Unysis got Microsoft declared an Open System
|
| Author | Content |
|---|---|
| tadelste Oct 20, 2004 8:42 AM EDT |
These guys are really a piece of work. They got Microsoft to build a posix component to NT and then got NT declared an Open System. Next they started pouring Microsoft into the DOD. Before anyone lauds them - let them explain. If we demand that Sun explain, then let's have these people explain. |
| Glimmung Oct 20, 2004 11:39 AM EDT |
I read the PR, and they say customers are demanding a strong Linux platform (not word for word obviously), with the emphasis suggesting that that is their expert area and that they can make Linux that. Anyone else get that interpretation? Maybe what they mean to say is that _their_ customers (DoD?) are demanding a Linux solution, and they can't afford not to support this anymore. I fully believe this company follows the money. And if customers start shouting Linux or you are out of here they would sell it. Maybe Their customers are telling them not M$, and Linux is the only solution they can see as viable without too much cost. And rumors have abounded for years that M$ might make a product that will allow their apps to run on Linux, and this would be the perfect company for that kind of thing, judging from their history. It seems conspiracy freaks are going to be out in force on this company. |
| tadelste Oct 20, 2004 1:51 PM EDT |
Glimmung Conspiracy freaks abound. That's the nature of this community. As one might say, let's look at the record. What does the record say - not what do you think they're thinking or what they might or might not do. The record is that they are buddies with Bill and got a posix subsystem in NT and got the Feds to say "open system" which started a land slide. The record. |
| phsolide Oct 20, 2004 7:02 PM EDT |
Having NT declared POSIX-compliant, or whatever they did, wasn't without its little problems. For example, the Feds had to grant several wavers, because NT's original POSIX subsystem couldn't do fork() right, and it didn't have symbolic links in the filesystem(s) supported. I recall reading an editorial or a letter to the editor in some minor system admin mag (usenix's :login;, I think) where one of the evaluating committee members, who had voted "not compliant" explained what NT's POSIX subsystem didn't get right. This guy almost, but not quite, called "corruption" on the whole mess. |
| TxtEdMacs Oct 22, 2004 3:56 PM EDT |
tadelste: I agree on calling Unisys to explain. I did not notice your comment, because while I will read about Sun due to their history, I do not trust anything from Unisys. Hence, I simply skipped the writeups. |
Posting in this forum is limited to members of the group: [ForumMods, SITEADMINS, MEMBERS.]
Becoming a member of LXer is easy and free. Join Us!