SuSE may drop out of UnitedLinux

Great Move... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-03-10 09:14 · Score: 0, Flamebait

Sounds like people are waking up and smelling the coffee..

Good. by Drathus · 2003-03-10 09:15 · Score: 5, Interesting

Good for SuSE.

Why should they stick around when SCO shoots itself in the foot?

Re:Good. by chadm1967 · 2003-03-10 12:58 · Score: 1

I have a new respect for SuSE.
Re:Good. by u-235-sentinel · 2003-03-11 03:06 · Score: 2

Fortunately it shows just how much class SUSE has.

I've used their products for years. While I mainly use RedHat, I've been impressed and couldn't imagine them not responding to something this stupid.

Perhaps the other's in United Linux will consider their position with SCO and follow suit.

--
Has Comcast disconnected your Internet account? Same here. You can read about it at http://comcastissue.blogspot.com
Re:Good. by HiThere · 2003-03-11 03:46 · Score: 1

I may have more respect for them after they do something. I do understand that corporations take time to make decisions, but that's OK. I'm willing to suspend judgement.

OTOH, I keep remembering that YAST is a proprietary installer. Something I consider quite bad, however technically excellent it may be.

I switched over to Linux because of license issues. And It's because of license issues (this time YAST) that I've only installed SuSE once. It sounds like technically excellent distribution, but if that were my criterion I would probably be wanting to get my hands on Windows XP instead of dreading the day that my company forces me to resign by starting to use it. But I take licenses quite seriously. and because of that I ... well, several things. Among them, I feel that SuSE is a marginally acceptable Linux company. It's only one step from a proprietary installer to a per-seat installation charge. And then good-bye to easy distribution.

There are good reasons why most distributions are derivitives of either Red Hat or Debian. SCO represents the opposite of these companies. But there are reasons why SuSE found them compatible.

I can't speak to TurboLinux or Connectiva. I don't know enough about either of them.

--

I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
Re:Good. by Anonym0us+Cow+Herd · 2003-03-11 04:53 · Score: 1
I keep remembering that YAST is a proprietary installer. Something I consider quite bad, however technically excellent it may be.

The installer and yast are outstanding. The sources are included. The license is not what you want based upon reading your post.

But I should point out...
- SuSE does allow you to copy the CD's for your friends providing no money changes hands. (Last time I read their license. SuSE people have also stated this on usenet.)
- SuSE does allow you to buy a box and install on many boxes.
- Since you can inspect the YaST sources, you can use techniques learned there to improve other Free install and management systems.
Yes, ideally we'll eventually get a totally Free, high quality, non-geek friendly distro that is easy to install, set up, configure, manage and auto-upgrade. In the meantime, for pragmatic reasons, I continue to buy each and every box of SuSE that comes out. (About 2 or 3 per year.)
--
The price of freedom is eternal litigation.
Re:Good. by ccp · 2003-03-11 10:02 · Score: 1

Just two words: Man-drake

Cheers,
Re:Good. by Anonym0us+Cow+Herd · 2003-03-11 10:44 · Score: 1

Man who?

Isn't the root of this plant an aphrodesiac?

One of the things I like about suse is thousands of pre-compiled no-fuss packages. Pick something in yast to install. Then it says "Please insert CD number 5". You insert CD 5, it does spin, spin. Then it says "Please insert CD number 6".

Do any other distributions do this yet? What about online update? I may just be out of touch, having used suse for so long.

I'm happy to pay for suse. An execllent product. Excellent integration of packages. Yast seems to be able to manage more and more of the system with each release. (i.e. fewer config files to mess with, and only with increasingly exotic things.) As long as they play nice, I will probably stick with them. Convenience. Slightly similar to the reasons some people pay for Win XP.

If SuSE ever turns nasty like SCO, then switching from SuSE to Brand-X Linux would not be as painful as switching from Windows. In fact, would probably have very little pain indeed.

--
The price of freedom is eternal litigation.

SuSE *IS* United Linux by Anthony+Boyd · 2003-03-10 09:16 · Score: 5, Insightful

If SuSE drops out, do the "UnitedLinux" gang have anything left? Isn't UnitedLinux based upon SuSE 8.1?

--
My Greasemonkey scripts for Digg &

Re:SuSE *IS* United Linux by krray · 2003-03-10 09:20 · Score: 5, Interesting

Well, I would _think_ UnitedLinux would want to use one of their own members distrobution, but there is nothing to say that UnitedLinux couldn't base their system off of RedHat -- even though RedHat isn't a member.

Are they pretty screwed though? Yeah...
Re:SuSE *IS* United Linux by zanderredux · 2003-03-10 09:25 · Score: 3, Interesting

UnitedLinux would want to use one of their own members distrobution. In fact, Conectiva is based upon RedHat, but I think that geography would be an issue for Conectiva (they're based in Brazil).
Re:SuSE *IS* United Linux by Anonymous Coward · 2003-03-10 09:30 · Score: 5, Funny

Ah, but United Linux is much more than just Suse 8.1. No one part of United Linux is greater than any other part. Caldera, Conectiva, SuSE and Turbolinux have all combined into one Linux distro.

Its kind of like Voltron for crap.
Re:SuSE *IS* United Linux by Anonymous Coward · 2003-03-10 09:37 · Score: 1, Funny

I'll form the head!
Re:SuSE *IS* United Linux by Angry+White+Guy · 2003-03-10 09:50 · Score: 5, Funny

And Calderra/SCO will form the asshole.

--
You think that I'm crazy, you should see this guy!
Re:SuSE *IS* United Linux by Anonymous Coward · 2003-03-10 10:04 · Score: 0

I think you're mistaken... UnitedLinux is based on the Debian Potato build. They're using SuSE's excellent installer (Debian's is sh*t). Based on the strength of Debian's distribution, I don't think SuSE will be missed.
Re:SuSE *IS* United Linux by Anonymous Coward · 2003-03-10 10:13 · Score: 0

I guess SuSE's like that one pilot with a Swedish accent who disappears during the first few episodes then shows up at the end of the series.
Re:SuSE *IS* United Linux by Anonymous Coward · 2003-03-10 10:18 · Score: 0

or the dick
Re:SuSE *IS* United Linux by aergern · 2003-03-10 11:28 · Score: 2

hahahah!

SuSE is absolutely UL. The others are just repackaging and rebranding it to suit their needs. SuSE and Conectiva could care on..but what would be the point if no one else joins. Everyone things there is some difference between UL and SuSE..NOT! The others are unneeded...however if SuSE left the group. There would be nothing.

--
Tell me what you believe...I'll tell you what you should see.
Re:SuSE *IS* United Linux by Daniel+Phillips · 2003-03-10 15:31 · Score: 1

If SuSE drops out, do the "UnitedLinux" gang have anything left? Isn't UnitedLinux based upon SuSE 8.1?

As far as I know, United Linux was Ransom "All your codes are belong to us" Love's idea. Personally, I think everybody should stay as far away from Caldera/SCO as possible, now that they've revealed themselves.

Suse and Conectiva are both excellent companies that contribute a lot to the community, deliver fine products, and deserve to succeed. If anybody should pool resources, it's these two. It helps a lot that their target markets are completely separate.

--
Have you got your LWN subscription yet?
Re:SuSE *IS* United Linux by Anonymous Coward · 2003-03-10 17:08 · Score: 0

"And I'm nuts!"
Re:SuSE *IS* United Linux by floydman · 2003-03-10 22:51 · Score: 1

well, i guess in that case SuE will have to give up all the effort it spent and leave it to SCO/Caledra. Then SCO will get all the credit.

--
The lunatic is in my head

In other news.... by Ogrez · 2003-03-10 09:16 · Score: 5, Funny

SUSE spokesman Bruce Campbell was quoted as saying... "Look man, I dont even know these assholes!"

--

Fire in the hands of the village idiot is no tool, but a weapon of mass destruction

Re:In other news.... by JudgeFurious · 2003-03-10 09:19 · Score: 5, Funny

...and he further stated "So now you send me back right? Like in the deal!"

--
Appended to the end of comments you post. 120 chars.
Re:In other news.... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-03-10 10:19 · Score: 2, Interesting

Ash: Whoa Whoa you .. you don't understand you've got the wrong guy. I've never even seen these assholes before.

Henry, Henry ... you've gotta tell em ... you've gotta tell em you've never seen me before.

Henry: I do not think he'll listen lad ... oh sorry
Re:In other news.... by t0ny · 2003-03-10 13:19 · Score: 1

SUSE spokesman Bruce Campbell was quoted as saying... "Look man, I dont even know these assholes!"
WOW, he's their spokesperson? I LOVED "Armies of Darkness"!!
Hail to the King, BABY!!

--
Manipulate the moderator system! Mod someone as "overrated" today.
Re:In other news.... by CAIMLAS · 2003-03-10 13:45 · Score: 1

Haha, I can just see BC going at it with RMS about basic philosophy... "Listen up, you primative screwheads. You want a piece of this? Come get some."

(yeah, I realize those aren't sequential quotes, but deal and don't get your sack in a knot.)

--
~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
Re:In other news.... by Daemonik · 2003-03-11 04:20 · Score: 1

Soon to be available at your local S-Mart, Boomstick Linux. Hail to the King baby.

Hard to believe they're the only ones by corebreech · 2003-03-10 09:16 · Score: 4, Funny

SCO lets loose with one of the silent-but-deadly variety, and everybody is still in the room?

--
Is this truly the only Earth I can live on?

Re: Hard to believe they're the only ones by Black+Parrot · 2003-03-10 09:42 · Score: 2, Informative

> SCO lets loose with one of the silent-but-deadly variety, and everybody is still in the room?

It's more like an elevator: everyone is eagerly awaiting the next stop.

--
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
Re:Hard to believe they're the only ones by Anonymous Coward · 2003-03-10 10:38 · Score: 3, Funny

Silent my ass! This was the sitting on a steel chair in church after eating Taco Bell for breakfast variety.
Re:Hard to believe they're the only ones by Anonymous Coward · 2003-03-10 11:02 · Score: 0

Look at who 'everybody' is. With the exception of SuSE, none of them have anyplace else to go. Just hope SCO doesn't drag them down on the way.

Wrong Wired Link by Mr.Phil · 2003-03-10 09:17 · Score: 5, Informative

At my viewing, the wired article link goes to the talk back, not the article.

This is the correct link http://www.wired.com/news/infostructure/0,1377,579 55,00.html

Bad news. by Anonymous Coward · 2003-03-10 09:18 · Score: 5, Interesting

This is very bad news. I thought UnitedLinux was actually a good idea. It's sad to see it start dissolving because of one bad member. Is there any way for the other groups to kick SCO out, or perhaps form a different group and exclude SCO. This would be a better alternative than everyone splintering again.

Re:Bad news. by gmp · 2003-03-10 09:38 · Score: 5, Insightful

The SCO suit is an example of what happens to former SCO technology development partners. Its perfectly reasonable to view a frivolous lawsuit like this as an indication that SCO is not a safe company to collaborate with. UnitedLinux members: watch out.
Re:Bad news. by tomhudson · 2003-03-10 09:44 · Score: 4, Interesting

from the unitedlinux site:
01/14/2003
UnitedLinux Signs IBM and AMD as First Technology Partners
Didn't take them long (less than 2 months) to screw over their first serious partner. I figured there'd be problems when I tried to download their (unitedlinux) distro after they sent me an email saying it was available, and their server was pretty much hosed.
Re:Bad news. by N3WBI3 · 2003-03-10 10:11 · Score: 0, Troll

Im sorry but they were never anything but 'were not RedHat', hell I am suprised Suse did not pull out earlier..

--
Re:Bad news. by jmacleod9975 · 2003-03-10 11:06 · Score: 2, Funny

United Linux should have gone Dr. Evil on SCO.

Dr. Evil: Okay everybody leave! Except for you SUSE, cept for you Number 2 turbolinux, and you Conectiva S.A. cept for you Goldmember, cept for you guy back there, cept for you guy pretending he's working on the computer but really not...
*SCO looks at Dr. Evil*
Dr. Evil: Yeah! Tight moment right here!
Goldmember: HaHa! Little guy can't take a hint!
Re:Bad news. by Anonymous Coward · 2003-03-10 11:15 · Score: 1, Insightful

It is always a good idea not to be associated with
Caldera, or anyone who with a straight face is against the GPL. Now they
learned -- although Red Hat learned this 9 years ago!
Re:Bad news. by Anonymous Coward · 2003-03-10 12:08 · Score: 0

UUnitedLinux
Re:Bad news. by Anonymous Coward · 2003-03-10 15:45 · Score: 0

Yeah, UnitedLinux is just like UnitedState. Look out whom you are partner with. You are either with us or you are with the terrorist.

Which would be better... by Nate+B. · 2003-03-10 09:18 · Score: 3, Interesting

... for SuSE to drop out or for the other participants to kick SCO-Caldera out? Could the members even boot another out of the consortium?

Perhaps SCO-Caldera has made it plain that they have no intention of leaving United Linux. If so, then it's a good bet that the other vendors will find it necessary to withdraw and leave SCO-Caldera holding the bag, so to speak.

--

"Insanity is doing the same thing over again expecting a different result."

Re:Which would be better... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-03-10 09:22 · Score: 2, Interesting

Although I have no legal background on this, I would surmise that leaving an organization and reforming would be better than kicking someone out.

If they kicked SCO out, SCO would probably turn around and find some excuse to sue. Leave, wait a bit, and reform under a different name would probably be better.
Re: Which would be better... by Black+Parrot · 2003-03-10 09:23 · Score: 2, Funny

> ... for SuSE to drop out or for the other participants to kick SCO-Caldera out? Could the members even boot another out of the consortium?

Yep, they could all quit and then start a new consortium without inviting SCO to join.

SCO would undoubtedly sue them though, claiming that it was impossible for a consortium to work without stealing something from SCO.

--
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
Re:Which would be better... by sweetooth · 2003-03-10 09:27 · Score: 5, Funny

I've got it....

ReUnited Linux!

Oh dear.... did I actually just post that?
Re:Which would be better... by The+Analog+Kid · 2003-03-10 09:42 · Score: 1

Well then like on that one Simpsons episode the other memebers of United Linux can make a new club and call it the "No SCO-Caldera club" or "United with everyone else except SCO-Caldera" Not that its a club more like a partnership.
Re:Which would be better... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-03-10 09:47 · Score: 0

If they reorganize, maybe they'll call themselves SCO-Free Linux (aka SCOF Linux)
Re:Which would be better... by kfg · 2003-03-10 09:47 · Score: 3, Funny

Or how about "The Linux Confederacy"?

KFG
Re:Which would be better... by tomhudson · 2003-03-10 09:57 · Score: 1

Well, 7-Up calls themselves the un-cola.
SCO claims sole ownership of the UNIX trademark
So the new partnership coulb be called UN-UNIX
(sort of like a pun on the UN as well)
Re:Which would be better... by machine+of+god · 2003-03-10 10:06 · Score: 1

The confederate states of linux?
Re:Which would be better... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-03-10 10:24 · Score: 0

Yes Pooh, you did...
Re:Which would be better... by einhverfr · 2003-03-10 10:24 · Score: 2, Funny

Well, 7-Up calls themselves the un-cola.

SCO claims sole ownership of the UNIX trademark

Leaving aside for a moment the fact that the UNIX trademark is owned by the Open Group and that what SCO owns is the source code of the original Linux....

Are you suggesting that they call it UNSCO?

I have a better idea-- UNSCO Megaconglomerate, or UNSCOM, and then they can ask the NSA to join with their SE-Linux ;-)

OK, so that was a really bad joke with war looming with Iraq and all, but it had to be said :-P

--

LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
Re:Which would be better... by GOD_ALMIGHTY · 2003-03-10 10:30 · Score: 2, Interesting

This might actually work for Connectiva, given the large numbers of Confederates that emigrated to Brazil after the South lost the US Civil War. There was a National Geographic on this a few years ago. Pretty interesting read.

--
Arrogance is Confidence which lacks integrity. -- me
Re:Which would be better... by CoolVibe · 2003-03-10 10:41 · Score: 1

Hah! The South Pole will rise again! Fear the penguin!
(right, I'll stop...)
Re:Which would be better... by CoolVibe · 2003-03-10 10:44 · Score: 1

...and that what SCO owns is the source code of the original Linux....
So you're saying that you agree with SCO and their silly suit?
Yah I know, that was a brainfarted typo you made. Couldn't help reacting :) We all know you ment "original UNIX" instead of "original Linux".
Re:Which would be better... by fobbman · 2003-03-10 11:02 · Score: 1

Damn you, like I needed a freaking Peaches and Herb song going through my head. It wouldn't be so bad if the voices weren't singing along...
Re:Which would be better... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-03-10 11:06 · Score: 0

what SCO owns is the source code of the original Linux....
When the hell did this happen?!!!
Re:Which would be better... by tloh · 2003-03-10 11:14 · Score: 3, Insightful

I'm sorry, but did I miss something here? Why does everyone think SuSE is quiting UnitedLinux?
How does "*reevaluating* our relationship with the SCO Group" get universally interpreted as "unconditional withdrawl from UnitedLinux"? If I'm not mistaken, the SuSE guy also said: "That said, we want to very clearly and unequivocally voice our support of the ideals and goals of UnitedLinux and the Linux community." To me, it seems like SuSE is sending a subtle message to the other members of UnitedLinux, urging them to adopt their own posture toward SCO. I mean, it seems childish for SuSE to quit on account of one rogue member. Doesn't the rest of UnitedLinux stand to loose much more from loosing SuSE than keeping SCO? Perhaps I don't understand the group dynamics involved in a collaberation like UnitedLinux, but the impression I get from reading the threads on this story make it seem like individual members of the consortium, for the most part, do their own thing....hardly a good way to accomplish a *United*anything.

--
Stay sentient. Don't drink bad milk.
Re:Which would be better... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-03-10 11:29 · Score: 0

I'm imagining a penguin with the voice of Foghorn Leghorn. "I say, I say, Linux rools!"
Re:Which would be better... by L7_ · 2003-03-10 11:38 · Score: 1

Wouldn't they just call themselves 'IX'? :D
Re:Which would be better... by Ozan · 2003-03-10 12:23 · Score: 1

ReUnited Linux!

I will misoutmatch that:
GNU/Linux: The Next Generation
Re:Which would be better... by RestiffBard · 2003-03-10 12:31 · Score: 1

my lord you are such a geek. and I am no better for feeling bad that I missed the episode...

--
- /* dead coders leave no comments */
Re: Which would be better... by crusher-1 · 2003-03-10 14:33 · Score: 1

SCO would undoubtedly sue them though, claiming that it was impossible for a consortium to work without stealing something from SCO.

Didn't SCO invent Linux? No... wait! I got confused, I was thinking about that Al Gore and the internet thing. :-/
Re:Which would be better... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-03-10 15:48 · Score: 0

or Linux Republic.
Re:Which would be better... by PONA-Boy · 2003-03-10 16:00 · Score: 1

There are machines on IX...many new machines.

--
+that's funny...I don't FEEL tardy.+
Re:Which would be better... by jbolden · 2003-03-10 16:07 · Score: 1

Expel them for cause: immoral and unethical behavior in filling a freudulant lawsuit. It would do several things:

a) Distance UL from SCO very strongly
b) Make SCO unlikely to take them to court so as not to increase publicity
c) If they did go to court they would have to prove their lawsuit had merit
d) Act as evidence for IBM
Re:Which would be better... by DeadMeat+(TM) · 2003-03-10 16:42 · Score: 1

Leave, wait a bit, and reform under a different name would probably be better.
SuSE representative: "I now call to order the first meeting of the Ancient Mystic Society of . . . No SCO."
Re:Which would be better... by fucksl4shd0t · 2003-03-10 20:56 · Score: 1

Well, 7-Up calls themselves the un-cola. SCO claims sole ownership of the UNIX trademark So the new partnership coulb be called UN-UNIX
Oh boy, this is just so obvious. Why don't they just make a stupid-sounding acronym that doesn't mean anything? Call it, um, something is not Unix, let's see... *NU.....
I've got it!
LINU!
Linu Is Not Unix!
Then, since it's POSIX-compliant, stick an X on that end!
Hm. That'll spell Linux, which is trademarked. Better think on this some more.
Maybe they could name it after some stupid animal that doesn't even exist? Something that has NU in it..... so it'll be "not unix". How about a gnu?
THAT'S IT.
They should create a centralized distribution called GNU, for Gnu is Not Unix, and THEN stick the Linux kernel on it so everybody-----
Ok, I'll stop now. :) This is getting damn pointless.

--
Like what I said? You might like my music
Re:Which would be better... by cyclist1200 · 2003-03-11 02:44 · Score: 1

Well, a few of these articles have surmised that SuSE and Red Hat are next on SCO's list of companies to sue. So no matter what, SuSE may get hit anyway.

Irony by GreyWolf3000 · 2003-03-10 09:18 · Score: 5, Insightful

It is ironic that Caldera's last stand in Linux territory, UnitedLinux, is losing support because its only potential source of income (licensing and suing for license violations) seems to have its sights on milking IBM and Linux itself. Am I smelling mismanagement? UnitedLinux could have actually migrated SCO from UNIX to Linux, but instead now they're going to have to either convince companies to not migrate to Linux, or convince judges that Linux is a derivative of UNIX, and start charging license fees.

--
Slashdot: Where people pretend to be twice as smart as they really are by behaving like children.

Re:Irony by Anonymous Coward · 2003-03-10 09:36 · Score: 1, Insightful

UnitedLinux could have actually migrated SCO from UNIX to Linux, but instead now they're going to have to either convince companies to not migrate to Linux, or convince judges that Linux is a derivative of UNIX, and start charging license fees.
But of course. They want licensing fees because they want to have a viable business model. Sure, they are going about it in a rather heavy-handed way and sure, they'll fail. But migrating from UNIX to Linux is a good way to guarantee failure for their business. People do not make money giving away something for free. Now, you can sell consulting, but that's a low margin business. And something that they probably aren't set up to do properly.
Re:Irony by jedidiah · 2003-03-10 09:51 · Score: 1

SCO could have transformed itself into the "Sun of Linux. They could have pushed for the development of Intel hardware comparable to V480's and V880's and provided the "accountability" that many corporate customers prefer.

Dumping toxic waste into your neighbor's yard does not help you in the long run.

--
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
Re:Irony by Ed+Random · 2003-03-10 09:51 · Score: 2, Funny

SCOldera is starting to look a lot like that other lawfirm passing for a tech company. They really should change their company motto to

"SCOldera - You Innovate, We Litigate"

With the current legal system, those with the money always win. Companies like SuSE cannot possibly sustain legal action. So in a way it's good they picked a fight with IBM - at least they've got lawyers to spare.

It'll be interesting to see how SCOldera either tries to backpedal or dies a horrible flaming death. I vote for option 2 ;)

--
-- Gxis! Ed.
Re:Irony by Ed+Avis · 2003-03-10 09:59 · Score: 4, Insightful

They don't have to convince judges that Linux is 'a derivative of' UNIX. At least not for patent infringement lawsuits. With patents, you are still infringing even if you independently come up with the same idea. This is one reason why patents suck when applied to software, where coming up with new ideas is not the difficult part so much as the implementation, even though patents may give a net economic benefit in other fields of endeavour.

--
-- Ed Avis ed@membled.com
Re:Irony by Anonymous Coward · 2003-03-10 10:07 · Score: 0

SCO could have transformed itself into the "Sun of Linux. They could have pushed for the development of Intel hardware comparable to V480's and V880's and provided the "accountability" that many corporate customers prefer.
But they are not a hardware company. It would make more sense to start a hardware company that to try to change a software company into a hardware company. Anyway, being the ``Sun of Linux'' is not an honour that I'd be chasing, given that Sun is going out of business too.
Re:Irony by sqlrob · 2003-03-10 10:09 · Score: 1

But SCO released a distro with Caldera, release their code as the GPL. Doesn't that freely permit use of the patents in any GPL code?
Re:Irony by Ed+Avis · 2003-03-10 10:13 · Score: 1

Hmm, good question. Maybe they are infringing copyright (in a way) by distributing GPLed code but then ignoring the GPL's stipulations about patent licences. But if they get sued over that, the case probably wouldn't be very clear-cut (is that part of the GPL enforceable?) and the damages might be a lot less than they're hoping to get out of IBM. IANAL and all that.

--
-- Ed Avis ed@membled.com
Re:Irony by Anonymous Coward · 2003-03-10 10:19 · Score: 0

Linux is a derivative of UNIX.

Even went for the same naming similarity that Lindows did, just not AS extreme. Same idea though.
Re:Irony by SN74S181 · 2003-03-10 10:25 · Score: 3, Interesting

That's a little bit like saying that all a company needs to do is release one of their software products under the GPL and magically, any other party can then put that company's code into a GPL product and it's legal.

Unless SCO/Caldera put the code in question into the Linux software base themselves, that sorts of claims are groundless. If we're gonna defeat the SCO suit against IBM/Linux we need to do it with arguements that make sense.
Re:Irony by sqlrob · 2003-03-10 10:30 · Score: 1

That's a little bit like saying that all a company needs to do is release one of their software products under the GPL and magically, any other party can then put that company's code into a GPL product and it's legal.
If they're using the code that was GPL'ed, of course it is.
Unless SCO/Caldera put the code in question into the Linux software base themselves, that sorts of claims are groundless. If we're gonna defeat the SCO suit against IBM/Linux we need to do it with arguements that make sense.
Is it? They had all the opportunity to audit the code before they released it as Caldera.
Re:Irony by Ami+Ganguli · 2003-03-10 10:43 · Score: 1

They distributed the code.

The GPL was the license that gave them the right to distribute Linux and all the other GPL code in their distribution. So yes, they are now subject to the terms of the GPL.

--
It is tempting, if the only tool you have is a hammer, to treat everything as if it were a nail. - Abraham Maslow
Re:Irony by jedidiah · 2003-03-10 11:06 · Score: 1

They should have made the change a long time ago. This is something that SCO should have been doing before Linux ever came into their segment of the market. This would have simplified their support, made their offering seem more robust and given them the appearance of a Sun or IBM.

They've been screwing up for quite a long time. Their fate was sealed even before they teamed up with IBM on Monterey.

This is a company that couldn't even give it's product away after the "Bicycle version" of Linux came along.

--
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
Re:Irony by ivan256 · 2003-03-10 11:06 · Score: 5, Insightful

That's a little bit like saying that all a company needs to do is release one of their software products under the GPL and magically, any other party can then put that company's code into a GPL product and it's legal.

It's not at all like saying that. It's saying that if you hold a software patent, and release an implementation of that patent under the GPL, everybody who uses the GPL can use your patent. If they have patents that cover Linux, and they ship linux under the GPL, they've given free license to their patents, but if they have other patents that aren't implemented in linux, then other companies/people still have to arrange for licensing.

Unless SCO/Caldera put the code in question into the Linux software base themselves, that sorts of claims are groundless.

They didn't have to put them there, they just had to ship them. By redistributing them they agreed to the terms of the GPL implicitly.
Re:Irony by Anonymous Coward · 2003-03-10 11:09 · Score: 0

If we're gonna defeat the SCO suit against IBM/Linux

"We" aren't going to do jack-shit about this lawsuit except not buy something we didn't use anyway (SCO UNIX).

"We" don't even understand the difference between a patent suit and a trade secret case. Some of us even think it's a trademark case. So much for arguments that makes sense...

"We" are really fucking useless flamers.
Re:Irony by crawling_chaos · 2003-03-10 11:31 · Score: 3, Interesting

One thing I find funny about this. I contracted for a very large chemical company's R&D function for a while. They were in to patenting everything they discovered. The idea they had was that if some piss-ant company tried to file a patent infringement on them, they'd have a patent on respiration or something and make the piss-ant pay licensing fees for breathing.
An interesting strategy to be sure, but here's the kicker: the company that they borrowed this strategy from was none other than IBM. I wonder if IBM is looking real hard at SCO's products for violations right now...

--
You can only drink 30 or 40 glasses of beer a day, no matter how rich you are.
-- Colonel Adolphus Busch
Re:Irony by vsprintf · 2003-03-10 12:03 · Score: 2, Funny

They distributed the code.

The GPL was the license that gave them the right to distribute Linux and all the other GPL code in their distribution. So yes, they are now subject to the terms of the GPL.

Aha! Now I see it. SCO's in the tank but attacks IBM which has deep pockets, and many lawyers, and is not afraid of a fight.

What company has loads of cash, doesn't like IBM, and could easily buy off the holders of a fading company like SCO on the condition they make it appear that their demise was caused by the GPL? Which company would profit the most by such publicity?

Just kidding. :) Well, I think I'm just kidding.
Re:Irony by Roxy · 2003-03-10 12:43 · Score: 2, Informative

> Now, you can sell consulting, but that's a low margin business.
Fer God's sake, don't tell IBM, McKinsey, Accenture, etc. Oh, and stop smoking whatever you're smoking, it seems to affect your thinking...

--
-- Roland Buresund MBA, MCMI, CISSP
Re:Irony by SN74S181 · 2003-03-10 12:47 · Score: 1

Believe me when I say that entrapment of that kind is not going to look good to companies considering contributing code to Linux.

Microsoft can say "you'd better be prepared to audit the entire code base, not just portions of it that you explicitly contribute, if you're contributing code to Linux."
Re:Irony by steve_l · 2003-03-10 14:38 · Score: 1

yeah, you dont mess with IBM: you cross license.

IBM probably have a metric arseload of patents that matter to linux, but like the other players (HP, sun), they are too smart to want to piss off the OSS community. SCO have just declared themselves a legitimate target.

The hard part is picking on something SCO have done that is not a general linux fsf or other OSS contrib. SCO have it easy if they attack the 'enterprise' stuff IBM added.
Re:Irony by jbolden · 2003-03-10 15:31 · Score: 1

If we're gonna defeat the SCO suit against IBM/Linux we need to do it with arguements that make sense.

Thankfully we don't. The lawsuit is really that bad. The arguments SCO generally

a) The conclusion doesn't follow from the facts
b) The statements are either false or highly misleading

This is a lawsuit that begs for summary dismissal and can't win at trial.
Re:Irony by jbolden · 2003-03-10 15:34 · Score: 1

It may not look good but that's the GPL.

I for one won't be unhappy if Linux as a side effect invalidates all software patents.
Re:Irony by Daniel+Phillips · 2003-03-10 15:49 · Score: 1

They don't have to convince judges that Linux is 'a derivative of' UNIX. At least not for patent infringement lawsuits. With patents, you are still infringing even if you independently come up with the same idea.

This has got nothing whatsoever to do with patents. Did you read the claim?

--
Have you got your LWN subscription yet?
Re:Irony by bzcpcfj · 2003-03-11 02:04 · Score: 1

"I contracted for a very large chemical company's R&D function for a while. They were in to patenting everything they discovered."

This is hardly unusual and probably was not a strategy created by IBM. Manufacturing companies routinely patent everything in sight, partly as protection, partly to keep competitors from marketing the idea. It's only in recent years that litigating patents has become such big news.

Once a company starts down the litigation trail, EVERYONE looks to see if that outfit could be a target for infringement claims. You had better believe that, not only IBM, but HP is looking at SCO now, if only to pre-empt SCO trying to find a line of code in HP-UX that they can claim is theirs.

--
---Any philosophy that can be put "in a nutshell" belongs there.---
Re:Irony by HiThere · 2003-03-11 03:57 · Score: 1

The part that I believe he was attributing to IBM was:
(paraphrased) "Their purpose was to hold onto the patents, so that if someone sued them for patent violation, they could counter-sue because the person was breathing."

That's not unique to IBM either, but IBM has developed it into a high art.

--

I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
Re:Irony by ivan256 · 2003-03-11 04:34 · Score: 1

Believe me when I say that entrapment of that kind is not going to look good to companies considering contributing code to Linux

When did the word "redistribute" come to mean "contribute"? If you contribute a small amount of code, you're only on the hook for the patents implemented by that small amount of code. Taking all of Linux and packaging it up with your name on it and giving it out to people is another thing entirely. Also, software consumers hardy ever hold software patents, so even if Microsoft (or somebody else) tried to make the argument you mentioned, it would only be compelling for software developers who hold patents. Those people are a very small portion of the global software market.
Re:Irony by budgenator · 2003-03-14 00:49 · Score: 1

Yes, we allege that SCO-Caldera could not have possibly have been smart enough to have brought their product to market without violate SCO-Caldera's Intelectual Property.

no seriously Caldera probably violated the same IP as IBM, but it was SCO's IP(still trying to figure out what the IP actualy was) at the time. So releasing it per GPL was probably illegal. Caldera then bought SCO after the fact, so now SCO isn't likely to file complaints against itself. WARNING if you think about this too hard you may get a headache, the whole thing seems prety bizzar

--
Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds

Way to Go SCO! Maybe there is life in Minix by BoomerSooner · 2003-03-10 09:18 · Score: 2, Interesting

since you've pissed off everyone in the Linux community.

Assholes.

SCO vs. Linux by sidvishus9 · 2003-03-10 09:19 · Score: 1

Is SCO even a friend to the Linux community anymore? What with this whole "It is not possible for Linux to rapidly reach UNIX performance standards without giving us all your money blah blah" crap, SuSe would be wise to distance themselves from SCO's bad decisions.

Suse Run by codepunk · 2003-03-10 09:20 · Score: 4, Funny

Run like your thong is on fire....

I would not let my dog be associated with the three lettter acronym SCO.

--

Got Code?

Re: Suse Run by Black+Parrot · 2003-03-10 09:45 · Score: 2, Funny

> I would not let my dog be associated with the three lettter acronym SCO.

I wish some of my neighbors would have their dogs "associate with" SCO rather than with the lawn in front of my apartment.

--
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
Re:Suse Run by evronm · 2003-03-10 11:19 · Score: 1

While the parent post is funny, it has a valid point. SUSE is an excellent distro, and should not tarnish its good name by association with SCO, whose business model has deteriorated into "sue random big companies and hope it works."

--
Follow the adventures of the new wandering jews
Re:Suse Run by LMCBoy · 2003-03-10 11:20 · Score: 1

Run like your thong is on fire....

I am so very, very glad I was not drinking anything when I read that. Thanks!

--
Liberal (adj.): Free from bigotry; open to progress; tolerant of others.

They opened their eyes, then their wallet by blanks · 2003-03-10 09:20 · Score: 1

Well suing people has always been a strong and profitable business model. Much better then there current one.....

--
I deleted my sig years ago.

Doesn't appear that way? by manyoso · 2003-03-10 09:21 · Score: 2, Insightful

SuSE, "That said, we want to very clearly and unequivocally voice our support of the ideals and goals of UnitedLinux and the Linux community."

So, how do you interpret this to mean that SuSE is backing out of UnitedLinux?

Re:Doesn't appear that way? by Jugalator · 2003-03-10 09:28 · Score: 1

They wish to achieve the ideals and goals of UnitedLinux and the Linux community without being part of UnitedLinux in its current form? Perhaps it's a statement to simply say "even if we back out now, our goals haven't changed, but we don't think the current form of UnitedLinux and cooperation with SCO etc will do any good"?

Now I'm rambling on... I didn't even RTFA. =)

--
Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
Re:Doesn't appear that way? by einhverfr · 2003-03-10 09:48 · Score: 3, Insightful

SuSE, "That said, we want to very clearly and unequivocally voice our support of the ideals and goals of UnitedLinux and the Linux community."

The article is very vague and so are the statements.

My guess is that SuSE is attempting to use what leverage they have to affect a change in the direction of United Linux and SCO. My guess is that SuSE in its statements is also attempting to speak to the other UL parners as well.

This does not mean that they have made a decision one way or another. But they may be consulting with Turbolinux and Conectiva as to options for ditching SCO. That will be about time ;-)

--

LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
Re:Doesn't appear that way? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-03-10 10:51 · Score: 0

Doesn't appear that way?

Is that a question or a statement?

Oh the irony... by RelliK · 2003-03-10 09:21 · Score: 0, Troll

...that *ESR* called someone "deeply stupid"...

--
___
If you think big enough, you'll never have to do it.

Re:Oh the irony... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-03-10 09:36 · Score: 1, Insightful

Wow, what a troll. Either that or you've got quite the ego to think that you're smarter than ESR. Like him or not, what reason do you have to think that ESR is "deeply stupid"? And if you don't, then it isn't very ironic for him to say SCO did something deeply stupid, especially when I think most people would agree they have, if for no other reason than taking on IBM in the courtroom is fraught with peril.
Re:Oh the irony... by jpmorgan · 2003-03-10 09:56 · Score: 0, Offtopic

Either that or you've got quite the ego to think that you're smarter than ESR.
That implies that ESR is particularly intelligent. Frankly, I haven't seen any evidence that this is the case; most of his writing is riddled with logical errors and flaws. There's a reason nobody really listens to him anymore.
Re:Oh the irony... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-03-10 10:25 · Score: 2, Insightful

Being able to code libraries well does not necessarily mean you also have great wisdom about licensing schemes. I'll give him credit for intelligence in the area of coding, but not for understanding real world mechanics of people/capitalism/socialism/software. In many peoples thought (mine included) he's "deeply stupid" in this area. That doesn't mean he isn't intelligent in the area of coding, but almost all folks see of him these days is preaching in the area that many him as "deeply stupid".

I think that poster like most folks will give him credit for his contributions with the GNU libraries, but that does not equate to him being a philosophical guru about licensing and the future of software. The problem is, he thinks he is.
Re:Oh the irony... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-03-10 10:28 · Score: 0

Intelligence in the area of coding because he maintains fetch-doggie-mail? Or is it because he unilaterially took over the Jargon File and now claims it as his project and propaganda organ?

SCO sues IBM by Dunark · 2003-03-10 09:21 · Score: 5, Funny

Twenty years ago, I never would have believed that I'd be rooting for IBM's lawyers today.

Re:SCO sues IBM by gmuslera · 2003-03-10 09:39 · Score: 4, Funny

In other news, Microsoft files lawsuit against SCO.
Re:SCO sues IBM by molarmass192 · 2003-03-10 09:53 · Score: 3, Insightful

Along the same vein, ten years ago, I would never have believed that I'd be rooting for MS to die off. Ten years ago I was rooting for MS to put the hurt on IBM. Funny how things develop over time. However, I'm 100% behind IBM on this SCO thing! Ironically, if IBM managed to earn it's way back into my good books, it makes me wonder what I'll think of MS 10 years from now.

--

Good people do not need laws to tell them to act responsibly, while bad people will find a way around the laws-Plato
Re:SCO sues IBM by taniwha · 2003-03-10 10:00 · Score: 1

nor would I .... or that I'd be taking IBM's side against 'unix'
Re:SCO sues IBM by zootread · 2003-03-10 10:36 · Score: 1

Along the same vein, ten years ago, I would never have believed that I'd be rooting for MS to die off. Ten years ago I was rooting for MS to put the hurt on IBM.

Really? 10 years ago I hated MSFT more than I do now, mainly because of the general cruminess of Windows 3.xx (and MSDOS 5.xx and 6.xx), and the direction they were leading software. Thankfully I found UNIX (SunOS/Solaris, AIX, BSD, etc) and Linux around that time.

--
Zoot!
Re:SCO sues IBM by ArtDent · 2003-03-10 11:22 · Score: 1
Hmm...
1. SCO
2. Microsoft
3. Sun
Sounds like the new "Axis of Evil" to me.
Re:SCO sues IBM by Anonymous Coward · 2003-03-10 11:50 · Score: 0

as in

1. the one that really did it
2. the one that might have liked to have done it but only gets associated with having to do with doing it
3. the one that two years from now decides, yay we got to do that too

?)
Re:SCO sues IBM by vsprintf · 2003-03-10 12:47 · Score: 1

Along the same vein, ten years ago, I would never have believed that I'd be rooting for MS to die off.

Agreed, but even more so compared to twenty years ago. MS offered buggy but useable products for what they were worth - not much. Now they offer buggy and bloated products for a lot of money - with subscription licenses. They lost sight of why they became successful. They became the 800 pound gorilla and mistakenly believed they had a mandate to rule the PC world - just like IBM before them.
Re:SCO sues IBM by deblau · 2003-03-10 15:42 · Score: 1

My favorite part about that pclinuxonline link:
Teleconference
Microsoft has scheduled a teleconference regarding this announcement for 11:00 a.m. Eastern time on March 11, 2003. Press and analysts who are interested in participating in this announcement should call:
Within North America: (888) 428-4480 International Callers: (612) 332-0718 Please ask for the Microsoft conference. Callers are encouraged to dial in 5 to 10 minutes before the teleconference is to start.
Microsoft will offer an audio recording of this teleconference within two hours following the call. This recording will be available for 30 days, both by phone and via the Web.
To access the audio recording by phone, dial: Within North America: (800) 475-6701 International Callers: (320) 365-3844 Participants will need to enter the following passcode: 645654 To access the audio recording via the Web, go to the following URL: http://www.microsoft.com/presspass

Telephone /. effect, anyone? I'd love to see 1e6 geeks barge in on some boring MS technical meeting, only to ask OT questions about a non-existant, frivolous lawsuit against SCO for being too Evil.

--
This post expresses my opinion, not that of my employer. And yes, IAAL.
Re:SCO sues IBM by jbolden · 2003-03-10 15:48 · Score: 1

10 years ago I was an OS/2 fan so I was rooting for IBM. On the other hand I certainly was not unhappy with what the 10,000 PC vendors were doing to drive down costs and so I certainly liked the Intel/Western Digital / Microsoft open standard.

I think Microsoft will be back in everyone's good graces as soon as they lose a few more battles like they did with IIS vs. Apache. Winning:

a) The OS wars
b) The desktop suite wars
c) A huge percentage of the server wars

is what is making people forget how much Microsoft has reduced the cost of software. 10 years ago word processors and spreadsheets were $495, while databases and presentation graphics were $595 (all prices retail).
Re:SCO sues IBM by MegaFur · 2003-03-11 00:13 · Score: 1

...
That may happen, but I'm not so sure. I was too young when IBM was the Evil Empire so I can't say for sure. I have a feeling though that IBM was only a normal tyrant--difficult to live with but not impossible.

Microsoft on the other hand... What can I say? I Blame Microsoft.
I'll never forgive Bill Gates for perverting the once-beautiful word "innovate". In any Microsoft message you read or hear, s/innovate/steal/g (in all word-forms and tenses).

we now return to non-sequiter theater...

--
Furry cows moo and decompress.

ESR's Site? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-03-10 09:21 · Score: 0

Does he still maintain everything that was at tuxedo.org in a new location? Or is it no longer available on the web?

Re:ESR's Site? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-03-10 09:27 · Score: 0

http://catb.org/~esr/ , posted anonymously since this is really off-topic but might be of use to you, dear fellow AC, personally... (so please don't use your mod points for this post, mods)

This saves me from dropping SuSE by Nice2Cats · 2003-03-10 09:22 · Score: 0

I was wondering if this was going to happen, and I'm actually wondering why it took SuSE so long. What I had expected is for the United Linux people to throw out SCO, not for SuSE to drop out. Wonder what they have been saying to each other on the phone the last couple of days...

It would be nice to have a very clear statement from SuSE on what they think of SCO's Banzai Charge...

Re:This saves me from dropping SuSE by Anonymous Coward · 2003-03-10 09:47 · Score: 0

>>> Wonder what they have been saying to each other on the phone the last couple of days...

Well, I'm sure there was some interesting stuff mumbled in German sotto voce, but I don't speak German. My sister-in-law does, but she's too much of a lady to be asked to translate THAT for me! :-)

I've been a customer of SuSE for several years, and have just installed "SuSE Linux Office Desktop", which is based on SuSE 8.1, which is LSB-based. I'm glad I did. I hope that SuSE survives and that SCO doesn't. If I were a SCO investor/stockholder right now, I'd be running up a lot of calls to Utah trying to find them a group psychiatrist.

I have seen speculation here and there that this was a deliberate move by SCO to goad IBM into buying them out. Frankly, I think it would be more interesting if IBM were to spend its money internally on its formidable legal team, and squash SCO like a bug and relieve everyone's misery. We don't need SCO - they've contributed NOTHING to the state of the art in the past few years. Their attempt to cover up their gross mismanagement by hiring Boies to launch them into a very risky and dangerous legal action that could culminate in their ultimate demise reminds me of John Mitchell and Richard Nixon...
Re:This saves me from dropping SuSE by Anonymous Coward · 2003-03-10 10:26 · Score: 2, Insightful

"and have just installed "SuSE Linux Office Desktop""

Why bother?

Why bother running linux if your going to run a proprietary version of Wine, use a proprietary tool to Admin your system, and then run some proprietary MS apps on top of it all.

Seem completely stupid to me and you'd just be better off running Windows.

If this is the future of linux its doomed. You see that don't you? You can't just get a little pregnant and the path of distros like Suse's Office desktop, Lindows, and Xandros leads to a place worse then where we are now with MS.
Re:This saves me from dropping SuSE by ssbljk · 2003-03-10 22:31 · Score: 1

different things for different people and different needs

it's usually a good idea when you have more choices

--
/ss

Caldera sposored the work in question by Anonymous Coward · 2003-03-10 09:22 · Score: 5, Informative

Caldera (as early as 1995) sponsored the work they now have a problem with.

The so called "Enterprise features" were developed by the Linux community on hardware provided by Caldera and with support of Caldera Engineers. Which means that they knew what development was under way, at the very least. IBM had very little to do with it, but some of the Linux Community hackers now work there (yeah IBM).

Caldera was involved in selling Linux into the traditional SCO markerplace long before IBM even took notice, and had some of the best talent in Utah, who had seen the internals of UNIX at Novell before it was sold to SCO, working on it.

This suit shows a complete lack of history at Caldera/SCO, which is not surprising since they have had huge staff turn over in thier death throws. Here's hoping they go away quickly, if not quietly... just like their bastard child Lineo did.

Re:Caldera sposored the work in question by Anonymous Coward · 2003-03-10 10:03 · Score: 0

This suit shows a complete lack of history at Caldera/SCO, which is not surprising since they have had huge staff turn over in thier death throws. Here's hoping they go away quickly, if not quietly... just like their bastard child Lineo did.
Or perhaps it just shows their willingness to admit that some of their past actions (i.e. supporting Linux) led in large part to their current slow death. Just because someone did something in the past does not mean that they can not change their minds.
Re:Caldera sposored the work in question by CoolVibe · 2003-03-10 10:49 · Score: 1

To add insult to injury, Caldera was also responsible for the first SMP code in Linux 2.0.x.
Whoops SCO. Heh. :)
Re:Caldera sposored the work in question by j_w_d · 2003-03-10 11:03 · Score: 1

Or perhaps it just shows their willingness to admit that some of their past actions (i.e. supporting Linux) led in large part to their current slow death.

Their current slow death is due to their deeply ingrained lack of focus. They had one of the best installers applied to one of the worst distros of Linux. Did they improve their distro? Not hardly. Caldera has also grabbed up a DOS orphan, as well as SCO and the rights to one branch of the unix tree. They never have been able to settle down and do one thing right for very long. Changing their minds could have been a good idea. The old ones never were up to snuff. Unfortunately they apparently traded down.

--
------ The only greater hazard to your liberty than n politicians is n+1 politicians.
Re:Caldera sposored the work in question by Alan+Cox · 2003-03-10 12:26 · Score: 4, Informative

Let me provide specific data on that

Caldera provided me the SMP machine that was used to write Linux SMP support, that was why they provided it and thats one big reason it happened at that time.

And most of the theory for it came not from secret unix knowledge but a book 8)
Re:Caldera sposored the work in question by jedidiah · 2003-03-10 12:41 · Score: 1

Which one? It would be really funny if you were subpenoed and you brought some tattered old textbook along.

--
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.

Another over reaction by andrewm · 2003-03-10 09:22 · Score: 3, Informative

SCO has grounds for their suit, though I can't say I agree SCO should win it based on the information that appears in the filing.

SCO's mistake was holding up Linux as being indirectly responsible, and worse, insulting it and all the volunteers that worked on it over the years.

Linus seems to share a similar point of view, if I've understood his comments correctly.

Re:Another over reaction by Anonymous Coward · 2003-03-10 11:49 · Score: 1, Informative

> SCO has grounds for their suit, though I can't say I agree SCO should win it based on the information that appears in the filing.

Care to list them? Everyone *else* who's actually read the filing can't find a damn thing that's grounds for any kind of serious legal action.

SCO v. IBM...it's not gonna happen. by MsGeek · 2003-03-10 09:23 · Score: 4, Funny

Fearless prediction: SCO's lawsuit isn't going to get a chance to happen. IBM buys SCO. End of lawsuit, end of story. I think this is the outcome the tattered remnants of SCO wanted in the first place.

--
Knowledge is power. Knowledge shared is power multiplied.

Re:SCO v. IBM...it's not gonna happen. by tomhudson · 2003-03-10 09:32 · Score: 1

It's not going to happen, but IBM would be stupid to pay 2 cents to "buy peace" when they can clearly litigate the hell out of SCO. Not only is the suit groundless on the face of it (if you've read it, you can see it's lame), but it draws attention to the fact that SCO really has no products anymore.
My prediction: YANC (Yet Another Name Change) for SCO/Caldera/Flavor_OF_The_Week. Then Chapter 7 (a Chapter 11 filing would be pointless, as there's really nothing left worth anything anymore).
Re:SCO v. IBM...it's not gonna happen. by Vicegrip · 2003-03-10 09:38 · Score: 0, Troll

I'd prefer they buy Trolltech and get them the hell out of Canopy group. Then, maybe buy SCO after its stock price falls through the floor to like .02 after investors realize that any hope the company ever had of turning a profit has disapeared in a cloud of angry open-source developers.

--
Do not spread "09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0" over the internet, thank you.
Re:SCO v. IBM...it's not gonna happen. by rkhalloran · 2003-03-10 09:45 · Score: 1

some bean-counter at IBM is probably doing the math right now: buy them up at current value and bury them, or sue the fecal matter out of them, drive their value into the dirt and THEN buy up the remains for even less - and STILL bury them...
Re:SCO v. IBM...it's not gonna happen. by Otter · 2003-03-10 09:51 · Score: 5, Informative

OK, for the zillionth time...
The group that controls SCO has a 5.8% share in TrollTech. They do not in any way control the company. Even by the usual standards of anti-Qt/KDE FUD, claiming they have any significant connection to SCO is pretty weak.

--
What I'm listening to now on Pandora...
Re:SCO v. IBM...it's not gonna happen. by bill_mcgonigle · 2003-03-10 09:52 · Score: 1

So could IBM then bless Linux "UNIX" if it wanted to?

--
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
Re:SCO v. IBM...it's not gonna happen. by Amiga+Trombone · 2003-03-10 09:53 · Score: 1

Fearless prediction: SCO's lawsuit isn't going to get a chance to happen. IBM buys SCO. End of lawsuit, end of story. I think this is the outcome the tattered remnants of SCO wanted in the first place.

No, I think IBM is going to fight it. Why would they want SCO? True, it would get them off the hook for any Unix licensing issues, but it would also leave them stuck with supporting OpenServer, UnixWare... and a Linux distribution, which is a business they've made it clear they don't want to be in.

I think the closest they'd come to buying SCO is counter-suing them over their IBM's own IP, and possibly forcing them to re-negotiate their SYS V licensing. But most of SCO would be a white elephant to IBM.
Re:SCO v. IBM...it's not gonna happen. by jedidiah · 2003-03-10 09:56 · Score: 1

It's still a good idea for IBM to buy whatever "proprietary intellectual property" remains of UNIX. They can lay this problem to rest once and for all and prevent anyone else from buying SCO so that they can sue random Unix vendors.

That's not to say that IBM shouldn't DEVALUE SCO stock before buying a controlling interest. Remember, IBM only has to be the largest shareholder. They don't have to buy ALL of SCO.

--
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
Re:SCO v. IBM...it's not gonna happen. by Anonymous Coward · 2003-03-10 10:00 · Score: 0

Personally I think IBM should just buy Debian and send the other UnitedLinux members packing. Debian has the best distribution by far.

Hell, I could see the name of the new product already: IBMebian
Re:SCO v. IBM...it's not gonna happen. by stratjakt · 2003-03-10 10:08 · Score: 1

Sure.

Or drop linux entirely since they'd own UNIX outright.

The whole IBM-on-Linux-bandwagon thing is about AIX licensing.

The business world doesnt give a shit if the code on their servers is Open Source. They care if it works, and if it'll be supported in case it doesnt work. They'll buy whatever IBM is selling.

--
I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!
Re:SCO v. IBM...it's not gonna happen. by stratjakt · 2003-03-10 10:11 · Score: 1

Bah, if they're gonna buy a distrib based on naming, it should be Slackware.

I'd pay for a box that says I B Mack-ware.

--
I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!
Re:SCO v. IBM...it's not gonna happen. by Vicegrip · 2003-03-10 10:11 · Score: 1

Ok.. thats what happens when you rely on a post too much... but I still think that having Canopy as an investor is a bit of an ugly boil.

I didn't notice this page when I went surfing on the qt site when the whole SCO story blew, so thanks for the link. I totally dig both KDE and QT and am pleased to see the employees themselves have control over Trolltech.

--
Do not spread "09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0" over the internet, thank you.
Re:SCO v. IBM...it's not gonna happen. by inode_buddha · 2003-03-10 10:16 · Score: 1

Doubt it... it's one thing to own the code, and another thing to own the trade name. I'm still wondering where (if at all) the Open Group fits into all of this. Let alone Sun.

--
C|N>K
Re:SCO v. IBM...it's not gonna happen. by binner1 · 2003-03-10 10:19 · Score: 1

That's an interesting thought...I'd mod it as such if I had points right now!

-Ben
Re:SCO v. IBM...it's not gonna happen. by tomhudson · 2003-03-10 11:41 · Score: 1

I think there would be anti-trust considerations if IBM were to try to buy SCO. They've been there before, and don't want to go there again, is my belief.
Re:SCO v. IBM...it's not gonna happen. by jedidiah · 2003-03-10 12:21 · Score: 1

What anti-trust considerations? SCO is mostly dead already and IBM already has enough patents to sue the rest of the industry into oblivion. The net effect of IBM buying SCO would be minimal at best.

IBM could also mitigate anti-trust concerns by buying out SCO and simply releasing the IP in question into the public domain. This is also something that could before such a purchase. IBM could also seek prior approval of the FTC and the DOJ.

--
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
Re:SCO v. IBM...it's not gonna happen. by jkeyes · 2003-03-10 13:28 · Score: 1

They should bury what's left of SCO then SCO should sell their reminents on eBay! It would be great they could put a Buy It Now! for $5000, oh wait Buy It Now! can't do negatives..
Re:SCO v. IBM...it's not gonna happen. by HiThere · 2003-03-11 04:09 · Score: 1

If you want to write GPL code, QT is free.
If you want to charge for your code, they charge for theirs.

Sounds fair to me.

--

I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
Re:SCO v. IBM...it's not gonna happen. by Anonymous Coward · 2003-03-11 05:58 · Score: 0

Yeah, same should be true of glibc and the kernel - make Linux development *ruinously* expensive, not just costly. Dickhead.

Re:They already dropped out. by cbv · 2003-03-10 09:23 · Score: 4, Insightful

But really, who cares? SuSe is french.

SuSE (Software Und SystemEntwicklung) is German.

Which Article Did Slashdot Editors Read? by Carnage4Life · 2003-03-10 09:23 · Score: 4, Informative

According to the current text in the linked article SuSe explicitly stated that they still support UnitedLinux. The relevant excerpt is

"Accordingly, we are currently reevaluating our relationship with the SCO Group," Seibt continued. "That said, we want to very clearly and unequivocally voice our support of the ideals and goals of UnitedLinux and the Linux community."

Checking out the original press release on Linux Today doesn't seem to indicate SuSe is getting out of UnitedLinux either.

Re:Which Article Did Slashdot Editors Read? by msimm · 2003-03-10 09:32 · Score: 1

Not to mince words, but:
"Accordingly, we are currently reevaluating our relationship with the SCO Group," Seibt continued. "That said, we want to very clearly and unequivocally voice our support of the ideals and goals of UnitedLinux and the Linux community."
Is sort of like saying, "we love you, but we're not *in* love with you."

--
Quack, quack.
Re:Which Article Did Slashdot Editors Read? by Gleef · 2003-03-10 09:33 · Score: 4, Insightful

We all read the same article. SuSE said it supports the ideals and goals of UnitedLinux, but left out any indication of support of the actions or current composition. They also said they were reevaluating their relationship to the SCO group and that:

SuSE's VP of Corporate Communications. Eckert confirmed that the "relationship with the SCO Group" was in fact the UnitedLinux consortium aarrangment[sic].

So they are reevaluating their membership in the UnitedLinux consortium, as that membership is their primary (and perhaps only) relationship with SCO Group. I'm sure if SCO were to leave the UnitedLinux consortium, SuSE would be happy to stay.

--

----
Open mind, insert foot.
Re:Which Article Did Slashdot Editors Read? by jeffasselin · 2003-03-10 09:45 · Score: 3, Insightful

"Accordingly, we are currently reevaluating our relationship with the SCO Group," Seibt continued. "That said, we want to very clearly and unequivocally voice our support of the ideals and goals of UnitedLinux and the Linux community."

That's certainly NOT how I read it. He said he was supporting the ideals and goals which would be completely different from actually saying he'd support UnitedLinux itself.
On the contrary, it seems to me that he purposefully avoided saying that he supported UnitedLinux. This is political-talk, didn't you learn how to decode it at school?

--
If he explores all forms and substances Straight homeward to their symbol-essences; He shall not die.
Re:Which Article Did Slashdot Editors Read? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-03-10 09:49 · Score: 0

It's too bad that Debain GNU/Linux is in the UnitedLinux mix. I have a lot of respect for the Debian developers... Hopefully they and the other Linux vendors under UnitedLinux will follow suit. SCO can kiss my ass.

Anyway, let's hope that SuSE can stick to their guns and either 1) persuade SCO to rethink or 2) persuade the other UnitedLinux members to rethink. UnitedLinux was a bad idea to begin with.

Oh no! by MisterFancypants · 2003-03-10 09:26 · Score: 2, Funny

Surely this spells the end of LINUX!

Anyone know where I can pick up a cheap copy of Windows??

Last one out, turn off the lights!

Re:Oh no! by Anonymous Coward · 2003-03-10 09:29 · Score: 0

Good... people should start spelling it as GNU/Linux. :D

United Linux and/or LSB by einhverfr · 2003-03-10 09:26 · Score: 5, Interesting

Personally I am looking forward to seeing the vendors do exactly what you are describing. But take a look for a moment--

The standardization process for Linux is the LSB. That is where our efforts should be placed. If vendors want to pool their efforts beyond that, all good and well, but the LSB should be our primary focus.

Actually, I am glad to see SuSE make this move. Unfortunately this may be *REALLY BAD* for TurboLinux but they should have known what they were getting into.

--

LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP

Dead wood by BillsPetMonkey · 2003-03-10 09:26 · Score: 0

Good to see that extortion and greed are not just the preserve of accountancy and energy firms.

--
"It's not your information. It's information about you" - John Ford, Vice President, Equifax

Oops -- by Nice2Cats · 2003-03-10 09:27 · Score: 1

...and it would have been really nice if I had read the right article before I made that posting. Argh...sorry about that last line.

[OT] Re:ESR's Site? by aridhol · 2003-03-10 09:27 · Score: 4, Informative

For some reason, tuxedo.org randomly forwards you to other sites. However, ESR's page is alive and well at http://www.catb.org/~esr/. I can't find any reason for the change on the website, though.

--
I can't say that I don't give a fuck. I've just run out of fuck to give.

Re:[OT] Re:ESR's Site? by kfg · 2003-03-10 09:52 · Score: 1

Confused the hell out me when I went looking for the Jargon File a few days ago. I kept going back to the site, over and over again, mind numb, reality falling apart, all that good stuff.

Bless you good sir for this link. You are humble and lovable.

Or something like that.

KFG
Re:[OT] Re:ESR's Site? by aridhol · 2003-03-10 10:18 · Score: 1

I had the same problem (funnily enough, also looking for the Jargon file). Google didn't help at first, but eventually it indexed this for "Eric Raymond". Nothing that I can find there or on the new site says anything about the reasons for changing without telling anybody.

--
I can't say that I don't give a fuck. I've just run out of fuck to give.
Re:[OT] Re:ESR's Site? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-03-10 11:14 · Score: 0

Eric demanded that the owner of tuxedo.org hand over the domain to him free of charge. The owner, who had given Eric free disk space for years, refused. Eric walked away in a huff. Typical ESR -- whiny and bitchy and thinking the world owes him something.
Re:[OT] Re:ESR's Site? by ssbljk · 2003-03-10 21:58 · Score: 1

yeah, yeah, old good ESR got pissed off again :)

--
/ss

Right On! by Bowie+J.+Poag · 2003-03-10 09:27 · Score: 4, Insightful

They'd be making the right decision in pulling out of UL. From my own personal experience working _at_ IBM, I can tell you first hand the commitment they have towards the Linux community is very real. Conversely, I don't think the Linux community has anything to fear by putting their support behind Big Blue.

Its pretty obvious that SCO's recent "Hail Mary" play is falling flat on its face..Rather than adapt their business model, they're executing one last, desparate attempt to stay in business without a viable customer pool.

Sad, when you get down to it. The suits at SCO are going to run that company into the ground.

--
Bowie J. Poag

Re:Right On! by Anonymous Coward · 2003-03-10 10:15 · Score: 0

I'd say that they have already run the company wrong, and have nothing to lose by trying the lawsuit.

It will be interesting to see how this plays out, and whether or not it will have any outcome that will hold precendent for any future IP "stealing" cases.
Re:Right On! by HamNRye · 2003-03-10 10:51 · Score: 1

Geeee, and to think they just shipped me 20 free copies of their latest distro. SCO linux 4.0. (Hmmm, I missed 1-3....) I haven't installed it, but I do notice it is free from the Glint and Lizard references, and I also don't see a bunch of small text talking about per seat licenses.

I must say, I wonder what SuSE saw in this partnership.... They were the strongest distro in the group. Hanging with vermin like Caldera will only make you itchy.
Re:Right On! by Anonymous Coward · 2003-03-10 15:39 · Score: 0

Bowie, working at IBM? *Shudder*

So can we expect to see future IBM machines covered in randomly blinking mauve/green lights? Or have they not yet fully comprehended Bowie's innate design genius and management skills?
Re:Right On! by Bowie+J.+Poag · 2003-03-10 19:37 · Score: 1

That last troll was posted by:

McDaniel, Scott mcdev@mcdev.com, pipebomb@pipebomb.net

McDaniel Development
2139 Old Highway 5 South, and..
637 Riverside Dr.
Ellijay, Georgia 30540, United States
Tel: (706) 698-5112

Feel free to call this troll. He's lives with his mom, and that's her voice in the answering machine message. Every time Mr. McDaniel decides to troll, another copy of his personal info will be posted immediately afterward.

--
Bowie J. Poag
Re:Right On! by meadowsp · 2003-03-10 22:34 · Score: 1

Been stalking again?
Re:Right On! by Anonymous Coward · 2003-03-11 05:44 · Score: 0

how about this, punk ?

Robert Poag
986 E Desert Glen Dr
Tucson, AZ
(520) 825-2558
Re:Right On! by Bowie+J.+Poag · 2003-03-12 10:59 · Score: 1

Hahaha.. Now I *know* you're insane. My name isn't Robert. Incase you hadn't noticed, my name is Bowie.

Anyway, why don't you just stop stalking me? I only post your personal information in response to your stalking. You stop stalking, and I have no reason to post your information. You're basically causing your own misery, dumbass. Speaking of which..theres a new version of said message. And since you trolled...

That last troll was posted by:

McDaniel, Scott mcdev@mcdev.com, pipebomb@pipebomb.net

McDaniel Development
2139 Old Highway 5 South, and..
637 Riverside Dr.
Ellijay, Georgia 30540, United States
Tel: (706) 698-5112

This person is my stalker. He has attempted to harass me for several years now. He lives with his mother, and that's her voice in the answering machine message. Every time Mr. McDaniel decides to harass me, another copy of his personal information will be posted immediately afterward. Releaisng his personal information has been an effective deterrant to his behavior.

--
Bowie J. Poag
Re:Right On! by Bowie+J.+Poag · 2003-03-12 11:01 · Score: 1

You don't know the half of it.

Releasing his personal information is the only thing that shuts him up and makes him crawl back into his hovel. The guy has been following me for years.

--
Bowie J. Poag

Re:slashdot is ghey by Bleeblah · 2003-03-10 09:28 · Score: 0

Woah...I see this story has attracted the SCO lawyers...

Re:They already dropped out. by Anonymous Coward · 2003-03-10 09:28 · Score: 0

SuSE is German. Mandrake is French.

ESR by cperciva · 2003-03-10 09:28 · Score: 4, Interesting

"Eric Raymond called SCO's move 'deeply stupid...'"

During a talk here in Oxford University's computing lab, Eric Raymond proclaimed that "UNIX died because it was closed-source", and then refused to accept that Microsoft's multi-billion dollar success suggested that otherwise.

Ever since then, I've taken ESR's pronouncements with several grains of salt.

--
Tarsnap: Online backups for the truly paranoid

Re:ESR by gl4ss · 2003-03-10 09:43 · Score: 1

a marginal(yeah yeah not that marginal) system needs to be more open than one that got lucky and got deployed all over(windows). if you have it open it at least has the chance to go on even if it wouldnt make sense to commercially produce it.

that might be what he tried to say.. or something.. i got pancakes to eat anyways.

--
world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
Re:ESR by grahamlee · 2003-03-10 09:43 · Score: 1

During a talk here in Oxford University's computing lab, Eric Raymond proclaimed that "UNIX died because it was closed-source", and then refused to accept that Microsoft's multi-billion dollar success suggested that otherwise.

In a more recent talk at the Comlab, a Microsoft demonstrator said that one of the most exciting things about .NET was the shared source scheme, through which you could obtain source code for the CLR.

He then explained that this wasn't the same source code as that which the CLR actually used. Kindof suggests that although Microsoft are paying attention to the increasing call for Open Source, they still don't quite get the point.

I realise I've gone offtopic now, I just wanted to prove what a useful tool the 'net can be. Two people a few tens of yards away from each other can now communicate via a server in America, ain't technology wonderful? :-)
Re:ESR by cperciva · 2003-03-10 10:11 · Score: 1

I realise I've gone offtopic now, I just wanted to prove what a useful tool the 'net can be. Two people a few tens of yards away from each other can now communicate via a server in America, ain't technology wonderful? :-)

Unforunately, I'm living out this year, down Abingdon road. The college's accomodation policy really screws graduate students.

--
Tarsnap: Online backups for the truly paranoid
Re:ESR by Julian+Morrison · 2003-03-10 10:43 · Score: 2, Insightful

During a talk here in Oxford University's computing lab, Eric Raymond proclaimed that "UNIX died because it was closed-source", and then refused to accept that Microsoft's multi-billion dollar success suggested that otherwise.

It's true, it's just incomplete.

Unix died because it was closed source and internally competitive. It fractured into a slew of islands of mutually incompatible enhancements, none of which, with the possible exception of Solaris, had sufficient momentum to stand alone.

By contrast, Microsoft, being closed source and a unity, is motivated to converge rather than diverge its OSes, so it doesn't fragment its' user base.
Re:ESR by Anonymous Coward · 2003-03-10 11:35 · Score: 0

Aww, c'mon that's not a Troll. That's just fuck'n funny!!
Re:ESR by Anonymous Coward · 2003-03-10 13:35 · Score: 0

Microsoft demonstrator... what? The company that has been caught at least a couple of times astroturfing is now hiring career demonstrators? Oh..... you mean a PR employee demonstrating the use of a product.
Re:ESR by TheRaven64 · 2003-03-10 14:28 · Score: 1

While writing in his web log ESR proclaimed that it was okay to shoot policemen if they came to take your pornograph collection away.
Ever since then, I've taken ESR's pronouncements with several grains of salt.

--
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
Re:ESR by ppanon · 2003-03-10 15:43 · Score: 1

By contrast, Microsoft, being closed source and a unity, is motivated to converge rather than diverge its OSes, so it doesn't fragment its' user base.

Microsoft competes against older releases of its software. How many machines are still running Windows 9X and Office 97?

--
Laissez lire, et laissez danser; ces deux amusements ne feront jamais de mal au monde. - Voltaire
Re:ESR by Steeltoe · 2003-03-10 21:02 · Score: 1

Microsoft competes against older releases of its software. How many machines are still running Windows 9X and Office 97?

It can hardly be called a competition. The older software doesn't evolve, the patches often breaks other things, it's much more unstable and insecure, besides the new formats are not backwards-compatible forcing old users to upgrade (especially corporate users).

How can you call this competition? Besides, the very idea of "competing with older software you sold", is pretty silly in my book.

--
http://www.debunkingskeptics.com/
Re:ESR by ppanon · 2003-03-14 20:41 · Score: 1

Something like 35% of browsers accessing Google are doing it from machines running Windows 98. The next highest market slice is Windows XP. So fewer people have so far found paying XP worthwhile upgrading to, as compared to sticking with the feature set from Windows 98. With companies (and probably individuals) increasing the amount of time they keep computer equipment, the old equipment (hardware and software) does compete with the newer versions.

Upgrades should be like anything else a business (and "consumer") does, and should provide a good ROI. You have to compare all the costs - licencing, downtime, retraining - on an upgrade and judge if the improvements are worth the cost.

"Home consumets", more than businesses, can overlook the risk of using an unsupported older version, but are also more likely to upgrade without a full cost-benefit analysis for a new "cool" feature that they don't necessarily need...when you have an upbeat economy. But this also means they are less likely to upgrade in a depressed economy unless they have a specific reason (i.e. a new set of games run too slowly on their machine).

--
Laissez lire, et laissez danser; ces deux amusements ne feront jamais de mal au monde. - Voltaire

Re: company tries to stay in business by Black+Parrot · 2003-03-10 09:30 · Score: 3, Insightful

> So SCO is enforcing their IP. It's their call what they open source not IBM's.

Their business model isn't sound in the current environment. Only those vendors who sell UNIX to support their underlying hardware business are hanging in there right now.

And even those businesses' days may be numbered, unless they can convert themselves into service companies. It's getting hard to justify buying a Sun instead of an Athlon.

--
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade

Although... by frodo+from+middle+ea · 2003-03-10 09:30 · Score: 2, Interesting

Although I agree in principle with Suse.
I dont think this decission has got anything to do with Linux or Open Source Philosophy as Suse is trying to make it look it.
Suse has business relation ships with IBM, if i am not wrong IBM linux m/cs do run Suse linux on them .And this is calculated business move.
SCO should realise that with out UnitedLinux they don't have much business to look forward to. Infact i would be surprised if they can even afford the legal fees to persue the lawsuit.

--
for the last time people, I am "frodo from middle eaRTH", not "middle eaST".

Linux is now questionable for corporations by Anonymous Coward · 2003-03-10 09:33 · Score: 0

With SCO's lawsuit underway companies who might have been thinking about converting to linux are now aware of an unanticipated legal exposure. By simply using linux, they open themselves up to additional future claims by SCO.

So why should companies expose themselves to this liability precedent?

Typical SuSE by k8to · 2003-03-10 09:34 · Score: 5, Insightful

1) Try to choose working with as many partners as possible in a spirit of cooperation.

2) Do not reap the PR benefits, nor spin the relationship strongly in the public eye at all.

3) Allow some partner to control the spin to their own agenda (in this case Caldera/SCO).

4) Eventually find that the partner has taken a (to SuSE's viewpoint) incredulous stand. Publically state that they do not agree.

5) Partnership and sails of other company deflate/dissolve.

SuSE is a somewhat naive company in the way it forms alliance, makes choices, etc. They do not believe in strong spin or overbearing marketing. They do not believe in half-truth statements or downplaying their competitors. There may be exceptions to this (there's no single decisionmaker running the whole show), but as a general rule it holds.

When I was there, it was fairly common for them to observe a sharply competitive move and collectively shake their heads. They _do_ believe in making better products, so this kind of competition is welcomed with open arms, but patent lawsuits are viewed in this sort of way I see as typical german: "This is not good."

All in all, I have to say I saw this as the eventual outcome of United Linux. I see SuSE and Connectiva as technology leaders, with Turbo and SCO/Caldera ultimately hamstrung by the strange politics/business of their leadership. The former can make a solid partnership, no doubt, the latter pair do not belong in the same ship.

--
-josh

Re:Typical SuSE by Anonymous Coward · 2003-03-10 10:10 · Score: 0

Just curious, but when else has this happened?
Re:Typical SuSE by Anonymous Coward · 2003-03-10 10:17 · Score: 1

SuSE is a somewhat naive company in the way it forms alliance, makes choices, etc. They do not believe in strong spin or overbearing marketing. They do not believe in half-truth statements or downplaying their competitors. There may be exceptions to this (there's no single decisionmaker running the whole show), but as a general rule it holds.

When I was there, it was fairly common for them to observe a sharply competitive move and collectively shake their heads. They _do_ believe in making better products, so this kind of competition is welcomed with open arms, but patent lawsuits are viewed in this sort of way I see as typical german: "This is not good."

Translation: they are not an American company.
Re:Typical SuSE by Hambone.dk · 2003-03-10 10:24 · Score: 5, Insightful

"Translation: they are not an American company."

And don't I wish there were more companies with similar attitudes. When it comes to business ethics, American companies aren't exactly the most shining examples...
Re:Typical SuSE by Anonymous Coward · 2003-03-10 10:37 · Score: 0

Business ethics. Will you listen to yourself. Some people confuse long term strategies with ethics, but the goal is always profit, otherwise it wouldn't be business but charity.
Re:Typical SuSE by Anonymous Coward · 2003-03-10 11:37 · Score: 0

Um, ya, Enron was highly profitable. And ethical. Get real.
Re:Typical SuSE by crusher-1 · 2003-03-10 14:39 · Score: 1

SuSE is a somewhat naive company in the way it forms alliance, makes choices, etc. They do not believe in strong spin or overbearing marketing. They do not believe in half-truth statements or downplaying their competitors. There may be exceptions to this (there's no single decisionmaker running the whole show), but as a general rule it holds.

But now the new CEO is a former head of a very successful and competitve branch of IBM. So, if anyone at SuSE has insight into what IBM may be planning - I would be him. And with his experience the market direction and focus is most likely changing.
Re:Typical SuSE by jbolden · 2003-03-10 16:01 · Score: 1

That's a function of a bubble economy. In general American companies are very ethical. Check back in another decade when the bubble is fully deflated and many execs have gone to jail.
Re:Typical SuSE by Skjellifetti · 2003-03-10 16:17 · Score: 1

When it comes to business ethics, American companies aren't exactly the most shining examples...

Are you trying to tell us that French and German commercial interests have made no money selling dual use technologies to the Iraqis in the past 10 years? Do you really believe that the Swedish arms industry has stopped paying bribes to 3rd world defense ministers? Are you claiming that Swiss and Luxembourg banking establishments no longer welcome ill gotten gains or that the Japanese conglomerates are no longer the largests contributors to the campaign coffers of the LDP?

American companies are no better or worse in their business ethics than any other developed country's companies. Each company must be judged independently of others. And even those that /. readers hate the most can have progressive policies in some areas even while being total idiots in others. Which Mickey Mouse outfit is it that offers health benefits to same-sex partners and yet tries to bribe Congress into requiring copy protection in every digital device? If you look hard enough, you might find something good, useful, and progressive that SCO has done recently even while they are being total fools with the lawsuit. SuSE is probably still too young to have any skeletons in their closet, but give them 10 years and they'll do something evil.

--
FreeSpeech.org
Re:Typical SuSE by Raffaello · 2003-03-10 16:52 · Score: 1

"Some people confuse long term strategies with ethics, but the goal is always profit, otherwise it wouldn't be business but charity"

Any long term strategy must include a means to maintain business partner and customer trust *years* down the road. That means is ethical behavior. Ethics is the foundation of any long term strategy.

A company needs a code of behavior that allows it to be trusted 10 years down the road, and not reviled as a sleazey pariah that no one will do business with, or buy from. Businesses only lose sight of ethics when they have no real long term strategy, and all plans are focused on the short term bottom line.
Re:Typical SuSE by k8to · 2003-03-12 05:49 · Score: 1

Your general points are worthwhile, but I have some criticisms.

* Your criticisms of businesses in other places, espcially in europe, are primarily in the political domain. You may feel these actions are unethical, but they are not in the domain of _business ethics_. I think the point was that by and large, German companies (possibly other european ones?) have a much stronger sense of the ethics of doing business, that they have a stronger sense of how to act in the marketplace prevails as opposed to the more American "anything goes". This is substantiated, I believe, by the comparitive teeth in the american SEC designed to keep trading regular, wheras in the german stock market, no such strong police agent exists, but the trading remains, by and large, regular.

* SuSE isn't too young to screw up, they've been in business ten years already, and have made various serious errors already. (I could enumerate them, but think using my inside employee information to defame is in poor taste!)

* There's no need to bring up a bunch of hot-button politics in response to a cultural comparison.

--
-josh

The end of Unix? (Not *nix) by GrenDel+Fuego · 2003-03-10 09:35 · Score: 2, Insightful

This makes me start to wonder if this might be the start of the finish for the Unix codebases.

SCO is threatening to cancel IBM's license to distribute AIX. They have the ability to do this since they own the rights to the original Unix codebase. Could it be very long before they start going after the other Unix vendors?

Sun, SGI, IBM, and other Unix vendors are already throwing their support behind Linux in a lot of ways. Perhaps this will give them the added incentive to finally throw full support into Linux, in order to avoid being subject to the whim of a failing company that may or may not decide to blackmail them.

Of course, the end of Unix has been predicted for many years now, so maybe this will turn out to be nothing.

Piracy by kfg · 2003-03-10 09:36 · Score: 5, Interesting

No, no, not *that* kind of piracy. I mean *real* piracy. With ships, and cannon, and lots of a "Avast there"'s in it and stuff.

I think Doug Fairbanks might have something to do with it too, but I'm a little fuzzy on that part, so don't quote me.

Anyway, around the turn of the century, no, not *that* century. Ummmm, no, not that century either. 1700 to 1800. Various "states" in Northern Africa practiced actual piracy, capturing ships, ransoming the men on board or selling them into slavery if no ransom was paid.

Better yet, they could make a lot of money without any risk if they captured a few ships and then used the terror factor to demand *tribute* from other nations. The would be known as a "protection racket" if it were done on a smaller scale.

And it worked. Most of Europe caved in and payed the tribute. ( Not that the pirates didn't make the occasional "mistake" and sieze a lucrative looking prize anyway, but what the hell).

America held out. America had no Navy and no standing army. So they bloody well built them and went to war. In legitimate defense, of the world even (go figure). The modern Marine Corps was born out of this, and when the song mentions Tripoli this is the conflict it refers to.

The conflict lasted four years, but America, young, brash and still idealistic America, on its own, rid the world of these pirates.

Why am I going on about this?

Well, think about it, what is SCO doing right now?

Practicing true computer piracy, that's what. Demanding tribute on a claim that everyone knows is essentially bogus.

What do we do about it?

Well, an American congressman, in reaction to the demand for tribute from the pirates, made a statement that became the rallying cry in the war against the pirates of the Barbary Coast and an American policy for ever after ( well, at least until Reagan).

"Millions for defence. Not one damned penny for tribute."

That's the way to handle SCO. This is not a time to be "pragmatic" as the lawyer and the accountant see pragmatism.

At the very least SCO should be shunned and isolated. Compleat noncooperation throughout the entire industry. Ostracised in the literal sense. Banished to die in the wilderness. Call them Ishmael. SuSE shouldn't pull out of United Linux. SCO should be ejected.

But beyond that they should not be payed one single penny, not even to save millions in legal fees. They are pirates. They are demanding tribute AS pirates. They need to be crushed. Ultimately and completely.

Please. IBM, I implore you. Stay the course. Buy up what remains of their bloody legal corpse for fractions of a penny on the dollar *after* you have crushed them and reduced their value as a company to nil.

But not one damned penny for tribute.

KFG

Re:Piracy by Anonymous Coward · 2003-03-10 10:06 · Score: 0

Speaking of piracy, I wonder if SCO themselves have ever been audited by the BSA?
Re:Piracy by Anonymous Coward · 2003-03-10 10:25 · Score: 0

How is Debian GNU/Linux in the UnitedLinux mix?
Re:Piracy by Grishnakh · 2003-03-10 10:38 · Score: 1

I agree with this. But instead of paying lawyers to go after SCO, I think it'd be better to handle this the way America handled the Barbary Coast pirates: build a military force and attack them.
Re:Piracy by Anonymous Coward · 2003-03-10 10:40 · Score: 1, Informative

Debian is not in UnitedLinux. Never was. Debian is looking at LSB and other standards stuff, sure, that might be the reason for this confusion.
Re:Piracy by Tellalian · 2003-03-10 10:54 · Score: 1

But not one damned penny for tribute.

Oh come on. Be creative. Let's pay them exactly one penny! And make it one that's gone through one of those pressing machines they have at tourist attractions. You know, one with a clown face or "Harry's Super Fun Happy House of Waffles" pressed into it or something. Then we can start with the crushing, and hurting, and lawyers...don't forget the lawyers!
Re:Piracy by kfg · 2003-03-10 11:03 · Score: 1

Ah, but that would be too easy on them. They'd just end up dead that way.

Lawyers make them *suffer.* For a long, long time.

KFG
Re:Piracy by Anonymous Coward · 2003-03-10 11:04 · Score: 0

Hi there! You are a troll, or an idiot. My guess is: troll.

Just for fun, tho:

* No one said anything about pirate copies of free software. The original poster drew an analogy between the protection racket by the "Avast matey" real pirates, and SCO's bogus demand for one billion dollars.

* Debian, not Debain.

* Debian isn't in UnitedLinux. Debian is a truly free Linux distro.
Re:Piracy by rossz · 2003-03-10 11:12 · Score: 4, Interesting

"Millions for defence. Not one damned penny for tribute."

I'm pretty sure it was President Andrew Jackson made this statement. Other than that, you pretty well cover the Barbary pirates situation, though you failed to mention that several European countries could have easily dealt with the problem, but refused to do so due to politics - much to the anger of many British naval officers who didn't like to see British sailors in slavery.

But I'm off-topic and will probably be moderated as such (and I deserve it).

--
-- Will program for bandwidth
Re:Piracy by Anonymous Coward · 2003-03-10 11:22 · Score: 0

And not until after their execs have stepped down, because not one damned penny for tribute. The execs are the pirates at work here.
Re:Piracy by Grishnakh · 2003-03-10 11:54 · Score: 1

Lawyers can only make them suffer in a criminal case. This is a civil case. All that could happen is SCO, the company, will lose the case, then get countersued by IBM. At some point, they'll run out of money, and have to file Chapter 7. Their assets, what little they may have, will be liquidated. Their employees will all be fired. But the stupid executives who started this crap will sell off their stock while it's still worth something, then retire compfortably, or go on to some other business venture (I sure hope some other stupid company doesn't hire them--a lot of corporations seem to have a bad habit of hiring someone for CEO right after they trash another company).

So I think a strike force is a better option.
Re:Piracy by kfg · 2003-03-10 12:02 · Score: 1

It was Charles Pickney of South Carolina who said this in 1796, while serving as Ambassador to France. It was said in the context of trying to gain French cooperation in putting down the pirates.

For the rest of his life Pickney was irritated by the fact that he was misquoted as having said, "Millions for defence, not one cent for tribute," and so made sure that the *proper* quote would be his gravestone inscription.

"Millions for defence, not one *damned* cent for tribute."

(Emphasis mine)

See Bartlett's:

http://www.bartleby.com/100/690.37.html

KFG
Re:Piracy by Anonymous Coward · 2003-03-10 12:04 · Score: 0

No, BSD is a truly free Linux distro
Re:Piracy by kfg · 2003-03-10 12:08 · Score: 1

You've never been divorced, have you?

Trust me. Criminal cases can only punish. Punishment has fixed limitations.

Civil cases can cause suffering ad infinitum.

KFG
Re:Piracy by Anonymous Coward · 2003-03-10 12:16 · Score: 0

...and look at us now, the US, Germany, France and Iraq.

History does has its histerical [sic] ironies...
Re:Piracy by rossz · 2003-03-10 12:32 · Score: 1

Ok, thanks for the clarification. The quote I had attributed it to the wrong person. I'll make a note of it. Privateers of the 16tth century (but not pirates) are a bit of a hobby with me, so this was a bit outside of my expertise.

--
-- Will program for bandwidth
Re:Piracy by Grishnakh · 2003-03-10 12:53 · Score: 3, Funny

You've never been divorced, have you?

I'm a Slashdot poster!! I'll probably never have that problem!
Re:Piracy by kfg · 2003-03-10 14:51 · Score: 1

It usually gets falsely attributed, but to Thomas Jefferson, for whom Pickney was in France, replacing. . . Thomas Jefferson.

They were interesting times.

KFG
Re:Piracy by boots@work · 2003-03-10 15:29 · Score: 1

(Great post, KFG. (Kentucky Fried Gerbil?))

And so, for those of you following along at home but without a Navy of your own:

Write to SCO now. info@sco.com. Tell them that you make or influence computer purchasing decisions, that you write software, and that you have friends, colleagues and customers in the industry. Tell them that it's a stupid action that ruins SCO's credibility and future, and that you're going to encourage people to avoid SCO. Tell them that they ought to take responsibility for their own miserable failure to capitalize on the resounding success of Linux.

I did. I don't suppose it'll dissuade them from this boneheadedness but perhaps there's a chance their death agony will do less damage to Linux.

--
"A language is a dialect with a navy."
Re:Piracy by jbolden · 2003-03-10 16:04 · Score: 1

I don't know if you've read the case. IANAL but some of the stuff in there seems like intent to mislead the court, perjury....
Re:Piracy by Anonymous Coward · 2003-03-10 18:08 · Score: 0

an American policy for ever after ( well, at least until Reagan).

"Millions for defence. Not one damned penny for tribute."

If you're combining Iran-Contra with the Iran hostage crisis, well, I don't think it's likely that the two are directly connected. This would require Reagan to have worked out half the scheme already by January 1981.

More likely the motivation was to get around that pesky thing called the Constitution in order to funnel money to the Contras after Congress had specifically cut off such funds. The fact that Iran was the buyer makes the deal that much slimier, but I doubt that it was essential to what they were trying to do.
Re:Piracy by kfg · 2003-03-10 18:22 · Score: 1

Third base.

KFG
Re:Piracy by Grishnakh · 2003-03-10 18:26 · Score: 1

I read over their entire case on their website. IANAL either (engineer instead), but I don't see much in there that's blatantly false, except that they entirely left out what the state of Linux was before IBM got involved. Everything else is just really stupid statements, like "Linux is like a bicycle, and SCO is like a luxury car", that it's impossible for Linux to have developed so fast when SCO had to spend billions to develop (where did all that money go??? SCO's stuff didn't change at all throughout the 90's!), etc. It's all stuff that can easily be disproven with just a little research on the net and in the Linux source code (the complete history of which is conveniently available on ftp.kernel.org).
Re:Piracy by kfg · 2003-03-10 18:59 · Score: 1

"Kentucky Fried Gerbil?"

Yeah, I get that a lot. :)

For what it's worth it's Kevin Fred Gavitt. Honest.

KFG
Re:Piracy by fucksl4shd0t · 2003-03-10 22:13 · Score: 1

IANAL either (engineer instead),
Just for the record, there's no reason at all engineers and lawyers can't understood each other's business. They both revolve around very technical stuff. Legal documents read exactly the same as technical writing. In fact, it is the same.
The only real reason I can think of is all the time it takes to study both fields so you can have up to date knowledge of the field in your head.
I once had a lawyer show me how common sense applied to a divorce and the ensuing custody battle. I'm still happy I listened to him, but the reasoning presented on how it would go (regardless of what the case was actually built on) was very strong and very persuasive. But it sounded a lot like a description of 4-stroke engine mechanics.

--
Like what I said? You might like my music
Re:Piracy by fucksl4shd0t · 2003-03-10 22:17 · Score: 1

Dude, you have 3 first names and no last name. Honest. :)

--
Like what I said? You might like my music
Re:Piracy by jbolden · 2003-03-11 03:30 · Score: 1

Blatently false, no. Intentionally highly misleading absolutely. Take the Montery and JFS example. They show a great deal of detail regarding the fact that SCO and IBM were involved in project Montery together and that IBM had signed an NDA. In the very next line they show quotes from IBM officials regarding porting JFS to Linux. They then immediately follow this with claims that IBM shared SCO IP with Linux. The clear intent is to insinuate that JFS came from SCO.

In other news ... by dago · 2003-03-10 09:38 · Score: 4, Funny

A big well known network gear manufacturer has decided to rename itself 'CI'.

Its spokesman stated : 'With those #@$à3 guys there over at SCO, we didn't wanted anymore to have this acronym inside our name, so we just removed it'

--
#include "coucou.h"

Re:In other news ... by Evil-G · 2003-03-10 10:34 · Score: 1

It took me quite a while to get that.... too much beer and not enough coffee!
Re:In other news ... by SN74S181 · 2003-03-10 10:43 · Score: 2, Interesting

What are you talking about? Haven't you read any of the history of how Cisco Systems was founded? They basically skitted their way off the Berkeley campus and formed a private company, taking with them publicly funded intellection property.

They should be happy with how SCO is behaving.
Re:In other news ... by dago · 2003-03-10 17:53 · Score: 1

I think I even know that history better than you. This was off the Stanford Campus (not everything come out of Berkeley) ... and more that public funded research (that stanford wasn't able to commercialy exploit, btw), the so-called rip off concerned mainly time and hardware used for developping this company while working at stanford.

--
#include "coucou.h"

Linux is dying... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-03-10 09:40 · Score: 5, Funny

...as independent reports confirm. So before you're forced to buy Windows and go to the Dark Side, come on over to the BSD. It's like the Other Light Side Of The Force.

FreeBSD is an excellent choice of operating system. We're happy to share it with any poor Linux refugees such as yourself. I think you've all suffered enough.

(With only a hint of sarcasm. :)

Re:Linux is dying... by CrazyDuke · 2003-03-10 13:26 · Score: 1

FreeBSD, the OS that had me scratching my head for months on why X11 wouldn't go any higher than 640x480 until I finally figured out the installation instructions for it specifically stated to set the monitor to the default that ended up only supporting 640x480.

It is deeply fun trying to use X11 at 640x480.

--
Any sufficiently advanced influence is indistinguishable from control.
Re:Linux is dying... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-03-10 13:40 · Score: 0

FOCK FREEBSD, if linux dies i'm gonna use Plan9 from bell labs! I'M A HAX0R NOT A LUSER!!!! HAW HAW

Who'd blame 'em? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-03-10 09:41 · Score: 3, Insightful

First TurboLinux implodes. Now SCO's starting to sue companies who they once looked at as partners, and in the process they're alienating pretty much any and every UNIX related sales opportunity they once had (not to mention they're probably making it tons more difficult for resellers to sell their wares).

That leaves Conectiva and SuSE, at least for now. The rest are business partners who are putting their names behind the UL effort, but many of them are on the "will SCO sue them next" list. Yeah, I'd like to go to a party where I know there's a good chance a certain jerk will want to pick a fight with me. No thanks...

The UnitedLinux effort, for all its hype and all the hope people (some, at least) put in it, is no doubt bruised all over the place by SCO's recent actions. And the incorrect perception that SCO owns UnitedLinux can't be helping the other Linux players who are participating in the project. I can only guess that some folks think SuSE and Conectiva are also evil, if only by association.

It's unfortunate that nobody at SCO thought about the trickle effect and what this lawsuit would do to its former allies "downstream". They've pulled some really stupid stuff in the past, but I truly think this time they've outdone themselves.

UnitedLinux may very well be a sinking ship.

Thanks for nothing, SCO.

Re:Who'd blame 'em? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-03-10 11:25 · Score: 0

Look at the bright side...
Maybe RedHat saw this all along and were waiting?

My faith in SuSE will continue by Zemran · 2003-03-10 09:42 · Score: 1

I have been in many "my OS is better than yours" arguements where I stood up for SuSE and without getting on a soap-box now, this is yet another point in their favour. However this pans out they have stated that they are not happy with what SCO have done.

--
I love stacking my barbecues in the shed at the end of summer - you can't beat a bit of grill on grill action.

Re:My faith in SuSE will continue by Drathus · 2003-03-10 09:51 · Score: 1

I agree, and I don't run SuSE.

Sometimes it takes actions like this to get the message through to some people. Like corporations. =P

No, everyone else has licenses. by douglips · 2003-03-10 09:44 · Score: 2, Informative

Sun & HP at least have perpetual license to Unix, hence all the stuff about "Solaris is a safe harbor". SCO can't touch these guys.

--
My amazing wife - Artist, Author, Philosopher - Laurie M

Re:No, everyone else has licenses. by GrenDel+Fuego · 2003-03-10 09:49 · Score: 1

Well, IBM is being sued because SCO thinks that they may have let people who have read the Unix source code contribute to the linux kernel, which was against the license agreement.

Sun & HP's licenses could have similiar agreements in them. Both companies are contributing to the Linux kernel (I believe), so there could be potential for violation of their perpetual license.

Reevaluating their relationship with SCO by gmuslera · 2003-03-10 09:46 · Score: 1

... but I don't see nowhere that they are reevaluation their relationship with UnitedLinux. Maybe will be more helpful this interview to the SuSE CEO where he talks about United Linux, the SCO suit, and the company, and don't say nothing about dropping UnitedLinux neither.

Re:Reevaluating their relationship with SCO by cant_get_a_good_nick · 2003-03-10 11:19 · Score: 1

Interesting interview. I liked this quote (emphasis mine).

We would very much like to see Red Hat join [United Linux]. In many ways, our technology is superior to theirs (especially in our ability to maintain a single-source code across all platforms -- desktop to mainframe) and the addition of Red Hat marketers (which is clearly their strong suit) would benefit everyone. That said, it certainly is not necessary for them to join.
- Richard Seibt, CEO SuSE

Did some RedHat guy come over and steal his lunch money when he was 7? :)

Too bad Debian is still in by Anonymous Coward · 2003-03-10 09:47 · Score: 0

It's too bad that Debain GNU/Linux in the UnitedLinux mix. I have a lot of respect for the Debian developers... Hopefully they and the other Linux vendors under UnitedLinux will follow suit. SCO can kiss my ass.

Anyway, let's hope that SuSE can stick to their guns and either 1) persuade SCO to rethink or 2) persuade the other UnitedLinux members to rethink.

UnitedLinux is a scam by zbik · 2003-03-10 09:47 · Score: 2, Insightful

What does UnitedLinux have to offer as Yet Another Distribution? They aren't promoting any new ideas or technologies; their only selling point is to be a "single stable, uniform platform for application development, certification, and deployment" (UL FAQ). In other words, they offer no value unless they become a monopoly. Why on earth would we support a free kernel monopolized by a proprietary distribution? Far better to throw your support behind Gentoo, Debian, or Mandrake. We don't need another RedHat.

Re:UnitedLinux is a scam by Anonymous Coward · 2003-03-10 10:06 · Score: 0

Don't forget Slackware... the distribution SuSE (and UnitedLinux) was originally based on. It's still better than any of those later knock-offs.
Re:UnitedLinux is a scam by bogie · 2003-03-10 10:31 · Score: 1

"We don't need another RedHat."

Where's the mod point for Stupidity? Get a clue.

--
If you wanna get rich, you know that payback is a bitch
Re:UnitedLinux is a scam by cant_get_a_good_nick · 2003-03-10 11:12 · Score: 1

Don't forget Slackware... the distribution SuSE (and UnitedLinux) was originally based on.

Does anyone have a map that shows the distros and what they're based on? Mandrake based off RedHat, SuSE off Slack, Caldera and Lindows from Debian. Sometimes it seems that there's just one or two guys making distros and everyone else is piggybacking off them, besides the obvious evryone piggybacking off of the kernel and shared userland stuff.
Re:UnitedLinux is a scam by fucksl4shd0t · 2003-03-10 22:24 · Score: 1

"single stable, uniform platform for application development, certification, and deployment"
The #1 complaint from people looking at any GNU/Linux is the fact that all the distributions are differnet and don't necessarily interoperate easily. This is a serious issue for us all, and it is one everyone should be working together to address. Luckily, the choices seem to be UnitedLinux or LSB, or do something else entirely and probably get ignored.
Other posters have commented that LSB doesn't address nearly enough, but I'd like to point out that LSB is still young as a standard. How much did the first published specs of HTML define?
I'm not behind the UnitedLinux effort because I prefer LSB, given the choice. But from a development standpoint, I really like the idea of targetting UnitedLinux and knowing that it'll cover 5 distributions that I previously had to really worry about as 5 separate distributions.

--
Like what I said? You might like my music

In other news, the dinosaurs... by expro · 2003-03-10 09:49 · Score: 4, Insightful

Um, where was the open source version of Windows that Microsoft had to compete against?

In other news, scientists proclaimed that dinosaurs died because they were no longer adapted to the environment, and then refused to accept that their huge skeletons and the large quantity of other life forms they consumed proved otherwise.

Re:In other news, the dinosaurs... by cperciva · 2003-03-10 10:13 · Score: 0

Where was the open source operating system which UNIX had to compete against in the early 80s?

--
Tarsnap: Online backups for the truly paranoid
Re:In other news, the dinosaurs... by abe+ferlman · 2003-03-10 13:11 · Score: 1

erm,UNIX didn't die in the '80s.

--
microsoftword.mp3 - it doesn't care that they're not words...
Re:In other news, the dinosaurs... by cperciva · 2003-03-10 13:23 · Score: 1

According to ESR it did. ;)

--
Tarsnap: Online backups for the truly paranoid
Re:In other news, the dinosaurs... by jbolden · 2003-03-10 15:58 · Score: 1

During the 1980's Unix killed off just about every other minicomputer and workstation OS. I don't really see how that is "dieing". AFAIK Unix and zOS are the only OSes still being sold and actively developed from the 1970s.
Re:In other news, the dinosaurs... by gandy909 · 2003-03-11 02:32 · Score: 1

Different set of criteria there....

There was ONE closed source MS, ran on generic PC hardware, and completely compatible with itself.

There were a dozen? closed source *NIX's, each tied (generally) to its vendors hardware, and incompatible in many ways with each other.

--

(Stolen sig) Remember: it's a "Microsoft virus", not an "email virus", a "Microsoft worm", not a "computer worm

ReUnited Linux!,,, by JHromadka · 2003-03-10 09:49 · Score: 1

ReUnited Linux! And it feels so goooood. ReUnited Linux! Cause it's understoood...

--
"The objective of securing the safety of Americans from crime and terror has been achieved." -- John Ashcroft

Isn't a caldera just... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-03-10 09:49 · Score: 0

...the steaming remains of what's left over from a volcano that's already shot its wad and is now spent?

I've always liked SuSE.... by rushfan · 2003-03-10 09:49 · Score: 1

They seem like a nice, honorable company that tries to do the right thing and make a good product...

Good for them!!! UnitedLinux 1.0 *IS* SuSE linux (AFAICT) and w/o SuSE, Caldera/SCO doesn't have the engineering skills to upgrade the kernel on their own.

I hope Caldera goes down, and it makes me sad that I ever liked their company and wasted my money on stock (which I thankfully don't own anymore). I hope they go down the tubes and whomever suggested the idea for them to sue everyone gets sent to a foreign country and beaten with a cane!

UGH (Frustrated at how much I hate SCO now)

Rushfan

I wonder if Novell will sue SCO... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-03-10 09:49 · Score: 1, Interesting

...for possibly bringing proprietary knowledge of IPX to Linux. A fair amount of Novell knowledge came over when Caldera was formed, a fair amount of the IPX code was developed by Caldera engineers (credited with or without a "caldera.com" email address), and a fair amount of IPX code in Linux _still_ has Caldera copyrights. How much of this IPX stuff is legal to put in the kernel is anyone's guess.

Interesting...

Re:I wonder if Novell will sue SCO... by fucksl4shd0t · 2003-03-10 22:29 · Score: 1

...for possibly bringing proprietary knowledge of IPX to Linux. A fair amount of Novell knowledge came over when Caldera was formed, a fair amount of the IPX code was developed by Caldera engineers (credited with or without a "caldera.com" email address), and a fair amount of IPX code in Linux _still_ has Caldera copyrights. How much of this IPX stuff is legal to put in the kernel is anyone's guess.
Duh. I am an anonymous coward and like all the others, I don't know shit.
ALL GPLd work is copyrighted by someone. All developers who release even a portion of GPL work own their copyright, so long as it is marked as such. Ever wonder why GNU requires contributors to assign copyright ownership to them? (Well, GNU Enterprise does, I don't know that GNU does) It's because when you acquire a piece of software legally, you have only the rights given to you by copyright law, plus whatever you get provided in a separate licensing agreement. The GPL is that agreement that guarantees that you can continue to use the code and change it and so forth.
Therefore, whatever IP Caldera stuck in there, Linux is safe. The code is GPL.
Now, whether or not SCO can now sue Novell is something I don't know. Furthermore, it might be possible for Novell to sue SCO, which is what I think you were trying to insinuate but failed miserable.
In the end, though, it's pointless for SCO or Novell to sue the other. It's what I tell creditors when they call. "Sue me, go ahead. I ain't got shit and you'll just waste a lot of money anyway."

--
Like what I said? You might like my music

Re:They already dropped out. by Anonymous Coward · 2003-03-10 09:50 · Score: 0

As others pointed out, Suse is German. It's an easy mistake to make.

You probrably saw Suse employees sipping coffee at a Paris cafe like their fathers & grandfathers before them.

Re:You must be SCO management by Anonymous Coward · 2003-03-10 09:50 · Score: 0

Further examples, when Texas (and the other 12 confederate states) seceeded the last time (right before the civil war), the states that remained in the union (IE the North), were still known as the United States of America. So it is pretty safe to say that if Texas seceeds again, the rest of the US will still stay named the same.

we'll all just switch by Anonymous Coward · 2003-03-10 09:50 · Score: 0

SCO can't touch BSD because UCB already settled their licensing issues with USL. We'll all just switch to FreeBSD and be done with this whole mess.

Re:They already dropped out. by Anonymous Coward · 2003-03-10 09:51 · Score: 0

Sure you don't mean "Mandrake"?

*sigh* by horse_pheathers · 2003-03-10 09:55 · Score: 5, Funny

Cue up the banjoes, boys. "The Beverly Hillbillies", if ya please.

o/~ Ooooooo...lemme tell a story 'bout a group called SCO,
they was havin' them some difficulty rakin' in the dough.
They was lookin' at th'marketplace, decidin' what to do
when they saw this li'l penguin an they figgered they would sue....

Big Blue that is. IBM. Deeeep pockets. Moola moooola....

So they filed them a lawsuit a couple billion deep
allegin' Blue had fed that bird through source code feature creep.
Blue an' Penguin shook their heads, an' marvelled at this feat,
sayin' "Not our faults you silly gits ain't able to compete..."

Squeezed by th'market. Billy Gates on one side, Torvaldes on t'other....squisha squish, yeah.

o/~

-- Horse_Pheathers

Re:*sigh* by Anonymous Coward · 2003-03-10 10:19 · Score: 0

I would give you a score of "5", but I'm not registered.
Re:*sigh* by rhun32 · 2003-03-10 10:58 · Score: 1

Funny, and it even scans better than most filks. Mod this up!

--
#include <disclaimer.h>
Re:*sigh* by Dunark · 2003-03-10 11:24 · Score: 1

Can we get an override to mod this up to a six? I think it's hilarious.

Re:They already dropped out. by Anonymous Coward · 2003-03-10 09:55 · Score: 0

French? You just REALLY pissed off the Germans.

We must be all missing the point by The+Analog+Kid · 2003-03-10 09:56 · Score: 3, Interesting

SCO is suing IBM not to win, but they are hoping that IBM will buy them out before the case. IBM could also not buy them out immediatly but drag the case out and put SCO out of buissness or dissolve the case. Then IBM can buy their assets and own Unix. Ofcourse they can GPL Unix (who really care if they do or don't besides the vendors themselves, its going to happen anyway if UNIX wants to still compete with Linux). Put all the good stuff into Linux that isn't there and wala a excellent 1st rate operating system.

Please mod parent up... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-03-10 09:57 · Score: 1, Funny

...as insightful.
It is not funny, it is not informative, it is *the truth*.

FreeBSD is a fine operating system that I personally think is a better "linux" (note lower case) that Linux(TM) itself (note upper case).

Re:Please mod parent up... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-03-10 10:45 · Score: 0

FreeBSD is *DEAD*.
I tought you already knew..sorry..
Re:Please mod parent up... by ShadowDrake · 2003-03-10 13:16 · Score: 1

I really want to like *BSD. The daemon is cute, and the heritage is impressive, as is NetBSD's compatibility commitment. The problem is that the rest isn't good. When I tried FreeBSD (3.3), I noted

-Kernel configuration is clunky, and looks like it hasn't changed much from the original guys in Berkley.

-The TV tuner support is inferior to GNU/Linux's. I liked xawtv too much to switch (apparently now it works, but it didn't then).

-The installer is a joke. Apparently you slice up the hard disc (with weird Minix-style subpartitions), start running, then go back to the installer to slap on the packages you're missing.

-It also took forever to pick up my CD reader on boot. A pain for a desktop that's power-cycled twice or more daily.

--
It's just like a fascist dictatorship, without the punctual rail service!
Re:Please mod parent up... by Tony-A · 2003-03-10 13:55 · Score: 1

That's why it's funny! Sorry.
(For whatever reason, it seems that +5 Funny outranks everything else around here. Something to do with poetic as opposed to prosaic, I guess;)
Re:Please mod parent up... by KeensMustard · 2003-03-10 15:17 · Score: 2, Insightful

So, when evaluating a new cart model, do you base you opinion on a car built 5 years previously? How about we make judgements on Linux by using Linus's orignal code?
FYI: FreeBSD is now up to 5.0, where have you been??

Entwick? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-03-10 10:01 · Score: 1, Funny

Is that what happens when a bunch of Ents get together to program? ..Christ, I could imagine the design phase. Three weeks of flowcharts to decide on how best to print "Hello World"..

Re:Entwick? by Ozan · 2003-03-10 12:04 · Score: 1

Is that what happens when a bunch of Ents get together to program? ..Christ, I could imagine the design phase. Three weeks of flowcharts to decide on how best to print "Hello World"..

Well, this is german engineering. And you must admit, our "Hello World"s take corners like no other French or American wanna-be "Hello Worlds" ever can hope to do. :-)
Re:Entwick? by FuzzyBad-Mofo · 2003-03-10 17:22 · Score: 1

Remember, nothing is worth saying in Entish, unless it takes a long time to say. I guess they must use COBOL or something..

Re:They already dropped out. by Qbertino · 2003-03-10 10:01 · Score: 1

But really, who cares? SuSe is french.

SuSE (Software Und SystemEntwicklung) is German.

And they have the sillyest acronym I've seen in years.

--
We suffer more in our imagination than in reality. - Seneca

does sco hire any techies? by kevin+lyda · 2003-03-10 10:02 · Score: 2, Interesting

and if so, what's their opinion of this?

--
US Citizen living abroad? Register to vote!

Re:does sco hire any techies? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-03-10 14:06 · Score: 0

why would they? how long has it been since they did anything technical?
Re:does sco hire any techies? by jbolden · 2003-03-10 16:26 · Score: 1

Caldera definitely did some techie stuff with installers, desktops... in 94-5. SCO did some pretty cool stuff around 90 with i860/486 combos and compiler design.

Does anyone know of anything more recent?

Time for SCO to die. . . by Eric+Damron · 2003-03-10 10:07 · Score: 1

I think that everyone in the open source community that has relations with SCO must re-evaluate those relationships. SCO's actions seem to be motivated by desperation. UNIX is dying as cheaper UNIX-like alternatives gain acceptance.

This lawsuit is SCOs last gasp for air before going under. IBM should use its muscle to put SCO under once and for all. Giving them any quarter will only fuel more lawsuits.

--
The race isn't always to the swift... but that's the way to bet!

and it feels so good by b17bmbr · 2003-03-10 10:08 · Score: 1

oh no, i didn't say that!!!

--
My problem? I was perfectly gruntled, until some numbnuts came by and dissed me.

Linux was a bicycle by k-hell · 2003-03-10 10:10 · Score: 3, Interesting

I haven't been reading many such complaints before (luckily I'm no lawyer ;), but it's actually quite interesting to read the complaint from SCO.

84. Prior to IBM's involvement, Linux was the software equivalent of a bicycle. UNIX was the software equivalent of a luxury car. To make Linux of necessary quality for use by enterprise customers, it must be re-designed so that Linux also becomes the software equivalent of a luxury car.

Re:Linux was a bicycle by NullProg · 2003-03-10 11:15 · Score: 1

From an interview with Linus here:
http://mozillaquest.com/Linux03/ScoSource-0 5_Story 01.html

MozillaQuest Magazine: Did the Linux kernel and GNU/Linux developers and groups lack the technological capability of producing an enterprise level Linux without being bailed-out by IBM as SCO-Caldera claims?

Linus Torvalds: "Bailed-out by IBM"? Hardly. Oh, IBM has certainly been very helpful, and I like the IBM engineers I work with, but Linux was running on 16-cpu Sun sparc computers long before IBM really got into it.

Everything in SCO's court filing is speculative (IANAL).
This would be like Microsoft filing a lawsuit against Xerox because they helped Apple dilute the market for windows licenses.

Sorry. End rant, gulp beer.
Enjoy,

--
It's just the normal noises in here.
Re:Linux was a bicycle by Anonymous Coward · 2003-03-10 11:59 · Score: 0

Windows must be a full-size SUV, seeing how many fatal crashes it's involved in daily.
Re:Linux was a bicycle by Xoro · 2003-03-10 15:15 · Score: 1

Holy Jebus! No wonder the developers are pissed off. It makes it sound like IBM took Linus' science fair project and turned it into an enterprise-class OS.

As long as the Linux development process remained uncoordinated and random, it posed little or no threat to SCO, or to other UNIX vendors...

It's not just a suit against IBM, but a major flame of the kernel developers as well. Has IBM committed *that* much code? I doubt it. Thanks for posting the link -- I didn't even know it was available. I'm surprised someone at SCO hasn't hidden it in shame.

--
Kill, Tux, kill!
Re:Linux was a bicycle by Barraketh · 2003-03-10 18:29 · Score: 1

SCO - those bastards! Using Neal Stephenson's analogy AGAINST linux!

"Hacker with bullhorn: 'Save your money! Accept one of our free tanks! It is invulnerable, and can drive across rocks and swamps at ninety miles an hour while getting a hundred miles to the gallon!'
Prospective station wagon buyer: 'I know what you say is true...but...er...I don't know how to maintain a tank!'
Bullhorn: 'You don't know how to maintain a station wagon either!'
Buyer: 'But this dealership has mechanics on staff. If something goes wrong with my station wagon, I can take a day off work, bring it here, and pay them to work on it while I sit in the waiting room for hours, listening to elevator music.'
Bullhorn: 'But if you accept one of our free tanks we will send volunteers to your house to fix it for free while you sleep!'
Buyer: 'Stay away from my house, you freak!'
Bullhorn: 'But...'
Buyer: 'Can't you see that everyone is buying station wagons?'"

-Neal Stephenson, "In the beginning there was the command line"

Mandrake Threatens Vetos by Anonymous Coward · 2003-03-10 10:11 · Score: 0

The actions of SUSE are stupid and will not work. Mandrake is believes that SCO should have more time to withdraw suit and open up all code.
Final comment from Mandrake was, "We are about to release 9.1 Mandrake so come buy us. We are not a part of the United Linux and the tyranny they stand for"

Comment removed by account_deleted · 2003-03-10 10:14 · Score: 1

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Consider the history of SCO... by Black+Copter+Control · 2003-03-10 10:15 · Score: 4, Informative

SCO started out life as a part of (tada!) Microsoft under the name Xenix. The group was then then split off/sold to the Santa Cruz Operation and then morphed into SCO.

They just happened to purchase the rights to UNIX somewhere along the line (that somewhere being rather near the end).

--
OS Software is like love: The best way to make it grow is to give it away.

Re:Consider the history of SCO... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-03-10 10:55 · Score: 0

The really funny thing about this, is that there are commercial Unices out there (Solaris, for one) that have bunches of code (mostly basic utilities like rlogin and such) with Microsoft copyrights.

Re:Parallel with the United States by N3WBI3 · 2003-03-10 10:16 · Score: 1

umm we were the US before Hawii and Alaska, and for that matter Texas joined the Union

--

Did You Actually Read The Article by deKernel · 2003-03-10 10:22 · Score: 1

I want to know if CmdTaco actually read the article before he posted the title??
If he did, then he is a complete moron!!!!
Nowhere in the article does it say that SuSE is thinking of withdrawling from the UnitedLinux project.

The thing that worries me by rudy_wayne · 2003-03-10 10:25 · Score: 3, Insightful

It happens over and over again. These stupid lawsuits never turn out the way they should.

What SHOULD happen:
Small Scum-Bag Company A, with very little in the way of legitimate product or profits, files a ridiculously stupid lawsuit against Big Deep-Pockets Company B.

Big Deep-Pockets Company B uses their comsiderable financial and legal resources to win the case, crush Small Scum-Bag Company A and obtain a court ruling that deters future stupid lawsuits by other small scum-bag companies..

What ACTUALLY heppens:
Big Deep-Pockets Company B doesn't want to be bothered, so they have their insurance company send off a nice fat check to Small Scum-Bag Company A, which now is flush with cash and able to pursue other victims with its stupid lawsuits.

Re:The thing that worries me by bfree · 2003-03-10 14:11 · Score: 1

I don't think that exactly correct!

What ACTUALLY happens:
Someday real soon now IBM respond to this, probably with comments from fellow "Enterprise" friends of Linux (Sun, SGI). SCO's value drops from $32 million (they already lost about $4 million today) down to their year low or lower putting them around $6 million or less. IBM buy them, take SCOs patent portfolio and hopefully drop the patents (agree not to enforce them or pay any more renewal fees), release all "partners" from any agreements with SCO, put all SCO code into the public domain (except for their code for the Caldera Linux distro), delist SCO from the stock market, sack the management and employ new ones, split the shares amongst the employees and set them on their merry way again as Caldera the Linux distributor.

Bottom line there is no way in hell that IBM is going to send any cheques to SCO to pay them off. The worth of SCO is far too low! To paraphrase from "The West Wing" episode which I just watched: "You have to throw an elbow once on prime time, just to show you can, then you'll never need to again". If IBM take SCO to the cleaners, no-one is going to fsck with them again (now if someone had a good case ....).

If IBM did throw SCOs code into the PD, does anyone think you would find anyone using it?

--
Never underestimate the dark side of the Source
Re:The thing that worries me by jbolden · 2003-03-10 16:33 · Score: 1

f IBM did throw SCOs code into the PD, does anyone think you would find anyone using it?

Yes. SCO has some pretty cool code for x86 mixed with other processors. Right now just about everybody's CPU are pretty similar. OTOH there are huge differences between graphic chips and CPUs. I imagine (though I could be wrong) that there might be some advantage move in moving away from the current CPU runs the graphics chip to having a graphical subsystem operating at kernel level of coequal status with the x86 CPU.

That is the x86 handles say the harddrive but the mouse, the screen, the desktop... are run by a graphical CPU which looks like a video card CPU except it is directly on the motherboard and can read directly from main memory.

Just a thought, I might be totally off base but that's some code I wouldn't mind seeing PD from SCO.
Re:The thing that worries me by bfree · 2003-03-11 02:25 · Score: 1

Sounds to me like it would be far more useful for that TCPA chip? Might help us use it as a co-processor for encryption/decryption. It sounds to me from your description that we would need to have re-architectured motherboards to take advantage of your co-CPU for graphics etc. and that isn't going to happen unless MS take up the code or else Apple twist it to their systems (which of course aren't x86 so would SCOs code be any use).

--
Never underestimate the dark side of the Source
Re:The thing that worries me by jbolden · 2003-03-11 03:45 · Score: 1

TCPA isn't nearly as challenging. TCPA is just a co-processor to do a specialized calculation; there are tons of good examples on how to implement that. The i860/486 combos were dual processor machines with different kinds of processors the i860 not just a coprocessor it ran entire threads not just performed specialized calculations.

As for re-architectured motherboards, I don't think it costs that much to design a motherboard. There is no reason say NVIDIA couldn't do it to go along with their new graphics chip / CPU. I agree though it won't happen unless MS takes up the code but once its in the public domain there is no reason NVIDIA couldn't coauthor the new code with Microsoft.

Good thing they are not English by einhverfr · 2003-03-10 10:30 · Score: 1

Their full name translates as "Software and System Development"

If they were in the US or UK, that would make them SaSD. SuSE is far far better ;-)

--

LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP

Re:They already dropped out. by Anonymous Coward · 2003-03-10 10:30 · Score: 0

French? You just REALLY pissed off the Germans. Apparently you have no idea about Europe.

New Slogan ;-).. by einhverfr · 2003-03-10 10:32 · Score: 1

I've got it....

ReUnited Linux!

It might not fly, but it will RUN.... Kinda like a penguin (except that they will swim as in sink or swim).

--

LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP

They're busy right now doing something important by Anonymous Coward · 2003-03-10 10:43 · Score: 0

Something about helping some Sad Man in the desert or something.

Just out of curiosity, by david@ecsd.com · 2003-03-10 10:43 · Score: 1

Why would your dog be associated with SCO in the first place? Is he a stockholder? Taht son of a bitch!

Re:Just out of curiosity, by MattElmore · 2003-03-10 11:31 · Score: 1

Mod parent up this is hiliarous

Idea.. SCO sells us unix or suffers the wrath by Anonymous Coward · 2003-03-10 10:46 · Score: 0

Ok honestly I can understand SCO's need to make money and try creative ways to keep the company alive, but this not a moral action from someone in the open source community. Here's an option. They need money so let's give it to them. With the help of the big players (ie:. IBM) lets buy unix from SCO and turn it open source. If they choose suicide and won't sell then I suggest that all the big players and all the techies that decide what technology is purchased boycott SCO. More than likely though IBM will wait them out. SCO doesn't have the money to keep a long court battle going and it will be a long up hill battle for them prove. One last word to SCO... I've got a Caldera book at home and I'm sorry for every buying it and helping your company please come pick it up. Just fyi... IBM uses paper in books as well so if you hire another high priced lawyer I think you have a shot at that one too... good luck I hope exit from the business world is a smooth one.

SCO has a case and they should have done... by DaphunK · 2003-03-10 10:52 · Score: 0, Troll

SCO has a very good case and they should have the right to enforce the contracts that were under their umbrella of responisibility. IBM does not own the original rights to the source that they built AIX around. Yes, they recently re-wrote most of the inefficent code that they were more or less "renting", but contracts are contracts. If you can't follow the rules of the contract, then you deserve everything you have coming to you. This has ABSOLUTELY nothing to do with the LINUX/Open Source community. This has to do with basic business practices. IBM violated the terms of the contract and YES they were measures to get them to settle the matter peacefully. When IBM more or less said SCREW YOU, then yes, SCO was left to either drop the issue or take it a step further. I believe SCO is doing the right thing here. I don't agree with the dollar amount, but they do have a very valid legal case. The courts will decide what is right and wrong. Open source is open souce. Source code that was developed for profit and IP before the GPL and other free movements don't automatically become open source because LINUX is hangin around out there promoting its practices. I love LINUX and UNIX. UNIX is UNIX and LINUX is LINUX/UNIX. LINUX was built around the ideals of UNIX and yes IBM did release, either knowingly or not, SYS V code into the OSS realm without permission. I wish everyone would open their eyes in the business world and realize that just because you don't understand that contracts are binding, to stop kicking around that which you know very little about. *steps off soapbox* Time to go home little kiddies.

--
Step 1. Write code. Step 2. ??? Step 3. Profit!

Re:SCO has a case and they should have done... by NullProg · 2003-03-10 11:32 · Score: 1

and yes IBM did release, either knowingly or not, SYS V code into the OSS realm without permission.

I'm not trying to start a flame war but can you be specific? The only AIX source code from IBM I've ever seen was for OS/2 (Aix 'like' utilities called ps, grep, ls, etc). JFS is not UNIX, it was released under OS/2 first.
I informed my boss that this lawsuit probably won't impact our Linux development. Do you know something that is not listed in the court papers? How did IBM violate SCO's IP?

Thanks.

--
It's just the normal noises in here.
Re:SCO has a case and they should have done... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-03-10 12:56 · Score: 0

sco released their own version of Linux, with the code in question, under the GPL. this completely invalidates their claim.
Re:SCO has a case and they should have done... by DaphunK · 2003-03-11 04:19 · Score: 1

SCO did not release the code in question under the GPL. They released their code in their version of LINUX with licenses for their proprietary claims.

--
Step 1. Write code. Step 2. ??? Step 3. Profit!
Re:SCO has a case and they should have done... by DaphunK · 2003-03-11 04:34 · Score: 1

From what I understand it's fairly similar to what SCO/Caldera/SCO group or whatever they refer to themselves as now. It's just that when Caldera released the UNIX code into linux, they provided information that said that the users of Caldera's Linux are covered because they own the rights to the code, etc etc. blah blah. They are alledging that IBM added the same value to their products. Like I said before, I don't necessarily agree with SCO suing IBM in any way, but pointed out that they did have a valid case. I know it's the unpopular view around here, ie. the TROLL designation of the original post, but if you read the court papers carefully, they did reserve the right to enforce the IP of their UNIX source. To me it's just enforcing a contractual agreement and nothing more or less than that. That's the reason contracts are made in the first place, right?

--
Step 1. Write code. Step 2. ??? Step 3. Profit!
Re:SCO has a case and they should have done... by ray-auch · 2003-03-11 05:56 · Score: 1

They released their code in their version of LINUX with licenses for their proprietary claims.

Therefore it is under the GPL, as a requirement of the GPL, in which case they'll have to argue that IBM signed away their rights under GPL by separate contract (not sure if that itself would breach GPL).

Either that or it wasn't actually in Linux (the kernel) but some library or program on their distribution, in which cases it probably doesn't affect most Linux users / distributors.

However given some of the stuff they are talking about (eg. SMP support) I can't see how it can be other than in the kernel and therefore they have released it under GPL when they shipped their version of the kernel.

Smart by Erwos · 2003-03-10 10:54 · Score: 2, Insightful

In fact, if SuSE would this opportunity to jump ship from UnitedLinux and form a partnership with RedHat instead, we could see a major revolution in Linux corporate use.

RedHat has tons of corporate experience, is great with GNOME, and has the US market pretty firmly. SuSE is great with KDE, has a goodly amount of corporate experience, and does a good job on the European market. Both are open-source friendly (although Yast is not open-source and SuSE CDs are not available for free download, IIRC, so SuSE might need to open up a bit). If RedHat and SuSE were to combine their experience, pool their technical resources, and start a combined marketing blitz, I think it would be highly effective at jump-starting widespread corporate acceptance of Linux.

Mandrake would have also made a suitable partner, but unfortunately, their current financial troubles make me think they'll be hitting the ground hard soon. A shame - I've head good things about them.

-Erwos

--
Plausible conjecture should not be misrepresented as proof positive.

Re:Smart by NullProg · 2003-03-10 11:21 · Score: 1

FYI, here is the public download:

http://www.suse.com/us/private/download/suse_lin ux /index.html

I don't mind paying for YAsT, it's much better at detecting hardware than RedHat's installation tool IMHO.

Enjoy,

--
It's just the normal noises in here.

Texas, duh. by Anonymous Coward · 2003-03-10 11:03 · Score: 0

Is there anything else?

Santa Cruz Operation? by LMCBoy · 2003-03-10 11:14 · Score: 1

Doesn't SCO stand for Santa Cruz Operation? When did they move to Utah?

Actually, I'm kinda glad. I used to live in SC, and I can't bear the thought that there is an evil-yet-boneheaded corporation there.

That's exactly the sort of situation up with which I shall not put!

--
Liberal (adj.): Free from bigotry; open to progress; tolerant of others.

Re:It should be the other way around. by the-matt-mobile · 2003-03-10 11:16 · Score: 1

If your friends are playing in the sand box and one of them starts peeing in the sand, then you and your friends kick him out of the sand box.

That doesn't change the fact that there's still pee in the sand (in this case pee == bad PR). And, if the kid peeing owns the portion of the sandbox he's whizzing in, well there isn't much to do about it if he doesn't want to leave. With as litigation happy as SCO is acting right now, what's the point in using strong arm tactics to remove them from the UL effort?

SuSe invades Mandrake by Anonymous Coward · 2003-03-10 11:24 · Score: 0

Upon hearing news of Mandrake's treachery, SuSe once again donned their pointy-hats and invaded Mandrake.

Unix not really SCO's anymore! by mabhatter654 · 2003-03-10 11:30 · Score: 1

The trademark may be SCO's but the actual work has always been done by the big guys. I have a sneaking suspision that IBM has more unix-related patents than SCO!

The real point of SCO having Unix was to prevent monoploy. After all, look at the other players: IBM, SUN, HP, SGI, etc..a who's who of mainframe computing. Imagine the hurt caused if any one of them had full claim to Unix--the AT lawsuits would fly! So they let a small, little guy have it instead of buying it from NEC/digital. Most of these company's Unices look nothing like SCO anymore. These companies have dumped 20+ years of their own research into Unix--and that work is theirs to place where ever they choose. Who's to say they can't take their own work and port it to something else!

That's clearly IBM's stand. From the stuff I've seen, they're not suing for outright patent or copyright infringement, but "license misapproperiation" type claims. In other words IBM learned stuff--not necessarily patented- and took it outside the family.

Wasn't SCO once the bad kid for porting Unix down to x86 so many years ago. Bought out by Caldera--who made their money developing Linux to beat SCO.
Both the pot and the kettle are black--get over it!

Re:Unix not really SCO's anymore! by Anonymous Coward · 2003-03-10 17:20 · Score: 0

Actually SCO only owns the source code to UNIX. UNIX the trademark and the specifications that define UNIX are owned by The Open Group at http://www.unix.org

Huh?? by dark-nl · 2003-03-10 11:34 · Score: 1

Debian is Debian, united only with itself.

I like SuSE but... by Mustang+Matt · 2003-03-10 11:51 · Score: 1, Offtopic

I really truly like SuSE. It seems like a great desktop and great server OS.

With one exception... YAST!! Yast sucks. It's slow, it won't keep it's hands off your configuration and if you try to break away from it, it causes dependency hell like mad.

So I'm slowly becoming a debian convert.
SuSE sure is simple to install easy to use once it's installed but waiting for yast to connect to an inconsistent mirror is just too much. Don't even try to upgrade from major version to major version through yast or the CDs (has anyone ever successfully done this?)

SuSE was definately a key stepping stone for me to get comfortable with linux, but now that I'm knowledgable enough to do most system management, it's time to move along.

--
The man who trades freedom for security does not deserve nor will he ever receive either. - Benjamin Franklin

Re:I like SuSE but... by NullProg · 2003-03-10 15:36 · Score: 2, Informative

With one exception... YAST!! Yast sucks. It's slow, it won't keep it's hands off your configuration and if you try to break away from it, it causes dependency hell like mad.

Each distribution has it's quirks. IMHO, YaST has been the best hardware detection tool/Linux setup program available out of all the distributions. I have to admit, the only one I have not tried is Debian. Slackware is my favorite, but as I get older and have less time, I tend not to want/desire to dick around with the system anymore. I just want it to work out of the box. SuSE does this on old hardware as well as new.

SuSE uses RPM as it's installation method. If you have a problem with dependencies, then it's RedHat's fault, not SuSE's. I've never had a problem with YaST connecting to any SuSE mirror (Since 6.4). I use a DSL/Cable modem to update, are you trying dial up? You can download the updates separately to your hard disk and burn them to CD.

upgrade from major version to major version
I would never recommend upgrading from a major Linux version to another. In my experience none of the Linux distributions get it right and neither does Microsoft. Config file formats change in between releases. Tarball your old config files and merge them after the installation.

As far as your SuSE configuration problem, edit the config files by hand all you want to. Just don't forget to run "/sbin/SuSEconfig" or the next time you run YaST, all your changes will be gone. You did remember to read the nice book SuSE ships with the distribution didn't you :)

Just kidding, YaST has it's quirks, but so does every other installation tool out there. Until there is a common Linux package distribution system (United Linux?), this is what we have to learn to live with in the mean time.

Enjoy,

--
It's just the normal noises in here.
Re:I like SuSE but... by Mustang+Matt · 2003-03-10 18:22 · Score: 1

>>
Each distribution has it's quirks. IMHO, YaST has been the best hardware detection tool/Linux setup program available out of all the distributions. I have to admit, the only one I have not tried is Debian. Slackware is my favorite, but as I get older and have less time, I tend not to want/desire to dick around with the system anymore. I just want it to work out of the box. SuSE does this on old hardware as well as new.

True, Suse does have good "pull it out of the box and go" support. You don't have to screw around. That was one of it's greatest features.

As far as RPM, you might be right, but I have had problems with trying to upgrade using a SuSE RPM because SuSE doesn't support the package, only to have rpm give me odd errors about things being dependent upon themselves!

BTW, I'm using an empty T1 to do the online update. It takes forever to connect to SuSE's site or it's mirrors and often the mirrors are out of date.

One of Debian's most awesome features is to upgrade all you do it type apt-get update and then apt-get dist upgrade.

So if I run SuSEConfig it will tell Yast not to screw with my changes? I did read parts of the books but I must have missed that one! Thanks for the tip.

I really wanted to try gentoo out, but I couldn't get the sucker to compile without errors. Now that same machine is running debian flawlessly.

--
The man who trades freedom for security does not deserve nor will he ever receive either. - Benjamin Franklin
Re:I like SuSE but... by ssbljk · 2003-03-10 22:10 · Score: 1

people like to bitch around about things they even don't understand well. noone forces you to use YaST. I don't use YAST either, but compared to old versions, YAST is useable and really good tool now.

--
/ss
Re:I like SuSE but... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-03-12 10:59 · Score: 0

Instead of being "high and almighty", why don't you actually post something useful and explain what you do use as an alternative to yast to educate the newbies?

Impact?? by bstadil · 2003-03-10 11:58 · Score: 2, Informative

I informed my boss that this lawsuit probably won't impact our Linux development

If you are permitted please write how this was initiated. I think the community is trying to access the impact of this lawsuit and even anecdotal evidence is of interest. Here is Linus' take.

--
Help fight continental drift.

Re:Impact?? by NullProg · 2003-03-10 13:49 · Score: 2, Interesting

IANAL, and I'm sorry if you mistook my statement above to mean so. I was asking the original poster of what other specific evidence he could provide. He implied that there was additional evidence not supplied by SCO in thier legal filing.

But in response to your question, as the lead Linux developer for my company, my boss tasked me to research this and get back to him. Between Friday and Saturday I read this (provided by SCO) link:
http://www.sco.com/scosource/complaint3.06.03.html

From this reading I informed my boss that in my opinion, this did not impact our Linux development. Most of the evidence listed by SCO in my (20+ years programming Apple/DOS/OS2/Win32/Unix/Linux) professional opinion, was speculative at best. They did not provide specific examples of IBM donating AIX code to the Linux kernel.

Concerning the few specific examples SCO listed, the Omni print driver and JFS. I pointed out the fact to my boss that both of these developments appeared in OS/2 long before Linux. Warp 3 and Warp 4 Server respectively.

Again, in my opinion SCO is only providing speculative evidence. It would not suprise me if the judge threw this case out of court in the preliminary hearing. If I find any further detailed information I will more than gladly email it to you.

Enjoy,

--
It's just the normal noises in here.
Re:Impact?? by bstadil · 2003-03-10 16:05 · Score: 1

Thanks for your reply, no I didn't think you were a lawyer. I asked since I think it is important to understand if it was you as a linux developer or your boss as a general manager (I assume) that initiated the research.
The fact that is was your boss tells me that the "fall-out" from this might be a bit worse than hoped for. On the positive side, when IBM files their response we will hopefully get more amunition to tackle the fear this has caused.
The suit is not about the GPL as you know but I think the GPL in general gets to benefit. GPL has never been tested in court, but if it is challenged by SCO be could ask for no better defense team than the IP lawyers at IBM.
Again thanks for your reply

--
Help fight continental drift.
Re:Impact?? by NullProg · 2003-03-10 17:09 · Score: 2, Interesting

I think it is important to understand if it was you as a linux developer or your boss as a general manager (I assume) that initiated the research.

No, it was the owner of the company (my Boss) who initiated my research. We do ship a Linux (not GPL'd) product and he was curious about all the SCO press releases. He assumed it was a problem with us using GCC to compile our program.

The fact that is was your boss tells me that the "fall-out" from this might be a bit worse than hoped for.
Not at all. Anyone with an interest in Linux would be concerned with this case. We just have to sort out the fact from fiction.

Peace/Love/Linux,
Enjoy,

--
It's just the normal noises in here.

News Flash! Rambus and SCO to merge! by Newer+Guy · 2003-03-10 12:03 · Score: 4, Funny

In a surprise news announcement, the Chairman of rambus announces a historic merger with SCO unix. "The merged company - to be called RAMBO - will be poised to respond to the challenges of the 21st century" Chairman David Boies said today. "We are in the enviable position of controlling both hardware and software Intellectual property" Boies also announced Rambo's decision to sue Microsoft for the use of the name "windows". and it's use for networking. "I came up with the idea of windows networking 30 years ago" Boies said. "When I was a kid I opened the window and yelled to my friends that it was time to play baseball. This involved using a window to spread information to them. In other words, Windows networking"

Not about patents by ??? · 2003-03-10 12:05 · Score: 1

If you'd bothered to read the linked documents, you'd realize that this is not a patent infringement case. It is a trade secrets / copyright case. IANAL, so I don't know what level of specificity is normally in such a complaint, but they're not specific as to what code violates copyright or trade secrets. They seem to try to claim that the whole of AIX, and by consequence, the whole of IBM's UNIX knowledge is tainted by the NDA's and contractual agreements reached when IBM licensed AT&T code. This is going to be a very difficult argument for them to make at trial. Mind you, perhaps less difficult because they're opting for a jury trial - throw the dice on 12 people who can't pronounce "operating system" let alone make reasonable judgements on it.

Re:Not about patents by jbolden · 2003-03-10 15:39 · Score: 1

Well they do cite code and the citations are insane; for example JFS is cited. SCO does not intend to win this at trial.
Re:Not about patents by Ed+Avis · 2003-03-10 21:54 · Score: 1

Sorry, I thought (from reading online news sources) that SCO's complaint was a mixture of trade secrets, patents, and whatever other stuff they could think of. Looks like this is not the case.

--
-- Ed Avis ed@membled.com

I should hit you with a cluebat... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-03-10 12:12 · Score: 0

UL is a core base of SLES, TLES, and that SCO one. What this is, is a foundation for developers to use when developing their software, knowing that if they built it on UL, it'd be functional (and supported) under SLES and TLES, etc.

Why do corporations love this? Because UL is generally based on a corporate release cycle, much like RHAS (Red Hat Advanced Server), intended to synch with the natural development cycle of actual products. It limits the amount of platforms they would have to test on as well.

RHAS and UL is primarily server based focused distributions, intended for the enterprise. This leaves us SuSE 8.0, Red Hat 8.0, etc. for us desktop users with our ton's o' apps while the corporate gets finely tuned, enhanced, more specific to SMP, large memory architectures, and so on.

Why is UL good for the Linux movement? Because it enables unity on the servers, it enables simplicity for the admins, it may even help pave the way to having Linux desktops in the mainstream for the average Grandma.

Never underestimate the power of Linux.

SCO Free consortium by Anonymous Coward · 2003-03-10 12:12 · Score: 0

ice(olate) 'em

we don't need no stinkin' litigation

If they can't make it selling software/services, what potential customer in their right mind would sign up with a company who projects 9x% of their future revenue from a lawsuit?

"okay mr SCO guy, how 'bout I just go with IBM since your gonna get the money anyway?"

That's why they didn't name it... by kentyman · 2003-03-10 12:27 · Score: 1

TardedLinux

--
You know where you are? You're in the $PATH, baby. You're gonna get executed!

SCO = Novell by Anonymous Coward · 2003-03-10 12:27 · Score: 1, Insightful

Anti-Marketing at it's finest!

I'm rubber, you're glue by Sgs-Cruz · 2003-03-10 12:33 · Score: 3, Funny

best line of the article is "Eric Raymond called SCO's move 'deeply stupid...'

To which a spokesman from SCO commented 'no, you're stupid, stupid. And I've kidnapped your Tux doll, too.'

I love it when people get quoted not using their 'mass media language' :).

--

Karma: pi (Mostly due to circular reasoning in posts).

Speaking of SCO by Anonymous Coward · 2003-03-10 12:44 · Score: 1, Informative

Tidbit

Tidbit

Nuisance value by MaryAlice · 2003-03-10 12:44 · Score: 1

It looks to me like the SCO lawsuit is just an attempt to squeeze some money out of IBM. Good for SuSE that they are rethinking their relationship with the pricks ;-)

Eric Raymond has also... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-03-10 13:07 · Score: 2, Informative

...said to Linux Business & Technology magazine: "What SCO is doing is ethically wrong and legally dubious. Their complaint rewrites and distorts history."

Shark bait! by crusher-1 · 2003-03-10 14:00 · Score: 2, Insightful

Ok, it's been said that M$ actually doesn't do anything more than "wound" a company that it feels is a threat or has something it wants. Then they just sit back, wait for it to get financially desparate and buy it up for a pitance.

So, this could be analogous of a Shark and a diver. The shark doesn't rush in and start chomping on the diver. Instead the shark stealthfully attacks the diver from beneath, takes a sizable bite, then backs off. Now all it has to do is is wait a short while until the diver bleeds out and then it can eat at it's leasure without fear of getting damaged by a thrashing victim. Much in the way M$ does financially to it's competitors.

Now, one could say that SCO viewed it self as a diver in hostile waters, surrounded by sharks. So, they take out their knife and slash at the biggest shark they can (IBM) but in doing so the end up cutting themselves. Now the slash is called David Boies and this cut, along with IBMs legal team will bleed out SCO in court costs and attorney fees. Seems that once again SCO leadership has misjudged their environment and is destined to bleed themselves out.

IBM, if they have any desire to appropriate any of SCOs patents, will merely wait for SCO to become so weakened and despararte that when the time is right they can swoop in for the kill (a buyout at a fraction of what SCO may have thought possible).

Meanwhile all the other players in the water, that being United Linux/SuSE, the OSS devs/community, and just about everyone else are all climbing out of the this particular pond to watch SCO thrash around as the IBM bigfish circles around and around waiting for the right moment to make the kill. Don't be surprised if one of those that sought safety in the boat finds a long stick to give a push or two to keep SCO from coming to the surface.

In the meantime, if one listens carefully, they will probably be able to hear Bill Gates and Steve Ballmer snickering in the distance.

Lovely by Anonymous Coward · 2003-03-10 14:03 · Score: 0

ERS used up his entire yearly quota of eloquence in that one liner. Man, this is going to be a long, long year...

Not just America by Tony · 2003-03-10 14:08 · Score: 1

America, on its own, rid the world of these pirates.

Piracy died when faster ships came of age at the beginning of the industrial revolution. The coal-powered steamship could move against the wind, and was more efficient that the wind-powered ships the pirates used.

The pirates could have used coal-powered vessels themselves, but that takes a social infrastructure to mine and distribute the coal. Basically, it was the lack of self-sufficiency of the emerging industrial world that caused piracy to collapse.

The pirates, out of work and on the dole, soon found lucrative employment as CEOs of major corporations.

--
Microsoft is to software what Budweiser is to beer.

Re:Not just America by kfg · 2003-03-10 15:56 · Score: 1

Please note that I did *not* say that America rid the world of pirates. I specifically said "these" pirates.

The time we are talking about here is 1795-1802ish. There were no steam ships on either side.

Piracy as a general principle has yet to collapse, only now the pirates use motor speed boats, faster than most law enforcement has, against pleasure sailing craft, generally owned by people rather well off.

Your last sentence is insightful, however. As Woody Guthrie once wrote:

"Some rob you with a six gun, some with a fountain pen."

KFG

TruUnitedOpenFreeDividedGNU/Linux? by xixax · 2003-03-10 14:40 · Score: 1

TruUnitedOpenFreeDividedPatchedLostFoundDeletedRes toredGNU/Linux?

Or just Xenophobix?

Xix.
(recovered Xenix user)

--
"Everything is adjustable, provided you have the right tools"

Re:Deeply stupid.... by theendlessnow · 2003-03-10 14:44 · Score: 1

Truth hurts I guess... mod this down and boot your Winders and start writing for the Inquirer.

Just don't post the truth... whatever you do... please don't try to correct the error.... it's what makes slashdot so much fun!!

Subject line is a TOTAL misrepresentation of the article. It's not even close.

Re:SUSE == SUXE by Anonymous Coward · 2003-03-10 15:41 · Score: 1, Funny

Wow! You are so cool. I only hope, that someday, I could be cool enough to run gentoo.

Now, go play quietly with your Gentoo, the adults are talking.

Umm... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-03-10 16:09 · Score: 0

Isn't Office around $495?

Re:Umm... by jbolden · 2003-03-10 16:36 · Score: 1

Yes but it isn't:
$495 for word +
$495 for Excel +
$595 for Powerpoint +
$595 for Access +
$495 for Visio + .....
Re:Umm... by danro · 2003-03-10 22:18 · Score: 1

And now: $0 for Open Office

--

"First lesson," Jon said. "Stick them with the pointy end."

Very true... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-03-10 16:31 · Score: 0

That was the selling point for me getting Caldera Open Linux into the company I worked for at the time (1996).

other OSes by Anonymous Coward · 2003-03-10 16:52 · Score: 0

well, Tandem's NonStop Kernel aka Guardian is still heavily used and under active development. and that dates to 1974. hard to say exactly what damage unix/linux/nt-server did to it market-wise though...

It's called BSD... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-03-10 18:55 · Score: 0

It's called BSD...

Re:SUSE == SUXE by puddpunk · 2003-03-10 18:59 · Score: 1

Ahhh, now I know why Gentoo gets such a bad publicity wrap...

Because morons like these use it and spam advertisements anywhere they can! Well thats great, but I use Gentoo too, and I officially think you are rather silly...

"Santa Cruz Operation"? by Ethelred+Unraed · 2003-03-10 22:22 · Score: 1

Obligatory Monty Python reference:

[The Pirahna brothers] began to operate what they called 'The Operation'... They would select a victim and then threaten to beat him up if he paid the so-called protection money.

Four months later they started another operation which the called 'The Other Operation'. In this racket they selected another victim and threatened not to beat him up if he didn't pay them.

One month later they hit upon 'The Santa Cruz Operation'. In this the victim was threatened that if he didn't pay them for their old UNIX patents, they would beat him up. This for the Piranha brothers was the turning point.

Cheers,

Ethelred

--
Everyone wants to be Ethelred. Even I want to be Ethelred.

It would be verry funny... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-03-10 22:28 · Score: 0

Since UnitedLinux 1.0 is entirelly based on SuSE linux 8.1 codebase !!! I think they could just drop SCO out of this consortium, since they are not largely needed in it. :-)

Re:They already dropped out. by fucksl4shd0t · 2003-03-10 22:56 · Score: 1

As others pointed out, Suse is German. It's an easy mistake to make.

Not that easy. Usually the German is the one pointing the gun and the Frenchman is the one yelling "I surrender!"

--
Like what I said? You might like my music

Or to put it more eloquently by CaptainZapp · 2003-03-11 00:03 · Score: 1

Foot meet pump action.

Pump action meet foot

BOOOOOMMMMMM!!!

--
ich bin der musikant

mit taschenrechner in der hand

kraftwerk

who?? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-03-11 00:07 · Score: 0

SC who?????

Ethics by CaptainZapp · 2003-03-11 00:23 · Score: 1

I use SuSE since '99 and I always figured them to try to do the right thing.

This might be naive, although it doesn't give me as a business or as a person any reason not to like them.

Oh yes, in addition their free installation support kicks ass. Even compared to enterprise support contracts, which sell for hundreths of thousands of dollars.

I'm not working for them or have any other direct interest in SuSE. I'm just a customer of theirs and a damn happy one in the bargain.

--
ich bin der musikant

mit taschenrechner in der hand

kraftwerk

Re:It should be the other way around. by wagemonkey · 2003-03-11 01:54 · Score: 1

Everyone else should leave UL (so SCO == UL) and set up a new collaborative effort if they can't push the cuckoo out of the nest.

its an M$ conspiracy by Anonymous Coward · 2003-03-11 09:39 · Score: 0

i bet m$ paid sco to make this lawsuit to put down ibm's support for linux

SaMBa by marcomuskus · 2003-03-11 15:13 · Score: 0

Use samba on your servers, is the best way to introduce Open Source Software to your enterprise.

;)

--
LoL = Old school

Re:Linux is dying... (screenshots) by ftvcs · 2003-03-11 21:38 · Score: 1

Here are some high-res screenshots taken from BSD:

on gnome
on kde

BSD is truly free and open.

Re:Linux is dying... (screenshots) by CrazyDuke · 2003-03-12 04:57 · Score: 1

As I said, once I figured out the monitor setting was what was doing it, it was just a matter of running the xconfig app.

--
Any sufficiently advanced influence is indistinguishable from control.

whatever by Anonymous Coward · 2003-03-12 11:40 · Score: 0

Not everyone who calls you a jackass is 'stalking' you, you self-centered ignoramus. I have called you a jerk a couple of times in the past year, Bowie, and I'm neither the guy who you post info about, know anything about what that's all about, nor am I the only one who has called you a jerk.

But if posting that guy's info somehow makes you feel better, then by all means, do it. But if you think it's stopping other people from calling you a jerk, you're only fooling yourself.

Re:whatever by Bowie+J.+Poag · 2003-03-12 19:18 · Score: 1

Funny, I'm not the one posting anonymous.. Just you.

In which case, I have no proof that you're not my obsessed fan/stalker, so...

The previous comment/troll was posted by:

McDaniel, Scott mcdev@mcdev.com, pipebomb@pipebomb.net

McDaniel Development
2139 Old Highway 5 South, and..
637 Riverside Dr.
Ellijay, Georgia 30540, United States
Tel: (706) 698-5112
Scott McDaniel is my stalker. He has attempted to harass me for several years now. He lives with his mother, and that's her voice in the answering machine message. Every time Mr. McDaniel decides to harass me, another copy of his personal information will be posted immediately afterward. Releaisng his personal information has been an effective deterrant to his behavior.

--
Bowie J. Poag

right by Anonymous Coward · 2003-03-13 04:45 · Score: 0

some proof would be that, apparently, "Releaisng his personal information has been an effective deterrant to his behavior." --- isn't working, because I see many people responding to your posts who just disagree with you on whatever topic, and then you go ahead and post that kid's information.

Posting someone else's personal information isn't preventing people from disagreeing with some of your (sometimes trolling, sometimes just rude) points.

(It IS a discussion board, after all)

If anything, it would seem (from a look at the history here) the only thing you're accomplishing is continuing to prove yourself to be a jerk.

Re:right by Bowie+J.+Poag · 2003-03-13 09:40 · Score: 1

The previous comment/troll was posted by:

McDaniel, Scott mcdev@mcdev.com, pipebomb@pipebomb.net

McDaniel Development
2139 Old Highway 5 South, and..
637 Riverside Dr.
Ellijay, Georgia 30540, United States
Tel: (706) 698-5112
Scott McDaniel is my stalker. He has attempted to harass me for several years now. He lives with his mother, and that's her voice in the answering machine message. Every time Mr. McDaniel decides to harass me, another copy of his personal information will be posted immediately afterward. Releaisng his personal information has been an effective deterrant to his behavior.

--
Bowie J. Poag

Last Post! by alpg · 2003-03-24 18:08 · Score: 0

Every man who has reached even his intellectual teens begins to suspect
that life is no farce; that it is not genteel comedy even; that it flowers
and fructifies on the contrary out of the profoundest tragic depths of the
essential death in which its subject's roots are plunged. The natural
inheritance of everyone who is capable of spiritual life is an unsubdued
forest where the wolf howls and the obscene bird of night chatters.
-- Henry James Sr., writing to his sons Henry and William

- this post brought to you by the Automated Last Post Generator...

Slashdot Mirror

SuSE may drop out of UnitedLinux

416 comments