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.
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
Stop by my site where I write about ERP systems & more
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.
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...
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
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.
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.
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!
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
sleep( rand() % 1000000 );
printf( "we recommend you stick with windows.\n" );
This is my sig.
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
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/
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.
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 :-)
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
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.
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 ?
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
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
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.