| Weekly edition | Kernel | Security | Distributions | Search |
| Archives | Calendar | Subscribe | Write for LWN | LWN.net FAQ |
The "SCO" sources
The "SCO" sources
Posted Jan 6, 2005 14:28 UTC (Thu) by cate (subscriber, #1359)Parent article: The Grumpy Editor's guide to 2005
If SCO will vanish, who will buy the "UNIX" sources?
I hope some friend of us will bay it, and that he will release sources with some free license, to eliminate all future possible claim, but it is possible that another venture capital company will try again (with cheaper sources)
(Log in to post comments)
The "SCO" sources
Posted Jan 6, 2005 17:34 UTC (Thu) by vonbrand (subscriber, #4458) [Link]
By now, the Unix source code is of purely archeologic interest. What matters new developments inside that code (developments that by no stretch belong to SCOX), like journalling filesystems, SMP, NUMA support, drivers for sundry exotic (and not so exotic) iron.
Nope, it isn't worth much. SCOX has done no real development on that, whatever was useful in there has long been taken over (or surpassed) by *BSD and Linux. It is said that IBM's AIX has almost no original Unix code left in it, and it sounds credible. If/when Sun opens up Solaris, it would be interesting to let the code comparators (developed for the SCOX nonsense) loose on it vs the (open-sourced) ancient Unix versions...
The "SCO" sources, "archeologic interest only"
Posted Jan 12, 2005 11:34 UTC (Wed) by Duncan (guest, #6647) [Link]
I'd tend to agree. Like it or not, wherever you are in relation to FLOSSand Linux, in the *ix universe, Linux seems to be fast replacing any form
of Unix as /the/ reference implementation. SCOG, SUN, IBM/AIX, the BSDs,
they /all/ make a pretty big deal of their Linux compatibility in some way
or another. Why? Because the simple fact of the matter is, Linux now has
momentum behind it like nothing else, proprietary or libre/free/open, and
pointedly including not only *ix but MS (which has pretty much stagnated,
by virtue of the fact that where it is strong, there's nowhere else left
to grow, and where it isn't, it just doesn't seem to have had as good a
luck lately, probably because everybody knows how they play and is wary
enough to keep them out of monopoly contention in any market they don't
already super-saturate) as well.
It's scary in many ways for the uninitiated, because Linux looks about to
steam roll everything just as MS did. However, the big and defining
difference, and really, the only reason Linux has been able to build the
momentum it has, is because of that copy-left license -- the distribution
model and license means it's very much the /user/ in charge, and enough
big companies have realized that fact makes Linux the one and only
really /safe/ investment because it cannot be co-opted, that the Linux
movement is quickly not just "snowballing" but "avalanche-ing" (that is,
becoming many snowballs, each of which is snowballing, compounding the
effect).
Duncan