decoration decoration
Stories

GROKLAW
When you want to know more... 		decoration
For layout only
Home
Archives
Site Map
Search
About Groklaw
Awards
Legal Research
Timelines
ApplevSamsung
ApplevSamsung p.2
ArchiveExplorer
Autozone
Bilski
Cases
Cast: Lawyers
Comes v. MS
Contracts/Documents
Courts
DRM
Gordon v MS
GPL
Grokdoc
HTML How To
IPI v RH
IV v. Google
Legal Docs
Lodsys
MS Litigations
MSvB&N
News Picks
Novell v. MS
Novell-MS Deal
ODF/OOXML
OOXML Appeals
OraclevGoogle
Patents
ProjectMonterey
Psystar
Quote Database
Red Hat v SCO
Salus Book
SCEA v Hotz
SCO Appeals
SCO Bankruptcy
SCO Financials
SCO Overview
SCO v IBM
SCO v Novell
SCO:Soup2Nuts
SCOsource
Sean Daly
Software Patents
Switch to Linux
Transcripts
Unix Books

Gear

Groklaw Gear

Click here to send an email to the editor of this weblog.

You won't find me on Facebook

Donate

Donate Paypal

No Legal Advice

The information on Groklaw is not intended to constitute legal advice. While Mark is a lawyer and he has asked other lawyers and law students to contribute articles, all of these articles are offered to help educate, not to provide specific legal advice. They are not your lawyers.

Here's Groklaw's comments policy.

What's New

STORIES
No new stories

COMMENTS last 48 hrs
No new comments

Sponsors

Hosting:
hosted by ibiblio

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

Webmaster
Wilted SCO PR
Friday, January 09 2004 @ 03:20 PM EST

Not only has Microsoft notched up its anti-Linux PR, but SCO's PR folks have been busy little bees today too. I hope you're not eating.

First, Stowell has been talking to reporters, who of course print what he says. But there has been a shift. Now they actually find someone to speak for the other side. This is refreshing. As a result, the PR offensive looks a little wilted around the edges.

For example, Vnunet has an article that says that SCO will be turning over more evidence to IBM on January 12, which they say is in keeping with the deadline. No doubt they hoped that would be a headline. But the article instead points out that on the 23rd IBM gets to say at the hearing if they actually got everything SCO was supposed to provide. Stowell next tries to make it sound like they didn't lose the motion in December:

"SCO will then have the opportunity to request of the judge that she compel IBM [to] provide us with the evidence that SCO has requested but not yet received from IBM."
The article doesn't just stop there, though. It adds:
Stowell would not say what evidence it is awaiting.
So reporters are starting to ask some questions, instead of just accepting what SCO has to say. This is good.

This article also has the oddest quotation yet. Stowell says that SCO never violated the GPL because it "never signed over the copyrights". SCO must believe the drivel Forbes published about the FSF being the only ones who can enforce the GPL. Nobody loses their copyright when they distribute code under the GPL. It's a license, not a copyright transfer. Here's SCO's defense, evidently, against IBM's counterclaim of GPL violations, that they never signed over their copyrights:

"To do so, the company would have to knowingly sign over, in a legal document, the copyrights which the company inherited when it purchased the source code from Novell. The company has never done this and never intends to. You cannot accidentally give up your copyrights."

Stowell referred to the GPL's 'Section 0' which states: 'This licence applies to any program or other work which contains a notice placed by the copyright holder saying it may be distributed under the terms of this [GPL].'

SCO has never placed any such notice indicating that any SCO program or other work may be distributed, he added.

But Gary Barnett, principal analyst at Ovum, said: "SCO is making a very, very sophisticated argument that is open to very wide interpretation."

I so hope this is their planned defense. I won't say another word. That's how much I hope it is the defense they plan on using. They flunk all my GPL classes anyway.

Speaking of IBM, here is Caldera's partners page from 2001. Notice that Caldera was well aware of IBM's involvement in Linux going back to 1998. Let's not even go into the fact that Caldera was a Linux distributor itself, but the point is I don't see how they can argue that IBM surprised them after Project Monterey got shelved and that they had no idea IBM was involved with Linux until then:

IBM offers the industry's most comprehensive lineup of solutions for Linux®. IBM's efforts to advance Linux stretch back to 1998 and signify an unrivaled show of support via technology, skills, services, and corporate focus. With the industry's largest portfolio of hardware, software and services for Linux, IBM support continues to expand, allowing more companies to leverage Linux to grow their e-businesses.
They had a lot of partners back then. Take a look at their partners page today.

And PR is alive and well in Australia too. SCO is declaring war on you Aussies:

The SCO Group's Australian and New Zealand boss, Kieran O'Shaughnessy, told ZDNet Australia late on Friday afternoon that he was preparing to fly to London to finalise the vendor's strategies for securing licence agreements with large commercial users of Linux in Australia.

He said the point at which the licence would be available to Australian and New Zealand users was 'very, very close'. Pressed for a firm date, he confirmed that it would be before the end of this year's first quarter. . . .

O'Shaughnessy's trip coincides with the running next week in Adelaide of one of Australia's highest-profile Linux events, Linux.conf.au 2004, at which the SCO Group's long-running campaign is likely to be a hot topic.

Ooooo. Scary. And more PR about who SCO might be suing. Forbes hints that it might be Google, and of course, we all know Forbes always has the facts straight, ha ha:
SCO Group Inc., the software company that is suing IBM and extracting royalties from other Linux users, said Friday that it had held "low-level talks" with Internet search engine Google about a license agreement.

"Certainly if they're using 10,000 Linux servers that include our intellectual property as part of Unix, we would want them to license," said Blake Stowell, a SCO spokesman.

Eek. "Low level talks." That sounds grave indeed.

Let me guess: the stock price was down again yesterday? The "rag tag army" over on the Yahoo board predicted yesterday that there would be a barrage of SCO PR today. Looks like they had it right.

Far more interesting to those of us who don't own SCO stock is a "Face-off: Microsoft vs. Linux" article on TechTarget. It's interesting to me on two levels. First, it's a debate between Paul Gillin, TechTarget Editor in Chief, and Jan Stafford, Site Editor. She speaks for Linux. Gillin defends Microsoft. I know now to always view TechTarget articles with suspicion, now that I have read its Editor in Chief's views. Here is a sample:

But Linux is not a threat to Windows or even much of an alternative. Let's look at the argument about cost. Linux will always be free because of the way it's licensed, but the real cost of fully supported enterprise Linux is climbing. Red Hat just raised prices to $179 a year to support a workstation Linux license, all the way up to $18,000 a year for a mainframe installation. That's beginning to look a little like Windows pricing, isn't it? HP officials were recently quoted supporting the Red Hat price increase. Don't you think they, IBM and all the other hardware companies are just waiting for customers to buy in to Linux so they can raise prices on support?

And don't forget SCO. The software bad boy is trying to bill every Linux user for intellectual property it claims was stolen and inserted into the operating system. Users may be outraged, but notice that most vendors have been pretty quiet. In fact, they kind of like the idea of charging users for software. Vendors would be more than happy to bundle the SCO tax into the price of Linux.

First we had DiDio warning that the SCO lawsuit might get you if you use Linux, and now this guy is chanting the same mantra. Coincidence? or PR strategy?

The other interesting thing he says is that Linux is more reliable than Windows:

On reliability, there's no question that Linux has got a leg up on Windows, and that's why it's such an effective option for embedded systems. But Windows has become pretty reliable, too. Windows 2000 Server was far more reliable than its predecessors, and users and lab tests agree that Windows Server 2003 raised the bar again. It may not be "five 9s" reliability yet, but how many applications demand that level of uptime? In the core Linux market of file serving, mail serving and Web serving, Windows is now a pretty reliable option. And for systems administrators who don't have a computer science degree, it's relatively simple to use.
That's rather pitiful, don't you think? It's good enough, he says, but not as good as Linux. Even if you accept that they cost the same, which is laughable, or even if you accepted Microsoft's PR about Linux actually costing more, isn't reliability what you are looking for in software? All in all, not such good results for SCO, not that they didn't give it their all, I'm sure.

The lovely and tireless Ms. DiDio has done an analysis of Microsoft v. Linux, which she says nobody paid her to write, and which you can get next month. Not sponsored? Has the spirit of open source volunteerism gotten to her? Can you guess what she found? That Linux is cheaper by far? Nah. Just checking to see if you were awake. She channels SCO and MS, as usual:

"I don't think Linux is going to end up any cheaper than Windows, in fact, in certain environments it's going to be more expensive," Didio said. "In other words, users are going to find out that there's no such thing as a free lunch."
In an uncertain world, there is one thing you can rely on. Ms. DiDio will stand up for SCO. Here she even uses the very same words McBride used, no free lunch. It's probably just a coincidence that at the very moment Microsoft launches its anti-Linux PR about TCO, she is inspired to do an analysis of MS-Linux TCO and says the same thing Microsoft is saying -- and without any sponsorship to boot.

UPDATE: This is probably worth a headline all its own, but it seems most appropriate here. Look at this from Mercury News' Business Update, spotted by our eagle-eyed Brenda:

Speaking of heavy-handed and relentless, we bring you the latest from SCO Group. Bloomberg is reporting that Google has held discussions with SCO to avoid a possible lawsuit over the Linux operating system, SCO spokesman Blake Stowell said.

SCO claims Linux contains stolen code it owns and wants Google, owner of 10,000 Linux servers, to buy a license. The talks have occurred intermittently over the past three months and have involved low-level executives, Stowell said.

"The discussions haven't been very substantial," he said. . . .

"A lot of corporations are questioning whether SCO has a valid claim," said Brian Skiba, an analyst with Deutsche Bank.


  


Wilted SCO PR | 590 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Wilted SCO PR
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, January 09 2004 @ 03:49 PM EST
The Forbes article didn't even get the first sentence right:

"SCO Group Inc., the software company that is suing IBM and extracting
royalties from other Linux users..."

What royalties? SCO has been *seeking* royalties, sure. But who has *paid* so
much as a nickel in royalties?

Scott McKellar
http://home.swbell.net/mck9/sco/

[ Reply to This | # ]

What filings should we expect before the hearing?
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, January 09 2004 @ 03:54 PM EST
I'm confused about what we should expect on the IBM docket in the next two
weeks.

At the December 5 hearing, Judge Wells scheduled the hearing for two weeks after
the due date for the compelled production. Looking at the last few paragraphs
of the transcript, it appears that the intent was that during this two-week
period the two sides could file written arguments as to why the produced
evidence does or does not satisfy the order.

It makes a lot of sense to me that the Judge would want these arguments in
writing before the hearing, rather than trying to hash it all out in the
courtroom. What I'm confused about, though, is what these filings will be
called. Will they submit some kind of "further memoranda" in
support or opposition of the motion to compel? Or does IBM file a "motion
to find plaintiff in contempt", and SCO responds to that? Or does IBM
file a new motion to compel the same evidence that was already compelled? None
of these possibilities quite make sense.



Could someone familiar with the protocol explanain how this post-deadline,
pre-hearing period is supposed to work?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Wilted SCO PR
Authored by: Ruidh on Friday, January 09 2004 @ 03:55 PM EST
Oh, I forgot Windows dosn't run on mainframes.

Mainframe software is *expensive*. It's been many years since I've been aware
of mainframe software license costs. The last figure I had was 10 years ago:
$20,000 a year for IBM's VS Basic compiler and libraries. $20K for a compiler.
IIRC, the OS cost $250K per year then.

Support for an entire OS (including servers and compilers) at $18K is a huge
bargain in the mainframe world. The mainframes at my current place of business
administer millions of insurance contracts worth hundreds of billions of
dollars.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Wilted SCO PR
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, January 09 2004 @ 03:55 PM EST
So according to Gillin, Linux is just too reliable, whereas these days, Windows is plenty enough reliable for the likes of us. Classic.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Wilted SCO PR
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, January 09 2004 @ 03:56 PM EST
But you don't have to buy support. Linux distributions are free. And the more
the prices are raised, the more I think you'll see company shift to internal
support. Or other companies step it to undercut the distributor.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Wilted SCO PR
Authored by: Sten on Friday, January 09 2004 @ 03:56 PM EST

From the Forbes article:

SCO sued International Business Machines Corp. last year and sent notice to thousands of companies to pay to use Linux. SCO said it now has Unix license agreements with more than 6,000 companies.

Is it just me, or are they trying to make it sound like 6,000 companies have signed up for the SCO Linux license?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Once again, grimly, with feeling.
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, January 09 2004 @ 04:04 PM EST
grep Copyright /bin/true

# Copyright (c) 1984, 1986, 1987, 1988, 1989 AT&T

!= copyright USL

My UNIX has the deathstar prominently displayed, to remind me.

The schwartzchild's radius will have something to say also, I'm sure.

From Novell-oldSCO ammendment2

"copyrights and trademarks owned by Novell as of the date of the Agreement"

[ Reply to This | # ]

Low Level Talks?
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, January 09 2004 @ 04:04 PM EST
Well, if "high level talks" is with someone like the CEO or
something, what are "low level talks"? Has the boy in the mail room
been meeting with SCO again?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Wilted SCO PR
Authored by: AdamBaker on Friday, January 09 2004 @ 04:05 PM EST
From ZD Net UK
O'Shaughnessy confirmed the terms and conditions outlined in the licenses would be very similar to those offered to US-based companies, with the pricing adjusted only to accommodate variations in currency values.
As no licenses have yet been actually offered to US companies this presumably means that the plan in Oz is also to publish some meaningless terms for a license you can't buy.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Low Level Talks
Authored by: Weeble on Friday, January 09 2004 @ 04:07 PM EST
"Ooooo. Scary. And more PR about who SCO might be suing. Forbes hints that
it might be Google, and of course, we all know Forbes always has the facts
straight, ha ha:

'SCO Group Inc....said Friday that it had held 'low-level talks' with
Internet search engine Google about a license agreement.'

Eek. 'Low level talks.' That sounds grave indeed."

Fellow geeks, I had to do a double-take on that one, so you may need to also. At
first I thought of "low level talks" like one thinks of "low
level format" of a hard disk; getting right down to the nubbins. Then I
remembered that "high level talks" (like in diplomacy) are when the
bigwigs are involved.

If SCO's having "low level talks" with Google, who are they talking
with? A secretary? A janitor? Some tech in the server farm? MAYBE an IT manager
way down the food chain? How "low" are they going? (Of course, we
know how low they CAN go, but that's another context. :-)

And PJ, now that I get it, I like your association of "low level
talks" with "sounds grave". After all, we know SCO's been
digging themselves into a hole for a long time.



---
"Every time I think I've heard it all from SCO, they come
up with a new howler." Steven Vaughan-Nichols, eWeek

[ Reply to This | # ]

Question regarding GPL
Authored by: hamz on Friday, January 09 2004 @ 04:08 PM EST
SCO has stated numerous times that they never knowingly released anything under
the GPL, and therefore can't be held by the GPL. They especially have done this
with regard to the kernel. Even though they continue to distribute it.

Wouldn't it be enough to just get the CEO of old SCO/Caldera(Ransom Love?) to
get on the stand and say, "Yeah, when I was running the company, we knew
what the GPL was and yes we distributed/release software under it knowing full
well the consequenses."?

I mean you can't just change your business name and some management and not be
held to your existing contracts/licensing anymore.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Wilted SCO PR
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, January 09 2004 @ 04:10 PM EST
Just reading your excerpts, it sounds like a completely different tact from the
usual chest thumping, "We're #1! Just ask us!", kind of reviews
you would previously see.
Hopefully too late.

I look forward to reading it fully.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Forbes.com brief from Reuters == crap
Authored by: AllanKim on Friday, January 09 2004 @ 04:11 PM EST

This from the Forbes.com brief:

SCO sued International Business Machines Corp. last year and sent notice to thousands of companies to pay to use Linux. SCO said it now has Unix license agreements with more than 6,000 companies.

Gives the impression that SCO has licensed Linux to 6,000 companies, doesn't it? This is typical of the sloppy work at Reuters, which IMO lags way, way behind its competitors accuracy and quality.

(For a classic case of financial wire screw-ups, see the case of AvTel Communications, which saw its thinly traded shares skyrocket briefly as a result of inaccurate news stories. The cause: Clueless idiots at wire services read a press release about AvTel's new DSL service and reported that the company had invented a new type of modem. CNBC picked up the story in the late afternoon, and market orders placed by small investors drove the price through the roof.)

[ Reply to This | # ]

23rd hearing
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, January 09 2004 @ 04:12 PM EST
Is the hearing on the 23rd going to be sufficiently public that IBM's critique
of the "evidence" will make it into the business press?

I'm short SCOX and don't want to hold my position until Summer. I'm already
in the money, a little, and thinking about covering in early February.

[ Reply to This | # ]

OT: Caldera - SCO Purchase Agreement?
Authored by: markhb on Friday, January 09 2004 @ 04:16 PM EST
I just thought of something. We've seen plenty of the IBM-AT&T License
Agreement, as well as the SCO-Novell Asset Purchase Agreement with amendments,
but have we seen either of the purchase agreements between AT&T and Novell
(or Digital Research; I'm not sure who originally bought the code from USL), or
(more interestingly) the agreement between old SCO (now Tarantella) and Caldera?
New SCO bandies about the agreement between old SCO and Novell like they were
the SCO that signed it, but they weren't. So, have we seen what, exactly, was
in those two contracts?

---

IANAL, but if I were still working in Public Access I would probably bash them
on TV.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Wilted SCO PR
Authored by: Jonmann on Friday, January 09 2004 @ 04:16 PM EST
I've been watching Groklaw for most of the case with great enthusiasm and I'd
like to congratulate PJ on her great work.

Some time ago you said that Groklaw should remain a neutral observer, pointing
out things as the 'third party' in the lawsuit. Recently you have been acting
more like the second party (ie. IBM). I'd like you to continue the neutral
view.

SCO's arguments are ludicrous, there's no doubt about that. Despite this, I
(and many professional analysts) would value Groklaw and perhaps take the OSS
& free software community more seriously if you left the ideological
speeches to people like RMS and Perens.

I don't want to censor you, Groklaw has just become much more than your humble
blog.

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO Will sue Google because...
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, January 09 2004 @ 04:22 PM EST
Early in the period where Google stock goes public SCO will sue to leverage
Google stock price down. Then Canopy will suck up all the stock they can. Then
all the FUD is done hitting the fan and Googles stock has climbed in value then
Canopy will be sitting pretty.

Watch and see if this does not happen!

[ Reply to This | # ]

Wilted SCO PR
Authored by: RK on Friday, January 09 2004 @ 04:30 PM EST
This quote from the Stowell interview is just ridiculous:

"Stowell referred to the GPL's 'Section 0' which states: 'This licence applies to any program or other work which contains a notice placed by the copyright holder saying it may be distributed under the terms of this [GPL].'
SCO has never placed any such notice indicating that any SCO program or other work may be distributed, he added."

He MUST know that SCO (Caldera) released plenty of code under the GPL even if he's claiming that there's other code that does violate their rights. Why lie about this by claiming they never placed GPL notices on any works at all? This is so trivially demonstrated to be untrue as to be pointless. Unless he's just lost the plot completely. It's bizarre.

[ Reply to This | # ]

'low-level talks'
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, January 09 2004 @ 04:33 PM EST
If this 'low-level talks' have really existed,
they probably went this way:

SCO : Would you please send your CEO to discuss the licencing of your Linux
servers?
Google : No, but we can do this very informally. We'll send someone friday 6.30
pm.

Friday 6.40 pm:
SCO (Sontag) : Well, now you have heard our position and know we are going to
sue you if you do not pay, what's Googles position in respect to it?
Google (bellboy for system administration) : Ha, ha, ha, ha .... (turns arround
and leaves the building).

Monday 9.30 am:
Google (sysadmin at his desk) : Thanks for the coffee Pat. And how was your
company paid sightseeing tour in Utah this weekend?


CCS

[ Reply to This | # ]

It really could be Google
Authored by: DannyB on Friday, January 09 2004 @ 04:34 PM EST
It could be Google that SCO intends to sue.

Microsoft was interested in Google's technology, and in purchasing them. Google didn't sell out.

Now Microsoft is building their own search engine.

Google is about to go public. (Recent slashdot article.)

Wouldn't an SCO lawsuit against Google taint an IPO? And wouldn't this just happen to coincidentially be in Microsoft's best interest?

---
The price of freedom is eternal litigation.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Wilted SCO PR
Authored by: lpletch on Friday, January 09 2004 @ 04:39 PM EST
The local managing director was unable to confirm which of the SCO Group's senior executive team would be at the meeting in London, but said they would be "big hitters".

Big Hitters? All of the "Big Hitters" at SCO seem to have struck out. The whole team is still trying to find the ball they dropped at the last hearing.

[ Reply to This | # ]

  • "Casy at the Bat" - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, January 09 2004 @ 09:09 PM EST
  • Wilted SCO PR - Authored by: stevem on Friday, January 09 2004 @ 11:34 PM EST
  • Big hitters - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, January 10 2004 @ 12:46 PM EST
Wilted SCO PR
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, January 09 2004 @ 04:42 PM EST
System administrators without computer science degree?

What kind of companies hire such sys admins?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Wilted SCO PR
Authored by: blacklight on Friday, January 09 2004 @ 05:01 PM EST
"SCO Group Inc., the software company that is suing IBM and extracting
royalties from other Linux users, said Friday that it had held 'low-level
talks' with Internet search engine Google about a license agreement."

Low level talks such as a telemarketer from the SCO Group attempting to put the
squeeze on a receptionist at Google?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Priceless
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, January 09 2004 @ 05:06 PM EST
TCO seems to be Microsoft's latest and most desperate push to stop the Linux steamroller, but even though Linux is both better and cheaper than whatever piece of crap Microsoft is selling these days, the point of Linux isn't that it is Free as in Beer, but that Linux is Free as in Freedom. Having the source (and the right to recompile at will) means you control your own destiny... which is priceless. Unfortunately, TCO doesn't have a category for priceless so I'll do my own math and Bill Gates and his army of marketing droids can go suck lemons. JR

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO Copyright defense
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, January 09 2004 @ 05:06 PM EST
"To do so, the company would have to knowingly sign over, in a legal document, the copyrights which the company inherited when it purchased the source code from Novell. The company has never done this and never intends to. You cannot accidentally give up your copyrights."

Stowell, as usual, is not addressing the point.

Ignore for a moment whether their is any SCO code, or SCO infringing code, in Linux. That's not the issue for IBM's copyright counterclaims.

What is indisputable is that not all of Linux is SCO's code (even if there is some infringing code, it ain't 100% Linux)

IBM's counterclaim on copyrights relates to IBM's copyrighted code in Linux.

IBM says that IBM licensed IBM's code for distribution under the GPL and only the GPL.

IBM further says that by distributing IBM's code under terms other than the GPL, SCO is infringing IBM's copyrights.

This is nothing to do whether there is any "infringing code".

SCO's defense is that:

1. IBM's copyrights are invalid, possibly by result of fraud. The fraud allegation will almost certainly be thrown on Jan 23.

2. IBM's copyrights should be unenforceable (although no argument has been presented why).

In other words, SCO is arguing:

1. SCO messed up by distributing SCO code in Linux under the GPL (assuming there is any SCO code), so should not be bound by the GPL... And SCO should be able to enforce its copyrights not withstanding SCO's own mistake.

2. IBM did not mess up (once the fraud charge is thrown out), by licensing it's code under the GPL and only the GPL... But IBM should not be able to enforce IBM's copyrights, even though there is no mistake.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Google CEO comes from Novell
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, January 09 2004 @ 05:13 PM EST
Dr. Eric Schmidt, Google's CEO, comes from Novell, I believe. Presumably, he's
aware of Novell's competing copyrights with SCO and still has contacts at
Novell.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Wilted SCO PR
Authored by: RealProgrammer on Friday, January 09 2004 @ 05:14 PM EST
It may not be 'five 9s' reliability yet, but how many applications demand that level of uptime?

Uh, all of mine demand it.

---
(I'm not a lawyer, but I know right from wrong)

[ Reply to This | # ]

Wilted SCO PR
Authored by: lpletch on Friday, January 09 2004 @ 05:15 PM EST
From the article at vnunet

Blake Stowell:

You cannot accidentally give up your copyrights.

From USL_vs_BSD:

Plaintiff can have no valid copyright on 32V unless it can fit within one of the statutory or common law escape provisions. .....
Plaintiff cannot avail itself of any of these provisions...

[ Reply to This | # ]

RIAA at it agian
Authored by: Hepburnj on Friday, January 09 2004 @ 05:33 PM EST
I know this is off topic but I found this wile reading /. and figured that you might be intersted in it. S lashdot Artical

La Weekly Artical It seems that the RIAA might have gotten themselves into some trouble.

---
__________
Hepburnj

[ Reply to This | # ]

Note on Forbes article
Authored by: lpletch on Friday, January 09 2004 @ 05:37 PM EST

It looks like the Forbes article is originally from Reuters.

[ Reply to This | # ]

TCO - again.
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, January 09 2004 @ 05:37 PM EST
Its not just the operating system though is it?

Most distros come with the equivalent of THOUSANDS of dollars worth of software.
I notice most TCO reports seem to ommit that!

The amount you save on just one server, licensed to run the major back office M$
systems, you could send a handful of IT staff for a one day specialist Linux
course.

[ Reply to This | # ]

  • TCO - again. - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, January 09 2004 @ 05:43 PM EST
    • TCO - again. - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, January 09 2004 @ 05:47 PM EST
    • Compiler - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, January 09 2004 @ 07:07 PM EST
      • Compiler - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, January 09 2004 @ 09:01 PM EST
OT: December 19 letter commentary
Authored by: RealProgrammer on Friday, January 09 2004 @ 05:39 PM EST

I've finished my commentary on the December 19 "65 files" letter, and would like everyone to look at it. I'm most interested in having my legal arguments cleaned up, especially if I'm way off base.

In the commentary I intentionally ignored the Novell copyright claims, which may obviate the whole issue. The reason is that Novell could theoretically try the same tactic, and SCO certainly will try something similar in the future.

Please read it and reply here.

---
(I'm not a lawyer, but I know right from wrong)

[ Reply to This | # ]

OT: Forbes To Abandon Problematic Windows 2003 Server
Authored by: Dan M on Friday, January 09 2004 @ 05:42 PM EST
This just posted at NewsForge: Forbes To Abandon Problematic Windows 2003 Server

[ Reply to This | # ]

Wilted SCO PR
Authored by: Tsu Dho Nimh on Friday, January 09 2004 @ 05:54 PM EST
"Stowell said that SCO has had "intermittent, low-level
discussions" with Google, "

Does that mean they use the search engine?

I doubt that Google would do more than say "show us the infringing code
and proof it's infringing" if asked to pay for licenses.

[ Reply to This | # ]

  • Wilted SCO PR - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, January 09 2004 @ 09:01 PM EST
Wilted SCO PR
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, January 09 2004 @ 05:56 PM EST
I think Stowell is refuting the wrong argument.

Consider two claims made by SCO's opponents:

1) By requiring Linux users to buy a license, SCO is violating the rights of all
of the legitimate contributors to Linux, who intended their code to be useable
without this restriction.

2) If Linux contains SCO's code, then the code is no longer SCO's because they
inadvertently distributed it with Caldera Linux.

IBM's counterclaim, if I understand correctly, is about point 1, but Stowell is
trying to address point 2. I happen to agree with his reasoning, but IBM's
claim still stands.

SCO defense to the first claim may be that they are only licensing their own
code within Linux, and that all of the other code in Linux is still free. This
reasoning would hold water IF SCO WOULD TELL THE POTENTIAL LICENSEES WHAT CODE
IT IS THAT THEY'RE LICENSING. Since they won't reveal what code is legitimate
and what isn't, we can't separate the two, and all of the legitimate code is
rendered useless unless we buy a SCO license. They're holding legally
contributed GPL code for ransom.

[ Reply to This | # ]

  • Hmmm - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, January 09 2004 @ 06:03 PM EST
  • Not so - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, January 09 2004 @ 08:03 PM EST
SCO needs a new corporate name. I suggest "ValuJet-Enron"
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, January 09 2004 @ 06:02 PM EST
SCO needs a makover, a new image. Given their complete lack of ethics and the
apparent reality that they are about to crash, I suggest the name ValuJet-Enron.


Proper attribution: Inspiration and credit goes to an old satire article from
"The Onion" where a company in trouble was renaming itself
"ValuJet".

[ Reply to This | # ]

Something SCO forgot about...
Authored by: Diogenese on Friday, January 09 2004 @ 06:03 PM EST
I posted this on the Yahoo SCOX board earlier, I have not seen it mentioned here
yet.

As you all know, a judge is deciding on a motion to dismiss on the Redhat case
in Deleware.

Google is a RedHat customer. Yep, all 10,000 boxes. With this latest FUD I
think SCOX may have bought itself just a wee bit of a legal problem with the
Lantham act.

-Dio

[ Reply to This | # ]

Wilted SCO PR
Authored by: suppafly on Friday, January 09 2004 @ 06:05 PM EST
It may not be 'five 9s' reliability yet, but how many applications demand that level of uptime? A lot. Where I work, we have one application that can cost $100,000 for every 15 minutes of downtime.

[ Reply to This | # ]

OT: EUCD & DMCA
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, January 09 2004 @ 06:06 PM EST
Over the last few years I have seen it all and I just wonder where we are
heading.


We, in the UK, have recently entered into the spirit of the EUCD which makes it
illegal to tamper with any software which has, or conveniently purports to have,
a 'technological measure' to protect the interests of the Copyrigt Holder. I
believe this law is similar to the US DMCA.


All fine and dandy, but if I want to protect my privacy or protect my system
against unwanted alteration, I now run the risk of braking the law with some
harsh penalties. Not only that, just examining these technological measures is
viewed as attemped alteration and is thus a no no.

Further if I do find anything 'interesting' I am not allowed to talk about it
with anyone.

I feel that my computer could cease serving my interests and I am powerless to
do anything about it, and if I find evidence to support my claim, my right of
free speech has been taken from me. The balance of individual rights versus
that of the rights holder has shifted too far.

I would like to rally some support for a fight back. As a brainwave I am
planning on some kind of Electronic Notice (document) to reside on my hard drive
that warns anyone (or any program logic acting on their behalf) that the use of
'technical measures' on my computer is a form of trespass and subject to
circumvention by consent.

Now you legal eagles here might be able to help with this.

Thanks for listening.


[ Reply to This | # ]

Wilted SCO PR
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, January 09 2004 @ 06:21 PM EST
Stowell: "To do so, the company would have to knowingly sign over, in a legal document, the copyrights which the company inherited when it purchased the source code from Novell. The company has never done this and never intends to. You cannot accidentally give up your copyrights."

Does this mean Stowell is admitting that they only purchased the source code from Novell and not the copyrights, and is trying to assert that the copyright is somehow inherited from Novell as part of the source code sale? But to do so, Novell would have to "sign over, in a legal document, the copyrights", which they have not.

[ Reply to This | # ]

  • Wilted SCO PR - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, January 09 2004 @ 07:16 PM EST
Paul Gillin=Uninformed
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, January 09 2004 @ 06:27 PM EST
Ok... Lets start with this quote from Paul Gillin.

"nearly every major vendor in the computer industry -- except Sun"

Sun indeed is behind Linux. The SUN Java Desktop is a Linux Distro and SUN, as
well as HP, idmnifies its Linux customers. Sun juust sold a few Million Linux
machines to China and is working with Wal-Mart to put SUN/Linux Machines on the
shelf.

So I don't see how or why they are including Lawesuits in the TCO of Linux VS
MS when SUN and HP indemnify. To be honest they should be woried about some of
the MS products where MS has already had lost cases and the liscnse hold MS
faultless.

"Let's look at the argument about cost. Linux will always be free because
of the way it's licensed, but the real cost of fully supported enterprise Linux
is climbing"

What about the support costs for MS products. As a consumer on Windows its $35
per support call. As a corp cuastomer it is very very high. What you thought
you got free support for MS products beyond the 2 freebie calls??

"Users may be outraged, but notice that most vendors have been pretty
quiet. In fact, they kind of like the idea of charging users for software.
Vendors would be more than happy to bundle the SCO tax into the price of
Linux."

No they won't. The fee is way to high. The vendors will just stop offering
Linux altogether. Explain to me please how the new desktop vendors could pass
along the SCO fee when their desktops are selling at $199??

"And, of course, we know that the real cost of computing is not the
acquisition price but the lifetime cost of ownership. On this front, again,
Windows presents a pretty compelling argument. Windows resellers and support
services are easy to find and cost-competitive with their Linux counterparts. A
wider variety of software is available for Windows than for Linux, meaning that
IT managers have to spend less time looking for solutions and customizing the
ones that they find."

These same programs run in Linux under WINE in most cases. WHat exactly is the
point here. Since most of the decent Linux apps get ported to Windows you might
be looking at the exact same apps. These apps alos get ported to OSX so your
design folks off in design land can still use the same apps on their shinny Macs
and be happy about having Macs.

"Microsoft's certification program ensures that graduates have at least a
basic level of competency. This peace of mind is important."

Uhmm... You do know there is such a thing as the LPI and other certifications
for Linux also. I find it odd that he mentions the MSCE and competency in the
same breath. He's a funny man I tell you. To be honest somone with a LPI
level 3 cert I would consider to be much more comptent than a MSCE.

" Enterprise IT managers will continue to contract for support, and Linux
and Windows cost about the same in that respect."

It depends. With Linux you have more choices at least.

"I But the fact is that Microsoft has done a pretty good job over the last
10 years of building products and supporting services for enterprise IT
managers"

Windows 98-ME is doing a good job? Heck they claim they must scrap their old OS
becuase it is too insecure. I would say with the level of security of MS
products and the whole 9X lines stability as an indicator of quality from MS
then I would say they have done a very bad job in the last 10 years.




[ Reply to This | # ]

  • vendors - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, January 10 2004 @ 02:36 AM EST
  • LPI Level 3? - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, January 13 2004 @ 04:19 AM EST
SCO - Novell revisited
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, January 09 2004 @ 06:29 PM EST
Reading the press releases from when the SCO-Novell deal went through, an interesting picture arises:

This is the original SCO press release.
This is the joint HP/Novell/SCO press release. Note that the SCO press release includes the following: "According to the terms of the agreement, SCO will acquire Novell's UnixWare business and UNIX intellectual property."

The joint release says: "SCO has purchased the UnixWare business from Novell and will consolidate its SCO OpenServer system and Novell's UnixWare into a merged high-volume Intel-based UNIX operating system that provides interfaces in common with HP-UX." IP rights are not mentioned.

So it seems that the interpretations of the deal may have differed from day one. However, it does seem clear that the intent of the deal was for SCO to market and develop a new product based on a merged OpenServer and UnixWare, although with Novell retaining interest.

The press (Computerworld) described the deal as Novell 'outsourcing' their UnixWare business to SCO.

The controversy on IP rights remain, but it doesn't seem they may be entirely new either.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Wilted SCO PR - why?
Authored by: jimc on Friday, January 09 2004 @ 07:22 PM EST
Thanks PJ for running an
    honest
site. You do a fantastic job, and your being referenced in court documents indicates just how good you really are. I think I would have done something pyschotic if I hadn't found your site. I keep wondering WHY SCO keeps saying one thing and then contradicting itself, then saying another again. I think the reason is; pure criminal intent (*golly, really?*). But hear me out. Criminals are caught in their alibis because they have to keep two versions of reality; the one that really is, and the one that they have fabricated. As you probe the story that they have fabricated, they eventually snare themselves because their stories get wilder and wilder to compensate for their inconsistencies. Think many small deviations on a path until you miss your target by miles. Then, when confronted with their version of reality and they see how ludicrous it is, the story changes yet again. This behaviour is, and has been, a pattern with SCO. Result: SCO is lying(!), pure and simple. They have a basal (mis)understanding about GPL from their lawyers, but each person has been telling THEIR version of reality. Adding them all up, they translate to a large variation in the original path. And I believe that they are gonna get BURNED big time. I, for one, will be lining up to watch the fire and maybe, fan the flames.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Wilted SCO PR
Authored by: Jude on Friday, January 09 2004 @ 07:53 PM EST
Stowell says that SCO never violated the GPL because it "never signed over the copyrights".

Nice foot shot, Stowell. Since you insist that copyrights can only be transferred by explicit
agreement, where's your documentation of Novell's transfer of Unix copyrights to SCO?
You do have a signed and dated document listing all of the copyrights that were transferred,
don't you?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Gillin's logical downfall :-) There is no q.e.d :-)
Authored by: TobiasBXL on Friday, January 09 2004 @ 08:19 PM EST
When I read this Gillin article I thought that this could be one of those maths exam problems at university, where they give you a proof which seems logical enough at first sight and you have to find the flaw that makes it invalid.

Basically Mr. Gillin states the following:

The price of buying Linux is almost at the same level as Windows(assuming that there exists just one company selling Linux in the whole wide world, namely Red Hat).

TCO is defined by costs of using professional third party services or inhouse services.

Linux is much more reliable than Windows.

And he comes to the conclusion that Windows is "better" than Linux.

Now if I put these three together I would get something like this:

Assuming buying Windows or Linux isn't differing in costs of purchase and assuming that using the services of any third party to support Linux and Windows are the same and assuming that Linux is much more reliable than Windows then I get this:

Linux TCO is much lower than Windows TCO.

Why is that?

Precisely as Mr. Gillin explained to us:

You need less costly third party support or inhouse services with a system that is much more reliable. Rather simple, isn't it?! :-) Of course you'll buy the system that is more reliable because you'll need less third party support. Thanks for making my point, Mr. Gillin.

Besides, the assumption that Linux can't beat Windows on price of purchase is not very bright. You can easily put an end to this FUD argument with today's scientific perceptions:

Take Windows: one supplier + very many customers => monopoly => high prices. Take Linux: very many suppliers + very many customers => open competition => prices near market balance level

Every first year economy student learns that. That's the first thing any student gets out of Mankiw after he knows what a market is.

Mr. Gillin has to do better than that to convince anyone.

cheers, Tobias

[ Reply to This | # ]

OT: look on the brigthside of MS's High Linux TCO FUD
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, January 09 2004 @ 08:36 PM EST
I was thinking here... there has been alot of FUD, misconceptions, and
misunderstanding about linux out there over the past years. A couple popular
ones were/are:

1. It's "free as in beer" so it can't be any good for my business.
In fact this crops up again and again as the "There's no free
lunch" crap.

2. Linux is anti-capitalistic.

3. Proprietary software costs actual money cause it's better, supported,
warrantied.


Well it seems to me, the latest MS FUD campaign is blowing those issues away by
"proving" that linux is more expensive than Windows.

1. Linux is a more expensive lunch than windows.... windows becomes the
"soup kitchen meal". Of course the MS campaign proves that there
truly isn't any free lunch. So maybe the argument that you as a linux proponent
are expecting and/or depending on free lunch will go away.

2. If linux is more expensive than windows, then vendors must be making more
$$$$ ... hardly anti-capitalistic.

3. If proprietary software costs less... which is better?!? It becomes a dueling
benchmark scenario with customer needs being the driving force (ie. least
expensive, highest performing, lowest maintainance, licensing terms,
"warranty" offered:), etc.)



If MS is reduced to claiming linux is more expensive in TCO, and slower
performing on hard technical benchmarks, then I dont' feel so bad. Buying
decisions are not always made on price(or at least not in my dream world). Sure
higher price is a disadvantage, but it tends to indicate that you are in the
same game. Bickering can ensue over which is "actually cheaper" as
it does for say,... a dell vs. hp desktop price comparison.

I have every confidence that if linux is truly slower, it can and will be
improved to outperform windows(or the windows optimizations for the specific
benchmark!). I question the benchmark claims in the portions of the campaign
documents I read the other day. Primarily I felt the urge to try and duplicate
their test setup and compare results.... Maybe they should have claimed
"less" of a raw performance advantage for windows. I found it hard
to believe win2k3 had so much perf advantage.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Old good caldera...
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, January 09 2004 @ 08:37 PM EST
I found this comment on top of caldera's old website very amusing: "
UNIFYING UNIX WITH LINUX FOR BUSINESS "

Now they should have on their webpage " SUING LINUX WITH UNIX FOR
LIVING "

[ Reply to This | # ]

Wilted SCO PR
Authored by: RSC on Friday, January 09 2004 @ 08:46 PM EST
Geez I hope they send out letters here in Australia.

The ACCC will be really busy processing complaints.

I just hope the new ACCC head is not the plotical puppet people say he is.

If the old head was still there, SCO would not have a chance.

RSC

---
----
An Australian who IS interested.

[ Reply to This | # ]

  • Wilted SCO PR - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, January 09 2004 @ 11:58 PM EST
  • ACCC - Authored by: stevem on Saturday, January 10 2004 @ 12:16 AM EST
    • ACCC - Authored by: RSC on Saturday, January 10 2004 @ 12:54 AM EST
  • Wilted SCO PR - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, January 10 2004 @ 02:03 AM EST
  • In other words - Authored by: Wesley_Parish on Saturday, January 10 2004 @ 04:44 AM EST
  • hijacking linux - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, January 10 2004 @ 10:56 PM EST
Orchestrated attack on PJ
Authored by: JMonroy on Friday, January 09 2004 @ 08:49 PM EST
I've been reading GROKLAW since June of 2003, and PJ hasn't really changed much in terms of her writing style. For those who aren't quite familiar with PJ's writing style, it's mostly serious and straightforward, with accents of sarcasm sprinkled throughout. I have seen nothing but absolute professionalism from PJ when she responds to posts, even ones the openly criticize her.

And the people that frequent this site are of the highest caliber, with scientists, engineers, executives, analysts, journalists, etc. frequenting quite often. The level of commentary makes this site attractive to those who aren't interested in the (mostly) biased media drivel. The atmosphere is friendly and highly professional.

Today, however, there seems to be an orchestrated attack on PJ from people who, in some cases, hide behind anonymity, and other cases, claim to be a "fan," only to spew their vitriol in an attempt to personally discredit PJ. Sorry, I'm not falling for this garbage. This smells way too much of orchestration by some entity with an agenda. And that agenda is to destroy PJ's credibility.

Call me paranoid, call me foolish... it doesn't matter. I know what a rat smells like. And it smells like rat in here.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Accidental Release
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, January 09 2004 @ 09:46 PM EST
The bit about accidental release under the GPL just makes me laugh.

Most of us know that they are just making this s**t up to suit them because they
now 'regret' releasing under the GPL, and are being untruthful to cover this
up.

Putting that asside, I cannot see how a supposedly leading IT company did not
understand the GPL sufficiently to know what the implications were. They are
effectively admitting total imcompetence. To then continue to release more code
under the GPL which included the 'accidental code' and not realise it, is
again gross incompetence.

They also say that their code was never intended to be released this way, well
when exactly did they find out about the mistake and what did they do to remedy
the situation? Not anouncing the mistake immediately and the longer they left
it, the less chance of this argument holding up.

Also they question the actions of some of former sco's staff by placing blame
on them as if the releases were done without sufficient authority. When did
they first learn of this? Were those staff disciplined? How many staff were
involved? What action was taken to remedy the situation and prevent it from
happening again? Is the lack of staff accountability and control another sign
of incompetent management?

If an employee of your company acts outside his authority it is not necessarily
obvious to others and you may be bound by his reckless actions. If you allow
the employee a free reign to act in situations where his authority may be
mistaken you are asking for trouble.

Next up is criticising the legal validity of the GPL itself so that they can now
opt out of it. If it's not valid then what gives them the right to distribute
the work of others?

Oh I nearly forgot, it's unconstitutional and strangely pre-empted by copyright
law.

The latest doublespeak is about not deliberately signing away the copyrights.
They seem to misunderstand how such rights are given. This could also be a ploy
to say that if Novell owns the copyrights, as it claims, then sco didnt have
authority to contribute anyway!

No matter how much sco wriggles, there is no escape. Ive got this funny feeling
that SCO regret the day they ever heard of the GPL, or Linux.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Who has all the SCO stock?
Authored by: lpletch on Friday, January 09 2004 @ 10:00 PM EST
This is interesting.

http://www.iht.com/articles/124409.htm

"Jonathan Cohen says holders of his $110 million Royce Technology Value
Fund should not expect a repeat of last year, when their investments almost
doubled."....

"His fund focuses on investments in companies with market values of less
than $4 billion, and his biggest holdings include the software supplier SCO
Group"...

[ Reply to This | # ]

Wilted SCO PR
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, January 09 2004 @ 11:10 PM EST
Actually, it just struck me why Caldera needed to change their
name.

Isn't a Caldera a form of crater? And isn't that all they'll be
after they get carpet-bombed with lawyers?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Astroturf
Authored by: The Mad Hatter r on Friday, January 09 2004 @ 11:42 PM EST
It's interesting seeing the Astroturfers coming out. It's even more
interesting reading what they have to say, and how they say it:

1) PJ likes Linux, therefore PJ is evil.

2) SCO has a case (violin case maybe).

3) Microsoft makes great products.

The attacks that I've seen have several things in common. They tend to be very
badly written, they tend to be short on specifics, and they tend to be written
in emotionally laden language.

They are also getting desperate, which is a good indication of success on the
part of the Free Software/Open Source community.

Thanks again PJ.

Wayne

Telnet hatter.twgs.org

[ Reply to This | # ]

Is that Brian Skiba....
Authored by: anwaya on Saturday, January 10 2004 @ 12:03 AM EST
the other Brian Skiba's more observant identical twin? Or has the Brian we're
used to quietly let us know that he recognises that there's the matter of an
unmitigated risk factor that SCO omitted to mention from its financial
statements?

If it's the latter - welcome, Brian. How do you like the coffee?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Wilted SCO PR
Authored by: capn_buzzcut on Saturday, January 10 2004 @ 01:44 AM EST
I keep getting this cartoon-like picture in my head: There's this huge
dinosaur named MS. He's angry because of all the little Linux mammals biting
chunks out of his flesh, so he's plucked a dead tree named SCO out of the
ground and is flailing it around trying to to knock them off. In the
background, a meteor named Reality is hurtling towards the earth...

[ Reply to This | # ]

Low Level Executives
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, January 10 2004 @ 01:47 AM EST
Does that mean someone like the manager of the cleaning staff?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Wilted SCO PR
Authored by: richardpitt on Saturday, January 10 2004 @ 02:07 AM EST
Note that everything in Australia happens 6 months after "the rest of us"

(or before - if you are from somewhere below the equator ;)

The thing to note about the pogram in Aus. is that there is a whole new pool of media people and impressionable sales/marketing droids there that have not yet been aquainted with Groklaw :)

[ Reply to This | # ]

Skiba's Comment - Deeper Meaning
Authored by: stdsoft on Saturday, January 10 2004 @ 02:20 AM EST
For those that have been following Deutsche Bank closely, the negative comment
is an exceptional departure from their bias and comments to-date. Here is a
hypothesis to be tested. Evidence has hinted that Deutsche Bank (Skiba) may be
collaborating with an investment fund client. In this context, a strongly
negative comment from Skiba would have to mean that the client has already found
a way to exit and is preparing a short position. Otherwise, DB would simply
have dropped coverage rather than bother to initiate a negative bias.

If I read this right, the long-anticipated report revision from Deutsche Bank
should show up Tuesday or Wednesday. This will include much more thorough
diligence than before, many negative comments, a lowered target and a rating
downgrade. The entire magazine will not be spent, as ammunition will be saved
for subsequent revisions.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Wilted SCO PR
Authored by: jkondis on Saturday, January 10 2004 @ 02:46 AM EST
"In fact, they [vendors] kind of like the idea of charging users for
software. Vendors would be more than happy to bundle the SCO tax into the price
of Linux."

Is this sarcasm or just idiocy? Or am I missing something?Such a tax would
*very* seriously eat into any profits these vendors could make. The same reason
cigarette or alcohol taxes reduce the cigarette and alcohol companies' profits.
Econ. 101.

Oh and let's not forget that the true copyright owners would seriously object
to their works being distributed for money outside of the terms of the GPL!
Don't forget to mention the GPL, Mr. Paul Gellin, the thing that will get
Caldera/SCOG and these so-called vendors sued if they attempt to charge for
restrictive licenses!

Yeah, and the vendors such as Red Hat like the idea so much they are suing the
crap out of Caldera/SCOG. Yep they sure like the idea, yessiree.

...J

[ Reply to This | # ]

Degrees, supercomputers, Unix, and the Internet
Authored by: valdis on Saturday, January 10 2004 @ 03:13 AM EST
Please note that not everybody in a big IT shop has a CS degree. In fact, the guy who was project manager for building the 3rd largest supercomputer in the world has a PhD - in Aerospace Engineering. I should know, his cubicle is within paper-airplane distance of mine. :)

And a very large percentage of the really experienced staff won't have CS degrees simply because CS as a separate discipline didn't exist at the time they were getting their degrees (for instance, mine is in Mathematics, with a Physics minor, mostly because there wasn't a separate CS department until 2 years after I got my degree).

In fact, the Internet was largely designed by people without CS degrees for that very reason. But let's focus in on the movers-and-shakers who were at Bell Labs when something interesting got developed....

  • Dennis Ritchie has a BS in Physics, Harvard '63) and a PhD in mathematics (Harvard '68).
  • Ken Thompson has a BS and MS in electrical engineering (UC Berkeley '65-66)
  • Brian Kernighan has a PhD in Electrical engineering (Princeton '69).
  • Rob Pike's bio doesn't list a degree, but does mention an Olympic silver medal in archery.
Now, what were you saying about CS degrees?

[ Reply to This | # ]

TANSTAAFL - There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch
Authored by: Wesley_Parish on Saturday, January 10 2004 @ 03:35 AM EST
When The Economist was covering the SCO line in its inimitable manner, I sent them a letter informing them that the real matter with Free/Libre Open Source Software was not so much Free Lunch as having free access to the cafeteria.

I have no idea why the idea is so prevalent - perhaps it's because to be able to think takes a lot of hard work, and far too many people these days are congenitally work-shy.

---
finagement: The Vampire's veins and Pacific torturers stretching back through his own season. Well, cutting like a child on one of these states of view, I duck

[ Reply to This | # ]

My Free Lunch
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, January 10 2004 @ 05:25 AM EST
Admittedly I'm using FreeBSD, and apart from the vapid trolls on Slashdot that
insist that it's 'dying', I've been enjoying free lunches for the past five
years. Likewise my company has been enjoying the self-same free lunches. I
suspect Didio doesn't really understand that a free lunch in the rest of the
world means *not* have to write a cheerleading piece, but bless her fluffy
little head for trying to understand.

Sooo...I'm running a firewall, IP Networking, Samba, Mysql, Postgres, IMAP,
SMTP, webserver, PHP on a platform that is ultra-stable. Anyone want to work
out the costs of that based on the Microsoft platform? I should point out that
the hardware is mainly retired stuff apart from a couple of 80Gb IDE Hard Disks;
I'd say the whole box cost around £300, and it probably would fall over under
Server 2003, *but it's doing the job I ask of it*.

My support is existing users on the lists, google. If this isn't enough, I can
*buy* support packages, but so far I've not needed it. Okay, it's not
enterprise, but FreeBSD plays well with windows if you want the hybrid setup,
and will pretty much run on any hardware; there are niggles, but as Linux/*nix
becomes more relevant there will be more driver support. The important bit is
the cost of actually purchasing and supporting the OS.

Draconis

[ Reply to This | # ]

Wilted SCO PR
Authored by: cybervegan on Saturday, January 10 2004 @ 08:36 AM EST
I think these people need to realise a few things:

1) This is Pamela Jones's /personal blog/. Ok, well, it's
more than that now, but it is, in essence, Pamela's. Who
are they to tell her how to run it? Even my boss doesn't
tell me what to put into my diary, and how to word it.

2) Pamela has been as sarcastic and searing about items
that undermine our case - like the DOS attack against SCO,
which we all worked out was a fake. When the evidence
stacked up that we might be mistaken, that was covered
too, and with great honesty.

3) If journalists are allowed to cast their own opinions
as if they were facts, isn't Pamela allowed to present her
own opinions? She always backs them up with the facts, as
she knows them (and with the amount of digging she does,
she usually gets to the crux of the matter, too).

All that said, I suppose you could consider such attention
to be confirmation of credibility.

PJ, you are doing fine - don't stop and don't change.

-cybervegan

---
Stand and fight we do consider
Reminded of an inner pact between us
That's seen as we go
And ride there
In motion
To fields in debts of honor
Defending

[ Reply to This | # ]

Stop feeding the trolls!
Authored by: surak on Saturday, January 10 2004 @ 09:44 AM EST
The trolls (like this one) will go away if you stop feeding them. 'Nuff said.

[ Reply to This | # ]

MS FUD
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, January 10 2004 @ 10:45 AM EST
i think we've got a new nickname for Laura DiDio...;>

[ Reply to This | # ]

    Wilted SCO PR
    Authored by: tredman on Saturday, January 10 2004 @ 02:08 PM EST
    #ifndef _IANAL_
    #include "disclaimers/IANAL.h"
    #endif
    "And for systems administrators who don't have a computer science degree, it's relatively simple to use."

    Isn't this such a delicious irony at it's core? Why pay premium dollar for an MCSE (which isn't nearly as premium as it used to be) when you can go out onto the street and hire some poor bloke at minimum wage who can point and click a mouse, or drag Joe from accounting in to handle the side project of administering the servers. In one fail swoop, a single statement has completely trivialized Microsoft's much ballyhooed certification program in favor of saving a buck.

    After that, what's the sense in spending all that money for a certified professional? It's right here: any security professional worth his salt would never allow repeated script kiddie breakins to occur at regular rates; any mail server administrator worth a damn would have email-borne viruses (pick your favorite from 2003) under control in a matter of hours instead of days; any network administrator who knows what he's doing would tighten down user accounts so that attacks can be prevented from within as well as from the universe-at-large.

    In saying this, I also agree with an earlier poster that all the money that you save by implementing a Linux solution could and should be spent sending your IT team to Linux training.

    But what do I know. I'm just an out-of-work database administrator and web developer because outsourced labor can do my job for half my salary.

    Tim Redman, OCP

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    Wilted SCO PR
    Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, January 10 2004 @ 05:53 PM EST
    well well well, my favourite topic...want my honest opinion? Most 'kids' with
    fresh degress don't know a lot about real world experiences. I'll give a few
    examples. I used to work for Toshiba.

    1. The sys admin there does NOT have a degree, in fact he's still looking at
    doing his MCP/MCSEs...he's been there nearly 4 years now, he's 26 and he
    knows
    what he's doing. Toshiba runs a lot of Microsoft stuff, but also has a solaris
    box, and I know is looking at Linux stuff. My mate is a keen Linux user, in his
    open and honest opinion Linux is a LOT more reliable than Microsoft
    Windows. He doesn't need a degree to do his job and it has very little
    relevance. He's extremely knowledgeable about software and hardware and in my
    near 2 years of working for Toshiba he was a godsend (I was on their internal
    helpdesk). He always amazed me and still does.

    2. Whilst on Toshiba' internal helpdesk I had the pleasure of working with a
    gentleman (very nice guy) who was in the process of completing his Computer
    Sciences degree. He had been at Toshiba six months longer than myself. One day
    we had a staff member call from New Zealand who couldn't get onto the company
    network. He was a field technician for medical equipment that Toshiba sells.
    My co-worker answered the call and after 30 mins had still not solved the issue
    of connectivity. The staff member had to go and would call back later on. He
    called back an hour later and got myself. I had his problem fixed in less than
    a minute. No degree. I'm not kidding. I recognised the problem promptly because
    I
    can THINK. It's great to teach from a book, or even let them use a computer a
    bit, but in IT you HAVE to be able to think. No degree can give that to you.
    Period.

    3. The gentleman where I live has no formal education. He's been using
    computers for nearly 20 years now. He's a system admin and network admin for a
    Australian company and has 300+ workstations under his belt as well as all the
    servers etc. He is doing just fine and he really knows his stuff. So much for a
    degree.

    4. I was recently talking to a friend, who I used to play d&d with, he's
    done a computer science degree. We were talking, and we got down to stuff like
    the OSI layers and tcp/ip etc. He didn't really know what they were, and they
    didn't learn them at Uni. I'm like, what? tcp/ip is the major major major
    method of transmitting data across networks etc and they don't learn that at
    Uni? Said same person has had a multitude of viruses on their home PC which
    i've helped them clean up. I googled and found answers for him. Why couldn't
    he do that? Why wasn't he running anti virus software? A firewall? So much
    for a degree...

    Degrees, imho are valueless these days. They are so common that they have lost
    any real merit. Every employer expects you to have one now. It MOST certainly
    doesn't guarantee quality. I'm sick and tired of losing out to people that
    have degrees but can't do the job, when i'm able to do the job but keep
    getting told in this employee market 'you don't have a degree'.

    As an example of the IT industry in Australia (from what i'm seeing):

    A recent job was advertised for level one helpdesk, the requirements were:
    degree, 5 years experience, mcp/mcse preferred. Pay? au $30k, a joke. A total
    joke.

    Dave (one ex IT employee who's given up on the frustrations in the system)

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    Mental disorder...
    Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, January 10 2004 @ 08:42 PM EST
    http://uptime.netcraft.com/perf/graph?site=www.sco.com

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    Wilted SCO PR
    Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, January 10 2004 @ 11:50 PM EST
    I've personally used some nice supercomputers in Los Alamos and Albuquerque.
    They are not "IO-weak", unless you are comparing their IO bandwidth
    with their CPU power. They could load or store tens of gigabytes per second
    onto fixed storage and I'm sure the memory bandwidth was significantly
    greater.

    If you are talking about old Crays then please realize that those age the same
    way as everything else in the computing industry. If it's five years old,
    it's completely out of date.

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    Wilted SCO PR
    Authored by: PeteS on Sunday, January 11 2004 @ 10:33 AM EST
    On the subject of wilted SCO PR, you really should check out The Little SCO that cried Wolf

    I found it amusing, hilarious, and bitingly insightful.

    ---
    Artificial Intelligence is no match for natural stupidity

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    Wilted SCO PR
    Authored by: tanstaafl on Sunday, January 11 2004 @ 10:40 PM EST
    I received an interesting email this past Friday from RSA; I would have posted it sooner, but I've been on vacation. I'm not sure how it will turn out, but here it is, for what it's worth. Is RSA in this too? Maybe, maybe not; more likely, I think, is that they're feeling pressure from open source.




    RSA Security Web Seminar From: RSA Security Developer Solutions Group [email@rsasecurity.rsc03.com]
    Sent: 09-Jan-2004 15:46
    To: Long, Phillip HWS
    Subject: Complimentary Webinar: Helping You Avoid the Intellectual Property Litigation Trap

    Are you considering or using an open source security solution in your application development to save money? You should think twice before moving forward. According to a survey published by the American Intellectual Property Law Association (AIPLA), the median litigation costs for an intellectual property infringement case can be almost $2 million (1). In addition to the financial burden, significant time and resources must be devoted to working on litigation of a patent or other intellectual property infringement case.

    You need to protect your company from possible financial exposure and associated negative publicity from using either commercial or open source security solutions not designed to protect and insure your best interests.

    Join representatives from Heller Ehrman White & McAuliffe LLP and RSA Security for an informative discussion on how to help protect your company from intellectual property lawsuits and the benefits of using RSA BSAFE® security solutions.

    In this free, one-hour seminar, you will learn:

    • What the benefits of intellectual property indemnity are.
    • What costs are associated with intellectual property investigations, frivolous lawsuits, litigation and damages.
    • Preventive measures to save your company from these costs, negative press and loss of valuable resources.
    • How commercial security software solutions from an established vendor, like RSA BSAFE® products from RSA Security, help provide a measure of protection against infringing intellectual property rights.

    If you are a product or business line manager, VP of Engineering, CTO or developer, this seminar is for you!

    Register now!

    After registering you will receive an e-mail confirmation with instructions for accessing the online event. We hope you will be able to join us on Wednesday, January 28th at this online event!

    (1) AIPLA Economic Survey 2001, Table 22

    To opt out of RSA Security email, click the link at the bottom of this email.

    RSA Security respects your online privacy. You're receiving this e-mail because you're an RSA Security customer or partner, or because you've recently inquired about RSA Security products and services. You can view our e-mail policy here. As part of an effort to continuously improve our e-mail communication practices, we welcome and encourage your input on this policy. RSA, RSA logo, BSAFE and The Most Trusted Name in e-Security are either registered trademarks or trademarks of RSA Security Inc. in the United States and/or other countries. All other products and/or services mentioned are trademarks of their respective owners. (c) 2004 RSA Security Inc. All rights reserved. This is an advertisement from RSA Security, Inc., 174 Middlesex Turnpike, Bedford, MA 01730

    Wed., Jan. 28, 2004
    1:30 pm EST, 10:30 am PST Click here to register
    for this complimentary online seminar.

    Chris Martiniak
    Patent Litigation Attorney,
    Heller Ehrman White & McAuliffe LLP

    Kathy Kriese
    Sr. Product Manager,
    RSA Security

    Attend for a chance to win an Olympus D-560 Digital Camera! Click here for contest rules.



    > Product or business line
    managers
    > VP of Engineering or CTO
    > Developers

    To learn more about RSA Security, please click the logo below.


    The Most Trusted Name
    in e-Security®

    This message was sent by RSA Security.
    Click here if you prefer not to receive future e-mail from RSA Security.
    Click here to view our permission marketing policy.

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    Wilted SCO PR
    Authored by: tredman on Monday, January 12 2004 @ 10:48 PM EST
    No problem. I do appreciate the candor, though. I just didn't want anybody to
    think that I was on the rah-rah bandwagon for hanging pieces of paper on the
    wall.

    Tim Redman, OCP

    [ Reply to This | # ]
    Groklaw © Copyright 2003-2013 Pamela Jones.
    All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners.
    Comments are owned by the individual posters.

    PJ's articles are licensed under a Creative Commons License. ( Details )     		Site layout based on Woodlands theme by Bryan Bell.
    Groklaw logo by John Crowley.
    News Picks logo by Ted Thompson.
    Powered By GeekLog
    Created this page in 0.08 seconds