5 ms·

I wonder if anybody here can correct my memory. When Microsoft sold Xenix to SCO, I seem to recall that part of the deal was Microsoft agreeing to not compete

I wonder if anybody here can correct my memory. When Microsoft sold Xenix to SCO, I seem to recall that part of the deal was Microsoft agreeing to not compete in the Unix market. Today, Microsoft is embracing Linux with their WSL stuff and that certainly impacts the Unix market. Maybe the 1997 agreement between the two companies ended Microsoft's exile from Unix-land or maybe when Caldera bought SCO's Unix business the Microsoft agreement didn't transfer? And I realize that, unlike macOS, Linux isn't Unix but it does compete in that market.

quags 4y ago
That sounds like Apple agreeing not to go into the music business with their settlement with apple music - and then just doing what they want any way. Microsoft being so large, could just do it and settle later.
bitwize 4y ago
Back in 1999 Microsoft bought Interix, and marketed it as Windows Services for Unix under their own banner. So the agreement was probably non-binding as of 1999 at the latest. Microsoft just didn't see Unix, and especially Linux, as competition because they felt what they built was better. Interix/SFU was a compatibility path to migrate Unix devs to Windows NT more than anything; it was more like Cygwin than like WSL. They figured that Linux, and the dirty hippies that built it, would be easily swept away by Microsoft's mighty hand. Only when the Gates-Ballmer dynasty stepped down would the company be convinced otherwise.
- ghaff 4y ago
  There was definitely a period in the 90s when a lot of people and companies expected/were resigned to Windows NT completely dominating both the desktop and the server. Even companies like IBM that were probably less convinced had backup plans like Monterey in IBM's case which factored into the SCO lawsuit.
  - taftster 4y ago
    And what's interesting, if the SCO lawsuit had gone any other way, Windows NT would probably have ended up completely dominating. Linux wouldn't be here and probably neither would SCO Linux either. What a dire state that would be.
    - ghaff 4y ago
      I'm pretty sure that even if SCO had all the rights to Unix that it thought it did [0], IBM would have found some way to make the problem go away even if involved buying SCO or effectively paying it protection money. Though from what I've seen of SCO's claims (I co-wrote one of the expert witness reports), it's hard for me to imagine they had much of a chance, Boies or no Boies. [0] Which remains one of the most inexplicable aspects of the whole case to this day whether Novell pulled a fast one and/or SCO's lawyering was just incompetent.
      - taftster 4y ago
        Yes, but honest question, do you really think that if IBM had purchased SCO (and maybe throw Novell in there too) that Linux would have still had any chance? I don't know what the outcome, but I just think there's too many possibilities at that point for Linux to just stay hobbyist without corporate adoption (fearing now IBM licensing/lawyering at that point).
        ghaff 4y ago
        At the time of the SCO lawsuit, IBM had already made a huge bet on Linux. [1] Basically, that's why SCO sued them. And they had their own Unix (AIX) which they could have ported to x86 if they had wanted to--but they didn't. Here's what the person who headed IBM's Linux initiative told me a couple of years back: And I still remember very well in December of ‘99, I called Sam Palmisano, the head of IBM Systems Group. And I said, Sam, the task force recommends that we should embrace Linux. And Sam said, okay, Irving, we will do that. But you have to now come over and run an IBM Linux initiative. And I said to Sam, okay, we were pretty much done with our internet strategy. So I was no longer needed to run the Internet division And I said to Sam, when do you want to announce it? And Sam said, how about now? And I said Sam. It's the Christmas holidays. Maybe we should wait until the new year. And in the second week of January of 2000, we made a major announcement saying that IBM would embrace Linux across all of these offerings. And in fact, later that month in January of 2000, I gave a keynote at LinuxWorld, which was taking place in the Javits Center in New York City, about IBM’s Linux initiative. [1] https://blog.irvingwb.com/blog/2006/01/ibms_linux_init.html https://blog.irvingwb.com/blog/2006/01/ibms_linux_init.html
- mananaysiempre 4y ago
  Interix/SFU/SUA was only the last pre-Linux iteration of Unix on top of Windows—a POSIX subsystem was included in NT from the beginning, even if it was practically useless to the point of having no network access (I believe early design documentation explicitly says it’s there to satisfy government contract requirements).
- dekhn 4y ago
  Side note: I purchased Interix and used it to port a million-line C++/X11/Motif/OpenGL app to windows (successfully, although there wasn't really any demand for the result). Must have been '96 or '97. I didn't find it compelling, and the authors of the code decided to rewrite a new system from scratch, using Python and Tk (along with C++ and OpenGL) to be portable to all the commonly used platforms. That worked on Windows, Linux, IRIX, and later Mac OS X for at least 2 decades(!) with very little platform-specific code (except in the Tk dependency). They finally switched to Python/C++/Qt/OpenGL a few years back which I expect will work for another 20 years.
- frandroid 4y ago
  I recall the Halloween memos...
znpy 4y ago
Linux is not unix, by the way. Besides the obvious things (linux is just a kernel), the unix specification has many mandates in terms of API (for compatibility), in terms of behaviour and even in terms of commands and utilities (a specification of a vi editor is also in the unix specification iirc). So yeah as long ad Microsoft doesn’t try and get anything certified as unix, they’re fine I guess (but I’m not a lawyer). Worth noting: mac os is unix (every release gets certified iirc).
- oblio 4y ago
  Amusingly, Microsoft used to sell Xenix, which was a certified Unix IIRC. That predates the SCO lawsuit by about 2 decades.

quags 4y ago

That sounds like Apple agreeing not to go into the music business with their settlement with apple music - and then just doing what they want any way. Microsoft being so large, could just do it and settle later.

bitwize 4y ago

Back in 1999 Microsoft bought Interix, and marketed it as Windows Services for Unix under their own banner. So the agreement was probably non-binding as of 1999 at the latest. Microsoft just didn't see Unix, and especially Linux, as competition because they felt what they built was better. Interix/SFU was a compatibility path to migrate Unix devs to Windows NT more than anything; it was more like Cygwin than like WSL. They figured that Linux, and the dirty hippies that built it, would be easily swept away by Microsoft's mighty hand. Only when the Gates-Ballmer dynasty stepped down would the company be convinced otherwise.

ghaff 4y ago
There was definitely a period in the 90s when a lot of people and companies expected/were resigned to Windows NT completely dominating both the desktop and the server. Even companies like IBM that were probably less convinced had backup plans like Monterey in IBM's case which factored into the SCO lawsuit.
- taftster 4y ago
  And what's interesting, if the SCO lawsuit had gone any other way, Windows NT would probably have ended up completely dominating. Linux wouldn't be here and probably neither would SCO Linux either. What a dire state that would be.
  - ghaff 4y ago
    I'm pretty sure that even if SCO had all the rights to Unix that it thought it did [0], IBM would have found some way to make the problem go away even if involved buying SCO or effectively paying it protection money. Though from what I've seen of SCO's claims (I co-wrote one of the expert witness reports), it's hard for me to imagine they had much of a chance, Boies or no Boies. [0] Which remains one of the most inexplicable aspects of the whole case to this day whether Novell pulled a fast one and/or SCO's lawyering was just incompetent.
    - taftster 4y ago
      Yes, but honest question, do you really think that if IBM had purchased SCO (and maybe throw Novell in there too) that Linux would have still had any chance? I don't know what the outcome, but I just think there's too many possibilities at that point for Linux to just stay hobbyist without corporate adoption (fearing now IBM licensing/lawyering at that point).
      - ghaff 4y ago
        At the time of the SCO lawsuit, IBM had already made a huge bet on Linux. [1] Basically, that's why SCO sued them. And they had their own Unix (AIX) which they could have ported to x86 if they had wanted to--but they didn't. Here's what the person who headed IBM's Linux initiative told me a couple of years back: And I still remember very well in December of ‘99, I called Sam Palmisano, the head of IBM Systems Group. And I said, Sam, the task force recommends that we should embrace Linux. And Sam said, okay, Irving, we will do that. But you have to now come over and run an IBM Linux initiative. And I said to Sam, okay, we were pretty much done with our internet strategy. So I was no longer needed to run the Internet division And I said to Sam, when do you want to announce it? And Sam said, how about now? And I said Sam. It's the Christmas holidays. Maybe we should wait until the new year. And in the second week of January of 2000, we made a major announcement saying that IBM would embrace Linux across all of these offerings. And in fact, later that month in January of 2000, I gave a keynote at LinuxWorld, which was taking place in the Javits Center in New York City, about IBM’s Linux initiative. [1] https://blog.irvingwb.com/blog/2006/01/ibms_linux_init.html https://blog.irvingwb.com/blog/2006/01/ibms_linux_init.html
mananaysiempre 4y ago
Interix/SFU/SUA was only the last pre-Linux iteration of Unix on top of Windows—a POSIX subsystem was included in NT from the beginning, even if it was practically useless to the point of having no network access (I believe early design documentation explicitly says it’s there to satisfy government contract requirements).
dekhn 4y ago
Side note: I purchased Interix and used it to port a million-line C++/X11/Motif/OpenGL app to windows (successfully, although there wasn't really any demand for the result). Must have been '96 or '97. I didn't find it compelling, and the authors of the code decided to rewrite a new system from scratch, using Python and Tk (along with C++ and OpenGL) to be portable to all the commonly used platforms. That worked on Windows, Linux, IRIX, and later Mac OS X for at least 2 decades(!) with very little platform-specific code (except in the Tk dependency). They finally switched to Python/C++/Qt/OpenGL a few years back which I expect will work for another 20 years.
frandroid 4y ago
I recall the Halloween memos...

znpy 4y ago

Linux is not unix, by the way. Besides the obvious things (linux is just a kernel), the unix specification has many mandates in terms of API (for compatibility), in terms of behaviour and even in terms of commands and utilities (a specification of a vi editor is also in the unix specification iirc). So yeah as long ad Microsoft doesn’t try and get anything certified as unix, they’re fine I guess (but I’m not a lawyer). Worth noting: mac os is unix (every release gets certified iirc).

oblio 4y ago
Amusingly, Microsoft used to sell Xenix, which was a certified Unix IIRC. That predates the SCO lawsuit by about 2 decades.