From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: patv@monmouth.com (Pat Villani)
Date: Wed, 05 Nov 2003 07:53:25 -0500
Subject: 32V update (was Re: [TUHS] While on the subject of 32V ...)
In-Reply-To: <20001104211501.GA820@adelaide.lemis.com>
References: <3F93E4AC.9050403@hp.com>
 <200310222110.39658.wes.parish@paradise.net.nz> <3F992C00.7090607@hp.com>
 <3FA10A89.7090901@hp.com> <20001104211501.GA820@adelaide.lemis.com>
Message-ID: <3FA8F2C5.6040902@monmouth.com>

I have my opinions about SCO, and what they're doing.  I don't think 
we'll see any problems because this activity is down in the noise.  They 
need to challenge Linux at the enterprise level.  It will be quite some 
time, if ever, that 32V reaches that level of complexity in order to be 
a threat.

For now, it's an exercise in nostalgia.  In 1980, a friend and I 
investigated licensing unix for sale on 68K and 8086 based computers. 
We couldn't raise the $68,000 source+binary license fee, so the project 
died.  That was more than double my salary as an engineer at that time.

Now, 23 years later, I'm going to do a port to see how close my original 
estimates are to reality.  After the initial port, who knows?

Pat

Greg Lehey wrote:

> On Thursday, 30 October 2003 at  7:56:41 -0500, Pat Villani wrote:
> 
>>I got corporate approval, well, as best as I could from corporate legal,
>>to proceed.  The only caveats are: beware of the SCO shenanigans as 32V
>>may encounter a similar wrath,
> 
> 
> I'm only just catching up with this thread, but I'm surprised that
> nobody else pointed out that SCO is the same company that released
> "ancient UNIX" under a free license in January 2002.  Given SCO's
> behaviour, that doesn't guarantee that they won't cause problems, but
> it should severely limit the scope.
> 
> Greg
> --
> Finger grog at lemis.com for PGP public key
> See complete headers for address and phone numbers
> _______________________________________________
> TUHS mailing list
> TUHS at minnie.tuhs.org
> http://minnie.tuhs.org/mailman/listinfo/tuhs
> 
>