Re: SCO (again) and Gartner
From: pbs (pnews_at_lomarline.freeserve.co.uk)
Date: Wed, 20 Aug 2003 09:08:43 +1200
Jonathan Buzzard wrote:
> In article <firstname.lastname@example.org>,
> pbs <email@example.com> writes:
>>Jonathan Buzzard wrote:
>>>In article <firstname.lastname@example.org>,
>>> pbs <email@example.com> writes:
>>>>MS acquired a UNIX licence in the late 70s
>>>>Remarks by Bill Gates October 9, 1996
>>>>: If we go way back in time, Microsoft was actually the first one to go
>>>>: to AT&T and beg to get a nice high-volume commercial license for Unix.
>>>>: And for many, many years we were the highest volume licensee, not only
>>>>: for our own Xenix products, but Siemens with theirs, Santa Cruz with
>>>>: theirs, and dozens and dozens of sub-licensees.
>>>One cannot help but wonder if AT&T had made a high-volume commercial
>>>license for Unix available if the Windows NT platform would exist.
>>>One suspects not.
>>They did, but OSF (FUD by IBM and Digital, hoping to keep their
>>proprietary mid-sized server market,) gave the field to Microsoft.
> Really I never remember seeing an AT&T Unix version cost less than £100
Cheap SYSV (must have been sub-licenced from AT&T):
Interactive UNIX -- Intel(Sold to Sun)
Dimitri Rotow (dar@belltec.UUCP): Dated: 1988-07-29 20:17:45 PST
: WARNING! What follows contains sales and marketing talk!
: John writes a lot of stuff comparing what you *do* get with Microport
: to what you *don't* get with Bell Tech. For starters this is dumb
: because we simply publish the operating system that Intel and AT&T
: create. It's not a "Bell Tech" anything, it's an Intel/AT&T product.
: Wrong. We sell UNIX cheap for the same reason we helped Microport get
: started. We think a solid, non-proprietarized UNIX sponsored by Intel
: and AT&T which is sold for the same price as DOS helps everyone in the
: UNIX market (except maybe those companies that have an ax to grind
: keeping it proprietarized and over-priced). We make a lot more money
: from software value added than hardware.