Talk:SCO OpenServer
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
SCO is not against Open Source... They are only against of abuse of proprietary software by open source developers.
One example is, as you see in the article, the number of open source applications in OpenServer 6 and how SCO embraces them.
Lol, yeah right. SCO definately isn't against Open Source.
http://www.computerworld.com/softwaretopics/os/linux/story/0,10801,89335,00.html
It's funny, SCO has not filed a single lawsuit against anyone for copyright infringement for using Linux (Autozone was about Autozone copying libraries themselves, internally, from Unix to Linux), but it is SCO that is being sued for infringing IBM's Linux copyrights.
The following paragraph sounds too much like a press release. Can it not be made more encyclopedia and also respect the NPOV? E.g. "greatly increased file system performance" - do we have evidence for that beyond the advertising of the company?
"The SCO Group, on June 22, 2005, released OpenServer 6.0, codenamed "Legend", which is the culmination of a multi-year multi-million dollar development effort and the first release in the new 6.0.x branch of releases. SCO OpenServer 6 is based upon the System V Release 5 UNIX kernel and features multi-threading application support for C, C++, and Java applications through the POSIX interface. OpenServer 6 features kernel-level threading (not found in 5.0.x), and is bundled with a wealth of open-source applications including Apache, Samba, MySQL, OpenSSH, Mozilla Firefox, KDE, and much more. It also has many other improvements over OpenServer 5 including incredibly improved SMP support supporting up to 32 x86-family processors on a single server, support for files over 1 terabyte on a partition (larger network files supported through NFSv3), greatly increased file system performance, up to 64GB of memory, backward-compatibility for applications developed for Xenix 286 onwards, and much more. OpenServer 6 is currently available from a number of SCO resellers."
- Agreed, I cleaned up the paragraph and removed a bunch of the marketing speak. Any suggestions, edit away or post here. Gantry 05:46, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Removal of 'The Future' Section
Should that "The Future" section be removed? Its slightly off topic for this article, and is rife with spelling errors.
