Talk:UnixWare

Hatred

"At the same time Noorda had an intense personal hatred towards Bill Gates"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.213.101.250 (talk • contribs) 15:38, 8 March 2006

This article needs more neutral language and some references. Starting with this edit all sorts of unsourced claims were added. Might be best to just revert. heqs 12:01, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

The screenshot is fake

The image is fake. Ive used UnixWare 7 and the GUI isnt like that. That pic appears to be a photoshopped microsoft windows!

Out of the box the GUI is CDE —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.36.92.18 (talk) 00:24, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

One bizzare thing is that the comment says it's SCO UnixWare 1.1, but UnixWare 1.1 was released by Novell. I have no idea whether UnixWare 7.3 looks like that, I only have 2.0, 2.1 or 7.1. HughesJohn (talk) 19:36, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

nah its definately fake. UnixWare uses a CDE environment. Dont know what that is in the screenie, but its not CDE... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.36.92.18 (talk) 02:06, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Version history

Does anyone have information about UnixWare's version history? As I understand it, UnixWare 7 succeeded UW 2, switching from SVR4.2 to SVR5. But what, for example, were the last releases by Novell and old SCO? Qwertyus 20:52, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

See the timeline in the article. (Added in 2007, talk not updateed) HughesJohn (talk) 11:02, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

The version timeline in the article is incomplete. I personally used UW 2.01 and 2.03 in 1996-1997; I distinctly remember having frustrating problems because the VenturCom real-time extensions were only available for 2.0X and were not compatible with UW 2.1, while at the same time there was a C library bug in 2.0X that was only fixed in 2.1 with no backport. Phaid (talk) 22:42, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Unixware apologist

this article has been written by a Unixware apologist. It is hardly critical enough of a product almost totally ignored by the market.

Novell bought Unixware when Netware was close to its height. It did not "fail to save" Netware, it actually contributed to Novell's lack of focus and Netware's decline. That's not to dispute that Unix offered an application platform for Novell which filled a hole in its portfolio. However at a time when it needed to pour massive marketing resources behind its once and for all claim to fame, Netware, it fluffed around with side issues, such as Unixware. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.246.2.221 (talk) 22:12, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

No it hasn't, it's been written by a Novell groupie. See the next section HughesJohn (talk) 10:58, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Article doesn't tell you anything about UnixWare

The big problem with this article is that it doesn't tell you anything about the subject it purports to be about. What is UnixWare, what does it do, etc. should be the core of the article. Is there anyone out there qualified to write this. Otherwise I'd be inclined to propose the article for deletion until such time as someone feels able to take it on. Brianpie (talk) 16:35, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

There is far too much about Noorda and Novell, and far too little about UnixWare. HughesJohn (talk) 10:58, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm trying to beef it up; please hold off on any deletion proposals 'till you've seen what I've done. HughesJohn (talk) 10:26, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Legal issues

I removed, "Novell is the owner of the UNIX and UnixWare Copyrights, except copyrights for improvements made by Santa Cruz Operation or SCO Group" because it's a little confusing, and out of context. First of all, there's no explanation of the underlying lawsuit, so the average reader isn't going to understand (or perhaps care about) it at all. Also, SCO Group does own the UnixWare copyrights for modifications they or their predecessors (Santa Cruz Operation and Caldera) made themselves after the September 1995 Asset Purchase Agreement. Superm401 - Talk 04:16, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Novell section rewrite for Halloween 2008

I've rewritten the section on Novell, increasing the details of the versions of UnixWare released by Novell, fixing incorrect statements (wrong version numbers), adding references, and removing unsourced statements. There may be a place for discussion of Novells/Noordas motives, but they need sources. HughesJohn (talk) 10:15, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

I've fixed up the timeline to match the available references as well. HughesJohn (talk) 10:22, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Now I've expanded the SCO section. Hope people like it. HughesJohn (talk) 16:42, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Maybe we should remove the {{Refimprove|date=July 2007}} tag? If no-one objects I'll zap it in a couple of weeks. HughesJohn (talk) 19:20, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Refimprove tag removed as I threatened.  :-) HughesJohn (talk) 16:33, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

The S5 file system

Very little on that early file system : http://tldp.org/HOWTO/Filesystems-HOWTO-9.html#ss9.26 --Jerome Potts (talk) 11:39, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

The s5 filesystem type Jamplevia (talk) 17:13, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Version inaccuracy?

I have reason to doubt the accuracy of this statement in the article:

"When the transfer was made public SCO announced that it would work towards merging UnixWare with its OpenServer SVR3.2 based OS, [13] but the first release of UnixWare from SCO was version 2.1 in 1996."

I don't think it was SCO that released UnixWare 2.1. I think it was Novell, just before they got out of the UnixWare business. Because I worked at Novell in the UnixWare group until they got out of the UnixWare business, and then I moved on to other things (not SCO), and I was given by Novell (still have it -- it's in front of me as I type) a handsome rosewood pen in a very nice rosewood box engraved with "Novell -- UnixWare 2.1 Eiger Project Completion 1995".

Of course, I suppose it's possible that what this gift was commemorating was a code completion milestone, and all the finishing touches and distribution of binaries did not get done until after the transfer to SCO. (?)

--70.90.109.225 (talk) 20:46, 6 September 2013 (UTC) phil dumont (philipddumont@gmail.com)

The SCO FAQ is inconclusive. A search on CBRonline does not turn up any mention of a Novell UnixWare 2.1. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 15:56, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

As far as I know UnixWare 2.1 was written by Novell, but released by SCO. I have a UnixWare 2.1 CD and it's in SCO colours, not Novell's. HughesJohn (talk) 13:39, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page

Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia. This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link. If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting. If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page. If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request it's removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true. Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

• http://www.cbronline.com/news/novell_formally_announces_the_unix_systems_group

  Triggered by \bcbronline\.com\b on the local blacklist

• http://www.cbronline.com/news/novell_releases_version_11_of_unixware_1

  Triggered by \bcbronline\.com\b on the local blacklist

• http://www.cbronline.com/news/santa_cruz_hp_novell_carve_up_unix_between_them

  Triggered by \bcbronline\.com\b on the local blacklist

• http://www.cbronline.com/news/sco_data_center_unixware_to_debut_at_cebit

  Triggered by \bcbronline\.com\b on the local blacklist

• http://www.cbronline.com/news/sco_gemini_to_debut_as_unixware_compaq_gets_chummy

  Triggered by \bcbronline\.com\b on the local blacklist

• http://www.cbronline.com/news/unix_labs_and_novell_plan_joint_venture_reveal_bones_of_mass_distribution_alliance

  Triggered by \bcbronline\.com\b on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot II ^Notify_Online 15:56, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

 Resolved This issue has been resolved, and I have therefore removed the tag, if not already done. No further action is necessary.—cyberbot II ^Notify_Offline 08:08, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on UnixWare. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090903203522/http://ir.sco.com:80/releasedetail.cfm?ReleaseID=264124 to http://ir.sco.com/releasedetail.cfm?ReleaseID=264124

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:56, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on UnixWare. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20031204183836/http://www.sco.com/company/history.html to http://www.sco.com/company/history.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:40, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Removal of Xenix compatability

Somebody has, correctly, added a citation needed to the statement "UnixWare 7 lacked the Xenix compatibility features of both its ancestors. This was for licensing reasons, to avoid paying Microsoft for the code that they had included in SVR3.2."

While I'm still looking, here is some mere corroborative detail, intended to give artistic verisimilitude to an otherwise bald and unconvincing narrative: http://www.linuxmisc.com/20-sco-unix/7e3f07d37cb9f564.htm

I've just spoken with SCO Sales, and have learned that Xenix compatibility, as described below, has been dropped from UnixWare 7.0.1 -- forever.

-- Bill Glick.

This move was understandable. As I recall these were the things that went to court because everytime SCO was sold, part of the money had to go to Bill Gates. They removed those pieces and no longer have Microsoft code in the OS.

-- Dave Richard

This appears to be outdated and likely referring to an early pre-releases plans for 7.0.1 since Xinuos' current product page states "UnixWare 7.1.4 runs OpenServer applications (including Xenix applications) using the OpenServer Kernel Personality (OKP) function to provide customers with powerful, flexible and cost effective deployment options...OKP combines the UnixWare Application Compatibility Package (ACP) with a full OpenServer environment to provide the highest level of compatibility with OpenServer applications (including Xenix compatibility)."; Source: https://www.sco.com/products/unixware714/ --2601:201:C180:6CE0:30A9:6410:1AD3:1DD7 (talk) 21:28, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

Is this still "current"?

Last release was in 2017, how is it not "discontinued"? 138.248.221.42 (talk) 17:20, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

It's still listed as a supported product at the Xinuos website. And it is possible they could come out with a UnixWare 7 Definitive 2023 or something like that. So yes it can still be shown as current. Wasted Time R (talk) 23:05, 1 February 2023 (UTC)