|
More on Project Monterey - 2002 The Register Article on Caldera's Plans |
|
Wednesday, May 11 2005 @ 09:46 PM EDT
|
Yahoo poster truth_in_government gets the credit for this find, a July 2002 article in The Register, "
Caldera backs away from 64-bit Open Unix."
Some excerpts, with highlights in red: As the legacy Unix variant, OpenServer was never likely to be ported to Itanium, but sizable investment has gone in to projects to develop a 64-bit version of Open Unix, both with IBM on the Monterey project and through SCO's Gemini project that created UnixWare 7, the predecessor to the current Open Unix 8. Feedback from Intel and customers, however, has led Caldera to the conclusion that there is enough life in the 32-bit market.
"The feedback from Intel and our customers is that 64-bit addressing today just isn't a priority, and the 32-bit processors are just getting better and better," said Caldera's VP EMEA, Chris Flynn. "32-bit is good enough for most people's processing requirements." That appears to suggest that Open Unix and OpenServer's lifespan will last only as long as 32-bit processors continue to sell, but Flynn maintained that the operating systems will remain available as long as customers want them.
"There's plenty of mileage in 32-bit Unix," he said. "Until our customers tell us that they don't want Unix and they don't want 32-bit Intel any more, which I don't see happening, then nothing's going to change. 32-bit is just great for customers over the next few years, but we do have choices, and we could move forward with our 64-bit projects.
One of those choices will be 64-bit Linux, which is being developed through the IA-64 Linux Project, and will be available from Caldera. Flynn believes that by the time users are looking to purchase 64-bit servers and operating systems in volume, Linux will have gained the robustness and scalability it requires to compete with Unix in the enterprise market.
Another option Caldera has on the shelf is IBM's AIX 5L, which was developed from the Monterey project between IBM and SCO. In 2001, Caldera offered a preview of the AIX 5L operating system for Itanium to developers, and it remains a possibility that Caldera will offer IBM's Unix for 64-bit users should there be the demand.
|
|
Authored by: drichards1953 on Wednesday, May 11 2005 @ 09:57 PM EDT |
and Colonel Sanders is hanging out in the yard!
---
Dennis
They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety
deserve neither liberty nor safety.
---Benjamin Franklin[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: sappha58 on Wednesday, May 11 2005 @ 10:01 PM EDT |
...so PJ can find them.
Oooooo - I get to post this one! *blush*[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: sinkemlow on Wednesday, May 11 2005 @ 10:04 PM EDT |
So according to this, Caldera's plans were also to migrate from UNIX to
gnu/linux as soon as it was "ready" for primetime. UNIX was something
to hang on to "as long as customers want it."[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 11 2005 @ 10:10 PM EDT |
Another option Caldera has on the shelf is IBM's AIX 5L, which was
developed from the Monterey project between IBM and SCO. In 2001, Caldera
offered a preview of the AIX 5L operating system for Itanium to developers, and
it remains a possibility that Caldera will offer IBM's Unix for 64-bit users
should there be the demand.
What company in its right mind continues on a
path which is of little interest to users? No-one wanted the Monterey product
even 6 months after Darl took over. He couldn't sell it, so he sued.
IMHO the
real killer blow to 64bit Unix is strongly related to Intels wrong decision on
Itanium, otherwise known as the Itanic since the end of the last
century.
Brian S. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Weeble on Wednesday, May 11 2005 @ 10:13 PM EDT |
Not that y'all will post all off-topic messages here, anyway...
But while you're at it, please make sure that you post links in this format:
<a href="http://www.example.com/">CLICK ME</a>
Also; set the posting format to "HTML Formatted, and click
"Preview" and check your links before hitting "Submit
Comment."
The management and your fellow Groklovians will be very appreciative.
---
You Never Know What You're Going to Learn--or Learn About--on Groklaw!
(NOTE: Copying Permissions Are Stated in My Profile Bio)
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Sun buys oldSCO - set to buy newSCO? - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 11 2005 @ 10:49 PM EDT
- This has got to be embarrassing... - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, May 12 2005 @ 03:33 AM EDT
- Groklaw outer purged (link to an Inquirer article) - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, May 12 2005 @ 04:10 AM EDT
- Legal nomenclature question - Authored by: BobDowling on Thursday, May 12 2005 @ 04:33 AM EDT
- UNDERSTANDING Why some posts appear & dissapear - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, May 12 2005 @ 05:45 AM EDT
- Advertiser's reaction - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, May 12 2005 @ 05:52 AM EDT
- Perfect! (n.t.) - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, May 12 2005 @ 09:01 AM EDT
- Microsoft seeking anti-trust law changes - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, May 12 2005 @ 06:32 AM EDT
- The free software challenge in Latin America - Authored by: dyfet on Thursday, May 12 2005 @ 07:17 AM EDT
- Advantages of F/LOSS - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, May 12 2005 @ 07:42 AM EDT
- More extremely dubious patents - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, May 12 2005 @ 07:59 AM EDT
- Rob Enderle on NPR Morning Edition... - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, May 12 2005 @ 10:58 AM EDT
- An Ode to the Other Side - Authored by: bmcmahon on Thursday, May 12 2005 @ 02:54 PM EDT
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 11 2005 @ 10:25 PM EDT |
The title says it all, that is a Gem!
RS [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 11 2005 @ 10:31 PM EDT |
Monterey was relying on a successfull Intel 64 bit platform. I don't know
when the papers were signed but Monterey was dreamt up at the time of
Merced.
When Intel announced around the turn of the century that there would
be no backward compatibily with Itanium, it seemed to me that the whole world
came to understand the mistake that Intel was making, hence the chip's
nickname.
It wasn't just IBM and SCO who had to rethink plans, whole swathes
of the industry did. IMHO Intel were pushed into that wrong decision by M$
but that's another story.Gradually across the years 2000/2001 companies adjusted
their directions and as we have recently witnessed, very few of those plans
involved the Itanic.
IBM and SCOG were no different, they'd just wasted 2
years following the Intel decision.
IBM had accepted their loss of effort and
SCOG should have accepted their loss of effort. I've no doubt that IBM lost a
great deal more money than did SCOG, it was just IBM had other strings to their
bow whilst SCOG apparently only had lawyers.
Brian S. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, May 12 2005 @ 12:02 AM EDT |
Disclaimer: IANAGG (.. A Groklaw Guru)
Wow. Talk about a 5P situation (Prior Planning..)
I am
Just an Obnoxious Twit
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, May 12 2005 @ 12:23 AM EDT |
If IBM were looking to forward AIX5L then Caldera's level of commitment, by
putting it on the back burner, with no real effort to move to it... would have
said to everyone that LINUX was the way to go.
Sounds like an Estoppel moment to me, does it do it for you too?
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: tbogart on Thursday, May 12 2005 @ 02:17 AM EDT |
"One of those choices will be 64-bit Linux, which is being developed
through the IA-64 Linux Project"
Forgetting, once again, that Linux was 64 bit on the Alpha years before ....
just points out how clueless VP's can be, I guess.
Sigh.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, May 12 2005 @ 02:25 AM EDT |
"The feedback from Intel and our customers is that 64-bit addressing today
just isn't a priority, and the 32-bit processors are just getting better and
better," said Caldera's VP EMEA, Chris Flynn. "32-bit is good enough for most
people's processing requirements."
This was basically what Intel
was saying at the time, that almost nobody needed 64bit procesors, that 32 bit
were ok for long time to come, etc. Almost same words!!! Caldera really bought
it from Intel!!!, to the point that Caldera drop 64bit development.
Genius
at max, driven by a marketing pitch :(
This shows us the great vision
that Caldera had at the time.
Could not see their company going down the
drain.
Ivan[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, May 12 2005 @ 02:43 AM EDT |
no wonder SCO fears Groklaw so! [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, May 12 2005 @ 03:52 AM EDT |
So educate me.
This seems to be mainly speculation on what 64-bit UNIX (or Linux) option
Caldera was likely to take (if any). It mentions in passing - as more or less
"common knowledge" at the time - that there was a joint project
between
Caldera and IBM called Project Monterey, with a sub-project called AIX5L
which had something to do with 64-bit UNIX.
So here are my questions:
1) What is damaging in this to SCO's arguments? Which of SCO's or IBM's
claims (possibly including the new one that SCO wants to add) does this
provide evidence for or against?
2) Does the fact that something is or was "common knowledge" in any
way
shift the legal burden of proof in a court for people arguing that (a) it *is*
true, or (b) it *isn't* true?
Rick[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: atul on Thursday, May 12 2005 @ 04:31 AM EDT |
Many people don't realize that Monterey was OldSCO's *second* go at
Unix-
on-Itanium. The first was the oddly-named "Summit 3D" project, a joint
venture between OldSCO and HP. Which is a partnership that makes a lot of
sense; HP co-developed the Itanium architecture, so they'd be the obvious
choice as someone to partner with. For whatever reason, Summit 3D, a.k.a.
3DA, didn't work out, so OldSCO ended up partnering with IBM instead, after
much of the Itanium work was apparently done already. Meanwhile, HP
turned
around and ported HP-UX to Itanium on their own, with SCO getting
no credit or
revenue from the resulting product. (So maybe SCO should sue
*them* too?)
We don't really know whether any of the jointly-developed
Summit 3D code
made it into the Itanium version of HP-UX, *or* into
Monterey, and maybe we
never will. However, SCO's been insisting they were
completely helpless w.r.t.
Itanium once IBM bailed on them, and the Summit
stuff indicates this is
manifestly untrue. If they had an OS that was close to
being done before IBM
came on board, it's hard to see how IBM quitting
Monterey could've harmed SCO
very much. They lost a big marketing
partner, but that's about all. The
article at the center of the current GL story
seems to indicate that
SCO/Caldera retained the right to go ahead and launch
Monterey without IBM's
involvement, and they elected not to do so for
marketing reasons.
Here's an
early (=1996) story about S
un's take on the HP-
OldSCO tieup.
The funny thing is that UnixWare for
Itanium was close
to
being done at one point, and SCO had all sorts of partners on board to
help make it the industry standard Unix on Itanium. You'd think it wouldn't
have been that hard to put the finishing touches on it sometime in the last 6+
years, if it was really as crucial to SCO's future as they're claiming in the
IBM
suit.
Here's another article from earlier in 1998, which mentions that
there
was a
wo
rking version of the HP+SCO operating system
running in a lab at Intel at
that point.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, May 12 2005 @ 06:02 AM EDT |
Dear Pamela.
At some point in time, Caldera (or successor) suddenly converted from being a
Linux supporter to being a Linux enemy.
Can this be related to any one person joining the company, and if so, who, when,
and who sent him ?
Just a suggestion for chronological research !
Cordial best wishes,
Geoff Bagley.
Debian user.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, May 12 2005 @ 06:11 AM EDT |
Thanks to atul for the pointers to Summit 3D:
here are some links (plaintext) from the Wayback Machine:
(be careful when reassembling these)
http://web.archive.org/web/19961223223231/www.hp.com/computing/next_genunix/96fe
b14c.html
It mentions a session at UniForum -- perhaps someone who
attended it can recall details of the presentation.
"HP and SCO will ensure application, data and hardware
compatibility with existing HP-UX and SCO UnixWare and SCO
OpenServer systems."
http://web.archive.org/web/19961223223221/www.hp.com/computing/next_genunix/96au
g12b.html
"The HP/SCO UNIX systems will be designed and implemented
specifically for the Intel IA-64 Merced processor...."
"SCO plans to support this API specification in its
upcoming release of "Gemini," the consolidation of SCO
OpenServer and SCO UnixWare, which is expected to be
available in mid-1997."
http://web.archive.org/web/19961223223211/www.hp.com/computing/next_genunix/96oc
t8.html
This contains an series of blurbs from people at Siemens,
Fujitsu and Oracle. NEC's representative claims that
"NEC is pleased to be working with HP and SCO to review
and provide input on these APIs, and we are already
working to incorporate them into our
operating-system-development efforts...."
Does anyone know what became of those efforts?
The most fascinating part is here:
"A matrix-format summary of information about the APIs --
listing the APIs, their origin and the standards they
support -- is available on the companies' World Wide Web
sites: /go/3dunix for HP and http://www.sco.com for SCO."
http://web.archive.org/web/19961223223329/www.hp.com/computing/next_genunix/fact
s.html
3. "This new technology will incorporate the best
technologies from HP-UX, SCO UnixWare, Novell NetWare
File, Print and Directory services, Distributed Computing
Environment (DCE) technology and other leading
technologies from OEMs."
Does anyone know how Novell figured into this plan?
4. "Development facilities have been set up in New Jersey
and are currently staffed with over 220 UNIX
professionals."
I'd like to know the numbers of HP and SCO programmers,
respectively -- interesting that the blurb did not specify
"programmers" alone.
http://web.archive.org/web/19961223223337/www.hp.com/computing/next_genunix/faq.
html
The FAQ. Fully Buzzword Compliant.
"3DA is an advanced, modular, three-dimensional
architecture which will enable system designers and
application developers unprecedented flexibility and
innovation in developing system solutions.
The first
dimension, modular functionality, separates the core
operating system into basic building blocks, such as
scheduler, memory management and file system, through
well-defined internal interfaces. This modularity allows
innovation, yet ensures reliability because system
designers can modify or replace a module without affecting
other modules in the system.
The second dimension,
processor optimization, enables system designers to take
full advantage of all of a processor's features. Today,
most operating systems are unable to fully exploit the
wealth of new features that microprocessor chip sets
offer. 3DA's second dimension allows the operating system
to take full advantage of all of a processor's features
and to be quickly tuned to run on different chip sets.
The
third dimension, system optimization, enables system
designers to extend and tailor the functional modules,
from the first dimension, to support specialized system
topologies, such as NUMA, loosely-coupled clusters or
massively parallel architectures. System optimization
provides increased scalability and performance while
maintaining application compatibility."
So: whence would come this NUMA capability ?
http://web.archive.org/web/19961223223345/www.hp.com/computing/next_genunix/whpp
r.html
The detailed white paper. Of note:
"The distributed architecture will be CORBA-based and will
be able to integrate with Microsoft networked OLE when it
ships. "
"Role based administration so there is no "Root see/get
all" data"
It's was a remarkably ambitious plan (worth reading
through for comparison/contrast with current and past
SCO and IBM (and HP) offerings).
http://web.archive.org/web/19961223223406/www.hp.com/computing/next_genunix/indu
stry.html
From June 1996:
"Has Hewlett-Packard lost its collective mind?"
"It seems like HP is abandoning both its highly successful
PA-RISC microprocessor family and its HP-UX variant of
UNIX."
To the point:
"Last year, Novell, SCO, and HP announced that Novell
would transfer UNIX to SCO, and SCO and HP would lead the
charge toward 64-bit UNIX (see this column in the January
1996 issue, p. 9)."
"This HP-SCO effort would lead to a merged operating
system available from both vendors."
Technically,
"HP is saying clearly that customers no longer care which
kernel is used and that they will use a best-of-breed
approach (a signal that they intend to keep some
SVR3-based parts of HP-UX and SCO OpenServer)."
SVR3, eh ? From which sources under what documents?
Further down the page:
"The HP-SCO operating system may not be the be all of
UNIX, but it has created a legitimate franchise, has
shared costs, and has erased the "old, stale SVR3" label
from HP's operating system."
Interestingly,
"Other vendors also endorsed the effort, but only for
their Intel-based systems. Included in this category are
DEC, ICL, and IBM."
The document was NOT an original HP nor SCO product,
but came from the pen of an outsider:
Written by Norton Greenfeld, President of Implements Inc.
(Wayland, MA). He can be reached by e-mail at
ngreenfeld@implements.com.
This article is posted with permission from UNIX REVIEW,
June 1996, © 1996 MILLER FREEMAN INC. All Rights Reserved
There's also a PDF available from the Wayback Machine:
http://web.archive.org/web/19961223223354/http://www.hp.com:80/computing/next_ge
nunix/files/api.pdf
A note indicates that the "Gemini" portion
"includes SCO UnixWare APIs, SCO OpenServer APIs are
currently under review"
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: atul on Thursday, May 12 2005 @ 06:25 AM EDT |
...way back in August 2003.
Meanwhile, Chris Flynn (the Caldera guy quoted in the article) has
moved on, and no longer works for
SCO, Old or New. He's mentioned as
working for OldSCO; I imagine he went
from OldSCO to Caldera when OpenServer
changed hands, and it looks like
he got out entirely in October 2003. So
there's probably nothing standing
in the way of IBM asking him a few
questions, now is there?
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, May 12 2005 @ 09:31 AM EDT |
TechWeb: IBM
Unveils Linux Plans For Intel's Monterey Aug 2000
The Register: Double-spinning Caldera faces open source backlash
Aug 2000
eWeek: Ransom Love,
Co-founder of Caldera and SCO, Speaks of Unix, GPL and the Lawsuit
I know this is old, but is refreshing to read now. Watch for
perspective
eWeek: Gotta Make the
In-Laws Happy
Caldera CEO Ransom Love's strategy,
previewed at CeBit in Germany last month, is fairly simple.The company is
embedding Linux features into Unix, and vice versa. At the same time, Caldera
continues to enhance and refine OpenLinux, UnixWare (to be known as OpenUnix)
and perhaps even OpenServer. Version 8 of OpenUnix went into beta this
month.
eWeek: United They
Stand; United They Fall
RE: UnitedLinux It is
clear, based on past conversations with Love, that proprietary intellectual
property will be added to the distributions. This intellectual property will
surely be enhanced further by IBM, HP, SAP and Intel—four UnitedLinux backers
that have been struggling to find ways of getting patented technology into the
mainly open-source Linux distributions.
By the way, I found
someone who knows PJ! Oh, and by the way, Pamela Jones really does
exist. I've met her. - SVN
griff5w
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: pooky on Thursday, May 12 2005 @ 11:15 AM EDT |
I find it very interesting that now Ransome Love is coming back and saying IBM
did Caldera wrong, when it seems clear that Caldera itself was beginning to back
away from the project. I don't claim to know the details involved in the breakup
of Monterrey, but it seems clear now that it was likely not just IBM who didn't
see a future for UNIX on IA64.
-pooky
---
Many Bothans died to bring us this information.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
|
|