What Monterey actually was
What Monterey actually was
Posted Mar 11, 2003 17:49 UTC (Tue) by james (subscriber, #1325)In reply to: From the news.com article by mattdm
Parent article: A look at the SCO complaint
The even more funny part about of that claim is the part where they say IBM gained this elusive and mystical Unix-on-Intel knowledge while working with SCO on Monterey -- which was, of course, Itanium, and not really relevant to x86 Intel at all.
Actually, Monterey was AIX with Unixware and Sequent technology, aimed at POWER / PowerPC, Itanium, and x86.
I understood that the POWER / PowerPC side of things was commercialised as AIX 5L. There was an IA64 version of AIX 5L, too: the Bull "freeware site" for quite some time had IA64 AIX binaries of some popular Open Source software. (Bull licences AIX for use on their Escala range of RS/6000 compatibles).
I never understood quite what happened to the x86 version (which was intended to be the successor to Unixware and Open Server). If we get to see an IBM riposte, we might find out.
James.
Posted Mar 14, 2003 11:56 UTC (Fri)
by Wol (subscriber, #4433)
[Link]
IBM sales and marketing suddenly realised that every time they talked about AIX/x86, the customers changed the subject to linux. Every time they tried to interest a customer in "possibly buying AIX/x86" the customer said "what's the point - linux is there already". You can spend all the millions you like on advertising, but if everybody you talk to sniffs at what you're trying to sell, it's money down the drain. Cheers,
What happened to Monterey x86?What Monterey actually was
Wol