Slashdot Mirror

That's a known Red Hat scheduler bug. Red Hat blames it on NVidia, but you're seeing it for Matrox as well, so it's probably Red Hat's fault after all. You might want to update that bug report.

The clearest explanation is in the RHEL subscription agreement. Premium and standard subscriptions entitle you to "new versions of the applicable Software, if any, released during the subscription period." Basic subscriptions do not.

I notice that RHEL ES standard is temporarily reduced from $800 to $700, although that's still twice as much as RHEL ES basic.

> What's Debian GNU/Linux problem?

_Certification_. Debian is not certified to run lots of commercial products. And vendors deny to support this configuration.

I don't know why this guy are crying when FreeBSD gets only one year of support, SuSE gets 2 years(with no warranties) and Mandrake one year and a half(only for base packages).

If you need long time life distribution you should paid for it. Enterprise distributions like SuSE and Red Hat get five years of support and Mdk gets three.

But if you are a brave , you can make it yourself. This is Open/Free software ;-)

redhat enterprise linux distributions aren't GPL, as they include proprietary software.

because of that you can't redistribute the iso.

however the sources of every GPL component are available for download.

4. REPORTING AND AUDIT. If Customer wishes to increase the number of Installed System, then Customer will purchase from Red Hat additional Services for each additional Installed System.

Isn't Linux supposed to be GPL? Make copies for each system. Oh, but Redhat could be adding in special non-GPL applications (it's not a violation of the GPL to run a non-GPL application on a GPL OS). And I presume they are adding in support. Do you really need that support? Why not download Debian or Slackware, install a system and configure it as you like, and then duplicate it to all your servers. Then if you need a special non-GPL application, buy it for just the servers you need it. Of course if you need that application on every server, you're probably in for a lot of cost, anyway.

I've been trying to figure this out, and it would seem that there is nothing in the license that stops you being able to legally give me a copy of (say) RHES, and for me to run that copy, with no access to up2date and no support contract. (Like a lot of the other posts say, I am the support - my only concern is having a platform that commercial software supports!)

The license seems to refer to the services that come bundled with the software, not the software itself. I believe that the JVM cannot be copied from the standard distribution but removing is trivial.

Interesting notes: to summarise, it's probably perfectly legal for you to copy me RHEL ES, however you would probably also have to provide me all the updates if I wanted them (which may violate your license to receive them). The big dollars is with regard to the updates, and I believe they are made publically available by SRPM - and even then, its probably also technically allowable for you to mirror all the update RPMs somewhere.

I installed Lotus Domino recently on a Debian server because I didn't trust the machine with a consumer Red Hat and it wasn't cost effective enough to get RHEL. I'd be very interested to hear if you can or can't just copy/mirror RHEL.

Presumably, RedHat will only provide support services for that licensed server-- and if Redhat includes any products under restrictive licenses, you'd end up liable. Details are available here.

Wrong again! You can go to ftp.redhat.com or one of many mirrors and download Red Hat 9 FOR FREE. It is only the support that will cost you. Red Hat and the community will continue to develop Red Hat for the desktop/personal use. Red Hat will not offer this "personal" edition as a retail boxed set any more. You can still download it. In fact I just downloaded and installed Red Hat Severn Beta which will become Red Hat 10 from http://rhl.redhat.com/. Please stop spreading FUD. Instead of making blanket statements as if they are facts, do something called ASKING.

Wrong again! You can go to ftp.redhat.com or one of many mirrors and download Red Hat 9 FOR FREE. It is only the support that will cost you. Red Hat and the community will continue to develop Red Hat for the desktop/personal use. Red Hat will not offer this "personal" edition as a retail boxed set any more. You can still download it. In fact I just downloaded and installed Red Hat Severn Beta which will become Red Hat 10 from http://rhl.redhat.com/. Please stop spreading FUD. Instead of making blanket statements as if they are facts, do something called ASKING.

Wrong again! You can go to ftp.redhat.com or one of many mirrors and download Red Hat 9 FOR FREE. It is only the support that will cost you. Red Hat and the community will continue to develop Red Hat for the desktop/personal use. Red Hat will not offer this "personal" edition as a retail boxed set any more. You can still download it. In fact I just downloaded and installed Red Hat Severn Beta which will become Red Hat 10 from http://rhl.redhat.com/. Please stop spreading FUD. Instead of making blanket statements as if they are facts, do something called ASKING.

Oops... fucking slashdot stripped the link. Here it is. License

No, Red Hat has moved the destop/personal version to an OPEN development model. People in the community can work on imporoving it for home/desktop use.
http://rhl.redhat.com/
http://www.harkness.co.uk/redhat/
The commercial versions will be focused on the enterprise with a slower release cycle, while the desktop version will have a much faster release cycle to bring the latest and the greates to users.

Basically earlier this year Red Hat announced a fork in their product line. They now have Red Hat Linux (the open source distro still freely available) and Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL). The current version of RHEL is 2.1 which is based on Red Hat Linux 7.2, but there is currently a public beta that people can register to try for the next version of RHEL.

RHEL comes in several flavors, WS (workstation), ES (Enterprise Server), and AS (the old Advanced Server). RHEL software will be maintained for up to 5 years from it's release and telephone and other support options are available for it. I don't remember the cost per box, it varies based on the product you buy but you can find the most current pricing at Red Hat Ordering Site . Notice that RHEL ES is $350, this includes a 1 year Red Hat Network subscription to get your updates.

Now the weird thing is the license. Basically Red Hat only distributes open source software, we all know what that means, but the Enterprise line of products come with a license agreement that is written to cover the product, not the individual pieces of software. Every RHEL box that you have installed MUST be paid for. If you install 2 boxes off the same set of software with out purchasing a RHEL license, it invalidates all RHEL licenses at your site. However, I know that there are dispensations made for development vs. production machines. A Red Hat salesperson explained it to me once, but the knowlege has been displaced by something more important.

All the while the Red Hat Linux product line will also be freely available. The difference between the two is basically support and lifecycle. The Red Hat Linux product is not supported outside of the software being maintained for up to one year after it's initial release. The Red Hat Linux product will continue it's 4-6 month release cycle while the Red Hat Enterprise Linux product is every 12 to 18 months.

Someone in an earlier thread made the comment that now the Red Hat Linux (free) product would now be an unstable platform, that Red Hat was now making every product a major release. Yes every product is not versioned as a major release, 8, 9, 10, etc. However, the beta for 9 was actually called 8.0.xx and the beta for 10 is called 9.xx which leads one to believe that in the early stages of Red Hat Linux 9 that it was actually going to be called 8.1!!! Perhaps there was some versioning decision made in the marketing/management ranks over there. Either way, outside of a little gcc kruft which was not Red Hat's fault, Red Hat Linux 9 has been rock solid for me, and I should continue to expect a STABLE product coming from them in this area. New features will be made in the Red Hat Linux platform first, then they will be pulled into the RHEL product as it evolves.

Anyway, that's my understanding of how it works after talking with a bunch of people over at RH.

--Runz

Well, the great grandparent should no longer have his 'informative' rating once i post this. apologies, a bad mod from me - was tired.

Though, the sentiment behind his post has more than a hint of truth to it. RH are fundamentally changing their approach to their desktop distribution, they will be devolving control to some, as yet undecided, degree. So in essence, the great grandparent you refer to is correct - future desktop RH Linux will not be the RH Linux as we know it from previous distributions (structurally) - ie probably more 'RedHat backed Linux' than 'RedHat Linux'. See:

http://rhl.redhat.com/

The lack of information on that site appears to reflect the current fluidity of the plans for desktop RHL. See the various rhl lists for posts from Havoc, Alan, Rik, and other RH staff, esp this thread:

https://listman.redhat.com/archives/rhl-beta-lis t/ 2003-August/msg00477.html

Eg:

https://listman.redhat.com/archives/rhl-beta-lis t/ 2003-August/msg00501.html
https://listman.redhat. com/archives/rhl-beta-list/ 2003-August/msg00553.html
https://listman.redhat. com/archives/rhl-beta-list/ 2003-August/msg00525.html

If you absolutely want Red Hat support, go ahead and buy one contract per machine.

But if you don't need the support, that's another problem. Their licensing agreement says that the "Advanced Server" product is distributed under the same terms as the products it contains. Most of them are GPL'ed free software (as in free speech), and all of them are freely redistributable software (as in free beer).

You can find the licence agreement here. The licence agreement itself is Appendix 1,towards the end.

You are puzzled because they don't distribute the binaries (RPMS, iso images...) for free. The only obligation RedHat has under the GPL is to make the source *not the binaries !!!* available to everybody for free. And they do comply (see here.)

This means that you can buy one RedHat Advanced Server box, or copy it from a friend, and install it on as many machines as you want. Or you can compile the sources and burn an iso image :)

Fabrice

If you absolutely want Red Hat support, go ahead and buy one contract per machine.

But if you don't need the support, that's another problem. Their licensing agreement says that the "Advanced Server" product is distributed under the same terms as the products it contains. Most of them are GPL'ed free software (as in free speech), and all of them are freely redistributable software (as in free beer).

You can find the licence agreement here. The licence agreement itself is Appendix 1,towards the end.

You are puzzled because they don't distribute the binaries (RPMS, iso images...) for free. The only obligation RedHat has under the GPL is to make the source *not the binaries !!!* available to everybody for free. And they do comply (see here.)

This means that you can buy one RedHat Advanced Server box, or copy it from a friend, and install it on as many machines as you want. Or you can compile the sources and burn an iso image :)

Fabrice

Download redhat severn here.

And you don't need to pay for the support just RTFM, if people RTFM'd more, they would save money. And as for oracle, do you really need it? PostgreSQL is really powerful for example, and for small databases MySQl will do.

Yeah. There are no find - download - click - install routines.

Consistency? RPM could be considered something which most people would know how to install -- be it by a graphical installer, up2date, or on a command line. All of these packaging systems work basically the same. Download a package. Install package. Run program.

RPM+APT is a lot easier than the BS with the void that is Windows library dependencies. I can't tell you how many times I've downloaded some crappy little app for Win32 that is missing this or that dll. RPM+APT takes care of all that garbage for you.

Look, we all know this is just a temporary solution, since the next worm will target the new web site. Microsoft has planned ahead with a series of new web sites that should be able to handle any future problems.

How can BSD be dying when it has a mascot like this?! Linux needs to get its act together if it's going to compete with the kind of hot chicks and gorgeous babes that BSD has to offer!

You just can't take Linux seriously when its fronted by losers like these. You Linux groupies need to find some sexy girls like her! I mean just look at this girl! Doesn't she make you hard? I know this little hottie floats my boat! This guy looks like he is about to cream his pants standing next to such a fox. As you can see, no man can resist this sexy little cock teaser. Even this old bearded Unix guru is apparently unable to take his eyes off her!

With sexy chicks like the lovely Ceren you will have people queuing up to buy open source products. Look! This guy can't get in there fast enough with her in the doorway! Come on, you must admit she is better than an overweight penguin! Don't you wish you could get one of these? Join the campaign for more cute open source babes today!

Let me count the ways...

• Here is a list of the RedHat 9 errata. Here is the list of OpenBSD 3.3 errata. Notice a slight difference in the number of errata that have been issued between these distributions?

  I may be generalizing, but when you need hardware compatibility, go with Linux; when you require security, go with OpenBSD.

• If you run OpenBSD, you will immediately notice your Apache process:

  httpd: parent [chroot /var/www] (httpd)

  AFAIK, OpenBSD is the only UNIX(like) distribution with chroot Apache out of the box.

• OpenBSD comes with the spamd daemon/system, which pulls information from spews.org and links it into the local pf routing, pointing spammers at a resource-consuming tarpit at little cost to you.

• More importantly, this software is bound by the BSD license, which gives you much more freedom to do with the code as you will. Apple Mac OS X probably couldn't have been done with a GPL system (excepting gcc), for example. While the GPL is fantastic in that it will eventually destroy Microsoft, if you truly love software freedom, you will prefer BSD.

• All the BSDs continue the legacy of the CSRG at UCB. Each (major version of) BSD is worth preserving for historical purposes alone.

There are quite a few things that I don't like about OpenBSD, but I've learned to live with them.

dear reader the gnome armageddon has started,

first of all i want to clarify that this text was meant to be a source of information otherwise i wouldn't have spent so much time into writing it. belive me it took me a couple of days writing this text in a foreign language. even if you don't care at all for gnome, you may find some interesting information within this text that you like to read. please try to understand my points even if it's hard sometimes, otherwise you wake up one day and feel the need to switch to a different operating system.

on the following lines i'm trying to give you a little insight of the gnome community. the things that are going on in the back, the information that could be worth talking and thinking about.

many of us like the gnome desktop and some of us were following it since the beginning. gnome is a promising project because it's mostly written in C, easy to use, configurable and therefore fits perfectly into the philosophy of u*nix. only to name some of its advantages.

unfortunately these advantages changed with the recently new released version of gnome. the core development team somehow got the idea of targeting gnome to a complete different direction of users. the so called corporate desktop user. in other words they're targeting people that aren't familiar or experienced with desktop environments. usually business oriented people who are willing to pay money for getting gnome on their computers.

having this new target in mind, the core development team mostly under contract by companies like redhat, ximian and sun decided to simplify the desktop as much as even possible by removing all its flexibility in favor of an easy clean simple interface to not confuse their new possible customers. so far the idea of a clean easy to use desktop is honourable.

some of the new ideas, features and implementations such as gconf, an evil windows registry like system, new ordering of buttons and dialogs, the removal of 90%-95% of all visible preferences from the control center and applications, the new direction that gnome leads and the attitude of the core development team made a lot of users really unhappy. these are only a couple of examples and the list can easily be expanded but for now this is enough. now let me try to get deeper into these aspects.

you may imagine that users got really frustrated because their beloved gnome desktop matured into something they didn't want. during the time, the frustration of a not less amount of people increased. more, more and more emails arrived on the gnome mailinglists where users tried to explain their concerns, frustrations and the leading target of GNOME.

but the core development team of gnome don't give a damn about what their users are thinking or wanting and most of the time they come up with their standard purl. the reply they give is mostly the same. users should either go and 'file a bug' at bugzilla or the user mails are being turned so far that at the end they sound like being trolls or the user feedback is simply not wanted. whatever happens the answers aren't really satisfying for the user. even constructive feedback isn't appreciated.

if you gonna think about this for a minute then things gonna harden that they are directing into the commercial area. the core development team actually don't care fo

If that were the case then why would they send threatening letters to those who have compiled Linux on x86 and alpha? Also--there's no mention of sequent or anything here and the comments indicate that the work is based on...

/*
* arch/s390/kernel/smp.c
*
* S390 version
* Copyright (C) 1999,2000 IBM Deutschland Entwicklung GmbH, IBM Corporation
* Author(s): Denis Joseph Barrow (djbarrow@de.ibm.com,barrow_dj@yahoo.com),
* Martin Schwidefsky (schwidefsky@de.ibm.com)
*
* based on other smp stuff by
* (c) 1995 Alan Cox, CymruNET Ltd <alan@cymru.net>
* (c) 1998 Ingo Molnar

I believe stuff must be some sort of technical term. Better question...why do they keep changing their story with each press release? Who will be the Mark Furhman of this case? Will the glove fit?????

Holy FUD, Batman! Tune in next week^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^Htomorrow. Same SCO time. Same SCO channel.

Well... given the fact that Open Source Now is a community for OSS advocacy focusing on education of the populace about OSS, and in fact has nothing to do with the OSN Fund, nor does it contain any useful information about donating to the fund, but only links to how to join the OSN Community.

Before you criticize people for not RTFA... maybe you should actually RT Fucking A!!!

Now, I agree with you that this is not a dupe, in fact it's a whole lot of nothing. The link submitted by celston23 has nothing to do with the OSN Fund. Sorry bigjocker, but how does your ankle taste??

The post to which you refer announces the countersuit. This post announces the actual launching of the fund, complete with a website where you can join and make contributions.

No, really. List your choice of replacement system and give a thorough list of past remote exploits for it before you bash Microsoft.

Microsoft actually seems to be getting better about security. They still have holes that you have to patch, but so does everybody. Here's a list of the security updates for my OS distribution of choice, for instance:

Red Hat Linux 9 Security Advisories

Most of these aren't as bad as the recent Windows hole (and many aren't in software that even has an equivalent included with Windows), but there have been a lot of them recently, and they're not Red Hat specific problems either.

Re: Deprecate dwarf and mdebug support, delete nlm?

Some facts:

SCO pays at least one employee to maintain gcc and gdb for SCO operating systems.

SCO's supported version of gcc is gcc 2. They are working on upgrading to gcc 3 but are not planning to support gcc until gcc 3.4.

SCO's gcc generates dwarf-1 debugging format (not dwarf-2). I've researched this, and the only dwarf-1 compilers I sighted were proprietary compilers from Diab and Absoft and the SCO version of gcc. All other versions of gcc in the field use other debugging formats now (dwarf-2 and stabs+, mostly).

My opinion: disengaging from SCO would hurt SCO's version of the gnu toolchain materially. Which would be good.

It's not an odd view at all. It's reality. I know on slashdot everyone pulls prior out of their ass but that's not how things happen in real life.

I know because I own a software company and we have had many patent issues come up in the past. They are insidious evil and retarted. Using defensive patents is the preferred action.

Take a look at Redhat's stance on software patents. Redhat has a considerable number of patents; all of them used for defensive (i.e. Cross licensing) purposes.

• http://www.goingware.com/notes/prosecute-sco.html

While the lawsuits being defended by IBM and filed by Red Hat are likely to put an end to The SCO Group's menace to the Free Software community, I don't think simply putting the company out of business is likely to prevent us from being threatened this way again by other companies who are enemies to our community. I feel we need to send a stronger message.

If we all work together, we can put the executives of the SCO Group in prison where they belong.

If you live in the U.S., please write a letter to your state Attorney General. If you live elsewhere, please write your national or provincial law enforcement authorities. Please ask that the SCO Group be prosecuted for criminal fraud and extortion.

Stockholders in any of the affected companies - either SCO or its competitors - may wish to avail themselves of the Security and Exchange Commission's Investor Complaint Form to ask that something be done about this. You may not even be aware that you have standing to complain: if you invest in any mutual funds that hold shares in SCO, IBM, Red Hat or any other company that offers Linux products or services, then you have a right to ask the SEC to investigate. Check with your mutual fund to fund out which securities are in its portfolio.

Thanks for your help.

So if your site is slashdotted, churn out a static version of the pages which are likely to be pulled most and hand them over to a TUX server. Sit back and enjoy the traffic!

However, if you do want an rpm, there are people at Redhat who do build them ;)

You can download from here.

RedHat's Arjan van de Ven has RPM's here.

But: Half the fun of Linux is hand-tweaking your own kernel setup and compiling your own. Why not just do that? =)

Also, remember that you need to upgrade other pieces as well when going from 2.4 to 2.6 - the module utilities in particular. They are now known as "module-init-tools"

Try here:

http://people.redhat.com/arjanv/2.5/
But use it at your own risk.

• http://www.goingware.com/notes/prosecute-sco.html

While the lawsuits being defended by IBM and filed by Red Hat are likely to put an end to The SCO Group's menace to the Free Software community, I don't think simply putting the company out of business is likely to prevent us from being threatened this way again by other companies who are enemies to our community. I feel we need to send a stronger message.

If we all work together, we can put the executives of the SCO Group in prison where they belong.

If you live in the U.S., please write a letter to your state Attorney General. If you live elsewhere, please write your national or provincial law enforcement authorities. Please ask that the SCO Group be prosecuted for criminal fraud and extortion.

Thanks for your help.

• http://www.goingware.com/notes/prosecute-sco.html

While the lawsuits being defended by IBM and filed by Red Hat are likely to put an end to The SCO Group's menace to the Free Software community, I don't think simply putting the company out of business is likely to prevent us from being threatened this way again by other companies who are enemies to our community. I feel we need to send a stronger message.

If we all work together, we can put the executives of the SCO Group in prison where they belong.

If you live in the U.S., please write a letter to your state Attorney General. If you live elsewhere, please write your national or provincial law enforcement authorities. Please ask that the SCO Group be prosecuted for criminal fraud and extortion.

Amen to that. I've had great difficulties getting my Visor PDA to talk over a USB cradle reliably on a stock RH 8 machine. Now I have written an approporiate agent script it is more reliable, but certainly not rock solid (that's without getting me started on conduits)....

One shouldn't have to get THAT deep into modules / modprobe etc in order to just talk to your PDA!

I know I'll probably get flamed for this, but dependencies problems are why I've started using the BSDs. Maintaining one FreeBSD server and two NetBSD servers takes about as long as maintaining one Red Hat 9 Linux server.

While the lawsuits being defended by IBM and filed by Red Hat are likely to put an end to The SCO Group's menace to the Free Software community, I don't think simply putting the company out of business is likely to prevent us from being threatened this way again by other companies who are enemies to our community. I feel we need to send a stronger message.

If we all work together, we can put the executives of the SCO Group in prison where they belong.

If you live in the U.S., please write a letter to your state Attorney General. If you live elsewhere, please write your national or provincial law enforcement authorities. Please ask that the SCO Group be prosecuted for criminal fraud and extortion.

It makes me very sad to write this, because I lived in Santa Cruz for fifteen years. Sam Sjogren, a close friend from Caltech, was one of SCO's first programmers, and for a little while my only friend in town after I transferred to UCSC. Many of my best friends used to work for SCO either writing code or doing tech support. I even used to sit in the company hot tub with my friends who worked there from time to time. I used to dance to the music of SCO's company band Deth Specula at parties around the town.

Before I ever installed my first Linux distro - remember Yggdrasil Plug-n-Play? - I was a happy user of a fully-licensed copy of SCO Open Desktop on my 386.

You wouldn't think the SCO Group of today is the same company that once had to tell its employees that they shouldn't be naked at work between 9 and 5 because they scared the visiting suits from AT&T. That's because it's not - the SCO Group got its name and intellectual property from SCO through an acquisition. I don't think any of the friends I once knew at the company are likely to still be working there. The SCO Group is in Utah. SCO was originally called The Santa Cruz Operation, a small father-and son consulting firm named for a beautiful small town between the mountains and the ocean in central California. The Santa Cruz Operation was once as much a bunch of freethinking hippies as any Linux hacker of today.

Yes, it makes me sad. But I digress.

It seems that SCO is asking a license fee of $699 for each Linux installation. Take a look at SCO's press release announcing the licensing program. That's just the introductory price - if we don't purchase our licenses before October 15, the price will increase to $1399.

I have three computers that run Linux. That means SCO claims I must pay $2097 today, or $4197 if I wait until after October 15. SCO says their fee applies even to devices running embedded linux, many of which were purchased by their owners for far less than SCO's "license fee".

My response is that SCO is guilty of criminal fraud and extortion. I didn't violate SCO's copyright or acquire their trade secrets through any illegal means, and it is fraud for them to claim that I did. It is extortion for them to tell me I must pay them money to avoid a lawsuit.

Even if SCO's claims are true, it is not a violation of their copyright for me to possess a copy of their code. Instead, any copyright infringement was committed by the vendors who supplied me with the Linux distributions I use.

SCO's license is actually no license at all - if it really is found that the Linux kernel contains any infringing code, the GPL forbids everyone who possesses a copy from using it at all. No one would be allowed to con

• RH Enterprise Linux for Itanium
• RH Linux for IBM, including pSeries (RS/6000), iSeries (AS/400), and zSeries / S/390. Interesting that it's only as current as RH 7.1, though.

• RH Enterprise Linux for Itanium
• RH Linux for IBM, including pSeries (RS/6000), iSeries (AS/400), and zSeries / S/390. Interesting that it's only as current as RH 7.1, though.

While the lawsuits being defended by IBM and filed by Red Hat are likely to put an end to The SCO Group's menace to the Free Software community, I don't think simply putting the company out of business is likely to prevent us from being threatened this way again by other companies who are enemies to our community. I feel we need to send a stronger message.

If we all work together, we can put the executives of the SCO Group in prison where they belong.

If you live in the U.S., please write a letter to your state Attorney General. If you live elsewhere, please write your national or provincial law enforcement authorities. Please ask that the SCO Group be prosecuted for criminal fraud and extortion.

It makes me very sad to write this, because I lived in Santa Cruz for fifteen years. Sam Sjogren, a close friend from Caltech, was one of SCO's first programmers, and for a little while my only friend in town after I transferred to UCSC. Many of my best friends used to work for SCO either writing code or doing tech support. I even used to sit in the company hot tub with my friends who worked there from time to time. I used to dance to the music of SCO's company band Deth Specula at parties around the town.

Before I ever installed my first Linux distro - remember Yggdrasil Plug-n-Play? - I was a happy user of a fully-licensed copy of SCO Open Desktop on my 386.

You wouldn't think the SCO Group of today is the same company that once had to tell its employees that they shouldn't be naked at work between 9 and 5 because they scared the visiting suits from AT&T. That's because it's not - the SCO Group got its name and intellectual property from SCO through an acquisition. I don't think any of the friends I once knew at the company are likely to still be working there. The SCO Group is in Utah. SCO was originally called The Santa Cruz Operation, a small father-and son consulting firm named for a beautiful small town between the mountains and the ocean in central California. The Santa Cruz Operation was once as much a bunch of freethinking hippies as any Linux hacker of today.

Yes, it makes me sad. But I digress.

It seems that SCO is asking a license fee of $699 for each Linux installation. Take a look at SCO's press release announcing the licensing program. That's just the introductory price - if we don't purchase our licenses before October 15, the price will increase to $1399.

I have three computers that run Linux. That means SCO claims I must pay $2097 today, or $4197 if I wait until after October 15. SCO says their fee applies even to devices running embedded linux, many of which were purchased by their owners for far less than SCO's "license fee".

My response is that SCO is guilty of criminal fraud and extortion. I didn't violate SCO's copyright or acquire their trade secrets through any illegal means, and it is fraud for them to claim that I did. It is extortion for them to tell me I must pay them money to avoid a lawsuit.

Even if SCO's claims are true, it is not a violation of their copyright for me to possess a copy of their code. Instead, any copyright infringement was committed by the vendors who supplied me with the Linux distributions I use.

SCO's license is actually no license at all - if it really is found that the Linux kernel contains any infringing code, the GPL forbids everyone who possesses a copy from using it at all. No one would be allowed to con

I'm not sure if you're just trolling or if you're seriously that underinformed.

In any case...Red Hat is doing something about it.

And IBM "will stand behind our products and our customers."

So... Let's see where this goes.

More posts from Kean Johnston of SCO:

#1
#2
#3

Check out #2 in particular. I believe that SCO would suffer a bit if the FSF dropped support for gcc and gdb. At the very least, it would send a message to SCO users that their platform is going to have a lot less software in the near future.

More posts from Kean Johnston of SCO:

#1
#2
#3

Check out #2 in particular. I believe that SCO would suffer a bit if the FSF dropped support for gcc and gdb. At the very least, it would send a message to SCO users that their platform is going to have a lot less software in the near future.

More posts from Kean Johnston of SCO:

#1
#2
#3

Check out #2 in particular. I believe that SCO would suffer a bit if the FSF dropped support for gcc and gdb. At the very least, it would send a message to SCO users that their platform is going to have a lot less software in the near future.

if you had have bought SCO stock at the start of all this you would be around 500% better of now.

I haven't seen a Windows kernel advisory, either.

Here us one.

Alan Cox won't reveal anything about kernel security out of fear of the DMCA.

He can use an anonymous remailer if he wants to publish verifiable information about security vulnerabilities. But Alan is neither the Linux Security Czar, nor does he maintain 2.4.x.

However, it's true that publishing detailed vendor security advisories results in significant legal risks for the vendor. For software, it appears to be easy to exclude any warranties, but not for documents describing its behavior. But guess what? Microsoft is now willing to take such risks to protect customers. Why shouldn't Red Hat do the same?

Most of the published insecurities with either system are in the libraries or applications, not the kernel.

This certainly doesn't exempt developers from handling security issues if they arise anyway. There are still enough security issues in the kernel, and the maintainers should have gained some experience in dealing with it.

But the kernel is just symptomatic for the whole system. Many subprojects aren't much better. Some do not bother to issue any advisories at all, some prefer very cryptic ones (BIND, Apache, OpenSSH). Sometimes, there are shining exceptions, such as recent Postfix advisory (however regrettable its necessity might be). Everything's there, especially how to tell if you are vulnerable, and how to apply countermeasures without changing the software itself. Compare it with the advisory from Red Hat.

Here. Sorry if this was already posted. *gets beaten up*

I found this link which has more details, looks like it is EAL2 after all. I also found that Red Hat and Oracle are planning on going after EAL4 for the latest RHAS so the W2K advantage might be short lived.