Posted by: Steven J. Vaughan-Nichols
on May 22, 2003 10:43 PM
MS isn't claiming that they needed it. While I haven't gotten them to talk to me about it. They did tell Bill Claybrook, Chief Unix and Linux analyst of Aberdeen Group, that "One reason that Microsoft took the license is to moot any potential issues of IP violations. Microsoft knows of no actual violations per the use of SCO IP." In short, the official explaination behind the offical high-sounding nonsense about respecting intellectual property is to cover themselves in case something were to turn up in Services for Unix.
To the best of my knowledge, there's no direct connection between Microsoft Cluster Services and Unixware Nonstop Clustering, except both descend from DEC's mid-80s VAXCluster technology. Microsoft started on their clustering path with their hiring of VMS designers for their 32-bit OSs and SCO got it via their once close development relationship with Compaq, which had previously bought out DEC. I'd be interested in knowing if there's a later, more direct, connection between the two.
Learn about Linux
Download Linux
Get Linux help
Re:maybe is needed
Posted by: Steven J. Vaughan-Nichols on May 22, 2003 10:43 PMTo the best of my knowledge, there's no direct connection between Microsoft Cluster Services and Unixware Nonstop Clustering, except both descend from DEC's mid-80s VAXCluster technology. Microsoft started on their clustering path with their hiring of VMS designers for their 32-bit OSs and SCO got it via their once close development relationship with Compaq, which had previously bought out DEC. I'd be interested in knowing if there's a later, more direct, connection between the two.
Steven
#