied warranty of merchantability??) but it is on lots of software and I assume that it is legally sound, since equivalent legalese shows up on every box of commercial software I've ever seen.
However, it *doesn't* give you someone to sue. You can explicitly *not* sue the vendor who sold you the software that you're using because you agreed not to by using it!!
I wish to be corrected, because I'd like to sue Microsoft for software of sub-merchantable (is that a word?) quality.
I think that this argument is largely FUD coming from corporations though, so PHB's can have a sense of security.
(If I am wrong, please correct me, but please also answer this: if it's not legally binding, why do they bother?)
this is weak Unixen unified (Score:1)
weak versions of Unix that are probably going to
lose out to stronger versions like Linux or
Solaris on their own in the long term.
Hence "unification", to try to forestall that.
Big Guns Unite To Unify Unix (Score:1)
This one is probably doomed. Every *NIX development group that I've ever met has been arrogant beyond belief (present company included) and mixing any two of them has been like oil and water.
Not to worry.
I think the best long term strategy for Linux is to nail down that Mom & Pop desktop (& set-top) market with kernel 2.2 while the kernel heavies continue to roll in bigger and better enterprise features.
ccb (ex decvax!ccb, ccb@osf.org, etc.)
Hmmm.... (Score:1)
http://linux.u cs.indiana.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/9812.1/0135. html [indiana.edu]
It is /proc/cpuinfo and dmesg output from a 14 cpu (6927 bogomips) sparc server with 2gigs of ram and a huge chain of scsi disks. There has also been talk of Sun giving kernel hackers access to bigger systems.
My point? Find a system or a market segment that linux doesn't support, then wait a year or so and I bet you it will support it.
Does anyone seriously think that Monterey is going to be any different than SVR4 or OSF/1?
Been there - done that (Score:1)
And what happend? SCO bought it. I think Netware bought it from AT&T for, like, $1 bil. and then sold it for $50 mil - or something like that.
I don't think *nix will ever be unified and whatever... Maybe everyone should be working with Sun to make Java unified instead...
Here we go again.... (Score:1)
Rather than go along, IBM, HP, and DEC created the OSF and pledged that they would create a single Unix, OSF/1, and that they all would run it. Whoops! They lied. Only DEC followed through and shipped OSF/1, er, Digital Unix, um, Tru64.
So now we have IBM, which dissed the SVR4 effort and misled with the OSF effort, claiming it will lead yet another effort. Why should we believe them this time?
Why not Linux? I'll tell you why... (Score:1)
Someone to sue - clarification. (Score:1)
No, a company wouldn't 'sue' a software vendor if the product failed - unless the vendor gave explicit assurance that such a failure would not happen.
When I exaggerate by saying 'sue', I intend for that to mean 'to hold accountable'. This does not neccesarily mean, to have the ability to take losses out of the vendor's hide, but to have some leverage in negotiations and subsequent business dealings.
As one tack pointed out, support contracts provide this sort of accountability. There is not such an animal with Linux. Red Hat may offer support, but it just does not waft the same, does it?
Backward compatibility (Score:1)
Maybe you don't know IBM as well as you thought. How do you think Bill Gates got to where he is today....That's right remember the whole mess from years ago when MS was developing DOS and their deal with IBM?
Backward compatibility (Score:1)
Maybe you don't know IBM as well as you thought. How do you think Bill Gates got to where he is today....That's right remember the whole mess from years ago when MS was developing DOS and their deal with IBM?
Why unite *nix? (Score:1)
believe anyone is still repeating it.
Digital Unix (Tru64 Unix) runs on Merced (Score:1)
In fact, they just announced today that Tru64 UNIX runs on simulated Merced chips. The press release hasn't hit their web page [compaq.com] yet, though.
support for linux applications (Score:1)
In many of the same ways that the rest of IBM's involvement with the linux community will be beneficial, comments such as these are great evidence against some of the more common (misconceived) arguments against greater adoption of linux.
This isn't such a bad thing if part of its message elevates linux to the status of something to be pursued and imitated.
-- Scott
(disregard by URL, btw).
Choice is good (Score:1)
Also the existence of viable competitors reduce the chance of complacency and benefit all involved. So as much as you may abhor prop software, you should herald this development as it should benefit us all. As will HURD.
OTOH, these companies are as united as OPEC, the question is how long before the first knife.
SCO and legacy (Score:1)
From a related story... (Score:1)
This looks good, not only are they somewhat unifying Unix, but they are expressing that they are going to have inherent linux binary support. T
Hmmm.... (Score:1)
Yes, I think Linux is headed in this direction. (No, I'm not too excited about Monterey.)
My point is only that claiming Linux is a realistic high-end system today or in the short-term future is dishonest.
The fact that Linux has once booted on a system with 14 cpus doesn't mean it can actually process a lot of IO on a big system (32+ cpus?), and 2 gigs of RAM is small where I work.
Like you, I was excited when I saw this, bacause I'd like to see free software on big iron.
more open and more fashionable? (Score:1)
I agree, which is why I run Linux when and where I can.
The only point I'm trying to make is that rabid Linux enthusiasm shouldn't cause us to say unrealistic things about it. People who claim that Linux is fine for the high-end are people who have never worked with high-end systems.
Whether or not high-end systems matter much is a totally separate issue, as you've pointed out.
So why not enhance Linux? (Score:1)
Obviously, this business model makes no sense for OS vendors such as Microsoft. But for companies which make their money selling boxes (that is to say, hardware vendors) this makes a great deal of sense, to me at least.
Based on AIX? of course. (Score:1)
IBM produces AIX, and sco sucks (I've seen only one box, but I almost throw it out the window).
Maybe sco just realized how bad they sucked, or IBM bullied them around a bit.
Papi
Why unite *nix? (Score:1)
READ those license agreements! They ALL have a specific disclaimer of responsibility for damages and/or loss arising from the use or misuse of software. Furthermore, they specifically disallow all warranties, specific and implied, including the implicit (by long legal tradition) warranty of merchantability and fitness.
This means that even if the product doesn't do a single thing it claims to be able to do, THE USER HAS NO LEGAL GROUNDS FOR SUIT!
Now, while I am not a lawyer, nor am I aware of any case in which a court has upheld a shrinkwrap software license agreement, I am also not aware of a case where any corporation has ever brought suit for loss or damage arising out of the use and or misuse of a software product. Not one.
Please flame me mercilessly if I am wrong.
Exhausted in Minneapolis
evilpenguin
Monterey isn't Linux based... (Score:1)
What's up with Hurd? (Score:1)
--
Hmmm.... (Score:1)
Linux developers don't have much access to these systems. Correct me if I'm wrong.
Or is there already a project in development that I should know about?
--
What's up with HURD? (Score:1)
--
more open and more fashionable? (Score:1)
Despite what the press might claim, a major chunk of the server market does not fall under the category of "enterprise", and this is where OS's such as Linux can be quite appealing.
It frags the friggin' market! (Score:1)
But please tell me SCO and Digital Unix are going to bite the dust to make room for this new one?
It frags the friggin' market! (Score:1)
But please tell me SCO and Digital Unix are going to bite the dust to make room for this new one?
Linux already does these.. (Score:1)
Why unite *nix? (Score:1)
I don't think of it so much as someone to sue,
but someone to blame. With Linux the responsibility
falls on your own shoulders, and that's no fun.
Way better to blame your ignorance on the vendor.
Regards,
Tim
Unix vendors must unite to compete (Score:1)
more open and more fashionable? (Score:1)
Linux needs a fair bit of work until it can run on 64 CPUs or more, handle very big files, directories and databases and such
interestingly, SGI has stated that they want to migrate such features from Unicos and Irix into Linux and put the result back into the open
it'll be very interesting to watch events over the next two years or so...
Goodbye, IRIX! (Score:1)
There is no reason for Unixware to exist! (Score:1)
>unixware licenses so they can run
>products written for a free operating system?
Because not all corporate IT departments (and
for sure not too many small businesses) have a
Linux/Unix guru on staff. If you have a Unixware
license, you can run to SCO --or maybe IBM, once
this Project Monterey business is wrapped up--
for help. That may not mean squat to someone who
is totally on top of their own install at home,
but to a business support means a lot.
It frags the friggin' market! (Score:1)
>going to bite the dust to make room for this new
>one?
There hasn't been much talk about Digital Unix
since CPQ ate DEC, and ditto for SCO Unix now
that SCO has Unixware to play with. My impression
of the whole project is that they aren't so much
trying to fold AIX and Unixware and SCO Unix
together as they are trying to make it easier for
all the various products to port between flavors.
Down the line, though, I could see Project
Monterey serving as the groundwork for YAUOS that
would supersede the three versions mentioned
above. But that's the future.
Accountability, that's why. (Score:2)
If you buy a commercial *nix and it pukes on you, you have legal recourse with the vender for repairs. If Linux (or FreeBSD or any other "free" OS) pukes on you, you are sh!t out of luck. Maybe it can be fixed, and maybe that bug gets addressed in three years. There is NO ONE you can put pressure on to "get it fixed and get it fixed now!".
Businessmen (and women) know that with purchasing dollars comes the power to withhold that money. To many of them Linux is not an acceptable solution no matter what it's technical merits may be.
As someone who has been in the business sector (from computer sales to banking) it is easy for me to see the reasons why corporations act the way they do.
If I was setting up a non-mission critical server in my workplace (say an intranet WWW server or some such), or in a school I'd suggest Linux from the word go.
If I was setting up a mission critical server (or system) in a business environment I wouldn't touch Linux.
The needs of business are not the same as many of you. They can't afford to take chances.
Oh good! Finally! (Score:2)
*thud*
Wow, haven't had a good laugh like this in a long time. I am not alone in that I thnk that -any- company that spends time developing Unix from scratch today, when there are such great open source ones like Linux available, are simply foolish.
Well, anyhow, later...
Chris DiBona
Evangelist, VA Research
--
Grant Chair, Linux Int.
VP, SVLUG
Why unite *nix? (Score:2)
Linux, for all it's strengths, is free, and thereby not a profit generating product. With companies such as HP and Intel investing in RedHat, they're getting on the good side of future UNInix developers, who will abandon Linux for a paycheck. They're willing to invest in a free unix as a proof of concept for technologies to be rolled into an 'industrial strength' unix later, complete with support from all the big names in the industry.
To them, Linux isn't really a contender, because end users have no time to learn it and deal with it's support model. Corporate clients NEED to have someone to sue if things go bad. So, these guys are willing to sink some money into Linux development, first to flesh out the hirable talent, and second to get some ideas off the ground for free.
They have no problem with pumping some money into Linux, to keep a lively grass-roots testbed for ideas, and to foster goodwill with people who are more than willing to write those pesky device drivers. But let's not delude ourselves, these big corporations are in business to make money, by selling products and support. They didn't get all this money that they've invested in Linux by giving money to non-profit developers and hobbyists.
They still don't get it. They are so in the habit of selling software, that they're willing to reinvent the wheel to keep on doing it. Why, oh why, can't they just sell hardware and free software? Well, hardware, being the only source of profit, would get real expensive, real fast. And with all those brilliant programmers out there, optimizing free software for the existing hardware, who would want to buy new hardware??
Really, do we need Merced?
Point being, as long as software can be sold, it will be sold. And if Linux could unify unix, why can't they - with the added bonus of support, accountability and $$.
Unix vendors must unite to compete (Score:2)
We'll have Monterey, Solaris, HP-UX, Linux, and BSD.
The corporate giants will do all they can to hang on to the Unix market, and providing a more unified front against NT and Linux is just another step along the way.
I'm not convinced... (Score:2)
It's not about a meaningless number on a piece of paper. It's about real workloads.
I'm talking about doing online data wharehousing of terabyte-sized databases. Big I/O, and high availability.
You can tell me "well, Linux could have terrabytes of disks hooked up to it" but that doesn't mean it's actually gonna handle that kind of workload. It won't.
Do you think I'm picking on your favorite OS? I'm not, and it's my favorite OS, too.
We have seen this before... (Score:2)
It fell apart.
I really do think that Linux is a better place to hang our collective hat. Unless this new Unix is also free source. Then I say they can fight it out on their merits.
Not to stir up mud, but I have to admit that I still hope Hurd gets more developers and we see some of that out there soon... I am no more a Linux partisan than a Unix partisan -- all I know is Windows stinks. Linux doesn't stink. Windows is proprietary. Linux is not. I'm a programmer. Wherever I find it easiest to write software that solves problems is where I will go. Today, that's Unix at work (where my employer pays the proprietary price tag -- hey, if they want to!) and Linux at home and on my desktop at work where free, powerful, and source access are just what I need for maximum productivity.
So, Linux now! Hurd soon! Monterey? We shall see...
Two words: Government contract. (Score:2)
(I know NT is also not approved, but it is and will become the defacto standard before Linux does if there is no viable commercial UNIX competition.)
Why? (Score:2)
SCO and legacy (Score:2)
The reason why they stay with SCO and don't move to another OS, even if they want to, is that their custom applications work on SCO, are only guaranteed to work on SCO, and (most importantly) are only _supported_ under SCO.
Never underestimate the power of legacy to shape current needs.
The current state of UNIX. (Score:3)
Well, we're here at the turn of the 21st century, and what OS is the world using? Unix, just as for the past 30 years.
Yes, it's true there have been other operating systems. Before Unix, there was Multics. After Unix came a plethora of others, with a few that became relatively widespread. There was VMS (and still is, but it's very niche), and later NT, as two of the most popular. Apple has tried to push MacOS as a server operating system, but until MacOS X (which is a real Unix) they've never made one.
Many Unixes came: AT&T Unix begat newer releases, BSD, eventually SVRx. SVRx and BSD splintered off into many different Unixes, including Solaris, Ultrix, UnixWare, FreeBSD, NetBSD, OpenBSD and NetBSD to name some of the more prominent. Linux was created as a Unix clone, modeled very loosely on Minix, another Unix clone.
Why do we think of certain Unixes when we say "Unix"? There are certainly the most prominent of the industry, especially the free (not just as in free beer!) leading the way. Commercial Unixes also have their place, running on the latest and greates hardware from Big Name Companies making Big Irons.
But why did Unix make such a comeback? There's no revolution of computing freedom, but with FreeBSD and Linux leading the way, Free operating systems started making a buzz. It started as a "grassroots" movement back in the 80's with the GNU project, but before that came the true Unix communities over the Arpanet, campuses, the BSD project (a truely free Unix distribution), and various groups.
In all of this, though, we've seen death. The death of many proprietary Unix-alikes was partially due to the rise of the new Free ones. This isn't truely a bad thing, seen much as evolution, but has started negativity against commercialism. Nowadays, the best talent IS with the Free operating systems (and some remaining proprietary operating systems, such as BSD/OS, BeOS, MacOS X [still not Free]), so commercial Unix vendors, hawking their inferior wares, are disappearing.
Have commercial vendors stopped innovating? No, that would never happen. Have the free operating system groups' hackers innovated more? Of course. More great minds give birth to more great designs. The out with the old, in with the GNU (pardon the pun) is a good thing. It allows the companies that dealt mostly with selling Unix to concentrate on other things (Sun sells hardware, Java, Jini, etc), and work more well on them.
The only real problems are with the Unix vendors who base their entire business on selling the operating system, or support for such. Support is important, but not for a dying system. The last reach at life is upon the old commercial Unix vendors. The UDI is an example of this: since people aren't going to work on free drivers for [insert commercial Unix here], maybe they'd write drivers for UDI under the guise that it's open. The UDI design was made only for the vendors themselves, in hope that others would make drivers for UDI (and not any random Freenix). So vendors could now back up their bogus claims of superiority by also saying they have the best hardware support. This is not going to work; it's too transparent.
And of course, we have mergers! Mergers are the sign of a dying company more often than not. Sorry, commercial Unix is disappearing faster and faster. Commercial vendors for things other than operating systems are now again noticing Unix, and starting to move away from the horrid Windows platforms. Apple now even has their chance to beat Microsoft with an operating system _BETTER_ than theirs, including the "clicky clicky" administration tools that make NT the choice for braindead administrators and companies being coupled to a real kernel and API. I don't see exactly why Apple released the source, but maybe you all do.
Losers: commercial Unix suppliers, commercial suppliers of inferior operating systems (*cough Microsoft cough*)
Winners: the free Unixes, commercial software suppliers (programmers not having to use terrible tools, APIs, etc. anymore as they can work with something good), hackers having more code to work with and wonderful new projects all the time, users and corporations with better systems
What we are experiencing now is a true revolution to benefit US, not the titans holding business power.
Backward compatibility (Score:3)
Do you think IBM/SCO/whomever is going to look at one of its customers and say "switch to Linux, but all of your custom software will break"? Of course not. Will Linus allow the kernel to bend over backwards for compatibility with AIX/SCO/whatever? Again, that isn't going to happen. For the moment there is no bridge between Linux and existing customized *ix software.
The goal of these companies is to reduce development costs, without losing customers or what they view as "value added" features. I doubt if any of 'em make money on the OS. I bet they'd all jump to any less expensive platform (Linux, *BSD, DR-DOS, CP/M) if they thought it wouldn't alienate existing customers. And that means that existing applications have to keep on chugging.
The thing I'd like to see is for them to push these custom libraries to be more Linux like, and then put a few people and adding layers on top of Linux to build compatiblity. If you need some funky AIX program that plays games and doesn't stick to POSIX specs, just add jfs support and an AIX kernel module and off you go. I'm not saying that this would be trivial, or even do-able.
But I doubt if they would do this. While IBM has started to work with Linux, I think that it is more of a anyone but Microsoft approach. IBM is too much of a control freak to allow something as important as an OS to be developped by someone else.
- doug
Why not Linux? I'll tell you why... (Score:3)
Will Linux ever get there? Of course! Fact is it's not now. Companies need to base their plans for the future on things they control, and they don't, can't, and never will control Linux.
We hope...
The horse is stolen! (Score:3)
Digital Unix (Tru64 Unix) runs on Merced (Score:3)
Right - this was an announcment from the hardware (Proliant) division, not DEC.
--
Who do you sue? (Score:3)
Corporate clients NEED to have someone to sue if things go bad.
This is a favorite piece of FUD and almost the most inaccurate. Companies very rarely are able to sue an information technology vendor over buggy or not up-to-spec hardware and software. Services, on the other hand, are quite prone to lawsuits.
A company wouldn't sue IBM if their S/390 came down--they would threaten to dump their $10 million support contracts and hardware lease contracts. Very rarely is the courtroom the place where customers resolve their operating system troubles.
SCO and legacy (Score:3)
JOAT=Jack of all Trades (Score:3)
Has Linux binary compatibility. (Score:3)
And, Linux applications are easily ported to the complete Monterey product line.
Actually, almost any decently written program (i.e. that uses autoconf) will run on GNU/Linux, the BSDs, SCO UnixWare 7, SCO SysV/386V3.2R4.2, Solaris, HP-UX, AIX, and probably OS/2 and possibly Windows as well. Monterey does nothing to change this other than add yet another operating system to autoconf's list of hundreds on the ash heap of computing history.
... will benefit both the Linux and UNIX communities at large.
Umm, GNU/Linux *is* the Unix community at large. There is more GNU/Linux on the desktop than any other Unix or Unix-like operating system (I consider Unix on the desktop to be running a Unix or Unix-like kernel, not NT or Windows or OS/2, on a desktop machine; Xservers on Windows PCs don't count).It would be far more useful for IBM and SCO to spend their time moving to a Linux kernel based (and GNU based) system, providing backwards compatibility with modules for SCO Uxware, SysV/386, and AIX backward compatibility.
Maybe I'll get AIX PS/2 binary support someday and be able to use my Image Adapter/A with X11R4.
Cheers,
Joshua.
Why unite *nix? (Score:3)
They didn't get all this money that they've invested in Linux by giving money to non-profit developers and hobbyists.
They still don't get it. They are so in the habit of selling software, that they're willing to reinvent the wheel to keep on doing it.
I would just like to continue the argument by sayin *do not* underestimate IBM. Their AIM alliance produced the PowerPC to good effect for them, even if they haven't used it to penetrate the home/desktop PC.
Likewise this strategy, while not apparently a Great Thing, could still have very much a use for IBM.
Anyway, IBM pushes a lot of new technology and capability that Linux just doesn't have the support for. Yet, as always. Eventually perhaps, and perhaps with some help from IBM, but for really huge enterprise level deployments, IBM needs something it can really depend on and can market for it's dependability. Something with their name on it, and not just for legal litigation purposes. They will be supporting things like hundreds of processors in a box, which Linux has no support for now or even in the near future. IBM deals with millions of transactions daily, and with extremely high performance technologies, and with extremely reliable servers.
Linux is fine for individuals, small businesses, even most average businesses.
But IBM's market is *worldwide* business models. 24/7 year round operation. Scaleable and redundant and reliant systems. Extremely process intensive business models.
I can't speak for SCO except they only gain by leeching off IBM here. Every comment on
Intel is big, but not nearly so big as IBM, I think, and this alliance gives them entry into much bigger markets with much higher profits than just desktop PCs and suck.
My 2 cents
AS
What's up with Hurd? (Score:4)
Cheers,
Joshua.
but it is more than just that (Score:4)
What we need is the ext3 filesystem. This will support, among other things, integral distribution across volumes (which is something the LVM does quite nicely), resizing of partitions, possibly while the system is running (to add new fixed disks on the fly, as I am wont to do), and journalling. Journalling will banish the dreaded hour-long fsck from computing forever more. (The JFS is so good I use it exclusively when I work on XFree86 in OS/2, because when the Xserver kills my OS/2 box, I just poke the power and the UJFS.DLL CHKDSK takes about five seconds to run, as opposed to the five minutes HPFS CHKDSK took.)
I need to get involved with the ext3 project. I've got too many things to do right now, but I need to learn serious kernel hacking one day here.
Cheers,
Joshua.
Monterey is nothing to fear (Score:4)
SCO has experience with x86 (and owns UNIX) and long ago announced that they will port it to IA-64. Now Compaq and IBM (and Sequent) announce that they will help with SCO's UNIX for the platform and ship it on their IA-64 servers. IBM also plans to port it to their RISC hardware. Compaq sees Monterey as a way to move Digital UNIX (or whatever they call it this month) forward.
In other words, Compaq and IBM don't want to spend a huge amount of money to port their UNIXes to IA-64 to compete with everyone else on that platform. If it works out, then they have a foot in the door. Otherwise, they can just dump it and move on. This is NOT a vote of confidence in IA-64's future!
Sun announced that they will port Solaris x86 to IA-64 and Fujitsu and NCR (if I remember correctly) jumped on their ship. HP will, of course, have HP-UX on IA-64. And Linux is also in development for the platform.
I'm sure Compaq, IBM, and everyone else will ship Linux pre-installed on their IA-64 servers when they come along. They're just covering the "proprietary UNIX" base at the same time in the cheapest possible way.
Note that I'm saying IA-64, not Merced. I've long believed that Merced would never ship in volume because of production delays and poor performance. Only the second-generation IA-64 part will have a chance of success. I'll stand by that prediction...
more open and more fashionable? (Score:4)
Linux is great. But enough dogma; it's not a high-end OS, and it won't be for quite some time.
The fact that it's the best OS for your PC today does NOT mean it's the best OS for an enterprise server today. Open source will eventually move into that space, I'm sure, but it isn't in there yet. (And no, a quad xeon isn't even close to high-end.)
Saying "why not Linux?" when it's perfectly obvious why not only serves to make Linux, a great OS, look like little more than a bunch of hype.
There are some lawsuits against SW vendors (Score:4)
I don't think this is exactly right: If the software vendor had absolutely no obligations whatsoever, the contract between the vendor and customer might be considered "unsupported by consideration" (ah, legal jargon) and therefore unenforceable as a contract.
More common, I think, are limitation of liability clauses which state that the vendor's liability is limited to a refund of the purchase price of the software license. Such limitations are common in many other industries as well, and are regularly enforced by courts.
[You might feel that such limitations are unconscionable, and should therefore be ignored by the courts. The standard reply is while courts can readily tell whether a contract is supported by some valuable consideration on both sides, it's not a court's job to evaluate whether a contract is a good deal -- it's the market's. If you don't like the terms of the software license, you should find another software vendor. That's the argument, anyway.]
Incidentally, contrary to evilpenguin's comment, it is not at all uncommon for businesses to sue their software vendors; in particular, many vendors have been (or anticipate being) sued as a result of the Y2K problem. Read a recent 10-Q or 10-K from any major software vendor for a discussion of this issue. It's relatively rare, I think, for ordinary consumers to sue software vendors, but you can read about one such case at the web site of the Milberg Weiss law firm [milberg.com] (search with the keyword Issokson -- it's a Y2K case).
why not just unify behind linux? (Score:5)
1) These vendors have invested huge amounts of development effort in putting together their own implementations. They will not just walk away from their own design decisions because of Linux's rising market share.
2) Despite the increasing popularity of Linux, newer, high-performance commodity and custom hardware devices are driven by proprietary UNIX implementations first. This may be changing but it still has a ways to go before it changes (if it ever does IMHO).
3) Culturally, Linux is NIH (Not Invented Here). This may sound silly but its very pervasive and there are some convincing arguments why it will continue. The developers and customers for a given UNIX, even it they are closet Linux hackers, will take product to market with an in-house solution over Linux first because it has a critical mass within the organization that allows faster time to market.
4) Linux may incorporate many very modern OS features and implementation designs but other UNIX vendors will always believe, justified or not, they have a superior design. In such a case it may incumbent on Linux to adapt to their design rather than the other way around.
All of these factors may wane over time, but I doubt they will disappear completely. The short history of operating systems has never seen a single UNIX spec and I'm unconvinced it will happen now.
Later,
FM