Slashdot Mirror
Why SCO UNIX Is A Bad Idea
Ashcrow writes "SCO UNIX has long boasted its 'true UNIX' code base, but is that really the case? A story running at The Jem Report looks into SCO's claims and holds it up to other UNIX variants to try and find validity for SCO's claims." The author has a bit of a chip on his shoulder, but worth reading for the comparison of various *nix's.
SCO's own UNIX products, and the copyright and other rights sco owns with regards to the genetic UNIX codebase are two different things entirely.
Whether or not SCO UNIX sucks or not has no actual bearing on their lawsuit.
It's not just the code. Programmer comments embedded in Linux -- English-language descriptions -- are identical to those found in SCO's Unix code, according to SCO. There's even a typo in one of the commentaries in Unix System V that also appears in a Linux commentary. Extracting the controversial code is not really a feasible solution. Because of the way intellectual property (IP) laws work, derivative products that use the allegedly pilfered code are also subject to liability. Anyone who bundles suspect products, or uses them, is also conceivably on the hook.
My college roommate in my sophomore year, an electrical engineering student named Mike Foster, helped me coin that one. He had an answer for everything, and often it involved the death penalty, a flat tax or some other clean, simple solution that would have been absolutely insane to try in real life. Don't get me wrong. I stand in awe of people who can design transistors or even who can put up drywall. But there is arrogance inside the scientific mind, and it rarely knows when to stop.
Put the SCO argument another way: What if you found out something you had a hand in was now the basis of a multibillion-dollar empire? Would you want a slice, or denounce yourself as a fraud? SCO could also be really overplaying some minor copying. But we won't know until the evidence is in.
SCO does not have any kind of intellectual property claim to UNIX. Therefore, claiming ownership of it will make them look like criminal idiots.
And as a server OS, SCO UNIXes are worse since not all of them (yes, they do have all different kinds - even worse) support such things as IPv6 or ACLs which any modern day operating system such as Linux should have. And they're attempting to sue Linux programmers? Who incidentally implemented features they don't have? Hmmm...
Besides, this article has nothing to do with the SCO lawsuit, editors. It's about comparing SCO to other Unices. (Though I presume everyone will make a comment about that anyway.)
Bash script for FP whores
You play as SCO.
"Sic Semper Tyrannosaurus Rex."
Who cares about "feature comparison" and stuff like that.. I want benchmarks! I want to look at the pretty pictures!
Well, the first thing I can think of is: SCO probably won't be around this time next year. So chances are, you're going to be out of luck for support, unless someone pops up to cover SCO support contracts (for a significant price, I'm sure).
====
Crudely Drawn Games
I can't believe slashdot has posted another article about SCO, the Southern College of Optomertry. I mean, optometry is geeky, but I come here to read about asteroids and anime.
So he should fit right in at slashdot, right?
---
Eagerly waiting to see what kind of outlandish thing SCO will do tomorrow.. they have to do something dramatic every monday, you know, or they'll fall out of the news...
And Timothy Dalton is the only true Bond, and Deep Space Nine is the only true Star Trek, and Attack of the Clones is the only true Star Wars, and vi is the only true editor, and MySQL is the only true open source database.
That's all settled now. You're welcome.
I've been working on a proposal to implement a paperless office for a doctor in a hospital. After quite a bit of research, I decided that Sun was the way to go. They have some really cheap Intel severs right now, which is important because I'm trying to underbid competitors. The OS is already installed out of the box, which saves me time for real stuff like coding, and since one of the requirements for this was to last and be supportable for the forseable future, the fact that Solaris is not going to be phased out for something like Linux sold me. Of course military grade security is nothing to sneeze at when you're talking about a wireless network of private patient information.
I've seen a lot of things, but I've never been a witness.
...no matter what operating system you're running.
Why SCO UNIX Is A Bad Idea
(Score:-1, Redundant)
We Are Familiar With Elephants By Virtue Of Their Size.
The article is missing the single largest UNIX distribution in terms of licenses shipped, OS X. Of course this begs the argument made on Slashdot before, but given that I run much *nix code on my OS X boxes, many with a simple recompile, it's UNIX to me.
Visit Jonesblog and say hello.
The reason sco is a very bad choice for current projects is it hasn't been alive for quite some time.
Most people complain about the lack of driver support in Linux and BSD but its positively nonexistent in SCO. USB, SATA, Firewire, Sound, Video, high end nic's, backup devices the support isn't there. VMware and Virtual PC both won't support SCO. BOCHS will but only with an incredible amount of effort. This situation is not going to improve especially after SCO's recent actions. If you develop drivers are you going to develop for a company likely to sue you for porting your code ???
There is the further "I am stupid take advantage of me" effect in dealing with 3rd party vendors. If you are implementing on SCO 3rd party vendors figure you are a mark and should be mercillessly taken advantage of. Their rational is that you are obviously trapped in a legacy system and have no ability to move. The licensing schemes for products on SCO open server can be so draconian as to destroy business.
So yes why would you go with SCO, its not a software company any more. Its a protection racket.
This article is very in depth. I agree with the arthur. UNIX comes in many different form nowadays, especially in the backend perspective. The appearance might look and feel similar, but each OS is very different in how it is implemented. SCO's "true UNIX" is but a propaganda phrase. At the end of it, it is just another form of UNIX. SCO should not have the rights to claim what is being developed by indenpendent companies and open-source communities.
Irritable, left-wing and possibly humorous bumper stickers and t-shirts
This article has one of its most important facts wrong. In the list of UNIX operating systems, there's no mention of IRIX, which is a UNIX98-certified and Open Group approved UNIX operating system.
I quit reading at that point. If the author can't be bothered to get the most basic (and trivially verifiable) facts right, why shoudl I waste my time reading what he has to say?
There are a lot of technical articles of why not to cower to SCO... unfortunately I think the main audience is being ignored: executive, business people in charge of the cash money. I would think most techies know SCO is full of it. A lot of execs (but not all) don't and are pretty clueless. Sadly, I rarely see any articles on the Wall Street Journel or Forbes with this article's message.
Some examples of non-genetic Unix operating systems are GNU/Linux and *BSD
I had to stop reading after that line. That line and his belief that people think of SCO software when people say Unix entirely undermines the credibility of this article in my opinion.
And the muscular cyborg German dudes dance with sexy French Canadians
The author uses the term "scalability" to mean something like forward compatibility for hardware. Seems like an odd lapse.
UNIX is a registered trademark of the Open Group in the United States and other countries. UNIX is available as a branding for operating systems which are certified by the open group to comply to various levels of the Single Unix Specification, a national and international standard. One such system, compliant at Unix95 level is OS/390 by Ibm with compatability extensions. This system is stated by the Open Group to not be derived from any AT&T code. You can find out more about the Single Unix Specification and UNIX in general at www.unix.org. While you're there you can familiarize yourself with the terms of their "license."
the one about vi being the only true editor. It is. But Timothy Dalton? Jeez, you could at least have said George Lazenby.
This site, http://www.levenez.com/unix/, has an historical timeline of *ALL* the Unix variants. One thing I don't see is anything crossing over from SCO to Linux. I do see SCO taking some stuff from Linux. Maybe Linus is owed some royalties?
--
Luck is just skill you didn't know you had.
Whether or not SCO UNIX sucks or not has no actual bearing on their lawsuit.
;)
;)
Paragraph 84 of the complaint: Prior to IBM's involvement, Linux was the software equivalent of a bicycle. UNIX was the software equivalent of a luxury car.
According to the article, it seems like Linux is the equivalent of a luxury car and SCO UNIX is the equivalent of a..... No, a bicycle is too kind of a description
I once temporarily owned an old rundown Ford Econoline. The brakes needed replacing, the battery drained because sometimes the brake lights would stay on, and there was a short in the fuse box. Kind of reminds me of SCO UNIX
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
Here is a number for SCO licensing for Linux. Lets see if we can make it slighty more expensive to do what they want to do.
/. and SCO will ignore us, but like any business, they WILL pay attention to the pocketbook.
We can all bitch and complain on
Capitulate or escalate. the choice is ours!
SCO's claims for the SMP and other code rely on an expansive notion of derivative copyright. SCO didn't actually write any of the code in question. They are claiming ownership essentially because some versions of that code were written as a part of Unix, and SCO claims that that makes the code a derivative work of Unix.
SCO goes further to claim that pretty much any connection between the code for which they claim ownership and the code contributed to Linux means that SCO owns the code contributed to Linux. For example, SCO claims that they own the JFS code contributed to Linux even though they admit that code was initially developed for OS/2, because the first version of the JFS code was developed using Unix, and some of the same people worked on the first version of JFS and the version of JFS which was contributed to Linux.
So, simply replacing the code in Linux isn't that simple. If there is any similarity, such as, perhaps, functional equivalence, SCO will claim that the new code is really a derivative work of the old code, and therefore a derivative work of Unix.
The only step which would avoid SCO's claim is a clean room implementation of Linux--a massive project which nobody is going to undertake.
Now, I happen to think that SCO's expansive claims won't hold up in court. But then SCO cares a lot more about spreading FUD now, and making some money on Unixware licenses now, then they care about winning in court in five years.
Anyhow, my point is that your simple tactic won't work. It won't make Linux more likely to win in court--Linux is already likely to win in court. It won't make SCO shut up--nothing will make SCO shut up.
No, mod this up. I want to talk to Jenny.
503 Sig Unavailable
The Signature could not be accessed. Please try again later or contact the administrator
As a comparison of different Unix platforms, this article is pretty much a joke. He seems to be comparing the vendors' marketing materials instead of their actual products.
For example, he concludes that Red Hat has poor security not because of its record of security holes and useless, vulnerable services enabled by default, but because he couldn't find a list of security features or a security policy on their website. Impressive.
All he has to say about OpenBSD is that it "takes a cryptographic approach to security" and "is rumored to be the most secure OS on the market". Even though he claims to be "looking at Unix operating systems sold as they are", he doesn't mention how OpenBSD has only a minimal number of services enabled by default, unlike Solaris and Linux where one's first task in securing a system is to disabled the many useless, possibly exploitable daemons the vendor has enabled in the default install. He also doesn't mention the many steps that have been taken of late to make OpenBSD more resistant to stack smashing attacks.
He concludes that "Solaris is one of the most secure choices you can make" apparently only because he was impressed by Sun's website. Although I'm a big fan of Sun and Solaris, I would certainly be inclined to disagree here. In my experience, Solaris is comparable to Linux in terms of security; it's not secure by default like OpenBSD, but it can be made fairly secure with a bit of work (turning off services, enabling the non-executable stack, possibly using roles or auditing, etc).
So, although I'm as eager to slam SCO as the next guy, I'm somewhat skeptical of this article's criticisms, seeing as they seem to be based entirely on SCO's website and product literature. Without any personal experience with any of their systems, I'm not going to take this guy's word for it.
Ubi dubium, ibi libertas.
Unless your a government contracter who requires real Unix( not like or just plain possix) then its not worth it.
Linux and the BSD's are examples of great OS's. However the new 2.6 kernel now is comming into pre-release versions so his arguments on scalability are about to become outdated.
FreeBSD supposed to have better stability then the 4.x series but it has not been benchmarked yet. Also its not as scalable as Linux. Certainly more reliable though.
May SCO Unix just die.
Bell Labs Unix was cool in the 80's but has been neglected as soon as the Unix team focused on Plan9/Inferno. Also Sun and SGI improved Unix in their own proprietary versions. Seriously it has been since the mid 80's since any new features have been added( sco unix that is).
Running Unixware today is like running Dos 4, os/2 2.0, or Novell 2.1. Its very gone.
And to top it off McBribe actually believes Linux was the reason that Unixware never took off. Nevermind Novell and Bell labs before them could not get anyone to buy it. Yes, drivers have nothing to do with. He even stated that Linux would not be so hot if Linus cut and pasted code from Unixware in it.lol.
http://saveie6.com/
And what, precisely, does this have to do with the SCO lawsuit?
Are you stating that the Linux kernel is a derivative of UNIX? Bzzt! Wrong. Review your history. Linus Torvalds built the Linux kernel essentially from the ground up. He had no UNIX source code in front of him. Linux does work a lot like UNIX, and you see UNIX-isms in Linux, but this alone does not make it a derivative product, any more than my wife's Honda is a derivative of my Toyota just because the both have automatic transmission.
Now lets talk about the SCO lawsuit. Recall that SCO has finally narrowed its specific claims to RCU, NUMA, SMP, and JFS. Yes, these are big hunks of code. But if SCO is found in the right, these are the only affected pieces. They cannot simply retrofit the law to extend this backwards in time and claim derivative works on all of Linux. Most of this code made it into version 2.4, the specific version that SCO is citing in their complaint.
Now I agree that the SCO lawsuit is something that should be taken seriously, as much as I feel that SCO is serving up a nice load of steaming bullshit. But be careful in your conclusions. You're extending SCO's IP way too far, which is most likely what SCO wants people to do. Get armed with the facts so you can resist SCO FUD.
Karma: Frotzed (mostly due to the Frobozz Magic Karma Company)
Have a group of kids who have never worked on Linux before (but who want to help) be told the inputs, the outputs, and what should happen in the middle. Rewrite from scratch. No Copyright infringement, because you cannot create a derivative work without seeing the original.
Problem solved.
The ______ Agenda
what's not proper about the SMP implementations in FreeBSD (5.x) and NetBSD?
Scaling. BSD works great on two CPUs, but not 16 or 32. Any operating system can support X CPUs just be changing a define, but a lot of work went into making Linux 2.6 perform great on massively parallel boxes.
Back in 1998, I was in the midst of creating my consulting business and was introduced to SCO via a business support group that I had become a member of to gain industry contacts. I spoke with a SCO representative and was told that I could could become a SCO reseller/authorized support center. I figured this could be a good opportunity (SCO was one of a few UNIX vendors that I was looking to work with) and maybe could get some cool enterpise software in the process. Anyhow, my wonderful SCO pack arrives with nearly every piece of software they were pushing at the time (it really was about about 30 cds!) and I get out the latest copy of SCO Openserver and get ready to install it on my dual pII box with the very common LX chipset. I put the cd in, begin the installation... FREEZE... I reboot.. put the CD in.. FREEZE I reboot.. put the CD in... FREEZE I hit all the documentation shipped in the box, and everything on the web.. Nothing.. Nothing.. I would have to get SCO support to get the damn thing to load. SCO succeeded in proving one thing to me, supporting their "product" would be a living nightmare! It amazes me how long it takes such an antiquated pile of junk to finally make it to the trash heap.. -Mind
I did not believe anybody on Slashdot had read the scifi authors who extrapolate the human consequences to technnology.
I avoid posting to the "stories" about best fiction, because they tend to honor people like Ian McDonald. I am reading his books now, and they remind me of early C.J.Cherryh, before she learned that the story is more important than the setting.
Heinlein extrapolated the consequences of technology very well, and wrote entertaining fiction about them. The problem with reading his stories today is that he miscalled the future of technology. "The Roads Must Roll" is a great story, but we bypassed the tech. His first sale, "Lifeline", was written in 1939 about the corporate reaction to new technology, and is relevant, even if the particular technology has (still) yet to be invented.
Asimov did the same, but the Slashdotters seem to prefer the Foundation series, where technology (psychohistory) learns how to control people, rather than the Robot novels where people are adjusting to technology (robots).
IMO, Robinson is the best writer of this type of fiction today. "Melancholy Elephants" was written in 1984, and summarizes the entire case against perpetual copyright in just over 20 pages. I kept wanting to scream at the posters and legal people who are arguing about copyrights while avoiding the main point. Did Lessig submit this story as evidence?
Art is about discovering pieces enjoyable by humans, and humans have serious limitations on types of input. Eventually everything likable will be discovered. But humans need art, and if we do not allow the repeat of discoveries, calling anything reused to be "derivative" and illegal, we will lose a major part of being human.
The problem is new, since the ability to record art is new. The printing press is 500 years old.
- Recorded music is around 100 years old. New generations have learned to like new instruments (electric guitar), which has helped. But if "On Top of Old Smoky" was not public domain, we could not have the theme to "Chariots of Fire".
- Moving pictures are younger, and the combination with sound is very new. Yet Disney is busy reusing the old stories because there are not that many stories that will appeal to human beings.
Even Spider Robinson is moving away from discovering new ideas and spending more time telling stories. His short story collections of early work are incredibly full of new ideas. He even found a new twist on time travel. Now he spends less on finding original ideas and more time telling each story. "Callahan's Key" milked one more out of the Callahan series (Thought-provoking AND funny: read them all!). "Free Lunch" took one cool concept (living in an amusement park) and filled a book. He is living proof of the concepts in "Melancholy Elephants".
Anyway, this is all off-topic and will probably be moderated to oblivion. I may repost it the next time we discuss copyrights.
I spend my life entertaining my brain.
The question in my mind is, if the findings of the AT&T/BSD case are relevant--and I suspect they are-- does that mean they can be unsealed for this case?
Can we finally find out that bit of history?
This is not a political statement. This is not legal advice. It's a frick'n Slasdot post. However: I'm Running For
In looking over these tables, one can't help but wonder why SCO's UnixWare and OpenServer are even mentioned. They offer nothing over GNU/Linux, *BSD, BSD/OS, and Solaris, yet UnixWare is astonishingly more expensive than its competitors.
In every single instance that I've seen SCO installed, it's been running a vertical market application running on unibase. The single biggest factor driving SCO sales has been a varitable legion of programmers and resellers who are making money from programs that were written 10 years ago when SCO made some amount of sense.
Given that the programs are unique to Unibase, and given that Unibase runs just fine under Linux and has for some years, SCO's market (which is small businesses that are just large enough to spend a few thousand on a computer system up to ~$50M/year businesses that aren't large enough to buy a real Unix system) is running to Linux. I've seen a few VAR's holding out on SCO, but very few and dwindling.
I have one client still using SCO, and they're doing all they can to leave it. I've been out in the real world as a consultant for 9 years now and in that time I have never (not even one time) heard of or observed a new SCO installation, nor have I found anybody who has even considered it.
SCO was basically dead a long time ago, I guess nobody bothered to tell them.
Do you have ESP?