decoration decoration
Stories

GROKLAW
When you want to know more...
decoration
For layout only
Home
Archives
Site Map
Search
About Groklaw
Awards
Legal Research
Timelines
ApplevSamsung
ApplevSamsung p.2
ArchiveExplorer
Autozone
Bilski
Cases
Cast: Lawyers
Comes v. MS
Contracts/Documents
Courts
DRM
Gordon v MS
GPL
Grokdoc
HTML How To
IPI v RH
IV v. Google
Legal Docs
Lodsys
MS Litigations
MSvB&N
News Picks
Novell v. MS
Novell-MS Deal
ODF/OOXML
OOXML Appeals
OraclevGoogle
Patents
ProjectMonterey
Psystar
Quote Database
Red Hat v SCO
Salus Book
SCEA v Hotz
SCO Appeals
SCO Bankruptcy
SCO Financials
SCO Overview
SCO v IBM
SCO v Novell
SCO:Soup2Nuts
SCOsource
Sean Daly
Software Patents
Switch to Linux
Transcripts
Unix Books
Your contributions keep Groklaw going.
To donate to Groklaw 2.0:

Groklaw Gear

Click here to send an email to the editor of this weblog.


Contact PJ

Click here to email PJ. You won't find me on Facebook Donate Paypal


User Functions

Username:

Password:

Don't have an account yet? Sign up as a New User

No Legal Advice

The information on Groklaw is not intended to constitute legal advice. While Mark is a lawyer and he has asked other lawyers and law students to contribute articles, all of these articles are offered to help educate, not to provide specific legal advice. They are not your lawyers.

Here's Groklaw's comments policy.


What's New

STORIES
No new stories

COMMENTS last 48 hrs
No new comments


Sponsors

Hosting:
hosted by ibiblio

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

Webmaster
More Evidence Project Monterey Partners Knew Linux Was the Future
Monday, April 25 2005 @ 10:28 PM EDT

Here's some interesting evidence from 1999 and 2000, and it supports the evidence Groklaw has already found, namely that not only did IBM know, at some point during Project Monterey, that Linux was the future and that Project Monterey would be an upgrade path to Linux for many of its customers, so did everyone else, including SCO. Which SCO? Both of them. Santa Cruz and Caldera. They all knew.

Also, someone who worked for Caldera back then, Kurt Wall, has now stepped forward. He says he was at a Caldera company meeting after Project Monterey was killed, and that at the meeting, Ransom Love said it was a good thing that Project Monterey was no more:

I remember very clearly Ransom saying (in front of one of the all-hands meeting I mentioned earlier) that Caldera were pleased that the Monterey project had been cancelled because it would allow IBM to focus its efforts on AIX-5L, which would benefit both Linux and Caldera. Again, the emphasis was growing Linux to the point it would run efficiently on seriously high-powered hardware and get Linux into the data center.

I asked him to verify this statement, and he has conferred, he tells me, with a colleague, who confirms his memory. Remember that the Project Monterey contract was between Santa Cruz and IBM, not Caldera (now SCO) and IBM. More from Mr. Wall in a moment. The article, "Caldera-SCO deal may scuttle Monterey," by John Taschek, also presents a very different picture of SCO's financial realities than the SCO v. IBM complaint. As you recall, they painted a rosy picture of the company's business success back then, interrupted only by IBM's breaking the Project Monterey contract. The article, though, says UnixWare was already slowly dying, before IBM made the contributions to Linux that SCO is in a snit about, and that everyone saw that there was a shift happening to Linux as a business platform.

Here's what Taschek says about SCO's business situation and Linux, and I've marked in red the pertinent parts:

Caldera is in a predicament. Linux "enthusiasts" almost universally despise the company, yet Caldera remains one of the few trusted distributors of Linux software for business users. So what does Caldera do? It scores SCO, which is also almost universally despised by Linux enthusiasts. SCO, however, still has distribution power, although lately, of course, the company hasn't distributed a lot of anything.

I feel bad for SCO because its Unix Ware operating system is clearly class work. Unfortunately, the company has been manipulated nearly out of existence by a series of purchases involving UnixWare, market shifts and a couple of bad choices . . .

In this case, the shift is clearly to Linux as a business platform. Everyone can see that this is happening, but no company really knows how to take advantage of it, particularly because Linux is free and so are the enthusiasts who do most of the support work on it right now.

So business wasn't good, and Caldera was able to buy SCO assets as a result, and everyone saw a shift to Linux as a business platform. Why, then, did Caldera want to buy UnixWare assets, if it was dying a slow and agonizing death? Was it for the code, or for something else? Let's let the article tell us:

Caldera clearly believes that to get its technology into play, it has to have a distribution channel and a support staff. The stock/cash agreement is an inexpensive way to accomplish both goals.

What's completely unclear about this deal is what will happen with UnixWare. Caldera CEO Ransom Love said in published reports that it's status quo for UnixWare, which apparently means it will continue to suffer a slow, agonizing death until the IBM-backed Project Monterey rolls around.

And what about Project Monterey? Would that save them? Here's Taschek's opinion, back in August of 2000:

It once sounded like a killer operating system, but now I don't see a lot of potential in it.

IBM has been marketing the heck out of Linux lately. The company is boasting about Linux on mainframes, Linux on NetFinity and even (eventually) Linux on AS/400s. There's not a lot of room for Monterey, especially since it's easy to speculate that 64-bit Linux will beat 64-bit Monterey out of the gate. This means that Monterey is only good as an upgrade path from UnixWare.

"Only good as an upgrade path from UnixWare." Could it get any clearer? Because of the delays on Merced, by the time Project Monterey was going to be ready, 64-bit Linux would beat it. Now can you understand what happened to Project Monterey? Why would any company choose to push a product that would be beaten hands down by Linux out of the gate by the time it was ready? Corporations are supposed to rationally analyze the market and give customers what they clamor for, are they not?

But, skeptics may say, that article was written in 2000; earlier, it was a different story. Was it? How about we go back to 1999, a full year earlier, to an article Jason Perlow wrote, "'Penguinitis' Sweeps Monterey UNIX Consortium."

We have only the first bit of the article, and we're wondering if any of you with Lexis can get the rest for us? Even if not, look what it says in the excerpt on Linux Today, dated August 20, 1999:

"Partners are increasingly Linux-happy--and even SCO seems to be hedging its bets.

"Linux fever is infecting even the staunchest Unix advocates, as evidenced this week at SCO Forum in Santa Cruz."

"While the partners involved in the Monterey Project--the initiative between SCO, IBM, Intel, Sequent Computer and Compaq Computer Corp. to create a high-volume unified UNIX--were upbeat on Monterey's prospects, they still had Linux on the brain."

So they *all* had Linux on the brain, back in the summer of 1999. Linux fever, he calls it. Even SCO.

UPDATE: Chris Brown and rm6990 found the complete article on Wayback. You can also read it, under the title "Unix Forum Cheers Linux." It adds the following information:

In a Project Monterey progress report issued this week, IBM explained its evolving to a multi-tier UNIX strategy, with Linux the operating system of choice for entry-level UNIX workstations and Internet servers, and Monterey replacing AIX for line-of-business and high-availability applications. The previous week, IBM announced at LinuxWorld Expo that it would be joining the Trillian Consortium, a group of companies, including SGI, Hewlett-Packard Co. and VA Linux Systems, working to port Linux to Intel's IA-64 architecture. . . .

SCO, too, has jumped on the Linux bandwagon, in spite of its role as one of the Project Monterey ringleaders. This week SCO announced its own Linux and open source professional services offering.

Many of the software vendors exhibiting at SCO Forum were demonstrating proudly Linux versions of their SCO offerings, and distributed demo CDs that ran on both platforms.

This is August of 1999, before Caldera bought the SCO assets. IBM was publicly announcing its Linux involvement, with SCO right there, at a Project Monterey press conference, no less. So when nowSCO told the court it had no idea IBM was supporting Linux and it was completely blindsided, was that true?

The market made any rational company go that way. SCO, oldSCO itself, was jumping on the Linux bandwagon. The handwriting was on the wall, and everyone knew it, the article says. To give you the full flavor of the time, here is the sole Talkback that has survived:

Murray Todd Williams - Subject:
Claims about the deliverable features of a product that is not even expected out for over a year (and mentioning features expected two years from now) reminds me a bit about NT and 95 before they were first released. As far as I'm concerned, Monterey isn't even in the picture until it actually manifests itself.

I'm amazed by Linux's laundry list for kernel version 2.4, which if released by year's end will be simply amazing. I don't think we can even begin to guess what Linux will have accomplished in that same amount of time!!

If you were IBM or any other rational company back then, what would you have done, faced with Merced delays and the explosion of interest in Linux and its increasing technical capabilities even back in 1999? Would you stick with a product no one much was interested in any more? That Linux probably could beat? Remember this is 1999, prior to IBM donating the code that SCO now objects to. The truly ironic thing is this: had Caldera stuck with Linux and IBM, they might have been the beneficiaries of Linux fever. Now, they are its road kill instead.

Now, about that ex-Caldera employee. His name is Kurt Wall, and he sent me the following information, and he also sent me a representative sample of the email he mentions he still has on a CD, so I could see it to verify what he writes.

Wall was a tech writer at Caldera back when the company was working on the Linux Kernel Personality. I'm sure you remember that it was code that SCO-Caldera worked on, to make it possible to run Linux applications on UnixWare and/or OpenServer, and no doubt you recall the accusations about Linux code being copied into the LKP, without giving back the modifications, as per the GPL. There is a dispute about that issue, but the point Mr. Wall makes is that SCO and Caldera worked very closely together on the LKP, and the whole point of the LKP was to let customers get what they wanted: Linux. Of course, back then, Caldera (now SCO) was a Linux company. For that reason, one would think that IBM's support for Linux was to their benefit:

My name is  Kurt Wall. I worked for Caldera from September 1999 to February 2001. I started as a technical writer and eventually became the manager of the technical documentation group. I wrote much of the documentation for three releases of the OpenLinux desktop product, one release of the OpenLinux server product, and the only release (that I can recall) of the OpenLinux eBuilder product. I was actively involved in the day-to-day work of creating and maintaining Caldera's Linux products.

Within perhaps two months of the announcement that Caldera was going to buy the OS and professional services pieces of the Santa Cruz Operation ("old SCO"), personnel in both of Caldera's facilities (Erlangen and Orem) were working with personnel from old SCO to combine operations. We worked increasingly closely with old SCO from shortly after the purchase was announced until I left in early 2001. I find it difficult to believe that SCO's corporate memory is so bad, especially insofar as some of the people still there were involved at a high level with the IBM-related activities.

As Caldera proceeded with the purchase of SCO, there was a lot of talk about the "Linux Kernel Personality," also known as "LKP." LKP was an effort (actively pursued at SCO and at Caldera) to run Linux on top of UnixWare in order to help Linux scale better on large SMP systems. I attended numerous meetings about this, including a couple of company-wide meetings in which Ransom Love, then Caldera's CEO, used PowerPoint slides to illustrate the performance differences between UnixWare on SMP and Linux on SMP (in 2000, the differences were pretty stark, and Linux was coming out on the bottom). The intent was *expressly* to leverage UnixWare's performance while taking advantage of Linux's low cost and popularity and get Linux into data centers, a niche into which Linux had not yet moved. Remember, we were all still using kernel 2.2.

The point here is that SCO's own engineers, especially the kernel engineers in the New Jersey office, worked very closely with Caldera's engineers to get LKP working. I recall a release being delayed to wait for some last-minute fixes. I have a CD-ROM full of email discussing precisely this, and more. In another meeting, a conference call with developers from New Jersey, Erlangen, and Orem, during which issues relating to problems getting UnixWare and Linux to share file descriptors and device nodes was discussed. In yet another meeting, we debated whether and how to lay out the CD containing the LKP itself, finally having to settle on the SCO engineer's insistence on stuffing everything into the root directory (for a reason that eludes me now) - those from Caldera were dismayed at that disorder and poor planning such a CD layout betrayed, but that's a gripe for another day.

To be sure, as a technical writer, I wasn't involved in the the lowest-level, nitty-gritty detail. But, I was, as a member of Caldera's engineering group, close enough to what was going on to be very clear about who was doing what. Indeed, after I became the manager of the technical documentation, I was even more plugged in to the deluge of email and meetings in which some of the discussions took place.

Indeed, if any code was copied or at least studied back then, it was Linux kernel code, because UnixWare was being modified to allow Linux to run on top of it.

SCO has recently claimed to know nothing about IBM's intentions vis-a-vis Linux and Project Monterey. It simply isn't so. I remember very clearly Ransom saying (in front of one of the all-hands meeting I mentioned earlier) that Caldera were pleased that the Monterey project had been cancelled because it would allow IBM to focus its efforts on AIX-5L, which would benefit both Linux and Caldera. Again, the emphasis was growing Linux to the point it would run efficiently on seriously high-powered hardware and get Linux into the data center.

So, Caldera and SCO had engineers looking at Linux code and Unix code at the same time? I'd guess a reasonable question would be whether there was any effort to keep them clean-roomed off from each other? Or was it a free-for-all, with the same engineers working on both?

If there are others out there who have the courage to step forward, Groklaw is here. Hey, you know the old expression: if everyone stands up, they can't shoot *all* of us.


  


More Evidence Project Monterey Partners Knew Linux Was the Future | 189 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Corrections Here!
Authored by: WhiteFang on Tuesday, April 26 2005 @ 12:03 AM EDT
To make it easy for PJ

[ Reply to This | # ]

OT threads here
Authored by: dwandre on Tuesday, April 26 2005 @ 12:09 AM EDT
Change "Post Mode" to "HTML Formatted" and add links
thusly:
<a href="www.example.com">example.com home page</a>.

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCOX as history revisionist
Authored by: WhiteFang on Tuesday, April 26 2005 @ 12:09 AM EDT
is a complete and utter failure.

I believe I recall seeing Kurt's name before. I just wish I could remember in
what context.

I'm sure IBM must be very interested in Kurt's collection of emails. -hehehe-

Go Kurt Wall!!

[ Reply to This | # ]

Off-Topic here
Authored by: digger53 on Tuesday, April 26 2005 @ 12:13 AM EDT
Interesting commentary on RMS' remarks about Bitkeeeper at Slashdot. Includes a link to Stallman what Stallman said. Dead on.

As well as another one further down on a French court instituting at least a partial ban on DRM in DVDs.

---
When all else fails, follow directions.

[ Reply to This | # ]

claims
Authored by: findlay on Tuesday, April 26 2005 @ 12:17 AM EDT
Claims about the deliverable features of a product that is not even expected out for over a year (and mentioning features expected two years from now) reminds me a bit about NT and 95 before they were first released.
Remindes me a bit about the hype and marketing claims on an operating system to debut sometime in the distant future, about the time when cold fusion becomes practicable, and when light sabers become the household weapon of choice.

---
Wir müssen wissen. Wir werden wissen.

[ Reply to This | # ]

  • claims - Authored by: Rob M on Tuesday, April 26 2005 @ 08:37 AM EDT
  • claims - Authored by: seanlynch on Tuesday, April 26 2005 @ 10:56 AM EDT
  • claims - Authored by: Tyro on Tuesday, April 26 2005 @ 01:05 PM EDT
  • claims - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, April 26 2005 @ 11:51 PM EDT
More Evidence Project Monterey Partners Knew Linux Was the Future
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, April 26 2005 @ 12:18 AM EDT
While most of the information here appears to be spot on, I do question how much
actual knowledge Kurt Wall has of the development of LKP.

All of the real development work was already done by the time that the
SCO/Caldera deal was announced in mid 2000, and if Kurt left Caldera in February
2001 then that was a couple of months before the deal actually closed in (I
think) April 2001. His points about old SCO collaborating with Caldera on issues
related to the Linux distribution that would run on LKP are valid, but he
reveals a fundamental lack of knowledge about LKP when he says:

"LKP was an effort (actively pursued at SCO and at Caldera) to run the
Linux kernel on top of UnixWare in order to help Linux scale better on large SMP
systems"

In fact the whole point of LKP was that it did *not* contain or use a Linux
kernel - it was a thin interface layer on top of the UnixWare kernel which
allowed Linux applications to run directly on a UnixWare system *without* using
a Linux kernel.

[ Reply to This | # ]

And in the end, old SCO, now Tarantella road into sunset with cash and the Tarantella Product.
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, April 26 2005 @ 12:26 AM EDT
And in the end, old SCO, now Tarantella road into sunset with cash and the
Tarantella Product!

And Tarantella, designed for UNIX, not Linux, could run free of IP challenges
from any other UNIX developer (IBM, SUN, etc). Or Linux. As Tarantella is not
derived from any LINUX code work...

Tarantella's Citrix-like product for UNIX and LINUX to run on all desktops
(Microsoft licensed to boot), is and was the goal of the head of Santa Cruz
Operation since the ink dried on the Novell deal with oldSCO back in the APA and
ammendment days... and that is why Santa Cruz Operation accepted the fact that
they got no copyrights or IP ownership in the deal... as they did get the right
to develop a product derived from the original UNIX tree that could be exported
to any others further out on the branches without challenge.

In my opinion, Santa Cruz Operations aka Tarantella, was that stratigic winner
all along. Caldera just wanted the list of UNIX users to sell their UNIX and
LKP or LINUX to (one stop shopping). Then along came Darl. You gotta also
wonder what the heck was Yarrow thinking to allow Darl to get loose?



[ Reply to This | # ]

By the time Project Monterey was going to be ready, 64-bit Linux would beat it
Authored by: bmcmahon on Tuesday, April 26 2005 @ 12:32 AM EDT
It probably didn't hurt that much of the 64-bit work in Linux had happened
several years ago ... 1994/95, specifically (and vastly oversimplified), when
Jon "maddog" Hall finagled DEC into giving Linux an Alpha to play
with.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Oh, really?
Authored by: elderlycynic on Tuesday, April 26 2005 @ 02:25 AM EDT
Some of that is definitely revisionist.

> I feel bad for SCO because its Unix Ware operating system
> is clearly class work. Unfortunately, the company has been
> manipulated nearly out of existence by a series of purchases
> involving UnixWare, market shifts and a couple of bad choices.

Oh, really! That is not what most of its customers said,
both before and after Linux was important. The reasons for
UnixWare's failure were legion, starting with it backing
the political loser in the AT&T versus OSF/1 debacle. So
did Sun, with Solaris 2, but Sun were powerful enough in
the Unix arena to pull it off. I have never met a genuine
Unix user of UnixWare who liked it - though it was quite
popular with non-Unix users who needed to install a Unix.

But SCO was in trouble before that, largely because of its
attitude to pricing, support and development with SCO Unix.
It had a strong core in the small commercial systems market,
but was being increasingly trimmed round the edges by the
competition. All right, that was old SCO.

However, by the time that Project Monterey, SCO/Caldera/etc.
were desperate to find a niche that wasn't shrinking as they
watched it. A deal with IBM seemed too good to be true.
IBM had had a series of catastrophic projects for personal
computer operating systems, were equally desperate to latch
onto something that they could persuade themselves would
(a) be delivered and (b) not be rejected by customers.

[ Reply to This | # ]

ZDnet in 1999
Authored by: cricketjeff on Tuesday, April 26 2005 @ 05:54 AM EDT
ZDnet reported the 1999 Unix forum as very linux friendly

[ Reply to This | # ]

Linux Kernel Personality Project
Authored by: micheal on Tuesday, April 26 2005 @ 06:28 AM EDT
The long quote from Kurt seems to use Linux in two different ways. One is as the kernel and the other is as Gnu/Linux. PErhaps Kurt would be willing to clarify.

...to run Linux on top of UnixWare in order to help Linux scale better on large SMP systems.

...ilustrate the performance differences between UnixWare on SMP and Linux on SMP.

Remember, we were all still using kernel 2.2.

Indeed, if any code was copied or at least studied back then, it was Linux kernel code, because UnixWare was being modified to allow Linux to run on top of it.

From this link:

link

..the LKP's purpose is to run Linux applications on top of UnixWare.

The LKP (LKP) makes it possible for most Linux applications to run on UnixWare 7 systems.

---
LeRoy

If I have anything to give, made of this life I live, it is this song, which I have made. Now in your keeping it is laid.
Anon

[ Reply to This | # ]

Complete ZDNet article
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, April 26 2005 @ 07:18 AM EDT
from the internet archive

[ Reply to This | # ]

More Evidence Project Monterey Partners Knew Linux Was the Future
Authored by: Carlo Graziani on Tuesday, April 26 2005 @ 07:53 AM EDT
We have only the first bit of the article, and we're wondering if any of you with Lexis can get the rest for us?

I looked over Lexis, but I can't see any evidence that they archive Linux Today at all. I couldn't find any other 1999 references to "penguinitis"+"monterey" in General News or in Business News. It's possible I may have missed something, but I don't think it's there.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Kurt Wall background
Authored by: freeio on Tuesday, April 26 2005 @ 08:28 AM EDT
On my shelf I have a copy of a book by Kurt Wall, entitled "Linux Programming by Example."  (Que, 1999) On the dust jacket it gives the following brief bio:

"Kurt Wall has been using UNIX since 1993 and has been hooked on Linux for nearly as long.  He currently maintains the Informix on Linux FAQ and is president of the Informix Users Group's Linux Special Interest Group. Kurt is also president of the Salt Lake Linux Users Group where he recently gave a presentation of Linux and databases.  Formerly employed with US West, he now works for Caldera Systems where he writes and edits full time.  Kurt recently completed his first book, Linux Programming Unleashed, for Sams Publishing."

I recall running across him on the LUNA (Linux Users of North Alabama) mailing list about five years ago, helping with Linux programming matters.  

Kurt is definitely a real person, and the bona fides check out.

freeio

FreeIO.org - Free Hardware Designs for the Free Software Community
MM

---
Tux et bona et fortuna est.

[ Reply to This | # ]

More Evidence Project Monterey Partners Knew Linux Was the Future
Authored by: heretic on Tuesday, April 26 2005 @ 08:53 AM EDT

Ransom Love's Secret Master Plan for Linux and UNIX Interview By Don Marti on Tue, 2000-08-22, LINUX Journal

[ Reply to This | # ]

A horse by any other name...
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, April 26 2005 @ 09:22 AM EDT
...is still dead.

If this horse were a cat it still would be dead many times over.

Great work PJ!

[ Reply to This | # ]

More Evidence Project Monterey Partners Knew Linux Was the Future
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, April 26 2005 @ 10:45 AM EDT
If there are others out there who have the courage to step forward, Groklaw is
here. Hey, you know the old expression: if everyone stands up, they can't shoot
*all* of us.

Here is a follow on quote, and the credit for this one goes to West Wing...

"If they are shooting at us, we must be doing something right."

[ Reply to This | # ]

OT sort of... Autozone
Authored by: tangomike on Tuesday, April 26 2005 @ 10:54 AM EDT
So if Unixware/LKP made it possible to run FOSS/Linux apps on Unixware, did that
make it easier to port Unixware apps to Linux? Would that maybe help explain why
Autozone was able to move to Linux with relatively little trouble.?

---
Nothing screams 'poor workmanship' like wrinkles in the
duct tape.

[ Reply to This | # ]

we already have evidence SCO/etc stole linux code
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, April 26 2005 @ 11:26 AM EDT
I remember reading it here on groklaw, near the beginning of when groklaw
started.

there were discussions about the LKP, and that in itself is a mess.

but there were other things too.

I have an OLDSco Linux CDrom sitting right in front of me in which OldSCO
replaced copyright notices in files - a blatant violation of GPL terms.

I think we remember going through some of this as well - remember probably a
year ago, about checking copyrights in files and SCO giving a list of illegally
copied files, and hordes of us checking their real history, etc?

like the "signal.h" and so forth, the linux signal handler, and all
that. Anyone remember this stuff? It was all right here.

and there's more too. I bet if we check OldSCOs CDs we could find evidence.

I would say I'd be willing to bet anyone money that their "unix" code
was polluted by linux stuff. but I doubt I'd have any takers for that bet...

[ Reply to This | # ]

Big thanks to Kurt Wall
Authored by: Nick Bridge on Tuesday, April 26 2005 @ 11:59 AM EDT
It is really appreciated!

[ Reply to This | # ]

Trillian Project no threat to Monterey, claims SCO president
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, April 26 2005 @ 12:14 PM EDT
Trillian Project no threat to Monterey, claims SCO president

The Trillian Project to port Linux to Intel’s IA-64 architecture does not pose a threat to the Santa Cruz Operation (SCO) or Project Monterey, according to Doug Michels, SCO’s president and chief executive.

And the fact that IBM has signed up to the new Linux initiative and will deploy both the Trillian and Monterey operating systems (OSs) on its hardware does not show it is wavering in its commitment either, he claimed.

[ Reply to This | # ]

More Evidence Project Monterey Partners Knew Linux Was the Future
Authored by: Tyro on Tuesday, April 26 2005 @ 12:33 PM EDT
Unfortunately, Caldera was in a bit of a pickle. They couldn't just go with
Linux, as they had been studiously antagonizing much of the community. Their
view of the world seems to have been that only companies were worth dealing
with, and ignoring the fact that corporate decisions are made by individual
people, and that accountants don't generally make technical decisions.
(Sometimes they veto them, but that's a different matter.)

So Caldera's path forwards as a Linux vendor was littered with broken glass that
they had themselves strewn. OpenLinux was one of the first distributions that I
tried.
Shortly after Red Hat 5.2, and it was much more polished. But I bought it so
that I could connect to Novel Servers, as I thought they were promissing.
Whoops! It could work as a server with a Novell Server, but they weren't
interested in having it work as a desktop. They had some contributed software
that was designed for that purpose, but they had broken it with a software
upgrade, and never did get it fixed. (Eventually I installed a later version of
Red Hat that solved the problem...though I kept running into problems with files
not closing properly.)

Anyway, Caldera didn't care. That was desktop interoperability stuff, and the
only desktop stuff they seemed to care about was their installer (admittedly a
nice one).

Well, I tried several other distributions...but I never again even looked
seriously at Caldera. They lost their Linux chances through their own actions,
but they DID lose them. They didn't have much future in Linux, which may have
explaine R. Love's frequent belligerent comments. (I was totally ignoring SCO
during this period.) SuSE quite surprised me when they joined with Caldera as
the North American branch of United Linux. My guess was that Caldera was going
to submerge its name and re-emerge as a new Linux company. (Surprise! And I
guess SuSE was a bit surprised too.)

What Caldera appeared to be planning on doing was promote itself among companies
that were interested in Linux. Unfortunate for it's plans, in most cases the
companies went with what their technical staff recommended, and the technical
stqff tended to recommend what they used. So Red Hat moved forward and Caldera
moved back.

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO Unix was already dead in the water in 1996
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, April 26 2005 @ 01:28 PM EDT
They had no future with their version of Unix.

I was working for a company back in 1996 that outgrew an SCO Unix box, and
instead of upgrading the box or buying more servers, we just moved services out
to Linux boxes.

It was so stable and fast, that the only reason we kept the old SCO Unix box
alive for a couple more years was because Oracle wasn't supported on Linux back
then (it ran, but no official support). Not because SCO Unix was superior enough
(or at all) to justify its existance.

All that happened a long time ago, years before the Monterey project, so it's
really difficult for me and anyone in the business to even grasp why new SCO
thinks they were hurt by IBM's contribution to Linux. Makes no sense.

It will be entertaining to see they defend this case.

[ Reply to This | # ]

All-Hands Meetings
Authored by: N. on Tuesday, April 26 2005 @ 03:28 PM EDT
I remember very clearly Ransom saying (in front of one of the all-hands meeting I mentioned earlier) that Caldera were pleased that the Monterey project had been cancelled because it would allow IBM to focus its efforts on AIX-5L, which would benefit both Linux and Caldera.

Just a word of warning that you should take most "All Hands" meetings with a pinch of salt as they are partially morale-boosters, so expect a bit of editorializing and spinning.

I've worked for companies where the management would have been all too ready to say "yes, the company's going to hell, but that's a good thing because it means that our heating bills will go down."

---
N.
(Now almost completely Windows-free)

[ Reply to This | # ]

More Evidence Project Monterey Partners Knew Linux Was the Future
Authored by: Jaywalk on Tuesday, April 26 2005 @ 03:39 PM EDT
. . . not only did IBM know that Linux was the future, and that Project Monterey was merely an upgrade path to Linux . . .
From what I've seen from IBM's statements at the time, that's not exactly true. It would be more accurate to say that IBM knew Linux was in their future. IBM saw Linux as a "lightweight" UNIX and thought that businesses would upgrade from Linux to AIX when they wanted the heavy lifting. To their credit, they saw that wasn't what was happening and shifted their strategy, optimizing their hardware to run Linux. (Not that they wouldn't still rather you shelled out for AIX.) They didn't drop Monterey so Linux could take over, they dropped it because Linux was already taking over.

SCO, more or less, had the same idea with Linux coexisting with UNIXWare. But when that failed, they didn't know what to do. Their UNIX business was falling off as Linux picked up. Their Linux business was another also-ran in a field being taken over by Red Hat. They also didn't sell hardware or applications that could be converted to Linux. Without a real business to run, somebody got the bright idea, "Hey, let's sue somebody."

And the rest is (or soon will be) history.

---
===== Murphy's Law is recursive. =====

[ Reply to This | # ]

Re: SMIT
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, April 26 2005 @ 06:18 PM EDT
I administered a number of AIX boxes for many years. I found SMIT quite useful.
It was easy to teach junior admins how to use and worked well. One feature I
liked was that it would provide you with the proper command line commands and
arguments for doing the various tasks it offered. This made it easy to learn
those commands and adapt them for other tasks which SMIT did not handle well.

Overall, I found AIX quite easy to administer. It certainly required less admin
time than our Windows servers, even though we actually had more AIX servers than
Windows. :-)

[ Reply to This | # ]

  • Re: SMIT - Authored by: dmarker on Tuesday, April 26 2005 @ 07:18 PM EDT
    • Re: SMIT - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 27 2005 @ 03:39 AM EDT
  • Re: SMIT - Authored by: elderlycynic on Thursday, April 28 2005 @ 07:26 AM EDT
    • Re: SMIT - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 28 2005 @ 08:40 AM EDT
Groklaw © Copyright 2003-2013 Pamela Jones.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners.
Comments are owned by the individual posters.

PJ's articles are licensed under a Creative Commons License. ( Details )