|
|
| Why Linux Is Conquering the World |
 |
|
Monday, September 08 2003 @ 12:16 AM EDT
|
As you may recall, HP (as Compaq) and China's Red Flag Linux have been working together on Linux, including getting it to scale to 64-bit, for several years. Now they have jointly announced that they plan on expanding Red Flag Linux beyond China, to Korea and Japan, and then, they say, they would like to expand to the whole world. Considering that Japan just said it plans on working closely with Korea and China to get away from Microsoft dependency, this story seems to dovetail nicely and to answer the question as to whether they meant to grow their own OS from scratch or use Linux. As usual, Linux wins.
They will focus on enterprise use, with HP supporting Red Flag server Series 4 on its Integrity and Proliant servers, according to the announcement. And Oracle and Intel and BEA Systems are in the deal too. Here's what LinuxWorld says:
"Basically the stage is now set for a massive collaboration between HP, Red Flag, Oracle, Intel, and BEA Systems to provide a common platform for China's three vastest sectors: government, telecommunications, and commerce.
"'This strategic alliance with HP will drive the adoption of enterprise Linux in China,' said Liu Bo, Red Flag Software's President and CEO, in a statement he made this week announcing the HP-Red Flag agreement. If this works, he added, the alliance will move on first to the Asia-Pacific market overall. And then to the whole world."
Here's why Linux always wins. Tinyminds.org did an interview with maddog, also on Slashdot, which is important to say, because Tinyminds' server got slashdotted right away, and one thing he says in the interview brought everything clearly into focus for me as to why nothing SCO does can succeed against Linux:
"I believe (and have stated since 1998) that the 'year' of the Linux desktop will be 2003/2004 and 2005. I think that right now there are good enough products to be used in a large corporation or university as either a thin client or a 'thicker' client (one with browser, Open Office, some specialized applications), and perhaps a 3rd or 4th generation language application based on a database, to allow a savy systems designer for a company to put together a 'turnkey' system to replace thousands of desks on the enterprise desktop. This would free hundreds of thousands of dollars (if not millions of dollars) in software license payments which could go to tailoring and supporting Free and Open Source solutions for that enterprise."
Put that together with this 3-page article from Infoworld, which did a comparison look at TCO vs. ROI for Linux, UNIX and Windows, and includes these snips:
"It is an easy calculation. 'Moving Unix workloads to Linux is a no-brainer because of the Intel economics,' says Ted Schadler, principal analyst at Forrester Research. 'If you look at the all-in cost of deploying Unix on RISC versus that same workload on an HP or Dell box, it's between a 5K and 25K price improvement.' . .
"On both the hardware and software side, an often overlooked cost advantage of Linux is the flexibility it provides in terms of future migration and upgrade paths. 'With Linux, you control your own upgrade cycle,' Robinson says. . . .
" 'You can correlate systems knowledge with age,' explains Avery Lyford, CEO of Linuxcare, which develops management software for Linux environments. 'It's a gross generalization, but if you talk to someone in their 20s, they know Linux; in their 30s, they know Microsoft; in their 40s, Unix; in their 50s, big systems like VMS [Virtual Memory System].' So in theory, Lyford says, you could gauge your Linux migration costs by figuring out the average age of your system administrators.
"One management cost area where Linux seems to consistently trump Windows is the cost of managing security. A big driver for Cedars-Sinai's switch to Linux was 'the tremendous amount of churn we have on our NT servers,' due to hot fixes, service packs, and so on, Duncan says. 'We did an analysis of the amount of time we were spending tweaking NT servers, and it really was kind of terrifying. We should be able to set up a server and just leave it alone -- we really got into Linux from that point of view.'
"Linux is 'virtually virus-free,' Burlington Coat Factory's Prince agrees, 'and it's pretty difficult for people to screw up their systems.'"
The article also says enterprises are getting over their initial distrust of "Google support", and that knowing you have free support available that way is turning into "a strong point".
Then contrast Microsoft's newest offering, its Windows Rights Management Services for Windows Server 2003, which it has, unbelievably enough, named RMS. Here is the overview.
This is the method of controlling what people can do with documents, whether they can open them, share, read, change, copy, print, or keep them forever. Yes, it will erase email and documents. No doubt that idea was born from the antitrust trial.
Microsoft Office 2003 Standard Edition users can only view RMS-protected documents and emails. The Professional version users can both create and access RMS-protected docs. But they have to pay. First, you have to buy Microsoft's product line, end to end, and then you have to get your seat licenses, and if you want to talk to anyone outside your organization, well, that costs extra, lots extra:
"To deploy RMS, organizations are required to have a Windows Server 2003 Server and Client Access Licenses as well as Windows Rights Management Services Client Access Licenses. The RMS server component is available as a free download via Server 2003's Windows Update functionality or Microsoft's Download Center.
"RMS client access licenses (CAL) will cost organizations $37 for each user or $185 for an RMS CAL five-pack.
"An optional RMS External Connector License, which covers an unlimited number of outside users, costs $18,066."
How is that going to compete with GNU/Linux? Red Flag Linux alone could probably mow them down, singlehandedly. Here is their pricing page. And here's the RMS Pricing and Licensing FAQ, where you learn that, of course, having a Windows 2003 license or a Windows Server 2003 Client Access License is by no means sufficient to use RMS:
"Q. If I want to send a rights-protected document to someone outside of my organization, what are the licensing requirements?
"A. To enable rights-protected viewing outside your organization, you can acquire a Windows Server 2003 External Connector License and an RMS External Connector License for each RMS server that your external users will access. This fulfills the RMS licensing requirements, so you do not have to purchase individual Windows CALs and RMS CALs for each external user.
"An external user means any person (not an organization) who is not any of the following:
"your full-time, part-time, or temporary employee; agency temporary personnel or independent contractor on assignment at your worksite; or your customer to whom you provide hosted services with the server software."
If you don't have Windows 2003 Server?:
"Q. Are there any exceptions to the RMS licensing requirements?
"A. Yes. For Microsoft Office 2003 users, there is a free trial Information Rights Management (IRM) service available for customers who do not have Windows Server 2003. This service enables users to share documents and messages with restricted permission by using Microsoft .NET Passport as the authentication mechanism, as opposed to Active Directory® directory service. If information is rights-protected using the Microsoft .NET Passport service, CALs are not required."
I read this and I hear: Microsoft would like to lock me up in its prison, with no visitation rights, and throw away the key. Hang it all, I think I'll use Linux instead.
The culture clash is so great, all you'd have to do is stand up in any LUG meeting anywhere in the world and read this stuff aloud, and the audience would be on the floor, helpless with laughter. And as maddog and Infoworld point out, people in their 20s are Linux users. They are the future, and not only in the US.
I read the other day an article about Bill Gates' house. He built his house with some of the same features as his new software. It too is designed to keep icky outsiders out. And if visitors are let in, they wear electronic pins, so the house's computer systems know who and where they are at all times. Who wants to live like that? Who even thinks of it? Gates is aptly named to match his mentality. Linux, on the other hand, lets anybody use it, any way they want. Even SCO. It's just a totally different culture.
One thing businesses do need to be able to do is communicate with others. It's built into any business model. If lawyers, for example, could find reliable digital rights management software that actually worked, they'd probably be interested, if it was easier to use than encryption, but not if they have to throw out all their operating systems and use MS-only products to get it. The majority of lawyers, in my experience, use WordPerfect anyway. The thing MS doesn't get is, we don't trust them with our privacy. That's the fly in their ointment.
Lawyers, no matter how much they want and need privacy, and they do need it, have to be able to digitally communicate with clients who don't always use what they use, and it's important to be able to reach them, send them documents, and have them correct them and send them back securely. If you have to pay nearly $20,000 for that privilege, on top of your per seat licenses, and the change to all-MS products, how many are going to pony up, especially in this economy? Not even lawyers are as rich as Mr. Gates. Nobody is, and he seems to be out of touch with how the peasants live.
It's a sea change in the way we think about software, and that change, not just TCO or ROI, is why Linux will prevail, no matter what MS or SCO or any other proprietary company, or even David Boies, tries to do to tip it back to UNIX. You can't sue people away from their culture.
And if SCO was counting on government support to crush or curtail Linux, I think today's announcement about Red Flag Linux dashes their hopes. No government in the world can safely ruin Linux, or try to slow its adoption down, now that China is officially adopting it, even if they otherwise might do a favor for a proprietary well-heeled friend or two. All they can do now is keep up with Linux and make sure lots of folks know how to use it, which is why maddog suggests universities teach GNU/Linux. They might as well. The students use it at home anyway.
Boies said he didn't want the playing field to be unfairly tipped. Newsflash: China has tipped it. And that's that.
Now, Bill, about that RMS name. There's something you might like to know. You probably did it to poke Richard Stallman in the eye, as a mean, inside joke, but instead you have reminded me of the other reason I don't trust you: your company is about as nasty as any snake that ever slithered down the highway. Don't bother telling me you didn't realize the initials rms, instantly recognized all over the world, already stand for someone who dedicated his life to making free software available to the world, software that is rapidly making yours irrelevant. And, judging from your latest offering, just in the nick of time.
maddog says we should say thank you. So, thank you, Richard Stallman, the GNU Project, and the Free Software Foundation, for having the vision, for starting it all and refusing to give up or give out, through all the years, despite the taunts and the criticisms and the nastiness. Thanks for emacs and gcc and for coding all the boring things that are needed for a complete operating system. And thank you, Eben Moglen and Dan Ravicher and all the other attorneys and other volunteers fighting to defend and protect the GPL and its purpose. Thank you, Linus Torvalds and all you kernel contributors for all your hard work and for showing what cooperation and the internet can do. Thank you, all you GNU/Linux, open source, and BSD coders out there, and the folks who volunteer to do documentation, and the designers of the fabulous screen savers, and the programmers who gave us so many desktop choices and text editors and games and office alternatives, and for your generosity and creativity. Danke, Klaus Knopper, for Knoppix. I stand in awe. Thank you to IBM and any company that supports GNU/Linux software. I want you to know, I really love your software, and the ethics behind it, and I'm happy to say thank you in front of SCO and in front of the whole world.
|
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, September 07 2003 @ 09:37 PM EDT |
While reading this article I was reminded of my junior level pseudo-economics
class. The instructor continually harped on one of only a few things: that
whatever China does this decade will shape the world for the next century,
economically and commercially speaking. ( I suppose you could apply that to
other things, like the political landscape, but that wasn't part of the class. )
China has, at last count ~1.3 billion ppl. The only other country to have over a
billion ppl is India. One of the points that he was making, is that as
democracy/capitilism slowly invade China, the Chinese will eventually wake up to
the process and start becoming more infulential in the world arena. Don't count
them out because they appear to be dormant now.
Adrian[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, September 07 2003 @ 09:44 PM EDT |
| From the last para of the announcement article:
The two companies will also work with Intel, Oracle and BEA Systems, among
others, to develop a common application platform for users in the government,
telecommunication and financial sectors as well as other industries, it
said.
Oracle hasn't yet been as anger-provoking as Microsoft, but after OS's, I think
databases are the next big proprietary/open source battleground.
r.a.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, September 07 2003 @ 10:09 PM EDT |
| Not long ago I read a number of articles that had the same statement about Bill
Gates vs China and it was something like "Gates has always wanted China to pay
for [Microsoft's] software [vs. counterfeiting it]. Activation/DRM/Palladium is
how that will be achieved." Paraphrasing but that was the gist of it.
Its nice to see China, Korea and Japan flipping him the bird with Red Flag.
Here's a direct qoute I found by Gates that China didn't take as very
kindly:
"Although about three million computers get sold every year in China, people
don't pay for the software. Someday they will, though. And as long as they're
going to steal it, we want them to steal ours. They'll get sort of addicted, and
then we'll somehow figure out how to collect sometime in the next decade."
http://www.cw.com.hk/Comment/
c990713001.htm
The prospect of losing Asia forever to Linux would certainly be impetus enough
for MS to use every illegal scummy tactic it knows and then some to put the
kibosh on Linux with extreme prejudice.
Especially since it won't stop with just Asia.
So there's some more motives for MS's deal with SCO.
Z[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, September 07 2003 @ 10:44 PM EDT |
I believe (and have stated since 1998) that the 'year' of the Linux
desktop will be 2003/2004 and 2005
I admit that I have been a skeptic about this, but last weekend I happened to
upgrade to Red Hat 9 from 7.2. The progress is remarkable. The one thing that
always kept me from using linux for day-to-work was that, sorry, the
font-rendering sucked. It is now as good as Macintosh or Windows.
I also set up Apache, MySQL, my very own caching DNS server, and Samba without
once having to open a config file in a text editor. Yes, it really is getting
there. Gates should be afraid... very afraid.
Bob[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, September 07 2003 @ 10:47 PM EDT |
r.a. Can you explain your database comment? More words pls.
pj[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, September 07 2003 @ 11:43 PM EDT |
| I'm not a database expert but MySQL and PostgreSQL are two GPL
databases that are slowly and quietly catching up to Oracle.
So I'm just wondering way in advance how Oracle will react when its biggest
customers start finding uses for open source databases, then some customers
announce that they are abandoning Oracle entirely because the GPL databases are
of high enough quality that the control and freedom they offer become dominant
concerns.
I'm pretty sure Oracle's "Linux moment" will come this decade.
r.a.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, September 07 2003 @ 11:47 PM EDT |
Sorry, PostgreSQL has a BSD license.
r.a.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, September 08 2003 @ 12:43 AM EDT |
| Oracle are somewhat proprietary in their implementation of the SQL language, SQL
elements and their JDBC implementation. While Sybase, Informix (now owned by
IBM), IBM DB2 UDB, PostgreSQL and MySQL pretty much follow the ANSI SQL92
standard, Oracle went off on a tangent with their own definitions. For the
technically minded, there are portability issues with the Oracle "is null"
evaluation, the treatment of dates and numbers, and the JDBC manipulations for
binary storage. For the application developer building for database portability,
this is a major impediment.
There are signs that Oracle may lose dominance in the Asia Pacific - http://www.zdnet.com.au/newstech/enterprise/story/0,2000048640,20278072,00
.htm. Oracle may have held sway with large enterprise because of its
enterprise strength database, but this also comes with a price for maintenance
and resource requirements. Since the regional DB market is composed of mainly
SME customers, IBM and Microsoft are seen as the main combatants in this market
and this sidelines Oracle - they don't even figure in the equation and do not
have the hearts and minds.
JonB[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, September 08 2003 @ 01:17 AM EDT |
"One of the points that he was making, is that as democracy/capitilism slowly
invade China, the Chinese will eventually wake up to the process and start
becoming more infulential in the world arena. Don't count them out because they
appear to be dormant now."
It's not invasion, they're assimilating it. The shops in the SAR's are full of
brand quality merchandise, broadband is everywhere in the cities and the
standard investment contract over there is 50/50 ownership between the
investor/company and the Chinese government. You just don't hear a lot about
China because they're embarrassing the world markets by completely ignoring the
pressure brought to bear over it's horrendous civil rights records. I have
absolutely no doubt that Red Flag _could_ be a good thing as long as the chinese
government resists the urge to use it as a tool to spy on it's
neighbours.
The west's biggest mistake was to ignore the chinese. It's an enormous consumer
market with lax copyright regulations, but that was how Microsoft gained a lot
of dominance in it's markets...this time around it was wrapped up in the hubris
of affecting government rather than appreciating that their stuff would be
cracked and on the market for $1/disc.
In short, the Chinese aren't dormant, they're just not talkative.
James[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, September 08 2003 @ 01:32 AM EDT |
| Oracle realised several years ago that databases would be a commodity market,
with open source competition. They diversified (they have ERP software now).
They have their services organisation. In summary, they are well equipped for
the Linux wave. That their flagship database will become less profitable is a
small, but calculated loss.
I guess I could apply for DiDio's job and do it better, reading the
above!
MathFox[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, September 08 2003 @ 01:32 AM EDT |
| PJ,
From an IT security perspective, I don't think MS intially means anything
malicious with its RMS addition to Windows 2003 (apart from the name). This is
a feature that is common to a number of secure operating systems, something akin
to a Compartmented Mode Workstation. Other examples include Trusted Solaris (http://wwws.sun.com/
software/solaris/trustedsolaris/) and Security Enhanced Linux (http://www.nsa.gov/selinux/), so MS is at
least trying to keep up with security developments which is hopefully a good
thing. RMS differs in that it goes a bit further and instead of just
controlling the release of information from a secure system, it also controls
how this information can be used by the recipient. Ask yourself... do you want
your latest product design specs to be leaked uncontrolled to your competitors,
or would you like to control who in the company has access to them and if they
are leaked then stop outsiders reading them? The problem is how do you control
the information outside the company where people don't run the same OS as you.
Simple - encrypt the information in such a way that people need special software
(RMS) to decrypt it. And if they're a business partner of your's and need
access to this sensitive information then they need the software anyway - think
of something like an expanded PGP built into the OS. Obviously being MS they
want people to buy it.
The big problem here is that MS press releases about RMS don't make it clear
whether RMS is an optional part of Windows 2003. They don't even explain why
you might want it. The end result is that it looks once again as if MS want to
take more control away from users. You should read the info on
Security-Enhanced Linux. In my opinion this is how all operating systems should
go if the management interface can be made sufficiently simple.
Richard Stallman missed a trick in not copyrighting "RMS" before MS got it.
Watch out for Windows 2004 - Torvald edition.
Ken
Ken[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, September 08 2003 @ 01:44 AM EDT |
| >>Lawyers, no matter how much they want and need privacy, and they do need it,
have to be able to digitally communicate with clients who don't always use what
they use,<<
The DRM won't prevent this. For "non-DRM"ed clients, you will simpy communicate
as always, but for ones that do, you can use MS Restrict-O-Matic. It will creep
in to your communications the same way that the latest word formats would creep
in and then you had to upgrade. If you have a client and their preferred
"secure communication" is the Restrict-O-Matic, you have to accomodate them or
you run the risk of losing them to someone else.
RavingLuni[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, September 08 2003 @ 02:29 AM EDT |
| Good article, as usual PJ, complete and to-the-point.
I REALLY liked Saturday's analysis, though. Probably the best answer to the
"who owns UNIX" question right now, on the net.
BTW, korbie just posted that there's a new Knoppie distro on the mirrors dated
09052003 with more use of high memory and a better cloop. It's noted in the
changelog that it's v.3.3X (X for experimental).
grakster[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, September 08 2003 @ 02:40 AM EDT |
| Raving Luni, There allready is a movement in Dutch government where all
electronic documents will have to be in an "open" format. (Open means here: with
a publicly available specification of the document format, such that independent
viewers and other conversion programs can be constructed.) Html and pdf are on
the list; MSword isn't.
With governments (biggest customers) refusing any DRM-tainted communication,
how many companies will want to pay for their DRM connector. What will
accountants (and government investigators (think SEC)) think of "secured"
communication. What will a judge say about: "Sorry, MS DRM doesn't allow us to
print these incriminating e-mails, so we can not produce them to the
plaintiff."
MathFox[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, September 08 2003 @ 02:46 AM EDT |
| Ken:
From my understandings of MS' RMS and how B1+/CMW's work is that there are huge
differences between the environments and concepts. Willing to be proven wrong.
:-)
I've been to a lesser degree involved with a couple of projects that tried to
make use of MLS (Multi Level Security) systems; and by and large it's _horrible_
to use in a real world environment. I've even used several. An intel BSDi based
(from memory. It was about 7 years ago...) CMW; A wee bit with a Solaris based
CMW. And lets not forget the Cyberguard firewalls - quite a nice firewall IMHO -
which incidentally is based on (from memory) ... "Trusted SCO Unix" Ha! I did
the cyberguard admin course in Sydney a few years ago at a SCO reseller, who was
also big into linux. They were just picking up the Cyberguard appliances at the
time. Wonder how they're taking all this...
But back to the horrible usage. An RMS or CMW file classification would
typically be enforced on people. But people need to share all sorts of documents
back and forth. eg With their lawyer, their accountant, their friends etc etc
etc. And any form of document control is always additional steps. Which people
get wrong. And gets in the way etc etc etc.
So they don't use it. Or they do a grocery shopping list which is classified
Secret.
ie It becomes a very expensive white elephant. Far better IMHO to educate users
on the correct management of sensitive information (far easier said than done -
writing as someone who has taught IT security to users of various levels), and
put at least basic measures, technical and procedural, to stop the accidental
leaking of sensitive information. Stopping deliberate leaking is nigh on
impossible.
IMHO, the concept of managing information this way CMW/RMS is great. Unf people
don't work that way. And the system thus breaks down.
But most importantly, I disagree with "Windows 2004 - Torvald edition". I'd be
willing to put 20c down that it will be "Windows 2004 LT". ;-)
- Steve M
Steve McI[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, September 08 2003 @ 02:51 AM EDT |
In the long term, Chinese support for Linux is undoubtably a good thing -as long
as they play by the rules by returning any additions to the community. In the
short term however, I think India has more to offer. Look at all the tech jobs
moving over there; and, it is (I maybe wrong) the largest democracy in the
world.
Stephen Henry[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, September 08 2003 @ 03:18 AM EDT |
| A semi-serious suggestion about the naming of Windows 2004. They could get it
certified (with the addition of a few features which already exist as add-ons)
as UNIX compliant. Then they could call it Windows 2004 Unix Edition, or
Microsoft Windows/Unix 2004, or suchlike, thereby tapping into the popularity of
Unix itself...
Unix certification can be gained without the OS looking or acting much like the
Unices we are familiar with - it's mainly about system calls.
Dr Drake[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, September 08 2003 @ 03:24 AM EDT |
The last paragraph of this listing for 8 September includes mention of the GPL.
For some time I knew that SCO was trying to demolish the GPL if they could and
looked at it very simply. I would like draw Groklaw readers attention to the
following web site with an article by John Sullivan:
http://newsf
orge.com/newsforge/03/09/03/2053203.shtml?tid=51
I find this nothing short of brilliant in its analysis of the underlying
economic reasons for SCO's (and Microsoft's) attack on the GPL and why this very
different concept threatens the whole economic structure on which Microsoft (and
the recording industry for that matter) is built. May I join with PJ in
congratulating Richard Stallman and the others of the Free Software Foundation
in the wonderful protective structure they have built
Dr Tony Young[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, September 08 2003 @ 03:24 AM EDT |
| MathFox: Although Oracle have diversified to obtain other streams of revenue,
all this is based around their database business. The ERP solutions run with the
Oracle DBMS. Their consulting and services are based on Oracle infrastructure -
Oracle J2EE, Oracle DBMS and Oracle ERP. Try suggesting that you want to run
with DB2 or Postgresql or MS SQLServer.
Oracle will also be squeezed in the ERP market. SAP are already teaming with IBM
to penetrate the SME market. I believe that LE mandated last year that Oracle
ERP solutions be used internally to show customers that they had faith in their
own products, something that rumour has it, was not universally praised.
Oracle's foray into other revenue streams is no different to Microsoft
indicating it wants to be in the database market or the word processing market.
The products only work with an underlying proprietary software. Building a
solution on a proprietary system can only make the solution proprietary.
MHO.
JonB[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, September 08 2003 @ 04:36 AM EDT |
| The next open source battle may not be on a single front but rather on many
fronts. Embedded systems for telecomms, for example. Over the last decade there
has been a tendency for "public" standards to become increasingly vague. The
result has generally been a set of standards that leave huge gaps vulnerable to
being filled with proprietary interpretations and "extensions." (Two examples
that come readily to mind are videoconferencing, and DCME, a technology for
using an existing channel with a larger number of simultaneous users than
originally designed for.)
In fact security standards and methods *themselves* -- crypto methods and
protocols -- may very well experience some serious skirmishes, too...
Frank
Brickle[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, September 08 2003 @ 05:00 AM EDT |
| Just as an aside, Oracle's only REAL competition in the Open-source world is
going to be PostgreSQL. MySQL, while quite fast and capable, simply isn't an
enterprise-class database server. It lacks quite a few of the features that
Oracle and PostgreSQL do. On a lighter note of that, even MySQL outperforms M$
SQL Server quite handily, even considering SQL Server is SUPPOSED to be an
enterprise-class database server.
Then again, we all know about Microsoft and their "Supposed to"s.
Stormwind[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, September 08 2003 @ 05:02 AM EDT |
| Just in: SCO Run-Time License Ready
http://www.eweek.com/
article2/0,4149,1256561,00.asp
Festilux[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, September 08 2003 @ 05:37 AM EDT |
| http://tinyurl.com/mm8j
noticed that the spokespersons name is not released unless i missed it
br3n
brenda banks[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, September 08 2003 @ 05:43 AM EDT |
PJ,
I think one person who needs thanked in today's blog, but was left out because
you have such good manners - the beautiful and gracious PJ. A leader who works
hard and gives back to the OSS community. Thank you.
BC[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, September 08 2003 @ 06:36 AM EDT |
| Ken: "Ask yourself... do you want your latest product design specs to be leaked
uncontrolled to your competitors, or would you like to control who in the
company has access to them and if they are leaked then stop outsiders reading
them?"
I'll quote a sentence that I read in another discussion about some other form of
DRM: "You can't solve a sociological problem by technical means." If someone
wants to leak your secrets, he'll do it anyway: he'll take snapshots of the
monitor (as with the SCO "evidence" two weeks ago), or write it down on paper
(most people can *still* do that, don't they?), or just store it permanently in
his brain. Or break the encryption. I see uses for digital signatures, but my
opinion is that DRM in the form that MS's RMS implements is more a nuisance for
the good guys than an obstacle for the bad guys.
Flavio[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, September 08 2003 @ 07:05 AM EDT |
| I would like to join you in saying thank you,
Thank you Richard Stallman, for starting GNU and the FSF, and thanks to the many
thousands of developers that have contributed openly to open source software.
Damien[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, September 08 2003 @ 07:05 AM EDT |
| MathFox: 'What will accountants (and government investigators (think SEC)) think
of "secured" communication. What will a judge say about: "Sorry, MS DRM
doesn't allow us to print these incriminating e-mails, so we can not produce
them to the plaintiff."'
IANAL, but I'd guess "Obstruction of Justice".
Larry[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, September 08 2003 @ 07:07 AM EDT |
I agree with BC: Thank you, PJ, for this blog. If I had to depend on Slashdot
for SCO news, I would have a much less-informed opinion about this whole
situation. If I had to depend on tech journalists, I would be in despair. So
yes, Groklaw has been the shining beacon that has shown us all what's what and
who's who from a legal perspective, and for that I'm grateful.
Nick[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, September 08 2003 @ 07:08 AM EDT |
| Flavio: Agree with your comments re:encryption and digital rights management and
Microsoft's interpretation of encryption as a proprietary embedded
implementation.
However, just wanted to point out that we shouldn't confuse the issue with
digital signatures and message digests. These are used to ensure
non-repudiation. That is; content is created/modified/sent by a particular
individual (signature) and that fact cannot be refuted. Further, the content has
not been modified subsequent to the owner's action of save/send (digest).
Encryption of content, on the other hand, is intended to prevent unauthorised
people from reading the content. Microsoft's proprietary format is intended to
do the latter.
JonB[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, September 08 2003 @ 07:18 AM EDT |
| The think about Microsoft's DRM is that although it does solve a problem for
some customers, and thus certainly has an ostensibly useful purpose, don't think
for a moment MS isn't aware of and actively desires the other purpose: To force
people to finally upgrade those old Office 95s and 97s and so on. People
haven't seen a need to upgrade. The .DOC format has remained unchanged for
years, more or less. You can open any doc you want. Oh if you have the latest
version and a client complains that they have 95, you will have to save in that
format, but that's the point. You can do it.
All of this is lost revenue for MS. So with RMS, they will introduce something
new into the marketplace and gradually allow it to creep into the landscape,
creating incompatabilities along the way. Eventually, the thinking goes,
everyone will have to upgrade. And then they get socked with forced-upgrade
licensing and MS has a steady revenue stream again.
This is why I will never, ever upgrade MS Office on any box I have that uses it.
I will not jump on to that forced upgrade line. If that means I will be cut
off from a business, so be it. I draw a line in the sand -- er, rather MS drew
a line in the sand and I will not cross it.
Nick[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, September 08 2003 @ 07:22 AM EDT |
| MathFox,
First: Thanks for all your hard work on the site.
As for what you brought up, it is an interesting point, but what about the flip
side. What about if the SEC says "In order to protect the privacy of sensitive
customer financial documents, all records must be stored in encrypted
format."?
As for the court part, I would think it would be the same as with PGP or other
encryption. They essentially give you two options: a) cough up your private key
so they can be decrypted or b)go to jail until you do. No matter what it is, I
am sure that the MS legal team (do they have more lawyers than developers yet?)
has done exhaustive research on it.
My take is that MS wishes to be the "Master Gate(s)keeper" of all DRM, in the
same way they are generally the gatekeeper for document formats through office.
They want to collect a fee on every document, every movie, every media player,
every song, etc., in the same way the DVD consortium collects royalties on every
DVD and DVD player. Will it work? I dunno, but who wouldn't like a huge
revenue stream payable in tiny little 5 cent or 5 dollar chunks?
Best regards
RavingLuni[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, September 08 2003 @ 07:33 AM EDT |
| Flavio,
RE: your comment "I see uses for digital signatures, but my opinion is that DRM
in the form that MS's RMS implements is more a nuisance for the good guys than
an obstacle for the bad guys".
For a very very expert opinion regarding your security related comment:
Read "Secrets and Lies" and keep it on your nightstand always!
In the book Master cryptographer Bruce Schneier explains why computer security
is an oxymoron.
Also read this summary/review of the book:
http://www.salon.co
m/tech/review/2000/08/31/schneier/
(a review of Schneier?s book by Brendan I. Koerner)
...cause there Ain't no network strong enough!
annon[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, September 08 2003 @ 07:59 AM EDT |
| Here's an interesting link. The Bay Area Software Professionals for
Responsibility and Accountability have created a "a low-traffic announce-only
mailing list to share information on Bay Area community responses to the SCO
invoice scam, which will most likely include giving the "invoices" to law
enforcement."
http://lwn.net/Articles/46645/
Alex
Roston[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, September 08 2003 @ 08:16 AM EDT |
| pj,
An off topic comment here.
[OFF TOPIC]
When the new site is up, will there be a way for you or someone to grab some of
these comments and put them someplace else near the top or front page for more
visability? Some comments about this case being a contracts case v. copyright
case and the Bay Area link are examples. Because the comments are not linked to
each other you have to look at the comments to many stories. Also a general
links section would be good too. You could use your judgement and put important
links in a seperate section.
[ON TOPIC]
It's just a matter of time before there is a viable alternative to MS on the
desktop. MS is selling XP Home for $100 XP for $200. Office for about $400 -
$500 (full in the box). And this stuff has problems and still doesn't work that
good sometimes. As a business person that means to me there's a market here.
If a better OS / Suite can be developed or one that is just as good for less
money, people will buy. Linux and the various applications/suites can be that.
The more MS charges and the harder it is to license, the BETTER it is for
linux!
BubbaCode[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, September 08 2003 @ 08:35 AM EDT |
| Heads up everyone. GROKLAW is one of the top stories in Linux Today. Quotes
and links the recent story pj has on the shifting sands of SCO part 1.
Keep up the good work pj!!!!
BubbaCode[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, September 08 2003 @ 09:16 AM EDT |
| PJ, Groklaw is mentioned on linuxtoday.com..
-> http://linuxtoda
y.com/infrastructure/2003090800726NWCDLL
andre[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, September 08 2003 @ 09:17 AM EDT |
| up sorry, BubbaCode, i just saw your comment when i clicked submit.. :/
style="height: 2px; width: 20%; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: auto;">andre [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, September 08 2003 @ 09:30 AM EDT |
| Story from ZFDavis:
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&ncid=1817&e
=2&u=/zd/20030905/tc_zd/59210&sid=96120751
More threats from SCO of legal action if you don't buy a license. "Explains"
why some people can't buy a license and has another instance of someone calling
again and again with no call back.
Looks like they changed the text of the license. Any way we could get a copy
posted here? You know it could be the text copy at LWN was a "leak" by the SCO
team to see what was said about it.
The license was "held up" due to some legal problems. (yah think)
from the article:
" Stowell said SCO was careful in crafting the license to avoid giving users the
impression that "we were giving them a Unix license with carte-blanche
availability to do whatever they wanted to with the code." SCO also wants
customers to be aware that the license is a binary, run-time-only license to the
Unix code found in Linux. It does not give them the right to change that code or
contribute it to other programs, Stowell said. "
Do they pay these reporters to ask questions? If some dumb shit gave me that
statement I would ask "what code?" What code can't they change? Are you saying
they can't change ANY linux code? Define your IP please.
Even if i WANTED to buy one or more of these things (I don't) how could I? I
MUST change some linux code to make my product. Am I changing SCO stuff or not?
How would I know?
BubbaCode[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, September 08 2003 @ 09:38 AM EDT |
GOP Sues SCO!http://timransomsfeeblemind.blo
gspot.com/
Thanks again
Tim Ransom[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, September 08 2003 @ 09:44 AM EDT |
| I don't understand. I thought they said they've sold one already in August
(11th), and another one since then
From BubbaCode's link;
"As of Tuesday [Sept. 2], we actually began making the license available.
Selling it and mailing it to someone is not something we've actually done as
yet, but as of today we are able to do that."
versus
http://biz.yahoo.com/prn
ews/030811/lam083_1.html
LINDON, Utah, Aug. 11 /PRNewswire-FirstCall/ -- The SCO® Group
(SCO)(Nasdaq: SCOX - News) today announced the signing of its first Intellectual
Property Compliance License for SCO UNIX Rights. This announcement comes less
than a week after the commencement of the SCO IP License for Linux program.
Terms of the deal and the Fortune 500 company name were not disclosed based on
confidentiality provisions of the agreement, but a license was purchased for
each of the Linux servers running their business.
versus
http://www
.infoworld.com/article/03/09/03/HNscocustomer_1.html
Despite the community outrage, SCO received over 900 telephone calls in the week
after it went public with the licensing plan, and some of those calls have now
begun turning into licensing deals, according to company spokesman Blake
Stowell. The company has signed up at least one additional customer since it
sold its first IP License for Linux on Aug. 11, he said.
Stowell declined to reveal the identity of the new customer or say how many
other customers SCO may have signed up, but he did say that almost all of the
company's 100 sales representatives are now spending time selling the Linux
license, and that SCO is readying thousands of invoices that it plans to send to
Linux users worldwide before Oct. 15, when the per-processor price of an IP
License for Linux will double to $1,400.
quatermass - SCO delenda est[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, September 08 2003 @ 10:10 AM EDT |
| OK I browsed on over to the SCOSource site and they said that the things are
available now. Vapor license? How long has their site said available now?
BTW the site has no text of the license and it claims that linux 2.4 is an
"illegal derivative work" of UNIX. They mean ALL of linux 2.4.
You know it strikes me that these guys are also skating on thin ice by have
"volume, negotiated pricing" and selling some license to customers while not
even returning the calls of others. These are the same tactics that got MS into
hot water.
BubbaCode[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, September 08 2003 @ 10:48 AM EDT |
| Regarding Microsoft DMR: This is just encryption, which has been around forever.
If it was something that corporate users would find valuable and want to use
all the time, then it would have been built into word processor programs twenty
years ago.
So why is Microsoft doing it? I think a lot of it has to do with
StarOffice/OpenOffice. MS knows that SO/OO now does everything that most
corporate workers want to do, so they have no reason any longer to buy MS
Office. So MS is trying to cram in new features to seduce people into buy its
latest software. The problem is that MS doesn't have anything new that corporate
users really want.
Remember, MS's entire success (except in the area of software development tools)
is built on cloning killer apps that were developed by others. Its trouble is
there are not any new killer apps around today to do that to, so it is trying to
invent one, something MS has never been successful at.
Regarding Red Flag and HP, Oracle, Intel, BEA: This has me somewhat puzzled.
My understanding has been that the big enterprise vendors decided a year or so
ago that it would be good to have two main enterprise linus os's, and those
would be RedHat and SuSE/UL.
The reason for the number two is that if you have only one, then it can pull a
Microsoft on you, whereas if you have more than two you have support problems
and it is starting to look like the old Unix wars.
So why are all these big companies supporting Red Flag?
david l.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, September 08 2003 @ 10:53 AM EDT |
On another note, RMS e-mailed me that he is deeply appreciative that Microsoft
has decided to honor him by naming a server after him. "At last I am getting
some recognition. That is all I ever wanted, for Bill Gates to see me for the
genius I am."
david l.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, September 08 2003 @ 11:11 AM EDT |
"So why are all these big companies supporting Red Flag?" Two probable reasons:
(1) Red Flag is an advanced Linux product; (2) IBM is working heavily with the
Linux developers in the States, which makes them less available to work with HP
et al. These reasons would converge toward a decision to work with the Red Flag
people. It would be interesting to hear what SCO-scum would have to say about
HP's decision to work with Red Flag, given that they had previously deemed HP as
"safe" from the threat of their lawsuits: apparently, HP is effectively
thumbing its nose at SCO-scum's claim that they have the "control rights" over
UNIX technologies.
blacklight[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, September 08 2003 @ 11:43 AM EDT |
| Canopy dumps 50% of their shares in Altiris.
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/922758/000113965003000
003/xslF345X02/primary_doc.xml
Anybody have any idea why? Do they need the money to defend vs. IBM since they
are getting subpoenas as well? Seems like an awfully big chunk to dump in one
shot.
Raving Luni[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, September 08 2003 @ 11:57 AM EDT |
| This is a bit off topic, but not really. While trying to findout if there was a
GNU version of a specific product i went to freshrpms.net only to find that they
have in protest of the current mess with software patents in Europe taken down
there site an redirected to the following web site http://swpat.ffii.org/ .While this mess with
SCO grinds on and does pose a threat to Open Source and GNU it isn't the only
threat that we face. Software Patents is also a big problem and one that needs
to be highlighted as well. The on topic part of this is that in the US at least
IBM can use software patents if they cover any of SCO's software to crush SCO.
Now on first glance this looks like a good thing, but its really a very bad
thing. Cause it opens us up to even more attacks from a large source of
opponents. Example the current fuss with Eolis (not sure of the spelling) and
the US patent that they managed to enforce against Microsoft. That same patent
can also be used to attack Mozilla, Opera, and any other number of opensource
browsers. KDE is considering pulling plugin support because of this as well.
Now China and India may in fact be our biggest friend especially if they refuse
to follow this trend of software patents, cause they will continue to advance
Linux and GNU/Linux. And as long as the OS is available for downloads free of
charge then we can continue to see the material being widely distributed. But be
on the alert for the EU and the US to try and block this if MS, RIAA, MPAA and
other large corporations manage to continue there agenda of keeping archaic
business models alive.
Trent[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, September 08 2003 @ 12:07 PM EDT |
| Article from EE Times. Charles J. Murray did some serious research here. He
seems to have at least got on the phone called some lawyers and professors of
Law.
This article is about SCO v. GPL and the GPL being the next legal target. I
HIGHLY recommend reading this one.
http://www.eetimes.com/stor
y/OEG20030902S0030
Quotes from the article:
"It appears to be a totally bizarre argument," said James Boyle, a professor at
Duke University's law school (Durham, N.C.). "It's hard to imagine what they're
thinking."
SCO Group executives called the attack on GPL simply a reaction to IBM's
argument.
"From the outside, it appears so bizarre and so ridiculous that I fear their
argument is being misstated," he (Boyle) said.
my comments:
Hmm... thats a thought. But then what is the arguement?
Also in this article is the usual quotes from SCO about how people are nervous
about the GPL. Seriously even I have had some reservations about the GPL in the
past. It could be read (wrongly) that if you touch or use the GPL code in any
way ALL the code is GPL. When I went to the embedded systems conference a few
years ago the GPL was discussed over and over and over. It makes software
engineers and companies making money from software a little scared, but when its
explained and understood it is a very powerful tool. Mostly people want to make
sure they don't have to release their proprietary software becuase they are
using or developing with GPL software.
And yes there are MANY ways to use GPL without releasing your software.
BubbaCode[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, September 08 2003 @ 12:10 PM EDT |
So if something went wrong with my company's RMS, NOBODY would be able to open
any of our documents documents? Wheras I now have only one thing that can go
wrong (file server), I now have to worry about another class of server.
Salim Fadhley[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, September 08 2003 @ 12:19 PM EDT |
| The following thread might (or might not, you never know with slashdot) offer a
glimps in the mind-set of SCO employees and the party line.
http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=77503&threshold=
-1&commentsort=0&mode=nested&cid=6890592
inc_x[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, September 08 2003 @ 12:30 PM EDT |
| Funny how they weazel with the words: "Selling it and mailing it to someone is
not something we've actually done as yet, but as of today we are able to do
that." So he doesn't say that he is _going_ to do it, but he has finally put
paper in the printer so now he can mail one.... really... at any moment now.
I think they wait with the invoices till the WMD in Iraq has been found.
inc_x[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, September 08 2003 @ 12:37 PM EDT |
| Ref: http://tinyurl.com/mm8j
"Although SCO could issue invoices to 1,000-plus corporate users next month, the
spokesman said the alleged breach of intellectual property rights was not the
user's fault. "It's the [software] distributor's fault and the open-source
community's fault," he added."
Sounds like a good quote for end-users to use in a defense against an frivolous
SCO lawsuit. Which seems a rather unlikely event in and of itself actually.
inc_x[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, September 08 2003 @ 12:40 PM EDT |
| From the slashdot thread linked to by inc_x:
<quote>
Our stance is that since the GPL is invalid, the code license is essentially
reverts to the public domain. This doesn't restrict our distribution of any of
the software.
This will all be worked out in due course.
</quote>
I look forward to them trying to convince a judge of that.
fava[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, September 08 2003 @ 12:42 PM EDT |
| pj, Does your Catch 22 apply to all LINUX users (infringers), or just the
enterprise ones who fall into the catagory discussed here http://radio.weblogs.com
/0120124/2003/07/21.html ????
The Wall Street Journal reports today, in "PORTALS" section, Page B1, article
titled: "How Dean Staff Keeps The Candidate's Site On the Cutting Edge", by Lee
Gomes: Quote - "It turns out that DeanForAmerica runs on open-source software,
largely because at the outset, that was all anyone could afford. But Mr Mele is
careful to say that just because the campaign uses Linux, it doesn't mean there
is anything wrong with other kinds of software". He goes on to report: "These
days, they're about to move to an industrial-grade hosting facility to better
handle the Google-style collection of generic PCs that power things".
SCO look! A publicly discussed LINUX IP infringer!
Hmmmm, Will SCO invoice the Howard Dean US presidential campaign? If SCO does,
will DeanForAmerica pay up or be a hero and challenge SCO's invoice (& does
Dean's staff have a dated paid receipt for their copy of LINUX on file)? And
the next reporter's question is...?
Catch 22?
annon[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, September 08 2003 @ 12:55 PM EDT |
| annon,
Speaking of LINUX IP infringer, what about SCO itself. Their website as just a
little while ago was hosted by a number of web hosting services running (gasp)
linux. In fact MOST of the sites were linux. (yipes!)
BubbaCode[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, September 08 2003 @ 01:25 PM EDT |
| I'm rather doubtful that guy on slashdot is with SCO (but I'm willing to be
proven wrong). If he was, I'm surprised that he got Boies/Heise/McBride to tell
him the legal strategy, so he could post it to slashdot.
My reasons to doubt. In that SCO discussion, he seems to talk about SCO
sometimes as them, something as we. Reasons given above. And look at this
contributions to past Slashdot topics http://slashdot.org/~110010001000/
quatermass - SCO delenda est[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, September 08 2003 @ 01:26 PM EDT |
| Wow, check out this:
http://developerdeath.blogspot.com/
It's a blog by the pro-SCO person from inc_x's slashdot thread. Might help us
figure out the crack they're smoking assuming it's legit.
(Wouldn't SCO have corporate policy against posting on /. given the lawsuit?)
CSS2 [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, September 08 2003 @ 01:26 PM EDT |
inc_x, that thread on slashdot reads a lot like someone trolling for suckers. I
seriously doubt an SCO employee would post comments like that. They are stupid
enough, but they don't have a lot of time these days to go posting to
slashdot.
Black Hat[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, September 08 2003 @ 01:29 PM EDT |
| The SCO apologist / unofficial spokesman quoted above has a fascinating take on
software licensing. Apparently, when Linus says "You may copy this only under X
conditions", that means you can copy it and ignore the X conditions because the
license is invalid, but when SCO say "You may copy this only under X
conditions", it means that you may not copy it, even if you meet the conditions,
because the license is invalid. The same license.
What's really impressive is that this is the only possible interpretation
that would save SCO from a charge of deliberate, knowing, copyright violation.
The GPL not only has to be invalid, but it has to fail one way when used by SCO,
and the opposite way when used by everyone else.
amcguinn[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, September 08 2003 @ 01:44 PM EDT |
| Following up on quatermass's suggestion, I've read ALL of 110010001000's
comments on /. -- he really does seem like a garden-variety troll.
He only posts negative things, usually with direct insults to a prior poster's
intelligence, even in threads that are clearly not meant to be taken seriously.
From his blog he aparently believes that his livelihood is threatened by open
source so he's apparently trying to spread his beliefs where they're least
likely to be accepted.
His comments also have consistent pro-Microsoft slants as well. I think he's on
a closed source zealotry campaign in general, trying to upset people by claiming
he works for SCO.
He is also consistently wrong about facts that can be easily verified, which
leads me to believe he's simply a liar. So not a SCO employee IMHO.
CSS2[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, September 08 2003 @ 01:45 PM EDT |
Wow. Having read the halariously disingenuous 'paper' at
href="http://developerdeath.blogspot.com/">http://developerdeath.blogspot.com/
a> , I guess I am going to have to remove 'Uninformed rhetorical flatulance'
from my blog description. I know when I've been outclassed.
Tim Ransom[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, September 08 2003 @ 01:45 PM EDT |
| Re: http://developerdeath.blogspot.com
If commercial development was beating the tar out of Open Source, then we'd be
treated to a free lecture as to how the profit motive is the prime driving force
in human affairs and how volunteer labor is fated to go the way of Communism.
Since the beating is going the other way, we are treated to a whining, bleating
lecture as to how those who are involved in commercial software development are
being kicked around by Open Source. My attitude is that those who ain't got the
brains, the talent or the drive and who are obsessed with making money above all
things should get the hell out of the way before they become road kill: no one
owes them a living - especially an overpriced living!
blacklight[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, September 08 2003 @ 01:49 PM EDT |
Umm, that would be 'hilariously disingenuous'. Oops
Tim Ransom[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, September 08 2003 @ 02:06 PM EDT |
| quatermass: well.. I think that he started pretending to be a passerby and then
got caught up in it a little and started to make references to "we". I don't
think that he talked to laywers but management at SCO must be sending out the
occasional memo to the folks at the ground to reassure them that everything is
perfectly ok, no really.
It can also be a professional slashdot-troller of course ;-)
CSS2: If SCO was serious about their lawsuit they wouldn't have Stowell/Sontag
making the craziest statements in the press, they make great headlines but I
think every one of those statements will be a liability in court. I think Canopy
will fold SCO somehow before these lawsuits reach critical mass in a court and
they use the time till then to spread as much FUD as possible. Microsoft and Sun
don't seem to mind funding that FUD and I guess Canopy will manage somehow to
re-route the money they earn that way out of SCO.
What I wonder about is whether they can evacuate the Unix IP out of SCO before
that happens. Could they transfer (sell) it to another company? Could they at
some point split-off one of their recent aquisitions as a seperate company as an
escape pod without major liability from the IBM lawsuit? If so, then IBM may
want to look at their patent portfolio to see if their is infringement going on
in the products of these aquisitions to make it less viable for such unit to be
spun off.
inc_x[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, September 08 2003 @ 02:13 PM EDT |
| "Privately, in meetings we've had with them, some very large companies in the IT
industry have told us that they have a lot of problems with the GPL," said the
SCO Group spokesman.
I read SCO talked with Microsoft.
nm[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, September 08 2003 @ 02:17 PM EDT |
| Canopy is probably selling its Altiris stock so they can keep propping up the
SCO stock. (By the way, who's buying?) This brings up the question - did they
just lose a backer, and if so, which backer did they lose?
At the very least, the whole, "we're going to send out invoices and sell
licenses thing" is sounding more and more like vapor despite all the articles -
each of which contradicts the other.
At this point, we can be sure that SCO has sold either none, or one, or two
licenses, and that licenses are either ready, or not ready, and that staff has
either been trained to deal with licenses or still doesn't know what's going
on.
In other words, the usual FUD from the usual duds.
SCO has to know by now that they're screwed. Legally, they can't invoice anyone
anywhere, and if they sell a license and lose the case, they could well be sued
for fraud. Everyone else is going to figure it out sooner or later, and then the
stock will need to be artificially propped up.
The other possibility, of course, is that there's something wrong at Altiris and
we're seeing some illegal insider trading...
Alex Roston[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, September 08 2003 @ 02:38 PM EDT |
| Getting back to the Shifting Sands article briefly. It seems to me that Novell
were quite clever when they disposed of their Unix assets.
1/ AT&T had made the first move by loosening the derivatives clause, firstly in
the side agreement with IBM, then in the letter they sent to other licencees a
few months later. It was probably unenforceable anyway. This freed the licencees
to use their own code as they chose.
2/ The UNIX trademark was sold to a standards group which all the other
licencees joined. They could influence the standards and choose to comply (and
be UNIX) or not. (This effectively ended the Unix wars.) But no one company
could monopolise the process or wield the trademark and standard as a weapon
against their competitors.
3/ They sold the BSD contaminated old AT&T UNIX source and its Unixware
derivative to a small company (compared to Novell, IBM, Sun, DEC, HP etc.)
knowing that it was unlikely to be licensed again for big money. But importantly
they retained an interest in the licenses. Old SCO were honest, but Novell
probably realized that it would be sold again, perhaps to a less scrupulous
operator, and Novell's retained interest would protect the existing licencees
from being blackmailed by a subsequent owner.
Dear Darl doesn't seem to have realized all this...
Chris Priest[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, September 08 2003 @ 02:44 PM EDT |
| The SCO apologist probably didn't read section 5 of the GPL.
5. You are not required to accept this License, since you have not signed it.
However, nothing else grants you permission to modify or distribute the Program
or its derivative works. These actions are prohibited BY LAW if you do not
accept this License. [my emphasis]
Chris Priest[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, September 08 2003 @ 02:47 PM EDT |
| pj suggested yesterday tha I should try and track down the situation with regard
to SGI licenses myself. Here's what I've come up with.
When Novell sold unix this statement appeared in their 10-Q. "The agreement also
calls for Novell to receive a revenue stream from SCO based on revenue
performance of the purchased UnixWare product line. This revenue stream is not
to exceed $84 million net present value, and will end by the year 2002. In
addition, Novell will continue to receive revenue from existing licenses for
older versions of UNIX System source code." I've seen this on Novell's site and
in Haloween IX I
assume Edgar will have the same text.
Note that it only says the revenue from Unixware ends in 2002, not from older
versions of Unix. I can't find any direct statements about whether SGI's license
is paid up but to my knowledge there are only 4 significant SVRx based Unix
distributions still around, Solaris, AIX, HP-UX and Irix. We know that the first
2 are fully paid up and we know that SCO paid Novell $1.9M for licenses in 2001
and $1.4M in 2002 from their last 10K Therefore at least one of HP-UX and Irix can't be paid up
(those figures seem too high to be just for the small time vendors, old SCO
didn't seem to mention the license amounts in their 10-Ks so we have no
comparable figures for earlier years although old SCO did state every year that
they hadn't sold enough copies of UnixWare to have to pay the royalty on
that).
It therefdore looks likely but not certain that Novell would lose out on
royalties if newSCO tried to terminate SGIs Unix license, meaning Novell would
have quantifiable damages and hence be expected to sue, adding to SCOs legal
bills. SGI probably also have the notice clause in their license that IBM had so
if SCO are going to go after SGI they've got to give 3 months notice first. In
short, it's almost certainly not going to happen.
Adam Baker[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, September 08 2003 @ 03:17 PM EDT |
Canopy selling it's stock in Altiris is explained/announced in http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1139650/000119312503028390/ds3a.htm
it seems.
inc_x[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, September 08 2003 @ 03:21 PM EDT |
| pj: To amplify the database comments from a technical perspective.
MySQL's strength is as
a light-weight RDMS. It's blazing fast. MySQL is perfectly adequate for a
suprising number of applications. With it's recent gain of tranasction control.
It probably the RDBS to use for all small to medium applications.
And a small story to show it's MySQL's speed. I has a bunch of data crunching
and reduction that I had to do. At the time, we were setting up a CRM database
using Oracle and a (then) top
of the line Sun Enterprise E10K server 8 CPU's and a bnuch of RAM. I loaded my
data Oracle and started the crunching.
I also had installed MySQL installed on the same server. So I thought I
would compare the speed between Oracle and MySQL. So I loaded the same data info
MySQL and created the SQL code I need. I started them both queries at the same
time. MySQL has finished computing and printing the results while Oracle was
still crunching.
PostgreSQL is what I term an Industrial Strength RDBMS. It's an old, mature
software project. Postgres may not be as fast as MySQL, but it can scale to
pretty big databases. And it's speed is farily consistent. And a company has
released it's replication technologies as Open Source. It's one of the few
things that commercial databases had over Open Source Databases.
If I were Oracle or M$, I would started to be really worried.
Stephen Johnson[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, September 08 2003 @ 03:23 PM EDT |
I wonder if the mystery author of
href="http://developerdeath.blogspot.com/">http://developerdeath.blogspot.com/
a> and all those insipidly dunderheaded slashdot posts is getting paid for his
one man PR campaign. Here is his brutally ironic Blog Quoting Legal Statement,
or whatever:
'THIS DOCUMENT CAN BE RECOPIED AND REDISTRIBUTED WITHOUT RESTRICTION, HOWEVER
ADDITIONS/MODIFICATIONS/CORRECTIONS SHOULD BE LABELED AS SUCH WHERE THEY
OCCUR.'
And, in the wake of that statement, a quote: 'This paper presents a case against
the open source movement and explains why the open source model does not work
economically for mouth breathers like me involved in the production of
commercial software because we are incompetents with no idea how to capitalize
on innovation who are desperately clinging to a quickly erroding status quo.'
Come get me.
Tim Ransom[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, September 08 2003 @ 03:32 PM EDT |
| I agree that the slashdot troll isn't a SCO person. For one thing, not even SCO
would imagine that throwing the
GPL out would put the code into the public domain.
CSS2, I do agree with your assessment, in other words, except for your logic: I
have some doubts that being a liar is an impediment to working for SCO.
Therefore, proving that someone is a liar isn't proof that they are not a
SCO employee.
On the Altiris story, if anyone sees anything on this, pls. let me know. If you
read the actual
SEC doc, they don't exactly say why they need to raise millions, but they seem
to indicate that one use might be
to pay for "future acquisitions or investments".
pj[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, September 08 2003 @ 03:36 PM EDT |
Nice argument in the haloween9 document that says that SCO itself valued it's
UnixWare stuff at less than
2 mil. so that even if IBM would have destroyed the value of it completely by
whatever horrible act it may have done, the actual damage would never exceed
that amount.
inc_x[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, September 08 2003 @ 03:39 PM EDT |
annon, the Catch 22 relates to distribution.
pj[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, September 08 2003 @ 03:41 PM EDT |
Stephen, thank you and all so much for the explanation.
pj[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, September 08 2003 @ 03:42 PM EDT |
| Trent,
Regarding software patents, I think the EU is going to turn around on that in a
year or two. That is because they are pushing open source and they don't want to
undermine that.
So why are they going the wrong way now? My guess is it is a classic case of the
right hand not knowing what the left hand is doing, something very common in
huge bureaucracies like the EU. The patents thing is being pushed by a
different section of the EU, and it has probably been in the works a lot longer
than the oss push, and so it has a lot of momentum.
I think one of these days the guys at the top are going to realize they are
about to shoot themselves in the foot, and fix the problem.
david l.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, September 08 2003 @ 03:47 PM EDT |
| Over on Yahoo ledjte noted that SCO posted this press release
on 11 Aug just as the stock was dropping which prompted a rapid recovery.
"The SCO Group today announced the signing of its first Intellectual Property
Compliance License"
Today Blake says <a
href=http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&n
cid=1817&e=2&u=/zd/20030905/tc_zd/59210&sid=96120751>this
"Selling it and mailing it to someone is not something we've actually done as
yet, but as of today we are able to do that."
Which seems to be saying that the press release was a lie which rather nicely
helped avoid a collapse in the stock price. Does anyone here think that is worth
notifying the SEC about? The SEC have apparently admitted that they are more
likely to take action if they get several complaints about the same incident.
Adam
Baker[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, September 08 2003 @ 03:52 PM EDT |
I am frustrated there have been no real developments for a while. A few weeks
ago some kernel developers approached SCO about finding out what the alleged
code violations were, and people thought it was to help lay the groundwork for a
lawsuit by them against sco. So is that going to happen?
david l.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, September 08 2003 @ 04:00 PM EDT |
| http://tinyurl.com/mm8j
title: "SCO debates sending Unix licence invoices to Linux users"
"debates" implies they have not made up their minds yet. Same old "we are going
to do x, no we aren't, we might, yes we will, no maybe not, we will at some time
in the future, we will soon, we won't if something else happens first, etc,
etc"
david l.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, September 08 2003 @ 04:02 PM EDT |
Couple of things,
1. About India, http://www.jimrogers.com
- India is horrific for bureaucracy. Know where the word 'byzntine' comes from?
Know how close that is to India?
2. About Oracle, their entire ERP business and their side businesses are written
with lock-in to the database product. If their new business is significantly
curtailed by open source alternatives they'll be able to live off legacy support
for all the locked-in customers (many of whom have written pro*c, PL/SQL stuff
that CANNOT be run against other products) for decades.
2. seen on Yahoo (I'm keeping track for 'my' page on the twiki LawEnforcement)
New suggestion for complaining, ESPECIALLY to the SEC.
A suggested letter (change to your tastes)
"I would like the SEC to investigate a possible case of illegal Stock
manipulation.
On Aug 11 the share price of SCO Group was sinking like a rock, hitting a low of
$8.27.
Soon after the price started sinking SCO Group released several press releases.
http://biz.yahoo.com/prn
ews/030811/lam083_1.html
http://biz.yahoo.com/d
jus/030811/1456000943_3.html
Now, on Sept 9 we get this news, which completely contradicts the above press
releases.
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&ncid=1817&e=2&u=/zd/20030905
/tc_zd/5 9210&sid=96120751
It would seem that the August 11 press releases were complete fabrications put
out with the intent to manipulate the stock price."
_______________
list of Attorney Generals - find your AG here.
h++p://www.naag.org/ag/full_ag_t
able.php
Securities and Exchange Commission:
h++p://www.sec.gov/complain
t/cf942sec7040.htm
Internet Fraud Complaint center: (this is an effort of the FBI)
help://www1.ifccfbi.gov/cf1.asp
Federal Trade Commission: CHANGE THE h++ps - to h tee tee pee ess
h++ps://rn.ftc
.gov/pls/dod/wsolcq$.startup?Z_ORG_CODE=PU01
Sanjeev[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, September 08 2003 @ 04:11 PM EDT |
| david l.
I think the EU patents push was started by a few MEPs probably ones who have got
big S/W companies in their constituencies. They thought it would all go through
with little opposition. Because of the publicity it has now received the vote
has twice been delayed and is now thankfully looking less likely to succeed,
which reminds me, I really must write to my MEP NOW.
Adam Baker[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, September 08 2003 @ 04:12 PM EDT |
Heh, heh, heh! Microsoft, you've really done it this time... people would much
rather keep control of their work themselves than pay almost 20 grand to send
documents outside of their organization. And it should really be the manger of
the organization who decides whether his/her documents can or cannot go outside
the company... I mean is someone who works at home and is self-employed going to
have to pay $18,000 just to send documents outside their organization, which is
like everybody? Just my two cents worth.
Garrett[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, September 08 2003 @ 04:17 PM EDT |
| Let me be really cynical and imagine a way of making $100m. I like stars, so
let's call some imaginary companies Canopus, Altair and Scorpius.
Canopus owns lots of stock in Altair, but can see its future is not so good, but
the share price is $20. Selling 2m shares would drop the price radically. How
else to sell lots of stock without dropping the price? Have an issue! A bit of
BS in the prospectus and there's enough naive investors out there to shell out
$100m. $40m for Canopus and $60 for Altair. Of course, after a decent period of
time, Canopus will find a way of getting the $60m out of Altair. Perhaps they
already have loan notes for some of that $60m.
Now Canopus also own stock in Scorpius who are a bit dumb and are having a bit
of legal trouble of their own making, and they are going to lose. Hmm, I know,
get Scorpius to sell the contentious software to Altair for $60m. Altair can
drop the lawsuits without loss of face, and everyone is happy (except the new
shareholders).
Dsiclaimer: This is all a dream. Any similarity to past, present and future
events is in your imagination:)
Chris Priest[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, September 08 2003 @ 04:23 PM EDT |
| An open letter alleged to be from Darl:
http://www.linuxworld.com/story
/34007.htm
From the above link, this quote:
The second development was an admission by Open Source leader Bruce Perens
that UNIX System V code (owned by SCO) is, in fact, in Linux, and it shouldn’t
be there. Mr Perens stated that there is “an error in the Linux developer’s
process” which allowed Unix System V code that “didn’t belong in Linux” to end
up in the Linux kernel (source: ComputerWire, August 25, 2003). Mr Perens
continued with a string of arguments to justify the “error in the Linux
developer’s process.” However, nothing can change the fact that a Linux
developer on the payroll of Silicon Graphics stripped copyright attributions
from copyrighted System V code that was licensed to Silicon Graphics under
strict conditions of use, and then contributed that source code to Linux as
though it was clean code owned and controlled by SGI. This is a clear violation
of SGI’s contract and copyright obligations to SCO. We are currently working to
try and resolve these issues with SGI.
This appears to be the ComputerWire article referred to
http://au.news.yahoo.com/030
826/20/lfff.html
The paragraph in which the "error" quote reads:
The other SCO code snippet Perens walks through had to do with memory
allocation functions in Unix System V and Linux. He says there was, in fact, "an
error in the Linux developer's process," specifically a programmer at SGI, and
he says while the Linux community had the legal right to this code, it didn't
belong in Linux and was therefore removed.
I looked what Perens said in the original (referred to be ComputerWire)
Slides 10 through 14 show memory allocation functions from Unix System V, and
their correspondence to very similar material in Linux. Some of this material
was deliberately obfuscated by SCO, by the use of a Greek font. I've switched
that text back to a normal font.
In this case, there was an error in the Linux developer's process (at SGI), and
we lucked out that it wasn't worse. It turns out that we have a legal right to
use the code in question, but it doesn't belong in Linux and has been removed.
These slides have several C syntax errors and would never compile. So, they
don't quite represent any source code in Linux. But we've found the code they
refer to. It is included in code copyrighed by AT&T and released as Open Source
under the BSD license by Caldera, the company that now calls itself SCO. The
Linux developers have a legal right to make use of the code under that license.
No violation of SCO's copyright or trade secrets is taking place.
In this case, there was an error in the Linux developer's process (at SGI), and
we lucked out that it wasn't worse. It turns out that we have a legal right to
use the code in question, but it doesn't belong in Linux and has been
removed.
If you are looking for other examples, of clever quoting styles (specifically in
the amended complaint by SCO), please check the links I posted yesterday in the
comments section. The quoting from the IBM/Red Hat press release as in amended
complaint, and the quote from the freeos.com article I found the link to, I
particularly recommend reviewing.
Attention PJ: I hope you write an article about this!
quatermass - SCO delenda
est[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, September 08 2003 @ 04:33 PM EDT |
| http://www.eweek.com/
article2/0,4149,1257617,00.asp
enjoy br3n
brenda banks[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, September 08 2003 @ 04:35 PM EDT |
On the EU patents, what I remember is that the EU Patents Office unilaterally
and illegally started granting software patents. At the same time the US through
the WTO and otherwise has been pushing for software and business patents (and
the US model is thoroughly broken). The EU bureaucracy is trying to legitimize
the status quo, and bow to US pressure. The rest of us want the status quo ante.
(Yes, we're going to see Status Quo next month.:)
Chris Priest[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, September 08 2003 @ 04:36 PM EDT |
| Sorry if this is a repost, but I don't recall seeing it here and am including it
for completeness.
From: purveyor_of_fine_opinions on the yahoo SCOx board (sorry tiny URL would
not pull up for me)
http://finance.messages.yahoo.com/bbs?.mm=FN&act
ion=m&board=1600684464&tid=cald&sid=1600684464&mid=39027
http://news.com.c
om/2100-1010_3-1001114.html?tag=fd_top
"Ed Zander, the high-energy executive who stepped down in 2002 after a long
reign as Sun Microsystems' second-in-command, has resurfaced at investment firm
Silver Lake Partners."
So, it looks like Sun has at least an indirect link to Silver Lake Partners.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, September 08 2003 @ 04:38 PM EDT |
| There is an Open letter from Darl to the open source community at:
http://www.linuxworld.com/story
/34007.htm
I have looked at it quickly and it seems to be full of FUD and outright BS.
Let the dissection begin.
fava[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, September 08 2003 @ 04:51 PM EDT |
| fava, scroll back to see where he got the quotes from. I posted some links
Attention beautiful PJ: see my prev post
quatermass - SCO delenda est[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, September 08 2003 @ 04:52 PM EDT |
| There are, what, fifteen million linux users? And SCO wants to sell licenses to
them all and how many sales people do they have answering the phones?
Not that I would ever suggest such a thing. Oh, no, it would be immoral. But
if just a tiny fraction like one out of a thousand phoned in every day and asked
for info. Suppose there are 100 a day who really want to buy a license, they
would never get through.
Not that I would ever suggest such a thing, oh no, it would be immoral. And how
can they complain. They say they want everyone to call them.
ephesius[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, September 08 2003 @ 04:54 PM EDT |
| <Copyright attributions protect ownership and attribution rights –they cannot
simply be changed or stripped away. This is how copyright owners maintain
control of their legal rights and prevent unauthorized transfer of ownership.
Our proprietary software code has been copied into Linux by people who simply
stripped off SCO’s copyright notice or contributed derivative works in violation
of our intellectual property rights. This is improper>
excuse me but is this guy a human?
is he totally ignorant?
br3n
http://www.linuxworld.com/story
/34007.htm
brenda banks[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, September 08 2003 @ 04:56 PM EDT |
| There are, what, fifteen million linux users? And SCO wants to sell licenses to
them all and how many sales people do they have answering the phones?
Not that I would ever suggest such a thing. Oh, no, it would be immoral. But
if just a tiny fraction like one out of a thousand phoned in every day and asked
for info. Suppose there are 100 a day who really want to buy a license, they
would never get through.
Not that I would ever suggest such a thing, oh no, it would be immoral. And how
can they complain. They say they want everyone to call them.
ephesius[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, September 08 2003 @ 05:17 PM EDT |
| david l wrote:
"The reason for the number two is that if you have only one, then it can pull a
Microsoft on you, whereas if you have more than two you have support problems
and it is starting to look like the old Unix wars.
So why are all these big companies supporting Red Flag? "
Simple, Red Flag has developed an internet-ready microwave oven <G>.
Seriously, they feel they can't ignore the Chinese market, is why. If only 20%
of the Chinese people own computers, that's a big market to be in. But watch
out- won't be easy- Compaq lost what- 100 million on their Chinese venture?
And let's hope that the Chinese play by the rules with open source. I've lived
there, I like the food- but remember- this is a country where the cops beat up
old women for practicing Falun Gong, and every year hundreds of children are
badly scalded because of inferior hot water producing technologies in their
showers (plus the absolutely dismal medical care received afterwards).....
wild bill[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, September 08 2003 @ 05:17 PM EDT |
| The guy realy makes me sick.
"Some enterprise customers have accepted Open Source because IBM has put its
name behind it. However, IBM and other Linux vendors are reportedly unwilling to
provide intellectual property warranties to their customers."
This one is straight from Balmer, few weeks ago.
"It’s time for everyone else in the industry, individuals and small
corporations, to under this and to implement OUR own business model – something
that keeps us alive and profitable."
See! He is helping us all with his brand new business model. TY Darl.
"In the long term, the financial stability of software vendors and the legality
of their software products are more important to enterprise customers than free
software. Rather than fight for the right for free software, it’s far more
valuable to design a new business model that enhances the stability and
trustworthiness of the Open Source community in the eyes of enterprise
customers."
Sorry, I can't help myself, half of his letter is like standar post halloween MS
PR rant. Are we sure that noone is pulling the strings?
Filip[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, September 08 2003 @ 05:29 PM EDT |
| Sanjeev. I think you meant Byzantine.
Also on the two Linux licenses sold. IIRC an SCO spokeman said later that they
were negotiated, and the FAQ says that site licenses are arranged directly with
head office. Salesmen and invoices through the post would not have been
involved. I don't think what's said in your third (broken) Yahoo link
contradicts this. "Selling it and mailing it to someone is not something we've
actually done as yet". SCO probably called in a favor or two. However, if SCO
have just sorted out the wording on the license, perhaps the first two aren't up
to scratch, but that's ok as it's between friends for PR purposes. :)
Chris
Priest[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, September 08 2003 @ 05:32 PM EDT |
| brenda - Here are the copyright statements on the System III Unix version of the
file /usr/src/uts/vax/os/malloc.c, the closest publicly available match to the
code that was in ate_utils.c. Sorry did you miss them, well so did I when I read
the version of that file that Caldera distributed.
It is possible that between Nov 1981 when System III was released and 1989 when
SGI incorporated SVR4 into IRIX that a copyright messge was added. SGI added
their first copyright message to this code in 1992 so clearly Linux wasn't the
first thing SGI had modified it for. There seems to be no logical reason why
they would have stripped of the USL copyright while they were using it
internally and if it had borne a USL copyright when they came to reuse it they
would have been foolish in the extreme to remove it at that point. The most
likely option therefore is that the code SGI received didn't bear a copyright
message.
Despite Darl's talk about knowing which version the code came from, there seems
to be only one version it could possibly be, SVR4 as according to the Unix
timeline that is the only version of non BSD code that SGI ever received. What
SCO almost certainly don't have is a tape of the exact code that was given to
SGI. Darl is probably looking at the current UnixWare source (which will have a
copyright notice on as I imagine they got added very liberally after the BSDI
case) and seeing the same code so assuming the same notice was on it 14 years
ago.
Adam Baker[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, September 08 2003 @ 05:48 PM EDT |
| Chris Priest:
"Hmm, I know, get Scorpius to sell the contentious software to Altair for
$60m. Altair can drop the lawsuits without loss of face, and everyone is happy
(except the new shareholders)."
Altair can't drop the suits ... the IBM countercomplaint listed some patents
that the software infringes, so that has to be cleared up. When you buy a
company's assets, you buy its legal problems too. That's what keeps the tobacco
companies from folding and reappearing as new companies to avoid liabilities.
And a comment on DArl McBrides latest FUD:
"However, nothing can change the fact that a Linux developer on the payroll of
Silicon Graphics stripped copyright attributions from copyrighted System V code
that was licensed to Silicon Graphics under strict conditions of use, and then
contributed that source code to Linux as though it was clean code owned and
controlled by SGI."
And I'm sure it happens every day in CSS development cmo[panies, when a
programmer who is behind schedule realizes that a sourceforge project has code
that does exactly what is needed. but they will never admit it, and it can't be
readily found because fo the secrecy.
Tsu Dho Nimh[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, September 08 2003 @ 05:52 PM EDT |
| Well, Microsoft is cooking up another product tie-in so they can leverage the
desktop to gain server share with this Office DRM scheme. Let's hope that the EU
antitrust regulators are preparing a remedy that will put a fork in this kind of
thing. One state AG here is still appealing the MS/DOJ settlement as inadequate.
The lower court did fail to:
"craft a remedy that would "'unfetter [the] market from anticompetitive
conduct,' to 'terminate the illegal monopoly, deny to the defendant the fruits
of its statutory violation, and ensure that there remain no practices likely to
result in monopolization in the future.'"
That was the original point of this whole thing after all.
I see from the contents of the "Open Letter" that Darl McBride is still beating
the same dead horse about the GPL and transfering copyright ownership (something
the GPL doesn't do anyway). So they own it, and I can copy it and redistribute
it (because those are the terms of the GPL and the "Caldera License
Agreement".
Harlan[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, September 08 2003 @ 05:52 PM EDT |
| Adam,
Two possible sources for the "sgi" code.
1) 32V from Murray Hill (research branch).
2) SysV from Homdahl (commercial branch).
D.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, September 08 2003 @ 06:19 PM EDT |
| inc_x: One comment on that slashdot command just made me snap. I just had to let
loose on that clueless poster. Here is how I replied.
http://yro.slas
hdot.org/comments.pl?sid=77503&cid=6905949
Another thing that blows my mine is that he seems legit. He has a like to a
blog
that tries to make the case that open source can't be profitable. Hah! I suppose
IBM's and HP's Linux profits are figments of their corporate imaginations.
Stephen
Johnson[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, September 08 2003 @ 06:26 PM EDT |
| Bubbacode: "It's just a matter of time before there is a viable alternative to
MS on the desktop."
There already is; it's Linux. I use it, OpenOffice, and Mozilla to do darned
near everything I ever need to do on my home system.
Only thing I can't do is run M$ apps, and that's no big disaster.
Steve Martin[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, September 08 2003 @ 06:36 PM EDT |
| david.l: The person who had talked with SCO at length about getting access to
the source code was Jeff Gerhart (of The Linux Show - http://www.thelinuxshow.com). He actually
talked to McBride and some lawyers during the last SCO Forum. Jeff reported last
week (or maybe the week before last) that he has a (recorded) verbal commitment
from McBride to allow the Linux Kernel Developers access to the source code
without that draconian NDA.
I don't know that the current status is, but I'm sure there will be an update
on tomorrow nights show. Why doesn't everyone listen in tomorrow and see for
themselves?
Stephen Johnson[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, September 08 2003 @ 06:48 PM EDT |
| Stephen Johnson wrote:
"I suppose IBM's and HP's Linux profits are figments of their corporate
imaginations."
That's debatable. I don't think these companies are making anything from
actually selling Linux distros (there is no IBM Linux distro, and I don't think
believe there is an HP distro). They are making money from applications and
hardware sales. This is similar to AT&T's experience with Unix. Why did they
allow the Murray Hill lab to spend so much money over the years, and why did
AT&T itself lose millions trying to sell Unix commercially? Simple- it was good
for other parts of their business. UNIX made their hardware run better, which
saved untold sums of cash in other parts of their business, so they footed the
bill.
IBM showed everyone, including themselves, that (even with all of their
programming talent) they could not develop a good OS for the PC. OS/2 was
miserable, the OS itself as well as support and bug reporting. Wisely, they
kept out of marketing their own OS, and used Linux, and they are making good
money selling applications and hardware. I would imagine HP is doing the same-
why not have someone provide a good OS for you, and concentrate on selling your
applications software and hardware? Stick with what you do best- this is why M$
has never gotten big in hardware sales....
wild bill[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, September 08 2003 @ 07:29 PM EDT |
| brenda: HeHeHeee. That shred program that ESR improved is how the Kernel
Developer compare Linux source code against SCO SysVR4 or other code. Without
violating any NDA, and theres not a bloddy thing SCO can do to stop it!!
Anyone who has legimate access to any of SCO's source code can run the shred
program on the source code. shred will create a list of checksums for each file.
That list of checksums doesn't reveal anything at all about the source code.
There is absolutely no way to retrieve
any information about the original files.
Any one can now use those lists of shred checksums to compare the originail code
sources against any other source code say the Linux Kernel Code. You shred the
files you want to compare against, and then you start comparing checksums. Any
checksums that match tell you that you have an exact code match.
I'd be willing to be that this sort of thing of thing is going on this very
second. Heck it may already have been finished. People are going over the
matches and tracing the code's pedigree and history. I'm sure that ESR and other
will have a devestating report on the so called SCO code in the Linux Kernel. I
can't wait.
The only problem with shred is that it will only test for exact code matches.
But I'm sure ESR or someone else is working on a program that will be able test
for code similarities. It's already been suggest by people in the biotech field
to use techniques similar to what is used for comparing DNA sequences.
Stephen
Johnson[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, September 08 2003 @ 07:34 PM EDT |
| From the Yahoo SCOX message board, a link to the subpoena:
http://pel.cs.byu.e
du/~sorenson/SCO/Docs/Subpoena.pdf
Frank Brickle[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, September 08 2003 @ 08:59 PM EDT |
| "And yes there are MANY ways to use GPL without releasing your software."
BubbaCode • 9/8/03; 12:07:58 PM
Does that include the use of Linux 2.4 code in Unixware, to run Linux
binaries?
SCO mendacem memorem esse oportet
nm[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, September 08 2003 @ 10:15 PM EDT |
With regard to the use of Shred (or any other code comparison program) did
anyone notice how quickly Linus left Transmeta and went to work at OSDL when it
became apparent that SCO wasn't going to back down?
Alex Roston[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, September 08 2003 @ 11:50 PM EDT |
Alex, if you are implying anything about Linus's conduct, then I don't get the
implication.
blacklight[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, September 09 2003 @ 04:05 AM EDT |
According to the press release (IIRC) Linus hasn't actually left
Transmeta, he's just on a leave of absence. The way
the official release read, I believe Transmeta expressed the willingness to take
him back if he wished.
Steve Martin[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, September 09 2003 @ 05:43 AM EDT |
| Alex Roston wrote:
"With regard to the use of Shred (or any other code comparison program) did
anyone notice how quickly Linus left Transmeta and went to work at OSDL when it
became apparent that SCO wasn't going to back down?"
That's a cheap shot. I don't blame the guy for taking some time off work. I
can't imagine that he wouldn't be highly affected by all of this SCO BS. The
Linux kernel has become his life's work; and if he is proven innocent of any
misconduct in regards to Linux development (and yeah, I know Linus isn't on
trial here, but his kernel is) I hope he is able to sue the pants off what is
left of SCO and all of the other greedy, slimy SOBs that are behind this.
wild bill[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, September 09 2003 @ 05:53 AM EDT |
| And now, a word from Linus Torvalds:
"I personally think it's a lot easier (and thus more likely) to integrate open
source code into a proprietary platform than the other way around. That said, I
don't like the SCO FUD, and I don't have any huge reason to spread FUD around
myself. In other words, I don't personally know of any such code. "
from http://www.eweek.com/
article2/0,4149,1150219,00.asp.
wild bill[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, September 09 2003 @ 06:02 AM EDT |
| http://www.inter
netnews.com/dev-news/article.php/2222991 :
"Transmeta, a member of OSDL, said it supports Torvalds' decision.
"Linus has made substantial technological contributions as a member of our
development team here at Transmeta," said Matthew Perry, president and CEO of
Transmeta. "Transmeta appreciates and fully supports Linus' strong interest in
devoting his attention and energy to certain emerging industry-wide open source
initiatives at OSDL."
Torvalds' move may also some political implications, as it comes at a time when
former Linux distributor SCO Group (Quote, Company Info) is attempting to cast
doubt on the legality of Linux with claims that Linux kernel has illegally
incorporated portions of its copyrighted Unix source code. However, Torvalds has
a reputation for being apolitical. "
And what we may be seeing here is the Linux Project setting up to give Darl and
friends, not to mention the people paying to keep the FUD spread, the knockout
punch. And well-deserved it will be.
wild bill[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, September 09 2003 @ 06:39 AM EDT |
| Here is some of what Mr. Darl McBride had to say in his Open Letter to the open
Source Community:
http://linuxworld.com/story/34007.h
tm
"The second development was an admission by Open Source leader Bruce Perens that
UNIX System V code (owned by SCO) is, in fact, in Linux, and it shouldn’t be
there. Mr Perens stated that there is “an error in the Linux developer’s
process” which allowed Unix System V code that “didn’t belong in Linux” to end
up in the Linux kernel (source: ComputerWire, August 25, 2003). "
Okay, first of all this arrticle appears on 26 August 2003, not 25 August. I
couldn't access the Computerwire article as I don't have an account. But this
doesn't seem to be what Perens has said in other articles. Here is what I heard
Perens say:
"http://www.nwfusion
.com/news/2003/0722linuxadvoc.html :
"They're selling a pig in a poke," said open source advocate Bruce Perens. "I
think they've made an error through overconfidence, and that error has made them
liable to be sued by every person who has code in the kernel, and every
company," he said.
He was referring to SCO. Pass the bong, Darl, I need a hit.
Darl's other attack on the OS community:
"The first development followed another series of Denial of Service (DDoS)
attacks on SCO, which took place two weeks ago. These were the second and third
such attacks in four months and have prevented Web users from accessing our web
site and doing business with SCO. There is no question about the affiliation of
the attacker – Open Source leader Eric Raymond was quoted as saying that he was
contacted by the perpetrator and that “he’s one of us.” To Mr Raymond’s partial
credit, he asked the attacker to stop. However, he has yet to disclose the
identity of the perpetrator so that justice can be done. "
I predicted that the identity of this person who had contacted Raymond would
never be released, because this was an attempt by the Gates-Ballmer and Co.
dirty tricks dept., or SCO's own dirty tricks people, to set Raymonds up for a
black eye. Can anyone tell me what the final result of the reseach into the
alleged "DDOS attack" on SCO was- did it ever really occur?
If darl was a child, he would be in severe need of a good spanking. As it
stands, he needs a good swift kick in the pants.
wild bill[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, September 09 2003 @ 08:43 AM EDT |
| I'm not implying anything nasty about Linus. He's one of my major heroes. I'm
simply saying that the timing is interesting, and that it implies that the suit
against IBM was being taken seriously. IMHO the Open Source community got itself
together quickly and quietly put our most important guy into the position where
he could do the most good. That's all I meant.
Jeez...
Alex Roston[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, September 09 2003 @ 08:51 AM EDT |
Alex: thanks for the clarification. I honestly did not understand what you meant
(As JFK used to say: "There is always an s.o.b. who didn't get the message).
style="height: 2px; width: 20%; margin-left: 0px; margin-right:
auto;">blacklight[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, September 09 2003 @ 11:01 PM EDT |
| Just wanted to add... thanks from me, to all you developing, and supporting free
software.
I enjoyed the subpoena, great stuff.
Cheers.
vito caputo[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
