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."
I wouldn't quite say that Gartner has always been an advocate:
s p
http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,3959,35671,00.a
Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves.
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
I don't think that have gone that far yet with Windows in general. They did make this statement about IIS though.
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.'
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 $0.001 per share, of The SCO Group, Inc." The shares will be sold by Vultus, Inc., The Canopy Group, Inc., Angel Partners Inc., Michael Meservy, Bruce K. Grant Jr., Ty D. Mattingly and R. Kevin Bean. Only Canopy Group, in this list, will retain any SCO stock. SCO "will not receive any proceeds from the sale or distribution of the common stock by the selling stockholders.
It only takes a minute. If enough people complain, somebody may take notice. I am including web-sites and a sample letter.
G _C ODE=PU01s ubject=COM MENT
https://rn.ftc.gov/pls/dod/wsolcq$.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
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.
This is so true. I just came out of a conference call with one of their "analysts." We were discussing a very specific technology and management has enlisted their analysts to do some research in the industry.
This "analyst" starts off by saying they did a search on the web for the topic... right then and there I knew this whole conversation was going to be worthless.
*I* can do a search on the web. It's amazing people make a living doing producing such crap. There may be some worthwhile people there, but everyone I've encountered is essentially a clueless idiot.
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.
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.
Evidence or not, SCO is, in fact, suing people.
I'm not sure where everyone is getting the "SCO is suing people" part. SCO, so far, has only sued IBM, and even that's over a CONTRACT violation that barely involves Linux at all. So far, SCO has not sued or threatened to sue anyone using Linux. They are just blowing hot air.
.. 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
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
They're stuck really. Along with the rest of us they don't have a clue what the hells going on. The best I can come up with at the moment is that
a) The fact they won't let anyone see the code without the NDA leans towards them bluffing as there's no point in hiding the code for IP reasons if it's been in the public domain for years.
b) Gartner have to say something as that's their job but what can they say when they've got no info to go on. If they tell everyone to carry on regardless and SCO did somehow win they'd have to be sure their disclaimer is as tight as a shark's arse at 40 fathoms.
The fact that all this kicked off in parallel with the launch of server 2003 is probably going to cause most suspicion as Microsoft's latest offering seems to have failed to deliver on the pre launch hype but then as that's happened with every version of Windows back to the year dot it doesn't count for much.
At the end of the day IBM are going to have to force them through court ASAP which they can probably do as they are ssssooooooooooooo loaded they must have some sway. That is unless some SCO employee (or disgruntled ex-SCO employee) drops a bombshell that kills SCO's claim off.
Hmmmmmm..... Deep fried and look like Squirrel.
This is really a lot more work than is really necessary.
SCO has, more or less, narrowed its claims on the Linux kernel, a fact that seems to escape notice not just here on /. but elsewhere as well. It has claimed their IP is specifically in the NUMA, JFS, and SMP sections of the kernel (am I forgetting one? I thought there were four, but I may be misremembering), and have further stated that it is the 2.4 kernel that is infringing.
So if you wish to undertake an audit, the smart thing to do would be to isolate those changes made from 2.2 to 2.4, and record where all those changes came from. More likely than not, everything except the aforementioned pieces came from sources other than IBM, and most likely from kernel contributors that can be contacted and they can affirm their copyright on the code (or the copyright as it existed before turning it over to Torvalds).
This then leaves the pieces contributed by IBM and its subsidiaries/partners/acquisitions. Now you have the only files that SCO could claim infringement on. Any claims outside this area would be extremely suspect, which would be some insurance on the core kernel code.
Perhaps at that point, someone could gather these files together and post them on a website explaining this analysis and that these remaining code files are the only ones that could contain their IP, and challenge SCO to try and refute the analysis. Of course, they probably will, but it would send a message that the Linux community is taking the theat seriously.
Karma: Frotzed (mostly due to the Frobozz Magic Karma Company)
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.
They nearly got fired on 2 occasions in australia when they got the predictions so wrong, it cost the city of sydney a billion dollars in hail storm damage, so much for light showers. And second when they didnt warn of 30ft swells , gale force winds for the sydney to hobart yacht race when a few people died and boats sank.
Liberty freedom are no1, not dicks in suits.
AFAIK Linus has stated that most if not all of the code that SCO is B1tchin' about has be[en] rewritten in 2.6.
Linus has stated no such thing.
Linus has stated that the SCO suit is not about IP, either copyrights or patents, on the contrary, it is over a contract with IBM.
Have you got your LWN subscription yet?