SCO's Plan Examined

Wonder if they used this? by JLSigman · 2003-09-25 06:05 · Score: 5, Informative

A friend of mine sent me this mind-boggling link, which is also supposed to support SCO's claim.

--
-jls
Techno-pagan

Re:Wonder if they used this? by Shivaji+Maharaj · 2003-09-25 06:14 · Score: 2, Informative

Nothing new, already a part of the history.

--
We do not have a history of profitable operations. Our future SCOsource licensing revenue is uncertain.
Re:Wonder if they used this? by Pius+II. · 2003-09-25 06:32 · Score: 4, Informative

On the first page of this link, Linux is made out as a fork of Minix. This is total utter absolute bullshit. I won't even look at it further; this blatant misrepresentation of linux' heritage is just too conveniently placed as to accept this stuff as a reliable source.
Re:Wonder if they used this? by interiot · 2003-09-25 06:37 · Score: 2, Informative

Yeah, he has it online here: http://www.levenez.com/unix/. Though obviously without the prominence of SCO and without the inference that SCO owns anything and everything Unix related.
Re:Wonder if they used this? by ccwaterz · 2003-09-25 06:38 · Score: 2, Informative

Yep, SCO respects IP.... Eric Levenez states on his website. "You can freely use this diagram for non-commercial purpose. "
Re:Wonder if they used this? by Picass0 · 2003-09-25 06:41 · Score: 2, Informative

Here is an Un-SCOed version of that same map.

http://www.levenez.com/unix/

I know I'll be comparing the two for modifications.
Re:Wonder if they used this? by fucksl4shd0t · 2003-09-25 06:53 · Score: 2, Informative

Yeah, he has it online here: http://www.levenez.com/unix/. Though obviously without the prominence of SCO and without the inference that SCO owns anything and everything Unix related.
It does show Linux being forked from Minix, which isn't true. Linus developed the early versions in a clean-room fashion.

--
Like what I said? You might like my music
Re:Wonder if they used this? by Knuckles · 2003-09-25 07:03 · Score: 2, Informative

Read this at the bottom of SCO's page: "Original UNIX history chart created by Eric Levenez. Copyright (C) 1996-2003, Eric Levenez. January 2, 2003. Used with permission."

And go the Levenez's wallpaper site and search for McBride

--
"When I first heard Daydream Nation it quite frankly scared the living shit out of me." -- Matthew Stearns
Re:Wonder if they used this? by c1ay · 2003-09-25 08:46 · Score: 2, Informative

Problem is that they show Linux as a fork off of Minix when in fact Linus declared that his new kernal was free of any minix code when he introduced it to the world in comp.os.minix on 25 Aug '91... http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=1991Aug25.205 708.9541%40klaava.Helsinki.FI&output=gplain

--
Re:Wonder if they used this? by AndrewRUK · 2003-09-25 10:17 · Score: 2, Informative

I've just looked through the two maps, and the only difference I can see is that SCO have Minix deriving from Sinix (which is shown as a derivitive of V7, 4.1BSD and Xenix 3.0) while the original map shows Minix as coming only from V7 & 4.1BSD. (Both Sinix and Minix are shown coming from the line from V7 to V8 after an input from BSD.)
Although this difference initally appears to be a simple mis-reading of the arrows, it could be significant, since Xenix was bought by SCO.

There aren't any modifications as such, but the highlighting that SCO have done is inaccurate. (Note, I haven't checked the entire SCOed version for differences, only the paths they have highlighted.)
Re:Wonder if they used this? by AndrewRUK · 2003-09-25 10:43 · Score: 2, Informative

Just to add to that, perhaps "deriving" (and so on) wasn't the right word to use, since "an arrow indicates an inheritance like a compatibility, it is not only a matter of source code." Which makes any claims based on the map even more flakey.
Re:Wonder if they used this? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-09-25 13:50 · Score: 1, Informative

The justifications given prior to the invasion were that Iraq was not complying with the UN mandates for disarmament, that we had clear absolutely incontrivertable intelligence that Iraq had WMD, and that they had the capacity to use WMD against the US, hence we had to invade to protect ourselves. We now see that although Hussein was occasionally giving the inspectors the runaround (though the obstruction had largely ended in the last rounds of inspections), we have no evidence whatsoever to support the intelligence claims , despite having troops on the ground who have looked at the sites where the WMDs were supposed to be. The astute poster above was really referring to a pattern of deceit that the Administration used to justify the invasion. The administration trotted out plenty of deliberatly deceptive pieces of intelligence prior to the invasion. There were the aluminum tubes, there were the magnets, there were various sattelite photos that we claimed indicated this or that. But they were all either lies or fantasy, and when called on poor intelligence methods such as using (poorly) forged documents as the basis for our claims, all the administration does is point to some other source of intelligence, and pretend that they are absolved.

As for justifcations for the invasion - an invasion based on the fact that Saddam was a murderous thug, was certainly not adequate grounds, and while the fact was trotted out, it in no way was ever presented as a centerpiece for Bush's argument of why we had to invade. After all, if just being a generally cruel leader to your population was adequate reason for us to go around invading contries, there are plenty of far more egregious offenders around the globe than Hussein ever was, and we are not invading any of them.

Article's Text by grasshoppa · 2003-09-25 06:08 · Score: 5, Informative

When SCO CEO Darl McBride wrote his open letter last week, he seemed to indicate a hope there could be a viable future partnership between his company and Linux. There is more than a hint as to what that partnership might be like in two research papers prepared back in March and April by Renaissance Ventures, a VC firm that invested in SCO.

The first document is an explanation of Renaissance's reasons for thinking SCO was a good investment. I know you've been wondering what in the world those folks in the stock market have been thinking. The second is an analysis of the SCO v. IBM lawsuit. They are both so blazingly wrong in both facts and conclusions that I fully grasp for the first time how some people may have invested in SCO, based on such misinformation.

First, the investment document. It is based on SCO's telephone conference call in February of 2003. You can listen to it yourself on mp3 here. Renaissance thought it sounded like SCO's bottom line was about to get "prettier" because they believed what SCO reportedly told them in that phone call, namely that most companies were reacting to the new SCOsource licensing program in a positive way.

Renaissance also bought the story -- hook, line and sinker -- that SCO owned the UNIX tree trunk, so to speak, and that all other versions of Unix were branches, or derivatives, off of their tree, including, so they imagined, Linux. (I'm using their language, by the way. They actually mean GNU/Linux, the kernel plus the applications, not Linux the kernel.) They planned on hijacking the GNU/Linux applications and if that meant the death of Linux, so what?

That's their business proposition? And GNU/Linux gets what out of this, other than ripped off and ruined?

Their original strategy was based on the fantasy that the world was clamoring for the ability to stay with UNIX and yet run GNU/Linux applications, and there they'd be, like a troll hiding under the bridge, ready to exact a toll on all those wanting to cross.

SCO, in their daydream, thought they could be the gatekeeper making it possible for companies already on UNIX to sort of transition to Linux, which they knew everyone wanted to do, without leaving their UNIX environment behind. Next step? Backcharge for UNIX shared libraries they believed had been used inappropriately and start scooping the money up in royalties for UNIX code.

Why they imagined companies would rather follow that convoluted, expensive route instead of just running Linux itself is one of those mysteries the tech community can never solve, because it's not based on technical realities but on financial yearning. The tech makes no sense at all. But the ka-ching started ringing in Renaissance's ears, and you know how compelling that can be, like when your telephone starts ringing and you think you have to answer it. But the whole structure is based on a lack of technical knowledge and not enough true facts and a grievous miscalculation about the market. If ever there was a situation illustrating the importance of CEOs and financial analysts comprehending tech, this story is it. Money got invested in a dream that isn't coming true.

Let me let you read it for yourselves, because it's beyond my descriptive abilities to capture all the repulsive nuances, not that this is a subtle document. They begin by describing the conference call and then explain the math potential as they see it:

"We believe management's forecasted $10 million of SCOsource revenue in 2Q represents near-term settlement of possible license violations in arrears (related to heretofore unlicensed use of the SCOsource shared libraries) from one or more large vendors of Linux solutions, but we are unable to glean more specifics at this time. . . . SCO management also stated . . . that the vast majority of interactions with customers and other software vendors with respect to the SCOsource initiative were positive. Our view is that lumpy, and possibly large, bookings of SCOsource license fees will continue for several quarter

--
Mod me down with all of your hatred and your journey towards the dark side will be complete!

Re:Article's Text by grasshoppa · 2003-09-25 06:35 · Score: 3, Informative

Could we please, just get the article and not the commentary? The entire idea behind kharma whoring with reproducing the article is to reproduce the /.'d article, not the article mixed with your commentary. I'm trying to get what they are posting not you. Grumble, original article /.'d, grumble.

Indeed, the entire point of that post was to provide the article's text for those who didn't get to read it before it was slash dotted.

So why would I add my own commentary in there?

The article was reproduced in full, with NO additions or subtractions ( short of the lame filter requirements ) on my part.

So next time, don't assume.

--
Mod me down with all of your hatred and your journey towards the dark side will be complete!
Re:Article's Text by Anonymous Coward · 2003-09-25 06:38 · Score: 1, Informative

Umm, the commentary is very likely from greplaw...

dimwit.
Re:Article's Text by kevinank · 2003-09-25 06:48 · Score: 4, Informative

Here is the first of the two documents that Groklaw originally linked to: Handicapping the SCO vs. IBM Lawsuit

--
LibBT: BitTorrent for C - small - fast - clean (Now Versio
Re:Article's Text by kevinank · 2003-09-25 06:51 · Score: 4, Informative

Just found the second document as well: The SCO Group, Inc. Strong Buy

--
LibBT: BitTorrent for C - small - fast - clean (Now Versio

There's also Didiogate by eddy · 2003-09-25 06:11 · Score: 4, Informative

It's also been discovered that our favourite clueless "analyst", Didio, has known McBride and Stowell for some fifteen years. Yeah, not like that could affect her "analysis" or anything.

''Pass the hookah please!''

--
Belief is the currency of delusion.

Re:There's also Didiogate by McSpew · 2003-09-25 11:46 · Score: 2, Informative

Man, are you reaching.

Laura DiDio knows Sontag and McBride, not Stowell and McBride, and she's known them for 15 years since they all worked for Novell.

While her prior relationships with Sontag and McBride don't exactly encourage her to view them suspiciously, her reputation as an analyst is at stake if she doesn't hold Sontag and McBride to the same standards (higher, perhaps) as others whom she reports on and offers opinions about.

In other words, just because she knows them from having worked at Novell, doesn't mean she's in bed with them to scare the world into paying SCO huge sums of money. Far more likely is that she believed what she was told because SCO told her a compelling story. That story may only be half true (i.e., the code's the same, but SCO didn't own the code, anyway), but she has no way of knowing that.

Re:Send These bastards To Jail by Anonymous Coward · 2003-09-25 06:15 · Score: 2, Informative

there = He is over there.
their = Their days were numbered.
they're = They are a bunch of uneducated morons.

Linq. by Anonymous Coward · 2003-09-25 06:18 · Score: 4, Informative

Crap, forgot to paste in the link.

When Ren Ventures has to say... by morcheeba · 2003-09-25 06:21 · Score: 2, Informative

While Groklaw has been slashdotted...

From their "about us" page: (emphasis mine)

We believe the best investment opportunities for realizing outsized returns migrate from sector to sector over time: from buyout, to venture, to public markets, to conglomerates or pure plays within certain industry sectors, in public or private markets - in our view, in no particular order but contrary to the most recent, firmly established trend. We believe investors have a choice: either following the trend in hopes of jumping off early and profitably, or investing contrary to trend in search of outsized returns.

Renaissance subscribes to contrarian theory and believes the best opportunities now exist in microcap public companies that are orphaned from Wall Street with no institutional sponsorship. We will invest in mis-priced public securities and take an activist role in enhancing returns or sponsor management buyouts of undervalued public companies with high intrinsic value. Few investment groups are now equipped to source investment opportunities with enterprise values below $50 million, either due to their larger capital base or otherwise, which presents an opportunity for us. Aberrational pricing in the public markets often correlates with a despondent, disheartened and perhaps uninformed shareholder base, which helps reduce premiums paid while acquiring securities or entire companies.

If they were contrarian, I would think that they would be selling and go against the people who have bought the price up. But, they said they were looking for a whacked-out company, and they found one. Who knows.. they might buy out management and install some honest people.

But, they said it best.. SCO is at an aberrational price, but its abnormally high, not low. Hopefully they got in in January and aren't in it for the long term.

--
HIV Crosses Species Barrier... into Muppets

Re:Reminds me of the Cartoon... by MojoMonkey · 2003-09-25 06:23 · Score: 3, Informative

Here you go:

http://freeserve.i-resign.com/images/mhproof.gif

--

----- "Blame the guy who doesn't speak English." -- Homer J. Simpson

Complain about SCO to FTC and BBB by Slashdolt · 2003-09-25 06:26 · Score: 3, Informative

If you haven't already complained about SCO's conduct to the Federal Trade Commission and/or Better Business Bureau, you really should do so.

The BBB complaints become a permanent part of a corporation's record. Enough complaints can make a difference.

www.bbb.org
www.ftc.gov
(Simply click on "File a complaint" in both cases)

I have filed with both. I believe that SCO's conduct is essentially the same as trying to sell licenses to the Brooklyn Bridge and then threatening those that don't buy a license with lawsuits.

Make a real difference by allowing your voice to be heard. File a complaint.

--
Slash

Re:Complain about SCO to FTC and BBB by Quarters · 2003-09-25 07:13 · Score: 5, Informative

The BBB is great if you want to check out a plumber, HVAC company, or other small business. It is totally worthless for large corporations. Why? Because it is funded by corporations, therefore it is biased. Besides, the BBB has no legal ability to sanction, criminally charge, or otherwise take to task a company that receives negative comments. The best it can do is tell a requestor how many and complaints a company has received and how severe they are. That's great if you need a sound bite for the evening news, but totally useless for policing corrupt businesses.

mirrored at live journal by SLot · 2003-09-25 06:33 · Score: 4, Informative

http://www.livejournal.com/users/groklaw/40692.htm l

Re:Reminds me of the Cartoon... by anandrajan · 2003-09-25 06:37 · Score: 3, Informative

I think you mean the famous cartoon by Sidney Harris.

--
Anand Rangarajan anand@cise.ufl.edu

Care to compare to the original? by k98sven · 2003-09-25 06:43 · Score: 5, Informative

The orignal tree.

As others have noted, this tree really means nothing in terms of actual code.
For instance, Linux appears to be an offspring of Minix, which in turn is an offshoot of the original Unix.

Now, anyone who's read the preface to Andy Tanenbaum's book (where the entire Minix code is listed) knows that Minix is a clean re-implementation of unix, and contains no UNIX code whatsoever.

Linus, in turn, used some Minix code to get started with Linux, but this was quickly replaced. Linux hasn't contained any Minix code for years.

So this chart, although correct with respect to 'influence' or 'inspiration'
has nothing to do with actual code. Naturally, it doesn't provide any real support to SCO's claims.

That would be something like Digital Research suddenly claiming ownership of Windows, since it's based on DOS, which in turn was based on QDOS, which was a CP/M clone.

Re:Care to compare to the original? by nathanh · 2003-09-25 11:13 · Score: 4, Informative

Linus, in turn, used some Minix code to get started with Linux, but this was quickly replaced. Linux hasn't contained any Minix code for years.

Linus used Minix as a development platform but Linux has never contained any Minix code, ever. Minix code was encumbered by a "look but don't touch" license. Well, sort of. You could touch but you couldn't redistribute the modified version. This draconian license was the reason for the Minix/386 patchset that was very popular before Linux took over. Andy refused to integrate the 386 patches into Minix because it would ruin Minix as a teaching aide, but the 386 patches fixed many of the limitations in Minix (eg, maximum 64kB executables) so nearly everybody applied them. Linux could not have used any Minix code as even the earliest version of Linux was GPLd and this was incompatible with the Minix license.
"Linux is derived from Minix" and "Linux once contained Minix code" are myths. I've seen both myths repeated fairly often but I think this is just confusion because Linus cross-compiled his kernel and gnuserspace from a Minix platform. The easiest way to disprove the myth is to ask Linus himself.
"Although linux is a complete kernel, and uses no code from minix or other sources, almost none of the support routines have yet been coded. Thus you currently need minix to bootstrap the system. It might be possible to use the free minix demo-disk to make a filesystem and run linux without having minix, but I don't know..."
Linus Torvalds - Release Notes 0.01

By "bootstrap" he means create the Minix filesystem and copy across the Linux kernel and gnuserspace. Linux used the Minix filesystem before EXTFS was written but it was a clean-room implementation. No Minix code was used in the Linux implementation of minixfs.
FYI, I've read the entire Minix source tree (I own one of the earlier editions of the book), I've been using Linux since 1992, I've read one of the earliest Linux source trees, and I've never seen any matching code.

that is the original article... by stoborrobots · 2003-09-25 06:44 · Score: 2, Informative

37 of 580 comments (clear)