SCO v. IBM reopened

Posted Jun 17, 2013 18:01 UTC (Mon) by JoeF (guest, #4486)
In reply to: SCO v. IBM reopened by sbergman27
Parent article: SCO v. IBM reopened

In the early 90ies, SCO actually not only offered Xenix, but they had SCO Unix.
It was relatively bad then already.
The lab where I worked as an undergrad had a SCO Unix license, but we mostly worked with HP-UX, AIX, Apollo, etc.
Back then, I tried to get the GNU toolchain running on SCO Unix, and had tons of problems with it.
Then, I found Linux, version 0.12, and it already came with all the GNU tools. I never looked back...

SCO v. IBM reopened

Posted Jun 17, 2013 21:47 UTC (Mon) by sbergman27 (guest, #10767) [Link] (1 responses)

SCO Unix 3.2 v4.x. It, more than any other x86 Unix of the time, provided a stable target for real applications. Similarly to what Red Hat does today. But back then GNU's tools chain was too immature to support the major x86 version of Unix.

Yes, GCC etc. was more trouble to get working on real Unix than it was worth, back then. Much has changed over the years. By the time of early Open Server 5, you'd have an argument that support for the tool chain which is common today should have been better. But not during the SCO Unix 3.2v4.x years. Very few cared.

SCO v. IBM reopened

Posted Jun 19, 2013 18:32 UTC (Wed) by jwarnica (subscriber, #27492) [Link]

Cue autoconf and friends.

For anyone who doubts how absurd the Unix universe was, back in the day, the necessity of the checks done by autoconf should be all the proof they need.