Slashdot Mirror
Gartner Says Delay Linux Deployment Due to SCO
Sridhar writes "SCO's legal threats have prompted Gartner Group to recommend that companies delay deployment of critical Linux applications, determine "whether Unix or Windows will provide functions equivalent to those of Linux deployments", and take a "go-slow" approach to Linux in high-value or mission-critical production systems."
Can this be used as evidence in counter-suits as many companies offering Linux can now say they've seen substantial losses due to SCO FUD?
Regardless of how the SCO lawsuit turns out, SCO is giving Linux a black eye. In fact, with the constant barrage of "news" regarding the SCO case, I'd say that Linux has a whole bunch of black eyes from this and it will still be a few years before it gets to court.
Whether or not the Linux crowd believes these allegations, someone within the community needs to take some serious time and legal effort to address these concerns. Ignoring or laughing at them won't make it go away, and I can easily imagine every corporate lawyer type calling up the CIO/CTO and saying "halt all linux deployments NOW!" As a BSD-ite I can sympathize and say that the sooner you get this over with the better.
Whether they've been paid off, or are inordinately conservative, Gartner has always been something of an advocate for Microsoft technologies.
Given that Linux is finding more and more of a role in replacing Windows-based servers, it should come as no surprise that Gartner would come up with something like this.
Problem is, this sort of thing gives C*O's, already wondering about SCO & Linux liabilities, reason to delay or reduce Linux adoption in their enterprise.
Does any company pay attention to Gartner Group groups recommendations?
I make a decent amount of cash on the side deploying linux boxes for local businesses. If they decide to go to Windows because of this lawsuit, would that be grounds for me to sue SCO as they're causing me economic harm?
IBM or some other big powerhouse needs to get their lawyers on this one. Linux is getting raped by FUD here. Save us IBM!
These guys are shills for Microsoft. What do you expect them to say.
Now then, given that, this could be the most brilliant ploy that MS has ever pulled off if they are indeed behind this whole SCO lawsuit.
They can't fight Lunix like they could a regular company but they can fight it by litigation and things of that nature. Brilliant, just freakin brilliant.
All the best,
--Bob
And the FUD hits the fan. And M$ will be there to comform the mourners.
--Slashdot: News for Turds. Stuff that Splatters.
Gartner Group... aka.... Microsoft Public Relations.
Stop by my site where I write about ERP systems & more
Oops, darn it...too late for my computers, just replaced another Windows installation with Slackware last night. Just one left to go now! I guess I'm stuck with BSD...or I could just ignore Gartner. And SCO. Yep, that sounds good.
If you select the proper tools and decide in the future linux isn't for you, just recompile and move on.
SCO will not affect linux at all. Hell my whole company runs on linux and I'm not switching a damn thing till something is proven.
Gartner is useless, I can get 10 times the amount of info and "industry analysis" that Gartner provides by reading /. and similar websites.
The overhyped the dot com boom and caused it to crash. Then during the crash they worsened the situation by predicting the end of the world.
What good is a company that offers no solutions?
On their way out I wonder if they'll provide a report that listening to advice of Gartner is stupid.
I have this sneaking suspicion that Gartner has only survived up until now by maintaining the same level of stupidity common to your average PHB. I have a feeling that any company relying on Gartner for decent consulting information would just as well be served by reading CNN's tech section or simply going to the local microsoft webpage.
The Gartner Group provide Pointy Haired Advice to Pointy Haired Bosses.
Go Slow? no no no, that's why we're choosing Linux here, because we want to GO FAST, sure if you want to go slow, go with M$
This is somewhat disturbing. Does anyone else think that every day that we continue going forth with Microsoft possibly taking up mindshare makes it more difficult to someday pull away from that?
Is there are difference?
Linux has been getting great publicity recently.
IBM, Redhat and Oracle are just some of the business which have been pushing Linux.
There are great applications which make Linux a serious desktop end-user AND server OS.
All I'm saying is that BSD might not have had as much to lose from IP issues it was having.
(I'm not saying anything technical about BSD vs. Linux but just the perception/publicity/popularity growth at certain points in their history)
The surprise isn't how often we make bad choices; the surprise is how seldom they defeat us.
Garter should know better. There's no sense is believing SCO when they have not presented any scientific* evidence. Clearly, Garter and any other so-called analyst should have a higher standard than "he said-she said". Totally ridiculous.
* = able to be substantiated by an independent third party.
Gartner doesn't do any of these papers without somebody footing the bill. So the big question is who paid for this one? Microsoft? Sun? SCO?
I'm in the process of fighting my way in corporate to make sure that my newest creation will get what it deserves (Oracle on Linux), and this is just the kind of FUD that I am getting from management.
Stuff they hear (mostly from salesman and consultants that are M$ related and fear for their share of the pie once we start getting more Linux in) makes them ignorant, up to the point that I need to "re-evaluate" the OS descision because someone in the high places thinks that Win2K3 can do just as well.
I am just looking for that one great example (big datacenter, lot's of transaction processed, solid Oracle/Linux integration with 0 problems) as a reference to stuff in their faces and finally go out and start installing...
Gartner is Microsoft's bitch.
What does it really mean? Did Gartner actually do an indepth legal search? Or did they rely on the opinions of "experts" who "magically" showed up at their door? Or did they rely on experts who owe much of their fees to competitors of Linux?
"keep pursuing your Unix and Windows strategies."
By "Unix" I presume they are referring to proprietary Unix. They fail to mention all the free *BSDs, etc, which tend to be under the radar of a lot of the suits. The choice then seems to be "Proprietary Unix or Windows.. Hmm we already know Windows and it runs on our existing hardware soo..." Smooth FUD, Gartner.
Trolling is a art,
If the SCO lawsuit is proven to be spurious, you may have a chance. Your difficulty is going to be demonstrating malicious intent on the part of SCO (and its allies perhaps) to damage Linux and, as a result, those who rely on using Linux to make a living. This type of suit is best filed as a class-action, however, given who your opponent would be. There is the possibility for many people to suffer economically as a consequence of SCO's FUD.
this is giving linux a black eye. but i dont think it will kill linux in the long run. after this is all over linux will win. what doesnt kill you makes you stronger right?
and they won't tell the Linux community exactly what code they feel is infringing so the Linux community can't just replace the code and move on. Oh no....
The race isn't always to the swift... but that's the way to bet!
Well, I have to say that this means that SCO's strategy of exploiting the weaknesses in Intellectual Property law rather than concentrating on making a good product is working in the short term. I'll bet Ballmer is doing the monkey dance. Since Microsoft has demonstrated that being universally despised by the expert community is of litle obvious consequence to the bottom line, SCO can now appoint themselves the defender of the Loophole Exploitation Realm left recently vacant by the Enron, WorldCom and Tyco.
What they should do next is commission Martha Stewart Omnimedia to design a nice pastel case, contract with Chinese prison laborers for manufacturing and ship their "licensed" Lindows clone to Walmarts everywhere. If you're going to commit to a concept, you might as well go all the way.
The best way to do is to be.
If SCO can keep this in the courts it will effect Linux quite a bit. It doesnt matter that they have not shown any evidence.
It doesnt even matter if they have any evidence, the threat of it is what will keep people afraid and not using Linux in a production environment.
It's all just smoke and mirrors until the information is revealed, and I am sure that they will drag this out as long as possible. It will probably increase their stock value the longer it continues.
Not a good time ahead for Linux.
"You're on my side and the dark side, like Lando Calrissian?" --Gimpy, Undergrads
The Gartner group told me to kill my co-workers.
This from the same group that declared definitively that IDS is dead.
I think the only thing that should be impacted by this report is gartner's credibility. I'm inclined to look more and more suspiciously at anything they say after this.
I absolutely refuse to delay any deployment of Linux.
By submitting to the FUD, we have allowed the terrorists to win.
I, for one, will not surrender, will not buckle to extortion, and will never concede to SCO, or any other company that thinks they can control what I put on my servers, through litigation.
As far as I know, there has been no legal action on the part of SCO against any user or corporation that employs Linux. All they have done is threaten.
How much did they pay you, Gardner? Did they threaten you too?
We don't just delete spam, we delete spammers.
Microsoft is facing a lawsuit that taken at face value is almost as big as the SCO doubt ..
.. SCO vs Microsoft that obviously are not the same .. but could be).
http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=10648
Basically that 80+ % of Microsofts past and present products are infringing on this guys business process patent.
again, at face value Gardner should be recommending to put off major software purchases.
(This is an example on two different levels
Gardner's recommendation is sensible and probably not necessary. So long as SCO seems to be threatening legal action against Linux users, only a foolish manager would put a company at risk by deploying Linux.
Note that this has nothing to do with the technical merits of Linux. It has everything to do with SCO's litigious behavior. If they were bringing suit against Microsoft for the same thing, it would be foolish to buy Windows.
-- Slashdot: When Public Access TV Says "No"
Too bad real life isn't like the Sims where I could drop Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold into SCO's headquarters with some sawed-off shotguns and enough ammo to level the alamo.
I'd love to see an open-source video game where you get to torture and/or kill SCO suits and especially their lawyers.
Now obviously I'm not suggesting or encouraging anyone to do anything illegal or violent, that would only make things far worse. Even so, a nice simulation of the carnage would sure fun.
Lee
Muslim community leaders warn of backlash from tomorrow morning's terrorist attack.
Of course you could just for BSD where the law-suits have already come and gone
Rus
Cheap UK and US VPS
SCO should not affect linux at all. You seem to have a lot of faith in the intelligence of the masses.
Gartner believes that SCO's motives include:
Its OpenServer and UnixWare business represents a fraction of the Unix market.
Its own Linux version (formerly Caldera) struggled against Red Hat and SuSE and disrupted SCO's UnixWare and OpenServer efforts.
If the lawsuit forces IBM to buy out SCO, SCO investors could exit with good returns.
Forcing Linux users to pay royalties for the alleged Unix elements would generate profits and revenue from the fast-expanding enterprise adoption of Linux.
Gartner believes SCO made a strategic error when it chose to defend Unix on Intel over Linux, against market trends. SCO is building a new Web services framework on the upcoming Unix System V v.6, and wants to steer OpenServer, UnixWare and SCO Linux customers to an expanded Web application programming interface. To support its legal claims against the Linux industry, SCO had to withdraw its Linux distribution from the market. But SCO damaged its own credibility and cut off the one potential avenue of high growth for its framework.
The big problem today is that most management decisions are based on "opinions" and "feelings", rather than actual facts. Well, in fact, most of us act the same way.
:-)
Rumors dictate the behavior of stock markets. FUD delays whole company projects. False (or inaccurate) accusations lead nations to war.
This whole SCO thing is just another proof that mankind today is fundamentally returning to its most primitive behavior, and leaving behind methods, concepts and techniques it took so long to develop. The work of thousands of brilliant human minds are going down the drain, forgotten, lost in the recoils of our own passions.
Behold the decay of the human race... perhaps intelligent robots will succeed where we failed.
This is absurd. The GG actually says, "You better call SCO and ask them about their claim. And don't expect a win by IBM to save you. SCO WILLL GETT YOUUU!!!" Again, I am paraphrasing. Hell, GG even says they see the case as dubious. They mention nothing about fighting back against SCO.. e.g. companies could file a joint lawsuit of some nature (don't ask me what.. maybe that's unfeasible to countersue). They just suggest looking at Solaris or Windows. Who are these tools? It's like they're playing the ideal role in this SCO-play. "Go slow, consider non-Linux software even though SCO may be full of shit."
Anyway, in my dream world, they'd recommend looking at BSD.
I happen to remember reading here when Gartner said, "FOR THE LOVE OF GOD, GET RID OF ALL IIS INSTALLATIONS" that everybody agreed with Gartner. They're not in any way pro-MS.
Chicks look hot in Gartners. Totally off topic... Cracking myself up again...sorry
Lets not forget who butters Gartners bread-- Microsoft.
For years this company has been spreading FUD about microsoft competitors... making up performance and market share numbers.
When they bashed the mac, you guys said "See, macs are too expensive and their marketshare is only %2"
Now that they are spreading fud about Linux, you should recognize that all tehy are is a marketing firm in Microsoft's employ.
"Analysis-- its the new marketing!"
Don't take them too seriously, and point this out to anyone who does.
Yeah, and you guys panned the ipod too: http://apple.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=01/10/23
IANAL:
Why am I not hearing about Red Hat, Mandrake, Suse, FSF, Debian, GNU and everyone else who has any sort of legal entity suing the pants off of SCO for slander? SCO has been going around blasting the pants off of Linux for months without any evidence to back it up...do we really have to wait for the original suit to goto court before we do anything? Can't someone shut them up? It's the worst smear campaign I've ever seen...
They've been known to bash Apple and attempt to diminish any good fortunes from Apple, so take this with a grain of salt.
...paid for by M$
I'm not a conspiracy theorist (although I have played one in meetings with upper management).
Microsoft funds SCO's lawsuit against IBM to discredit Linux after it makes significant gains in it's marketshare. This is somewhat evident from the recent "contracting of SCO products" by Microsoft. As Dr Evil would say, "Riiiiiiiiiight"
Microsoft then uses it's "contacts" within Gartner to install the idea that Windows will be a better platform while Linux's reputation is on the line. And I'm sure Microsoft does have contacts within Gartner. It would make sense... since Gartner does industry research and M$ would be someone who benefits from such research.
(Now for another cliche)
Things that make you go hrmmmmmmmm......
Now if only we could find out who was ont he grassy nole.
That way, the RIAA will sic their attack lawyers on SCO, and we won't have to deal with this any more.
It is very clear that Weiss didn't do his research on this matter. Anyone whose actually spent time reading about the matter, or who's been following it carefully should realize that SCO loses ground every day. As revelations come out about the SCO employees contributing to the kernel, or the old Caldera management discussing their intent to port the SCO code to to Linux, it becomes more and more obvious that SCO has a loosing case.
When SCO begins the process of suing their first victim over licensing, the vendor of that particular system will doubtless fall on SCO like a ton of bricks. FSF and OSI will probably also contribute to the defense in that first case, as will thousands of linux geeks worldwide. Since SCO hasn't yet proved code ownership in court, their first licensing lawsuit will almost certainly fail. Add to that the possibility of an SEC or FTC investigation, the successful anti-SCO injunction in Germany, and the possibility of someone pursuing a business libel lawsuit against SCO and it becomes very obvious that this is going to blow over very quickly.
Weiss is clearly clueless and foolish, and his "research" is useless to any serious reader.
Even a blind pig finds an acorn sometimes...
Don't think of it as a flame---it's more like an argument that does 3d6 fire damage
Sounds to me like someone is on the Microsoft payroll if you ask me?
This is my sig. There are many like it but this one is mine.
Come on...
When is the popular media going to wake up and get their collective heads out of SCO's and Microsofts' asses.
I mean who in their right mind would even consider giving anything to someone who stopped you on the street and said "Hey! you! I know you've been using software that contains illegally copied code. My code and while I'm not inclined to share any evidence with you at this time I would advise you that you should pay me $700 to avoid being sued for illegally using our code"
Christ! I would think any smuck that tried that on a regular basis would be bloodied and battered by the second attempt.
Someone should make SCO put up or shut up. With real evidence. Not these SCO SCUDs that even the media seem to think merit repeating as fact.
The media are probably the next biggest problem in this whole unbelievable mess and they just seem more and more willing to report SCOs every stupid move, comment or FUD more so then actually look into the facts of the situation and straight the record straight and perhaps shut SCOs cake hole once and for all.
Probably something of interest:
SCO Lawsuit: will the Enterprises take notice?
Regards, Jan
`Why do we have to hide from the police, Daddy?`
'Because we use gnu/emacs, son. They use vi.'
Before "Windows will provide functions equivalent to those of Linux deployments" such as having a worm every week, a critical notification, or maybe someone elses DRM patent infringing technology in it.
I do agree with the go-slow bit - you shouldn't be deploying enterprise servers on a whim without performing an honest comparison of all platforms. Continue to deploy Linux as needed and if the shit really hits the fan only pay those asses when they start sending collection notices. Screw em.
-B
I'll bite.
You're an idiot. Stop using BSD if you really cannot make it work. Wal-mart has new Fisher-Price Activity Center for your crib. Mommy will drive you.
While most everybody focuses on the merits of the SCO vs IBM (and Linux by implication) case, SCO execs have made a tidy profit (over $1,000,000 in June and July) by selling stock
... On July 3, 2003, the last price for our common stock, as reported by the Nasdaq National Market, was $10.71."
Form-4 filings with the SEC reveal they made $398,833.90 in June, and $656,270.10 in July (so far)!
And there's more!
Remember that Canopy-owned company SCO just bought into, who's the leader? "Mike Meservy, CEO, Vultus, Inc"
Looks like he and Vultus, Inc. were themselves SCO shareholders even before SCO bought into Vultus. From excellent GROKLAW site about SCO v IBM: SCO has filed, on July 8, a Registration Statement on Form S-3, relating to "the public offering or distribution by selling stockholders of up to 305,274 shares of common stock, par value $0.001 per share, of The SCO Group, Inc." The shares will be sold by Vultus, Inc., The Canopy Group, Inc., Angel Partners Inc., Michael Meservy, Bruce K. Grant Jr., Ty D. Mattingly and R. Kevin Bean. Only Canopy Group, in this list, will retain any SCO stock. SCO "will not receive any proceeds from the sale or distribution of the common stock by the selling stockholders.
Would you change your mind if SCO sued you for, say, 75 percent of your company's assets, and won? Even if they lose, do you want to take on the costs of defending yourself in court?
These are especially critical questions for large publicly traded corporations with millions or billions of dollars at risk.
SCO has already affected Linux by making businesses ask if they'll be sued for using it.
-- Slashdot: When Public Access TV Says "No"
Changed thier name to the MS Advocate/Suckup group 5 years ago.
They've had head so far MS butt's that if MS stops too fast it'll break thier neck......
Gartner Group will probably advocate next that IT should not buy ANYTHING and wait x years for MS longhorn.
These guys are right up there with the Iraqi information minister.
"I have to tell you there are no linux servers in Bagdad............."
So Long and Thanks for all the Fish.
Actually, SCO's actions so far sure look to my-IANAL-self like textbook cases of business defamation and tortious interference with contract. Any of those 1500 recipients who were Red Hat or IBM (etc.) customers who backed off in response would do. A "put up or shut up" TRO looks like a slam-dunk from my inexpert POV.
Lacking <sarcasm> tags,
If they don't, every kernel developer should sue them for applying a license to their code without their approval (after all, isn't that the same argument SCO says they have against Linux?).
And if SCO does reveal it... I say it'll be about a week, maybe two, before the code is replaced and this all goes away.
LordBodak's journal.
Tell it like it is.
To address the questions posed earlier in the thread, Yes Virginia, companies do pay attention to what Gartner says. As evidenced by the amount of salt my management places on getting good reviews by them, for many their opinion means alot. What I dont really understand is moreso than simply giving Linux a black eye, this is dragging down all *nix initiatives. I cannot see this seriously helping SCO's sales other than those simply buying licenses in fear of litigation. I can see many companies that are just now swimming out into Linux waters saying screw it to the entire *nix end of computing and staying within the warm fuzzy false safeness of MS technologies.
What are they gonna do if we all just get GNU Hurd working as well as/running instead of the Linux Kernel? Don't worry they can't stop us...
Your sig sux 2...
Can't we, in a manner similar to those films where people break into an animal testing facility and let out all the monkeys, go to the SCO building(s) and similarly release the monkeys from there?
Slashdot's first reaction to VMware
To be honest, I expected something like this for a long time. When I first read about linux (I had been using SunOs/Solaris a long time before) and noticed the similiarities to unix (in functionality) I expected the copyright-holder of Unix to do something about it. And at that time this would have been a really bad thing, as it could have killed of linux at an early stage.
The situation now is a lot better: Linux is a strong player on the OS market, many companies (even IBM) are depending in one way or another on linux. It is not easy to kill linux now.
SCO as the current copyright-holder is nearly as good as it gets for our side: The company is acting desperately, attacking the big players (IBM) instead of the weak points. In the end SCO will fail and when they do, the possibly dangerous copyright-issue unix vs. linux will be resolved.
Could you be freelancing right now because you got laid off from your last job?
Was incompetence part of the problem?
If anybody out there is stupid enough to listen to Gartner, please tell them to pull their head out of their anal orifice and try thinking for themselves. SCO hasn't proven anything (unless you count proving they are a company devoid of morals and brains). Even in a worst-case scenario, you are faced with the possibility of paying a license fee, versus the certainty of paying by going with Microsoft. If it ever comes to a point where a judge says use of certain code in the Linux kernel requires a payment to SCO, it will be replaced quickly.
The way I see it, there are two possible outcomes here:
1) Linux is brought into the spotlight, even if it is for a (temporarily) negative purpose. SCO gets sent packing by a court, then quasi-techie execs start asking about this whole "Linux" thing they've been hearing about. Linux market share increases.
2) Court battles wage for entirely too long, and, regardless of outcome, Linux is crippled because companies, in the interim, decided that W2K3 is their best bet. Linux market share decreases.
In the case of a malfunction of the legal system and a long-shot victory by SCO in court, all bets are null and void.
SCO won't affect linux because linux development exists outside of the american business climate. So what if Some Company chooses to stay with MS Windows? Do the Gnome people care? The KDE folks? Posgres peeps? Linus? Alan Cox? RMS? Larry Wall? No, of course not. They will continue developing and what we know as "Linux" will continue evolving. Some businesses will make good business decisions regarding software and some will continue to overpay for poor quality software. I don't have any faith in the intelligence of the masses of pointy haired bosses. But those that manage to steer clear of the FUD will give their businesses a competitive advantage over those that do not. Either way, Linux will just keep moving forward.
Give a man a fish and he will eat for a day.
Teach him to eat and he will fish forever.
The big Linux folks are being way to quiet. Why don't we hear IBM, SuSE, Red Hat et all. Screaming at SCO or at least putting out their own press releases. At least Linus has said something. The only ones screaming are US - the linux users. Some other countries are taking a stand and telling SCO to "Put up or shut up" and wining, Germany, poland and now Austrailia is getting in on it. WTF is wrong with the U.S.A.? Besides our Governemnt being OWNED by big corporations! Isn't there some laywer out there that would take on a class action lawsuit of all linux users and sue SCO for slander, extortion etc..?
What the heck can be done to shut SCO the HELL up!
The Truth is a Virus!!!
Option A: Save money on software by trying out a different operating system that has fewer up front and accounting costs and is known for stability.
Assesment: Oooohhhh.... that's risky. Somebody might need to be trained! Somebody else might make outrageous unsubstantiated claims over ownership! Can't see how we'd do it.
Option B: Save some money by firing the people who know how to run your business. Gather up the most intimate details and critical information about your operations and ship them 12,000 miles and 11 timezones to a second or third world country. Hope that nothing bad happens to your information. Hope that the world political climate stays stable enough to keep your business running over that tenuous link.
Assesment: Yes, it's a no brainer! Woohoo! Let's do it! We're a cutting edge organization!
arrrrrgggggggggghhhhhhhhhhhhh
another SCO story!!!!!!!!!!
BLAM BLAM BLAM BLAM BLAM
(poster, in a fit of rage, blasts bystanders)
now...find that Daryl guy.....
We're like rats, in some experiment! -- George Costanza
The case I would perhaps make if I was a company dependent on Linux in a large way is that if SCO would tell the world which parts of the code are allegedly in violation, then coders could rework those. Being that SCO is keeping mum about that, we all just have to sit and wait. IOW, SCO is preventing us from remedying the situation by holding hostage information about what the specific violation is.
The code is probably relatively trivial an issue compared to the stoppage of action caused by the lawsuit. It is not like there is a cure for cancer in the disputed code.
Table-ized A.I.
Too bad real life isn't like the Sims where I could drop Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold into SCO's headquarters with some sawed-off shotguns and enough ammo to level the alamo.
That's too quick an end for them. Just have them
walk upstairs, and then delete the stairs. Make sure all the food and toilet facilities are on the ground floor. Sit back and enjoy their long demise.
Don't label something "offtopic" unless you know the topic well enough to tell what's on topic.
Can't he sue SCO for slander? A preemptive move. Yeah, I know: Linus == small beans, SCO == bigger beans. Wouldn't that be where the EFF comes in? Or a community action to make fundage available?
IMO, Linux is taking a beating in the eyes of the PHBs. My own PHB is wondering wtf is up. She knows SCO sucks so bad it bends light, but further up the food chain, the CFO doesn't. And that CFO once had a dictum that `only M$ was to be used in our company.' That dictum has since been ignored, bent and rescinded, but.. ya know. Weak minds and all.
This is exactly the type of person all this FUD is targeted at. The PHBs and above.
The "Civilized World" jumped the shark ca. 1973.
I'm generally not a grammar nazi, but the spelling of slashdot users seems particularly atrocious. Good lord...
If you do this, someday you might actually have a sex with a living, breathing, *biped* (of the OPPOSITE sex)...
/dev/dsp
"Biped" does not imply human, and perhaps your experience is along these lines. Care to elaborate?
While you elaborating, please feel free to be inspired by this:
curl http://www.gnu.org/music/free-software-song.au >
Join Tor today!
Don't assume that the problem you are having is typical with any version of BSD.
I use OpenBSD heavily and have used FreeBSD and NetBSD and I've never seen that type of performance problem on any of them. And my fastest BSD machine is only 233 MHz.
I did a quick test by creating a 23 MB file in one directory on a moderately loaded 233 MHz Compaq running OpenBSD 3.3 and I was able to copy it to another directory in 2.89 seconds.
I think you're quite wrong. Evidence or not, SCO is, in fact, suing people. That's the risk Whether or not their case is credible is irrelevant. Paying lawyers is expensive, even if you win.
Suppose someone in your town decided to sue everyone who shopped at Grocery A. Even if you were convinced that their case was baseless, wouldn't you think about shopping at Grocery B until the issue was resolved??
Should a company put itself at risk by using Linux?
-- Slashdot: When Public Access TV Says "No"
(By "them" I was referring to SCO heads, of course, not Harris and Klebold, athough they would deserve similar treatment.)
Don't label something "offtopic" unless you know the topic well enough to tell what's on topic.
uptime is measured in years, you say?
On a product that was only released a year ago?
Or do you mean it comes up saying "Kernel Panic - Uptime: 0.043 years"?
I usually don't see the simplest statement that should be made in most news stories about this topic: these are allegations! If you base your actions on allegations, you're an idiot anyway.
u R teh f4L3y0R3!!
beeyotch!!!
It only takes a minute. If enough people complain, somebody may take notice. I am including web-sites and a sample letter.
G _C ODE=PU01s ubject=COM MENT
https://rn.ftc.gov/pls/dod/wsolcq$.startup?Z_OR
http://naag.org/naag/feedback_form.php?
http://www.usdoj.gov/contact-us.html
As the representative of a small business. I am writing to file a complaint regarding the actions of the SCO Group.
SCO is making unspecific and unsubstantiated claims that it owns copyright pertaining to the Linux operating system. SCO is threatening legal action against anybody who uses Linux. SCO has stated that the only way anybody can avoid legal
action from SCO, is to purchase SCO's UnixWare product.
In deference to anything SCO may be claiming: SCO does not own Linux, nor does SCO have any special rights to Linux. Linux is protected by the General Public License (GPL). SCO has no more rights to tell people they can't use Linux, than SCO has to tell people they can't use MS-Windows.
Would you please investigate the claims that SCO is making so that small businesses and other companies are not pressured into making unwarranted payments.
Contact information for the SCO Group:
The SCO Group
355 South 520 West, Suite 100
Lindon, Utah 84042
801.765.4999 phone
801.765.1313 fax
...why Gartner doesn't say "Delay Windows deployment due to Intertrust"
I think the community should really FUD back with the problem of Intertrust patents on Windows, which is a *serious* case, in the contrary of SCO's.
WAY TO GO SCO!!!!
My read on it is this. SCO through FUD or legal wrangling might succeed in slowing down Linux or even stopping it. However, the MUCH LARGER TREND IS THE MOVE TOWARD OPEN SOURCE AND OPEN STANDARDS which SCO cannot really affect. Corporations are demanding it as they resist proprietary lock-in.
The same infrastructure niche occupied by linux could be easily occupied by BSD. Linux could even expurgate offending code if needed be and resurrect itself. If SCO is going to make its claims stick, they are going to have to demonstrate the copyright violation. They will have to make a case as to why they are not going after distributors of linux.
Their hope is that people will be sufficiently locked in to linux that they cannot change, making it possible for SCO to extract its tax IF their claims prove out. However, how many people are actually running their oracle database on linux? or their DB2 database?
Further, oracle is being supplanted by open source databases that will run on multiple platforms for lower level tasks.
Finally, SCO's threats seem to be making no grounds overseas. Linux will not be stopped there. Ultimately, we may find ourselves in a situation where the largest computer markets (China, Japan) are opting for low cost software options in Linux while America is fighting this constant monopoly war.
In the end, I think the long-term trend stays. The real question is what of American firms in the short to medium term?
Helevius
sleep( rand() % 1000000 );
printf( "we recommend you stick with windows.\n" );
This is my sig.
Just wait a minute... Are you trying to suggest me to delay deployment of Linux for a something based of FUD, which doesn't have a case at all; and to switch to Windows, which I'll have to pay for hefty licensing fee?
So in another words, you're suggesting me not to deploy Linux because I might have tiniest chances to pay licensing fee to SCO and to go for Windows, which I'll definitely have to pay a huge amount of money to Microsoft?
It seems that no media in Sweden has hopped on this FUD from SCO.
I am thankful for that and it seems like media in europe either does not care or don't buy this crap that SCO spreads.
Anyone else noticed this? How does these news spread here in Europe?
I really HAD another userid
Dude, YHBT. This is the old "Apple" troll from YEARS ago.
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
Gartner is a huge research firm. I have been in meetings about many different topics in many different realms, such as health care, new computer structures, etc.
I want to see a comparison/contrast to gartners recommendations and WHO was paying the bill to do the research. I have this funny feeling that, like many research groups, that they are trying to maintain a positive relationship with whoever if feeding them the money.
Anyone want to do a little snooping?
Hurd at Linux Tag 2003
Hope to see more.
Where the Music Matters
If Intertrust successfully stops Microsoft from selling Windows, I wonder what might happen. I don't see that particular group highlighting this issue, and I think the whole media is not giving enough exposure about the patent allegations (about DRM, etc) Microsoft is suffering from.
Maybe FreeBSD might gain some ground afterall...
Please direct all bug reports to
Will all the current FUD have a bit of a slow-down effect on businesses using Linux? Probably.
Does the SCO situation, and the resultant FUD from Gartner and others piss me (and most/all other Linux users) off? Definitely.
But here's the thing to remember: Linux isn't OS2, or DR-DOS or even Netscape/Mozilla. Since Linux is GPL, this kind of FUD can't kill it. Slow it down a bit, maybe, but even that is arguable.
So while we should do everything we can to combat the SCO FUD (like file a complaint with the FTC), don't worry too strenuously. Linux is one product that will survive and thrive based on its merits, not good or bad publicity.
And yes, I know that Caldera/SCO got approximately $155MM from Microsoft for DR-DOS, but where is DR-DOS as a competitor to MS/Windows? That's right, nowhere, because MS killed it, even though it was considered by some to be a far superior product.
/.: why the hell am I here?
The Gartner Group was acquired yesterday by Microsoft Corporation.
to say sorry to poor Mr Stallman, all those people who've been taking the piss for his insistance at the GNU (Gnu's Not Unix) Tab before Linux ;)
Hmmmmmm..... Deep fried and look like Squirrel.
that's it. forget it fuddles, your corepirate hypenosys is BAD history.
.asp(s).
consult with/trust in yOUR creator. vote with yOUR wallet. that's the spirit.
the penguinistas win buy a LANslide. that's it.
don't let those fauxking Godless greed/fear buyassed felons/softwar gangsters bullow ANY more smoke up yOUR
If you run a company, your job is to make sure the company makes money and provides return to stockholders. Championing a technology for its own sake is ludicrous if you're an O-level person in a company. Linux has made inroads in the corporate world by providing a better return on investment than the alternatives. ROI drops radically when you have to spend money on legal fees just to use a given technology.
Sure, SCO is using FUD to disrupt the Linux market. But the fact remains that FUD is very powerful when backed by high-powered lawyers and a bankroll.
The corporate backers of GNU/Linux (notably IBM, which is the real target of all this tomfoolery) need to get off their asses and go on the offensive. Unfortunately in the technology world, how you spin your side of things to the press is just as important as the real facts. IBM may have the facts on their side, but they are losing the PR battle. If IBM continues to loose the PR battle, then Linux will really take it in the shins.
Read the EFF's Fair Use FAQ
Okay, I've seen this post with different operating systems several times now, and it's not getting any more compelling with time.
It was somewhat cute when used against Mac OS X, a little tired when used against Windows, extremely boring when quoted verbatim against Linux, and just plain stupid against *BSD.
Go find a bridge to hide under, troll.
Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
Coporate McCarthy^H^H^H^H^H^HBrideism. How much damage does SCO get to do - based upon currently unfounded allegations - before they get told to shut up?
I don't want knowledge. I want certainty. - Law, David Bowie
Did they deliver a second mouse button yet?
SCO will not affect linux at all. Hell my whole company runs on linux and I'm not switching a damn thing till something is proven.
How big is your company? Did you actually go out and buy boxed server distros, or did you download isos? Are your workstations running linux?
If you actually bought boxed distros, that's fantastic. And if most of your workstations are running linux as well, even better. But it sounds like you (and the company) use linux because you know it works for you. You don't need the Gartner group to tell you that. So the SCO litigation won't affect companies like yours, but they will affect the large companies that are important to the growth of linux as a true enterprise business solution.
Whereof we cannot speak, thereof we must be silent. --Ludwig Wittgenstein
I'm wondering when Gartner is going to start recommending everyone stay away from Windows because of InterTrust's patent infringement lawsuit against Microsoft.
That would seem to be a lot stronger case than SCO's unproven/unprovable/nonexistent/absurd claims against IBM.
Even if SCO's claims were on the level, wouldn't patent infringements be stronger than copyright infringements? Assuming SCO did have a case, why would they have a case against users of Linux who haven't violated SCO's copyrights (violations of copyright law are, I understand, issues of copying, something that most Linux users are not doing) and InterTrust not have a case against everyone with Microsoft software that is likely to be considered to be patent infringements of InterTrust's patents?
Is it because Gartner is succumbing to SCO's compaign of FUD? Or is Gartner in a position to lose money with the increased use of Linux? Or maybe just make more money if Microsoft dominates?
I wonder how frequently, if ever, a user who bought a legitimate copy of something that turned out to be an inadvertant copyright infringement has been held liable for that copy.
If somebody removes the offending code and replaces it with something functionally similar that would be a nice kick in the balls (if they have any) to SCO right?
Wonderful post!! I would add as well: get a haircut and lose the disgusting arrogance.
Gartner's FIRST recommendation is to "Contact SCO to discuss its claims, compensation requirements and your potential future liability." Why don't you as a company simply paint a big bullseye on yourself and jump up and down until SCO notices you.
First, it's very bad advice to tell someone to admit to SCO that you have Linux 2.4 as well as draw attention to yourself when there's 1500 other companies that they are busy with. Sure, if you are one of the 1500 companies that received this "letter," then by all means communicate back or you'll likely be one of the parties named on the first lawsuit. (Does anyone have a copy of this letter to post or mail to me? I'd love to see it.) Otherwise, go evaluate your exposure, the risk associated with that exposure, as well as alternatives first before handing SCO the lube and bending over.
After all if you don't, the IRS will think you're cheating on her, and you know what kind of a jealous bitch she can be!
At least I know Gartner will never be competition for me or other attorneys!
Stop undressing me with your eyes. I'm ugly naked.
IANAL, but I think Gartner is obligated to give cautionary advice toward Linux. If Gartner simply stated that the SCO claims are false and their legal threats are FUD, a company paid for and followed their advice, and strangely SCO won the suit or sued Gartner's customer, then Gartner would be held legally liable for their legal advice. They could be sued for dismissing SCO's claims as absurd, regardless of how absurd they actually are.
As much as we all know SCO's full of shit, if there's a suit filed, there's always a chance they'll win. Gartner can't afford to ignore that.
-jag
http://starboard.flowtheory.net/
You get to play as SCO.
"Sic Semper Tyrannosaurus Rex."
...this too, shall pass.
I have noticed that Gartner Group has been acting like SCO's bitch recently, eager to spread fud, without the slightest attempt at impartiality.
Is it time to denounce The Gartner Group as an "Enemy Of FS/OSS"?
This Poster says yes.
Darl McBride is Hitlers' bastard son!
I did NOT learn everything I need to know in kindergarten.
I agree with the above. They make an accusitory question, and arrange it so the public doesn't think they have to support the accusation...it's up to the accused to supply proof of innocence...
"Hello, I'm Groucho Marx, and welcome to another edition of "You Beat Your Wife". Tonight's contestant is Mr. Hideo Knutts, from Sarasota, Florida. Tell us, Mr. Knutts, what do you do, and how often do you beat your wife?" "I...I *dont't* beat my wife" "Oh, come on, Mr. Knutts, dont' be shy. Just whisper the number in my ear. I won't tell" (FX: Audience laughter) "But I don't beat my wife!" "Ah, an *alleged* wife, beater, eh? It'll be interesting to see how long he gets away with it, folks!" (FX: applause)
stirring the pot since nineteen mumblty mumble...
I've been sitting here at my freelance gig in front of a BSD box (a PIII 800 w/512 Megs of RAM) for about 20 minutes now while it attempts to copy a 17 Meg file from one folder on the hard drive to another folder. 20 minutes.
/myfile /newfolder/myfile
bash$ ln
Time: 0.2 microseconds
Hot DAMN that was fast!!!
(Note: This is sarcasm to the original troll who seems to manage to sucker in a lot of people with the old "Mac Copying File" line)
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
But isn't there any legal recourse available to a group in the situation we are currently in? SCO is a company that is basically using this *potential* lawsuit to extort money from linux users. This will likely damage Linux's reputation and make people act out of fear and dump the Linux platform.
Aren't there any damages the authors of Linux could claim? A class action suit that the copyright holders of linux code could file?
It seems to me that there is something fundamentally wrong (morally, that is) with using the *possibility* of a damaging lawsuit to get people to buy your product. Is there any law that they could be violating? I am envisioning a sort of "gag order" handed down to SCO. "You aren't allowed to contact linux customers or announce settlement offers until the merits of your case have been shown."
If it takes years for this to get to trial, the effects on the linux platform could potentially be huge. Their statements will simply keep the fear growing among Linux customers and eventually at least some of them willl cave to that fear. Is there any way to shut down the FUD machine???
Again, IANAL, but I'd love to hear the opinion of some lawyers on the feasibility of legal action against SCO by members of the Linux community.
Taft
All of this just makes my blood boil. The very fact that something like this has been allowed to continue for so long is astounding. Why hasn't anyone (IBM?) put a stop to it. Who could? RedHat just sits by and posts an obscure message on its website saying that everything is fine. Why aren't the people with a financial interest combatting the FUD?
Error 404 - Sig Not Found
I think your comment is in very poor taste, for several reasons.
Have some respect for victems and their families at Columbine.
And have some respect for victems of recent and past office/school shootings.
If you want to express your outrage over the SCO bs, direct it toward the upper management of SCO. Your comment is only a step or two away from saying "let's just bomb Salt Lake City (or Lindon)". Assuming killing the leaders of the company were a valid solution, you would also be killing lots of innocent people.
.sigs are for post^Hers.
Back OT, anybody that bases their business plans on what the Gartner Group says isn't going to be in business long enough to write you a check anyway. After all, if they don't have someone in IS savvy enough to realize how full of it these guys are, they're doomed anyway.
Over the years, Gartner has done far more grevious harm to the Technology industry than SCO. They're the paid psy-ops wing of Microsoft.
They've burned every last ounce of their credibility, and yet, highly paid, highly educated CIO's still listen to and believe their garbage.
These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
Something came to my mind. Probably it is just a stupid question, but...
If I understood well the new "idea" from SCO it will sell a deal: "you give me some money so that I won't sue you due to copyright infringement bu using linux". SCO will do this since it can't license linux, as it doesn't own the copyright of most of the kernel code (actually, I seriously doubt if it owns something at all).
Is this legally possible? As far as I remember, any copyright holder is responsible to enforce his copyright under the penalty of losing control of his work. So if SCO chooses not to enforce it copyright, even under an agreement, isn't it going to lose control of its IP? Is there a lawyer here that can answer this question?
from one folder on the hard drive to another folder
Folders? ROTFLMAO
I had been undecided on Gartner up until now. I mean, not all of their advice is pro-Microsoft; they seemed fairly balanced to me. But this is just too much...
From Gartner.com, recommendations as at 23 Jul:
Contact SCO to discuss its claims, compensation requirements and your potential future liability.
FUD FUD FUD + hefty helping of bad advice
Organize a review board that audits and documents all Linux installations by kernel version and server roles.
FUD FUD FUD
Delay deployments of application and database servers if they involve critical applications that must be unencumbered of IP infringement claims. You can fence off such systems from the license obligation if you have deployed Linux strictly for basic infrastructure roles (such as firewalls and simple Web servers) that do not require the 2.4 kernel or its SMP capability.
FUD FUD FUD
Determine whether Unix or Windows will provide functions equivalent to those of Linux deployments.
OMFG FUD FUD FUD
Investigate outsourcing, system integration or other relationships that transfer license issues to the third party.
valid advice, but still FUD FUD FUD
Don't ignore the problem by hoping IBM will win or settle its lawsuit (that could take a year or more). An IBM win would not prevent SCO from pursuing individual claims, which, if successful, could cost far more in penalties than buying a SCO license would. If you find SCO's case compelling and you use few instances of v.2.4, pay the license fees.
FUD FUD FUD
While the actions by SCO are pending, take a go-slow approach to Linux in high-value or mission-critical production systems. Instead, keep pursuing your Unix and Windows strategies.
OMFG FUD FUD FUD
Previous recommendations, 21 May:
The lawsuits against IBM and Linux users could take a year or more. Minimize Linux in complex, mission-critical systems until the merits of SCO's claims or any resulting judgments become clear.
FUD FUD FUD
If you plan large Linux deployments on the platforms of Dell Computer, Hewlett-Packard, IBM, Sun Microsystems or other major vendors, seek a comprehensive support contract, including pre-installation, configuration testing and operating system certification.
FUD FUD FUD
IS organizations, with advice from their legal departments, should perform due diligence on Linux or other open-source code (explore its source, integrity and any encumbrances) as a prerequisite to adoption in the enterprise.
Install Linux, the anti-SCOFUD FUD FUD
Most writers regard truth as their most valuable possession, and therefore are most economical in its use - Mark Twain
based on on the accuracy (sic) of previous gartner (man, it was hard not to type garbage) reports (sic), I guess this means everyone should hurry up and get those Linux systems deployed.
Is this the best MS can do to address the Linux threat? Linux, like lava or a glacier, can't be stopped. Why? One word: Quality.
It's fun watching them try, though.
BTW, I don't think there is one person in web-land who can come up with a picture of Derl McBride and Bill Gates (or better yet, Ballmer) in a big smooch! \
might be to have gartner do a report saying all gartner reports are bogus.
DoS attack the hell out of SCO and any of their subsidaries?
SCO just needs to be taught a really nasty lesson to the point their site shuts down, they can't support their customers, and just gives up on all the BS IP copyrights and patents they wish to enforce.
Honestly, the RIAA and SCO are just a bunch of ass-like companies that need to get a life and quit the shit they are trying to pull, esp with their previous and future customers to be.
Let's set the wayback machine to 1994-1995, shall we?
At the time, the battle was between Windows, OS/2, and Apple. Linux was no where to be seen by anyone but a few geeks.
Time and time again we were treated to "reports" and "analysis" from the Gartner Group/Rob Enderle extolling the benefits of Windows (3.1, keep in mind, followed by 95) over everything else. Volumes of FUD was generated by Gartner/Enderle and Dataquest AGAINST anything non-Microsoft. It was a constant, incessant FLOOD. At the same time, discussion groups like Compuserve's CANOPUS form were being invaded by paid-for Microsoft shills (see www.pjprimer.com for the details), like "Steve Barkto".
The end result? OS/2 and Apple were discredited. THOUROUGHLY. Windows, even in it's horrid crash-prone unstable form of Windows 3.1 and Win95, "won".
And at the sidelines, Ziff Davis acted like cheerleaders at a football game, chanting "rah rah! Microsoft! Rah rah rah!" The lone dissenter--Will Zachmann--the only man who stood up to say "um, guys? This is bullshit!"...got a phone call from the Microsoft Munchkins trying to butter his bread on Bill Gates' side. Instead of selling out, Zachmann quit, turning the entire trade press over to pro-Microsoft bias 100%.
The point of my story? Any and all suspicion of Gartner, Rob Enderle, and Ziff Davis/ZDNET is ENTIRELY JUSTIFIED. And further, it has nothing to do with "lunix" as you call it. Some of us have memories that stretch back before 1998, and we damn well REMEMBER what the FUD generated by these paid-for bastards can do.
You're damn right--this isn't 1998.
from google cache ...
...
http://216.239.51.104/search?q=cache:sdItEpGtxZ8 J: www.opensource.org/halloween/halloween6.php+gartne r+group+microsoft&hl=en&ie=UTF-8
Mindcraft was just small fry, though - one more tiny company who learned too late that when Microsoft brings you flowers, they're likely to end up decorating your grave one way or another. As the fatal anniversary of Halloween I loomed, Microsoft appears to have rerun the same scam on a much larger scale. This time, its date for the dance was a respected name in IT forecasting, the Gartner Group.
Cue the ominous background music
Sometime before 6 October, the Gartner Group published on its central corporate website, www.gartner.com, a series of five reports slamming Linux and predicting that its appeal would fade once the inevitable Service Pack 1 for Windows 2000 came out. These reports quickly spawned Linux-is-doomed articles like this example from 15 Oct on the IDG Australia website, which promoted them as objective studies by independent Gartner.
The articles, however, included the following small print at the end:
Microsoft Web Letter is published by Microsoft. Additional editorial material supplied by Gartner Group, Inc. © 1999.
suggesting (though not proving) that this "Gartner report" was actually written and published by Microsoft on Gartner's own website.
We can't tell you the exact date of the reports, because they aren't there any more. On 19 October Gartner changed the copyright on the reports to no longer mention Microsoft, while publicly insisting that the research had not been funded by Microsoft. Tellingly, however, the URLs of the reports still began with this prefix:
http://www.gartner.com/webletter/microsoft/
and the same copyright notice, with the same attribution to Microsoft, can still be found on articles in the webletter/microsoft/ directory as this is written. Sometime between 19 and 27 October yanked the reports off its site entirely.
Fortunately, Rick Moen, a well-known Linux activist, managed to recover them from his Netscape cache - and found the copyright notice reproduced above. In view of Gartner's protestations that Microsoft had nothing to do with funding the research, the next lines in the notice are especially interesting:
Editorial supplied by Microsoft is independent of GartnerGroup analysis and in no way should this information be construed as a GartnerGroup endorsement of Microsoft's products and services.
So. At first blush, these "Gartner Group" reports seem to have been a warm personal gesture from Microsoft Corporation to itself. That theory would fit both the copyright and the contents, which exactly repeats Microsoft marketing cant that we've seen before - including such trademarks of the genre as the (unsupported and, according to IDC, false) assertion that Linux is taking seats mainly from other Unix shops.
However, the Gartner Group insists that Microsoft did not write the reports. A spokesman explained through the same compliant IDG Australia reporter responsible for the 15 Oct Linux-is-doomed story. Chase the link to get a load of this spin-doctoring; no paraphrase by us could do justice to the way Microsoft and the reporter deftly weave a fog of soothing confusion around the contradictions in their story. We're supposed to believe that:
* Gartner wrote the reports - even though the copyrights on them explicitly said otherwise;
* A set of URLs on www.gartner.com are "the Microsoft site";
* Microsoft "sponsors" this "site", and paid unspecified fees to Gartner Group related to the content - but nevertheless, in no way did Microsoft fund the reports.
Rick's comment on their explanation is more eloquent than my own:
I'm sure [Gartner's denial] was truthful, if you squint at it the right way: I'm certain that Microsoft Corporation's ongoing series of cheques for
They look unorganized with no voice. Typical opensource management which means NONE.
I am so sick of these "SCO scum" people.
Will someone please do something that will tell this trash to stop this nonsense?
It is advised that companies that follow Gartner Group advise are spending more IT dollar per capita than companies that ignore Gartner Group recommendations.
Furthermore we are recommending companies that have been planning to deploy Linux for enterprise applications to ignore SCO.
Groupe` BTG is a privately owned IT research group offering Active Matrix Cycle Circular Planning Activity Grids to maximize your IT budget.
Groupe` BTG was formed by a Big Tall Guy with the following made up certs MCSDA, IT PRO+, CCCNCPDT
Does Gartner have any real credibility? I mean, they bought the spin-story that Guardent told them. What's next, Technology According to Jon Katz? Move along, nothing to see here - Gartner has ridden the FUD wave all along, this was inevitable.
I want to delete my account but Slashdot doesn't allow it.
While folks are busy bashing Gartner, maybe they should actually read the article.
"SCO claims Linux 2.4's SMP scaling capabilities are dependent on SCO-owned IP, and has offered Linux customers the choice of paying a licence fee or being sued."
Thus far, SCO has been associated with the JFS and Linux SMP capabilities -- really two features that have made Linux ready for prime time. If the allegations prove true, Linux has benefitted from SCO code. This would be very very bad.
We just had a deployment where Windows was chosen over Linux. Flame all you like, the FUD is already having an impact.
This is a completely legit.
statement. Only a KDE Zealot
would whine about this being flamebait.
THE GUYS THAT OWN SCO, ALSO OWN TROLLTECH !!!!
Truth is flamebait? Advocating a rational
solution is flamebait?
Yup. Moderators suck.
This report is meaningless for enterprise management -- they are already very cautious with their mission critical deployments, and were not and are not rushing headlong onto linux even before SCO.
There is linux migration, but it is already cautious and measured and driven by a complex calculation of licensing costs, security risks, training issues, partner compatibility, and so on. For all the press SCO gets, it is barely a blip on this larger radar.
Furthermore, these are the people who are willing to pay Red Hat Enterprise product fees, and another license from SCO would hardly matter in the grand equation.
Further furthermore, people who are actually considering these issues in a serious way are no doubt aware that the various BSD's are immune to SCO nonsense and in many cases could be freely substituted.
Further further furthermore, I believe people are generally aware that SCO can't possibly put the squeeze on linux; no matter what they have after everything shakes out, if anything, linux and open source in general will simply throw it out and replace it with something free.
SUMMARY: Chill out. Move along.
As far as I know neither RMS nor Larry Wall are involved in Linux development. The one guy has been working on a complete, from-scratch Unix replacement (GNU) since the 80s and has actually been critical of the Linux kernel project for both its use of a proprietary version management tool and the inclusion of not-quite-available-as-source-code drivers. The other has written a general purpose interpreted programming ("scripting") language that runs on all kinds of different operating systems.
I do not have a signature
You don understand the isssue. If BSD willl be a succes, you get the same issues,
Anf if you read carefull the interviews from SCO they are looking the the BSD code als well
A defensal department stopped with sponsoring OpenBSD (avoout 2 miljoen a year)
Be afraid, very afraid.
The best (easiest) doing for linux is to change the SCO code and the include the BSD code for 5.1 (32 processors) in their kernel.
I've followed this from the beginning, and Linux proponents are really fucking this up for themselves. Everyone felt so secure when Novell piped up, but where are they today? Cowering in a corner hoping to hide long enough to not be brought into this thing in a damages suit, that's where.
Linux vendors are sitting back, feeling secure, in denial of what is possible here. You could lose. You could lose big time. The fact is, SCO does not have to show all their cards, only enough to get people to start paying for licencing. I have no doubt they are holding back stuff for the day they go after the entire Linux community.
SCO has got a gun pointed at you, with Microsoft providing the powder. You could get hurt. Unless the Linux community gets vocal real soon, corporations are going to end up paying dearly to SCO, and Microsoft is going to pick up marketshare in the interim.
I would stop arguing the merits of SCO's case, and start yelling at IBM, Redhat and others, who should be speaking out on users behalf. Maybe they figure they can sell you anything UNIX, and dont really give a shit about users? I dont know.
Just dont be so sure that SCO does not have a case, because if they do, or some judge says they do (for a piece of the action) then you are fucked.
Does that company have any more insight than a group of moderately smart IT professionals? Did they predict the Internet boom, for example? I mean, after all they might just as well be a leasable FUD spreading machine...
All this SCO Group sh!t is driving me up the f#cking wall!
.
.!
The f#cking SCO CEO, McBride is either in bed with Bill Gates and Ballmer or is on some dillusional new form of crack.
According to these @$$h0le$ over at Utah, I owe them money because I use GNU/Linux. What toilet did these m0r0ns come out of?! Do they realize who they're f#cking with?! Do they realize that if there is one thing that IBM understands, its Intellectual Property, since they own half of the worlds registered patents.
All I can say to the !d!ots at SCO are the following:
F#ck y0u SCO! May your company go bankrupt and your employees see you for what you really are, evil, conniving, opportunistitc, no good, back stabbing Unix wannabe company. May your stocks go down and your company be bought for one dollar. .
By the way SCO, good luck gettin' any dough out of me because it is going to take some divine intervention to fork over any type of dough to you pundits. .
~~~
Can someone explain the latest filings. I understand the selling, but a bunch of new players just aquired "Non-Qualified Stock Option (right to buy)" with a price of $0.
Does that mean that they can at a future date buy SCO stock up to the limit for the price the stock held at the date of filing, or that they get them for free?! I guess the price is for the option itself and that the "Conversion or Excercise Price of Derivative Security" regulates the price of/when they exercise?/p>
Is this basically a win-win thing? If the price is $0, then they can select to not exercise and lose nothing? Why would a company give out these for no price? Sounds suspicious.
Thanks.
Belief is the currency of delusion.
This is absolutely unbelievable. Yes this is America and yes you can say whatever you want...but come on SCO...show some real evidence and stop pouting and bringing other people's successes down with your miserable company.
-> Sometimes, you just gotta break free from the shackles of proprietary code.
Microsoft has just been successfully sued by InterTrust over patent violations in their line of products. InterTrust claims that 85% of Microsoft's products are involved. Read about it here.
Follow the money.
CEE5210S The signal SIGHUP was received.
What's it going to take for Open Source here in the US to follow Open Source Victoria's lead? OSV has filed a complaint with the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission, its version of the Securities and Excange Commission.
This organization has politicized itself and states on its web site that "OSV is a marketing, advocacy and focus group, which aims to raise the profile of Open Source Software (OSS) in Victoria." Here 'advocacy' is the key concept.
C'mon guys, get it together. Cryin time's over. Time to play smashmouth.
I don't think so. I would think that making business decisions based on unsubstantiated, unproven gossip is much more irresponsible.
Alfred E Neuman of New York fame has just said that he doesn't worry because he bought his computer and all the software with lots of MP3s already on it from the Midnight Clearing house in Joes garage. He didn't have to pay much extra at for all the software he needed either, the guy just installed Office on it for 20 bucks more. What a deal, he says he doesn't worry about SCO either!
OH THE SHAME I fell off the wagon and use sigs again!
If you're going to post unrealistic complaints, at least be original, maybe the BSD bootup screen contains the ancient sigil Mua which means "hail the great beast, destroyer of worlds." Now that would be amusing!
Sig:Why copyright isn't a fundamental human right
This just highlights the stupidity of these analysts. They get paid to research this stuff and don't even understand the basics of what's going on. SCO has a contract dispute with IBM that is only indirectly related to Linux copyrights, the evidence w.r.t. Linux shows that SCO doesn't have a leg to stand on. Caldera distributed the offending code under GPL, actively participated in Linux kernel development, has the most bizarre and wide intrepretation of derivitive works hoping they own the fruits of all IBM's labor, and there's even clear evidence that SCO has been stealing from GPL'd projects not the other way around. In addition to all this, w.r.t. liability any Linux user is completely off the hook w.r.t. copyright liability since they're not the publisher.
baaaa..
.gif thing.. and now we have png.. Did they make any money off that, no not really.. They just managed to piss of the community at large and so shot themselves in the foot..
okay, linux being an effort of many many volunteers around the globe is the issue here.
So what, move servers offshore to europe whatever..
I now vehemently hate SCO and am doing everything in my power to make sure that they never receive a dime from any customer of mine.
However, They can't "kill" it..
It will just evolve like everything else and they will sit and look stupid holding a worthless licensing scheme and slowly rot away because nobody will touch them with a ten foot pole after that bullshit.
I remember similar tales of "doom and gloom" over the
At least that is my thinking..
anime+manga together at last.. in real time.
...of what I've believed all along: The Gartner Group's studies and recommendations have absolutely NOTHING to do with putting forward better technology and standards. They're simply FUD for hire, nothing more.
-Rhomboid
Terrific! I'd like to know who runs an Apple datacenter. I want a picture of how stylish it can be. Can't wait to run Appletalk for 10,000 users - Smirk.
this is all bullshit. people can still use OpenBSD, FreeBSD, NetBSD, Linux 2.2 or prior, Intel Solaris, or buy macs, sgi or sparc boxen.
Sometimes I agree with Gartner. Their recommendation to abandon IIS was right on target. Gartner's ability to collect facts is more valuable than their conclusions about what to do. Many of us in IT management will face additional questions about our Linux deployments thanks to Gartner. Dealing with a little sporadic flak is part of the job.
I wonder why Gartner didn't have a "go slow" recommendation on Microsoft deployment during the DOJ anti-trust crisis and all the various states suing in pursuit of a breakup? It becomes even more interesting when you consider that the ONLY company that makes Windows was up to its neck in legal trouble, whereas NONE of the MANY Linux distributors is currently in any trouble at all. One dubious lawsuit and we all have to stop and wait? I don't think so. To me, Gartner is attempting to spray water where there is no fire.
Ultimately, the decision factors in choosing Linux vs. the alternatives remain the same, with or without SCO. If we have to hide under our desks every time someone launches an idle threat or a lawsuit, we might as well power off and go home.
Gartner is run by maroons... I mean come on, they've always made wild claims to gain attention.
Gartner says you should migrate off IIS
Gartner says you shouldn't use Intrusion Detectino Systems
Gartner says you shouldn't use Linux
But if you read these claims, they do come with caveats. The problem is the headlines are the only thing PHBs tend to read and they miss the finer points of the argument.
But as far as Gartner doing something because Microsoft asked them too... that's poppycock, and there's no historical pattern to back it up.
ftp.redhat.com
ftp.slackware.com
I do run some x86/windows machines, ppc/os x machines and ultra/solaris machines as well. I have several copies of the design collection and that is about all that is closed source that I (my company) uses. Damn it's not cheap either (it was $1000 but it went to $1150 with the new "pro" acrobat 6 that is the same as the old "regular" acrobat 5). Hell we print all our pdf's to 1.3 compatability (pdf v4) because it works.
I love linux and there is no fucking way my company will abandon it until it is necessary and prudent. Some asshole company pumping out their chest doesn't do a lot for scaring me (could be that I'm italian, or maybe I'm just stupid). When they beat IBM I'll be concerned, assuming the Linux community doesn't address the issues that SCO would have won based on.
----> javascript:void(null)
Which is about how much of a case SCO truly has on Linux. And how much Mr. Weiss' opinion is really worth.
The link actually pulls up an "autobiography" of the user....I just though that the HREF in the link was rather "fitting" in context of the discussion.
And the fact that he lists himself as the only analytical source, is also amusing. He makes no comment as to whether he's actually signed the NDA and "seen for himself" if in fact SCO "has a leg to stand on". Yup, just the sort of analysis I would trust from a market research firm of the "stature" of the Gartner Group.
Could this be SCO shooting itself in the foot? They want to make money off of software that may or may not be deemed theirs, but now they have people using this as an excuse to stay away.
-- botsex is {grep;touch;strip;unzip;head;mount}
You're thinking like an engineer: SCO's case has no technical merit, so full speed ahead.
SCO's case may be entirely fiction, but if they sue you, you'll still need to spend lots of money and lots of time in court fighting them. Convincing a court that the suit has no techical merit will be your problem, and that will cost you.
When money is at stake, decisions can't be based on technical merit alone.
-- Slashdot: When Public Access TV Says "No"
Take it slow..... like as in get ready for transparently moving over to the Hurd.
So many have commented about the slow development of the Hurd core..... but it's getting closer and closer every day.
Honesty, by the time this case SCO vs. IBM goes thru court, the Hurd will have seen it's first public release, maybe even a second.
And at that point in time it will not matter.
``Nonbranded versions of Unix environments, such as Linux and FreeBSD, can be suitable as inexpensive, functional Unix packages for Web servers, application development platforms, and workstation and dedicated application roles with qualified, in-house technical expertise, in place of commercially branded systems. However, these operating systems will not find widespread use in mainstream commercial applications in the next three years, nor will there be broad third-party application support (0.8 probability). Although interest is growing in their utilization as Web servers, their advantage will remain limited to moderately scalable applications (0.8 probability), and they will lack operating-system and performance tuning support for high levels of scalability (>500 concurrent OLTP users).''--George Weiss, The Gartner Group, 4 May 1998
One could actually use Linux and prepare to pay the SCO license fee extorted to use Linux w/o threat of lawsuit. Then, provided the SCO license does not preclude it, and maybe even if it does and it is considered a contract of adhesion, prepare to sue SCO if their claims are found without merit. Perhaps having SCO be required to put up a bond for the eventual damage suits if their claims are without merit might also slow them down.
- Tjp
I am in wallow with my inner money grubbing capitalistic pig. ... Oink!
Several Gartner employees were caught using microsoft issued credit cards at bunny ranches in nevada. Also, it's reported that Melinda Gates made them dinner at the Gates house after flying back in Bills private jet...
Yes Francis, the world has gone crazy.
Good analogy, but I'd go even further - these guys are much worse than weather men. If they did weather it would be like this:
"And your 5:00 weather brought to you by ACME umbrellas...I predict rain! Monsoons, floods, hurricanes, typhoons! Start building that fscking ark, people, it's gonna raid for a solid month!"
30 minutes later...
"And now for the 6:00 weather, brought to you by SAV-EYES sunglasses...it's gonna be a hot one tomorrow! Remember that SPF 2000000 sunscreen, because it's gonna be insta-cancer out there! Don't even think of going outside! Expect the sun to bake all life out of the earth, leaving a smoking crater by the end of the week. We could all be dead by the end of the month!"
*That* is what you'd get if those asshats did weather. Frikkin' shills.
-Looking for a job as a materials chemist or multivariat
Please continue your illegal and unethical policies of slander, libel, blustering, barratry and extortion; when a class-action suit is filed against you on behalf of all users of Linux, I hope to get many $$$ in damages, and a few free swings at Darl McBride's maggot-infested hide. And either an apology too, or a complete dissolution of the company. You lying sacks of shit.
That is all.
pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate.
or does the caldera symbol on /. really look like the Death Star from Star Wars?
SCO will not affect linux at all. Hell my whole company runs on linux and I'm not switching a damn thing till something is proven.
Amen to that, baby! They can have my Linux when they pry it from my cold, dead fingers!
Dawn of the Dead
You're statement doesn't address the earlier point, that in the US, anyone can choose to sue you for any reason whatsoever, irregardless of whatever agreement you have with your vendors.
Avoiding a product because someone with credibility on par with SCO in this case threatens to sue you is not a sound tactic, and would be ruinious strategy.
First, a punch needs to be thrown.
Second, the punch need to connect.
SCO is sure throwing a lot of punches. But they are all wild. Kinda like a 6 year old at their first Karate lesson. I don't think any has connected hard enough to cause a black eye. If one did cause a bruise, it was just a matter of chance.
Addition requirement, For a black eye to be meaningfull, it must have been from a deliberate, controled punch. As I said befor, all SCO is doing if flailing its collective arms.
To illustrate the difference between a meaningfull and insignifigant black eye, I will provide the following example. It typifies an insignifigant black eye.
While sparing with my Sensei, I, by chance, gave him a black eye ( I had slipped, my punch went wild because of lack of control). The fact that I gave my Senei a black eye was meaningless. He could easily have bounce my ass around the Dojo. In fact, if I was him, I would have done exactly that. Fortunatly, like many Martial Arts instructers, he had a great sence of humor.
To consider one of the many alternatives to the alternative, like BSD, QNX, and whatnot. Beneath the journalism headlines praising Linux and bashing Windows lies a stream of unnoticed software.
Perhaps the barrier to mainstream entry in all of these OS's is drivers. They say that an Operating System is the interface between programs and the hardware, but drivers are really the interface between the Operating System and the hardware. QNX is a nice beast if you have a riva based video card, but if all you have is the top of the line ATI you get to use the old VESA interface.
I Browse at +4 Flamebait
Open Source Sysadmin
The nice people at chillingeffects.org have been fighting for quite some time against abuse based on copyright and other intellectual property laws. If you are affected by SCOX's FUD, for example your company received a nastygram from SCOX or your boss comes to you with a copy of the Gartner report you may want to drop them a line describing the situation and they may be able to draft some Q&A and/or template answers.
I believe IBM could ask this same thing (and donating some funds wouldn't hurt)
Actually, I would enjoy seeing an ad based on this that answers Sun's cheap shot. Something like:
Sun seems to think we may have a little license problem
Don't let them chill you, says Chillingeffects.org (*) [appropriate links]
Because the world won't stop for you, we help you move forward. [or some other slogan concocted by the ad-heads]
(*)Chillingeffects.org is a joint project of the Harvard, Stanford, Berkeley, University of San Francisco, and University of Maine law school clinics and the Electronic Frontier Foundation
So when there is no evidence and only FUD you tell your clients to "go slow", but when there is real evidence of a problem you keep you mouth shut.
HPC for Primates. Read Cluster Monkey
At one point, MS had actual lawsuits against it from every direction. The Federal, State, local government and businesses such as Sun and Caldera (now SCO).
Did Gartner issue the same warning then?
So far SCO has only sued IBM. There is good reason for that. They have no case against others, unless they have a specific contract with them.
For a normal Linux user, there is no SCO agreement.
Linux users should assume that all linux code is covered under the GPL, unless shown otherwise.
The most SCO could ask linux users to do is remove possible infringing code, if there was any.
--
SCO claims that IBM borrowed their car years ago, and IBM took part of the car (perhaps near the bumper) and donated it to you, who assumed that it was a genuine gift from IBM.
Now SCO is coming to you and demanding payment. They are also running around town telling people that your car is running on parts stolen from SCO. You are more than willing to give up a part, if they can show and prove which part was taken. But SCO will not tell you which part it is, and instead says that if you pay for their car, they will not sue you.
Every SCO-related story now has tens of comments that are modded '+5 insightful' or '+5 interesting' that say nothing more than "SCO is evil, IBM will/should crush them, Linux is safe, and everyone who disagrees is in league with the devil (MS)". Frankly, this is neither 'insightful' nor 'interesting' any longer.
Linux is in trouble. The SCO litigation obviously has enough bite to warrant a significant SCO stock response, a reassessment by IT consulting firms, and some hesitation by the corporate world. These are all self- and cross-enforcing mechanisms and if not dealt with, they'll get worse in the next couple of years while this whole matter moves through the court system. The damage to Linux at the end, even if SCO loses, may be irreparable.
And the reponse of Linux advocates so far? 'Underwhelming' is the word I'd use to describe it. There's no shortage of outraged comments about 'SCO FUD' on Slashdot, but the big Linux players (IBM, Red Hat, the Kernel developers and maintainers) seem to have decided that ignoring or belittling the SCO threat is the best approach. Well, it's not working!
Here's a suggestion: start an audit of the kernel. If SCO won't say which code is infringing, then the auditors can certify which code is *not* infringing. It may take months, even years, to complete the task, but that's how long the SCO matter will continue anyway. In the end, an audit like this would be an insurance policy against any further attacks on Linux's integrity.
Even if the audit suggestion above is unrealistic (I'm really not qualified to judge this), my larger point stands: Linux advocates need to stop being dismissive and start being proactive. Beyond a certain threshold, dismissing FUD becomes a sign of weakness rather than a sign of confidence. I thing we've just passed that threshold.
Imposing Libertarian views on everyone online since 1992.
.. maybe investors should read about the "Risk Factors" here. To me that carefully worded document seems to be aimed at protecting the SCO management from just such a lawsuit.
"By the way if anyone here is in advertising or marketing... kill yourself." -- Bill Hicks
http://www.sco.com/licensing/piracy.html
Visit the link, and have some fun. If you run out of machines locally, remember that netcraft can find many many more.
I think I will turn in the SCO site to start myself off.
Place something witty here
Maybe this has been noticed already...
c e/columns/bottomline/n_8246/
http://www.newyorkmetro.com/nymetro/news/bizfinan
It's a pretty interesting article about how all the higher-ups get away with Pump-n-Dump stock deals. It all sounds so familiar as I watch what's been happening with SCO. Interestingly enough Mr. Boise's name appears in the article. Maybe that's REALLY why SCO hired him!
It would be kind of nice if the SEC did something about this kind of BS!
Half of the fortune 500 companies board members live and die by Gartner recommendations. Note, that does NOT invalidate your statement about half-brains and such, but I can honestly say THE ONLY reason we have apache as a web server in our organization was the Gartner report on the TCO of IIS. It does not matter what us tech's know, it is the PHB's that make all the decisions....and the further south they get the wierder and more implausable their views get,...
errr....umm...*whooosh* *whoosh* Is this thing on ?
Linux users say delay in implementing Gartner Group recommendations due to idiocy.
Dean G.
My favorite quote, "We at Ziff-Davis don't influence the reader, we merely report on what our readers want."-Ed Bott, in response to a reader complaint that ZD was giving Windows OS/Software too much press. He's the former editor of Windows^G^G^G^G^G^G PC Computing.
How many 'Never Reboot again!' ZD magazine covers do you have?
"I can't give you a brain, so I'll give you a diploma" - The Great Oz (blatently stolen sig)
But that's like suggesting that people should read EULAs :) They should, but they won't. Me included. It's stupid not to, but I'm not qualified to make real sense of it anyway.
:)
In any case, if false claims are being made with intent to pump the stock price, that's criminal, despite what the risk statement might say.
And what's this "investors" word you use? Don't you mean speculators?
.sigs are for post^Hers.
Seeing those "O'Really" ads makes me kinda wonder whether this is a real newspaper, or something like the onion, or the globe....
I thought Linux Deployment was allready delayed???
This is not a flame or troll, just frustration.
Errrr... SCO has not attempted to sue any Linux end-user with no direct relationship to SCO.
They are suing their former partner IBM for contract violations. If you were a former partner with SCO and could have conceivably broken your contract with them, then some caution may be in order.
From a Linux end-user's perspective, SCO has not demonstrating anything, other than an imfamous PR campaign.
after looking at the mod points being awarded in this sequence, it is very obvious that there are a number of MS type people around here. There is a severe lack of logic going on.
have you seen it? i haven't
I'll take the bait.
What is an "MS type" person? I have three machines in my office, all of which run Mac OS X. I use Linux and BSD servers to run my business. The only MS software I've ever owned is Office.
I'm not going to stop using Linux just because of these shennanegans, but if I were running a Fortune 500 company and I didn't want to get embroiled in a costly and profit-disrupting legal battle with SCO, I might very well look at holding off on any new Linux deployments.
So tell me about the lack of logic in that, AC.
Read the EFF's Fair Use FAQ
All those groups; the FSF and other OSS groups are just going to lay there and take it in the ass it appears. Other than some lip service the leaders of these organization appear to be content to draw there pay and do nothing.
I am starting to see Linux being doomed because of this more any any thing SCO is doing. If you are attacked you respond. Where is the counter to the SCO FUD from FSF? or the others? a few "position papers?" While SCO is buying ink by the barrel. This is foolishness.
Linux is doomed if this continues.
As you can see I don't care about my karma.
Why didn't Gartner issue a warning against Windows when Microsoft was sued by, more or less, the entire USA?
I'm a CS Prof, not a CEO/CIO. If I were the latter, I would be sending out the following letter:
----------
Together, we will drive the rats from the tundra.
you just have to read his posts to lk to see how he doesnt give a shit about linux or open source, and only sees it as a marketing tool and a way to get more revenue from bitkeeper.
read the license.. not only its propietary, its EVIL.
I am so thoroughly disgusted with all of this SCO FUD! I think we should all take some time out of our day to help fill SCO's mailbox/phonelines, so at least someone at SCO has to waste their time on something other than the quest to "end piracy". 355 South 520 West Suite 100 Lindon, Utah 84042 USA 801-765-4999 phone 801-765-1313 fax
If you are in the Linux business, you should be suing SCO right now. Sue them for tortious interference with your business. Let's see how they like being on the wrong end of several thousand lawsuits.
Calculate the risk factor that SCO will succeed in their Quest, X, and calculate the cost of a UnixWare license, Y. If X*Y is less then the money saved by using Linux, then don't change your plans. If it is, then maybe you should. Since X is probably somewhere around zero, I don't think many people need to worry...
autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
If I were thinking of using SCO Unixware I would really "go slow". If SCO is found to have copied IP from Linux, the entire support base for SCO Unixware will crumble into red ink fast. Unixware will be released under the GPL, and SCO will go away quickly. The most likely case is that any dupes in the codebase of SCO and Linux are from a SCO employee dumping Linux code into SCO, not the other way around.
...for a community-wide class action lawsuit against SCO.
What's this Submit thingy do?
AFAIK Linus has stated that most if not all of the code that SCO is B1tchin' about has be rewritten in 2.6 . The offending code was already planned to be replaced as is was a little bit to "old school" unixy and didn't play nice with some of the new scheduling AND the new SMP code is better than the old SMP code that was in question.
So why not just speed up developement of 2.6 kernels in Distros and just skip this whole issue? I personally think that IBM will win based on my limited legal knowledge and what I have read so IBM should be fine and SCO will fade away.
I know I might catch some flak for this but what if SCO is right and wins the case? It seems as though we are all betting that SCO is full of it and that eventually justice will prevail and Linux will be cleared. Even if SCO is wrong, it doesn't mean that Linux would come out of this unscathed. Has there been any mentioning of plans to deal with the outcomes? I know that Stallman has mentioned that we can easily swap kernels. This is probably the only contingency plan I've heard so far. Anyone care to enlighten me?
EvilCON - Made Famous by
IIRC SCO's market cap is 182Million..
:)
Someone also mentioned before this mess SCO's stock was below a dollar and now it's over 10 dollars per share. *Sigh* if that's true I could of made a pretty penny there
Either way IBM could buy them without even denting their profit margins by a percentage point.
I think you're quite wrong. Evidence or not, SCO is, in fact, suing people..
SCO *is NOT* "suing.people", SCO *is* suing IBM in a contractual dispute. Note that they are not suing Red Hat, nor are they suing Mandrake or SuSE... Nor have they initiated litigation with any end users...
Gee I feel like it's bad acid time and I'm flashing on 1992. Ever since I was a Gartner subscriber over a decade ago I've had to basically discount anything Gartner has ever said that might make MS look good. In other words Gartner has as far as can tell ever said anything (0.8 probability) that could be construed as being vaguely negative of MS. This appears to be more of the same. One Linux vendor suing another and Gartner tells its subscribes to stay away from all Linux. And this just a few days since MS 'admits' it's #1 threat is Linux.
The other reason, your post will fall on deaf ears is that the history of Desktop Computing according to Bill Gates, has so permiated the industry, that even the anti-MS segment buys into a lot of it.
FUD/Linux
RMS reported to be more pissed than ever.
Yeah yeah...next your going to tell me that IDS is dead too right???
-Rob
The BSD's legal trouble in the 1990's helped Linux gain popularity at BSD's expense. Now it may be time for the enterprise to remember BSD can do everything Linux can do -- sometimes better!
The BSD zealots need to get a grip. There is absolutely nothing prevento SCO (or anyone else) from accusing BSD of having incorporated their code into the codebase and making precisely the same baseless accusations and FUD against *BSD that they are currently making against Linux.
Nothing.
The earlier court case you cite dealt with AT&T code at that time, which was subsequently removed from the BSD codebase. BSD got off on those minor infractions because AT&T had appropriated huge amounts of BSD code and was guilty of copyright violation in turn.
The cross-licensing that resulted from this legal battle applied to AT&T UNIX at that time, not the subsequent releases of System V which SCO is falsely claiming Linux has infringed upon.
There is therefor nothing at all preventing SCO from making exactly these same sort of accusations against *BSD, and indeed Darl et. al. have already made preliminary noises in that direction.
So those of you zealously screaming "BSD is immune" are not only spewing nonsense, you'd better hope and pray to whatever deieties you believe in (if any) that Linux does not loose on this one, because your favorite platform is almost certainly next on the list.
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
As far as I can see, the whole problem is because of the fact that proprietary programs can't be reviewed by anyone. While this may seem totally obvious, the fact remains that if I employ people to write a program, there is no way I can tell whether or not any portions of code are plagiarized until I get a chance to review every ilne of every program written by every company in the world. If a writer steals a paragraph from a book and calls it his own, any literate person can verify whether that is the case or not. But claiming IP theft of closed secret code is stretching credibility when no one can see your closed code.
Apart from that, the liability would naturally fall upon the code bandit himself, not the company who innocently distributed it. For example if Cathy Codequeen stole code from Company X and inserted it into the new version of ssh, her name would be listed on the changelogs and when Company X wanted to sue Company Y for IP infringement, their liability would be zero as would the liability of SuSE or Redhat or whomever was the distributor. They would have to sue the thief, Ms Codequeen.
If there's a problem with a certain bit of code, why doesn't someone just go and rewrite it from scratch? Come on, there have to be several hundred slashdot readers capable of submitting a patch.
Just this week, Microsoft publicized the fact that they fixed that problem, by providing you indemnity in the event that such a thing happens.
And how much indemnity are they willing to provide? According to ZDNet:
"If it is determined that Microsoft infringed a third party's intellectual property, the new contract states that Microsoft will procure a licence so its customers can continue to use the infringing product, replace the existing product, modify the code so it no longer infringes, or refund that portion of the licence."
In other words, if Microsoft chooses to "refund that portion of the license" then you're in exactly the same position you would be in in the worst case scenario with free software: you've paid $0 for a program that you can no longer legally use.
In the second worst case scenario with free software (proprietary code may have made it into a free software product, but the proprietary copyright holder isn't hiding which code they claim in order to extort money a la SCO) then you'll probably be provided with options 2, 3, AND 4 from the free software community: you'll be able to choose an equivalent product (like FreeBSD), to continue using the existing product after it's maintainers remove or replace any infringing code (What, you think Linus and Alan Cox are going to give up and become novelists if it turns out there really were illegal contributions to Linux? No; anything improper will be replaced in no time.), AND to do both without paying any license fees.
So are there some advantages to Microsoft's offer that ZDNet didn't mention, or is this just PR?
Tell everyone that SCO contains IP from Linux and that in running any SCO Unixware Derived software that they could be sued by Linus Torvalds and Alan Cox. Of cource they wouldnt, like SCO wouldnt win, but people dont know these things. Lets fight fire, lets spread our own bullshit over theres.
There is more of us, so we would win.
InformationWeek
August 14, 1995
SECTION: EDITOR'S NOTE/LETTERS; Pg. 6
LENGTH: 411 words
HEADLINE: IBM'S CONCESSION;
Say It Ain't So, OS/2
BYLINE: Joel Dreyfuss, Editor-in-Chief
BODY:
There. Lou Gerstner finally said it: The desktop operating systems war is over. The timing is unusual. Just weeks before the launch of Microsoft Windows 95, the chairman and CEO of IBM concedes to a group of analysts that his company has lost the battle for the desktop and that it should refocus its efforts on winnable wars. Early reports indicate the statement was a surprise to the IBM executives who have devoted hundreds of millions of dollars in development costs and marketing efforts in a vain effort to make OS/2 a household name. The truth is that-despite a terrific ad campaign-IBM's OS/2 Warp is not going to displace Microsoft Windows as the No. 1 desktop operating system. This has nothing to do with the quality of Warp, which by all measures is technically superior and far more robust than Windows 95. IBM, once again, was simply outmaneuvered by Microsoft in the struggle for mindshare among computer users.
Warp will not die. A lot of technology managers have built important applications on OS/2 and they are not likely to rush off to Windows 95 just to keep up with the latest fashions. Some power users are willing to overlook OS/2's rough edges and run it on the desktops.
But IBM will face another challenge when Cairo, the object-oriented version of Windows NT, Microsoft's enterprise-grade operating system, appears in 1996 or 1997. As senior writers Brian Gillooly and Bruce Caldwell report this week (see p. 14), a number of major IBM clients have begun to migrate application servers from OS/2 to NT.
IBM's best hope for desktop respect is the recently acquired Lotus Notes. While other companies have aimed their R&D guns at Notes, the groupware product still retains a substantial technology lead over the competition. Now the issue is whether the Lotus team can thrive inside IBM's unique corporate culture. We'll be watching that story very closely.
So what's the lesson here for tech managers? One, never put all your eggs in one basket-even if it's painted Blue. If, at some point, OS/2 development ceases, you could be stuck on the information highway without a tire jack-or decent conversion tools.
But more importantly, realize that superior technology does not always guarantee success. If you don't meet a market need, internal or external, your work may suffer the fate of OS/2, and one day you'll be surprised to hear your own CEO making terse announcements about your project's demise.
LOAD-DATE: August 8, 1995
.
.
Copyright 1995 CMP Publications, Inc.
InformationWeek
September 4, 1995
SECTION: EDITOR'S NOTE/LETTERS; Pg. 6
LENGTH: 60 words
HEADLINE: letters;
Too Early To Tell
BODY:
Your OS/2 coverage is typical fear, uncertainty, and doubt. You declare Warp dead on the desktop even before Windows 95 debuts.
Why not do a balanced evaluation of Win95 versus OS/2 Warp on features, compatibility, robustness, etc., six months after Win95 is out?
Chris Scholik
Data Center Specialist
Abbott Laboratories
Columbus, Ohio
LOAD-DATE: August 29, 1995
Now you will see them start to offer SCO UnixWare at discounted prices to everyone who runs Linux.
It's a typical ploy:
1) Plant doubt about the other guys product, in this case use Linux's open nature against it....
2) Swoop in and act like a saviour
Well, we're not falling for it.
GJC
Gregory Casamento
## Chief Maintainer for GNUstep
Finally a voice of reason around this place.
This is the primary root problem (indemnity) that led to this implosion we are seeing within Linux right now, and is the only true way to correct the problem.
As you correctly state, M$ is aware of this fault in Linux, and is playing the press to the max about it.
The M$ 'Patent' suit we keep hearing about? You know, the one that might cost them billions?
That's right. It might. But the key is it will cost THEM (M$) billions, NOT their users, especially not as a 'penalty' for illegal use of the code.
That's what no Linux company can (or will) do. But until it does, it is a major flaw in your overall process. Not to mention the kind of profits you need to build the needed warchest to provide such coverage seems practically impossible with OSS. It's an infinite catch-22, when you figure it out, let us know.
Uh-huh. Who paid you to say that, Gartner?
From an unabashed Linux user -- feel free to sue me, SCO.
Linux is in trouble. The SCO litigation obviously has enough bite to warrant a significant SCO stock response
Ummmm... I should think that the last 5 years or so of market performance should demonstrate the flaws in this statement.
This sig has been temporarily disconnected or is no longer in service
This kind of thing is just a rise in the stakes. It looks scary, but every action has an equal and opposite reaction. The taller you get, the harder you fall.
What's critical at this point is to save this one for that rainy day when SCO makes their blunder. Then you take all the crap that's saved up, and build up a firestorm of anti-SCO sentiment.
simon
home page
This thread that's been simmering over at LinuxWorld for a couple of days now. One poster says: Jeez... this is a hard "discussion"... everybody has varied, valid points, thoroughly thought out and well articulated, I'm impressed with this crowd... Why is everybody so worried? Linux is out here, it's up to us to carry it on, not up to them. They won't (and can't) stop it even if they won and tried it. Why won't (or can't) they? simply because of its nature, the community would just find a way around the restrictions and code them in. Anyway, I'd like to thank everybody for some interesting reading (really)."
I've had a customer ask me about this. I assured him that there's no legal precedent for this and that until a judgement is made we need not act. The lawsuit is based on allegations only. There is no legal basis to pay these bastards at SCO a nickel. Make SURE your customers/bosses don't fall for this fiasco. Speak with them and let them know that its far to early to leap.
SCO must die, investors should abandon them for the scum that they are. Do NOT stop using linux because of this crock of shit. They refuse to provide clear proof of the violations, and in reality thier fight is with IBM, not the general linux user/developer.
"If you love someone, set them free. If they come home, set them on fire." - George Carlin
The SCO litigation obviously has enough bite to warrant a significant SCO stock response
We'll start by going back to 1999, when some people still thought that stock bubbles were necessarily a reflection of reality.
a reassessment by IT consulting firms
Now we're traveling back to the early 1990s, when some people still thought of Gartner as an independent research group and not the corporate equivalent of those magazine advertisements that masquerade as articles.
and some hesitation by the corporate world
And finally we're back to the 19th century, when only the evil Communists would suggest that our corporate benefactors might not be beacons of the bold leadership necessary to steer modern society.
This time travel trip has been brought to you by tabdelgawagad... tabeldawg... fhqwhgads?
the big Linux players (IBM, Red Hat, the Kernel developers and maintainers) seem to have decided that ignoring or belittling the SCO threat is the best approach.
The best approach is to wait until SCO decides what it's claiming and takes the claims to court, then defeat them there. Suing SCO for their current copyright violations in distributing Linux kernels without a GPL-compatible license strikes me as the second best approach, but maybe I'm just petty.
Well, it's not working!
It's not? My Linux installation still seems to be working just fine; in fact Mozilla in particular is performing extra-well, accessing a new entertainment section on Slashdot: the SCO soap opera.
> We've all read (to death) SCO's claims and the rebutals from people who have a better grasp on the history than most of us ever will.
History doesn't matter. Go to the sco.com - Company - IBM Lawsuit.
There you will find "Exhibit C". It is AT&T's statement of understanding to real world application of the license agreement between AT&T and IBM. You should find paragraph 2, 5, 9, and 10 most interesting.
2. "... derivitive works are owned by you [IBM]..."
AT&T is quite clear, IBM owns what they write -- even if it is a derivitive work --. AT&T expressly retains ownership over all code that they gave to IBM, specifically and precisely that code, and only that code.
5. Regarding termination of license. "...you may remedy the breach..." and "In any event, our representative will excersise their mutual good faith efforts to resolve any alledged breach short of termination."
Yep, SCO's handling of this thing has that curious ring of "good faith" all over it.
9. "Nothing in this agreement shall prevent LICENSEE from developing or marketing products or services employing ideas, concepts, know-how, or techniques relating to data processing embodied in SOFTWARE PRODUCTS..."
Uh huh. SCO said what, now? Something like they really own everything 'cus it all came from UNIX in concept, once upon a time, in a land far, far, away.
10. "this section covers the situation where one of our licensees wishes to furnish its modified version of our source code for a SOFTWARE PRODUCT to another licensee of the same product..."
"Wishes to furnish"? I thought SCO said they AUTOMATICALLY owned derivitive works. If AT&T had the smallest notion that they "owned" IBM's works, how would they ever have arrived at a word like "wishes"?
Why is my post Flamebait? Ah, wait... I know why: moderator's are all PC/Linux users. You can be jealous all you want. Apple will own market in just a few years. Wait and see.
MS integrated OLAP software into SQL server without permission, and a court awarded triple damages against the SQL Server userbase.
Read it and weep. I guess we should all just stick to stone tablets.
At my company we're afraid to move to Linux also, so we are moving everything to AIX. Gartner Group didn't say it was bad to move there so it should be safe.
>> ...threats and extortion should be resisted.
Adhering to your personal ideology can be costly. So long as you, alone, bear that cost, you can be as fervent as you wish.
However, people given the responsibility to manage other people's money -- like corporation managers -- do not have the right to mold company decisions to their personal ideology. Their role is to be fiscally responsibile.
If buying Linux is fiscally responsible, there's no problem. But, if there's a possibiity that someone will sue the compnay if they use Linux, then a manager is behaving irresponsibly if he still buys Linux solely because of ideology, ignoring the cost of a potential suit.
I still fail to see what kinod of ideology people think Linux is -- it's a bunch of code, nothing else. Trumping up the open source development model as some kind of political ideology is ludicrous. It only works in its own little corner of the software world because open source coders have found other ways to pay their bills.
-- Slashdot: When Public Access TV Says "No"
"Hello, I'm Groucho Marx, and welcome to another edition of "You infringe on Copyrights". Tonight's contestant is Mr. Darl McBride, from SCO Group. Tell us, Mr. McBride, what do you do, and how often do you infringe on copyrights?"
"I...I *dont't* infringe on copyrights"
"Oh, come on, Mr. McBride, dont' be shy. Just whisper the URL of your FTP server. I won't tell" (FX: Audience laughter)
"But I don't infringe!"
"Ah, an *alleged* infringer, eh? It'll be interesting to see how long he gets away with it, folks!" (FX: applause) Well you did have a FTP server up to about 18th of July didn't You?"
"Well yes we did, but we took it down"
"OK Mr. McBride, you did have openLinux on it didn't you?(FX: Audience laughter)
"I *already* said we took it down"
"the 18th, that was well after your company said IBM put your IP into Linux wasn't it?"
"Of course it was"
"and isn't distributing non-GPLed code mixed with GPL'ed code a violation of the GPL and therefore an infringement of the copyrights of about 250 major and countless minor kernal contributer's"
"our legal team dropped the ball on this one"(McBride's face appears ashen)
"look on the bright side, if you lose your suit with IBM then your not an infringer and go bankrupt, If you win, then the code you distributed under the GPL becomes GPL'ed and the infringement suits bankrupt you anyways!(FX: Audience Hysterical laughter)
Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
Does anybody out there still believe that Gartner isn't a front for Microsoft ?
Their credibility ran out a long time ago as far as I'm concerned.
Anyone know of a timeline for all this SCO stuff?
/. are in part contributing towards the negative thoughts - Every day there is an update on this whole SCO fiasco. Perhaps sco.slashdot.org should be started?
:)
To me the longer it drags on the worse for the Linux community. This whole issue is putting a question mark over Linux and Linux is in turn is losing a whole lot of opportunities because of it.
It almost seems as if
To me it seems like they don't have a case but this is my opinion.
I'm sure lots of people feel the same way, so if anyone has any idea of a time line it would be greatly appreciated if they could post one somewhere on this thread
The former editor of Windows *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* PC Computing?
I think you meant Window^H^H^H^H^H^H PC Computing Or the simpler Windows^W PC Computing. HTH. :)
(To ensure I wasn't wrong, I found this link which does, in fact, list ^G as the bell character. It causes the console to beep. :))
You are in a maze of twisty little relative jumps, all alike.
I wonder if SCO is being funded by Microsoft.... This might almost all make sense then...
The only people who have need to fear violating SCO licenses are people who sign them. Copyright does not control your use of software, only your copying of it -- i.e. As long as a company is buying a copy of Linux from a Linux distributor (RedHat, Suse, etc.) then it is the distributor who risks being in violation of copyright. (because they're the ones making the extra copies).
In other words, this is just a good excuse to make sure that your company gives business to the Linux community.
Microsoft's "rights" to do things like their software 'audits' are a result of the licenses that companies are stupid enough to sign with them.
Stephen King's lawyers can't go waltzing into my house asking me to prove that I have licenses for all of his books... Neither can SCO ask companies to prove that they have the rights to use their software. In the case of Linux, SCO has very little rights at all, unless they have some proof that the company is (a) violating the GPL, and (b) using SCO code.
Free Software: Like love, it grows best when given away.
Smart money management says:
If Unixware license is less than (Win2000 license + interest from now until license payment is required) then deploy Linux.
If the costs are equal, deploy Linux.
If the costs are close, deploy Linux.
In 2-5 years you may have to pay. Or you may choose to migrate to BSD or Solaris or HPUX instead of pay. Or SCO disappears, and you keep rolling along.
So stop talking to journalists and lawyers, and start talking to your accountant.
Wouldn't the thing to do is sue SCO for business disparagement? (see http://www.criderlaw.com/faq_coml_disparage.html)
Unfortunately, I'm not sure you could force SCO to exhibit the claimed offending code.
Could I form a foundation that licences Linux? I would give you guarantee that I will cover your liability-- just as Microsoft did with windows. The only catch is I am completely broke, so SCO could sue me, but I wouldn't be able to pay anything, but all the banks and other Linux user would be in the clear because they licenced from me. Make sense?
Did anyone expect an organization like the Gartner Group to come out and recommend throwing caution to the wind? I'm not surprised that they made this recommendation (Which I am ignoring, and in fact when I go into work tomorrow I am building a new RH7.3 server for internal webapps). I'm more surprised that this is even something the Gartner Group needs to take a position on?! I work for a multi billion dollar company, which pays close attention to the careful analysis and insightful recommendations that the Gartner Group makes. You don't need to be careful or insightful to come to this conclusion if your sole purpose is to help businesses make decisions.
SCO should be sued for the damage they are doing to Linux distributors, and an injunction should be obtained to shut them up until they can show proof in court. One half-dead company must not be allowed to use the legal system to terrorize people all over the place.
---------
There is inferior bacteria on the interior of your posterior.
That statement is meaningless.
The customers don't have and have never had any legal liability for a suppliers copyright infringement. MS has promised, actually, to do less than they were legally required to already, since they stuck in a loophole about refunding a portion of the license cost.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Friends don't let friends enable ecmascript.
If SCO has announced that it has registered its copyright to System V source code, does that mean it has deposited the code in the Library of Congress? And now somebody can compare it with other source code?
I know thats a bit extreme, but I am having a hard time deciding what to believe from this group.
They change their stance an awful lot. If I had just paid them for one of their expensive reports only to read the new story a week later, I would be pissed.
'nuff said.
Blogging because I can...
Bluntly put: SCO, you are a piece of shit
We use Oracle on Linux in production at the place I work at. Let me give you the run down...
We are using Redhat 7.3 (no AS bullshit), Oracle 9iR2 (3 node RAC) latest patches, all on top of 3 Dell 2650 2.4ghz, linked to a Brocade San using Clariion 4500 storage. The cluster network is on some silly Dell gigabit switch.
We insert 3 million rows of data daily to one node. Another node bares the brunt of 10 custom piggy java-based end user applications (across the country 30 field offices), the third node is there as a standby failover in case any of them fail.
sar reports between 15-20% cpu utilization on the active nodes. When a node fails (gets evicted by the cluster group) the applications seemless cross over to the failover node and pickup where they left off, and nary a ring on the phone. We have had applications with connections spread out across two nodes, and because of cache fusion and the fast gigabit network...pinging wasn't even really noticable.
0 problems? Well, there have been a few... You have to keep current on the oracle patches ('specially those relating to cluster management), the STOM(N)ITH or watchdog drivers have been in a period of change, and you need a seasoned DBA and SA who work well together and understand the issues. It helps if they are a cross between the two.
However, if you are looking for the 5 nines at a price that can't be beat...I heartily recommend Oracle RAC on Linux.
Win2K3 is too new to even be a sane choice. Tell mgmt. you would have to test and patch for 6 to 9 months, before it would be ready for the field. Linux 2.4 has been out for years, and is ready to do work now.
As for SCO... attacking Linux may have put them on the map, but now everyone knows where to send the nukes. IBM is going to blast them into oblivion. IBM no doubt has a pile of paperwork that they are going over with a fine tooth comb that will end up being the most solid and unbreakable defense the industry has ever seen. SCO is embarrassing themselves, and they are going to end up owing everyone an apology when they crawl out from their smoking crater of a company.
No.
I always figured Gates & Balmer would be first with their backs to the wall when the revolution comes, but I'm starting to think Darl McBride could be a serious contender.
Now wash your hands.
> I sure hope you don't work for my company. We'll be talking soon if you do. There's no reason to unreasonably subject a company to liability or additional liability regarding a clear risk.
From that, I am assuming that your company has banned the use of Microsoft software, especially on the server.
If you run IIS, then you are opening yourself up to a lawsuit when your customers' credit card numbers get stolen from your website.
If you run IE, then you open yourself up to a lawsuit when you partner's confidential information is stolen from your employee's desktop. There are currently 19 unpatched security holes in IE.
In fact, given the two huge security holes that came to light in the last week, if you are running Windows at all, then you are opening yourself up to a lawsuit due to loss of confidential information.
Of course, security holes aren't the only risk.
If you developed a system for your customer using J++, then you can be sued, because that customer is now dependent on an illegal, unsupported product. The same goes for WISE, which Microsoft abandoned as part of their Unix lock-in scheme.
So since you want to avoid lawsuits, and are therefore not using any Microsoft software, I am curious to know what you do use. Unix? OS/2?
I must not understand something that's going on here.
With all this SCO-Linux controversy, why not simply remove the disputed code?
Since the 2.6 kernel is on the verge of being formally released (taken out of beta), the 2.6 kernel could form a fresh start, being SCO-free.
I'm sure it wouldn't be hard to clone the disputed code, doing things a slightly different way, to replace whatever functionality would be lost by the removal of all SCO-disputed code.
The hard part would be is if SCO had patents on the disputed code. Then the functionality would have to go "non-US", like MP3 encoders and DVD players already have to do.
Does anybody know for sure why this hasn't been done already?
Dr. Demento On The 'Net!
Since IBM believes that SCO has no case, it would be no issue for IBM to offer to pay any fees that SCO might get a right to claim from Linux users. It probably won't cost IBM anything, and Linux implementors would have nothing to fear.
Who will indemnify Microsoft's customers?
Who will repay the users of J++ for the millions of wasted development dollars? Who will recompense them for the costs they incurred depending on an illegal product, that must now be withdrawn?
Who will repay the users of WISE (Bristol's Microsoft-backed Windows APIs for Unix)? Who will recompense them for their wasted development dollars? What recourse do they have in the face of Microsoft's broken promises?
Who will repay the users of WordPerfect, whose software was damaged by flaky Windows APIs?
Who will repay the users of AmiPro, whose software was broken when Microsoft introduced changes to the Function Key APIs in Windows 95?
Who will repay the users of cc:Mail, whose software was crippled when Microsoft introduced changes in the MS Word interface?
Who will repay the users of MS Office, who unknowingly incurred a huge liability by having their document archives locked up in secret protocols?
Who will repay the users of Windows, IIS, IE, and Outlook for the billions of dollars in time lost to viruses? Who will recompense those companies who are sued for having the credit card numbers stolen from their websites?
It seems to me that depending on Microsoft is risky business indeed.
I interviewed for an analyst position with Gartner about 7 years ago, and eloquently opined that Windows had structural problems that would become burdensome in 5 to 10 years, thus opening themselves up to better architected competition. Afterwards, they didn't return my calls.
Yeah yeah yeah ;) As I did it I thought it might be the beep. (Had a 'boss' once who replaced win.com with win.bat filled with ^g's on my pc ;)
But hey, this is Slashdot. We can't leave ALL the mistakes to the editors ;)
"I can't give you a brain, so I'll give you a diploma" - The Great Oz (blatently stolen sig)
There actually was one place in the world at least that had 10,000 users on AppleTalk - Apple! Yah, it was all one big happy AppleTalk network when I was there. It worked, too.
So suddenly they've found that perhaps with a buttload of $$$ in the bank they can afford to accept this kind of risk now. It's a smart move - let's not overlook that the open source community can't do much to mitigate this since we're not bound to one another in business agreements and the like while we're "just a bunch of hippies with computers". Any ideas on how (or if it's possible for) some solidarity can dis-arm this tactic?
Now SCO says that it is theirs. They have (possibly forged) timestamps on code, someone else (in their employ) who swears to have written it, and so on. They go to court and persuade a technophobe judge and a jury specifically selected for ignorance.
The best case the linux community can put together is things like the LKML, web archives, dated Redhat (and other vendor) CDs and so on. Dated copies of the code in a number of independent sites is probably the best proof around that independent Linux coders produced the code in question. It may be worthwhile though to start collecting kernel code on web archives of code, of the LKML, of commentary on the code, with cryptographic timestamps and so on - just in case.
But we don't know what code is in question and until we do, collecting it all may be pointless. It may be anyway -- SCO could just claim that one of their employees had written the code and emailed it to the nominal contributor.
My customer's choose me for two reasons:
1. Because I am honest.
2. Because I avoid unnecessary risks.
First, you didn't mention your product. Presumably, that's why you have customers in the first place.
But, you got this little scenario wrong. We're talking about managers spending the money stockholders and other investors have placed in their hands. Customers don't play a role here.
And, I didn't say that everyone should just "give in". I said SCO's suit against IBM and their deliberate creation of the fear that they will sue other corporations using Linux ought to make any manager think twice before buying Linux. That's just simple common sense.
Suppose you were a CEO and you spent millions of compnay dollars replacing Windows with Linux. Then, SCO sues you and you spend several million more dollars fighting their suit. And that's if you win. If you lose, it costs even more. That's money that would otherwise have gone back to the people that own your company. How are you going to justify your actions to them?
-- Slashdot: When Public Access TV Says "No"
Drop the MOAB now.
They refused to drink the koolaid.
John has a long mustache.
The chair is against the wall.
You are, of course, exactly right.
There is a concept at law that says, basically, a common defendant must be held wholly accountable to a common plaintiff all at once.
Here's the senario...
Microsoft sells you SQL.
You buy it in good faith and commit millions to building your new and critical system.
Ee Gad, Microsoft stole code from Oracle!
Oracle sues Microsoft, wins, collects Billions.
Oracle comes after you, looking for license fees.
You are the 1 millionth customer to sue Microsoft looking to recover the fee Oracle demands. You win. But, Microsoft has gone bankrupt.
You paid Microsoft, fair and square, and you comitted substantial funding to get your system into production. Why should you have to pay Oracle without getting your money back from Microsoft? Why should some be made whole, while others subjected to the exact same harm are not?
Microsoft may not have enough money to pay everyone that has to pay Oracle. Some may get compensated, some won't. Oracle was at the head of the line, and had no case against you until it was finished. It is most likely get the most, since Microsoft may not even have that before it goes bankrupt (Ah, what a though) and Oracle can wait until it is paid before comming after you.
OK, the law doesn't like to think of itself as a lottery (even if it is). In this senerio, Microsoft committed one act that damaaged a number of people. Those individuals must be given a fair and equal chance to recover from Microsoft, and should not need to re-litigate the exact same case over and over. The dup'ed buyers of SQL aren't damaged beyond what Oracle wants them to pay (Well, wrong(*), but that's the legal viewpoint). So, since it all goes to Oracle, and it will all come from Microsoft, the end-users are simply declared "whole" and Oracle has to recover everything it can from Microsoft.
(*)Actually, in software, the Dup'ed buyers CAN be harmed beyond the fee Oracle demands. Software applications usually depend on ongoing maintenance and support. The law will only declare the body of end-users "whole" for the common harm. It can't force Oracle to continue Microsoft's support and maintentance contracts, or insure a consistant pricing scheme going forward. With the next OS upgrade you may be forced to pay for a complete rewrite of your application onto Oracle proper, or some other database.
But, since these costs are unique to you they fall outside the definition. You have to sue Microsoft in an attempt to recover these costs. (You will likely lose, short of a refund on paid up maintenance contracts, since Microsoft is really under no obligation to sell you a next version either.) Yea, it would'a never happened if they didn't screw the puch, but sometimes there's just no justice for you.
As far as I can tell the only losers here will be businesses who would have benefitted from using Linux, yet choose Windows because of the FUD. If they decide the risk is too great, that is their perogative. If they let Gartner, SCO or whomever choose for them then it's their loss, not Linux's. Linux itself will just keep on improving and will always remain an available choice (with risks of course) for those businesses who want off the Microsoft treadmill.
"Gartner recommends that enterprises hit by both Code Red and Nimda immediately investigate alternatives to IIS, including moving Web applications to Web server software from other vendors, such as iPlanet and Apache," explains Gartner's John Pescatore.
The alternatives "have much better security records than IIS and are not under active attack by the vast number of virus and worm writers."
That's as bad as Gatner has ever been to M$, but it's not bad at all. Notice that the recomendation contained an appology. Gatner has consistenly ignored the problems that lead to Cod Red, poor quality code and an inferior security model, to consistnetly recomend them over better software. The current fluff recomending M$ or "Unix" solutions to "complex" M$ created problems, ignores BSD, Apple and other solutions that are fine if not better.
Microsoft seeks to delay free software adoption untill they have Paladium in place. Gartner is right behind them.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
This isn't that much different from the stock bubble a while back. You have some self-important people going around telling everyone how this and this is going to happen so better react soon or you'll lose out.
Nothing of the sort they predicted happened and million of people were sucker into giving money to those self-important people.
So what else is new? This is most likely going to blow over without anything serious happening to linux and everyone's going to go "eh.. ok" and keep beliving whatever those big men tells them.
This kind of stuff happens everywhere not just in the two above cases. Does anyone still visit hardware review sites daily? Weekly? I go to places like tomshardware only when I know something siginifican has came out. I pretty much got dead tired of the "latest" shootout between motherboards. I mean how much faster do you think your computer's going to run on one MB vs another?
That's pathetic and you are doing your company a great disservice. If you don't know what the risk is, it's not clear and you need to do more research. If the risk is small or not credible, and it's not, you should not be moved by it. Your auditing of kernels is a waste of effort (though a small shell script should do it for you) and your delay in adopting free software subjects your company to the very well proven costs of running insecure, unreliable, expensive software.
I would suggest hari-kari or a change of jobs for someone who uttered such nonsense to upper management. Do your homework and act reasoanbly, please.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
A couple of years ago I worked on a website with a team of guys and we deployed on Linux/PostgreSQL/PHP. A similar project surfaced a while ago and my old buddy contracted me to help him finish this sucker off and get it out the door. This time: FreeBSD/MySQL/PHP. Big whoop -- we flip some database code around and the website side is fine. However there's one problem:
This thing ties into a "chatroom" type deal. I horked up an idea of using the Hybrid IRC daemon and slapped some mods into it to get it to dump critical info about it's status into a shared memory segment and whacked together a little command line program in C to read this data out for PHP to parse. Damn... new platform, this might be a pain to port over.
I yank my 2 year old code that worked on Linux and recompiled the Hybrid IRC daemon w/ my mods -- boom, zero errors. Fire it up, it works!
I yank my little shell program out and recompile it -- zero errors. Fire it up, it works! I was friggen amazed. I was planning on taking 4-6 hours to port over this little bit of SysV IPC code safely.. and it took absolutely nothing. Something to be said about sticking with old, and functional, technology I guess.
Oh, and the FreeBSD choice wasn't made becuase of any SCO crap either. It's just what the admin at this site prefers to work with -- same with the MySQL choice. He can admin it and work with it so we chose to just port it to a new DB.
Gartner Group is a bunch of dickheads.
Gartner has been two steps behind the times for so long, that I don't understand who's stupid enough to pay for their advice anyway. They clearly don't understand the nature of the lawsuit, just the suits.
Hmm... I've just realized. For last year, I am not just a Linux guy - I am Gentoo guy. So, it's even more easy for me to switch from Gentoo/Linux to Gentoo/BSD as they both Gentoo and my gentoo skills are in Portage, not in the kernel. Besides, my boss is comfortable to use Gentoo/Linux as he already knows from me and from articles that we can switch from Gentoo/Linux to Gentoo/BSD easier than between two different Linux distros or between two BSD distros. And that our used Linux applications are in fact kernel agnostic as they are either already ported to both or they are interpreter-based or just web-based. Very convinient :)
Less is more !
SCO won't tell us what the "offending" code is. It would be a non-issue and a hundred people would have already done what you suggest if they had.
Last post!
Gartner says a lot of things!
--
"Outlook not so good." That magic 8-ball knows everything! I'll ask about Exchange Server next.
And I wasted all my mod points yesterday...
Everything you've said is irrelevant. This is simply about incurring the risk of a future lawsuit because you buy something today. Whether that product is Linux, Windows, or a take-away pizza is not important.
The point, the only point, is this: Buying a product that brings with it a threat of a lawsuit is riskier than buying a product that doesn't being with it a threat of a lawsuit.
How brave or how cowardly the managers are doesn't count. How good or how bad the products are doesn't count. Even what the product is doesn't count. If buying something means you might have to spend more money down the road to defend against a lawsuit, you'd be a fool not to think twice.
-- Slashdot: When Public Access TV Says "No"
If the case had merit could they not get someone to underwrite the bond(Hello LLOYD'S of London)? Not the case here of course, but they are allowed to do that are they not?
Slashdot, home of supporters of free software, free music, and free speech.Except for Moderators that disagree with you.
> Suppose someone in your town decided to sue everyone who shopped at Grocery A. Even if you were convinced that their case was baseless, wouldn't you think about shopping at Grocery B until the issue was resolved??
But that's not the whole analogy.
Suppose the reason you were planning to shop at Grocery A is because Grocery B had been caught selling polluted food. And suppose the lawsuit was intended to force you to shop at Grocery B despite your safety concerns. Wouldn't you be outraged enough to fight back?
Should a company continue to put itself at risk by sticking with Windows?
Gordon Staines
The advantage of Anonyx is that it's binary-compatible with Linux applications, but it's called 'Anonyx', so it isn't Linux.
[100% ISO 646 Compliant]
SVM, ERGO MONSTRO.
Um, this problem was solved in 1994: grow up people and move on.
Sean Chittenden
seanc@FreeBSD.org
Ok, this is old and lame. SCO news is beyond sad and pathetic.
So why hasn't a decent kernel coder grabbed the SCO source distros (still out there) - if needed, and grab a similar non-SCO release and look for copyrights and code comments?
hell, couldnt we just egrep for "SCO" in the kernel code? or egrep for SCO|Unixware|Novell|Caldera|whatever ?
might take some time, but I'm sure some of the higher ups in the Linux kernel development code take a few hours, peek at the code and post something (while maybe not definitive, it might be "good enough") ?
and yes I know SCO doesn't have anything but smoke (they can't afford the mirrors any more)...
Many countries have a system whereby loser pays court costs. So in many countries it doesn't make sense to make legal threats you can't back up. But in the US this isn't the case, which means SCO can pull this shit and companies must do the "safe" thing, regardless of whether it's due to baseless allegations. SCO is exploiting the system, and it looks more and more like paraphrased extortion every day.
Forget thrust, drag, lift and weight. Airplanes fly because of money.
"kee betachbulot ta'ase lecha milchama"
..
.. it's not about a fair competition and may the best man win .. it's about "WE" are in control and "WE" will not give it up willingly ..
..
..
..
.. the WAR is half won ..
Translation: "With clandestine terrorism we will conduct war"
or
Translation: "and by deception thou shalt do war"
this is the phrase that surrounds the menorah on the logo of the "Israeli Mossad"
do you really believe the Zionist state of Israel's methodology is any different than that of their Secret Police, or in their business practises, or in their media interests, or in the way they tell history
linux is a threat to them and to the american capitalist ruling class
one of their greatest tools are the court's
but their greatest weapon
is the party based system of democracy which gives the simple minded a belief that they have some freedom and some control over their lives
" in a true democracy there can be no representation in lieu of the people "
all they have to do is put it's reality in doubt and the deed is done
How long would it take to remove the code they are complaining about and make a release to the public ? Hopefully thats not taken as an admission of fault - but could also clear up the arguements from above about not being able to safely deploy Linux now because of infringement. Kind of funny for me though ... those Caldera shares I bought a few years ago that became almost worthless..maybe one day I will get my money out of them ;-)
Yes, the whole SCO issue is garbage.
;-)
Problem is - we know that, but the people who take decisions do not. And even if they *would* know *about* it, they wouldn't act on it. They aren't paid to act on *knowledge* - they are paid to act on *recommendations*.
Why? Because if they acted on their own knoweledge, and if something went wrong, they would carry the blame. If they act on a "recommendation" by a consulting firm, they can blame the consulting firm.
And that's where Gartner & Co come in. They can make "recommendations" that will affect the industry in positive and negative ways, and get away with it because that is what their business model is - professional scapegoats, if you can call it that.
It is a win-win situation for consulting firms like Gartner, Forrester and their ilk, as well as their clients. If one looks closely at their "predictions" and "recommendations" over the years, you will find a balanced mix of bombs and hits - as long as that ratio is maintained, they own the keys to the mint.
Don't believe that? Then have a look at these two "recommendations":
21 May 2003
23 July 2003
They are both by the same company, in fact by the same person (George Weiss). Yet they indicate two opposing lines of thought, to the point that Gartner clearly says in the first one:
"Gartner believes SCO made a strategic error when it chose to defend Unix on Intel over Linux, against market trends. SCO is building a new Web services framework on the upcoming Unix System V v.6, and wants to steer OpenServer, UnixWare and SCO Linux customers to an expanded Web application programming interface. To support its legal claims against the Linux industry, SCO had to withdraw its Linux distribution from the market. But SCO damaged its own credibility and cut off the one potential avenue of high growth for its framework."
Compare that to the tone of their most recent "recommendation".
The problem with this is, of course, that the PHBs may be acting on tainted information, which could cost their companies heavily.
Quick Q&A:
Q:Do they care?
A:No. They aren't paid to care.
Q:Doesn't the whole world laugh at them?
A:Yes, but they don't care, because they aren't paid to care.
Q:Aren't they afraid that their companies will suffer if they act on tianted information?
A:No. They don't own the companies - they are employed by them. If the company folds, they will move on.
Q:Shouldn't they be reading Slashdot to get the real picture?
A:$deity forbid! If they would, they might get a clue, and then slashdotters would have nothing to rant about, which would mean the end of Slashdot!
Q:Does this mean that this is the end of Linux?
A:Remember the British and their "Salt Tax" in India? Try to tax something that is free and an indespensable part of nature, and bad things happen.
Relax. Life will go on, as will Linux.
You aren't remembered for doing what is expected of you
if IBM does not do something publicly and LOUDLY to stop SCO from winning this case in the media, Linux will only be hurt.
Of course, AFTER the case is OVER, Linux will regain the ground it lost, but it might significantly prolong the time it takes to rise in the enterprise market. And that's where money is to be made (eventually) for some people anyway. The longer Linux is delayed in getting there by this sort of FUD, the longer you'll have to wait to retire with the big bucks from implementing Linux enterprise solutions.
Richard Steven Hack - This sig is TOO GODDAMN SHORT TO DO ANYTHING USEFUL WITH! MORONS!
Linux users sue SCO? Um, for what?
Yes, some will point out that "... they never had any to begin with...", but they have always been a widely respected organization. Sadly, that respect has slipped a few notches, in my book. To me, SCO's case is a slam-dunk loser, for so many reasons. How is it that Gartner can take such a namby-pamby approach to this?
This report has a few more Gartner pronouncements.
"SCO is being opportunistic ahead of the lawsuit with IBM by exploiting nervousness and is trying to create as much FUD [fear, uncertainty and doubt] as possible," said Andy Butler, research director, Gartner Group.
Butler said Gartner is not authorised to give legal advice but has advised clients that "they should not be blas and should follow events carefully if they have significant Linux exposure".
He added: "Users should not start waving their cheque books as there is no legal precedent for what SCO is demanding and it is not clear what laws have been broken."
...what exactly is this Hurd thing you're talking about?
We suffer more in our imagination than in reality. - Seneca
I'm actually starting to consider this whole thing cheap publicity for Linux. After all, here in germany SCO has been court-ordered to either put up or shut up (or pay 500000$ in bullshitting-fees).
Since I'm trying to earn a living with Linux I've layed out some gritty remarks on the case that I can deal out whenever somebody comes up with the issue.
Since I even had all the SCO Linux marketing stuff coming at me (yes, I *do* feel a little silly) I can even show of SCO United Linux disks and tell the people that SCO was crazy enough to ask 700$ for them after a 30 days 'testing' period. Anybody with more than 2 braincells knows whats cooking when they find out that SCO couldn't gain ground with overpriced United Linux packages and has messurable stock value gain since they started this campaign.
We suffer more in our imagination than in reality. - Seneca
Exactly! No-one expected them to...
SCO already stated which version of Linux is "contaminated" I forgot which version, but not an ancient one.
But won't it be faster if we hire a hacker to rewrite SMP and whatever SCO accused of us from that particular version? As long as we stick to the same API, it should not be too bad to compile it and fix it to merge into other later codes.
If we provide a "100% cleaned/rewritten" version, we won't be weighed down by the legal problems. Believe me, the business world is very concerned about this, since they don't have a clue what is going on.
Think about it, a good hacker will work much faster than the court system.
Replace the suspicious code and they won't be able to do a jack sh-t..
Later
Sadly, many managers do not understand this. They need something to hold on to.
Yeah, I know. I was using linux as in the linux based os's and their associated open source components and not linux as in the kernel. The second is more correct, but the first is what most people mean when they talk about business not adopting "linux".
Give a man a fish and he will eat for a day.
Teach him to eat and he will fish forever.
Some of these have been stated elsewhere, but I felt them to be good points
a) Did Gartner recommend not installing Microsoft software, for ever? After all, there's always one suit or another going on against MS, whether from someone trying to rape Microsoft for money, or more serious cases like STAC and the antitrust case.
b) There must be some basis on which to counter-sue or claim for malicious libel, even in the US. Is there anything to make this case roll along instead of plod as seems to be the case.
c) Are there any areas of dispute in Linux code apart from the IBM stuff? SCO seem to be making statements in random directions, but without placing any hard evidence in front of us.
d) can we put together a fund large enough to bribe a SCO employee to release the entire SCO code history, so we can see if they do have any real evidence? After all if the US can do it for Uday and Qusay, we ought to be able to pay enough for one engineer to holidayb in the sun so Linux can progress by either changing the disputed code or find SCOs claims to be rubbish.
Donte Alistair Anderson Roberts - hi son!
Karma: Chameleon
OOPS. Just discovered that hard drives formatted in FAT16/32 FAIL seriously...mechanical failurs, not just crashes (so, please do not just quote http://www.bugtoaster.com to us!). Even when running any other OS on them, FAT formatted hard drives seem to fail prematurely, ATA drives failing in 3-4 month cycles! Seeking MORE EXPANDED database for Quality Assurance testing as we have only 80 equipment histories for two years at this time... Where is a Microsoft Mole when we need one, as this surely has been apparent in their equipment certification testing?! Another reason for the NDA? Oh, right. M$ is a double convicted felon, U.S. and France... would you buy anything from a convicted Felon?
In Germany they came first for the Communists and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist. Then they came for the Jews and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew. Then they came for the trade unionists and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist. Then they came for the Catholics and I didn't speak up because I was a Protestant. Then they came for me--and by that time no one was left to speak up.
--Martin Niemöller
OK maybe a bit extreme for this circumstance.... but I can't think of anything more apt to reference here. SCO is going after IBM now, they will go after BSD if they see a resurgance/any money in it. If MS has BSD product, they (SCO) will--eventually--be able to extort *more* money from MS as well, or at the very least ruin the whole free software movement.
Ok, maybe a *little* extreme, but this FUD is sure as hell getting out of hand. (also, how long before we see SCO filing suit in Munich? or Oregon, or any number of other areas where linux has been in the news?) Decision makers will very quickly decide: "Well, regardless of whether or not they really do own the property It's cheaper to not be sued."
Immediately thereafter Linux will become a blip on the radar, unless there is a backlash at SCO.
Someone needs to take hold of this massive outpouring of linux user/developer frustration. Whether that be the FSF, GNU, or Linus himself, someone needs to form a NPO who's specific purpose is to tie SCO up in court. If I can spend 100 dollars to bankrupt SCO and guarantee the several hundred Linux installs I have had to maintain/setup over the years are safe, I'd do it, and I bet some large linux using orgs would pay much more for that as well.
>> Wouldn't you be outraged enough to fight back?
Should a company continue to put itself at risk by sticking with Windows?
Those questions don't bear on the issue. You can answer "yes" or "no" without affecting the degree of risk in buying Linux. So long as SCO is posturing as being prepared to sue corporations that deploy Linux, any corporation deploying Linux incurs some degree of risk that SCO will sue them. That seems a pretty self-evident proposition to me.
Someone's opinion of Windows or whether or not they are "outraged" at some other company won't reduce or increase that risk.
-- Slashdot: When Public Access TV Says "No"
It is really confusing to me that anyone listens to these people. They are the ones who touted microsoft for years and look at the money that they have cost the industry. I think that they need to open their books so everyone can see where the funding comes from and then we can make an informed decision on their decision.
I've been searchin for the chord I can't hear Ive been searchin for years Its somewhere inside But its well disguised
...on the wonders of a joke.
You're way too emotional over this. Go out and catch a movie or something. Please.
"Sufferin' succotash."
Well, GNU is hardly based on Linux. A case could be made for the exact opposite, though. And Perl was built for Unix and got Linux as a gimme.
As to your original assertion that SCO and this case won't hamper Linux (the system, not just the kernel). I tend to believe that's true only because they will likely be shown to have very little substantial case for infringement-- of such a level that the offending code can be removed without harm, should such code be found to exist at all (and found to be infringing in the form in which it is included).
But much of the development of things like KDE and GNOME are dependent on having a Free and legal kernel. And to some extent they are dependent on corporate projects and money to help cover development expenses. I should think that each of the projects you mentioned would be quite concerned if it suddenly should happen that their work would only run on proprietary Unix because Linux was gone (although there are still the BSDs-- and because of SCO's vagueness we have no idea if those are also at risk).
Not that I find SCO remotely credible at this point, but should they happen to win even a small monetary settlement in their case against IBM this will set them up for larger wins later, because they will continue to be able to afford to pursue these cases in court. The snowball effect could be very deadly. And because most of the places where Linux development happens have copyright laws that would favor SCO if SCO won cases here in the U.S. the idea that this is just a U.S. problem seems a little off.
I do not have a signature
Between the SCO lawsuit, Bill & Steve's IP remarks, and the Gartner group's recommendation, it looks like the corporate adoption Linux may have a tough road ahead. While most people here believe that Linux will come out on top of this particular issue, I feel this exposes a huge problem regarding Open Source software and its adoption in large corporations. Specifically, the end-users of Open Source software can be the targets of lawsuits if a company claims the software infringes on their intellectual property.
So my question is, as a consultant who promotes Open Source software, what is the answer to a potential business client that asks the question "Does using Open Source software make my company a possible target for a lawsuit?"
I realize this is an issue in the closed-source world as well, however, it seems that the closed-source software vendor would be liable for infringements (see recent changes regarding indemnity in Microsoft's EULA), plus the fact that it is closed-source may make it harder to discover these infringements in the first place. Would buying your Linux from RedHat put the legal burden on RedHat? What about some random Open Source project? Does downloading the RPM from redhat.com make RedHat the vendor?
Whether or not the vendor covers you is another story -- it all comes down to perception -- and right now it seems that Open Source software may be perceived as a risk to corporate health.
and take a "go-slow" approach to Linux in high-value or mission-critical production systems."
This seems to be common sense no matter what platform you're trying. I wish I could sell advice like that for as much as Gartner charges its clients.
Like, I can definitely see a CIO at a Fortune 500 company saying,
Here's one for free: in order to succeed in the stock market, assess your personal tolerance for risk, invest for the long term, diversify, buy low, and sell high.
"Provided by the management for your protection."
May the Gods of Comedy smile on you, my hat is off to you sir! To fill you in on my source material:
You probably know all this, but what the hell, it was a nice trip down memory lane. Ah, the days when cartoon violence was actually violent! Nobody died, but you took your lumps, that's for sure...
stirring the pot since nineteen mumblty mumble...