From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on inbox.vuxu.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.8 required=5.0 tests=DKIM_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED, DKIM_INVALID,DKIM_SIGNED,FREEMAIL_FROM,MAILING_LIST_MULTI, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 Received: (qmail 25011 invoked from network); 4 Apr 2021 03:43:31 -0000 Received: from minnie.tuhs.org (45.79.103.53) by inbox.vuxu.org with ESMTPUTF8; 4 Apr 2021 03:43:31 -0000 Received: by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix, from userid 112) id 302E49CA31; Sun, 4 Apr 2021 13:43:25 +1000 (AEST) Received: from minnie.tuhs.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 567B49C641; Sun, 4 Apr 2021 13:42:53 +1000 (AEST) Authentication-Results: minnie.tuhs.org; dkim=fail reason="signature verification failed" (2048-bit key; unprotected) header.d=gmail.com header.i=@gmail.com header.b="pCW++Ryc"; dkim-atps=neutral Received: by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix, from userid 112) id D63DE9C641; Sun, 4 Apr 2021 13:42:26 +1000 (AEST) Received: from mail-lf1-f54.google.com (mail-lf1-f54.google.com [209.85.167.54]) by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C0ED99C63F for ; Sun, 4 Apr 2021 13:42:25 +1000 (AEST) Received: by mail-lf1-f54.google.com with SMTP id g8so12792295lfv.12 for ; Sat, 03 Apr 2021 20:42:25 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-transfer-encoding; bh=QbU3lUZXocUa27eBuG+VHSNWqZNNLEk1tkebSDXDlDQ=; b=pCW++RycNyFWtLypt9I3X4uQhLHocDzMRTFbrrcti7qobmnfwTFKBL6ey9Kg4psdXV EZ6JGu+EoYxL93i8gKwTiqa1dPDM3cXQVe3/56xmBj1X7RXhMGKV1/EfylcTSPuNyFXz d1WBu3KvEpJ+Whbxed3JFU2dm3hx6AuF1Rf3gds/NpalHrb4LE0kfMOAEj1R7H2Xg273 p6VnCLyezhnarRlNP5W5Xu3/7sfDJ4CmhG67WjO+jq0OrdkNblODcv/huTC07LCwnuMh J60T+2ai8V24fOiiQjiuOZEAhFF3NLHC/yj0nTpvKMKa/8V1NLTlhPHsRmsZqDR3wtpW vAyA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc:content-transfer-encoding; bh=QbU3lUZXocUa27eBuG+VHSNWqZNNLEk1tkebSDXDlDQ=; b=NgXT/pZfW0/OL7zdGwjHlD0aIlTRJwtK20L82pOrDY2h8BkK4NUUW4C/oJFYmFSbOb glocZsLCewDRTlGZ+CQC8vgtlIhbpWsH01T7tTVK8l4T11+6QJ6bX2Jjt1xoH/ArOFBX 2CRfGtDlyYeyQs1RDJxN2tOfMnVpYTltV4gj1xGamFXOSTQH15FNkntePwmw+oK2lYhG nDNRAZ3C+qtbW7iaoNrHVOyXvl8rw18b+OEN4q2TLUMs4/RGqOD399KgY5hNFbGclOFp 1LB3SQEMdY83dv3GzfiZfVOsc0vkROu4MCXJBCNtyE4k4ZCPgMIVdgEGijeqzChU7C5V lACQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM530Ls4tsz5vKOTvG4nUpZR3L1qYDo+Y2DJGcezzlcYrXV2DpEkxi fOMR+jaQbspNERrbJNxM1BA5syUWBvKaPOmPrdZVVXXs X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJyncwlF1iKKeVtHGG09S+lXSeSfbzgAkived1a1sCxBrlWof1i2irmoiwWAlgqNjhcYGLdmDk3ULrvsFZGElBQ= X-Received: by 2002:a05:6512:504:: with SMTP id o4mr12950143lfb.438.1617507744040; Sat, 03 Apr 2021 20:42:24 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20210401145025.GA1202@naleco.com> In-Reply-To: From: Gregg Levine Date: Sat, 3 Apr 2021 23:41:47 -0400 Message-ID: To: Adam Thornton Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: Re: [TUHS] Zombified SCO comes back from the dead, brings trial back to life against IBM X-BeenThere: tuhs@minnie.tuhs.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.26 Precedence: list List-Id: The Unix Heritage Society mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Cc: TUHS main list , Josh Good Errors-To: tuhs-bounces@minnie.tuhs.org Sender: "TUHS" Hello! Adam? Seriously? That was the case when I visited them at one year's LinuxWorld. (I think it was the one when we met.) And yes at the System Z Council meetings I would catch up with them. Larry? It is funny, but earlier on I did mention all of that in a completely different thread. But why would the characters at what was SCO start this stupidity all over again? I seem to be missing something. ----- Gregg C Levine gregg.drwho8@gmail.com "This signature fought the Time Wars, time and again." On Sat, Apr 3, 2021 at 10:48 PM Adam Thornton wrote: > > > > On Thu, Apr 1, 2021 at 8:54 PM Wesley Parish wrote= : >> >> So from IBM's POV, they could >> support Linux - which by then had already been ported to the VM/370 >> and there was already talk of porting it to the later mainframe >> iterations. I don't think anybody was even thinking of porting any of >> the *BSD to IBM mainframes till much later, am I right? > > > This is not how I remember it going down. > > There was an external-to-IBM "Bigfoot" port to S/390 (not S/370) that IBM= was ignoring until it got alarmingly close to booting, and then all of a s= udden there was an IBM port to S/390. Clearly (well, *I* thought it was cl= ear) they'd had a skunkworks project for some time and Bigfoot forced their= hand. (Unix v7 *did* run on S/370, and resurrecting that is one of my hob= by projects that hasn't really gotten off the ground). > > I was the system administrator of the first publicly-accessible Linux-on-= S/390 machine--penguinvm.princeton.edu--and indeed in the late 90s I and my= mentor David Boyes met with some pretty high-level people at IBM to advise= them how we thought they should proceed. They seemed to take much of our = advice, but then again I don't think we said anything very crazy. (At the = time, and for years thereafter, I was with Sine Nomine Associates. They're= still around.) > > I also later managed the port of OpenSolaris to zSeries, which, if IBM ha= d bought Sun rather than Oracle, would have made my life very different. N= eale Ferguson did most of the heavy lifting on that port, but I did a lot o= f the tool porting and wrote a disk driver. Alas, IBM tightened the screws= a little too far and apparently didn't know that Sun had an offer from Ora= cle in its back pocket. > > But back to the S/390 port--I went to a Linux conference in Atlanta in th= e late 90s ('99, I think) to speak about Linux on S390/Z, and I actually we= nt by the NetBSD booth to say, "hey, I can maybe hook you guys up with a de= velopment virtual machine," and what I got was an earful about "your so-cal= led portability" from someone who was clearly much more invested in hating = Linux than in, you know, saying, "wow, OK, I realize you're not offering me= cycles on a super-awesome machine, but, yeah, it's not nothing, cool, here= 's who you should talk to if you're interested in getting a port going." > > So I don't think you can lay all the blame on BSD inaction on Linux, is a= ll I'm saying. By '99, I think it was, maybe if NetBSD, which already had = its reputation for spectacular portability, hadn't staffed its booth with a= jackass still trying to fight the Unix Wars, that story might have turned = out differently. > > Adam