Slashdot Mirror


New Survey Finds No Linux 'Chill' From SCO Suit

daddywonka writes "According to this article at internetnews.com, an upcoming survey from the Robert Frances Group shows that 'cost-savings and the General Public License, or GPL, are trumping any concerns about SCO Group's claim of copyright infringement within parts of Linux.' The survey only covers 15 companies. That doesn't seem very reassuring to me. Do any slashdotters have experience with their companies pulling the plug on Linux projects due to the SCO trial or is it business as usual?"

6 of 582 comments (clear)

  1. No worries... by danielrm26 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The reason the SCO heat is not affecting Linux deployments all that much is simple - most Linux admins are knowledgeable enough to gather that it's only a matter of time before the entire SCO thing blows over. Armed with this knowledge, they are able to make a convincing argument to management that there is nothing to worry about, and any Linux projects on the table are able to move forward as planned.

    I am sure there are exceptions, but my guess is that this is the overall trend.

    --
    dmiessler.com -- grep understanding knowledge
    1. Re:No worries... by utlemming · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Well, anyone with half of a brain cell and the logic abilities of a four year old can figure out that the SCO lawsuit is a bunch of hog-wash. Seriously, any large scale deployments of Linux will not be deterred because of the cost. Who would get the money? If SCO does win (and we all know that SCO winning is like betting that a snow ball can survive five minute in hell) then they might be forced to pay out IF SCO finds out about the deployment before there is a conversion over to one of the BSD's. Also a compitent admin can hide a Linux machine from looking like a Linux machine on the internet.

      But all this does not really matter. What matters is that the public statments SCO has made do not add to there case but take away. IBM has been smart and kept their mouth shut. If you notice, the more SCO talks, the more bad press they get. When this whole fiasco started, SCO was blabbing away, and IBM kept quiet. Then IBM counter-sued and kept moving. While SCO started to cry foul. Now even the NYTimes has picked up on the merritless nature of their case. More and more editorials are not boading well for them. So even the non-geeks are getting into it.

      But still, Darl did get a place on the top 25 CEO's. And there is still some favorable press. However, by and by, it looks like SCO shot themselves in the foot by refusing to keep their mouth shut, substaniate their claims and by alienating a lot of people.

      --
      The views expressed are mine own and do not express the views of my employer.
  2. Re:My boss doesn't really give a *&$# by goranb · · Score: 5, Insightful
    I don't even think my boss knows about the SCO lawsuit

    Which means you dont have a clue about how he feels about the whole thing.
    If he would know about the lawsuit, he might think/act differently...
  3. Re:I think thw bigger question is by Amiga+Lover · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I think all of a sudden, *BSD won't be dying :)

  4. What a load of justification crap by FreeUser · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I kind of guessed it may be something like that. Hey you're employed, you're doing better than many and I figure there are employers who've done far worse things in the world than take what look like big risks, to save the company.

    While there are companies that have hired slave labor (BWM, Bayer), and those that continue to employ near-slave labor (Nike), and even those that have killed en masse (Union Carbide, Monsanto), trying to steal the hard work of tens of thousands of people and claim it as your own, then force the creators to buy their own work back at extortionate prices (or any price, for that matter) is still pretty damn low. About as low as one can get without doing actual, direct physical harm to others.

    Frankly, anyone willingly working at SCO, recession or no, deserves the low self esteem they undoubtably enjoy and the difficult job prospects their current employment on their Resume post-law-suit will almost certainly bring. This notion that earning a living justifies doing what is unequivocably wrong is complete and utter bullshit. Evil isn't defined by the difficulty of doing good, it is defined by the harm it causes others. The fact that doing the right thing would be difficult for those foolish enough to be working at Caldera/SCO has absolutely no bearing on the fact that what they are doing all those long hours they put in each day is wrong both morally and ethically, nor does it absolve them of one iota of their part in it all.

    I'm sick to death of "my employer made me do it" or "I fear unemployment so I have no ethics" crap this formerly great nation seems to have instilled in so many of its drones. It rings a hollow as the famed defenses of the Nuremburg trials, or the death-bed repentences of dying Christians. (cue Godwin-Law pundits)

    --
    The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
    1. Re:What a load of justification crap by blaarg · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It's a shame that you need to equate SCO employees trying to feed their families to Nazis, seeing as I don't remember anyone at SCO killing 12 million people in concentration camps, or did I miss a history lesson?

      Personally I don't see anything wrong with an employee remaining loyal to a company that allows him or her to put food on the table and a roof over his or her head. Not only is that admirable, but I would rather hire that person over one who decided to jump ship when times were tough.

      Besides, since when did doing one's job, which DIDN'T include spreading any FUD at all, equate to Nazis "following orders"?

      Mod me down if you like, I don't care anymore.