|
Business is Business and Credit Where Credit is Due |
|
Monday, March 15 2004 @ 08:36 PM EST
|
There is an article in CIO magazine on GNU/Linux use in business. It's called "The Myths of Open Source," and one by one it debunks them, by interviewing executives who have made the switch already and are happy with GNU/Linux for their business use. The myths thoroughly debunked are: -
MYTH 1 -
THE ATTRACTION IS THE PRICE TAG ( It's performance improvement.)
-
MYTH 2 -
THE SAVINGS AREN'T REAL (". . .there's a zero marginal cost of scale because open source doesn't require additional licenses as an installation grows.")
-
MYTH 3 -
THERE'S NO SUPPORT ( ". . .existing users of open-source software appear perfectly happy with open-source support arrangements.")
-
MYTH 4 -
IT'S A LEGAL MINEFIELD (If you're worried, third-party indemnification is an option.)
-
MYTH 5 -
OPEN SOURCE ISN'T FOR MISSION-CRITICAL APPLICATIONS ( Are banks mission-critical enough for you?)
-
MYTH 6 -
OPEN SOURCE ISN'T READY FOR THE DESKTOP ("Siemens, for example, says it has performed extensive testing with 'real-world, nontechnical workers,' finally declaring that Linux has now matured as a desktop system. The tests confounded the company's expectations.")
The bottom line, the article says, is summed up by
Andy Mulholland, chief technology officer for Cap Gemini Ernst & Young: "'The lesson of the Web is that standardization is better than differentiation,' Mulholland claims. 'Is there a virtue in doing things differently? Is there a virtue in doing things the same way as everybody else?' As the past decade has shown, standardization with a proprietary flavor—think Microsoft—has its drawbacks: bloatware, security loopholes, eye-popping license fees and an unsettling reliance upon a single vendor. In offices around the globe, an era of open-source standardization, determined to condemn such drawbacks to history, may be dawning."
Of course, the legal angle is the part I am most interested in, and the article quotes some attorneys who mock SCO's GPL-is-unconstitutional claim, calling it "silly" and "bizarre". I'm pointing it out for you journalists, just so you know there are independent attorneys watching SCO's claims and finding them silly and bizarre. Now that SCO is pushing their "independent" attorneys, I thought you'd like some legal resources to contact. InternetWeek adds this: "But to business and IT managers, open source isn't about code we don't have to pay for. In this case, free means freedom, as in the freedom to choose and use software as we wish, with no proprietary barriers.
"Look at it this way: We've been on a product-upgrade treadmill for the past decade, and we've learned that the lack of choice about when to stop upgrading some products can be costly. If one company controls the source code and doesn't let others patch and update as they see fit, we consumers are forced to upgrade--no freedom there. Open source, on the other hand, lets financial managers control the timing of their cash outflows. Given the financial principle of the 'time value' of money (the same amount of money is worth more now than it is later), the freedom to upgrade when and if we want can contribute to successful financial management. Sounds like capitalism to me." ComputerWorld has an article, "Big Business Opens Up to Linux", and someone suggests that you factor in “the lack of viruses when calculating TCO.”
A Positive Word About SCO
Since Mr. McBride, in his interview with Dan Farber, complained that Groklaw never says anything positive about SCO, I wish to turn over a new leaf. Here is something I can honestly thank SCO for, all their contributions to the Linux community.
For example, on this page, on their website, they list what they call "SCO Community Contributions", including to the Linux kernel and to RPM. Here's what they say about RPM: "RPM 1.0 was developed with SCO funds. Working with Red Hat, we developed the first package manager." The RPM page adds: "RPM 1.0 was developed with SCO funds. As business partners with Red Hat back then, we used their Linux system as the base for our SCO Network Desktop product. We needed a more robust package management system than the RPP system they were using at the time. Therefore, SCO helped fund the development of RPM."
Here is what they say about their contributions to the kernel:
"SCO has contributed several Linux kernel enhancements, including Windows support, IPX support, NFS, and more." Indeed, as Groklaw has chronicled already, they are being modest, and there is "more". This page provides the same list they had back in November of 2002, so maybe they don't realize they still have this page on their website. They might want to rewrite this part: "Knowing the importance of the development community, SCO continues to contribute to the open-source and development community. Here are some of the contributions we have made and are making to the community." All their kernel contributions they list are on the Linux Kernel page and they include: - Minor modifications to enhance support for Windows environments like Sun's Wabi and WINE (Ron Holt)
- Initial release of the Sangoma frame relay driver (Jim Freeman)
- Extensive work on the kernel's IPX support (Greg Page, Jim Freeman)
- SPX support (Jim Freeman)
Certain mutations of the kernel's NFS support (Olaf Kirch)
- Initial release of the TLAN network card driver (James Banks)
- Dynamic PPP channel work (Jim Freeman)
- Early support of the SMP development effort (hardware provided to the SMP development team)
- General occasional kernel hacking and patching (Torsten Duwe)
- Help with the original IBM Token Ring driver (Greg Page)
They also, they say, contributed to the Uniform Driver Interface Project, which they describe like this: "The UDI Project intends to allow a single device driver to support an I/O card across the platforms and operating systems appropriate for its interconnect." The UDI page on SCO's site adds: "SCO International, Inc. (SCO) is advancing the state of the art in device driver technology. As an active member of Project UDI, the industry group that designed UDI (the Uniform Driver Interface), SCO has worked jointly with a number of system vendors and IHVs, including Adaptec, Compaq, Hewlett-Packard, IBM, Intel, Interphase, Lockheed Martin, SBS Technologies, STG, Sun Microsystems and Unisys, to define and promote a cross-vendor, cross-platform device driver interface.
You can download the UDI Feature Supplement and Development Kit for UnixWare 7.1.1 from the SCO Download Site Select "UnixWare 7 Release 7.1.1 UDI Feature Supplement" as the product name. This product is based on the final review draft of the 1.01 UDI Specifications.
The UDI 1.01 specification set is available from Project UDI .
UDI is a device driver interface that allows one driver to be run on a variety of operating systems. A driver that is coded to the UDI specification can run on any operating system for which UDI support is available; it will no longer need to be rewritten to use each system's specific set of functions and structures. A driver coded to UDI would use UDI interfaces rather than DDI, SDI, MDI or other proprietary OS interfaces. Generally, though, the same functionality, or a superset, is available in UDI.
Implementations of the UDI environment have been demonstrated on UnixWare 7, OpenServer, and UnixWare 2.1, along with operating systems from other vendors. See the Project UDI web site for a complete list.
UDI support will be included in all SCO operating systems, including OpenServer, UnixWare 7, and Monterey-64." If you click on the link to the UDI project, the specifications page says it is "hosted by Caldera". Here's the page of papers from SCO Forum 1999 on UDI. One of them, "UDI HDK Roadmap" by Matt Kaufman, mentions on page 2 that UDI would be incorporated into Project Monterey, as well as all SCO OSs. What I'm wondering about is, do SCO's ABI files enter into this project? Maybe some of SCO's partners on the UDI project could take a look in their files and see what SCO contributed and under what terms. Here is a list of some of the folks who were given credit for UDI IA-32/IA-64 ABI Binding Specification, Version 1.01: "The authors would especially like to thank their significant others for putting up with the many hours of overtime put into the development of this specification over long periods. Thanks to the following folks who contributed significant amounts of time, ideas, or authoring in support of the development of this specification or in working on the prototype implementations which helped us validate the specification: -
Allyn Bowers (Intel)
-
Steve Bytnar (System Technologies Group)
-
Mark Evenson (HP)
-
Kurt Gollhardt (SCO)
-
Matt Kaufmann (SCO)
-
Robert Lipe (SCO)
-
Scott Popp (SCO)
-
Kevin Quick (Interphase)
-
John Ronciak (Intel)
-
Rob Tarte (Pacific CodeWorks)
-
Linda Wang (Sun)
-
Finally, thanks to David Roberts (Certek Software Designs) for designing the Project UDI logo.
As it happens, UDI was not universally popular with the Linux folks. Here's an email from back when, describing the unease some felt: From - Sat Jun 17 06:06:47 2000
Message-ID:
Date: Sat, 17 Jun 2000 01:54:14 -0600
From: Warren Young
Organization: -ENOENT
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.72 [en] (WinNT; U)
X-Accept-Language: en
MIME-Version: 1.0
Newsgroups: comp.unix.sco.misc
Subject: Re: SCO Linux???
References:
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Original-NNTP-Posting-Host: 56k111-118.cyberport.com
Lines: 67
NNTP-Posting-Host: 199.45.228.130
X-Trace: 17 Jun 2000 01:59:09 -0600, 199.45.228.130
Path: news.randori.com!news.voicenet.com!newshub.northeast.verio.net!verio!cpk-news- hub1.bbnplanet.com!denver-news- feed1.bbnplanet.com!news.gtei.net!coop.net!news.coop.net!news.gj.net!56k111-118.cyberport.com
Xref: news.randori.com comp.unix.sco.misc:61905
X-Mozilla-Status: 8010
X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000
fred smith wrote:
>
> Robert Lipe wrote:
> : Warren Young writes:
>
> :>I guess it's a given that [SCO will] integrate the UDI patches that the
> :>core Linux kernel development team refuses to use.
>
> Pardon my ignorance, what is UDI, and what would its presence do for/to
> Linux?
It's a standardize device driver interface. The idea is for all Unixes
to support it, allowing a device driver to be ported to new versions of
Unix with just a recompile.
(See http://www.projectudi.org/ for more details.)
The current sentiment among the Linux kernel people is that they don't
want UDI in the kernel. I've heard several reasons for this:
1. UDI -- being an extra layer of indirection -- slows the device driver
down with respect to a "native" device driver.
2. The Linux kernel people would rather see native drivers than UDI
drivers for particular hardware. If UDI remains an add-on that Linux
distributors have to add themselves, there will be more pressure on
hardware vendors to avoid UDI, at least for Linux.
3. Since UDI is a standardized interface, it should also be an ABI, at
least for a particular platform. (UDI doesn't promise a cross-platform
ABI.) An ABI means that a device driver could work with multiple
versions of the Linux kernel without needing to be recompiled.
If Linux had a driver ABI, hardware vendors would start shipping
binary-only drivers: there are few binary-only Linux drivers right now
because of the threat of interface changes. Obviously, binary-only
drivers go totally against the grain of Open Source.
4. There's concern that UDI would create a drag on kernel innovation:
that UDI would either make some kernel changes impossible because of the
way it thinks device drivers should work, or that the UDI component
might not be able to benefit from improvements made to the native driver
interface. The latter would make Linux look bad if UDI became the de
facto Linux driver interface, because the improvements would not show up
on systems using UDI drivers. The Linux kernel folk would then have to
petition the UDI standards body to make a change: Open Source and
bureaucracies do not mix.
5. Accepting UDI into the kernel would require the kernel folk to find
someone to keep the Linux UDI component in synch with the rest of the
kernel. Since UDI is already unpopular for the above reasons, there's
skepticism as to whether someone can be found that's willing to synch
UDI up every time the native driver interface changes.
6. ABIs are good in one sense, but they also stifle innovation. Just
look at UnixWare: their DDI is at version 8 right now, implying that
they've changed the interface 7 times since they created DDI. Linux
changes its device interface as often as every point release. Is Linux
out of control and chaotic, or is it continually being refined? It
depends on your point of view, but the fact is, the Linux kernel folk
refuse to give up this ability to change the device driver interface at
will.
Warren -- See the *ix pages at http://www.cyberport.com/~tangent/ix/ Of course, a lot of the links are dead now on UDI info, which is part of what is making me so interested. Anyway, thanks, SCO, for all your contributions to Linux, and especially to the Linux kernel. We're sure it's your modesty that has you list only part of your contributions. P.S. Don't forget to let Congress know about your wonderful contributions to the kernel and the community back when you thought you could make money from GNU/Linux and were a Linux company and didn't have Microsoft whispering in your ear, so Congress can gauge your sincerity about claiming now that Linux is a "security threat."
|
|
Authored by: nealywilly on Tuesday, March 16 2004 @ 03:26 AM EST |
Please post supporting (or refuting, I guess) URLs and News Updates here. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
- SCO forum 2004 - Authored by: Marc Duflot on Tuesday, March 16 2004 @ 03:38 AM EST
- URLs and News Updates Here Please - Authored by: grouch on Tuesday, March 16 2004 @ 03:55 AM EST
- URLs and News Updates Here Please - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 16 2004 @ 04:27 AM EST
- The Register; UK Gov's open source 'mandate' policy attacked - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 16 2004 @ 05:49 AM EST
- More on Anderer - Authored by: Rcomian on Tuesday, March 16 2004 @ 08:07 AM EST
- SCO Press Release; VARBusiness award - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 16 2004 @ 08:18 AM EST
- URLs and News Updates Here Please - Authored by: Marc Duflot on Tuesday, March 16 2004 @ 08:19 AM EST
- URLs and News Updates Here Please - Authored by: MathFox on Tuesday, March 16 2004 @ 09:09 AM EST
- URLs and News Updates Here Please - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 16 2004 @ 10:01 AM EST
- HP to ship Linux .... - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 16 2004 @ 10:36 AM EST
- New PJ interview - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 16 2004 @ 11:08 AM EST
- More on Anderer. - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 16 2004 @ 11:21 AM EST
- "Pamela Jones, former editor of the popular Groklaw.net?" - Authored by: msb on Tuesday, March 16 2004 @ 12:02 PM EST
- P.J. did you post a link to this article of yours? - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 16 2004 @ 01:03 PM EST
- Anderer Contract - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 16 2004 @ 01:37 PM EST
- Could Sun Hold a key to SCO? - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 16 2004 @ 02:04 PM EST
- Novell plugs open source, dings SCO - Authored by: Erbo on Tuesday, March 16 2004 @ 04:17 PM EST
- Novell on SCO X 2 - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 16 2004 @ 04:19 PM EST
- "Microsoft exec: Open source model endangers software economy" - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 16 2004 @ 04:21 PM EST
- IBM: We are not destroying economic value of UNIX --- We are selling even more UNIX ! - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 16 2004 @ 05:17 PM EST
- URLs and News Updates Here Please - Authored by: dht on Tuesday, March 16 2004 @ 07:44 PM EST
- SCO Open-Sourced some SYSV programs and ported to Linux - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 17 2004 @ 01:57 PM EST
- More Microsoft emails (in anti-trust case) - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 17 2004 @ 03:08 PM EST
- Open Groups Take on SCOG missuse of UNIX Trademark - Authored by: cab15625 on Wednesday, March 17 2004 @ 05:39 PM EST
|
Authored by: PJ on Tuesday, March 16 2004 @ 03:31 AM EST |
Please record my mistakes for posterity here, please, so I can find them
quickly.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: wllacer on Tuesday, March 16 2004 @ 03:31 AM EST |
PJ which SCO did which contribution ? If even we are getting confused ...
(I think RPM contri was Caldera's but UDI was Santa Cruz's (ju st looking at the
time frames, i haven't have the time to check it properly) ...
Ps. Do you ever sleep ?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: RSC on Tuesday, March 16 2004 @ 03:34 AM EST |
I have had my eyes open. I was unaware that SCO had contributed as much as that.
I am also very dissapointed that they have so thoroughly turn their back on the
community that has given them more than they have given in return.
If it was just MS fighting this battle, I would not have been so upset at the
fiaSCO, but it almost feels like SCO have turned traitor. That is what sticks in
my mind so strongly.
This sort of smiling while stabbing you in the back also makes me wonder just
how strong the IBM support really is, and just how fast they would turn on the
community if it suited them.
RSC.
---
----
An Australian who IS interested.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Companies are not moral, people are - Authored by: nealywilly on Tuesday, March 16 2004 @ 03:45 AM EST
- Giving Credit Where Credit is Due - Authored by: ine on Tuesday, March 16 2004 @ 03:58 AM EST
- Giving Credit Where Credit is Due - Authored by: blacklight on Tuesday, March 16 2004 @ 06:00 AM EST
- New Slogans for SCO - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 16 2004 @ 09:28 AM EST
- IBM thinks long-term - Authored by: Zds on Tuesday, March 16 2004 @ 10:46 AM EST
- Giving Credit Where Credit is Due - Authored by: n0ano on Tuesday, March 16 2004 @ 10:58 AM EST
- Eyes open - but only partly - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 16 2004 @ 11:54 AM EST
- Giving Credit Where Credit is Due - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 16 2004 @ 05:07 PM EST
- Giving Credit Where Credit is Due - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 17 2004 @ 05:44 PM EST
|
Authored by: poncewattle on Tuesday, March 16 2004 @ 03:40 AM EST |
Depending on who you buy your Linux from and the support contract terms, the
marginal cost may not be zero. For example, if you buy RHEL you have to sign a
contract saying that you'll buy one copy per machine and limit installs to that
group, plus a worrisome "we can audit you" clause.
I expressed my concern
about that to our Redhat rep and he said basically that you are buying support
and that they had to change the terms because there were companies who were
buying just one copy for support, throwing it on numerous machines, and anytime
there was a support issue with any one of the machines, they'd be like "Oh yeah,
that one machine is the one with the support contract."
Still a bit lame. I
think there would be other ways to police that, especially through RHN, but
there you have it.
One thing is clear though, if you don't like it, you can
basically use the software without support. There's a new distro out, "White Box
Linux" which takes all the source RPMS from RHEL and just compiles and packages
them up, while stripping out the Redhat logo and trademark stuff. Nothing
illegal about that.
Personally, since my employer only has a limited number
of production machines, we got RHEL ES for all of them. If I had to grow to many
more, I'd re-evaluate the entire issue.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 16 2004 @ 03:44 AM EST |
PJ,
It's late, I'm quite tired, slightly buzzed, and off to bed after I post this.
If it hasn't been mentioned elsewhere, your razor-sharp, cutting irony is one of
the many joys of Groklaw. Thank you once again for so incisively bringing to
light the utter hypocrisy and complete moral bankruptcy of TSG. "Unclean
hands," indeed.
Goood night, PJ, and thank you.
--Guil R.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: edal on Tuesday, March 16 2004 @ 04:00 AM EST |
Hmmmm, let me see here. Three 'big iron' AIX machines, a sixty machine Linux
cluster and a second forty machine Linux cluster. Total unscheduled downtime
over the last year for the total installation is thirty eight seconds.
At this particular bank we are quite happy with Linux and Open Source and I
doubt that Microsoft could achieve this level of reliability. Rebooting after
installing a service pack is not an option.
Ed Almos
Budapest, Hungary[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 16 2004 @ 04:16 AM EST |
Hi, PJ,
It's about time to hear something nice about SCO ;-)
Of course, this opens two questions:
- What took them so long to complain?
- Can it be that lots of the "intellectual Property" they claim to
have found in Linux has been contributed by no one else but themselves?
I think, Darl prefers attacks from the community...[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 16 2004 @ 04:41 AM EST |
Thanks for this one PJ. The article about open source myths is great. I haven't
seen that one before, but it looks a bunch of level-headed suits saying good
things about us. Nice, nice.
On the topic of "good SCO", it's hilarious. I just can't wait for the
time when they stand in front of the judge (and/or jury) and come up with
"big bad IBM", all the while they were putting stuff into Linux left,
right and centre. And all under the "unconstitutional GPL", of course.
Oh what fun will that be ;-)[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 16 2004 @ 04:48 AM EST |
>"As business partners with Red Hat back then, we used their Linux
system as the base for our SCO Network Desktop product."
I think you
may have meant to say:
"As business partners with Red Hat back then, we used
their Linux system as the base for our SCO Network
Desktop product."
We may even have found an application for the
<blink> tag.
Superb digging, by the way. I'm at a loss to understand
why more journalists aren't shrieking this stuff from the rooftops. Perhaps
it's because SCO continue to hide their blundering in plain sight? Maybe if it
were a little harder to find (i.e. not sitting right there on their web site) it
might gather more attention.
I'd love to hear SCO's arguments to have you
gagged, should they decide to stop shooting themselves in the foot and go for
one of those squiggly pumping organs higher up. "But, your honor, PJ keeps
quoting us! How long will this scurrilous citation of the public
record be allowed to continue?" [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: LionKuntz on Tuesday, March 16 2004 @ 04:49 AM EST |
Here is what I did:
What I saw:
- There is no similarity to
the flowcharts or program codes in the '746 and '302 patents.
- There is
no similarity in the claims of the '746 patent to the '302 or '551
patents.
- Inventors who did their own prior art searches almost never saw
any similarity between the '746 and '551 patents. (only one patent cites both as
prior art.
- Inventors who did their own prior art searches almost never
saw any similarity between the '302 and '551 patents. (only two patents cite
both as prior art.)
- 116 inventors who did their own prior art searches
did not see similarity between the '302 and '746 patents. Out of 177 which cited
'302 as prior art, only 61 also cited '746.
- If the substance of '746 and
'302 are so close as to be overlapping, than all 177 patents that cite '302
should also cite '746.
- If the substance of '746 and '551 are so close as
to be overlapping, than all 81 patents that cite '746 should also cite
'551.
- If the substance of '302 and '551 are so close as to be
overlapping, than all 177 patents that cite '302 should also cite
'551.
http://www.ecosyn.us
/SCO_v_IBM_copyright_issues.html
SCO v IBM: SELECTED WEBPAGES
CITATIONS OF COPYRIGHT LAW HISTORY RELEVENT TO UNIX SYSTEM V COPYRIGHT CLAIMS
STATUS
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- And? - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 16 2004 @ 06:05 AM EST
- And Nothing? - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 16 2004 @ 12:15 PM EST
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 16 2004 @ 04:51 AM EST |
UDI was developed by the commercial Unix vendors on Intel. They did it without
any Linux input. The general feeling was that they were drooling over the
possibility of using Linux device drivers for their systems. Devices drivers
are a horrible maintenance burden
so what's better than pushing the work onto your open source competitors? And
the Linux community would not be able to use the commercial drivers as they
would be binary-only.
Needless to say it never went anywhere in Linux. Nor in the x86 Unix vendors'
systems... probably because it never took off in Linux.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 16 2004 @ 05:11 AM EST |
They can't create an 'unsafe' have for code raiders can they?
Through some obscure or idiotic loophole declare the GPL unenforceable in Utah
can they?
Not invalid, just uneforceable through some artifact of legal kludgery?
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: inode_buddha on Tuesday, March 16 2004 @ 05:22 AM EST |
IMHO it's the kind of thing we all need to see more often. Dang it, why didn't I
think to send it in when I saw it a couple days ago? Duh! More seriously, this
is the sort of article that will make a difference where it counts - in
corporate decisions. --- "Truly, if Te is strong in one, all one needs
to do is sit on one's ass, and the corpse of one's enemy shall be carried past
shortly." (seen on USENET) [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: maroberts on Tuesday, March 16 2004 @ 05:48 AM EST |
Might be better to post seperate articles for different subjects, to make it
easier to find stuff, and also possibly to reduce number of comments per
pageview.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: blacklight on Tuesday, March 16 2004 @ 06:08 AM EST |
"Since Mr. McBride, in his interview with Dan Farber, complained that
Groklaw never says anything positive about SCO, I wish to turn over a new leaf.
Here is something I can honestly thank SCO for, all their contributions to the
Linux community"
Thank you Darl for making groklaw what it is. Thank you Darl for rallying the
entire Open Source community - albeit against you, the SCO Group and Canopy.
Thank you Darl for volunteering both the SCO Group and Canopy for utter
destruction at the hands of the Open Source community.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Xaos on Tuesday, March 16 2004 @ 06:18 AM EST |
http://brain-terminal.com/video/frank-chu/
Both Darl and this guy leave me in awe. Enjoy!
---
Can we outsource Darl to india? No wait humans live there. -Xaos-[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: blacklight on Tuesday, March 16 2004 @ 06:37 AM EST |
In retrospect, the SCO Group's ability to float its stock on nothing more than
hot air may lead to their accelerated demise: while the price of their stock was
high (to the bafflement of everyone), they attracted VC money with strings
attached including stock floor price triggers. Now, the SCO Group is going to
have to make good on those triggers.
The Autozone and the Daimler/Chrysler suits don't seem to have the shock and awe
effects on corporate end users that the SCO Group was counting on: in fact, they
have as much impact on corporate end users as being struck with limp noddles.
The SCO Group was aiming for lethality and got hilarity.
The SCO Group's choo-choo train launched itself across the abyss when the SCO
Group deliberately alienated the Open Source community and sued IBM. Given that
the SCO Group's licensing plan is being seriously derailed, the chances that the
SCO Group's choo-choo train will achieve its goals and get to the other side of
the abyss are getting more remote both by the course of every ordinary day and
with each pleading. That cho-choo train's flight into the abyss will be
spectacular entertainment.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Totosplatz on Tuesday, March 16 2004 @ 06:42 AM EST |
GROKLAW the Un-trackable presence.
I am three hours late just
noticing this, never mind actually thinking about it. Bah!
--- All
the best to one and all. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: David Gerard on Tuesday, March 16 2004 @ 06:49 AM EST |
Linux is as "ready for the desktop" as Windows - probably more. (It's
now easier to install, for example.) The problem is that Windows isn't ready for
the desktop, hence the frustrated users and the extensive support infrastructure
required in a corporate setting.
What I want to see is Unix desktops chasing the usability of the Macintosh, not
the clunky inconsistent hodge-podge we know as Windows.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: blacklight on Tuesday, March 16 2004 @ 06:53 AM EST |
It is the job of the CIOs to see through the myths, and do what's best for their
businesses. I don't expect any CIO five years from now to say something like:
"I dug in my heels for five years, forbidding any experimentation with Open
Source including Linux and BSD, and thereby allowed my employer's competitors to
enjoy the benefits of a five-year head start in a mission-critical technology
and denied my employer five years worth of economic savings" This is the
kind of vision that should rightfully cost its owner his job. My attitude is
"no hand holding", and "no saving people from themselves".[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: wllacer on Tuesday, March 16 2004 @ 07:04 AM EST |
At 13:00 CET the magazine site has been "groklawed" ... (that ougth to
be 7:00 AM EST) The international Groklaw readership seems to be huge (me
included)
It looks a very interesting web site (the small time i was able to read) , who
knows in detail who is running it, which intended audience and agenda has?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 16 2004 @ 07:27 AM EST |
will all their cases get tossed out? Or will some
opportunist chancer buy
up the remains to keep the cases
alive? After all, that's how Caldera made a big
chunk of
money out of Microsoft when they bought up DRDOS
. In
fact one wonders exactly what was in the
documents from that case that were
destroyed
recently when
you get statements like this about the
case: The company claims that Stefanie Reichel,
an account
manager for Microsoft Germany, testified during
her deposition that evidence
of wrongdoing had been
destroyed during the earlier DOJ investigation.
Bryan Sparks was quoted in the September 1998 Sm@rt
Reseller as
saying:
" Reichel's deposition alleges some pretty serious
things.
Our lawyers said in court yesterday that, in her
deposition,
Stefanie acknowledges the destruction of
evidence that could have been used
in the original [US
Department of Justice] v. Microsoft case. They also said
she didn't produce all the documents requested. She alluded
to documents
we've never even seen." [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: kberrien on Tuesday, March 16 2004 @ 08:34 AM EST |
>It's a standardize device driver interface. The idea is for
all Unixes
to support it, allowing a device driver to be
ported to new versions of Unix
with just a recompile.
Nice of SCO to help make Linux like "all
Unixes". What was it again that Darl said in yesterdays
transcript?
McBride: We haven't any claims on Samba or some of
these other projects. We are very specific about Linux. Linux replicates
UNIX. We own the UNIX operating system. Linux is replicating it. When you go to
Barnes & Noble and buy a book on how to program in Linux it says, 'How to
program in UNIX/Linux'. When you read the book, it's not two different sections.
It's the same book.
emphasis mine:
SCO's arguments
always seem to fall short when one considers past intent & actions. Its the
kind of thing that juries will see very clearly[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: MajorDisaster on Tuesday, March 16 2004 @ 08:44 AM EST |
Or did I miss one? ;-) I was up late last night loading Mandrake 10 Community on
my desktop at the house. Perfecto! I want to load Linux on my laptop but I am
not ready to dump XP which gives me all the bells and whistles on my HP zd7020.
I am a telecom consultant and my laptop is my lifeline to my paycheck. Very
important.
When are these guys (HP, Dell, Toshiba, Sony, etc... )going to wake up and
supply Linux drivers for their hardware?
If there was a vendor with that supplied Linux drivers, by what percentage would
their sales increase?
Death twitches my ear. "Live," he says; "I am coming." -
Virgil
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: greybeard on Tuesday, March 16 2004 @ 08:58 AM EST |
RE: CIO piece.
How odd. I would have sworn that the offical channeler of the CIOs of the
planet, Rob E. told us that all those CIOs out in the ether were scared to death
of FOSS. 'Spose CIO mag could arrange an introduction? "Rob, Real World.
Real World, Rob"...
Nice, and timely, article.
---
-greybeard-[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 16 2004 @ 09:03 AM EST |
Should we be thanking SCO Group, in part, for the creation of Groklaw? Without
their mis-informed accusations Groklaw might not exist.
I find it a full and knowledgable source on open source and free software. I
hope Groklaw continues well after SCOG failure.
Thanks PJ.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: rsteinmetz70112 on Tuesday, March 16 2004 @ 09:06 AM EST |
PJ,
In the interest of full disclosure, aren't you involved in a 3rd part
indemnification effort, or something related?
IN any event keep up the good work. This is a great sorce of real information on
the whol SCO thing.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 16 2004 @ 09:35 AM EST |
I once bought a copy of Caldera Open Linux 1.4 which was one the better business
orientated distro's at the time. It also made a pretty good desktop os (with a
bit of tweeking).
Why any company would want to alienate itself from the community that helped
shape shch a good product in favour of a *potential* one-off payment is
astonishing.
If I made decisions this badly, my senior executives would be makeing threats
against my safety.
Maybe Darl is confused, the threats he has been receiving are from SCO stock
holders![ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 16 2004 @ 10:31 AM EST |
http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/30/36287.html [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 16 2004 @ 10:47 AM EST |
Berlind came up with a new new theory regarding what happened with Unix before 1994, and
concludes SUN could hold the trump card to counter SCO IP-related claims.
Certainly a well researched article with a lot of info in it - how much of it is
true or important, I have no clue, but I expect other GrokLawyers will tell us. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 16 2004 @ 10:48 AM EST |
Seeing the list of names that contributed to the kernal makes me wonder how many
of these individuals are still at SCO, and how they feel about SCO bastardizing
their hard work.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: belzecue on Tuesday, March 16 2004 @ 11:01 AM EST |
Latest PR
gloats about VARBusiness giving them 5-Star Vendor status in its 10th
annual Partner Programs Guide.
Not too many months ago, VARBusiness h
ad this to say about SCO:
Editor’s Letter: Get Set For
The 2003 ARC Hall Of Shame
According to their channel partners, seven
vendors have many issues to address
By Robert C. DeMarzo,
VARBusiness
Wed., Oct. 08, 2003
"... SCO should apply some of the money
it's shelling out in legal fees in its suit against IBM and Linux users to its
channel efforts. The company's ARC scores were a train wreck in the enterprise
operating systems category. Who cares what line of code is buried inside some
obscure Linux program that can trace its roots to IBM's Unix license dating back
to the Partridge Family? SCO partners clearly don't appreciate the company's
products..."
But if you're thinking that things are looking
up for SCO's future, why not put a smile on Darl's dial and go spend some of
your hard-earned I.T. dollars on your favourite SCO product. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 16 2004 @ 11:08 AM EST |
MYTH 1 - THE ATTRACTION IS THE PRICE TAG ( It's performance
improvement.)
I recently had the performance improvement aspect
hit me in the face. I had Windows XP on a Pentium III - 400Mhz machine and
realized I couldn't watch DVDs. They would play jerky and sometimes freeze
under PowerDVD. The same machine running Libranet (not exactly a lean
distribution) plays DVDs, VCDs, and SVCDs all perfectly under Xine. I'm
thinking about making it into my home multimedia machine with Movix.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Peter H. Salus on Tuesday, March 16 2004 @ 11:09 AM EST |
I'd like some information, please.
A company called "PriceTarget Research, Inc."
has given "SCO Group" an "A" rating. What is
this company? Who owns it? Does this mean
anything to the investment community?
Peter
---
Peter H. Salus[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: n0ano on Tuesday, March 16 2004 @ 11:21 AM EST |
Disclaimer - I worked on UDI and, in fact, I did the first port of a UDI driver
to Linux. (Although I'm not sure what I'm disclaiming, truth be known I never
liked UDI that much in the first place.)
The point of UDI was to create a API that was both complete and generic so that
the same driver source file could be used, unmodified, on different OS's. If
you've every bought a video card and cursed because the manufacturer refused to
release a driver for Linux because the market was too small to warrant the
development cost you'll see the advantage of UDI. Write a driver once and there
is no development cost to use the same driver on different UDI systems. Great
idea, it only suffered from 2 major defects in my opinion:
1) Microsoft. For obvious reasons Microsoft was not interested so that means
90% of the market is not going to support UDI and, therefore, manufacturers are
forced to write multiple drivers.
2) Linux already `had` that API. I always felt that Linux provided the perfect
source API in the first place. Write your drivers to work on Linux and then use
the Linux API as UDI. (Nobody listened to me on that one :-)
As far as Original SCO inadvertently releasing their vaunted IP into UDI - I
don't think so. The UDI source tree was divided into a machine independent base
and then there were different machine dependent trees. The machine independent
base was all new code that was not copied from anywhere. The UnixWare machine
dependent branch most likely did contain UnixWare copyrighted code but that
branch was only used for UnixWare and was copyrighted so I think Original SCO
protected themselves appropriately.
---
"Censeo Toto nos in Kansa esse decisse." - D. Gale[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Peter H. Salus on Tuesday, March 16 2004 @ 12:23 PM EST |
I just had an opportunity to look at this analytically.
In 1995, Richard Stallman approached me about organizing
a "First Conference on Freely Redistributable Software."
That Conference was held at the Cambridge (MA) Marriott
in 3-5 February 1996. Linus was the keynote and rms was
the "final" speaker.
One of the papers was "The RPM Packaging System" by Marc Ewing and
Erik Troan. In addition to "Linux on multiple platforms," they
mention using "this version of RPM [2.0]"
under "Irix, AIX, and Digital UNIX."
Marc and Erik end up noting "RPM is Copyright (c) 1996 by
Red Hat Software" and "RPM and Red Hat are trademarks of
Red Hat Software, Inc."
There is no mention of SCO anywhere. In fact, I do not
recall any SCO presence at the Conference.
Peter
---
Peter H. Salus[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 16 2004 @ 12:52 PM EST |
"Already, OSRM has support from top open source leaders, including Eric Raymond,
Bruce Perens and Richard Stallman, as well as Groklaw creator Pamela Jones, who
has signed on as a director of research. While St. Clair said the client list
remains confidential, the firm has approached Fortune 500 companies like Charles
Schwab."
http://www.inter
netnews.com/dev-news/article.php/3326331[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: BigTex on Tuesday, March 16 2004 @ 01:08 PM EST |
Is this true?
I read with uch excitement about your new company affiliation then read with
horrow that they called you the "Former Editor of Groklaw" Say it
isn't so!
http://www.infoworld.com/article/04/03/16/HNopeninsurance_1.html
BigTex[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 16 2004 @ 02:21 PM EST |
MYTH 6 - OPEN SOURCE ISN'T READY FOR THE DESKTOP ("Siemens, for
example, says it has performed extensive testing with 'real-world, nontechnical
workers,' finally declaring that Linux has now matured as a desktop system. The
tests confounded the company's expectations.")
As an open source
advocate and someone who has deployed Open Office, and LTSP Thin Clients running
X applications on over a hundred desktops at multiple facilities I am sorry to
report that the corporate push is toward MS Office where I work. Open Office is
good, but it is different than what people run at home; so when they come to
work they are confused, upset, and complain to their boss (who sits at a Windows
PC). Now the Windows PC becomes a "status symbol." The boss--who owns the
budget--says, "Give my people PCs" as a way of improving their status, and,
frankly, making it easier for them to share files with the rest of the world.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 16 2004 @ 02:42 PM EST |
http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1759,1548132,00.asp?kc=EWNWS031604DTX1K0000599 [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 16 2004 @ 03:05 PM EST |
From slashdot:
Open Source Risk Management LLC (OSRM), a startup company that last month hired
Pamela Jones, former editor of the popular Groklaw.net Web site, as director of
litigation risk research
FORMER...FORMER;-)
Thought you might get a kick out of that![ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: zjimward on Tuesday, March 16 2004 @ 03:39 PM EST |
Yes, but we all know that Mr. McBride claims that Linux is full of stolen code.
Does this mean, some thing which I have thought and probably others as well,
that the code which SCO is complaining about was contributed by them first? Now
they are trying to refute that the GPL is valid and that it wasn't them
contributing it, but others.
Also on the positive side, SCO has done a lot to make the public more aware of
Linux. Before all of this Linux was not in the news with two sides debating it
with the same strength a year ago.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 16 2004 @ 03:53 PM EST |
for 'Linux Insurance' - I kid you not. Now there's two brands available - SCO or
OSRM. Both camps are now spreading Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt to get you to
fan out that cash!. Indemnification, previously considered a FUD tactic, is now
a marketing buzzword. And, OSRM will tell you that none of the existing
indemnification funds or legal defense funds will protect you (as well as they
will, for a price - sound familiar?)
From Here:
'There is
no $1.5 million fund like the one being offered by Novell that can fully
cover a serious lawsuit' - That's John St. Clair, OSRM guy talking.
According to the article, the 'firm has approached Fortune 500 companies' to
sell them Linux Insurance - I'll bet they got a sense of deja vu all over again
when that happened.
More FUD from the article:
'Beyond basic
copyright litigation, OSRM says there are also the legal land mines of patent
claims, as well as claims of unfair competition and collusion on trade
secrets'
"That is where Open Source is headed, if not there already"' -
St Clair again.
Had enough? There's more. From an 'article' called 'Why the
Linux Community Needs Open Source Insurance', written by another OSRM
guy:
'But the terrible vulnerability of this amorphous shared
licensor/copyright holder structure is that the open source code base has no
single unified owner who will assume liability, and coordinate a collective
defense for the open source community, when users get sued' This is almost
directly the same line Mike Anderer used a few days ago. Could someone please
explain to me why I shouldn't feel betrayed here? When this thing was first
touted, it was 'vendor neutral indemnification'. Now its a VC funded 'insurance'
company planting articles online telling people to be scared and cough up. I
will not pay OSRM, nor Darl or any one of them. PLEASE set me straight, cuz I
must be simply missing something here, right? Tell me I'm wrong, explain why,
kill the pain in my stomach, please.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 16 2004 @ 03:58 PM EST |
Talking about business (URL slightly out of
topic)
We should be aware by now that Microsoft can no longer be
considered a corporation; it has successfully passed the ideological threshold.
It can now, safely, be equated as a political entity for all practical
perpuses.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 17 2004 @ 06:39 AM EST |
Gretings all!
Obviously Ms. Amy Roberts, Manager, Partner
Programs for
VARBusiness Magazine [funded some 30% by Microsoft Corp.
via MSNBC] feels
SCOG/SCOX deserves "credit" where due. She has not
only given them a "5 Star "
rating, but the online figures don't seem
to quite "jive" with what's gone down,
or is that "going down" with the
SCOG. Hmmm.
SCO Updates TeamSCO Partner Program to
Promote
UnixWare
"...the most important
elements many solution
providers look for from vendor
programs were ease of doing business, post-sales
support,
communications,
technical training and advice, and market support."
[Wonder if EV1
& AutoZone were part of the "5 Star" Poll?]
The
S
CO Group
Sales By Customer Type:
B2B:
50%
Gov't: 30%
Education:
10%
Consumer: 10%
Gross
Sales Range 2003:
$50mil-$100mil
~waynesworld~ Penguins @ the Beach
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 17 2004 @ 10:55 AM EST |
OSRM = Bad Idea. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Avenger on Wednesday, March 17 2004 @ 04:44 PM EST |
Ok, there is business in Open Source.
But what M$ does there?
http://www.osbc2004.com/[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
|
|