Few Companies Change Linux Plans Despite SCO Suit

gaurab writes "A survey on Internetweek says 'SCO's Linux lawsuit and threats seem to be having little affect on IT managers except to make them angry. Fully 91 percent of people responding to an InternetWeek Reader Question said they will not change their Linux deployment plans as a result of SCO's actions.' The article is also available at Yahoo!"

Comments

And the other 9%?

[conway]

What are the other 9% thinking? Does anyone out there believe that SCO's and IBM's contractual dispute can do anything to make Linux liable in any way?
(Event SCO itself said that Linux users are not going to be liable in any case).
Its sad that some people are actually buying into this Microsoft-backed FUD.

Re:And the other 9%?

[Angry Pixie]

There are people out there who do. I met some, but to be specific, the general consensus among them is that Linux is too risky to adopt because it's a stolen technology. Companies that use Linux could be punished for using an illegal product, Linux, and so ought not use it.

But you have to understand, people like these aren't idiots. They have only heard the sound bites just like the vast majority of corporate world that isn't in IS/IT. They lack the background knowledge of the issue as well as the technical knowledge to be able to make an informed judgment.

I still don't believe this is Microsoft-backed FUD. I haven't read any statements from MS that say "see, we told you so." Sure Microsoft benefits, but so does Apple, UNIX vendors who don't want to see Linux takeover, and Amiga users... Yes, Amiga users, they just sit there so smug...

Like this wasn't obvious

[ad0gg]

When Rambus started suing DDR ram manufactors. Did it effect the DDR ram market? No. When MS was sued for antitrust violations did it effect their market? No.

Re:Like this wasn't obvious

[tuba_dude]

Good points, but those are almost entirely home/small business markets, where individuals are buying what they want to buy. In a corporate environment, even the slightest possibility of a lawsuit can change the management's decisions. Fortunately, cooler heads seem to be prevailing (for once, woohoo), and you may be right. Hopefully nothing big and nasty will come of this.

9% is a lot

[DNS-and-BIND]

I'd be more interested in the 9% of people who said the suit *is* affecting their decisions. What are the reasons behind that response?

Funny

[The Bungi]

I've read many comments here and in other forums complaining about clients and bosses citing the SCO mess as a reason to put off Linux implementations/rollouts/development. All one needs to do is look through all the SCO articles posted in the past month or so.

I guess that goes to show you - 56.2% of all statistics are untrue.

Incomplete Data

[SamBC]

That survey is of course meaningless unless we can link it to peoples pre-existant deployment plans. If they weren't planning to deploy linux anyway, it doesn't mean much.

Just an obvious point - it's still better than a lot of people saying that they plan to stop using it.

This is a testament...

[Sevn]

To the attention span and the attention to detail
that the kind of manager that would implement an
open source solution for a problem would possess.
It's obvious that when you are dealing with a
company already smart enough to pursue a GNU/Linux
solution for a problem, they are going to be smart
enough to see through SCO's obvious bullshit. :)

How Statistics Lie

[Komodo]

91% will not change their plans.

That means that 9% WILL.

It's probable, based on the nature of the case, that they will not be changing their plans in favor of linux.

Also, of the remaining 91%, how many of them planned to not use Linux at all? If only 9% of IT managers planned to use Linux in the first place, and now 9% of them are changing their minds, then that would indicate that Linux is about to get wiped out. That can't be the case either, but it's one possible interpretation of the figures.

Bottom line: Statistics can be used to make convincing lies. Most surveys are unscientific in the extreme. And SCOX is still a bunch of bastards.

Liability for end-users of IP-tainted products?

[Empiric]

Expanding on Jeremy Gross' point, are there any domains in which a purchaser/user of a product which has (allegedly) incorporated others' IP can be held personally liable?

If I buy a CD recorded by a musician who has "sampled" another's song and incorporated in his track, surely I cannot be held liable for this, or even required to return the CD.

If my copy of the New York Times includes and article which the author has plaigarized from another source, I doubt any legal authority is going to "recall" my newspaper, or prosecute me for my quarter investment.

These seem more directly pertinent than the Mazda-Ford analogy, as a Linux distro seems more like a publication than a physical product, though the same principle, I would think, applies.

Perhaps the issue grows slightly murkier in the case of a downloaded copy of Linux; in this case conceivably the argument could be made that the user has personally copied a copyrighted chunk of code. Maybe for thorough self-protection, Linux sysadmins would be best advised to buy an off-the-shelf distro of Linux, to point at if the lawyers ever show up.

If this threat/argument from SCO ends up being found baseless and/or absurd, aren't they in the position of having interfered with the business of several thousand companies via their letters, baselessly and in pursuit of money, i.e. "extortion"?