|
|
| SCO's "Dear SCO Partner" Letter |
 |
|
Thursday, January 13 2005 @ 03:59 PM EST
|
SCO's latest newsletter to business partners is a hoot. They open with the positives, in their eyes. And guess what they mention? That they were the most-searched-for company on Google in 2004: "SCO just completed its 25th anniversary year of selling UNIX solutions. Looking back on 2004, we saw a very successful Forum event in Las Vegas in August, we a launched more products in 2004 than in any other year since SCO’s history, and we even were ranked as the most searched company on Google in 2004 (http://www.google.com/press/zeitgeist.html)." Of course they are number one on the list of companies searched for. The entire worldwide Free and Open Source community has been relentlessly and doggedly sifting through every bit of evidence they can find to try to defeat them. Groklaw alone could probably make a company number one on that list. That is hardly something a company should desire, however. And we are not alone.
They also cite the Yankee Group's Laura DiDio on how Microsoft offers such wonderful indemnification and, according to her, Linux doesn't. They list the wrong url, being SCO -- "Open Source Software Indemnification Deemed Critical,' Says eChannel Line Daily News (http://www.integratedmar.com/ecl-
usa/story.cfm?item=19091) -- but if you go to the site they reference, dropping everything after the .com and search by keyword, you can find the article. While you are at that site, you might notice one of their articles today is on how adoption of GNU/Linux didn't just ramp up this past year. It leaped. So, does this mean a lot of businessmen don't care about DiDio's recommendations or heed her warnings? SCO's Dear Partner letter also mentions a solution that they recommend and distribute. Guess what it is? Squid. Yes, my friends, Open Source to the rescue: Part 1 --
An Introduction to Squid
(Part 2 will appear in next month’s issue of SCO Partner News)
Looking for faster web browsing and reduced internet traffic? Then take a look at Squid, available from SCO Skunkware and 5.0.7 Maintenance Pack 3. Described on the Squid home page, www.squid-cache.org, as "a full-featured web proxy cache", Squid can answer many concerns companies have when their employees are using the internet.
To read the complete article, click HERE http://www.sco.com/partners/news/0501/ixorg_corner.html). I hope SCO is providing indemnification for their distribution of Squid. After all, it's licensed under the GPL. Joke. Joke. But does that or does that not tell you something about their "legal" arguments about the purported invalidity of the GPL and the "danger" of using Free and Open Source software? They try to terrorize the business world, to get people to think you can't trust open source software because it is written by God knows who and has purportedly inferior indemnification, and then they not only distribute it themselves, they highlight it in their partner newsletter as a solution, no, as their *preferred* solution, for their partners. A little bird tells me they are releasing a separate CD chock-full of FOSS applications, those hypocrites. They ship it with their SCO 5.0.6 version of its OS as a separate disk of GPL software that runs with their operating system, and the KDE desktop is part of the package.
It would be interesting to know what changes they have made to make it run with their OS and whether they made those changes public.
I have been told that if you sign up to write software for them as an outsider, you work on exactly things like making Mozilla work with their software, which they wouldn't even have to pay for if they hadn't alienated the entire FOSS planet.
The article about accelerating Linux adoption provides some specifics:
As reported in eChannelLine on Jan. 10, AMI-Partners said the open source technology has gained legitimacy from vendors such as Red Hat, HP, Novell and IBM. The end result: Small to mid-sized businesses (SMBs) across the planet are expected to invest increasingly in Linux and open source technologies over the next five years.
AMI-Partners, a NYC-based consulting firm specializing in IT, Internet, telecom and business services market intelligence, trends, and strategy with a focus on global SMBs, said growth would be particularly strong in Asian and European markets where public government endorsements and policies are boosting visibility for Linux and open source.
The "Worldwide SMB Linux Forecast" stated that on a worldwide basis the number of Linux-owning SMBs is projected to rise from 1.2 million to 2.7 million businesses -- a compounded annual growth rate (CAGR) of 18 per cent. . . .
Other highlights from AMI's report included:
-- Linux desktop installed-base growth will be driven primarily by the mid- market and by larger small businesses over the forecast period, advancing at a rate of 23 per cent;
-- On a worldwide basis 4 per cent of PC-owning SMBs are expected to adopt Linux, representing 6 per cent of the SMB desktop installed base by 2008;
-- Server shipments are expected to grow at a CAGR of 34 per cent, accounting for approximately 6 per cent of the total SMB server installed base by 2008.
MySQL's CEO, Marten Mickos, is interviewed today too, and he says the number one perceived issue in the enterprise when it comes to switching to GNU/Linux is skilled employees. However, while training is sometimes needed, he says it often happens that CEOs find out, when they ask, that they already have plenty of experienced Linux employees, because they use it at home already: What will be the important trends in the Linux and open source space in 2005?
Mickos: We will see increased growth, faster growth than before, in adoption of open source in the enterprise, not just for MySQL, but across the board. . . . There are more enterprise customers who are ready to take the step because IBM, HP, CA and most of the other big companies are standing behind open source. Governments are switching too, as this compilation by The Register makes clear, and some of it is a matter of trust. No doubt so-called "trusted computing" makes them nervous and so does Microsoft, only in part because it is a US company. Can you say tipping point? And here is the ironic part. SCO, back when it was Caldera, was a Linux company. They could be benefitting from this upsurge in Linux adoption. They hopped off the train that was already leaving the station and chose to ride in a horse-driven buggy instead. You know, like the buggies in Central Park? No one really uses horse-drawn buggies anymore to really get around. Now they're just for quaint and old-fashioned tasks when you don't really care about getting anywhere.
|
|
|
|
| Authored by: Hiro Protagonist on Thursday, January 13 2005 @ 08:27 PM EST |
Corrections Go Here Please. So PJ can find them easily.
---
I Grok... Therefore... I am.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: freeio on Thursday, January 13 2005 @ 08:38 PM EST |
Because that way we can keep it separate!
---
Tux et bona et fortuna est.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Dropping the proprietary OS - entirely - Authored by: freeio on Thursday, January 13 2005 @ 08:47 PM EST
- SCO Revival - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, January 13 2005 @ 09:08 PM EST
- SCO Revival - Authored by: PJ on Friday, January 14 2005 @ 12:54 AM EST
- ESRI - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, January 13 2005 @ 09:25 PM EST
- ESRI - Authored by: brian on Friday, January 14 2005 @ 12:25 AM EST
- ESRI - Authored by: rsteinmetz70112 on Friday, January 14 2005 @ 02:16 AM EST
- ESRI - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, January 14 2005 @ 03:20 AM EST
- ESRI - Authored by: dwmosman on Friday, January 14 2005 @ 04:11 AM EST
- ESRI - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, January 14 2005 @ 10:24 AM EST
- ESRI - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, January 14 2005 @ 06:18 PM EST
- ESRI - Authored by: tbogart on Tuesday, January 18 2005 @ 02:34 AM EST
- ESRI - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, January 14 2005 @ 12:40 AM EST
- ESRI - Authored by: tbogart on Tuesday, January 18 2005 @ 02:28 AM EST
- LinuxInsider: Comparing Linux and System VR4 - Authored by: DebianUser on Thursday, January 13 2005 @ 10:09 PM EST
- TheRegister: DRM update - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, January 13 2005 @ 11:45 PM EST
- Is it mandatory to read the newsletter? - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, January 13 2005 @ 11:52 PM EST
- Andy Herzfeld on how the Mac was born (and also on other more groklaw-relevant stuff) - Authored by: macrorodent on Friday, January 14 2005 @ 02:29 AM EST
- M$ will not Fix WMP - Authored by: Greebo on Friday, January 14 2005 @ 02:47 AM EST
- SCO wants more diSCOvery!!! (new docs) - Authored by: fudisbad on Friday, January 14 2005 @ 04:05 AM EST
- "Dear SCO Partner" Letter - parody - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, January 14 2005 @ 04:30 AM EST
- How can Britney Spears be the most popular query - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, January 14 2005 @ 08:28 AM EST
- Microsoft's new Anti-Spyware Beta - Authored by: TerryC on Friday, January 14 2005 @ 10:42 AM EST
- Another reason why I like Linus... - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, January 14 2005 @ 11:24 AM EST
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, January 13 2005 @ 08:50 PM EST |
| Perhaps SCOx is headed for this Google year-end catagory next year. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Simon G Best on Thursday, January 13 2005 @ 09:02 PM EST |
[We] a launched more products in 2004 than in any other year since
SCO’s history, ...
Well, what else can you do when you're
history? I'm glad they recognise the inevitable.
---
FOSS IS
political. It's just that the political establishment is out of touch and
hasn't caught up. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: LocoYokel on Thursday, January 13 2005 @ 09:02 PM EST |
There is a fair sized group of people who still use horse and buggies as a part
of daily life. The Amish communities in the Pennsylvania/Ohio regions. They
also, as a rule, don't have electricity, running water, or many of the other
things we take as a given in a modern society. They are also, unlike Darl and
friends, generally as honest and hardworking a group of people you will ever
meet.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, January 13 2005 @ 09:15 PM EST |
"...we a launched more products in 2004 than in any other year since SCO’s
history..."
Is that really a direct quote from their newsletter? If it is true, I think I
know why their products are not selling...they probably write code as well as
they write newsletters.
The only thing positive in that quote is the fact that they finally admit that
they are "history"!![ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: m_si_M on Thursday, January 13 2005 @ 09:15 PM EST |
"No one really uses horse-drawn buggies anymore to really get around. Now
they're just for quaint and old-fashioned tasks when you don't really care about
getting anywhere."
Well, aside from being used for nostalgic trips to
the past, those old fashioned vehicles are still of a certain economical
importance because of races and horse bets (at least over here in
Europe).
A leading technology company like SCO would hardly try to build
a business on ancient technology or a game of chance. No, definitely
not!
What? You say they actually ... [Sigh] [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Night Flyer on Thursday, January 13 2005 @ 09:21 PM EST |
"SCO just completed its 25th anniversary year of selling UNIX
solutions."
25th year??
And exactly which year was SCO incorporated including obtaining "UNIX
solutions"? (2005-25 = 1980). But, but, but my records say that even
Caldera wasn't around in 1980.
Awe darn my math must be bad... Or maybe there really isn't truth in
advertising.
Anything we aught to do about this?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, January 13 2005 @ 09:21 PM EST |
I usually only checkout sco.com for a good laugh and this time it *really* paid
off. They have at the very top of their home page touting the fact that
"SCO Ranked #1 Corporate Query Site by Google".
Boy I bet they are as proud as Osama must be to the the "#1 Terrorist Query
by Google".
They sure are a piece of work. Do you really want IBM to squash them out of
existence like a bug? I say we just keep them around for a couple more years
just to keep us entertained.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, January 13 2005 @ 09:47 PM EST |
Number of searches in Overture in December 2004 (don't forget these totals
include searches on those other search engines which incorporate Overture's paid
listings).
Source:
http://inventory.overture.com/d/searchinventory/suggestion/
COMPANY NAMES (a few random selections):
22,745,994 google
955,403 microsoft
287,973 auto zone
256,382 ibm
34,490 red hat
7,113 sgi
5,301 sco
141 vintela
These numbers are so incredibly far off Google's Zeitgeist report for SCO's
popularity (while absolute numbers would differ, I think that you would expect
to see a similar pattern in relative popularity), that it really makes me
wonder.
Could Google's ancedotal report (note: I didn't see any hard numbers there), not
quite be the whole story?
Or, could it be that all those open source researchers using Google APIs and
scrappers threw google's numbers off?
Or, could it be that SCO was a very popular search term earlier in 2004, but
faded into relative obscurity by the end of the year?
Or, ???
(I don't have an explanation, the above are just hypotheses)
WHAT ABOUT OPERATING SYSTEM PRODUCTS? (a few random selections):
15,024 solaris
8,433 red hat linux
4,442 aix
962 sun solaris
247 aix ibm
153 unixware
33 sco unixware
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: igneous on Thursday, January 13 2005 @ 09:51 PM EST |
When they say
"...we a [sic] launched more products in
2004 than in any other year since SCO’s history..."
do they
mean
"...we a launched more products in 2004 than in any
other year since [the beginning of] SCO’s
history..."
or perhaps
"...we a launched
more products in 2004 than in any other year since of
SCO’s history..."
or maybe even
"...we a
launched more products in 2004 than in any other year since SCO’s history
imploded when the company was confronted with the need to deal with actual
facts..."
And which portions of which SCOs' history(s)
are they referring to: OldSCO (perhaps before the supposed transfer of stuff to
Caldera), TSCOG (since the birth of Caldera, since the supposed transfer of
stuff from OldSCO to Caldera, or since the name change of Caldera to TSCOG), or
some unspecified portions of both? Their statement can be interpreted in many
possible ways. My guess is that it's weasel-wording.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Weasel-wording? - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, January 13 2005 @ 10:48 PM EST
- Weasel-wording? - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, January 13 2005 @ 10:49 PM EST
- Weasel-wording? - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, January 14 2005 @ 04:05 AM EST
| |
| Authored by: The Mad Hatter r on Thursday, January 13 2005 @ 10:29 PM EST |
So they were the most searched company on Google. At one point Adolf Hitler was
the man with the most newspaper appearances...
On a lighter note, I decided to read the rest of the most searched terms - and
guess what I found under top clothing queries from Froogle?
9. red dress
Let help make sure that 2005 is the "Year of the Red Dress" at PJ's
house.
---
Wayne
telnet hatter.twgs.org
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Khym Chanur on Thursday, January 13 2005 @ 10:37 PM EST |
| What SCO probably means (who can really tell, with SCO) about the GPL being
invalid/void/blah-blah-blah is that certain parts of it are invlaid,
namely the parts saying what you can't do, and when your license to
redistribute is revoked. Meaning that anyone who's licensed their code under
the GPL has, for all practical purposes, placed their code into the public
domain. ---
Give a man a match, and he'll be warm for a minute, but set
him on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life. (Paraphrased from Terry
Pratchett) [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, January 14 2005 @ 12:14 AM EST |
Here's a hypothetical question. Could one of the open source projects like
Mozilla or squid purposefully put something in their code that forbid it from
running on SCO's os? Even if it's like an if(os == sco) { dont run } - Then if
sco releases a version of that software that works on their OS without providing
the source code, we would know it's 100% in violation of the GPL right? It would
be so trivial to add, but would basically force SCO to either stop using Open
Source software, or allow access to their "modified" source code,
which would totally validate the GPL. Any thoughts?
Jason[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: jim Reiter on Friday, January 14 2005 @ 01:23 AM EST |
At what point does a reasonably intelligent person conclude that you cannot rely
on the truthfulness of anything that comes out of TSG?
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: blacklight on Friday, January 14 2005 @ 01:47 AM EST |
"... Looking back on 2004, we saw a very successful Forum event in Las
Vegas in August, we a launched more products in 2004 than in any other year
since SCO's history, and we even were ranked as the most searched company on
Google in 2004" SCOG "Dear Partner" letter
I'd say that SCOG tried to create an improper inference between its product
launches in 2004 and Google's report that SCOG was the most googled company in
2004. SCOG partners should be proud and pleased that they were the recipients of
a letter that was written with intent to mislead.
The SCOG shareholders and SCOG partners may draw their own conclusions about
SCOG's short-term future from SCOG's own SEC filings, where SCOG reports that
its cash position dropped 90% from $67 mils to $6-7 mils and that its UNIx
business shrunk by 10% to 20% from the year before. Many dot coms would report
their purported successes in terms of hits before their balance sheets caught up
with their act and they went dot bust. SCOG has apparently learned nothing from
that industry-wide debacle, except to ape it.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, January 14 2005 @ 03:12 AM EST |
Yeah... I search for them every day, hoping that their stock dropped through the
floor.
Kind of like saying proudly your the most wanted bandit in the Wild West.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: muswell100 on Friday, January 14 2005 @ 03:30 AM EST |
Almost without fail, every time I read another of these reports about/from SCO
I'm left wondering if they are somehow intentionally trying to come across as
some sort of cartoon villain. To lie, obfuscate and pervert the facts of their
business and court cases so brazenly - and so very, very badly - cannot possibly
be the act of someone who still thinks they have a business to run, or who wants
to be taken remotely seriously in the industry. My impression is that knowing
they're completely washed up after they lose their shirts, they've now decided
to have a bit of fun along the way by doing a sort of corporate Dick Dastardly
impression.
And, speaking personally, the AdTI's Ken Brown has my vote for Muttley.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, January 14 2005 @ 03:52 AM EST |
So, it must have been an advertising stunt of SCO.
Maybe they should fire the responsible manager then, since it doesn't bring
extra revenues if you look at their financial reports. ;-)[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: ricketts30 on Friday, January 14 2005 @ 04:03 AM EST |
Back in 1989, Pons and Fleischman published to the media the reseults of
their now imfamous "Cold Fusion" experiment.
The article that they
published was for ages the MOST cited and referenced article in scientific
publication - but only becuase so many people were referencing it to refute it,
or to cite it as an example of very dubious science.
In a similar fashion
SCO are being heavily referenced and also heavily criticised.
Note : The
problem with the "Cold Fusion" debacle was not that Pons and Fleischman were bad
scientists - It was after all, a neat idea and worth trying - but that the media
circus following on from their initial press-conference meant that the paper was
rushed to publication before it could be subjected to the traditional and
rigourous peer-review.
In a similar way, Groklaw et al. are
subjecting SCO's claims to withering peer-review.
(Mene, Mene Tekel
Upharsin)
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, January 14 2005 @ 05:36 AM EST |
I also bet that the Titanic was the most talked-about ship in 1912, probably
also in 1913, and likely of all times.
I doubt that this makes it the biggest success story for its previous
shareholders.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: hal9000 on Friday, January 14 2005 @ 05:51 AM EST |
Looks like 1 of the 2 Australian Distributors
is the GEM Cricket
Club.
http://www.sco.com/partners/dist/au.html
Click on the mpasystems
link.
It would appear that mpasystems are not happy
with SCO.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: jmc on Friday, January 14 2005 @ 06:31 AM EST |
I notice that the Google search includes other organisations calling or
abbreviating themselves SCO such as:
Southern College of Optometry www.sco.edu
California's State Controller's Office www.sco.ca.gov
Scottish Chamber Orchestra www.sco.org.uk
I wonder if the searches for SCO might be "inflated" by people looking
for them?
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: vruz on Friday, January 14 2005 @ 07:48 AM EST |
So they highlight Google as a popularity measure, as sort of an international
de-facto standard.
One can certainly be a very popular liar with enough effort.
By the way, your highly reliable source of information - Google - heavily uses
open source software.
Linux, Python, Ruby to name a few among other FOSS projects, our fellows can
probably extend the list.
Even though it's scary when companies get as big as Google, they have taken care
of their relationship with the FOSS community, after all they don't want to bite
the hand that -in part- feeds them.
SCO could certainly take advice from Google and other companies in this regard.
SCO has proven not only to be highly hypocritical but also one of the worst
cases of high treason.
(ask their UnitedLinux 'partners')
---
--- the vruz[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, January 14 2005 @ 08:24 AM EST |
<i>I have been told that if you sign up to write software for them as an
outsider, you work on exactly things like making Mozilla work with their
software, which they wouldn't even have to pay for if they hadn't alienated the
entire FOSS planet.</i>
Well, they may still have had to pay somebody even if they hadn't alienated the
FOSS community. Your assumption is that there is always a volunteer interested
in every product for every platform. Paying somebody to write FOSS isn't
uncommon. Of course, we all appreciate and admire those who do write FOSS
without pay.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, January 14 2005 @ 08:41 AM EST |
I'm not sure if this is interpreted as bad language or not so I appologise for
those who think it is...
What Snarl forgot to mention is that the search term that leads to SCO is
"litigious Bastards". I'm not lying, try it out.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, January 14 2005 @ 09:12 AM EST |
I have been going through a list of "SCO Partners"
According to Netcraft, the bulk of thier partners are running Linux or BSD with
Apache with some win2k thrown in here and there.
I did find *one* running Sco unix www.csscentral.com
If SCO holds true to form, and assuming they had the cash, one would figure they
will begin suing thier partners next.
One of the *premier* partners cracks me up.
Information Systems Support INC. No actual company URL but to get ahold of this
PREMIER supplier, send an email to ddinazz@hotmail.com
Nothing earth shattering, just had a few minutes to spare.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, January 14 2005 @ 02:20 PM EST |
Doesn't SCO have to pay to be listed with google?
or does SCO
get a per click fee?
Anon User[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Observer on Friday, January 14 2005 @ 02:38 PM EST |
| I think another reason for governments adopting FOSS is that, at least from what
I've seen, FOSS software tends to be a long way ahead of proprietary
alternatives in their Internationalization and localization. In other words, if
you are operating in some obscure language group and an economically depressed
area, large proprietary vendors are unlikely to have localized their
applications to your language, simply because there is no financial incentive
for such a small market. It is much more likely that someone out there has
already done a translation of a FOSS program to your language, or if they
haven't yet, it is a lot easier to find someone who will.
---
The
Observer [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: lordmhoram on Monday, January 17 2005 @ 09:06 AM EST |
Horse-drawn buggy? A better metaphor would be a tank: makes a lot of noise and
scares a lot of people, but doesn't go very fast. Also not much good when it
turns out to be a fake tank made out of cardboard and tinfoil, and with a cannon
which pops out a flag saying "BANG!"[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, January 18 2005 @ 12:25 AM EST |
Either SCO distributes GPL'd software (Squid) and is therefore bound by the
licese or they violate said license.
If they are in violation, what are you
going to do? Sue them? They'll be so far gone by the time the case goes in front
of a judge that the whole case will be dismissed as irrelevant.
My advise
is not to worry. SCO is showing such great skill in the art of shooting
themselves in the foot that they'll bleed to death in public.
I'm still
waiting for the press release that says that Darl's association with SCO/Canopy
has been terminated...
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
