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."
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.
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
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...
Isnt Gartner the same guys that said windows was so full of hole it shouldnt be used?
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.
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.
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!!!
Bah, it's not a big deal if you are deploying server products.
simply change the OS to BSD and call it good until the whole thing blows over. It shuts up the clueless CTO/CIO/CEO and makes the lawyers happy.
This is your easiest and painless way to keep that non-microsoft project running.
I have a BSD based machine sitting atop the linux dev box that I test each build on.. so switching when my Management team get's the case of the legal-stupids I can simply say, "no problem, It will be switched to BSD tommorow and we will not lose any productivity or have to slip on the timeline."
Another great part of Open Source... I'm not stuck.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
Two issues. Not everything that runs on Linux runs on BSD, even in the server environment. If you can live with that and work around it, there is still the hazard that SCO has indicated that they do not believe that BSD is necesarily free and clear either.
At the moment this does not seem to be a significant issue, SCO is much more interested in slowing down Linux deployment, or getting money from companies that they believe are violating their intelectual property, and are "bigger fish".
-Rusty
You never know...
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
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 ?
SCO isn't licensing Linux, they're licensing the UNIX they allege is in linux. The license is to "hold blameless" if they win (A VERY BIG IF), then when they lose, they still hold you blameless(SUCKERS).
Is Windows a "safe" alternative? No way SCO said "solaris is safe" not windows is safe. first they knock down Linux through IBM, then they go after BSD, they'll claim that BSD breached their settlement and that places BSD back as a Sys V dirivative, and therefore MAC OS X and WINDOWS! All modern OSes except Solaris!
Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
Indemnification solves the problem.
If company 'A' wants to distribute some software,
it can ease its customers' IP concerns by imdemnifying the customer against all IP claims.
What that would do would make company 'A' responsible -- not company A's customer -- for any IP violation claims.
The Plan 9 license requires this of a distributor.
Microsoft has recently announced such an addition to its terms.
Does the FSF indemnify its customers/users against such claims? I read something in the GPL about this, but as usual the GPL is fuzzy, with all its
rationale and "freedom" rhetoric, which will probably PO any judge that has to read it.
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.
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.