SCO License security - another flame

[Sean Eric Fagan]

In article <91V712w164w at mudos.ann-arbor.mi.us> mju at mudos.ann-arbor.mi.us (Marc Unangst) writes:
>X11R4, 

Mayhap.  But SCO didn't do the port of X, Locus did, and people at sco were
very unhappy with them. (At least some of the engineers were.)

>Motif 1.1, 

As far as I know, it wasn't out at the time.  Or don't you realize that it's
somewhat difficult to release something that doesn't exist?

>the BSD FFS, 

Why?  The BSD FFS would have been a terrible bitch to port.  It was easier
to make their own FFS, and later add in long filenames.  (When they release
3.2v3, I think I shall post a patch showing how to make the filename limit
go from 255 to 266 8-).)

>symbolic links, 

What makes you think they *didn't*?

>System Vr4.0, 

A piece of crap.  Buggy as hell, larger than 3.2, slow, ugly.

>real HDB UUCP, 

Gee.  I've never had any problems with their uucp, and I used it quite
extensively for over two years.

>and commands like su(1) and cron(1) that work the way I expect them to.

Yeah.  You're right.  They never did anything about this.  And that SLS
(available from sco [maybe uunet, too, I don't know]) which is corrects the
C2 problems (they only way I notice the c2 stuff anymore is because
passwords aren't in /etc/passwd; however, this can be a good thing)
therefore doesn't exist.

Why don't you try actually seeing what is released instead of being an
asshole and complaining?

-- 
Sean Eric Fagan  | "I made the universe, but please don't blame me for it;
sef at kithrup.COM  |  I had a bellyache at the time."
-----------------+           -- The Turtle (Stephen King, _It_)
Any opinions expressed are my own, and generally unpopular with others.