Slashdot Mirror


Sun Rethinking Linux Strategy Over SCO Lawsuit

manyoso writes "Sun is waisting no time taking advantage of the SCO lawsuit against IBM. They are making statements trying to play up Solaris as a safe harbor for worried Linux and IBM users. John Loiacono, VP of Sun's operating platforms group, "For people looking at the issues at hand, we are a safe harbor. We have absolute rights to our technology ... We're changing our strategy around Linux (but) we're pausing because we're trying to figure out what the implications of this are going to be". So, this begs the questions... What are the short term implications for the new Linux based desktop we've been hearing about from our fair weather friends? How will the SCO lawsuit affect Sun's long term strategy with Linux and Open Source?"

24 of 491 comments (clear)

  1. SCO in its death throes. by acceleriter · · Score: 4, Insightful

    This lawsuit doesn't mean a thing in the long term. Either SCO will end up (finally) dead or as a wholly owned subsidiary of IBM. They figured out that selling something available for free didn't work, and now they're about to discover that trying to gouge former customers for license fees doesn't work either. And it's about time.

    --

    CEE5210S The signal SIGHUP was received.

    1. Re:SCO in its death throes. by IWannaBeAnAC · · Score: 4, Insightful
      No. The GPL explicitly requires that if you own any patent rights on the code, then you must allow everyone all the usual GPL rights on modifications and distribution.

      That is, either everybody can share the code with no restrictions (other than the usual GPL), or nobody can - not even SCO themselves.

      But the whole thing is silly anyway, it can only possibly affect more recent parts of Linux, the core parts (e2fs filesystem etc) are pretty obviously developed independently of SCO, and owes nothing to them. Indeed, the main response from everyone is that the whole complaint from the beginning is a load of hot air. Especially since they havn't actually given any details on exactly what parts of the kernel are supposed to be infringing their patents.

    2. Re:SCO in its death throes. by manyoso · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Quit spreading this stupid FUD. You are making yourself look very silly. Qt is Free Software licensed under the GNU GPL. Trolltech has no way to 'turn the screw' and Qt would be released under the BSD license if they did. Besides, Trolltech is one of the most graceful and pleasant Free Software companies around. They have given and given to the community and we have no reason to mistrust them. The SCO connection is dubious at best since they have invested at most 5%.

      Keep your petty Trolltech FUD to yourself please.

    3. Re:SCO in its death throes. by Daniel+Phillips · · Score: 4, Informative

      Yep. I've got the impression that IBM has only recently started contributing scalability-related stuff, i.e. their work will be seen in 2.6 series of kernels.

      What they did is contribute people. The Linux work done by those people is original. I know this to be true, since I've been working with them from the start (on the VM/scalability front) and we have the irc logs where the ideas were born and developed, including ideas originated by non-IBM people and developed further by IBM people. IBM also contributed the patented RCU lockless sharing algorithm and contributed a license as well, as required by the GPL. Besides that, I don't know of a single instance of IBM people contributing anything other hard work, original engineering and creativity.

      --
      Have you got your LWN subscription yet?
    4. Re:SCO in its death throes. by manyoso · · Score: 4, Informative

      If Trolltech ever discontinues licensing Qt as GPL then it automatically can be licensed under the BSD. This is the purpose of the KDE Free Qt Foundation. This has been all worked out long ago:

      http://www.kde.org/whatiskde/kdefreeqtfoundation .p hp

  2. Tells you a lot... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    When their stock rises 40% on a worthless lawsuit. You just gotta ask yourself, what the hell value did they have before, when worthless adds 40% to them?

    It's like David and Goliath - sure, David beat Goliath... once. Who's taking bets that SCO won't be the one killing the giant that is IBM?

    Sun had better not gloat too much - they may as well be the next ones on SCO's list of people to sue for making something remotely resembling UNIX.

    -Erwos

    1. Re:Tells you a lot... by elmegil · · Score: 4, Informative
      You seem to think that Sun is one monolithic Borgish hive mind that has one perspective on Linux. As a Sun employee, let me disabuse you of the notion. There are a wide range of opinions about Linux internally, and there are plenty of Linux "bigots" included in that range, as well as the opposite side Solaris "bigots".

      It's my impression (in my personal opinion, not based on anything "proprietary" I've been told because I haven't been) that this announcement is a combination of lawyers and PR folks wanting to make it clear that Solaris is not subject to any such lawsuits from SCO and wanting to reassure our customers and shareholders that we won't get so far with our linux strategy as to get ourselves entangled on that score. "We're pausing to see what the implications are" is not "AVOID LINUX!!! IT'S DANGEROUS!!". It's smart business practice to keep from being dragged into a potential tar baby.

      Just because you and I believe that the lawsuit is completely frivolous doesn't mean that a large corporation can blythely assume the outcome of litigation and proceed on a path that might lead to problems for us and our sharelholders.

      --
      7 November 2006: The day Americans realized corruption and incompetence weren't addressing 11 September 2001
  3. Dennis Ritchie's Thoughts on the SCO/IBM Subject by zoid.com · · Score: 5, Informative

    I found this in the alt.folklore.computers news group.

  4. Re:The SUN is setting... by Angry+White+Guy · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Unfortunately, these dinosours give us something that we need: Choice. I really don't want to see the whole computer industry to be M$ or RedHat.

    --
    You think that I'm crazy, you should see this guy!
  5. Implications by 1nv4d3r · · Score: 4, Insightful

    From Sun: We're changing our strategy around Linux (but) we're pausing because we're trying to figure out what the implications of this are going to be.

    From where I stand, the implication of you pausing is that you're embarassing yourself worse than SCO. I'd never buy a product from a company scared that SCO will somehow take IBM for $1Billion, or somehow stop Linux development.

    At least we can understand that the lawsuit is SCO gasping its dying breath. Sun just looks stupid.

  6. It doesn't make much difference by Ami+Ganguli · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Sun's big contribution to Linux is OpenOffice. Their efforts on Linux proper have been pretty limited anyway.

    Honestly, though, I don't think will effect their Linux strategy either. It's just a short-term marketing/PR stunt.

    Despite what they say, I really doubt that Sun thinks they can keep people on Solaris long-term. They're just not that dumb. More likely they're trying to keep customers from defecting for a few years while they work on improving the upper layers of their environment (Java, SunONE). Then they can switch the bottom layer to Linux but keep some proprietary advantages.

    --
    It is tempting, if the only tool you have is a hammer, to treat everything as if it were a nail. - Abraham Maslow
    1. Re:It doesn't make much difference by christophersaul · · Score: 4, Insightful

      What do you mean by long term? There's a ten year road map for Solaris, there are hundreds of thousands of customers and Solaris excels over Linux in various areas.

      The two OSes can sit together well in Sun's strategy.

    2. Re:It doesn't make much difference by nbvb · · Score: 4, Insightful
      It scales enough.


      Until it outperforms Solaris on a 106-way Sun Fire 15k, I'd say it doesn't scale enough.

      Until it outperforms HP-UX on a Superdome, I'd say it doesn't scale enough.

      Until it outperforms AIX on a Regatta, I'd say it doesn't scale enough.

      "Most" people may use some desktop-class Intel PC-type servers, but the real money is in high-end systems.

      At my job, I have all 3 of the above; Linux isn't even an option for us.

      When you run Really Big Databases (tm), Linux isn't an option. When you require 4-9's or 5-9's of uptime, Linux isn't an option.

      With Sun, HP & IBM, I get a bunch of suits who show up to soothe management every time there's an outage, large or small.

      What do I get with Linux? Some 14-year old from the Czech Republic?

      This isn't to say that Linux doesn't have a place in the world; it does. It just isn't on the high end.

      --NBVB
  7. The king is dead...long live the King! by RoyBoy · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Hmm, I wonder if anyone here can detect the cycle here:

    Sun/SGI/HP/IBM all make big, expensive, customized Un*x-based platforms, that are huge cash-cows for a long time and get people to buy in on the promise of "open standards" while all the while working to "differentiate" their platform enough to keep customers from switching.

    Meanwhile, IBM hedged it's bets on a low-end platform cooked up in Boca Raton with a crappy OS and a ridiculous licensing deal with some kid out of Seattle.

    Ten years later, the gloss is starting to fade on the Un*x side (mostly due to lack of innovation broughht about by lack of real standards and a serious lack of competition) while the PC side is about to get into the fast track with 32-bit CPUs and a REAL OS co-written by IBM and the slimeballs from upstate Washington.

    On the other side of the planet, a smart young CS student is whipping up a bit of the ole black magic, and with a little help from some GNU friends, will soon unleash the original Unix concept back onto the masses (Portability - what portability? This is UNIX my boy!).

    Another ten years pass, the PC is ruling the roost once M$ screwed IBM, and the big Un*x guys are all searching high and low for a raison d'etre. The smart ones (read: IBM?!?) figure out that the kid from Finland was really on to something, and they'll never have to pay Redmond a damn cent for it, so they go whole hog. Those that keep fighting, start to die the slow death of ignorant luddites (can you say SGI boys and girls -- I knew you could! Gee, I wonder where 3Dfx and nVidia got all those engineers from!)

    Ok, so who's still left out of our wrap up? SCO, who's failed attempt to corner the market on Un*x on Intel (haha, Open Server my A$$!)? Looks like tricky lawyering is truly the last bastion of the dying corporation (right up there with sneaky accounting tricks 101 on the VC Top 10 list).

    What about poor Sun, who went from knowing the network was the computer before there even was a network, to being the dot in some dumbass VC plan, to being a wishy-washy half-way cover-our-asses supporter of all thing not-M$. Geez, the enemy of my enemy and all that, but Larry E? Come on guys. And now this? Forget the purple PC, and forget the Slowlaris "better TCO and long term stability" crap and contribute what you have to the one true Open movement - Open Source! IF Sun spent 1/4 of the $$$ they have on FUDding Slowlaris vs. Linux on porting theyr fantastic sh*t to Linux, they could be a real force to be reckoned with (hello IBM? Wannt do the enemry-of-my thing?).

    All I know is they all better watch out, because once the Chinese start mass-producing cluster machines made with Godson-2's onto 1U racks running Linux, the game's up for those who would be king!

    Just my $0.02...YMMV

    --
    -- People who think they know it all, really annoy those of us who do!
  8. Re:I've karma to burn... by James_Duncan8181 · · Score: 5, Interesting
    The suit does not allgege that any code was directly copied - it alleges that the concepts were reused, and that linux could not have adanced so far/fast without IBM slipping SCO code to us under the table. I find this quite insulting. Amusingly, it then goes on the say that Big Blue does not have the expertise to produce a OS without SCO code *snigger snigger*. Now I have seen IBM accused of many things, but technical incompetence is not one of them. I would personally say that OS/2 and the fact that IBM produced the original arch suggests they might just be able to program and design...jeez. Combine this with IBM's famous paranoia on IP issues, and it starts (!) to sound like complete and utter bollocks from a failing company. Personally I hope they don't get bought out by IBM but crushed into a small, smoking pile of rubble. I will then enjoy seeing IBM perchase the UNIX rights for pennies in the dollar when SCO go tits up.

    Goodbye SCO, I won't miss you...

    --
    "To any truly impartial person, it would be obvious that I am right."
  9. For those who are as confused as i was by chabotc · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The headline quotes "has a impact on Sun's shifting linux strategies". Since it doesn't give a lot of context it's a bit hard to know exactly what is ment by that. What happened is that days before it was anounced that Sun is considering striking up partnerships with mainstream Linux sellers such as Red Hat and SuSE (dated march 6). However a day later (march 7), the news breaks that The suit could affect SCO's relationship with Linux seller SuSE, whose version of Linux is the foundation of the UnitedLinux products SCO uses. Plus ofcource the posible implications for Linux patent violations at large such as forinstance the ELF binary format (SCO claims its a derivative of COFF), and other area's of linux..

    Thus sun is in the mess that they decided to investigate how and if they should dive into the linux pool, but the day that news breaks, the pilar of their company (Unix servers, OS, etc) and the company they licence rights to use this from gets into a fight with linux and their bigest threat in the large-server-space.

    It's gotta be shitty to be Sun to be in that position, they can't really afford to alianate either camp (openoffice, gnome2 and mozilla are contributed to or owned by them and linux seems to be a way to go for the future) but their current income comes largely from selling & maintaining large servers and they can not afford to give out the slightest impression that that market could be in any trouble, because customers buy them for the 'five nines' dream (99.999% availability)

    To deep in either way to get out.. they'll have to do a switcherland if you ask me

  10. Read the article!!! by srp3 · · Score: 5, Insightful
    So, in reading the article (and in finding the quote in context), Sun's doing a strategy shift to Linux, this comes up, and they have to figure out what the implications of this are. Are they going to be dragged into this suit? Are they safe from it because they have a license that covers it?

    NO WHERE in the article did they say they were stopping Linux support.

    The original poster of this article makes it sound like Sun's just going to drop everything now that the lawsuit is happening to other folks, and THAT IS NOT WHAT THE ARTICLE SAYS.

  11. The Great Savior by Myuu · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Things just can't get any better for IBM as far as it public images, can it?

    With the $1b it spent on Linux a few years ago, it got the view of the great savior of linux and the rebel with a cause.

    Now look at this suite and what half the linux community is seeing, its now the great defender and the motherly figure.

    Thought it couldnt top itself before. Got to love IBM.

    --

    forget it.
  12. Re:David Boies by Get+Behind+the+Mule · · Score: 4, Informative
    ... SCO has hired David Boies to prosecute their case. Nice choice. Lost the DOJ case against Microsoft. Lost the Gore case for the White House.


    No, David Boies didn't lose the DOJ case. He worked the trial before Judge Jackson, and won decisively -- most observers said that he beat the crap out of M$'s team. Then Bush got elected, and they certainly weren't about to keep working with Boies. Instead, it was the new administration who decided to let M$ walk.

    As for Bush v. Gore, I think even if God Himself had been Gore's lawyer, He wouldn't have had a chance against the Rehnquist Five.

    But at any rate, I was rooting for him in both of those cases, and I'm very dismayed to see him join the wrong side now.
  13. Re:This is Bill Gates' Wet Dream by TKinias · · Score: 4, Funny

    scripsit rseuhs:

    Heck, they can't even implement 64Bit Windows in a timely manner and will lose a lot of their server marketshare in the 32->64 Bit conversion.

    Heck, when was it exactly that they finally got the 16 bit code out of Windows? Or have they? Does anyone even know? ;)

    Usually the easy explanation is the right one.

    Please don't bring reasoned arguments into this. Conspiracy is more fun.

    Anyway, I kind of like spheres on spheres, too -- what kind of geek wouldn't prefer that to boring old elliptical orbits?

    --
    In principio creauit Linus Linucem.
  14. Not good for Microsoft either by einhverfr · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I don't think this neccesarily has to be some sort of MSFT scheme.

    If it is, Gates, Ballmer, and their entire legal department are far more incompetent than I had thought. Consider the following:

    1: Microsoft licensed UNIX back in the day and produced Xenix. They then sold this to Santa Clara Operations (SCO). I would be *highly* surprised if *none* of the original Xenix engineers are still at Microsoft. So this suit could affect them too. And Caldera/SCO has a history of sueing Microsoft.

    2: This whole thing is extremely bad for Shared Source. It may be bad for Open Source if it wins, but it would be far far worse for shared source.


    Great business model, isn't it? You don't need to make a profit selling anything, just sue those who do.


    Have you actually talked to the Caldera sales reps? They are either clueless about the licensing of RedHat or SuSE.

    The business model of SCO seems to be based on an idea that since proprietary software is the most common way of developing corporate software today, that Linux should be put into that box. They think that customers need support and don't need the flexibility that open source offers.

    In this view the GPL is bad, and Randsom Love's comments to this effect make sense. But it ignores the reason *why* open source is gaining in many markets-- becuase if I run a network, I can roll out a pilot database server using Linux and PostgreSQL with no licensing overhead. Sure, I will have to get approval for the hardware, but that is it (assuming the improbable, that the management understands the licensing). It is the flexibility that this sort fo thing offers a company that is important. If I want I can deploy now, test now, and then get support when I am ready to make it official.

    So Caldera is not happy with the GPL, is not focused (as I think RedHat and SuSE are) on helping companies *use* linux. They are instead trying to sell it like NT.

    --

    LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
  15. People are showing their cards by fjpereira · · Score: 5, Informative
    At least we are starting to know who are our enemies: SCO and SUN are showing their faces.

    I don't think SCO has a chance:

    1 - First, IBM has too many patents to counter-sue SCO.
    2 - Second, I think most the stuff that IBM has been bringing to Linux, like their journaling file-system and LVM is very recent software, that was develloped by IBM staff and not derived from the ancient Sys-V.
    3 - Even if we have to remove the parts developed by IBM from the current Linux kernels, we would still have sevaral alternative implementations.
    4 - Evern if SCO has patents that cover some parts of the Linux kernel, they (SCO) have also been distributing Linux under the GPL. Consequently, they have offered permition for everybody use it.
    5 - SCO can also be sued for using the Linux trademark: remember Linus owns the Linux trademark.

    Finally, this shouldn't be a major concern to the open source community, becvause even if we couldn't use the Linux kernel, we could allways move to HURD or a BSD kernel.
    For most aplications, users wouldn't see almost any change.
    BSD has already had a batle in court and won.

    In the end, we will be stronger than now.

  16. SOS: Same old Sun by PaddyM · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Whatever. Sun is so schizophrenic it's amusing.

    "Sell Solaris Computers" "Let's sell Intel computers running Linux." "Wait, uh, let's sell both" "Buy StarOffice" "Open Source StarOffice" "Uhh Whoops. Let's close source StarOffice again" "Whoa! This nanotechnology freaks me out. Maybe we should stop innovating altogether" "Java this. Java that. Java is great!" "Let's sue Microsoft and force them to include the latest Java on their desktop" "Strange, we don't seem to be using Java very often, I wonder if Microsft was on to something" "Whoa. SCO's suing everyone. Maybe we shouldn't be involved in Linux, after all."

  17. What about BSD (Seriously)? by callipygian-showsyst · · Score: 4, Interesting
    Are FreeBSD, OpenBSD, OpenDarwin, and OS X likely to be unencumbered by patent claims?

    Just wondering.