|
SCO's Launches OpenServer 6 |
|
Wednesday, June 22 2005 @ 01:56 PM EDT
|
Today is launch day for SCO's OpenServer(TM) 6, "a multi-year, multi-million dollar development effort that has produced a significant upgrade to SCO's flagship UNIX operating system." The press release is here. Heaven only knows we all hope they make enough money from this software that they wake up and see that litigation for profit isn't a viable business plan. Speaking of business, Sun Microsystem's Common Stock Warrant document from 2003 is now available online, as is S2's. But getting back to SCO's Legend, it's interesting who else is mentioned in the press release: HP, for one. Of course, they may feel they have little choice, if they want to support current customers, I suppose. But Dan Kuznetsky, program VP, Enterprise Computing Group, IDC, plugs it too.
Here's what he says: "As the flag bearer of the UNIX on Intel environment, it's encouraging to see the SCO Group continuing their development of SCO OpenServer," said Dan Kusnetzky, program vice president, System Software, Enterprise Computing Group, IDC. "Based on the performance and security improvements, as well as integration with many popular Open Source technologies now found in SCO OpenServer 6, the SCO Group has given its customers quite a number of reasons to upgrade and continue investing in the SCO OpenServer platform. SCO's focus on research and development of SCO OpenServer will allow customers to continue realizing the benefits of the reliability and stability of UNIX running on industry standard hardware." SCO's focus on research and development? He must have missed the last financials released. I believe that is what they cut back on. The financials they released showed a decline in research and development spending: for the three months ending April 2005= 2,117; for the three months ending April 2004= 2,868. But what really stands out is that a large part of what SCO is offering is Free and Open Source software: Built for Agility
In addition to supporting numerous UNIX applications, as well as Java applications with the inclusion of Java 1.4.2, customers will also find thousands of additional applications available through many of the latest Open Source technologies that are integrated into SCO OpenServer 6. This includes the latest versions of the MySQL and PostgreSQL databases, Apache Web server, Mozilla browser, Tomcat Java servlet container, Samba file and print services, and many others.
In addition, SCO OpenServer customers can use the familiar OpenServer desktop or use the KDE3-based desktop environment. SCO OpenServer 6 also supports the Firefox browser and OpenOffice suite of applications. I assume Darl McBride will now notify Congress that his earlier letter to them about FOSS destroying the software marketplace -- "Why would someone license UNIX code from SCO and other legitimate providers when they can get much of that same code, for free, in Linux?" -- and his "belief that the unchecked spread of Open Source software, under the GPL, is a much more serious threat to our capitalist system than U.S. corporations realize" was in error, and that in fact FOSS is now helping him keep SCO's hypocritical nose above water. UPDATE
Some media coverage:
|
|
Authored by: jtiner on Wednesday, June 22 2005 @ 02:04 PM EDT |
First Time to first post...
don't forget to make links clickable...[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Annual Meeting: Observers Needed - Authored by: stats_for_all on Wednesday, June 22 2005 @ 02:34 PM EDT
- Merkey Actually Filed - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, June 22 2005 @ 02:40 PM EDT
- Merkey Actually Filed - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, June 22 2005 @ 02:50 PM EDT
- Merkey Actually Filed - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, June 22 2005 @ 03:31 PM EDT
- It occurs to me that..... - Authored by: tiger99 on Wednesday, June 22 2005 @ 03:52 PM EDT
- Merkey Actually Filed - Authored by: cdru on Wednesday, June 22 2005 @ 04:01 PM EDT
- Merkey Actually Filed - Authored by: gumnos on Wednesday, June 22 2005 @ 04:45 PM EDT
- Merkey Actually Filed - Authored by: Griffin3 on Wednesday, June 22 2005 @ 05:48 PM EDT
- PJ - a request - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, June 22 2005 @ 05:50 PM EDT
- Seconded - Authored by: tiger99 on Wednesday, June 22 2005 @ 06:37 PM EDT
- I Agree - Authored by: MeinZy on Wednesday, June 22 2005 @ 08:49 PM EDT
- Interesting interpretation of 'killfile' - Authored by: ankylosaurus on Wednesday, June 22 2005 @ 06:40 PM EDT
- Merkey Actually Filed - Now Comes the Abuse of Discovery.... - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, June 22 2005 @ 08:06 PM EDT
- So... Funny... - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, June 22 2005 @ 09:12 PM EDT
- Merkey Actually Filed - Authored by: billposer on Wednesday, June 22 2005 @ 10:46 PM EDT
- Explanation appreciated - Authored by: davcefai on Thursday, June 23 2005 @ 01:12 AM EDT
- /. not posting - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, June 23 2005 @ 12:05 PM EDT
- "CodeWeavers Crosses Over To Intel-based Macs" - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, June 22 2005 @ 07:36 PM EDT
|
Authored by: VivianC on Wednesday, June 22 2005 @ 02:04 PM EDT |
Always wanted to say that. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, June 22 2005 @ 02:06 PM EDT |
To be fair, it's possible that R&D spending declined in the past few months
because the R&D on OpenServer 6 was all done. It takes a while to qualify,
document, and package commercial software after development is complete but
before it is ready to ship.
Of course it could also be because they benefit so much from all that FOSS they
adopted and didn't have to pay for.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, June 22 2005 @ 02:11 PM EDT |
I wonder if this release contains any of the GPL packages whose license has been
revoked by the rightsholder... Didn't IBM revoke the rights to some rather large
portions of the kernel? How about pf? ISTR there are others.
If this release
does contain some of 'revoked' code, would the rightsholders have a fair shot at
a preliminiary injunction to stop distribution?
z!
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: BassSinger on Wednesday, June 22 2005 @ 02:29 PM EDT |
Of course Open Source Software is a threat to proprietary software capitalism.
In much the same way the introduction of the automobile (horseless carriage) was
detrimental to the existing buggy-whip manufacturers. Many of those poor
companies are out of business now, and we can squarely place the blame on Henry
Ford and his contemporaries.
---
In Harmony's Way and In A Chord,
Tom ;-})
Proud Member of the Kitsap Chordsmen
Registered Linux User # 154358[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, June 22 2005 @ 02:39 PM EDT |
Sure, Dan Kuznetsky from IDC sounds a little more effusive about SCO's product
than the circumstances warrant. But don't assume he's drinking the SCO
Kool-Aid. It's probably a waste of time to come up with new cleverness in
flaming him, because it wouldn't be the first time industry analysts have done
this sort of thing.
I think what he doesn't say is at least as
important: he doesn't make any predictions about how SCO Open Server will fare
against competition. And you can bet the SCO PR staff did their best to
pressure him into saying exactly that.
When you strip out the flowery
rhetoric, what he's saying is basically true, or at least not a direct lie:
- SCO is in fact the standard bearer for Unix on Intel. He
didn't say they actually own Unix, but it's true that nobody is trying as hard
as they are to push Unix on Intel.
- The new release
does have more features than the old release. Name one software product
that had significantly fewer features in the next major release. So this
statement is essentially meaningless.
- There are enough new
features that no matter how arcane the issue that's making your life miserable,
there's something that addresses something vaguely similar. That gives the
sales guys a "hook" to try to get your boss to slow down the migration plan
you've been proposing (i.e., "continue investing in the platform"). Also likely
true—with a broad enough shotgun approach to putting features in the
product, if you roll the dice enough, you will eventually get the 7 that you
need.
- Kuznetsky is only half wrong in only one sense about
SCO's R&D commitment. Yes, R&D is down about 25% from the same quarter
last year. And yes, that's how most people (including Wall Street, where I
work) would think about it. However, they're spending 22.9% of revenue
(excluding SCO Source) on R&D, which is a higher percentage than almost any
software company I can think of. Most companies typically run somewhere around
13% to 18% of revenue. I agree that the absolute dollars spent on R&D
should not be going down, but again, he's not actually saying something untrue,
he's just picking his definition.
I'm not trying to be a troll
here. Nor am I trying to defend Dan Kuznetsky. He is merely putting the best
spin possible on the facts. But he's not necessarily doing that because he
believes in SCO's cause. The industry analysts do this sort of weaseling quote
for everybody.
I just want to suggest that people read between the lines
carefully and realize that he has in fact crafted a statement that sounds
positive but actually doesn't mean anything. So he hasn't had to lie.
I
think this is an exercise in "damning with faint praise." Example: I remember
on some Hollywood awards show years ago that Bill Hurt introduced Glenn Close, a
friend of his. The punch line to the joke was that instead of praising her
acting ability, he praised her punctuality in showing up to work on time every
morning, and keeping the pile of scripts in her trailer neater than anyone
else's pile of scripts. I think the same thing is happening here.
--The Royal Scam [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Carlo Graziani on Wednesday, June 22 2005 @ 02:48 PM EDT |
So, shall we start a pool on how many licenses they sell?
We could make it a
matrix, to make it more interesting --- you have to pick the number of new
licenses and the number of upgrades. A $ to play, one entry per player, at
most one player per entry.
In a year, the entry that is closest in Euclidean
distance in the (N_new, N_upgrades) plane to the right answer wins. Tied
winners split the pot equally.
My $ is on (0,0).
OK, it's a
joke. Don't gamble on-line, it's illegal if the gummint doesn't get a cut. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, June 22 2005 @ 03:03 PM EDT |
The stock price of SCOX has not changed, nor has there been a significant amount
of trading. My conclusion is that either the market does not consider SCOX
software releases to be significant in terms of earning ability, or that the
existing price already has this release factored in. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: tiger99 on Wednesday, June 22 2005 @ 03:04 PM EDT |
Interestingly the share price is just suffering from the normal fluctuations
within a small band. The volume remains low. Usually when a company releases a
new product of significant importance, the price rises noticeably. And remember,
this is supposedly the main product which will save the company. But Darl may
have implied that about Smallfoot, last year...... I think this suggests that
the transactions which are happening are mainly the Paintblaster XP, and real
investors have simply gone away, or know that the SCOundrel is doomed. But I
don't understand the stock market (does anyone?), despite having had it
explained here several times, so I may very well be wrong. I really would like
to know what others think, not that I will be investing, of course. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: kawabago on Wednesday, June 22 2005 @ 03:05 PM EDT |
They are definitely drowning and no matter how much they improve 'Open Server',
they are still the company that sues it's customers. Do they offer
indemnification that they won't sue you if you rent their product? You
certainly need it!
---
TTFN[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Chris Lingard on Wednesday, June 22 2005 @ 03:08 PM EDT |
Get your free seminar here. For
England, Scotland, and Ireland
They have teamed up with Iomega
Corporation for this. A sad tale for a company that made those wonderful zip
discs, so that we could take the latest gcc version home, when we had dial
up.
And not to disappoint too many, they are going to Germany, Austria
and Switzerland too. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: tz on Wednesday, June 22 2005 @ 03:13 PM EDT |
Some of those opensource programs listed are GPLed.
Of course I'm confused enough on SCO's position that I don't know if they have
repudiated the GPL or not, but if they have, or have violated it, can they
legally include the software (and are they making the source available)?
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: eskild on Wednesday, June 22 2005 @ 03:19 PM EDT |
I should think that this might be the SCO-saga's equivalent to the 'Battle of
the Bulge'
---
Eskild
Denmark[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Nick_UK on Wednesday, June 22 2005 @ 03:52 PM EDT |
... multi-million dollar development effort
is the lawyers
bills...
Nick ;-) [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Steve Martin on Wednesday, June 22 2005 @ 03:57 PM EDT |
As the flag bearer of the UNIX on Intel
environment,
Sadly, OpenServer 6 has not been
certified as UNIX®, according to the Open Group, and so
cannot be referred to as "UNIX".
--- "When I say something, I put my
name next to it." -- Isaac Jaffee, "Sports Night" [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: edal on Wednesday, June 22 2005 @ 04:14 PM EDT |
Since HP continue to support The SCO Group we don't purchase their products.
This includes a couple of hundred laptops which were due for replacement, the
order eventually went to our old friend IBM.
Ed Almos
Budapest, Hungary[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- HP Supporting SCO - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, June 22 2005 @ 04:55 PM EDT
- HP Supporting SCO - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, June 22 2005 @ 07:30 PM EDT
- HP Supporting SCO - Authored by: Tyro on Wednesday, June 22 2005 @ 08:10 PM EDT
- So what? - Authored by: Jude on Wednesday, June 22 2005 @ 08:29 PM EDT
- So what? - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, June 22 2005 @ 09:13 PM EDT
- So what? - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, June 22 2005 @ 09:21 PM EDT
- HP Supporting SCO - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, June 24 2005 @ 09:49 PM EDT
- HP Supporting SCO - Authored by: AJWM on Thursday, June 23 2005 @ 02:09 AM EDT
- HP hardware supports SCO, HP sells Linux - Authored by: AJWM on Thursday, June 23 2005 @ 02:24 AM EDT
|
Authored by: MeinZy on Wednesday, June 22 2005 @ 04:42 PM EDT |
Many comments lately zeroed in on SCO's lack of a definitive statement of Unix
ownership in their mission statements and/or press releases of late, apparently
thinking they may be backtracking a bit. Well, fear not my friends, it's back
and boldly stated in line 1 of the current press release:
The SCO Group,
Inc. ("SCO") (Nasdaq: SCOX - News), the owner of the UNIX® operating
system...
Emphasis mine.
--- Zy -- 'Square peg in a round Earth' [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: TAZ6416 on Wednesday, June 22 2005 @ 05:00 PM EDT |
Can you run Linux on it? ;)
Jonathan[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, June 22 2005 @ 05:40 PM EDT |
Actually they should be congratulated in getting this update out, it's been a
long time coming. I am not being facetious or anything. Their customers can now
enjoy the same benefits the rest of the industry has been enjoying for some time
though I don't see anything particularly new or exciting in their release eg
Firefox(got that), OpenOffice(got that), big file storage(got that), MyuSQL(got
that), Apache(got that) etc and I note that the version of Java here is 1.4.2.
The question is why not the 1.5 such as I have on my Windws Box?
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Rasyr on Wednesday, June 22 2005 @ 08:44 PM EDT |
You know what?
I may be overly cynical here, but the one thing that I can not help wondering
is.....
Does OpenServer 6 contain any Linux code? I am not talking about the FOSS
packages that are publicly listed, I am talking about kernal and other internal
code (that SCO won't release). Is there any way of getting SCO to prove that
THEIR code is clean and not violating somebody else's copyrights?
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, June 22 2005 @ 09:18 PM EDT |
A technical observation, reading the release on Yahoo, it seems that even though
their unix handles up to 32 processors, and 16/64Gb of memory, the Enterprise
edition, the highest spec'd edition, only supports 4 processors.
In reading it overall, in the context of where other *nix variants are at,
OpenServer 6 doesn't sound all that impressive. It has more the feel of trying
to keep up to date.
MS[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, June 22 2005 @ 10:02 PM EDT |
If I'm not mistaken the Nick Burg video was released in the Windows Media
format. Is that a format that those linux evil doers use often?
-Photocrimes (not logged in)[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: radicimo on Wednesday, June 22 2005 @ 10:22 PM EDT |
"Heaven only knows we all hope they make enough money
from this
software
that they wake up and see that litigation for profit isn't
a viable business plan."
Speak for yourself, Pamela. I
personally hope (and believe) this software release
will be a collosal failure.
The SCO Group has not a viable business plan in the
world, software or
litigation included.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: blacklight on Thursday, June 23 2005 @ 01:26 AM EDT |
Unless I am missing something, SCOG's pricing of its OpenServer 6 is chicken
feed: $599 for a Starter Edition and $1399 for an Enterprise Edition. In
contrast, Microsoft charges $1399 for a Windows 2003 Enterprise Server and RH
charges probably $3000 for its Enterprise server. I may be forcing the point,
but I am getting the feeling that SCOG's lack of confidence in its product is
reflected in its pricing of said product. At most, SCOG may get some mileage
from its existing customers upgrading but any SCOG customer who is still a SCOG
customer is probably the kind of customer no sane OS vendor would want.
The writing is on the wall: SCOG is not long for this world and I have to
believe that anyone who hasn't switched from SCOG by now has to be a believer in
the power of inertia - I don't have too many complimentary things to say about
senior IT managers who'd rather put their employers at risk rather than engage
in migration away from SCOG.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: luvr on Thursday, June 23 2005 @ 07:33 AM EDT |
I assume Darl McBride will now notify Congress that his earlier
letter [...] was in error, and that in fact FOSS is now helping him
[...]
I have to wonder... Perhaps he realises that OpenServer 6 is
likely to be a complete and utter failure anyway, and he can now blame it on the
FOSS that's included in it? Genre: "See... I told you so... FOSS destroys the
software business!"[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, June 23 2005 @ 09:05 AM EDT |
--"Heaven only knows we all hope they make enough money from this software
that they wake up and see that litigation for profit isn't a viable business
plan."
Isn't this too late? As far as I can see, they are forced to either win or reach
an agreement (simultaniously with everybody), or else they will be blown out of
the water, no?
mvh // Jens M Andreasen
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, June 23 2005 @ 01:24 PM EDT |
... the flag bearer[s] of the UNIX on Intel environment ...
I run SCO OpenServer
at work. A fine, leading product it is not. Incredibly stable, admittedly, but
you better hope you never have to reconfigure anything because (a) it's even
worse than Linux, and (b) it might never work quite right ever again. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, June 24 2005 @ 09:44 PM EDT |
This headline could just as well read:
"Custer attacks Little Bighorn"
I work for a hardware vendor, we recieved a call asking when drivers will be
available for this OS; Short answer from the programming department ... Never.
If the old driver stuff does not work, upgrade to Linux.
PS: format the drive during the install!
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
|
|