Posted by
CmdrTaco
on from the standardizing-on-no-standards dept.
Corrado writes "According to this article over at Linux Box SuSE Is "Reevaulating Our Relationship" with SCO Group. There is also a reference to this article in wired about OSS developers rallying behind IBM. The best line of the article is "Eric Raymond called SCO's move 'deeply stupid...'""
Why should they stick around when SCO shoots itself in the foot?
Bad news.
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· 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
tomhudson
·
· 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.
Which would be better...
by
Nate+B.
·
· 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:SuSE *IS* United Linux
by
krray
·
· 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
·
· 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).
United Linux and/or LSB
by
einhverfr
·
· 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.
"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.
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.
"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
We must be all missing the point
by
The+Analog+Kid
·
· 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.
Linux was a bicycle
by
k-hell
·
· 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.
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.
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
Slashdot Mirror
Good for SuSE.
Why should they stick around when SCO shoots itself in the foot?
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.
... 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."
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...
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).
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
"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
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
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.
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.
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