5 ms·

Of course Microsoft then licensed XENIX to the Santa Cruz Operation which after several years renamed it to SCO Unix. SCO eventually split apart, but the piece

by whyenot 10y ago

Of course Microsoft then licensed XENIX to the Santa Cruz Operation which after several years renamed it to SCO Unix. SCO eventually split apart, but the piece that ended up with SCO Unix renamed themselves the SCO Group. The SCO Group with (possibly indirect) financial backing from Microsoft, attempted to use XENIX in a number of copyright infringement lawsuits to attack Linux vendors.

vram22 10y ago
True. I read about parts of that history on Groklaw as those later events unfolded. For a while there, IIRC, based on what I was reading then, it looked like they might have nearly succeeded. Good that it didn't happen. IIRC, parts of the industry rose up together against it, also individuals. Don't know the full details.
- vram22 10y ago
  Refs.: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Groklaw https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Groklaw https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/SCO/Linux_controversies https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/SCO/Linux_controversies https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pamela_Jones https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pamela_Jones " In 2010 the Electronic Frontier Foundation awarded the Pioneer award to "Pamela Jones and the Groklaw Website" for "Legal Blogging".[3] "
kragen 10y ago
Hmm, there are a variety of inaccuracies in your short statement. Please carefully read the below so that you can be protected from propagating these errors in the future. · SCO Unix, although it incorporated some Xenix code, was very different from Xenix; it derived a lot from SVR4. · SCO basically went out of business, because their value proposition was "Unix, but on a regular PC so you don't have to buy an expensive RISC workstation." This stopped being a useful value proposition around 1997 because they couldn't keep up with Linux. So they sold the SCO Unix product line to Caldera, a Linux distributor, in 2001. I'm not 100% sure but I don't think any employees moved from SCO in Santa Cruz, California, to Caldera, which was in Utah. Maybe someone stuck around to smooth the transition? · Microsoft's backing of SCO was direct; they "bought a license" in 2003. Maybe they also did some indirect backing that I don't know about. · Caldera basically failed in the Linux distribution space in 2002, and the investors booted out CEO Ransom Love and replaced him with Darl McBride, formerly of Novell, IKON, a couple of startups, and Franklin Covey (!). · The copyright infringement lawsuits weren't based on Xenix. Nobody claimed Linux had copied from Xenix. Rather, they were based on Bell Labs Unix, from the 1970s, and AT&T Unix System Labs System V Unix. SCO had supposedly acquired the copyrights to these sometime in the 1990s, and in fact them giving permission is how the Lions book was legally republished in 1996 or 1997, but it turned out that in fact what they had acquired was not the copyright ownership, but a sublicenseable license to the copyright. The actual copyright rested with some company Novell had bought up at some point, so the lawsuit got thrown out of court. · The SCO Group sued not only Linux vendors, notably IBM, but also Linux users, notably AutoZone and DaimlerChrysler. This is an error of omission, but it's crucially important.
- whyenot 10y ago
  I appreciate your critique, but stand by my original statement. Let me address the items you bring up point by point. Please excuse my brevity. 1. Xenix was based on Bell Labs V7 and then AT&T SVR2, SCO Unix was based on SVR4. Xenix and SCO Unix shared code in addition to that derived from their common ancestry. Claiming that they were "very different" is obviously a matter of opinion. In my opinion, they were pretty similar. 2. SCO split into two pieces: one was sold to Caldera, the other became Tarantella. As far as your hypotheses about why SCO failed, I'm not seeing why it is relevant to the discussion. 3. Microsoft indirectly backed SCO Group through BayStar capital. Please verify this for yourself with a quick web search so you will be protected from propagating your misinformation in the future. 4. Not relevant. 5. Both XENIX and SCO Unix were derived from the same original codebase. SCO Unix would not exist if it were not for XENIX. 6. Actually, I think the AutoZone and DaimlerChrysler lawsuits are fairly unimportant within the context of the original discussion. To me, the interesting point is that MS had the foresight in 1979 to see that Unix would become a big thing and as a result created Xenix. Decades later, when Unix (Linux) was indeed a big thing, by proxy, it attempted to use XENIX to fight back at Unix (Linux) proponents.
  - scholia 10y ago
    > MS had the foresight in 1979 to see that Unix would become a big thing 1978, I think. The idea that Unix would take over from CP/M seemed pretty common at the time. The main problems were the high Unix prices and the cost of the hardware required. However, Microsoft got lucky with DOS on the IBM PC, and the PC market took off, and IBM also licensed Xenix.... Unfortunately, IBM decided that it needed to own the whole stack. This precluded using Unix/Xenix/etc as the PC client, which was a problem because Microsoft was now dependent on IBM. (Ballmer called it "riding the bear", followed by BOGU, for Bend Over, Grease Up.) IBM finally published its strategy in 1987 as Systems Application Architecture (SAA), which mandated the use of the extended edition of OS/2 (not available from Microsoft) as the PC client. SAA also included IBM's PS/2 micros with MCA expansion buses, intended to break the link with the DOS-based PC industry. Faced with possible exclusion from the IBM-controlled corporate market (1), the best deal Microsoft could get in 1985 was to co-develop OS/2, so Xenix -- despite having been by far the most popular Unix of its day -- became surplus to requirements. Another factor was the arrival of AT&T's System V in 1983. This showed AT&T was serious about selling Unix, and maybe Microsoft didn't think it could compete. What it did was contribute small parts of Xenix to SVR4 (1988). SVR4 was where AT&T & Sun decided to redefine and take over the IT industry, which led to the great Unix Wars and the creation of OSF etc. All of which infighting left the door open for Windows, DR-GEM, DesQview and many others.... Fun days.... (1) SAA flopped and IBM had to go back to making PC compatibles, so it turned out that IBM didn't control the corporate market as much as it thought.

by whyenot 10y ago

vram22 10y ago

True. I read about parts of that history on Groklaw as those later events unfolded. For a while there, IIRC, based on what I was reading then, it looked like they might have nearly succeeded. Good that it didn't happen. IIRC, parts of the industry rose up together against it, also individuals. Don't know the full details.

vram22 10y ago
Refs.: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Groklaw https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Groklaw https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/SCO/Linux_controversies https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/SCO/Linux_controversies https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pamela_Jones https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pamela_Jones " In 2010 the Electronic Frontier Foundation awarded the Pioneer award to "Pamela Jones and the Groklaw Website" for "Legal Blogging".[3] "

kragen 10y ago

Hmm, there are a variety of inaccuracies in your short statement. Please carefully read the below so that you can be protected from propagating these errors in the future. · SCO Unix, although it incorporated some Xenix code, was very different from Xenix; it derived a lot from SVR4. · SCO basically went out of business, because their value proposition was "Unix, but on a regular PC so you don't have to buy an expensive RISC workstation." This stopped being a useful value proposition around 1997 because they couldn't keep up with Linux. So they sold the SCO Unix product line to Caldera, a Linux distributor, in 2001. I'm not 100% sure but I don't think any employees moved from SCO in Santa Cruz, California, to Caldera, which was in Utah. Maybe someone stuck around to smooth the transition? · Microsoft's backing of SCO was direct; they "bought a license" in 2003. Maybe they also did some indirect backing that I don't know about. · Caldera basically failed in the Linux distribution space in 2002, and the investors booted out CEO Ransom Love and replaced him with Darl McBride, formerly of Novell, IKON, a couple of startups, and Franklin Covey (!). · The copyright infringement lawsuits weren't based on Xenix. Nobody claimed Linux had copied from Xenix. Rather, they were based on Bell Labs Unix, from the 1970s, and AT&T Unix System Labs System V Unix. SCO had supposedly acquired the copyrights to these sometime in the 1990s, and in fact them giving permission is how the Lions book was legally republished in 1996 or 1997, but it turned out that in fact what they had acquired was not the copyright ownership, but a sublicenseable license to the copyright. The actual copyright rested with some company Novell had bought up at some point, so the lawsuit got thrown out of court. · The SCO Group sued not only Linux vendors, notably IBM, but also Linux users, notably AutoZone and DaimlerChrysler. This is an error of omission, but it's crucially important.

whyenot 10y ago
I appreciate your critique, but stand by my original statement. Let me address the items you bring up point by point. Please excuse my brevity. 1. Xenix was based on Bell Labs V7 and then AT&T SVR2, SCO Unix was based on SVR4. Xenix and SCO Unix shared code in addition to that derived from their common ancestry. Claiming that they were "very different" is obviously a matter of opinion. In my opinion, they were pretty similar. 2. SCO split into two pieces: one was sold to Caldera, the other became Tarantella. As far as your hypotheses about why SCO failed, I'm not seeing why it is relevant to the discussion. 3. Microsoft indirectly backed SCO Group through BayStar capital. Please verify this for yourself with a quick web search so you will be protected from propagating your misinformation in the future. 4. Not relevant. 5. Both XENIX and SCO Unix were derived from the same original codebase. SCO Unix would not exist if it were not for XENIX. 6. Actually, I think the AutoZone and DaimlerChrysler lawsuits are fairly unimportant within the context of the original discussion. To me, the interesting point is that MS had the foresight in 1979 to see that Unix would become a big thing and as a result created Xenix. Decades later, when Unix (Linux) was indeed a big thing, by proxy, it attempted to use XENIX to fight back at Unix (Linux) proponents.
- scholia 10y ago
  > MS had the foresight in 1979 to see that Unix would become a big thing 1978, I think. The idea that Unix would take over from CP/M seemed pretty common at the time. The main problems were the high Unix prices and the cost of the hardware required. However, Microsoft got lucky with DOS on the IBM PC, and the PC market took off, and IBM also licensed Xenix.... Unfortunately, IBM decided that it needed to own the whole stack. This precluded using Unix/Xenix/etc as the PC client, which was a problem because Microsoft was now dependent on IBM. (Ballmer called it "riding the bear", followed by BOGU, for Bend Over, Grease Up.) IBM finally published its strategy in 1987 as Systems Application Architecture (SAA), which mandated the use of the extended edition of OS/2 (not available from Microsoft) as the PC client. SAA also included IBM's PS/2 micros with MCA expansion buses, intended to break the link with the DOS-based PC industry. Faced with possible exclusion from the IBM-controlled corporate market (1), the best deal Microsoft could get in 1985 was to co-develop OS/2, so Xenix -- despite having been by far the most popular Unix of its day -- became surplus to requirements. Another factor was the arrival of AT&T's System V in 1983. This showed AT&T was serious about selling Unix, and maybe Microsoft didn't think it could compete. What it did was contribute small parts of Xenix to SVR4 (1988). SVR4 was where AT&T & Sun decided to redefine and take over the IT industry, which led to the great Unix Wars and the creation of OSF etc. All of which infighting left the door open for Windows, DR-GEM, DesQview and many others.... Fun days.... (1) SAA flopped and IBM had to go back to making PC compatibles, so it turned out that IBM didn't control the corporate market as much as it thought.