Re: [LUG] IBM draws first blood in SCO Linux battle

[Andrew Rogers <andrew@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Adrian Midgley wrote:

> On Monday 08 December 2003 23:38, Simon Waters wrote:
>  
>
> > Jon Lawrence wrote:
> >    
> >
> > > SCO will pay the ultimate price for being complete arseholes
> > > hopefully, and that price will be IBM taking complete and utter
> > > control of their company as there's no way they'll be able to raise
> > > enough cash to pay for bills.
> > >      
> > Thing is apart from a fairly broad customer base of old x86 servers, SCO
> > is worth nothing but it's software licences.
> >    
>
> There is a distinct need for a ready solution - with support to 
> commercially credible levels - for any company or SME that depends on a 
> SCO server and is worried about SCO going away.
>
> Linux for preference I'd say.
>
> The alternative would be that NT sellers would be clustering around, ready 
> to re-engineer them at I expect a larger price.
>
> Do we have that, locally?
>
>  
Anyone considered the GNU/Hurd option?

I'm seriously considering having a play with Hurd if I can get my hands 
on another PC. I believe that the Hurd kernel (Mach kernel, Hurd 
servers) could become a serious competitor to the Linux kernel with few 
more years of development. The GNU programs will remain the same, at 
least from a user perspective it would be near identical to GNU/Linux. 
Porting programs from Linux to Hurd would be just a recompile.

Should I discuss Hurd on this list? Are there any local Hurd user groups?

If anyone has used Hurd I would like to hear about their experiences.

Regards
Andrew Rogers


--
The Mailing List for the Devon & Cornwall LUG
Mail majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxx with "unsubscribe list" in the
message body to unsubscribe.