Subject: Re: Caldera
From: Chris Maeda <>
Date: Mon, 01 May 1995 21:53:32 PDT

   Date:    Mon, 01 May 1995 23:47:00 EDT
   From: (Russell Nelson)
   Subject: Re: Caldera

   Maybe I didn't make it clear enough what they're doing.  They have a
   toolkit that lets you recompile your Windows 3.1 program into a
   Caldera Desktop application.
That's even worse.  It seems like they will have a hard time getting
developers to care.  IBM can't do it for OS/2 and they have a much larger
(and much richer) installed base.  Good luck getting Microsoft Office 
ported to Caldera.

   The advantage Caldera has over Win95 or NT or OS/2 is that the
   operating system is free.  If they make a way for hardware
   manufacturers to ship Windows 3.1 && Caldera at the same time at no
   added cost, AND they can convince a few software manufacturers to
   recompile using their toolkit, then they can provide some added value:
   a real operating system with protection between processes and users,
   that is technically superior to Win95 and NT.
1) A free OS is not worth much, especially when the other vendors are
cutting prices to get market share.  I know of a once die-hard Unix shop
that is going with Win3.11 and NT3.5 because a free Unix with source code
did not outweigh the availability of Access, Visual Basic, and low-cost
industrial-strength relational database technology.

2) The Caldera advantage has a lot of "if"'s.  The one about convincing
software vendors to support it seems almost intractable.  How will they
attack that one?

3) NT is technically superior to many Unix implementations (Linux included)
and has parity with all the rest (eg Solaris and DEC UNIX).  And Microsoft
has control over which way the technology will evolve (eg Win32 and OLE2).
Everyone else (eg IBM) is just reacting, and slowly at that.  If you care
about protection, you can use NT.  If you don't care, then arguments about
how Linux has protection are unlikely to make you switch from Windows.

Chris Maeda (