Posted by
CmdrTaco
on from the this-is-only-gonna-get-more-interesting dept.
djtrippin writes "Linus comes forth on the SCO v IBM suit and how it pertains (or doesn't, for that matter) to Linux." He definitely puts a fair amount of perspective on the whole thing. This story really is only going to get more bizarre.
Who cares what Linus thinks?
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
No, really. I mean, yes, he's the figurehead of the Linux movement, but who cares? This is a legal matter, we should go ask Lawrence Lessig instead.
He has already said he does even think about patents, and that pretty much shows his attitude towards the whole thing.
Mozillaquest asking Linus for his comments were a typical waste of time, because everyone already knows what he is going to say.
Re:Who cares what Linus thinks?
by
DataPath
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
Well, the question involved is whether IBM has been insinuating UNIX (SCO owned, apparently) IP into the Linux kernel. And apparently their claims are that Linux could not POSSIBLY have advanced as fast or as far as it has without stealing UNIX IP, it MUST be stealing UNIX IP. Linus knows better than just about everyone else WHAT goes into the kernel, if not necessarily where it comes from. Since you can be pretty sure IBM isn't talking, Linus is the best source for evaluating with the community is capable of.
-- Inconceivable!
Re:Who cares what Linus thinks?
by
ehiggins
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
And there's the beauty of open source. We could ask SCO, "fine, you've got the source, show us the alleged Unix IP-infringing code".
SMP?
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
UNIX, on the other hand, commonly links 16 processors and can successfully link up to 32 processors for simultaneous operation. This difference in memory management performance is very significant to enterprise customers who need extremely high computing capabilities for complex tasks. The ability to accomplish this task successfully has taken AT&T, Novell and SCO at least 20 years, with access to expensive equipment for design and testing, well-trained UNIX engineers and a wealth of experience in UNIX methods and concepts.
Um, SysV doesn't do this. Good SMP for UNIX has
been added to all the VendorOSes, but without any
help from SCO.
Re:From the complaint...
by
lenski
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
a high degree of design coordination: The internet
access to expensive and sophisticated design and testing equipment: dyadic (to quote the old evil empire...), quad, and higher-count multiprocessors that have become far more common under the influence of Moore's "law"
Access to UNIX code, methods and concepts: People have been studying OS technology for 40+ years... Including IBM!:-)
UNIX architectural experience: Again, this is standard upper-classman study. I studied this stuff at the age of 18, 28 years ago. (Back then, our studies were somewhat "academic", given how many System/360./370, CDC supercomputers existed at the time...)
A very significant financial investment: Add up the contributions of the core teams, the hundreds of regular patch providers, thousands of enthusiasts, and hundreds of thousands of people studying this stuff (Gnu very much included): The cost of paying that many smart people professional wages would be, in a word, huge.
SCO has completely missed the effects of common availability of computational resources. I remember when crossing the gigaflop "barrier" was a big deal. Today it's your average laptop. 18 years ago, a UNIX source license in a business context could cost about $125,000 (as priced by a friend of mine, working on Sequent boxes). Apparently, that's when SCO executives seem to have stopped noticing the progress of technology.
Re:Dennis Ritchie Comments and Documents from
by
Greg+Koenig
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
Actually, I immediately thought of the USL v. BSDI case when I heard about SCO's recent filing. My OS of choice tends to lean towards the BSD side (simply due to my background as a CS Ph.D. student, I suppose) but I certainly use Linux for many projects. I used FreeBSD back in ca. 1992 when it seemed that it might be encumbered due to licensing difficulties from USL.
I think the important thing to realize is that while different open source software camps may at times compete against each other (Linux vs. BSD, Gnome vs. KDE, etc.), in the end the diversity we have within our ranks is a very powerful asset. Had the lawsuit in 1992 turned out differently, Linux would have been an unencumbered alternative that would have allowed the movement to continue forward. Likewise, in the extremely off chance that SCO did do something to encumber Linux today, the open source community has many other fine operating systems that are alternatives and which could be a basis to continue moving forward.
IMHO, an important lesson to realize from this after it finally settles down (and I have no doubt that SCO will end up appearing kind of stupid in the end) is that the diversity in open source software is the biggest benefit and allows it to overcome these kinds of things.
When The Smoke Clears
by
E-Rock-23
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
I don't think I quite understand SCO's position on this whole matter. But, with UnitedLinux slowly crumbling and the nature of Linux, I'm willing to bet that SCO/Caldera might get laughed out of the Linux business.
IMHO, IBM has done a world of good for Linux. My favorite commercial remain's IBM's basketball team ad that featured the Chris Mullin wannabe wearing number 12, and the team owners discussing his role on the team.
"How can we get him to work for peanuts?" "Because he loves the game..."
That's exactly what Linux needed - to get it's name out beyond our little Geeks-Only circle to the masses, both Corporations and the Average Joe/Jane. Now, how did that harm Linux or Linux development? How did that muddy the waters? If you ask me, it rocked the boat in a good way.
Linux has grown by leaps and bounds, from a grassroots OS to a viable option for both business and home use (more the former then the latter). This lawsuit serves no real purpose, IMO. Honestly, I'll just bet that it's an attempt by a faltering SCO to steal some of the thunder that IBM has built for Linux. They just want a piece of the pie.
Final Prediction: SCO's complaint will be thrown out, and Linux will continue moving forward, with or without them.
Re:Dennis Ritchie Comments and Documents from
by
evilpenguin
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
I agree, and I would go even further. Diversity in technology and infrastrcuture is, in general, good. The internet worms and viruses should teach us this. This is why One Microsoft Way is not a good thing, even if you do not subscribe to the GNU philosophy of Free Software (although I happen to do so).
Diversity is good even within the Free Software world. We don't all use sendmail and that is good. We don't all use Gnome and that is good. We don't all use Mozilla, and that is good. There should be three, four, five choices for every major category of software.
A lot of people seem to think this is a bad thing. It is "confusing." I dont think so. You select by feature, fit, or whim (depending on necessity) and you limit failure by design, failure from malicious interference, and failure from excessive lawyering.
I'd like to see diversity in all infrastructure technology. (Like combining the present grid with neighborhood wind/solar energy).
Sure, I can be a loudmouthed bigot about my favorite technologies, but even though I don't happen to use FreeBSD, I am glad to know it is there (and I have an ISO of it at hand if need be).
I use more than one Linux distro at home (Debian, RedHat, and SuSE). I use OpenBSD for my firewall machine.
Diversity, redundacy. These are the basis of true reliability. Sure, Microsoft (for example) can try to secure the shit out of their next OS, but if everybody uses that one product, one mistake takes everyone out.
The *nix world hasn't (as a rule) been much more systematic about security than has Microsoft, but its diversity has been its saving grace.
The biggest failures of *nix security have occurred in those few places where one package has indeed been dominant. Sendmail is one. BIND is another (BTW, what alteratives to BIND exist for Linux and *BSD? I actually don't know and would like to know.)
a high degree of design coordination Who says this couldn't be achieved by the Open Source world? It has, and Linux is not the only example (though it is, admittedly the largest scale project of them all).
access to expensive and sophisticated design and testing equipment In the true spirit of Free Software/Open Source, all of the design and testing is done by the community. Having hundreds of thousands (and now millions) of people all making use of it is far far better than the best testing equipment money can buy.
access to UNIX code, methods and concepts What for? Have they taken a look at the Linux code, or even the code for the GNU utilities that are part of a standard UNIX environment? Does any of it have anything in common with the code they say is theirs? It's all open, SCO, prove it. You can have a look.
UNIX architectural experience Oh please. As if there weren't already thousands of people with this kind of expertise at the time Linus Torvalds began this work!
a very significant financial investment The off-time of thousands of hackers who would otherwise be paid significant money is indeed a "significant financial investment". And furthermore, what's wrong with the fact that real financial investments are coming in from IBM and other companies?
-- Qu'on me donne six lignes écrites de la main du plus honnête homme, j'y trouverai de quoi le faire pendre.
I'm not a big fan of IBM either...
by
pointwood
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
It's easy to look at IBM as a "the good guy" and forget all the bad things they stand for too!
In Europe there is currently a big fight about software patents and who do you think is a big supporter of them?
Here is a quote: IBM's patent department is actively lobbying Europe to legalise software patents. They have invested millions in fighting example cases to leading European lawcourts such as the EPO's Technical Boards of Appeal and the German Federal Court in order to soften and eventually remove European restrictions on patenting software. They have also threatened European politicians that IBM might close down local facilities if software patents are not legalised in Europe. IBM has also prevented the US government from conducting studies on the value of software patents for the national economy. In the wake of the Opensource hype, IBM's rhetoric has become relatively moderate, but nonetheless it is supported by real pressure. IBM has acquired approximately 1000 European software patents whose legal status is currently unclear. Given the great number of software patents in IBM's hands, IBM is one of the few software companies who may have a genuine interest in software patentability. Once software patents become assertable in Europe, an IBM tax of several hundered million EUR may be levied on European software companies.
Now, what is the biggest threat to Linux? SCO or software patents?
Besides that, I find SCO's suit very stupid - the only winner in this is going to be the laywers.
It all started...
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
It's a simple story.
It all started when an idiot went and spent a fortune the buy "the UNIX trademark" from bell labs. Then another idiot spent a huge amount of money to buy "the UNIX trademark" from the first idiot (who was now mutated to "smart guy").... You can imagine what happened. SCO is the final idiot who spent the biggest amount of money to buy "the UNIX trademark". They will always be idiots until they find someone else to sell "the UNIX trademark". But nobody wants it today. That pisses them off....
After POSIX, the "UNIX concepts" were made public, and implementing them is certainly cheeper than carring around some rusty code from 1970.
Slashdot Mirror
No, really. I mean, yes, he's the figurehead of the Linux movement, but who cares? This is a legal matter, we should go ask Lawrence Lessig instead.
He has already said he does even think about patents, and that pretty much shows his attitude towards the whole thing.
Mozillaquest asking Linus for his comments were a typical waste of time, because everyone already knows what he is going to say.
SCO has completely missed the effects of common availability of computational resources. I remember when crossing the gigaflop "barrier" was a big deal. Today it's your average laptop. 18 years ago, a UNIX source license in a business context could cost about $125,000 (as priced by a friend of mine, working on Sequent boxes). Apparently, that's when SCO executives seem to have stopped noticing the progress of technology.
Actually, I immediately thought of the USL v. BSDI case when I heard about SCO's recent filing. My OS of choice tends to lean towards the BSD side (simply due to my background as a CS Ph.D. student, I suppose) but I certainly use Linux for many projects. I used FreeBSD back in ca. 1992 when it seemed that it might be encumbered due to licensing difficulties from USL.
I think the important thing to realize is that while different open source software camps may at times compete against each other (Linux vs. BSD, Gnome vs. KDE, etc.), in the end the diversity we have within our ranks is a very powerful asset. Had the lawsuit in 1992 turned out differently, Linux would have been an unencumbered alternative that would have allowed the movement to continue forward. Likewise, in the extremely off chance that SCO did do something to encumber Linux today, the open source community has many other fine operating systems that are alternatives and which could be a basis to continue moving forward.
IMHO, an important lesson to realize from this after it finally settles down (and I have no doubt that SCO will end up appearing kind of stupid in the end) is that the diversity in open source software is the biggest benefit and allows it to overcome these kinds of things.
I don't think I quite understand SCO's position on this whole matter. But, with UnitedLinux slowly crumbling and the nature of Linux, I'm willing to bet that SCO/Caldera might get laughed out of the Linux business.
IMHO, IBM has done a world of good for Linux. My favorite commercial remain's IBM's basketball team ad that featured the Chris Mullin wannabe wearing number 12, and the team owners discussing his role on the team.
"How can we get him to work for peanuts?"
"Because he loves the game..."
That's exactly what Linux needed - to get it's name out beyond our little Geeks-Only circle to the masses, both Corporations and the Average Joe/Jane. Now, how did that harm Linux or Linux development? How did that muddy the waters? If you ask me, it rocked the boat in a good way.
Linux has grown by leaps and bounds, from a grassroots OS to a viable option for both business and home use (more the former then the latter). This lawsuit serves no real purpose, IMO. Honestly, I'll just bet that it's an attempt by a faltering SCO to steal some of the thunder that IBM has built for Linux. They just want a piece of the pie.
Final Prediction: SCO's complaint will be thrown out, and Linux will continue moving forward, with or without them.
Blog Prophyts - Right On, Man
I agree, and I would go even further. Diversity in technology and infrastrcuture is, in general, good. The internet worms and viruses should teach us this. This is why One Microsoft Way is not a good thing, even if you do not subscribe to the GNU philosophy of Free Software (although I happen to do so).
Diversity is good even within the Free Software world. We don't all use sendmail and that is good. We don't all use Gnome and that is good. We don't all use Mozilla, and that is good. There should be three, four, five choices for every major category of software.
A lot of people seem to think this is a bad thing. It is "confusing." I dont think so. You select by feature, fit, or whim (depending on necessity) and you limit failure by design, failure from malicious interference, and failure from excessive lawyering.
I'd like to see diversity in all infrastructure technology. (Like combining the present grid with neighborhood wind/solar energy).
Sure, I can be a loudmouthed bigot about my favorite technologies, but even though I don't happen to use FreeBSD, I am glad to know it is there (and I have an ISO of it at hand if need be).
I use more than one Linux distro at home (Debian, RedHat, and SuSE). I use OpenBSD for my firewall machine.
Diversity, redundacy. These are the basis of true reliability. Sure, Microsoft (for example) can try to secure the shit out of their next OS, but if everybody uses that one product, one mistake takes everyone out.
The *nix world hasn't (as a rule) been much more systematic about security than has Microsoft, but its diversity has been its saving grace.
The biggest failures of *nix security have occurred in those few places where one package has indeed been dominant. Sendmail is one. BIND is another (BTW, what alteratives to BIND exist for Linux and *BSD? I actually don't know and would like to know.)
A brief exposition on why the points are BS...
Qu'on me donne six lignes écrites de la main du plus honnête homme, j'y trouverai de quoi le faire pendre.
It's easy to look at IBM as a "the good guy" and forget all the bad things they stand for too!
In Europe there is currently a big fight about software patents and who do you think is a big supporter of them?
Here is a quote:
IBM's patent department is actively lobbying Europe to legalise software patents. They have invested millions in fighting example cases to leading European lawcourts such as the EPO's Technical Boards of Appeal and the German Federal Court in order to soften and eventually remove European restrictions on patenting software. They have also threatened European politicians that IBM might close down local facilities if software patents are not legalised in Europe. IBM has also prevented the US government from conducting studies on the value of software patents for the national economy. In the wake of the Opensource hype, IBM's rhetoric has become relatively moderate, but nonetheless it is supported by real pressure. IBM has acquired approximately 1000 European software patents whose legal status is currently unclear. Given the great number of software patents in IBM's hands, IBM is one of the few software companies who may have a genuine interest in software patentability. Once software patents become assertable in Europe, an IBM tax of several hundered million EUR may be levied on European software companies.
Link
Now, what is the biggest threat to Linux? SCO or software patents?
Besides that, I find SCO's suit very stupid - the only winner in this is going to be the laywers.
It's a simple story.
It all started when an idiot went and spent a fortune the buy "the UNIX trademark" from bell labs. Then another idiot spent a huge amount of money to buy "the UNIX trademark" from the first idiot (who was now mutated to "smart guy").... You can imagine what happened. SCO is the final idiot who spent the biggest amount of money to buy "the UNIX trademark". They will always be idiots until they find someone else to sell "the UNIX trademark". But nobody wants it today. That pisses them off....
After POSIX, the "UNIX concepts" were made public, and implementing them is certainly cheeper than carring around some rusty code from 1970.
It was all wrong from the start.