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."
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.
Does any company pay attention to Gartner Group groups recommendations?
Yes.
Speak truth to power.
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.
maybe, but it it looks like it's full of bull(the recommendation, no mention of any bsd for example, instead just 'go with windows or sco!, they're safe!', so it looks like a cash handed report). and what are they to pile into this steaming pile of fud that they well know has no solution yet except just fud'ing around.
.
yea kinda typical slashdot comment.. but who cares.
world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
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.
"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,
yes, but most likely any users scared away from linux will go over to unix instead, not to MS. Atleast that's the way it looks to me... but hey, MS could be just trying to cause "division and confusion in the camp" if they are the ones behind this.
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...
Isn't Gartner the same group that will say whatever you pay them to say? They've been on both sides of the windows sucks issue, both sides of the use linux issuse. They're the whore of the IT strategy world.
I say we all put $1 in a paypal account and then use the total to buy a report saying that slashcode should be extended into a viable app platform and used to deliver ALL web content.
They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty nor security
I pay attention to them because they are good for laughs on a regular basis.
To address the questions posed earlier in the thread, Yes Virginia, companies do pay attention to what Gartner says. As evidenced by the amount of salt my management places on getting good reviews by them, for many their opinion means alot. What I dont really understand is moreso than simply giving Linux a black eye, this is dragging down all *nix initiatives. I cannot see this seriously helping SCO's sales other than those simply buying licenses in fear of litigation. I can see many companies that are just now swimming out into Linux waters saying screw it to the entire *nix end of computing and staying within the warm fuzzy false safeness of MS technologies.
And what about M$ somehow being in bed with SCO and/or Gartner? Ok sorry, mod me down for being a conspiracy theorist / paranoid ...
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.
The only thing they are is pro-money. Gartner is just an advertising company thinly veiled as a "Market Research" firm.
Dacels Jewelers can't be trusted.
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!
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"
Helevius
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?
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
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.
Because there isn't anything to scream about! SCO has so far made vague allegations with NO specifics, and nothing else. The only thing that CAN be done is to say "It's not true. Wait until trial." which is what IBM et al. have already done.
What part of "shall not be infringed" is so hard to understand?
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/
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. We simply don't know the risks associated with SCO's copyright registration. I, for one, will not allow my company to go blindly ahead. While I disagree with Gartner's first recommendation, I am recommending holding off on additional Linux installations/upgrades as well as ascertaining how many, if any, machines have the 2.4 Kernel (sounds like a disease now doesn't it.)
Go ahead and say "Torpedos be damned!" That course of action sure worked well with Lemelson! Only cost the average Fortune 500 company a million or so dollars!
Stop undressing me with your eyes. I'm ugly naked.
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.
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.
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.
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.
AIX represents only 2% of IBM's revenues, but that works out to about $2.4 billion a year, so it's not like they don't have a financial incentive - if they have a case. But they don't, and they're afraid to actually go before a judge.
Then point out that Microsoft also knows that SCO doesn't have a case. Otherwise, Linux would not be rated by Microsoft as the number 2 threat (right after the ailing economy).
Then, as a third point, mention that SCO cannot "license" Linux without violating both the GPL and the copyrights of the kernel authors, and that any company actually using such a license would also be in violation, and open to lawsuits.
When they ask "So why is SCO doing this?", just point out that their shitty products cannot compete, and their only alternative was to go broke. Desperate || stupid poeple do desperate || stupid things :-)
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.
Yeah, you are foolish. Using Linux, not so much; emailing SCO and daring them, very much. You'll pay tens of thousands of dollars in lawyer and court fees (getting the other side to pay lawyers fees is a joke, essentially impossible without prior written agreement that the loser pays); meanwhile, your business will suffer for lack of attention and the possibility of losing, all for your self-righteousness.
Yeah, you are foolish. Your dialogue is more accurately rendered as:
you: scox has absolutely no legal basis to assert their claim.
the judge: Mr. Byrd, the next time you open your mouth I'll hit you with contempt of court. We haven't even started with pre-trial motions yet. We've got months before we get to the point where you can have your say.
Remember, it costs tens of thousands of dollars in lawyer's fees just to get to court. By the time you made your grandiose statement (which SCO would dispute with a truckload of paper that's all bullshit but that a lawyer still has to go through at $250/hour), you'd already be $50,000 in the hole.
Take it from someone who's been through a couple lawsuits for his employer: if at all possible, don't go there.
Anyone who loves or hates any language, platform, or manufacturer, doesn't know what they're talking about.
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.
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)
Why didn't Gartner issue a warning against Windows when Microsoft was sued by, more or less, the entire USA?
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.
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?
maybe, but it it looks like it's full of bull(the recommendation, no mention of any bsd for example, instead just 'go with windows or sco!, they're safe!', so it looks like a cash handed report). and what are they to pile into this steaming pile of fud that they well know has no solution yet except just fud'ing around.
The especially amusing thing about that is that SCO has specifically said that MS isn't safe.
Of course, they also said BSD isn't safe. I would love to see them persue that.
Under capitalism man exploits man. Under communism it's the other way around.
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
Then I shall sue you for not using Linux, because that action damages me in a manner to be specified later.
ANYONE can sue you for ANYTHING. Or, for no reason at all (Yes, I do know about barratry. THat doesn't seem to be a showstopper for baseless litigation, nowadays.). You should never let the possibility that someone might sue you stop you from doing what's right. Stick to worrying about real problems, and don't let a paid shill's imagination lead you astray.
Right now, SCO has sued IBM over a contract dispute. That suggests that you should NOT enter into a contract with SCO. They haven't won that, nor shown any sign that they could win, IF they let it go to court. They've sent out some extortion letters, but again, there is no sign that there is any substance to those letters. Their ``licensing'' scheme is pretty plainly patterned after the false invoice scams: send out thousands of bills for services not rendered, and hope a few suckers pay.
Microsoft has promised to indemnify it customers for this sort of patent/copyright problem, but with their patent problems, that could be an empty promise. We all know about their $50B cash horde, but if Intertrust wins, $50B might not go far enough. It appears that Intertrust will pretty much be able to ask MS for a blank check, and get it, when they win. MS wouldn't have made such a promise unless they figured it wouldn't cost them anything. I'm sure they realized that if they lose this one it's all over anyway, so the indemnification looks like cheap talk to me. So far, it looks as if they can only win by buying the judge, but that won't be as easy as it was when they were up against the DOJ.
The *BDS's claim to be safe, but I seem to remember SCO saying that they weren't immune.
Sun seems to be in the clear this week, but who knows about next week? SCO keeps changing their story, like a four-year-old trying to tell a lie.
When it comes to lawsuits, there is no safe harbor in the US. As you say, even if you're right, it costs too much to defend yourself. No one will ever recover a penny from SCO; they'll be bankrupt when the dust settles, and so will you, if you let them stampede you into doing something stupid like using proprietary software when your competitors are using superior, libre software.
See what I've been reading.
If they actually had any sort of case, they would have gone to court and gotten an injunction. They didn't -- and actions speak louder than words.
AIX represents only 2% of IBM's revenues, but that works out to about $2.4 billion a year, so it's not like they don't have a financial incentive - if they have a case. But they don't, and they're afraid to actually go before a judge.
In order to get a preliminary injunction you have to post a cash bond to cover the damages done to the other party. IBM's AIX revenues last year were slightly more than $3 billion, and the case won't go to court until 2005, and it will probably be another year at least before any kind of ruling, so at best they'd have to cover 3 years worth of damages.
Where the hell is SCO going to get $9 billion in CASH?! Do you think, just maybe, that might be the reason they didn't ask for a preliminary injunction?
I agree that they have no case, but I certainly won't make the mistake of basing that belief on the fact that they didn't seek a preliminary injunction.
Under capitalism man exploits man. Under communism it's the other way around.
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
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.
imho it does not go away... because you NOW know how it works, and you didn't earlier.
Nonsense. *I* have absolutely no idea how their code works. I've never seen it. I am a programmer and I have never done any Linux development.
If someone else cuts out the code in question I would be happy to donate my time and become a NEW linux developer to write a replacement. It would be a perfectly legal "clean room implementation" and my code would be immune from copyright infringement challenges.
-
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
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.
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)...
The article says that "developers" were the ones sued and only selected ones at that. Seems Timeline only went after the big lucrative fish starting with microsoft.
I wounder what would happen if someone used propriatary code in a gpl program and someone else incorporated that code into their work. would they then be liable?
Anyway I dont see how the end user could be held liable. even if they have access to the source, how would they spot offending code?
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