UnixWare 7.1.4 is the latest in a long line of Unix releases from The SCO Group. It is a stable and mature Unix, with a variety of basic servers included, such as the Apache Web server and Squid, and is available in both single-user desktop-oriented versions and server versions. It has reasonable support for hardware, good documentation, and a nice integrated management utility that offers unified administration of the OS, hardware, and servers. Performance as a server platform is good, supporting a number of TCP sessions and Web server users, and file transfer performance is competitive with Linux and Windows platforms.
Review: UnixWare 7.1.4 is suitable for basic server duty
About The Author
Eugenia Loli
Ex-programmer, ex-editor in chief at OSNews.com, now a visual artist/filmmaker.
Follow me on Twitter @EugeniaLoli
just what I was looking for…..software that sues you when you try to migrate away from it…..
How is it that they can on the one hand, say that the GPL is a invalid unconstitutional license, and on the other hand, be releasing new versions of their operating system with all new versions of all these GPL’d utilities?
I suppose when they’re already fighting, what 3 lawsuits, that a few more can’t really hurt them that much.
Sometimes I wish I could report abuse on the article itself. News on SCO abuses me, they called me a pirate withaout any ground.
Looks like the article author has a severe case of the ignoring-the-elephant-in-the-room-syndrome.
I am not sure if SCO Unixware includes Samba, but did the Samba team not forbid SCO to use their software or something like that?
http://www.freebsd.org/
http://www.debian.org/
http://www.openbsd.org/
http://www.redhat.com/software/rhel/
http://www.novell.com/linux/
http://wwws.sun.com/software/product_categories/operating_systems.h…
http://www.gentoo.org/
http://www.netbsd.org/
http://www.mandrakelinux.com/
http://www.dragonflybsd.org/
Hello my name is ######, and I was a SCO admin for 5 years. I have been clean for 1 year. As soon as I found out that SCO was suing IBM over linux, I knew it was time to get a different job. There are still a huge number of SCO systems out in the world, but I knew that SCO’s time was coming to an end. I now work mostly with Windows systems, and the only time I get to unix geek-out is when I play with my Zaurus.
This company is on the road to extinction, they bringed it onto themselves. I guess this article is here just for the sake of history. Right?
Those stupid people from SCO run Linux while fighting Linux.
Netcraft says :
http://uptime.netcraft.com/up/graph/?host=www.sco.com
unknown
Apache
9-Aug-2004
216.250.128.21
NFT
Linux
Apache
10-May-2004
216.250.128.21
NFT
Linux
Apache
31-Mar-2004
216.250.128.12
NFT
unknown
Apache
30-Mar-2004
216.250.128.12
NFT
Linux
Apache
8-Mar-2004
216.250.128.12
NFT
unknown
Apache
31-Jan-2004
216.250.128.12
NFT
NetBSD/OpenBSD
Apache
30-Jan-2004
216.250.128.12
NFT
unknown
Apache
29-Jan-2004
216.250.128.12
NFT
Linux
Apache
28-Jan-2004
216.250.128.12
NFT
unknown
Apache
27-Jan-2004
216.250.128.12
NFT
Those stupid people from SCO run Linux while fighting Linux.
Well they own a good chunk of the source code in Linux
Quoted from http://linuxtoday.com/developer/2003082001326OSCYNT
“The strength of Open Source/Free Software is that it is available to all without restrictions on fields of endeavor, as the Samba Team believes the ability to freely use, modify and learn from software code is one of the grounding principles of computer science, and a basic freedom for all.
Because of this, we believe that the Samba must remain true to our principles and be freely available to use even in ways we personally disapprove of.
Even when used by rank hypocrites like SCO.
…
Samba Team. ”
So even though the Samba team criticised SCO’s hypocrisy, they did not prevent SCO from distributing Samba. I guess they could reasonably argue that SCO do not agree to the terms of the GPL and have no right to distribute GPL’d code/applications.
SCO ( parts of it) was brought by Caldera ( a linux distro ),
Caldera then changed their name to SCO …
SCO ( Caldera ) now sues Linux ( IBM, and users )
Thanx for enlighten me on that.
I wished they (Samba Team) would have made it impossible to use Samba so SCO Unixware missed a very vital part.
I saw (Yahoo) the stocks of SCO raised again. The game is paying off..pitty.
since SCO just like IBM and MS has a big bag of bad history I guess it’s safe to say that if you can use IBM or MS software you shouldn’t have any problem with anything from SCO.
It’s nice to see a review of Unixware and like I said. SCO is hardly the worst company out there…
Thanx for enlighten me on that.
I wished they (Samba Team) would have made it impossible to use Samba so SCO Unixware missed a very vital part.
I saw (Yahoo) the stocks of SCO raised again. The game is paying off..pitty.
Erm, what is free software worth if you prohibit people from using it? That doesn’t really seem fair to me. What if there are people who use Unixware, have no interest in silly GPL issues and lawsuites and all that crap, they’d be forced to use something else. That’d cost them a lot of money, without them doing anything wrong.
It’s better to think a little bit further before making such a nonsense statement.
who were the original developers of SCO Unix, OpenServer, UnixWare. These very intelligent and decent people now call themselves Tarantella, Inc. and have nothing at all to do with the the bottom feeders at SCO Group!
Therefore to say: “UnixWare 7.1.4 is the latest in a long line of Unix releases from The SCO Group” is blatent nonsense. SCO Group was Caldera in a former incarnation. Caldera purchased some Unix stuff from the original Santa Cruz Operation, Inc. Just what they purchased remains to be determined. What exactly they’ve done with it since then other than launch a lot of bogus litigation also remains to be determined.
>It’s better to think a little bit further before making such > a nonsense statement.
If they (SCO) would not accept the GPL lincense as valid, and they openly said they do not, the Samba team has every right to make sure SCO would not include Samba. Customers of SCO Unixware would be free to download the Samba source and be free do to anything with it as long as they would accept the GPL license.
Gues what i did not hit even the “Report Abuse” link, i guess your staement is more nonsense
but that is not uncommon for you.
Really? Well, they’re sure doing a great job of pretending
Please check out the following links:
http://www.sco.com/products/unixware714/
http://www.sco.com/company/
http://www.sco.com/company/history.html
Of course, this doesn’t quite matchup with the company history of Tarantella, so SCO ( Group | INC | SOBs) may
be fudging the facts.
http://www.tarantella.com/company/history.html
Unixware does not have “adequate” support for hardware – it does not even support Opteron.
You also fail to mention the price. Once buyers see SCO’s pricing scheme it is unlikely they will find this product favorable even vs Windows let alone free software.
BayStar was right – if SCO wants to litigate as a business practice it should simply get out of the software biz and litigate full time. Certainly buyers for this new Unixware will be hard to find.
You also fail to mention the price. Once buyers see SCO’s pricing scheme it is unlikely they will find this product favorable even vs Windows let alone free software.
True, its more expensive that Windows, Solaris and Enterprise Linux combined!
Had SCO improved hardware support, and bundled their whole product line up, and sold the whole thing for $699 unlimited clients, they would make a killing in the market place. The problem? they would rather sue, than actually operate like a business selling a product at a reasonable price.
I am not sure if SCO Unixware includes Samba, but did the Samba team not forbid SCO to use their software or something like that?
I know this is the case for Nmap:
SCO Corporation of Lindon, Utah (formerly Caldera) has lately taken to an extortion campaign of demanding license fees from Linux users for code that they themselves knowingly distributed under the terms of the GNU GPL. They have also refused to accept the GPL, claiming that some preposterous theory of theirs makes it invalid (and even unconstitutional)! Meanwhile they have distributed GPL-licensed Nmap in (at least) their “Supplemental Open Source CD”. In response to these blatant violations, and in accordance with section 4 of the GPL, we hereby terminate SCO’s rights to redistribute any versions of Nmap in any of their products, including (without limitation) OpenLinux, Skunkware, OpenServer, and UNIXWare. We have also stopped supporting the OpenServer and UNIXWare platforms.
(source: http://www.insecure.org/stf/Nmap-3.50-Release.html)
Thanx, it must have been Nmap then wich i red about.
If only the Samba team and the Apache team would decide that, because if find Nmaps grounds valid, SCO would have a much
harder time selling its Unixware.
Interesting…
http://google.com/search?q=bastards
News of SCO releasing software is kind of like news about a talking dog – nobody cares about what it says, the amazing thing is that it talks at all. Given SCO’s inclination to make their money from lawsuits rather than selling a product, I wasn’t sure there were still any software developers on their payroll.
Apache can’t stop SCO from using their software using the current license. (It’s not GPL):
2. Grant of Copyright License. Subject to the terms and conditions of this License, each Contributor hereby grants to You a perpetual, worldwide, non-exclusive, no-charge, royalty-free, irrevocable copyright license to reproduce, prepare Derivative Works of, publicly display, publicly perform, sublicense, and distribute the Work and such Derivative Works in Source or Object form.
from http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0
>>Really? Well, they’re sure doing a great job of pretending…
Not even doing a very good job at that:
http://www.tarantella.com/company/history.html
“2001 Company changes name to Tarantella, Inc.”
http://www.sco.com/company/history.html
“2002 Caldera changes its name to The SCO Group (SCO), returning to the SCO brand.”
They especially do not highlight that they were NOT SCO prior to 2002! They just list everything that Santa Cruz Operation did from 1979 until Caldera bought their OS division! Like I said, they’re bottom feeders, nothing more nothing less.
They do have a nice graphic, though:
http://www.sco.com/images/company/sco_history.jpg
???