Sun to Acquire Tarantella 115
SunFan writes "Sun announced that they will acquire Tarantella Inc., who were the original SCO before selling their operating system to Caldera. Another write-up with more historical detail is at SunHELP. Apparently, Sun is after the Secure Global Desktop products, which might fit into their SunRay strategy."
wtf???? (Score:5, Interesting)
The evil people used to be Caldera. They bought the SCO *name* and tarnished it.
Haven't you been paying attention? The original SCO never sold their souls, they just sold their name.
The original SCO was hostile towards Linux. (Score:1)
How soon people forget.
Re:The original SCO was hostile towards Linux. (Score:2)
Re:The original SCO was hostile towards Linux. (Score:1)
I suppose you condone then the original SCO's claims that they were going to steal all the IP from Linux that they needed. I suppose that you condone their FUD campaigns against Linux. And I suppose you condone the original SCO's attempts to discredit the contributors to Linux.
Clearly you could care less about these things. But please, if you're going to shill for the original SCO, at least be honest about it.
Re:wtf???? (Score:3, Insightful)
They bought some assets from oldSCO (Santa Cruz Operation). What was left of oldSCO became Tarentella.
Later, the newSCO was created (the SCO Group).
Those naming machinations are obviously working on confusing the general public (ie, future jurors).
Just imagine how confused a juror could be if SUN buys the newSCO.
Re:wtf???? (Score:1)
Regardless, most of SCO's development seems to be done in India (hence the Caldera developers are probably long since gone). I noticed in their employment opportunities, that their software engineers are in
Re:memories (Score:2, Funny)
Santa Creuz Group which origionally Produced SCOUnix Were a good bunch of people.
Then became Tarantella which is the same group of people.
Which sold their Unix to Caldara who was at the time a Linux Company thus a Good Company.
In some ways the combination of Unix mixed Linux in one company has turned them evil and twisted so they changed their name from the progressive Caldara to the evil SCO.
Now Terantella (Who was origionally stated as good) which was the Origional SCO got
Re:memories (Score:1)
Santa Creuz Group which origionally Produced SCOUnix Were a good bunch of people.
Back up a bit. Microsoft which originally produced Xenix are not a good bunch of people. Microsoft gave Xenix and venture capital to SCO.
Re:memories (Score:2)
If I didn't know any better I'd think you misspelled all the names intentionally.
BTW, just a few details are missing.
1) Santa Creuz Group should read Santa Cruz Operation, SCO.
2) SCO originally purchased Xenix from Microsoft, which eventually became SCO Unix. With that Microsoft was contractually barred from entering *nix territory for fifteen years I believe.
SCO is always up to something (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:SCO is always up to something (Score:1)
Visionware orginally did an X server for Windows, IXI did Motif and X.Desktop.
IXI and VisionWare were the "Client" division and between them they did VisionFS, a clean room implementation of a SMB server.
Non-Stop (Score:1)
I seem to remember Compaq pushing Non-stop for data centers. It was reputed to be good for failover/redundancy (Think Vinca, no Legato, no EMC Co-standby server for windows) on Alpha/UNIX.
And when they said NON-STOP, They meant it! We are talking about true five-nines uptime. (I remember some surveys where this was reported, although I doubted that so many actually used the prod
Re:Non-Stop (Score:1, Informative)
Re:Non-Stop (Score:2)
Re:SCO is always up to something (Score:3, Insightful)
And while I'm not putting on any tin-foil hats just yet, I would not be surprised to find Sun leveraging it's psoition as a predecessor-in-interest to SCO/Caldera (having just purchased another predecessor-in-int
Re:SCO is always up to something (Score:2)
Re:SCO is always up to something (Score:1)
Re:SCO is always up to something (Score:1)
Re:SCO is always up to something (Score:2)
Sun & Microsoft (Score:2)
Sun basically survive - or hope to survive - by holding the balance of power between IBM and Microsoft. They use OOo to extract funds from Microsoft. They variously threaten to open Java completely (to threaten Microsoft), and to try to rein it in (to threaten IBM).
In the long run, Sun is dead unless they find a good way to jum
Re:SCO is always up to something (Score:4, Insightful)
They bought perpetual rights to Unix from SCO/Caldera, but did not buy the company.
And if you thing that OO.o is the only Open Source activity that Sun funds, open your eyes. GNOME, SunSITEs, just to name the most prominent. That Schwarz is a jerk when it comes to GPL is no argument for an anti-OSS gesture, many BSD folks are likewise. It's not that we haven't our own heated flamewars on licenses and how free they are. If you don't believe me, subscribe to debian-legal...
And, in case my `prejudice' matters: I'm no Sun employee. I neither use OO.o nor GNOME; LaTeX and fvwm is just fine for me. I do use Solaris systems, but only in mission-critical HA environments. OSS is not of much interest there, yet, sadly.
Re:SCO is always up to something (Score:3, Interesting)
SCO/Tarentella used to own the rights. Sun bought that company. That also means they bought all rights and responsibilities of SCO/Tarentella, including the contract conveying copyrights to SCO/Caldera. For all legal intents and purposes, they are SCO/Tarentella now.
Re:SCO is always up to something (Score:1)
This is the same kind of ignorance that perpetuates the notion that you can only get AIDS from gay men.
Wake up! Or shut up.
Re:SCO is always up to something (Score:3, Insightful)
Your hypothesis about Sun wanting to get into the IBM/SCO struggle on the side of SCO with that buy-in, is not even sensible with a tin-foil hat.
Re:SCO is always up to something (Score:2)
The one SCO/Taratella gave SCO/Caldera.
Novell still owns these copyrights
I know that. I said nothing of the legitimacy of the aforementioned contract. SCO/Caldera bought all the copyrights SCO/Tarantella had, probably without realizing that that wasn't a whole lot.
Your hypothesis about Sun wanting to get into the IBM/SCO struggle on the side of SCO with that buy-in, is not even sensible with a tin-foil hat.
So far, this is as much of an argument
Re:SCO is always up to something (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:SCO is always up to something (Score:1)
Tarantella is the company that recognized that the entirety of the SCO IP was worth a whole lot less than Caldera was willing to pay for it, and so sold that pile of junk to fund ongoing development of a very real, very different, and very promising bit of innovative software. Software which is already a part of Sun's marketing pitch for the SunRay sys
Re:SCO is always up to something (Score:2)
http://slashdot.org/~Evets/journal/106553 [slashdot.org]
You'll see that I wanted to take my comment back immediately after I made it.
History lesson on SCO/Tarantella (Score:1)
Back in 1987 Doug Michaels and crew chose to build a unix variant based upon two computers. One was the Apple Lisa and the other was the IBM Intel based PC (one for two isn't bad).
Doug was from UC Santa Cruz and many of the early coders were as well. The atmosphere was typical Santa Cruz laid back, including a hot tub for the developers. The company name of The Santa Cruz Operation (SCO) made perfect sense.
With the death (although it never really lived) of the Lisa, SCO's full focus b
Gratuitous Strong Bad (Score:5, Funny)
Taranchula!
Re:Gratuitous Strong Bad (Score:2, Funny)
Unlike snakes, a spider's short fangs only allow it to inject poison into the human victim's skin. Luckily for us, this makes it possible to sweat out the poison before it gets into the blood stream.
A hot, sweaty, energetic dance such as the Tarantella is a great way to stay alive in such a situation. Also, if it fails, at least you'll die in a sexy, dramatic way.
Re:Gratuitous Strong Bad (Score:1, Offtopic)
The announcement and links (Score:3, Informative)
Sun announced plans to acquire Tarantella, Inc., a leading provider of secure application access software based in Santa Cruz, CA. [...] Sun plans to use Tarantella technology to provide customers with a higher level of secure mobile access to data and applications.
As part of the agreement, Sun will acquire the Secure Global Desktop family of products, which enables organizations to access and manage information, data, and applications across virtually all devices, networks, and platforms [...]
The software employs a flexible and secure three-tier architecture deployed on Solaris OS or Linux. Secure Global Desktop enables applications to be displayed using native protocols without the need for specialized software - a Web browser and Java technology is all that's necessary on the client device or application server.[...]
Most importantly, the software will enable you to present a variety of applications on Sun Ray thin clients -- including those written to Microsoft Windows.
Jonathan Schwartz comments at Acquistions Accelerate Microsoft Interoperability [sun.com]
Tarentella is here [tarantella.com]
Re:The announcement and links (Score:1)
Man...when I first read that I thought it said "Sun plans to sue Tarantella....
Must have SCO-on-the-brain.
-john
Slashdot to Acquire Dictionary (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Yeah? When? (Score:1)
hehe
Re:Yeah? When? (Score:2)
Re:Yeah? When? (Score:1)
Its all a cunning ploy (Score:3, Funny)
oh wait, they are not really spider people are they.
Re:Its all a cunning ploy (Score:2, Funny)
Seriously, this is 2-day-old (or is it 3-day-old? 4-day-old?) news. Well, I guess if recycling newspapers is good, recycling bits and bytes is also good ...
Please don't mix up names... (Score:2)
Re:Please don't mix up names... (Score:2)
Old SCO was fairly evil - well, their operating systems were. Xenix was a nightmare to port to from BSD derived systems like SunOS. The only thing the SCO operating systems had going for them was that you could run them on realtively cheap PC hardware in the days before 386BSD and Linux.
The old SCO was QUITE evil. (Score:1)
The old SCO absolutely, positively despised Linux. Linux was a competitor, and the old SCO did everything they could against it. FUD, legal threats and dirty tricks were standard operating proceedure for the old SCO against any and all competitors.
For a sample of their mindset and FUD there's this interview: http://www.computerworld.com/news/1999/story/0,112 80,35431,00.html [computerworld.com]
Here are some excerpts from t
Re:The old SCO was QUITE evil. (Score:2)
My recollections are tainted because OSR was my first Unix and I was deep into it, unaware of much else, long before I ever became aware of Linux. When Tarentalla came out, I was *really* excited. I played with it for a while on a single box. Back when Windows (NT3.51, WfW3.11) seemed to crash once an hour, that box had Unix somehow deep down there providing a s
Re:The old SCO was QUITE evil. (Score:1)
I'd put the old SCO somewhere above "normal corporate evil", and lower than the evilness being put out by Daryl McBride. SCO was certainly at least a cut above everyone else in this way.
If one wanted to learn these ways, all one had to do way to study from them. They were masters of dirty tricks, and took apparent joy from screwing over people; including their own employees, and especially some of the original employees.
They even mana
Re:Hrm (Score:1, Offtopic)
SCO is threatening everyone with lawsuits over illegal use of the letter C. Apparently they feel they got the rights to it when the Santa Cruz Operation sold their assets and changed their name to Tarantella.
Re:New SCO, old SCO, what's the diff? (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Sun SCO License (Score:4, Informative)
This is one of several reasons why the people who have been following the whole SCO/IBM thing are so pissed at both Sun and Microsoft.
Re:Sun SCO License (Score:1)
Certainly Microsoft generous contribution is something to be pissed of about, but for Sun I would have called the SCO license an evil nesescity.
If they hadn't purchased the license, how many people would of chosen Microsoft Windows Servers over Solaris due to uncertainty about the SCO v IBM case?
I am certainly looking forward to either SCO going bankrupt, or the courts fin
Re:Sun SCO License (Score:1)
if you think sun had some ulterior motive to destroy linux by backing SCO's bid to do so, you're just blowing smoke up the rest of /.'s ass. if you want to take the simplistic approach where SCO is evil and therefore anyone who deals with SCO is evil also, go ahead though, but you're just guessing.
also, sun's deal with
Re:New SCO, old SCO, what's the diff? (Score:5, Insightful)
As for the Tantella acquisition, that's clearly to get Tarantella's Citrix like software in a bid to drive down the cost of delivering legacy windows applications on the SunRay platform. No conspiracy here. Just a good business decision with no hidden agendas.
good move (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:good move (Score:1)
Move Along To Metaframe For Unix (Score:1, Insightful)
- Server upgrades that made obsolete client connection software flashed into thin clients. We had thousands of dollars of thin clients stop working because they changed the way their server piece worked. The ICA protocol is backwards compatible.
- "Deploy In Any Browser", well unless that browser wasn't Internet Explorer running with a certain version of Java. Other browsers and browse
Does this mean... (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Does this mean... (Score:1)
I'd give you funny points for what it's worth. (Score:2)
Serious question: TTA vs RealVNC (Score:2)
Anyone have any idea why one would shell out the $$$ for TTA?
Re:Serious question: TTA vs RealVNC (Score:2)
You can mix one desktop with Win/UNIX apps. (Score:2)
VNC is great but it does not have the same level of customization.
I'm not awake yet (Score:1)
I'm old. :(
Re:I'm not awake yet (Score:2)
Not the real reason (Score:2, Informative)
This acquisition was done because Tarantella have some number of Sun customers, and Sun had been recommending Tarantella. Tarantella would be bankrupt within a few months and that would seriously embarass Sun with those customers. This way Sun doesn't piss off or lose those customers. (While the deal is closing Sun will be paying life support to Tarantella.)
The management at Tarantell
It's 'Sun Ray' not 'SunRay' (Score:2)
A Vision (Score:1)
For the basic home user this would be a great benefit - no more problems with broken hardware - if it breaks they'll sen
Re:FIRST SUN SUCK POST (Score:3, Interesting)
Sun Microsystems are the people responsible for OpenOffice.org. Recently I acquired an AMD 64-bit workstation. I have been trying to get OpenOffice.org to compile on this thing.
It ain't having it. Not even the CVS version I checked out.
I know all about the "32-bit chroot" way of doing it. It's an ugly solution, like teaching a cat to bark. I've paid for a 64-bit processor, for crying out loud -- and I'm damned if I'm going to have it run on hal
Muppet (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Muppet (Score:1)
I mean, one of the great points of OpenOffice.org was that you no longer had to choose your operating system based on what office suite you use. Now you are telling us that this is not the case.
Are all 64-bit Athlons Opterons?
Re:Muppet (Score:3, Informative)
Fair enough, but judging by his rants, it doesn't look like he has much of a clue what he's trying to achieve. Why is he trying to compile OOo "64-bit"?
On a properly-designed system, the headers and libraries should all be in the normal places for 32-bit compatibility, and it should "just work."
It sounds like he's using debian, so that would explain it. But rather than figuring this out, he blames Sun, and gets away with it because it's the fashionable stance
Re:Muppet (Score:2)
Well then he is a cretin.
The Opteron/Athlon 64 architecture has numerous advantes, of which the 64-bit registers and flat 64-bit address space are only two.
I feel it is my civic duty to cast what few pearls of wisdom I posess before the swine hear, although I'm growing weary, but here goes.
Other than hardware improvements like the integrated memory controllers and Hpertransport
Re:Muppet (Score:1)
Re:Muppet (Score:2)
There are NO 64-bit builds of it that I am aware of since it has come out. (alpha, sparc64, ppc64, etc.)
It is not entirely Sun's fault, nor credit, as they bought StarOffice from I believe StarDivision. (Might have gotten the name wrong.)
And unlike almost all other 32->64-bit conversions, there are definite improvements from x86->x86_64 (amd64, e64, or whatever one wants to call it), and OpenOffice is *still* slow enough I'd take even a 10%
Re:Muppet (Score:2)
I remember when we used to complain how slow MS Word 2.0 was on a 486.
As for this "64-bit mode" stuff, that's a simplistic way of looking at things. UltraSPARC an
Re:FIRST SUN SUCK POST (Score:3, Funny)
Tell me about it.
I've been begging for a 64bit office suite for years so that I could overcome the 4 gig of memory limit for my letters and spreadsheets.
Afterall, a majority of 32bit apps on 64bit machines actually run faster, but if you are still suffering from the limits of a 32bit office app, by all means compile it for 64bit.
Re:FIRST SUN SUCK POST (Score:1, Funny)
Re:FIRST SUN SUCK POST (Score:3, Informative)
Re:FIRST SUN SUCK POST (Score:2)
Check if you think it was.
(Not that that would be any faster on sparc64 vs sparc32)
Re:FIRST SUN SUCK POST (Score:2)
Re:FIRST SUN SUCK POST (Score:1)
Re:FIRST SUN SUCK POST (Score:2)
I've still yet to see an alpha build of OpenOffice, or any other 64-bit arch.
Sun bought StarOffice, so it's not entirely their fault, however, the fact that it still doesn't properly build is a problem.
However, the fact that it still doesn't work is a blemish on StarDivision, Sun and those working on OpenOffice.
It's the Netscape situation all over, the code is simply not up to par, and it's no suprise that things break. (Anyone remember how long Mozilla t
Re:FIRST SUN SUCK POST (Score:2)
Properly-written code should not care about what processor it is running on. It's wrong from a portability point of view to assume that a particular data type can be substituted for another data type just because, on one system, they happen to have the same bit size. Yet that seems to be at the very root of the issue here. I edited file after file, lost track of where I was at, and finally gave