SCO is kidding right? I sure hope so..... These folks have no clue. Just the last gasps of air from a dying company. Linux was already a threat to Sun, IBM, SCO, HP, Microsoft, etc. before IBM got involved. Besides, the develpement of Linux was not random and uncoordinated as they claim. Linus maintains a tight grip on the kernel development, which after all, is the only thing that Linux is. Now, if you put GNU or other software on top of it, then you have a complete operating system that you can use.
Is Stallman (sp?) going to sue SCO for not saying GNU/Linux? :-) Shannon Dustin Puryear wrote: > What SCO thinks of Linux.. this is part of their complaint against IBM > re: UNIX IP: > >>> Limitations of Linux Before IBM's Involvement >>> >>> 82. Linux started as a hobby project of a 19-year old >>> student. Linux has evolved through bits and pieces of various >>> contributions by numerous software developers using single processor >>> computers. Virtually none of these software developers and >>> hobbyists had access to enterprise-scale equipment and testing >>> facilities for Linux development. Without access to such equipment, >>> facilities, sophisticated methods, concepts and coordinated >>> know-how, it would be difficult or impossible for the Linux >>> development community to create a grade of Linux adequate for >>> enterprise use. >>> >>> 83. As long as the Linux development process remained >>> uncoordinated and random, it posed little or no threat to SCO, or to >>> other UNIX vendors, for at least two major reasons: (a) Linux >>> quality was inadequate since it was not developed and tested in >>> coordination for enterprise use and (b) enterprise customer >>> acceptance was non-existent because Linux was viewed by enterprise >>> customers as a "fringe" software product. >>> >>> 84. Prior to IBM's involvement, Linux was the software >>> equivalent of a bicycle. UNIX was the software equivalent of a >>> luxury car. To make Linux of necessary quality for use by >>> enterprise customers, it must be re-designed so that Linux also >>> becomes the software equivalent of a luxury car. This re-design is >>> not technologically feasible or even possible at the enterprise >>> level without (1) a high degree of design coordination, (2) access >>> to expensive and sophisticated design and testing equipment; (3) >>> access to UNIX code, methods and concepts; (4) UNIX architectural >>> experience; and (5) a very significant financial investment. >>> >>> 85. For example, Linux is currently capable of coordinating >>> the simultaneous performance of 4 computer processors. UNIX, on the >>> other hand, commonly links 16 processors and can successfully link >>> up to 32 processors for simultaneous operation. This difference in >>> memory management performance is very significant to enterprise >>> customers who need extremely high computing capabilities for complex >>> tasks. The ability to accomplish this task successfully has taken >>> AT&T, Novell and SCO at least 20 years, with access to expensive >>> equipment for design and testing, well-trained UNIX engineers and a >>> wealth of experience in UNIX methods and concepts. >>> >>> 86. It is not possible for Linux to rapidly reach UNIX >>> performance standards for complete enterprise functionality without >>> the misappropriation of UNIX code, methods or concepts to achieve >>> such performance, and coordination by a larger developer, such as IBM. >> > > > --- > Dustin Puryear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Puryear Information Technology > Windows, UNIX, and IT Consulting > http://www.puryear-it.com > > > > _______________________________________________ > General mailing list > [email protected] > http://oxygen.nocdirect.com/mailman/listinfo/general_brlug.net
