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?
Yes.
Speak truth to power.
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
Gartner Group... aka.... Microsoft Public Relations.
Stop by my site where I write about ERP systems & more
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.
yes, we are switching to RedHat Enterprise because Garnder group told us so.
I passed the Turing test.
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.
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...
"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,
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?
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.
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
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.
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...
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.
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.
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.'
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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!
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 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"
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
Helevius
sleep( rand() % 1000000 );
printf( "we recommend you stick with windows.\n" );
This is my sig.
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?
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.
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
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.
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 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...
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
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.
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.
Perhaps we should pay for Gartner to do a report on this 'blind pig' phenomenon and determine whether our PHB's should take this into account when calculating TCO and ROI.
Push the button Max!!!!
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.
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
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
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.
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
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 ?
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?
I'm a CS Prof, not a CEO/CIO. If I were the latter, I would be sending out the following letter:
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
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.
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
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
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.
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.
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?
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
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
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.
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.
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!
Drop the MOAB now.
They refused to drink the koolaid.
John has a long mustache.
The chair is against the wall.
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.
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
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.