SCOoby Snacks

Scooby Snacks: Think of the butter by SimianOverlord · 2004-02-12 04:33 · Score: 3, Troll

I know I'm going to get modded down for this, for going against the conventional Slashdot groupthink, but I think the SCO company have a good case. Now let me qualify that statement before you jump down my throat.

If you look at the facts of the case, sure, it looks like SCO doesn't have a leg to stand on. They continue to sell a version of an operating system they claim infringes their code. They try to extort money via lawsuits. There is some doubt whether they even own what they claim to own. But put that all from your mind for a minute, and listen to this great analogy I thought up.

You see, Linux is like a cake, with lots of ingredients contributed by different people. The SCO group claim that some of their butter was used to make the cake, perhaps to grease the baking tray the cake was baked on, perhaps it was ground into the flour mix by hand. Without the butter, the cake could not have been made. And it isn't possible to take the butter out of the cake now, the damage has been done. Q.E.D. the SCO company are perfectly justified in demanding recompense for their stolen butter.

Open your mind, and think about the butter.

--
Meine Schwester ist sehr, sehr reizvoll - Nietzsche

Re:Scooby Snacks: Think of the butter by Daemongar · 2004-02-12 04:37 · Score: 1

Talk about half-baked!
Re:Scooby Snacks: Think of the butter by Anonymous Coward · 2004-02-12 04:37 · Score: 2, Insightful

> SCO company are perfectly justified in demanding recompense for their stolen butter.

You are a moron and/or a troll since the whole point is about the fact that the butter is stolen (SCO's point of view) or not (reality)...

That is, if it was their own butter to begin with!
Re:Scooby Snacks: Think of the butter by maisenhe · 2004-02-12 04:38 · Score: 5, Insightful

Ah but the fact that they never owned the butter in the first place is the problem. It is like buying butter from the store and then claiming that all other butters sold from that store are theirs as well. Your theory and theirs does not hold water or a cake.

--
One by one, the penguins steal my sanity
Re:Scooby Snacks: Think of the butter by Anonymous Coward · 2004-02-12 04:38 · Score: 5, Insightful

If someone gave you the butter for the cake, and said "Here, use my butter" and then later, while everyone was eating the cake said "Hey, everyone likes this cake, so you owe me a $1 for my butter" wouldn't you be a bit upset? If they wanted money for the butter, they should've gotten it before the cake was baked and everyone was eating it.
Re:Scooby Snacks: Think of the butter by Ninwa · 2004-02-12 04:38 · Score: 1, Insightful

Your butter analogy is true, except the fact of the matter is SCO has not provided evidence that the butter in the cake is theirs.
Re:Scooby Snacks: Think of the butter by kfg · 2004-02-12 04:40 · Score: 4, Funny

No, SCO has abandoned all such claims and now only claims that butter IBM made themselves with milk from their own cows based on their own butter making research belongs to SCO anyway and is thus "stolen" and thus IBM owes them money for selling butter.

At least in law.

What they claim in a sales brochure bears no more weight than "Everything's better with Blue Bonnet on it."

KFG
Re:Scooby Snacks: Think of the butter by crimethinker · 2004-02-12 04:41 · Score: 2, Insightful

I know, I know, don't feed the trolls. But I think this guy isn't quite trolling; he may have drunk the kool-aid.
IANAL, the contract between Novell and SCO seems pretty iron-clad as far as allowing Novell to direct SCO to waive any rights that Novell sees fit for them to waive. So, it seems that regardless of whether or not "SCO's [man]butter" was used to "bake the cake," (per your analogy) SCO doesn't have a leg to stand on.
Argue all you want about derivative works or stolen code, it appears that SCO is little more than a middleman, and Novell holds all the power. Now we just have to pray that Novell doesn't abuse it.
-paul

--
Pistol caliber is like religion: everyone has their favourite, and theirs is the only right choice.
Re:Scooby Snacks: Think of the butter by DaSpudMan · 2004-02-12 04:41 · Score: 2, Informative

But they haven't proved it's their butter. Or even if Linux uses butter. Maybe they used margarine. Or Olestra. Or some other substitute. . . This is my sig:

--
> > >We don't need no steeekin'.....oh wait, my wife says we do.
Re:Scooby Snacks: Think of the butter by Anonymous Coward · 2004-02-12 04:41 · Score: 2, Interesting

well, no

Think of it as if you were making a cake...

and you go to the farm where the butter is produced and churn it yourself.

You've got your butter, now let's go home and make cake.

You make a cake and set it on the windowsill to cool off (you want to eat said cake)

then SCO comes along and claims your cake has their butter in it. you then say "what are you talking about, I churned that butter myself"

they slap you with a subpoena and you are left with the delicious cake and assholes trying to charge you for it.

now just think of the butter.

(P.S. OMG! slashbots, letz mod teh n00b down!!!! we will pwn joo?)
Re:Scooby Snacks: Think of the butter by jgabby · 2004-02-12 04:43 · Score: 3, Insightful

Assuming they did provide the butter (a huge assumption)...

If you steal butter from the grocery store to bake your cake, is the grocery store entitled to be compensated for the value of the entire cake? There are a lot of other ingredients (cake mix, eggs, chocolate, milk...) properly paid for or made from scratch in that cake.

And you can always bake that same cake using margarine or crisco to grease the pan.
Re:Scooby Snacks: Think of the butter by mcpkaaos · 2004-02-12 04:43 · Score: 1

It's a stupid chef who thinks to make money by baking a free cake.

--
It goes from God, to Jerry, to me.
Re:Scooby Snacks: Think of the butter by pesc · 2004-02-12 04:44 · Score: 5, Funny

You see, Linux is like a cake, with lots of ingredients contributed by different people. The SCO group claim that some of their butter was used to make the cake, perhaps to grease the baking tray the cake was baked on, perhaps it was ground into the flour mix by hand. Without the butter, the cake could not have been made. And it isn't possible to take the butter out of the cake now, the damage has been done. Q.E.D. the SCO company are perfectly justified in demanding recompense for their stolen butter.

But when IBM asks SCO exactly where in SySV this butter comes from, SCO answers that it it stupid to ask this question. And they can't tell exactly where the butter is from unless they get full access to all the fridges IBM have.

Their current theory seems to be that OK, there is no butter in SySV, but flour. IBM took flour from SySV, added its own special butter to bake an AIX cake. And IBM can't give the AIX cake to Linux because of the SCO flour. So it follows (they believe) that they can't use butter that have been used together with SCO flour in a Linux cake.

Sorry, but I think that SCO are nutcakes.

--

)9TSS
Re:Scooby Snacks: Think of the butter by snoopsk · 2004-02-12 04:44 · Score: 3, Insightful

It's more like SCO gave away the butter (SCO distributed Linux) and then wants to claim ownership of the whole cake.

They also want ownership of all future cakes and refuse to identify the butter so that it can be replaced with margarine.
Re:Scooby Snacks: Think of the butter by Anonymous Coward · 2004-02-12 04:45 · Score: 1, Insightful

The problem with that is the company has not shown any evidence that they have anything even close to resembling butter. Everything that they have shown has been in the interfaces which are well known standards or drivers such as in the case of JFS. All of their claims execpt for RCU have been outside of the kernel proper. Not even remotely close to being essential.

SCO is merely complaining about what technologies IBM has developed itself (RCU through Sequent), added to AIX, and then later added the same technologies to the Linux kernel.

This is merely a contract dispute between IBM and SCO. Everything else that has spouted out of their CEO's mouth is just FUD. Don't listen to him. Read what claims they have actually made in the case.
Re:Scooby Snacks: Think of the butter by hcg50a · 2004-02-12 04:45 · Score: 5, Interesting

First, butter is probably a bad analogy, because it loses its independent identity when it is mixed into the cake and cooked.

Contributions to Linux are discreet and each component can be uniquely identified and its heritage proved.

Second, stipulating that SCO did indeed own certain discreet elements which have gotten incorporated into Linux, then I agree.

Components that are provably owned by SCO can be removed.

The actual argument in court is about whether SCO did, in fact, own these things that got incorporated into Linux. SCO claims they do, IBM claims they don't.

Currently, IBM and the court are waiting for SCO to show what they owned, so that the ownership claim can be evaluated properly.

SCO hasn't shown it yet, and the little they have shown outside court has been proved not to be owned by them. But since that occurred outside court, it doesn't matter to the case.

I think SCO's basic problem is that they are pursuing this case under some presuppositions that are clearly false, and will be proved to be false in court. But that day is still a long way off, since the case is still in the discovery phase.

--
HCG 50a = 2MASX J11170638+5455016 11h17m06.4s +54d55m02s
Re:Scooby Snacks: Think of the butter by Firehawke · 2004-02-12 04:46 · Score: 2, Interesting

Novell can't. A comment was made over at Groklaw that based on the way they're filing the paperwork, they're setting it up so that even THEY can't poison the well if they get their way in this. It's a truly grand gesture from Novell and worthy of real respect.
Re:Scooby Snacks: Think of the butter by chiark · 2004-02-12 04:46 · Score: 5, Insightful

Small but important point - SCO doesn't appear able to prove with specifity what has been misappropriated into Linux.

From the "millions of lines of code" that are apparently SCO's IPR that are in Linux, they're now down to disputing the contents of 17 files in AIX.

To continue your analogy, SCO are claiming that they provided the butter used. They originally tried to claim that the majority of the cake was theirs.

However, they do not own the rights to all butter and butter making mechanisms. They may not even own any - ask Novell.

It is also conceivable that another hard working independent dairy churned its own butter. Let's call the maid at that dairy "Linus" shall we? :-) . Some of the churning wasn't great, and has his own unique idioms in it showing its true origin...

SCO in my opinion do not have any basis to their legal claim, and will probably disappear up their own behind, perhaps with some players facing criminal charges. They no longer appear to have any product but are a litigation factory. They're making a grab for cash which may turn out to be illegal...

You are a troll, and I claim my $5.

Cheers,
Nick.
Re:Scooby Snacks: Think of the butter by Anonymous Coward · 2004-02-12 04:52 · Score: 0

Ah, but they have proven that Linux is a bicycle, and Richard Stallman wants to be your bicycle seat. And we all know how much Unix users love real butter.
Re:Scooby Snacks: Think of the butter by Pontiac · 2004-02-12 04:52 · Score: 4, Insightful

Funny, Redhat, IBM and others make lots of money making free cake.

The money comes from adding icing, decorations, delivery, setup and serving up that free cake..

--
If you think it's expensive to hire a professional to do the job, wait until you hire an amateur. --Red Adair
Re:Scooby Snacks: Think of the butter by Anonymous Coward · 2004-02-12 04:59 · Score: 0

This is my sig:

...and then nothing. That kind of thing doesn't work here, mister, half the readers have sigs turned off. Am I missing anything?
Re:Scooby Snacks: Think of the butter by Anonymous Coward · 2004-02-12 05:06 · Score: 0

Actually, Linux uses MNB (Margarine Not Butter), so the correct name of the bakery is MNB/Cake
Re:Scooby Snacks: Think of the butter by starling · 2004-02-12 05:07 · Score: 1

So SCO add the ingredient that makes the cake bad for you. Sounds about right.
Re:Scooby Snacks: Think of the butter by Anonymous Coward · 2004-02-12 05:08 · Score: 1, Insightful

Especially when the guy next to him then says "Hey, wait, did you just give them my butter?"...
Re:Scooby Snacks: Think of the butter by Anonymous Coward · 2004-02-12 05:13 · Score: 1, Insightful

And since nobody actually wants the pile of bland, raw cake batter that you actually get for free, but instead the results after baking, icing, decorations, delivery, setup, and serving, the whole notion of calling it "free cake" is just a cheesy marketing scam to get your attention. In reality, it's pretty expensive cake if you actually buy and eat one. Claiming that it's "free" is like the bait-n-switch car dealers use in their newspaper ads with low, low, low prices.
Re:Scooby Snacks: Think of the butter by mustangsal66 · 2004-02-12 05:30 · Score: 1

DAMN! This is making me hungry...

--
Why worry? Each of us is wearing an unlicensed "nucular" accelerator on his back.
Sig changed for readability by G.W.
Re:Scooby Snacks: Think of the butter by Shados · 2004-02-12 05:30 · Score: 1

Maybe its just because Im badly sick right now, and my brain isn't working right...but... "And you can always bake that same cake using margarine or crisco to grease the pan." You're nuts? its not called cri-SCO for nothing!!!
Re:Scooby Snacks: Think of the butter by penultimatepost · 2004-02-12 05:33 · Score: 1

First, butter is probably a bad analogy, because it loses its independent identity when it is mixed into the cake and cooked.
I agree with your assesment and would add, that the use of this analogy is not coincidental. Everyone knows that butter cannot be extracted from the resulting mix. Thus once read and accepted as true, the analogy leads the reader to conclude that ALL of the code in linux has been tainted with SCO butter.
Re:Scooby Snacks: Think of the butter by scambaiter · 2004-02-12 05:48 · Score: 3, Insightful

mod my posting offtopic....
but i really got a problem here with moderation. I really had a hard time deciding if i just use my mod points here or better go for a posting myself. The parent has some controversial (or in some eyes misled, excentric, you-name-the-crime) view on the sco issue. He expresses this view in a more or less sensible fashion and really, really did not deserve getting moderated as troll. Modding someone down as troll simply because you dislike his views isnt good, mkay?

--
sick of sigs... *sigh*
Re:Scooby Snacks: Think of the butter by Epsillon · 2004-02-12 05:57 · Score: 1

What's worse is these jokers have eaten half the bloody cake themselves, yet don't want to compliment the chef.

--
Resistance is futile. Reactance buggers it up.
Re:Scooby Snacks: Think of the butter by Penguinshit · 2004-02-12 06:16 · Score: 1

Damn dude.. you're seriously dating yourself with that recollection of a 30-year-old marketing campaign...

--
I have something in common with Stephen Hawking...
Re:Scooby Snacks: Think of the butter by ben_white · 2004-02-12 06:25 · Score: 2, Funny

I think a better analogy is that IBM bought the butter and flour from SCO (actually their predecessor) and baked a cake with it. Then they designed icing for the cake without any of the butter or flour from SCO (of course who would put flour in icing). Now IBM has given the icing to put on the Linix cake. SCO says that since the icing was designed for the cake with SCO butter and flour, that it can't be used on any other cake. Or.... "all your icing are belong to us."

ben

--
cheers, ben

Never miss a good chance to shut up -- Will Rogers
Re:Scooby Snacks: Think of the butter by Anonymous Coward · 2004-02-12 06:29 · Score: 0

Isn't more like giving away some butter, then coming back later and saying they didn't realize they were giving away the butter, then finally claiming they own all the baked goods that were made with the butter and the recipes that were used to create them?
Re:Scooby Snacks: Think of the butter by kfg · 2004-02-12 06:39 · Score: 2, Funny

I thought I rather let that cat out of the bag when I admited I'd never played with Lego bricks as a kid because there weren't any.

It's a bit late to try to tuck my greying ponytail under my hat now.

KFG
Re:Scooby Snacks: Think of the butter by dipipanone · 2004-02-12 06:44 · Score: 3, Funny

Oh, come on. I Can't Believe It's Not Butter.
Re:Scooby Snacks: Think of the butter by Anonymous Coward · 2004-02-12 07:11 · Score: 0

It might be an expensive cake, once everything is on it. But it's a very customizable cake. You can chose with what ingrediendts it's made, how to decorate it, what greeting you want on the top, etc.

Whereas the competition sells only one cake. That cake has tons of fat (the icing is made of lard), and you can't be sure that there's cake throughout the inside. Thusly, the cake is prone to imploding. Likewise, the cake is very easy to get at from the side, so you can sneak a piece without your mother noticing (and then yelling at you.)
Re:Scooby Snacks: Think of the butter by Anonymous Coward · 2004-02-12 07:15 · Score: 0

It dont mean a thing if you aint got that *BLING**BLING*.

The thing is the cake is still free, and if you dont like RedHat's frosting, you could use Suse's. Or you could even make your own! What a novel idea.

'Linux' is free. You can spend as much as you want on the jewelry.
Re:Scooby Snacks: Think of the butter by thelasttemptation · 2004-02-12 07:16 · Score: 1

So, it seems that regardless of whether or not "SCO's [man]butter" was used to "bake the cake," (per your analogy)

I was fine with this up until I saw manbutter...

Christ! That's awful, and I'm not going to eat *ANY* of that cake!
Re:Scooby Snacks: Think of the butter by Anonymous Coward · 2004-02-12 07:23 · Score: 0

don't want to compliment the chef.

More like insult the chef.
Re:Scooby Snacks: Think of the butter by Anonymous Coward · 2004-02-12 07:24 · Score: 1, Funny

Heck, the only way some of these /. 'rs can get a date is if they date themselves.
Re:Scooby Snacks: Think of the butter by Anonymous Coward · 2004-02-12 07:28 · Score: 0

Unfortunately, that's not how law works in the US. We have a "Legal" system, based on laws, which is quite different from a system committed to justice, and the law allows for such things as "submarine" patents. The system is more about order and procedure than fairness.
Re:Scooby Snacks: Think of the butter by R2.0 · 2004-02-12 07:34 · Score: 2, Insightful

"so you owe me a $1 for my butter"

Not quite - they are saying, in effect, "you all owe me the $6.99 retail value for the whole cake, even though there is only $.05 of butter in it."

--
"As God is my witness, I thought turkeys could fly." A. Carlson
Re:Scooby Snacks: Think of the butter by RedK · 2004-02-12 07:57 · Score: 2, Insightful

Actually, this is much too simplistic. It's more like this :
SCO says, "Here, we have a cake recipe, this is our cake, we'll have it and eat it too". They then licensed this recipe to IBM. IBM then used this recipe to make another cake, changing out bits and parts that they took from other recipes. Like for instance the butter. IBM used a different butter than they used in a pie crust recipe before. Now their cake is SCO's recipe + their special pie crust butter.
Comes along Linux's cake recipe. IBM thinks it's a good recipe, but says "Hey Linux, try your cake recipe with our special pie crust butter that we use in our cake". But now SCO is mad. They say "Since you used your pie crust butter in our cake recipe to make your cake, it is now our pie crust butter, and you can't give it out to anyone, like the license for the cake recipe we gave you says, but the Linux folks cake recipe is now our cake recipe too since it uses your pie crust butter that's now an integral part of our cake recipe. And it costs 699$ to have the right to use the Linux cake recipe".

--
"Not to mention all the idiots who use words like boxen."
Anonymous Coward on Monday August 04, @06:49PM
Re:Scooby Snacks: Think of the butter by Anonymous Coward · 2004-02-12 08:02 · Score: 0

I've never really liked analogies and trolls with analogies really bakes the cake. As a message board poster once said:
That's the trouble with analogies ..., they are by design flawed representations of other facts. If they were perfect descriptions, they wouldn't be analogies.
This is a complex legal issue with a lot of different angles, but it is clear to most logical and intelligent people closely following the case that SCO has lied multiple times, and has not provided any evidence to justify their claims.
Re:Scooby Snacks: Think of the butter by Jeremy+Erwin · 2004-02-12 08:10 · Score: 1

As cake recipes go, it's almost as confusing as this paper, described by one observer asentirely equations and symbols, with the word "clearly" here and there
Re:Scooby Snacks: Think of the butter by Anonymous Coward · 2004-02-12 08:38 · Score: 0

Yes, but we made this cake with margarine, and greased the baking tray with cooking spray, because it makes a better cake than the rancid crap that SCO is selling. SCO has a license to sell a particular kind of butter, but thinks that this somehow entitles them to claim ownership of everything that even remotely resembles butter. And... IBM... um... brought... the flour... or something...
And in conclusion the cake baking analogy sucks. Q.E.D.
Re:Scooby Snacks: Think of the butter by Anonymous Coward · 2004-02-12 08:40 · Score: 0

To 'troll' is to make a provocative posting to a forum intended to produce a large volume of frivolous responses.
The next time you look up 'troll' in an internet dictionary it will point to this thread as the example.
Re:Scooby Snacks: Think of the butter by Pep · 2004-02-12 08:49 · Score: 1

It sounds like SCO has been using Pot Butter to me!
Re:Scooby Snacks: Think of the butter by molnarcs · 2004-02-12 09:10 · Score: 2, Insightful

What if he was joking? This made me lol:
"Open your mind.

Think about the butter."

mod him funny :)
Re:Scooby Snacks: Think of the butter by Anonymous Coward · 2004-02-12 09:14 · Score: 0

Their OS may be secure, but their business doesn't appear to be, if (in actual fact) their intellectual property just happened to appear in a free OS???

Or are they just being indiangivers after a momentary lapse of good will?

Their Ceo is a nutbar anyways.... a butterfinger perhaps?
Re:Scooby Snacks: Think of the butter by Tony+Hoyle · 2004-02-12 09:18 · Score: 1

Think of the butter!!! Won't somebody think of the butter!!!
Re:Scooby Snacks: Think of the butter by great_flaming_foo · 2004-02-12 10:21 · Score: 2, Funny

Think of the butter!!! Won't somebody think of the butter!!!
Some of us really dont want to think of the butter<shudder>
Re:Scooby Snacks: Think of the butter by Gleenie · 2004-02-12 11:06 · Score: 1

Actually, I think this is a better way to look at it:

Suppose you write an essay about the history of bicycles. I publish an encyclopaedia, and ask for permission to publish your article in it, which you give me. This is added alongside my encyclopaedic article on bicycles.

Later, I write a book about bicycles, and include my article in it.

You claim, that since my article about bicycles was published with your essay about bicycles, that you own the encyclopaedia. Since you own the encyclopaedia, you also own my article. Since you own my article, you own my book.

Now you demand that I pay you for my book.

This is SCO's complaint against IBM in a nutshell.

--
-- Your mother uses Emacs.
Re:Scooby Snacks: Think of the butter by winse · 2004-02-12 11:25 · Score: 2, Interesting

ask novell

well you know Novell and SCO do share a lot of stuff. For example look at the five reasons link on thescogroup.com and then look at
this

shared corporate clip art it would seem.

--
this sig is deprecated
Re:Scooby Snacks: Think of the butter by Anonymous Coward · 2004-02-12 11:26 · Score: 0

More like SCO is trying to claim that they own the recipe. When's the last time you had to fork out $699 for a recipe?
Re:Scooby Snacks: Think of the butter by Anonymous Coward · 2004-02-12 12:30 · Score: 0

I think you mean SCO are a bunch of nutsacks not nutcakes
Re:Scooby Snacks: Think of the butter by kjd · 2004-02-12 13:11 · Score: 1

Seems like it would be easier to just say what happened instead of recursively complicating the analogy.
Re:Scooby Snacks: Think of the butter by pseboproxy · 2004-02-12 14:00 · Score: 1

Q.E.D. the SCO company are perfectly justified in demanding recompense for their stolen butter.
I read your post and I appreciate your point of view, but what does Quantum Electrodynamics have to do with making a cake?
.psbprx(y)
Re:Scooby Snacks: Think of the butter by Bush+Pig · 2004-02-12 14:00 · Score: 1

At least you _have_ a ponytail. All my hair fell out about 20 years ago, while I was in the Army.

--
What a long, strange trip it's been.

A day with SCO is like a day without sunshine by Anonymous Coward · 2004-02-12 04:34 · Score: 5, Funny

To quote Garbage, I'm only happy when it rains.

Re:A day with SCO is like a day without sunshine by grasshoppa · 2004-02-12 04:40 · Score: 1

I only smile when it's complicated

--
Mod me down with all of your hatred and your journey towards the dark side will be complete!
Re:A day with SCO is like a day without sunshine by Anonymous Coward · 2004-02-12 04:42 · Score: 0

And though I know you can't appreciate it
Re:A day with SCO is like a day without sunshine by AndroidCat · 2004-02-12 04:44 · Score: 5, Funny

From the looks of the weather, it will be a day without sunshine. I think I'll go back to bed and tell them that I've got SCO.

--
One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
Re:A day with SCO is like a day without sunshine by Tackhead · 2004-02-12 05:39 · Score: 4, Funny

> To quote Garbage, I'm only happy when it rains.
Long as we're on the subject of "A Day Without SCO..."
A day without SCO is like a day without mistaking the colostomy bag with the an enema bag.
Re:A day with SCO is like a day without sunshine by Anonymous Coward · 2004-02-12 05:59 · Score: 0

It's Travis, not Garbage
Re:A day with SCO is like a day without sunshine by Anonymous Coward · 2004-02-12 06:05 · Score: 2, Funny

Reason 6.) We are fucktards.
Re:A day with SCO is like a day without sunshine by Anonymous Coward · 2004-02-12 06:07 · Score: 0

that's "I'm only happy when it's complicated"

it's also "I only smile in the dark"

Mmmmmm, Shirley Manson.
Re:A day with SCO is like a day without sunshine by cosmo7 · 2004-02-12 06:12 · Score: 1, Troll

Dude, there's this new website called Google which you can use to look stuff up so you don't look like an idiot when you post something wrong.
Re:A day with SCO is like a day without sunshine by Anonymous Coward · 2004-02-12 06:12 · Score: 1, Interesting

Did anybody else notice that the picture on the SCO page at www.thescogroup.com/5reasons is the same as the one at Novell's support.novell.com? Did they just steal this from Novell or did somebody give it too them? There's probably alot more stolen code where that picture came from...
Re:A day with SCO is like a day without sunshine by SiaFhir · 2004-02-12 06:14 · Score: 3, Funny

I think the old adage "like squeezing water out of a stone" (or whatever it is) should be updated to "like squeezing evidence out of SCO".
Re:A day with SCO is like a day without sunshine by Anonymous Coward · 2004-02-12 06:21 · Score: 0

yeah, i'd stick sco unix where the sun don't shine.
Re:A day with SCO is like a day without sunshine by grasshoppa · 2004-02-12 06:24 · Score: 1

Damn it, I was close. :)

I haven't heard that song in sooo long.

--
Mod me down with all of your hatred and your journey towards the dark side will be complete!
Re:A day with SCO is like a day without sunshine by gmuslera · 2004-02-12 06:43 · Score: 1

It should sound more like "Linux needs SCO like a fish needs a bicycle"
Re:A day with SCO is like a day without sunshine by FroMan · 2004-02-12 07:48 · Score: 1

And here I was thinking that you were going to mention that Darl has his head where the sun doesn't shine.

--
Norris/Palin 2012
Fact: We deserve leaders who can kick your ass and field dress your carcass.
Re:A day with SCO is like a day without sunshine by Felix+The+Cat · 2004-02-12 08:15 · Score: 1

I'm just a little black rain cloud...

Why, yes, I do have children. What makes you think that?

--
Windows is the Acme of computing -- in the Wile E. Coyote sense.
Re:A day with SCO is like a day without sunshine by Anonymous Coward · 2004-02-12 08:39 · Score: 0

They've got some cool videos on their website and Shirley blogs! Warning extreme Flash content.

http://www.garbage.com/
Re:A day with SCO is like a day without sunshine by puddpunk · 2004-02-12 09:53 · Score: 1

Ah, but your wrong! He thinks the sun shines out of his ass :)
Re:A day with SCO is like a day without sunshine by Lord_Dweomer · 2004-02-12 10:43 · Score: 1

Anybody else kind of offended by the subject of scooby snacks? Gee....thanks for throwing us a bone Michael....such journalistic integrity.

--
Buy Steampunk Clothing Online!
Re:A day with SCO is like a day without sunshine by LousyPhreak · 2004-02-12 10:44 · Score: 1

xcept for the fact that you can squeeze water from a stone much easier than evidence from sco ;)

--
-- Karma: beyond good and evil - mostly affected by posting political
Re:A day with SCO is like a day without sunshine by Anonymous Coward · 2004-02-12 12:01 · Score: 0

I heard from an IBM engineer that someone high-up inside said "we'll make the utah sky black with lawyers" not too long ago.

it's funny, cause it's true

Actually... by Noryungi · 2004-02-12 04:34 · Score: 4, Funny

A day with SCO is like a day without sunshine, I know that's what you're thinking.

Personally, a day with SCO is like a day spent having a hole slowly drilled in my head. Without pain killers.

But, hey, that's just me.

--
The right to offend is far more important than the right not to be offended. (Rowan Atkinson)

Re:Actually... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-02-12 04:39 · Score: 1, Funny

i see someone recently made a visit to the dentist
Re:Actually... by damien_kane · 2004-02-12 05:18 · Score: 1

having a hole slowly drilled in my head. Without pain killers.

So, you've been seeing a particular 218-digit number a lot recently too, have you?
Re:Actually... by MrLint · 2004-02-12 05:39 · Score: 1

begone foul open source demons begone!
Re:Actually... by GnomeAttic · 2004-02-12 06:01 · Score: 0, Troll

fsdagfds
Re:Actually... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-02-12 06:12 · Score: 0

I believe the phrase you are looking for is "fhqwhgads" (pronounced fuh-hubba-gods).

what? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-02-12 04:35 · Score: 0

i thought the virus was slashdotting sco?

Re:what? by AndroidCat · 2004-02-12 04:41 · Score: 1

It's supposed to stop that today. (Except for people with the clock set wrong.) Some stories are calling it the "end of the epidemic". Bah! The first wave is dug in, holding position, while the next waves advance. It won't be the end until the last copy is rooted out -- And I doubt that's happened to Code Red yet.

--
One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
Re:what? by SparafucileMan · 2004-02-12 04:41 · Score: 1, Funny

That was MyDoom.A. The new MyDoom.C is out and it has been programmed to overwhelm /. with inane, worthless stories, and subsequently TROLL the hell out of them.
Re:what? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-02-12 04:55 · Score: 0

Somewhere, it could be Korea, it could be Russia, it could be Hong Kong, there's a system collecting every virus known to mankind. Someday 500 clones of it will be put online at the same time. You first worlders are so screwed.
Re:what? by squiggleslash · 2004-02-12 05:20 · Score: 5, Funny

The virus is aimed at www.sco.com. SCO have removed that from their DNS tables and created the www.thescogroup.com domain instead. This is a pretty effective way of neutralising the DDoS attack.
That was until someone then announced that you can download the Unreal Tournament 2004 beta from www.thescogroup.com and now it's down again.

--
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
Re:what? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-02-12 05:48 · Score: 0

Code Red is still around and filling my Apache logs with crap every few hours, so MyDoom will probably be around for much longer. I don't think we'll ever be rid of all the Microsoft worms.

adsl-68-124-223-233.dsl.sndg02.pacbell.net - - [10/Feb/2004:23:33:55 -0800] "GET /scripts/..%c1%1c../winnt/system32/cmd.exe?/c+dir HTTP/1.0" 404 363 "-" "-"
adsl-68-124-223-233.dsl.sndg02.pacbell.net - - [10/Feb/2004:23:33:57 -0800] "GET /scripts/..%c0%2f../winnt/system32/cmd.exe?/c+dir HTTP/1.0" 404 363 "-" "-"
adsl-68-124-223-233.dsl.sndg02.pacbell.net - - [10/Feb/2004:23:33:59 -0800] "GET /scripts/..%c0%af../winnt/system32/cmd.exe?/c+dir HTTP/1.0" 404 363 "-" "-"
adsl-68-124-223-233.dsl.sndg02.pacbell.net - - [10/Feb/2004:23:34:03 -0800] "GET /scripts/..%c1%9c../winnt/system32/cmd.exe?/c+dir HTTP/1.0" 404 363 "-" "-"
adsl-68-124-223-233.dsl.sndg02.pacbell.net - - [10/Feb/2004:23:34:05 -0800] "GET /scripts/..%%35%63../winnt/system32/cmd.exe?/c+dir HTTP/1.0" 400 354 "-" "-"
adsl-68-124-223-233.dsl.sndg02.pacbell.net - - [10/Feb/2004:23:34:07 -0800] "GET /scripts/..%%35c../winnt/system32/cmd.exe?/c+dir HTTP/1.0" 400 354 "-" "-"
adsl-68-124-223-233.dsl.sndg02.pacbell.net - - [10/Feb/2004:23:34:09 -0800] "GET /scripts/..%25%35%63../winnt/system32/cmd.exe?/c+d ir HTTP/1.0" 404 364 "-" "-"
adsl-68-124-223-233.dsl.sndg02.pacbell.net - - [10/Feb/2004:23:34:11 -0800] "GET /scripts/..%252f../winnt/system32/cmd.exe?/c+dir HTTP/1.0" 404 364 "-" "-"
Re:what? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-02-12 07:48 · Score: 0

When will MyDoom.C be out that will target thescogroup.com?

*5* Reasons? by yttrbium · 2004-02-12 04:35 · Score: 5, Interesting

I like how of the five reasons, only one of them even mentions Linux, and that's a questionable claim at best!

Re:*5* Reasons? by Tenebrious1 · 2004-02-12 05:08 · Score: 4, Insightful

And #5... wasn't Linux legally unencumbered until SCO filed the lawsuits?

--
-- If god wanted me to have a sig, he'd have given me a sense of humor.
Re:*5* Reasons? by thinkliberty · 2004-02-12 05:11 · Score: 5, Insightful

I like this one. SCO UNIX(R) is backed by a single, experienced vendor. They were a Linux vendor, how well are they "backing" what they have sold in the past?
Re:*5* Reasons? by TheZax · 2004-02-12 05:19 · Score: 4, Funny

In a year from now, after no new sales and legal fees, I think SCO will be financially unencumbered.
And hopefully Darl will be employment unencumbered too

--

JWall: GUI client for IPTables
Re:*5* Reasons? by Short+Circuit · 2004-02-12 05:35 · Score: 1

Is there any sort of legal repercussion (aside from getting a smack-down from IBM) for advertising based on a flaw you caused, esp. through the court system?

It sounds like abuse, to me.

--
tasks(723) drafts(105) languages(484) examples(29106)
Re:*5* Reasons? by somethinghollow · 2004-02-12 05:42 · Score: 1

Apparently there are about 15 links in their menu to Linux before the article even starts. Then, as was said, the article doesn't mention Linux until the end. They should have called it 5 reasons to go with SCO, and just left Linux out of it (as far as the title is concerned). At least then they wouldn't have us laughing at them.

Now, as far as the text of the article, that is another story.
Re:*5* Reasons? by steve_l · 2004-02-12 05:43 · Score: 3, Insightful

I like how they say 'one single vendor' just above where the feature set of the next edition is openLDAP, tomcat, PHP and Mozilla. I guess that makes them the single vendor of all these products :)

I guess in the way they'd have to be: who is going to field a support call related to SCO problems? The first response would be 'have you tried a nightly build of the app and debian unstable yet'
Re:*5* Reasons? by MrLint · 2004-02-12 05:44 · Score: 2, Insightful

Ya know that one really bothers me. It feels like it almost borders on fraud. I mean since SCO is the one who caused this problem saying that their product is better because SCO isnt suing themselves feels like fraud.

Its kinda like they poisoning the well and then pulling into town with your cart and mule selling 'brother Darl's olde tyme health tonic'
Re:*5* Reasons? by dan_bethe · 2004-02-12 05:51 · Score: 1

And another of the five mentions how dependant Unixware is at catching up to free software licensed under the GPL, for which Linux and BSD are the development reference platforms.
"The 'Legend' edition of SCO UNIX(R), which is targeted at SMB customers, will be refitted with SCOx Web services support, an XML parser and SOAP toolkit, an OpenLDAP directory, better multithreading, open-source tools Tomcat, PHP and Mozilla, enhanced J2EE support and enhanced security with support for IPsec, VPN and PAN capabilities."

If SCO is gonna sue us and attack the moral and legal fiber of the GPL, I'd like to see them voluntarily remove all related code from their products and see whether the thing is even in saleable condition afterward. I'm not calling for retaliation by the community because some honest people may have inherited SCO systems to maintain, but I have no problem with those who choose to no longer actively maintain the many Unixware compatibility patches that exist in most core free software to work around their horribly buggy OS.
Re:*5* Reasons? by KilobyteKnight · 2004-02-12 05:53 · Score: 5, Insightful

And #5... wasn't Linux legally unencumbered until SCO filed the lawsuits?

I scanned through the messages to see if anyone else was focusing on #5.

SCO is very legally encumbered.

Novell has legal control over IP shared between Novell and SCO, which Novell is now taking action aginst SCO over.

IBM has already in forced SCO to drop their claims of owernship over some of what just a month ago SCO was threatening to sue every Linux user over.

And finally, SCO claims the GPL is invalid yet has distributed GPLed code. So either they are claiming that they have distributed code illegally (since they claim to have no valid license to do so), or the distribution was legal (because they accepted the GPL as valid) and are now attempting to illegally extort money.

It's hard to get more legally encumbered than SCO. Though Darl might find a way.

--
When will Windows be ready for the desktop?
Re:*5* Reasons? by pegr · 2004-02-12 05:53 · Score: 1

Oh, somebody get a copy of that page while you can... It's going to be freakin' hillarious in about six months!

It's hard to be unencumbered... when you're dead!*

(*Refering to your company, Darl, not you personally. But if you feel the need to cross the street without looking both ways, I'm not going to argue with you.)
Re:*5* Reasons? by sg_oneill · 2004-02-12 06:10 · Score: 1

Yes they where a linux vendor.. and if you read the article THEY WHERE A DOING IT 20 YEARS AGO (add the dots... they started with linux and claim to of started 20 years ago)

So its 20 years linux experience!!!!!
.
.
.
um?!

--
Excuse the Unicode crap in my posts. That's an apostrophe, and slashdot is busted.
Re:*5* Reasons? by Compuser · 2004-02-12 06:16 · Score: 1

Well, SCO is encumbered but is OpenServer and such?
Unfortunately for SCO it is (AFAIK), namely by
IBM's countersuit where they seek to bar SCO from
selling more or less anything because of patent
violations.
Re:*5* Reasons? by mjallison · 2004-02-12 06:17 · Score: 1

This is just a text book case of how technology is not the same as marketing collateral.

... of course if someone has reasonably deep pockets they could encumber SCO linux pretty quickly. I doubt that would make them take #5 down from their site, but it would be one more lie.
Re:*5* Reasons? by AssClown2520 · 2004-02-12 06:19 · Score: 1

That is exactly what I was thinking. No where did they quote an organization that said that they switched from linux to SCO unix because it is better.
Like you said the only mention of linux was #5 and then they quote the CEO of the company!? Good stuff...
Re:*5* Reasons? by Maserati · 2004-02-12 06:33 · Score: 1

Number five might just be false advertising. IBM has patent claims against them, and patents are the only sort of IP liability that can be passed along to the end user. So SCO Unix is MORE encumbered than Linux is.

--
Veteran, Bermuda Triangle Expeditionary Force, 1992-1951
Re:*5* Reasons? by Trigun · 2004-02-12 06:40 · Score: 1

And Ass-virginity unencumbered when they make him freedom-unencumbered.
Re:*5* Reasons? by StormReaver · 2004-02-12 06:46 · Score: 1

"They were a Linux vendor, how well are they 'backing' what they have sold in the past?"

But they only sell Unix; Linux Is Not UniX, so they think they have an excuse. Oops, they're claiming that Linux -is- Unix. So much for that excuse.
Re:*5* Reasons? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-02-12 07:30 · Score: 0

And #5... wasn't Linux legally unencumbered until SCO filed the lawsuits?

Still is.
Re:*5* Reasons? by jdhutchins · 2004-02-12 09:06 · Score: 1

Voluntarily? If they redistribute GPL'ed code, they have to follow the GPL. Looks like they better pull that product before they shoot their "GPL is invalid" case in the foot (or the head, for that matter).
Re:*5* Reasons? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-02-12 09:26 · Score: 0

And notice that the last reason (which contains the only Linux reference), doesn't even apply to SCO. I do recall that Novell filed suit against their claim to ownership...

How do they come up with this crap?
Re:*5* Reasons? by Catharz · 2004-02-12 14:44 · Score: 1

Well at least it's nice of them to show all of their customers faces on the pic. Guess they had to keep them somehow.

--
To know that you know what you know, and that you do not know what you do not know, that is true wisdom. --Scooby Doo
Re:*5* Reasons? by myklgrant · 2004-02-12 16:03 · Score: 1

Reason 5: We'll sue you if you buy linux. Good sales pitch.

I really tried... by stoolpigeon · 2004-02-12 04:35 · Score: 2, Funny

to think of the butter, but I can't get past the icing. Mmmmmmmmm icing.

--
It's hard to believe that's how Micronians are made. Why don't we see it right now by having you both kiss one another?

yeah right by Dreadlord · 2004-02-12 04:36 · Score: 5, Interesting

And finally, reader loonix_gangsta wrote in and pointed to SCO's humorous 5 reasons to choose UNIX over Linux webpage.

Yeah, this is exactly why their web server runs Linux.

--
The IT section color scheme sucks.

Re:yeah right by yttrbium · 2004-02-12 04:40 · Score: 1

Maybe that's so that when the site becomes spotty due to DDoS they can claim they were running Linux at the time... wouldn't put anything past them.
Re:yeah right by Anonymous Coward · 2004-02-12 04:49 · Score: 0

Isn't it their deranged view that Linux is UNIX and that they own it?
Anyhow I found these funny.

Based in Lindon, Utah, SCO has a worldwide presence with representation in 82 countries.

Never mind that SCO is a Delaware corporation. And I would guess that Germany is not one of their countries anymore since they shut down and moved out of there awhile ago.
Re:yeah right by Ninwa · 2004-02-12 04:52 · Score: 0

Why shouldn't they run Linux? Afterall, they contributed SO much to it!
Re:yeah right by sosume · 2004-02-12 04:53 · Score: 1

They are actually listing their clients!! (mcDonalds, TableTrac, etc

..Isn't it time for a PR offensive to get these clients to use Linux instead of SCo?? :D

And on a side note: I know people-that-know-people-that-know-people who worked for the Greater Manchester Police dept.. and they reported Solaris as the server OS??
Re:yeah right by vaginitis · 2004-02-12 04:55 · Score: 3, Funny

My favorite part was:
These security features guard against business interruption, denial of service attacks and protect against identity or corporate information theft.

Too bad those advanced features didn't work for SCO when they keep getting shut down by DOS attacks.

--
"We used to send megabytes of software to fix a 20 byte file," -Bill Gates
Re:yeah right by cygnusx · 2004-02-12 05:00 · Score: 3, Informative

D:\home\pd>wget -S http://thescogroup.com/ --22:27:01-- http://thescogroup.com/ => `index.html.2' Connecting to thescogroup.com:80... connected! HTTP request sent, awaiting response... 200 OK 2 Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2004 16:49:41 GMT 3 Content-Type: text/html 4 Server: Apache 5 X-Powered-By: PHP/4.3.2
Doesn't say Linux anywhere.
Re:yeah right by Anonymous Coward · 2004-02-12 05:07 · Score: 4, Informative

nmap -P0 -p 21,80,443 -O thescogroup.com
No exact OS matches for host (test conditions non-ideal).
TCP/IP fingerprint:
SInfo(V=2.54BETA31%P=i586-pc-linux-g nu%D=2/12%Time =402BB247%O=80%C=-1)
TSeq(Class=RI%gcd=2%SI=1527C 2%IPID=Z%TS=100HZ) ....

so does that mean its a i586 pc running linux?

Uptime 137.072 days (since Sun Sep 28 10:21:36 2003)
Re:yeah right by NoTheory · 2004-02-12 05:26 · Score: 1

The site thescogroup.com is running Apache on Linux. FAQ Linux users include Hostway Apache is also being used by New York Internet<br> Please try our new Hosting Providers Network Performance comparison, updated every 15 mins.
That's what it says up above the graph. So yes, it indeed does say Linux somewhere. In a sentence that contains "scogroup" no less.

--
There are lives at stake here!
Re:yeah right by martinjd · 2004-02-12 05:27 · Score: 2, Funny

no.
it means you're running linux with nmap compiled for generic i586 pc.

thanks for coming out.
Re:yeah right by TheLinuxSRC · 2004-02-12 05:31 · Score: 3, Informative

According to netcraft it is Linux and NetBSD/OpenBSD:

http://uptime.netcraft.com/up/graph/?host=www.thes cogroup.com
Re:yeah right by ronaldb64 · 2004-02-12 05:32 · Score: 1

Too bad those advanced features didn't work for SCO when they keep getting shut down by DOS attacks.
That is because their websites were running Linux, which obviously is greatly inferior to UnixWare! That's why SCO ran their website on Linux instead of the much better UnixWare... err... or something like that. Damn, the flawed SCOlogic is getting to me...

--
There's no place like 127.0.0.1
Re:yeah right by Anonymous Coward · 2004-02-12 05:33 · Score: 0

I've just checked the page and I noticed, funny, even the people in the picture at the top of the page are laughing....
Re:yeah right by Anonymous Coward · 2004-02-12 05:35 · Score: 1, Informative

# nmap -P0 -p 21,80,443 -O thescogroup.com Starting nmap 3.50 ( http://www.insecure.org/nmap/ ) at 2004-02-12 09:32 PST Warning: OS detection will be MUCH less reliable because we did not find at least 1 open and 1 closed TCP port Interesting ports on 216.250.128.21: PORT STATE SERVICE 21/tcp filtered ftp 80/tcp open http 443/tcp open https Device type: general purpose|media device|broadband router Running: Linux 2.4.X, Pace embedded, Panasonic embedded OS details: Linux 2.4.6 - 2.4.21, Pace digital cable TV receiver, Panasonic IP Technology Broadband Networking Gateway, KX-HGW200 Uptime 137.091 days (since Sun Sep 28 08:21:37 2003) Nmap run completed -- 1 IP address (1 host up) scanned in 6.709 seconds #
Re:yeah right by cfadam · 2004-02-12 05:35 · Score: 1

ir.sco.com is using win2k/iis5 and coldfusion. Whee!
Re:yeah right by fsmunoz · 2004-02-12 05:39 · Score: 4, Informative

Ummm, no, it mean that the system that you use is a i586 pc running Linux. That string describes your system, not the nmap target.

After all, if TCP/IP was so generous as to provide that string the -O option to nmap would be really simple.
Re:yeah right by Anonymous Coward · 2004-02-12 06:35 · Score: 0

nmap -P0 -p 21,80,443 -O thescogroup.com

Starting nmap 3.48 ( http://www.insecure.org/nmap/ ) at 2004-02-13 02:05 PHT
Warning: OS detection will be MUCH less reliable because we did not find at least 1 open and 1 closed TCP port
Interesting ports on 216.250.128.21:
PORT STATE SERVICE
21/tcp filtered ftp
80/tcp open http
443/tcp open https
Device type: PDA|broadband router
Running: Linux 2.4.X, Panasonic embedded
OS details: Linux 2.4.6 as on Sharp Zaurus PDA, Panasonic IP Technology Broadband Networking Gateway, KX-HGW200
Uptime 137.116 days (since Sun Sep 28 23:21:42 2003)

Nmap run completed -- 1 IP address (1 host up) scanned in 217.193 seconds
Re:yeah right by Anonymous Coward · 2004-02-12 06:42 · Score: 0

# nmap -P0 -p 21,80,443 -O thescogroup.com

Starting nmap 3.48 ( http://www.insecure.org/nmap/ ) at 2004-02-12 13:40 EST
Warning: OS detection will be MUCH less reliable because we did not find at least 1 open and 1 closed TCP port
Interesting ports on 216.250.128.21:
PORT STATE SERVICE
21/tcp open ftp
80/tcp open http
443/tcp open https
Device type: general purpose
Running: OpenBSD 3.X
OS details: OpenBSD 3.1 on an Alpha

Nmap run completed -- 1 IP address (1 host up) scanned in 4.973 seconds
Re:yeah right by r_j_howell · 2004-02-12 06:42 · Score: 1

I was thinking of a similar thing. Best if it was done by maintainers of one or more GPL projects.

We have been informed that you are using SCO Unix wich ships with our product /*insert name here*/ under the GPL liscence which they have asserted is illegal and unconstitutional. We feel compelled to inform you that if they prevail in this case you will have NO license to use this product and may be liable for civil damages.....

How's that for poetic justice?
Re:yeah right by Anonymous Coward · 2004-02-12 06:43 · Score: 0

> HP 9000 s700

Is that PA-RISC? If so, they're probably running Debian rather than SCO UnitedLinux.

Must be some sort of security-through-obscurity thing. Or - wait - someone else reports "Pace digital cable TV receiver", so maybe they are intentionally trying to confuse nmap.
Re:yeah right by Anonymous Coward · 2004-02-12 06:46 · Score: 0

Ha! My nmap is newer than your nmap! (3.50)
Re:yeah right by Eccles · 2004-02-12 07:25 · Score: 3, Funny

No, they run Linux so they can charge themselves $699 per copy, thus adding $699 each to their revenue numbers...

--
Ooh, a sarcasm detector. Oh, that's a real useful invention.
Re:yeah right by Anonymous Coward · 2004-02-12 08:35 · Score: 1, Funny

Yes, but my name is Darl, and I am sitting behind that machine.
Re:yeah right by cdrudge · 2004-02-12 09:17 · Score: 1

ir.sco.com is outsourced to a PR firm.

McDonalds and SCO by Anonymous Coward · 2004-02-12 04:36 · Score: 5, Funny

"The everyday business of a McDonald's restaurant requires a stable operating system that can give round-the-clock performance," said John Doty, Director of US Information Technology for McDonald's Corporation's Store Systems. "We are very pleased with the performance of SCO UNIX(R). SCO's platform has provided us with a very stable and reliable system. SCO UNIX(R) has been a dependable platform for thousands of McDonald's restaurants over the past 10 years and we're looking forward to migrating our restaurants to the current version."

Great, now we'll have obese people suing SCO!

Wait...that may not be a bad thing after all...

Re:McDonalds and SCO by grasshoppa · 2004-02-12 04:44 · Score: 3, Funny

What's worse? I know sco unix has infested Rite Aid too ( not to say they don't deserve it, mind you ).

Maybe I know too much to keep it objective, but why would anyone have chosen sco, even a couple years ago? Even 5 years ago? There are far better solutions out there, even to the extent of using windows.

It boggles the mind.

--
Mod me down with all of your hatred and your journey towards the dark side will be complete!
Re:McDonalds and SCO by rkhalloran · 2004-02-12 05:13 · Score: 3, Interesting

Of course, the fact that their German stores use SuSE, and now Novell owns that, probably have SCO a little concerned with future cashflow... SCO delenda est!!
Re:McDonalds and SCO by AndyCap · 2004-02-12 05:17 · Score: 5, Interesting

Not because of this at least. A great post to usenet made in the early 90's sometime. I didn't find the original post, only a repost from 95.
Still, it is funny to see how their enterprise unix compared to linux back then.
Re:McDonalds and SCO by matticus · 2004-02-12 05:18 · Score: 1

wooo! i ate at a German McDonald's today! They have a new sandwich that was quite good, plus schokobaellchen (potato balls filled with chocolate) that I don't quite understand.
Re:McDonalds and SCO by Short+Circuit · 2004-02-12 05:21 · Score: 2, Funny

Well, the McDonalds display down at the corner of Michigan and Lafeyette in Grand Rapids Michigan is showing a GPF error, last I saw. And it definately looked like Windows 98/NT4.

I told them to reboot the machine, and they said they tried that.

Like it or not, I think Mickey D's is moving away from SCO UNIX.

--
tasks(723) drafts(105) languages(484) examples(29106)
Re:McDonalds and SCO by Waffle+Iron · 2004-02-12 05:48 · Score: 1

McDonald's seems to have always been lacking in the cash register department. Back when I worked at McDonald's circa 1980, our store's cash registers didn't even do addition. For every single order they had the person at the counter manually add up all of the items on a slip of paper. After they finished this time-consuming process, they entered the error-filled total tally into the cash register to finish the transaction.
Why they used this system was totally beyond me, since mechanical adding cash registers had been available for a century or more prior to that time. They shelled out money for some kind of machine with a keyboard, but then they also paid wages for people to manually add the numbers anyway.
Re:McDonalds and SCO by jshift2work · 2004-02-12 06:04 · Score: 1

the shift2 work happens to be at coporate headquarters mentioned in this article and this post.
Win xp pro is everywhere. email exchange servers 2003 advanced servers. the registers nt/2k/some older
sco is full of sh!t with this claim. infact i have been pushing my way up the chain to atleast let me switch the web servers to apache or something of the like cause the corp net sites are beyond slow and now we have to migrate them all using this new day tool.
but hey i am 2 minutes away from being outsourced anyminute anyway.
Re:McDonalds and SCO by EachLennyAPenny · 2004-02-12 06:08 · Score: 1

SCO UNIX(R) has been a dependable platform for thousands of McDonald's restaurants over the past 10 years

The probably meant 10 years ago.
Re:McDonalds and SCO by DR+SoB · 2004-02-12 06:11 · Score: 5, Informative

"where is McDonalds using UNIX? in the cash register systems? "

Of course not..

There cash registers run on Windows. They are talking about there US chain _ONLY_ and they are talking about the credit card processing server. All of there stores connect to a SCO Unix box in their HQ, and are then routed to the bank (there is only 1 US connection to the bank from MCd's, not from ever store.. This is true of 90% of _ALL_ retailers in North America and it's spreading to the UK fast.).

I happen to know FOR A FACT, that McDonalds Canada, does NOT use SCO Linux for there server, they are running 4 redundant Compaq server's in two locations (2 per location) each with redundant T1 lines to the bank. These server's are ALL running Windows 2000 Advanced Server. I also know this is a trial run, and if successful, all other McDonalds (World Wide) will be switching, starting with the EU, then the USA. So, they are getting rid of SCO for Microsoft.. Now, this should get some interesting reactions.. :)

--
Mod +5 Drunk
Re:McDonalds and SCO by omarques · 2004-02-12 06:22 · Score: 0

Besides all the pointed advantages, in less than a year, McDonalds will no more have to pay for support, since several (former)SCO folks will be around, flipping burgers.
Re:McDonalds and SCO by Anonymous Coward · 2004-02-12 06:45 · Score: 0

McD's uses SCO for their back office systems in the majority of US restaurants. The majority of POS systems are MS-DOS based, running a POS system developed internally to McDonald's.

McD's chose SCO not five years ago, but more like 15 years ago, maybe longer. They didn't choose Unix, they chose Xenix, largely I suspect because it was the only game in town at the time.

That should give you an idea of the time frame.

Porting to SCO Unix from SCO Xenix was the obvious "easiest" answer.
Re:McDonalds and SCO by max+cohen · 2004-02-12 06:56 · Score: 2, Funny

Great, now we'll have obese people suing SCO!
I thought the Red Hat suit took care of that...
Re:McDonalds and SCO by Anonymous Coward · 2004-02-12 07:54 · Score: 0

A somewhat different picture emerges when you read the
rest of the post.

In 1995 there were a lot of applications that you would have been insane or stupid to run on Linux. Today there are applications for which Linux is still a poor choice, but many more for which considering Linux is practically mandatory.

Linux has a good enough story that it doesn't need spin, just the facts.
Re:McDonalds and SCO by dacarr · 2004-02-12 08:19 · Score: 1

Good point here.
McDonalds.
McBride.
McUnix?

--
This sig no verb.
Re:McDonalds and SCO by Dr.Zong · 2004-02-12 08:35 · Score: 2, Interesting

This ia actually quite odd, I just got back from lunch with a person who works at Microsoft Canada, who coincidently used to work in McDonalds HO in Canada (Don Mills/Eglinton area on Toronto).

He said over conversation that McD's uses about 27 backend Microsoft 2000 servers (up to last year)for various tasks incl. data collection from the corporate stores and franchisees, as well as food order processing, intranet, email, etc. He said they don't have a *nix box to speak of.

And I can testify that after working at 4 different McD's in Canada as Management that the systems DO NOT use SCO linux. They use a DOS 6.22 network (those touch screen Siroc 3 POS systems) connected to a Windows box in the management office - all data is trandsferred to HO via dialup on demand. The older POS systems (Siroc 1's and 2's) were an ancient network (ArcNet maybe?), which in turn connected to a DOS box in the back room, which connected via dial-up on demand to HO.

So they may be talking about the States, but for sure, NOT the rest of the world.

--

Party?!? What kind of party is this? Where's the damn keg?
Virtus Junxit Mors Non Separabit
Re:McDonalds and SCO by Anonymous Coward · 2004-02-12 08:50 · Score: 0

I work at McDonalds, and Seriously, the register terminals crash like at least once a week. At least. Dead serious.
Re:McDonalds and SCO by VistaBoy · 2004-02-12 08:51 · Score: 1

I can see it now....the MyFood worm.
Re:McDonalds and SCO by gnuguru · 2004-02-12 09:07 · Score: 1

This comment on that usenet post is priceless ;)

Linux is great, I use it and greatly appreciate what it can do. But for
most of us, it simply *CANNOT* replace what SCO ODT can do. I'm sure it
will eat into SCO's market in some small relms, and hopefully enough to
keep SCO on it's toes. Enough said.

ROFL
Re:McDonalds and SCO by DR+SoB · 2004-02-12 09:14 · Score: 1

Your agreeing with me, re-read what I posted, you funny funny man.. "He said over conversation that McD's uses about 27 backend Microsoft 2000 servers (up to last year)for various " That's what I said, except I said 4 servers, and I said they were for Credit card processing, I did not make mention of email, polling, or other requirements, ONLY cc processing. And btw, they _are_ running Windows 2K, ADVANCED server, not just server, because they needed to run WLBS to cluster the servers.. As for the actual POS's, some are DOS, some are windows, soon they will all be windows based. The corporate stores and franchisees are _NOT_ on the same systems, YET.

--
Mod +5 Drunk
Re:McDonalds and SCO by cdrudge · 2004-02-12 09:20 · Score: 1

McD's runs SCO OpenServer at the store level. You know all those green screen displays that have what the next order is...it's OpenServer. OpenServer has a significant presence in the point of sale (yes POS...make your jokes...ok...you done now?) market place.
Re:McDonalds and SCO by rajafarian · 2004-02-12 09:50 · Score: 1

I told them to reboot the machine, and they said they tried that.

Maybe they thought they rebooted it but only turned the monitor OFF/ON.
Re:McDonalds and SCO by dvNull · 2004-02-12 09:56 · Score: 1

AFAIK their cash registers connect to the single server in each store running SCO Unix which runs a Win3.x app runnong on Merge. Yes, a 16bit Windows App.

dvnull
Re:McDonalds and SCO by Dr.Zong · 2004-02-12 09:57 · Score: 1

Dude. I wasn't arguing with you... merely clarifying the point with a few more pieces of information. So yes, I *was* agreeing with you.

Whether it be Advanced Server, or Server or whatever, it's still Microsoft, thats the point. It's not SCO. Whether it be four servers, or twenty-seven, again, moot.

Clustering, yup, he said that too - sorry, I am a Novell guy, and as much as I used to work extensively with NT4/2000 servers (and Exchange, proxy, ISA and all that other stuff) up till last year, and still have a couple where I am now, I never once touched an Advanced server. So, basically my point here is I forgot that only Advanced server had clustering, or else I would have put that down to further clarify your point. Didn't.

The corp stores and Franchisees where I worked (Ok, it was 4 years ago) all were DOS and all used the same backend system. The terminals are one of what used to be four distinct variety's all made by Soroc, except for the really, really old ones (circa 1994) which actually had a TRS-80 inline for the kitchen. I have yet to see a Windows one, but if they are out there, they are likely in the corp stores cause the franchisees unless starting new, are too cheap to install/upgrade them unless when they run out of buttons and can't program them efficiently anymore, and even then it's pulling teeth. I am sure that is one point we can both agree on.

The corp stores always have the newest tech, except for the newly started franchisees. So yes, you are right, they likely *aren't* all on the same systems, but when they report sales and do brower, they are all talking to the same machine.

--

Party?!? What kind of party is this? Where's the damn keg?
Virtus Junxit Mors Non Separabit
Re:McDonalds and SCO by DR+SoB · 2004-02-12 11:00 · Score: 1

Sorry, looks like I was the one that had the mis-understanding! "The corp stores always have the newest tech, except for the newly started franchisees. So yes, you are right, they likely *aren't* all on the same systems, but when they report sales and do brower, they are all talking to the same machine." This is true, they all talk to the same machine. Which talks to another machine, and that's where the data comes from. The first machine is the "polling" machine, and it too, is W2K Adv. Server. BTW- I didn't get my information "from a friend", I've seen it all first hand. So it is definitely realiable..

--
Mod +5 Drunk
Re:McDonalds and SCO by Anonymous Coward · 2004-02-12 11:59 · Score: 0

great post--very interesting

so, wow, SCO kinda sucked even then ... those charges are really outrageous

no wonder linux has kicked so much ass--what's a little usr hassle (not like unix never had that!) when you look at the price differential. youch.

gummint doesn't really care about security anyway--they switched to NT *cough, cough*
Re:McDonalds and SCO by Anonymous Coward · 2004-02-12 12:22 · Score: 1, Funny

lucky bastard with your European McDonalds!
Ours use fake beef and don't sell beer...(usa)
Re:McDonalds and SCO by Ieshan · 2004-02-12 12:23 · Score: 1

Sola Bona Unix Mortua Unix Est. ;)
Re:McDonalds and SCO by jack_csk · 2004-02-12 13:36 · Score: 1

So...You think McDonalds and McBride are coincidence?
Re:McDonalds and SCO by ElliotLee · 2004-02-12 18:15 · Score: 1

SCO Linux
Linux != Unix
Re:McDonalds and SCO by Anonymous Coward · 2004-02-13 01:25 · Score: 0

I think this poster is referring to the "Store of the Future" project.

They just laid many of the people doing it off.

It will be deployed (at least parts of it) in Canada and either Hong Kong, Taiwan, or Singapore, I can't remember which. But that's about it, as far as I know.

SCO does have a strong presence in US McDonald's restaurants. The majority of them have a SCO Unix server in the back office for inventory, payroll, scheduling, and cash management purposes. It is also responsible for transmitting orders and sales figures back to HQ.

Most US McDonald's restaurants use a POS system called PCPOS, which is a home-grown MS-DOS system. Some use the older PAN-II or PAR-II systems (the ones with the sheets of paper with he menu items printed on it on top of a matrix of buttons.)
Re:McDonalds and SCO by Anonymous Coward · 2004-02-13 01:28 · Score: 0

OK, maybe I misspoke. The "Store of the Future" boys wanted to put multiple rack-mounted servers in every store. If that isn't what the previous poster is talking about, forget that part.

And the US and Canada McD's are very different, technologically speaking.

Reason #6 by swoebser · 2004-02-12 04:36 · Score: 5, Funny

Because we're litigious bastards.

Re:Reason #6 by Anonymous Coward · 2004-02-12 04:41 · Score: 0

Google for "bastards".
Re:Reason #6 by Here+I+Stand · 2004-02-12 04:43 · Score: 1

or possibly: because we will sue you if you don't
Re:Reason #6 by Anonymous Coward · 2004-02-12 04:57 · Score: 0

No, that would be reason 5 "SCO UNIX(R) is Legally Unencumbered" :-)
Re:Reason #6 by DragonMagic · 2004-02-12 05:17 · Score: 1

Isn't that litigious bastards?

--

Human nature is the same everywhere; the modes only are different. -- Earl of Chesterfield
Re:Reason #6 by Anonymous Coward · 2004-02-12 05:49 · Score: 1

No. It's litigious bastards
Re:Reason #6 by Anonymous Coward · 2004-02-12 07:02 · Score: 0

i clicked on this litigious bastards
link, but the site seems to bo down. whats happening??

oh...wait...now i get it..
Re:Reason #6 by Anonymous Coward · 2004-02-12 12:10 · Score: 0

I think that calling SCO litigious bastards is totally unwarranted.

Unencumbered??!? by sonoluminescence · 2004-02-12 04:37 · Score: 5, Funny

SCO UNIX(R) is Legally Unencumbered +5 Funny

--
Karma: Bad. Calmer, good.

Re:Unencumbered??!? by highwebl · 2004-02-12 04:39 · Score: 5, Funny

So their point is: You can trust us because we aren't taking legal action against ourselves. Yet.
Re:Unencumbered??!? by valkraider · 2004-02-12 04:42 · Score: 1

It's only a matter of time before they spot some of their own intellectual property in their Unix... It's like the "trigger effect"...
Re:Unencumbered??!? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-02-12 04:52 · Score: 0

SCO UNIX(R) is Legally Unencumbered

I suspect that they're now legally cucumbered (as in, "bend over, here's a cucumber")
Re:Unencumbered??!? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-02-12 05:25 · Score: 0

But isn't this just untrue? Hasn't IBM countersued SCO for violating their patents? SCOnix is just as encumbered as Linux (if not more)
Re:Unencumbered??!? by mysticgoat · 2004-02-12 05:39 · Score: 1

Maybe one of the legal beagles here can answer this for me...
SCO asserts that Linux is tainted by copyright infringements, and thus "legally encumbered", though the assertion is not yet proven in court. Novell asserts that SCO does not own the copyrights that SCO claims are theirs, and this, too, is being contested in the courts. In light of what appears to be a strong parallel between these two situations, how the hell can Linux be "legally encumbered" without SCO Unix being also "legally encumbered"?
Can someone in Utah report this to the Better Business Bureau as maliciously false advertising?
Re:Unencumbered??!? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-02-12 08:50 · Score: 0

I see you have reveieved our intelectual property in the form of moderation points. We are pleased to offer you a "funy run-time licence (R)" for competitive price $699. Please, concat any of our funny distributor.

Darl.
Re:Unencumbered??!? by nathanh · 2004-02-12 09:16 · Score: 1

I like how they carefully neglect to mention the IBM lawsuit against them over patents, which IBM will definitely win.

Legally unencumbered? I don't think so.

Sure by BenSpinSpace · 2004-02-12 04:37 · Score: 5, Insightful

What I find humorous is that SCO consistently trumps up their services as the "good" side in a war of good vs. evil. Do hardened capatalists actually succeed when they try to convince the public that something free and welcoming to public scrutiny is a bad thing? Linux sure violates that Constitution... how dare they be kind to the public! This will be the end of America as we know it, surely!

Re:Sure by mahdi13 · 2004-02-12 04:45 · Score: 2, Insightful

What I find humorous is that SCO consistently trumps up their services as the "good" side in a war of good vs. evil.
I'm sure Darth Vader was just doing what he felt was the right thing to do...Do you think Hitler ever took a minute and thought
What I am doing is evil and wrong

--
"Some things have to be believed to be seen." - Ralph Hodgson
Re:Sure by spinozaq · 2004-02-12 04:59 · Score: 2, Funny

Hit Goodwin's Law quick with this one.
Re:Sure by RailGunner · 2004-02-12 04:59 · Score: 5, Interesting

Actually hardened conservative capitalists like myself see Linux as the ultimate level playing field for software development - a playing field where the best applications win, not where one company has access to underlying OS features and can freeze out competitors using predatory behavior...
And as far as applications - let's face it - there's more then enough room for many, many similar applications that people can choose from. For example - web browsers. Some people (like myself) prefer Opera, others Mozilla, some Konqueror, some Galeon, some Firefox, some people still use Lynx, Mac folks seem to like Safari... and yes, there's some poor, poor fools still using Internet Exploder.
Take Word Processing - go back to the early days of Dos / Windows - some people wanted to use WordPerfect, others Wordstar, some people PFS Professional Write, and there was more then enough room for all those applications - it was which one you liked best, and most of them could write files to various formats for sharing information. Now, we have OpenOffice, KOffice, AbiWord, etc, and again - these all write to multiple file formats - just pick the one you like best. Competition and Capitalism at it's finest, if you ask me.. which is the opposite route SCO is going with their money grab and frivolous lawsuit.
Re:Sure by JaredOfEuropa · 2004-02-12 05:07 · Score: 5, Insightful

Do hardened capatalists actually succeed when they try to convince the public that something free and welcoming to public scrutiny is a bad thing?
No, but they don't have to: most of the public doesn't give a toss about the wider political issues around this case, or even about the case itself.

Something that is scary rather than humorous, is that they are convincing some politicians. It's the same line of reasoning used in many other cases: what is good for us is good for the economy!
1) "Free software is unfair competition against the products that we businesspeople offer" (or: "we need software patents to protect our inventions!", or insert your favorite cause here.)
2) "If you make legislation against [insert special interest issue], you are hurting our business. Not just our company, really, but the entire economy is at stake!!!111one"
3) "If the economy goes bad, voters will hate you"

You'll find this line of reasoning is used often when business, or indeed any special interest, lobbies with politicians

--
If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
Re:Sure by mahdi13 · 2004-02-12 05:18 · Score: 3, Informative

Hah! Never heard that one before!
Goodwin's Law Professor Ralph Goodwin, UofU, in 1982 noticed that newsgroup discussions which continued for a long time tended to degrade. He postulated the following: As the length of a newsgroup thread grows, the probability approaches unity of some participant using the term "Hitler" or "Nazi". The party who first uses such terms is immediately declared the loser of the thread and discussion stops at that point. I might suggest that Goodwin's law could be ammended to include Sept. 11th and bin Laden now...
Looks like I'm deemed the 'loser' at the very beginning of the thread...so does this mean we can't have any more SCO postings?

--
"Some things have to be believed to be seen." - Ralph Hodgson
Re:Sure by Planesdragon · 2004-02-12 05:34 · Score: 1

Actually hardened conservative capitalists like myself see Linux as the ultimate level playing field for software development - a playing field where the best applications win, not where one company has access to underlying OS features and can freeze out competitors using predatory behavior...

Sorry, you need to turn in your "hardened conservative capitalist" card.

Greed is good, bending or breaking the rules is fine for enough profit, and all that matters is the bottom line.

Of course, I do have a nice, shiney "intelligent, reasonable capitalist" card here for you.
Re:Sure by Sique · 2004-02-12 05:39 · Score: 4, Interesting

Those arguments are called "job " in Germany. (of course the Germans actually use the equivalent german words).

The interesting thing is: Those arguments "If you do X, we will loose Y jobs" never ask, how many jobs will be slashed if the governement won't do X. Take steel tariffs for instance: How many jobs suffered because steel tariffs increased the steel prices for american companies? There was a calculation for the effect of steel tariffs back in the Reagen era to job count. Even though those tariffs saved about 55,000 jobs at the steel companies, the steel consuming industries like car makers slashed 130,000 jobs at the same time because of the increased costs for steel.

So if you are confronted with a similar argument in a dispute, just ask your opponent, how many jobs would be hurt by the increased costs for the following parts of the economy chain.

--
.sig: Sique *sigh*
Re:Sure by Anonymous Coward · 2004-02-12 05:54 · Score: 0

It's easy to avoid Goodwin's law. You can usually substitute Stalin or Pol Pot for Hitler and your argument will remain valid. This avoids the inevitable distracting replies from the Nazi-reference Nazis.
Re:Sure by mahler3 · 2004-02-12 05:55 · Score: 3, Insightful

Actually hardened conservative capitalists like myself [...] Competition and Capitalism at it's finest, if you ask me..
What you describe is democratic capitalism-- i.e., a market system based largely on what works the best, and in which everyone can have a shot at building something better. When someone is successful at that, the natural rules of the market evolve-- based on the new paradigm of what works the best.
What we have in the U.S. is inching closer to plutocratic capitalism, in which the golden rule is, "He who has the gold makes the rules."
Since SCO has been unable to succeed using the former model, they're attempting to rewrite rules by brute force. They're not likely to succeed, primarily because they don't have enough gold.
Re:Sure by the_rev_matt · 2004-02-12 05:57 · Score: 1

And here RG highlights the difference between a true capitalist and a monopolist. Capitalism isn't evil, some of the people who practice it are.

I'd mod parent up, but it's already maxed.

--
this is getting old and so are you
blog
Re:Sure by Progman3K · 2004-02-12 06:31 · Score: 4, Funny

> You'll find this line of reasoning is used often when business, or indeed any special interest, lobbies with politicians

We'll REALLY know when SCO has hit rock-bottom when they start using

"Think of the CHILDREN!"
"Won't SOMEONE PLEASE THINK OF THE CHILDREN!!!"

Hmmm... Maybe I should have kept that to myself... Hope no one from SCO's legal team is reading this...

--
I don't know the meaning of the word 'don't' - J
Re:Sure by sco08y · 2004-02-12 06:31 · Score: 1

Sorry, you need to turn in your "hardened conservative capitalist" card.

Greed is good, bending or breaking the rules is fine for enough profit, and all that matters is the bottom line.

Of course, I do have a nice, shiney "intelligent, reasonable capitalist" card here for you.

How about this: we'll hold on to our "hardened conservative capitalist" cards and you can hold on to your "blinkered liberal twit" card. Now everyone's happy!
Re:Sure by BenSpinSpace · 2004-02-12 06:34 · Score: 2, Insightful

(I would have to agree. There are good and evil capatalists, assuming one would demote their descriptions to such general words. But it's the same way with... say... presidential elections; most voters don't seem to realize that there are kind, reasonable Democrats AND Republicans, for instance. It isn't a war where both sides are evil... rather, it's a war where the thoughtful people are against the ignorant/greedy people. The smart, reasonable Republicans and Democrats should gang together and make humanitarian/business decisions without spending millions of dollars swaying the ignorant layman!!)
Re:Sure by zerocool^ · 2004-02-12 06:36 · Score: 1

and yes, there's some poor, poor fools still using Internet Exploder.

You mean, that small portion (95%) of people that use internet explorer? Yes, they're clearly in the wrong.

I agree, though. It's hard to see linux as bad for the economy. It's free, and it offers, at the least, zero service to the world. And whenever it offers more than zero service, it's making money.

~Will

--
sig?
Re:Sure by HiThere · 2004-02-12 07:07 · Score: 2, Interesting

Linux is not certainly making money. Sometimes it seems a near thing. But it's certainly creating wealth. And that's even better, though harder to measure.

Consider:
Counterfeiters make money, but not wealth.
Someone who preforms a public service makes wealth, but not necessarily money (it may be a volunteer effort).

Also, let's get really counter intuitive, and consider taxes:
Everyone hates taxes, but I assert that taxes (in the correct amount) create wealth.
It works like this: Society benefits from having a generally accepted bookkeeping system that tracks socially useful contributions. Money is the closest we have come to such a system, so causing money to have value is creating wealth. The government give value to money by threatening to confiscate property if you don't give money (that it printed) back to it.
Now any individual person benefits from other people needing money, and them holding it. And other people need money, because the government demands it of them. So taxes create a general need for money, which causes the accounting system to work.
Therefore taxes create wealth.

--

I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
Re:Sure by iminplaya · 2004-02-12 07:13 · Score: 1

What we have in the U.S. is inching closer to plutocratic capitalism, in which the golden rule is, "He who has the gold makes the rules."

Can you show me any period in history when it wasn't like that? Inching isn't the word. It's more like marching double-time, and it isn't plutocratic capitalism either...more like outright fascism or corporate rule.

--
What?
Re:Sure by iminplaya · 2004-02-12 07:21 · Score: 1

...not where one company has access to underlying OS features and can freeze out competitors using predatory behavior...

Brought to you by...patents and copyrights(applause). If you want to see real human progress, it's time to head to the nearest Betty Ford Clinic and get that monkey off our backs. It's a real shame to see so many people taken in by this "promoting innovation" FUD. It is and always has been about control. We cling to this like life itself, and we don't have the slightest clue of how well we can do without it. It looks like we won't even try.

--
What?
Re:Sure by theonetruekeebler · 2004-02-12 08:37 · Score: 1

Nobody thinks they're the bad guy. Everybody thinks they are doing the right things for the right reasons. SCO is no exception.
And besides, what the hell did you think their press releases would say? Nobody writes "MWAAAHAHAHHA" when "In order to enhance shareholder value" will get the job done.

--
This is not my sandwich.
Re:Sure by rajafarian · 2004-02-12 10:19 · Score: 1

Can you show me any period in history when it wasn't like that?

I have a theory that religion as we know it (except Taoism, Jainism and Buddhism) started because some guys did not have the gold and weren't big and strong either so they had a tough time getting chicks thus they invented an idea of a God so they could make some rules, appear powerful and get chicks, too. Esp. the brahman in Hinduism.
Re:Sure by shanen · 2004-02-12 13:13 · Score: 2, Informative

Ah, it's Godwin's Law and the source is Mike Godwin, a fairly prominent attorney who used to work for the EFF. See http://info.astrian.net/jargon/terms/g/Godwin_s_La w.html (Actually, I knew him personally before and during his time at the UT Law School.)

--
Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice != (Speech | Beer^2), and sad sock puppets' bad mods avail them naught.

There appears to be a typographical error in #5 by mkettler · 2004-02-12 04:37 · Score: 5, Interesting

5) SCO UNIX(R) is Legally Unencumbered

Shouldn't this read "SCO UNIX (R) is Unencumbered by adherence to the law"?

Seriously though, looking at what SCO is attempting to do to IBM, how can one call this "unencumbered"? The only company that is unencumbered in SCO's vision of the world is SCO. Any of their partners are legaly encumbered by adhering to SCO's license arangement. Anything you add to SCO appears to become a part of SCO's IP if their claims are correct.

But wait, doesn't that make SCO just as bad as the GPL, even from SCO's own perspective?

--
-Matt

Re:There appears to be a typographical error in #5 by Asprin · 2004-02-12 04:45 · Score: 5, Interesting

You already know this, but I'd just like to point out to the newer readers that the best way to explain the value of free software to people is to remind them that before the Visicalc(*) folks had the guts to form a company that only produced software without any accompanying hardware, software was largely produced in the domain of shared (scientific?) research, and they should continue to look at it that way, as opposed to some sort of ridiculous anti-capitalistic anarchist movement.

(*) NOTE: I *think* Visicalc was the first to do this. If not, please correct me.

--
"Lawyers are for sucks."
- Doug McKenzie
Re:There appears to be a typographical error in #5 by Anonymous Coward · 2004-02-12 04:55 · Score: 0

Well, Microsoft predates Visicalc in the PC world, although they primarily sold through OEMs.

There was many Independant Software Vendors in the mainframe world going back to the 60s.

> "software was largely produced in the domain of shared (scientific?) research"

Mostly a GNU/Hippie myth. Free research software has been around a long time, but so has proprietary stuff.
Re:There appears to be a typographical error in #5 by skink1100 · 2004-02-12 05:23 · Score: 0

> Seriously though, looking at what SCO is
> attempting to do to IBM, how can one call this
> "unencumbered"?

Especially since losing the lawsuit will likely mean the demise of SCO. In any case, how much in the way of resources will be left for customer support and R&D (ha!) once they finish paying off the expensive legal "talent"?

S
Re:There appears to be a typographical error in #5 by tb3 · 2004-02-12 05:43 · Score: 2, Informative

I'm pretty sure it was a little New Mexico company called "Micro Soft". Bill Gates' one true innovation was the concept of selling software. He was doing it before the Apple and Visicalc had been introduced. Check 'The Pirates of Silicon Valley" and the history of the Home Brew Computer club for the details.

--
www.lucernesys.comHorizon: Calendar-based personal finance
Re:There appears to be a typographical error in #5 by hal9000 · 2004-02-12 05:59 · Score: 4, Insightful

... "Anything you add to SCO appears to become a part of SCO's IP if their claims are correct.
But wait, doesn't that make SCO just as bad as the GPL, even from SCO's own perspective?"

No, because SCO profits. If you're not making money, it just isn't fair and SCO wants mommy.

You see, Little SCO has a lemonade stand. Little SCO buys crap lemonade-sugar powder from the super market and mixes it with water from the kitchen tap. Little SCO only does this when nobody's home, as little SCO considers the technique a closely guarded secret. The sign on Little SCO's lemonade stand reads: "Lemonade(TM), only $6.99 per ounce"

Across the street, another kid has a lemonade stand. He grows his own lemons from his own lemon trees, which he cultivates with utmost care. He has developed a really cool way to sqeeze them, getting just the right amount of pulp and juice. He uses water, purified to his taste with a purifier he built himself. The sugar? It grows next to the lemon trees. And he has a workbench set up right next to the lemonade stand, so everybody can see what he's doing. The sign on this kid's lemon stand reads: "Lemonade. Have some. It's tasty."

In better times, when they were younger, little SCO would hang out with the kid across the street. They had great fun, and even made lemonade together. But one day Little SCO's mom remarried, and his new stepdad demanded that he not talk to the kid across the street anymore. Little SCO's new papa won't stand for any damn commie pinkos under his roof, you see. Little SCO complied, and soon after, with the encouragement of new papa, opened up his own lemonade stand.

When cars drive by on the street between the two stands, little SCO climbs up into his treehouse and shouts at the drivers. "Little SCO's Amerrrrr-ican Lemonade! Only SIX dollars and ninety-niiiiiine cents for a limited time! ..."

At first, his former friend's antics made the kid across the street a bit sad. But then you know what happened? He began laughing it off. That poor, Little, SCO. Poor Little Bastard SCO.

--
Look out honey, 'cause I'm using technology; Ain't got time to make no apology
Re:There appears to be a typographical error in #5 by mysticgoat · 2004-02-12 06:04 · Score: 3, Interesting

Visicalc(*) folks had the guts to form a company that only produced software without any accompanying hardware, software was largely produced in the domain of shared (scientific?) research, and they should continue to look at it that way, as opposed to some sort of ridiculous anti-capitalistic anarchist movement.
You are safe in asserting that Visicalc was the first big software house success. IIRC, its success, and the way it affected the Apple ][ sales, is what got IBM interested in the emerging PC market. PCs were not just for hobbyists anymore: accountants were buying Apple ][s so they could do electronic spreadsheets. But that was 25 or 26 years ago and I'm relying on organic memory that is prone to distortions over long periods of time (for larger values of "long"-- the occasional retraining I require after a coffee break appears to be another phenomenon entirely).
Also, at that time I believe the bulk of software development was not occuring in science but in two other realms. IBM, Honeywell, and others were churning out lots of OS and application code, that was tied to the sales of their systems. And on the underside, there was a lot of backroom blackmarket code development going on, where customer IT departments were rewriting what their corporations had bought to make it actually workable, and trading chunks of this amongst themselves (usually in violation of the vendor licenses). I think either of these activities produced more working code (by any reasonable measure of "more") than the scientific/academic communities were producing during those years.
Re:There appears to be a typographical error in #5 by tiger99 · 2004-02-12 06:08 · Score: 1

Correct, and you have got the original name of the company correct also. His product was a "4k" basic, which was very buggy, badly documented, needed 6k and was very late, thus setting the standard for everything that was to follow.....
Re:There appears to be a typographical error in #5 by John+Hasler · 2004-02-12 06:09 · Score: 1

No, it makes it much worse. The GPL does not attempt to make anything you add to a GPL'd work part of the original author's IP.

--
Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
Re:There appears to be a typographical error in #5 by deadzaphod · 2004-02-12 08:27 · Score: 1

Actually, the commercial software business was first started by CSC (Computer Sciences Corporation), who produced software for mainframes.
Re:There appears to be a typographical error in #5 by falzer · 2004-02-12 08:56 · Score: 1

This whole SCO fiasco would be a mystery to me were it not for the analogies I read on Slashdot.
Re:There appears to be a typographical error in #5 by catman · 2004-02-12 09:10 · Score: 1

CSC (Computer Sciences Corporation), who produced software for mainframes.

And still does, among a myriad other things.
IANAL, but IAACSCE ( I am a CSC employee) who does a few of the other things.
Re:There appears to be a typographical error in #5 by Anonymous Coward · 2004-02-12 10:05 · Score: 0

a) It's on #4
b) The sugar? It grows next to the lemon trees. Just to make sure: you DO realize sugar doesn't simply "grows on trees", do you?
Re:There appears to be a typographical error in #5 by Snoopy77 · 2004-02-12 10:22 · Score: 1

Shouldn't this read "SCO UNIX (R) is Unencumbered by adherence to the law"?
I read it as "SCO UNIX (R) is a cucumber"

--
"She's a West Texas girl, just like me" - G.W Bush Iraqis
Re:There appears to be a typographical error in #5 by BillyBlaze · 2004-02-12 11:31 · Score: 1

Mostly a GNU/Hippie myth. Free research software has been around a long time, but so has proprietary stuff. Chemistry has been around for a long time, but so has alchemy.

For the lazy: by Anonymous Coward · 2004-02-12 04:38 · Score: 4, Informative

1. SCO UNIX(R) is a Proven, Stable and Reliable Platform
2. SCO UNIX(R) is backed by a single, experienced vendor
3. SCO UNIX(R) has a Committed, Well-Defined Roadmap
4. SCO UNIX(R) is Secure
5. SCO UNIX(R) is Legally Unencumbered

I *love* number 5!!! Ha ha ha!

Re:For the lazy: by slipandfall · 2004-02-12 04:41 · Score: 2, Funny

Under number 4, they talk about SCO Unix being able to prevent denial of service attacks. Hmmm. Doesn't seem like if I were SCO, I'd be advertising that feature after last week.
Re:For the lazy: by Hangtime · 2004-02-12 04:45 · Score: 4, Funny

SCO UNIX(R) is a Proven, Stable and Reliable Platform - for me to POOP ON!
SCO UNIX(R) is backed by a single, experienced vendor - lawyers who are unmatched in the legal profession
SCO UNIX(R) has a Committed, Well-Defined Roadmap - sue everyone and hope we make money
SCO UNIX(R) is Secure - because nobody knows or wants to know how to use it
SCO UNIX(R) is Legally Unencumbered - because no one in their right mind would copy it
Re:For the lazy: by Lxy · 2004-02-12 04:50 · Score: 3, Funny

SCO UNIX(R) is a Proven, Stable and Reliable Platform

That's about as generic as it gets, funny that they never state how they came up with that. I can claim the same about linux using their method of spewing meaningless unsubstantiated numbers.

SCO UNIX(R) is backed by a single, experienced vendor

Because There aren't any experienced linux companies, and we all know how one monolithic company is better.

SCO UNIX(R) has a Committed, Well-Defined Roadmap

Straight down the crapper requires a ROAD MAP?

SCO UNIX(R) is Secure

My OS is secure too, no one has cracked into it yet. It doesn't boot yet, but it's secure as hell.

SCO UNIX(R) is Legally Unencumbered

Yes, because No One is trying to get SCO into court.

--

There is no reasonable defense against an idiot with an agenda
:wq
Re:For the lazy: by Billy+the+Mountain · 2004-02-12 04:50 · Score: 2, Funny

4. SCO UNIX(R) is Secure

Heh, yeah. "Bring 'em on!"

--
That was the turning point of my life--I went from negative zero to positive zero.
Re:For the lazy: by Tuqui · 2004-02-12 05:23 · Score: 2, Interesting

SCO had been using Linux in their Web Servers!
And still using Linux in their Web Servers!
Re:For the lazy: by craig(at)cod3rz(dot) · 2004-02-12 05:23 · Score: 1

i don't think #5 is funny. "SCO asserts that the GPL [...] violates the United States Constitution" and "... those who believe 'software should be free' cannot prevail against the U.S. Congress and voices of seven U.S. Supreme Court justices ..." no, i don't think thats funny at all. :(

--
--- craig
Re:For the lazy: by JamesP · 2004-02-12 05:28 · Score: 0

I love this...

Oh, and this is OH! SO MUCH MORE TRUE if you take SCO UNIX and replace it with Windows...

Really, I believe WIndows is safer.. Why? Because security holes knowledge is widespread, so it forces you to have a better security system...

1. SCO UNIX(R) is a Proven, Stable and Reliable Platform

Except it only works on a 386
2. SCO UNIX(R) is backed by a single, experienced vendor
Do you mean, experience in lawsuits??? (it should read "one experienced client")
3. SCO UNIX(R) has a Committed, Well-Defined Roadmap
Er... we have SCo Unix v6, then we have v7 and then, er... v8
4. SCO UNIX(R) is Secure
It's sure to have a lot of bullshit attached
5. SCO UNIX(R) is Legally Unencumbered
HA, HA, HA!!!

--
how long until /. fixes commenting on Chrome?
Re:For the lazy: by Anonymous Coward · 2004-02-12 07:35 · Score: 0

SCO UNIX(R) has a Committed, Well-Defined Roadmap

Now it finally makes sense. The 5 year linear plot of SCOX on the NYSE is actually the roadmap from Salt Lake City to Miami.
Re:For the lazy: by Skweetis · 2004-02-12 07:39 · Score: 1

SCO UNIX(R) has a Committed, Well-Defined Roadmap
Straight down the crapper requires a ROAD MAP?
Well, you know the old joke about how Darl can't find his ass with both... Oh, never mind, that's too easy :).
Re:For the lazy: by Imperator · 2004-02-12 14:10 · Score: 1

Straight down the crapper requires a ROAD MAP?

The Israeli/Palestinian experts in the Bush administration sure seem to think so.

--

Gates' Law: Every 18 months, the speed of software halves.

speed by Anonymous Coward · 2004-02-12 04:38 · Score: 5, Insightful

It has been my experience justified lawusits happen quickly and those that drag out are a corruption of the legal system to either drain finances or encumber someone with the legal "albatross" around his neck

Re:speed by Anonymous Coward · 2004-02-12 05:37 · Score: 1, Funny

I should elaborate... I've been personally involved in several lawsuits of both types. That's why I'm sending these insightful comments to Slashdot from my parents' basement.

Or is this link to SCO just a masked DOS?? by DOCStoobie · 2004-02-12 04:38 · Score: 5, Funny

BRILLIANT!! /. ing SCO to create a DOS attack!!

Re:Or is this link to SCO just a masked DOS?? by first.last · 2004-02-12 05:51 · Score: 0, Redundant

Thanks for making me blow cheesecake out my nose

--
Wishing I was a millionaire since 1969.
Re:Or is this link to SCO just a masked DOS?? by DOCStoobie · 2004-02-12 10:22 · Score: 0

UMM lemme see.... COMEDY.... that post was COMEDY, grow a sense of humor, and then come read the post again....

drawback by Jotaigna · 2004-02-12 04:39 · Score: 1

SCO has a little disadvantage with statements, cause when you see such things about SCO, the finger is pointing right at them, but with the vast open source comunity and various distributiones, who is SCO pointing at with this statement?

--
"The quality of life is inversely proportional to the number of keys on your keyring."

Great. Another Linux Community DDoS by Anonymous Coward · 2004-02-12 04:39 · Score: 5, Funny

Through the link to SCO's anemic webserver. Good job, Rob.

Re:Great. Another Linux Community DDoS by AndroidCat · 2004-02-12 04:48 · Score: 1

I'm just doing my job Andy.

--
One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.

I like reason #4 by Stalke · 2004-02-12 04:39 · Score: 5, Funny

Reason number 4 is "SCO UNIX is secure" and they later explain "These security features guard against business interruption, denial of service attacks....". So the DOS attack that took out their website last week was normal business operation?

--
-?-

Re:I like reason #4 by Anonymous Coward · 2004-02-12 04:41 · Score: 3, Interesting

their webservis isnt running sco unix anyway....
Re:I like reason #4 by Anonymous Coward · 2004-02-12 04:43 · Score: 0

They run Linux on their webserver, butt-tard. That's why it went down.
Re:I like reason #4 by surprise_audit · 2004-02-12 04:46 · Score: 2, Interesting

So the DOS attack that took out their website last week was normal business operation?

As others have pointed out, their webserver runs Linux, so technically, SCO Unix wasn't hit by the DoS attack.
Oh, wait, they claim Linux is a derivative of SCO Unix... Never mind...
Re:I like reason #4 by sean1121 · 2004-02-12 04:48 · Score: 2, Interesting

So the DOS attack that took out their website last week was normal business operation?

Not at all, as I pointed out in this post they claim that SCO UNIX is immune to DOS attacks and has better security features than the competition, yet they run their website on linux. That tells me that they consider linux to be a better option than their own product.

--
"The road from legitimate suspicion to rampant paranoia is very much shorter than we think." - Picard
Re:I like reason #4 by Anonymous Coward · 2004-02-12 05:22 · Score: 0

It went down *before* MyDoom started hitting it
Re:I like reason #4 by Anonymous Coward · 2004-02-12 05:38 · Score: 1, Funny

A large company recently had a security audit of their data center. The security company tested their network with some malformed IP packets. Result: the SCO Unix boxes crashed immediately.
Technically, Linux is better than SCO in every way, except that SCO Unix has a very clear roadmap: 5.0.7 is the final release.
Re:I like reason #4 by myowntrueself · 2004-02-12 06:30 · Score: 1

'Reason number 4 is "SCO UNIX is secure" '

I think that anyone with any actual experience of providing services, on the internet, on SCO UnixWare, would know that this was patently false.

UnixWare is, essentially, unsecurable. There is, for example, an nmap scan which will knock a UnixWare box right off the 'net.

Its obvious that whoever inserted this one into the '5 reasons' knows nothing about SCO UnixWare.

Go figure.

--
In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
Re:I like reason #4 by fltsimbuff · 2004-02-12 06:39 · Score: 1

Not necessarily... I expect they will release version 6.0 LE [Lawyers Edition] soon, which will contain upgrades of all license agreements and the entire source code re-written from the ground up in legalese. I can see it now... Typing "I hereby certify, this 12th day of February in the year 2004, that I am an authorized user of this system, identified as "root", and authorized to log into this system at 1:48PM on this day..." to log in as root. What else are they going to do with all the lawyers that they have replaced their OS programmers with?
Re:I like reason #4 by Anonymous Coward · 2004-02-12 07:17 · Score: 0

Only because Linux Zealots were running their little DoS scripts against them.

Oh, excuse me, it couldn't have been Linux zealots (despite such scripts getting posted to slashdot and moderated to 5) becuase they are morally flawless -- it must have been some other random people who wanted to punt SCO off the intarweb.

Re:I AM CONFUSED. by Anonymous Coward · 2004-02-12 04:40 · Score: 0

GrowLaw is a new product used by many companies, including SCO. In essence, it allows companies to "grow" their own laws by either inventing them outright or, if you pay enough, have congress invent them for you.

See a local GrowLaw dealer near you for details!

I love these case studies... by Valar · 2004-02-12 04:40 · Score: 5, Interesting

All of the dates mentioned in the case studies are early 90s and back. Zenez started with SCO in 1983! Gee, I wonder why they didn't consider Linux? Hmm...

--

====
Crudely Drawn Games

Re:I love these case studies... by jimicus · 2004-02-12 06:05 · Score: 1

Which means that all of these case studies are actualy referring to a totally different company.
Y'know, that country invented by Pratchett (can't remember the book) where everything said *had* to legally be true on pain of death would be a nice place to be right now. We could invite SCO there to explain their legal claims.

A Day without SCO... by weshart · 2004-02-12 04:40 · Score: 5, Funny

A day with SCO is like a day without sunshine...

And a day without sunshine is like...night.

Re:A Day without SCO... by Brahmastra · 2004-02-12 04:44 · Score: 2, Funny

When did the average geek see sunshine last?
Re:A Day without SCO... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-02-12 04:57 · Score: 0

Since the beginning of time man has yearned to destroy the sun. I will do the next best thing...block it out -- Darl McBride
Re:A Day without SCO... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-02-12 05:16 · Score: 0

please...
call me mr. steve martin.
Re:A Day without SCO... by jshift2work · 2004-02-12 06:12 · Score: 1

weather.com 5 mins ago
Re:A Day without SCO... by interiot · 2004-02-12 06:41 · Score: 1

Unfortunately my boss won't let me telecommute EVERY day of the week. When I do drive in, I have a garage so it's not too bad, but I still have to look at the outdoors during the drive to work, and actually step outside for the 30 seconds to walk across the parking lot at work. *shiver*
Re:A Day without SCO... by sglane81 · 2004-02-12 06:55 · Score: 1

When did the average geek see sunshine last?

Some of us have WINDOWS, you insensitive clod. (Pardon the pun)

--
This is the Internet. You can say "fuck" here. - AC
Re:A Day without SCO... by Sri+Lumpa · 2004-02-16 22:08 · Score: 1

A few months, even when going outside... but then I live in England.

--
"The obvious mathematical breakthrough would be development of an easy way to factor large prime numbers." Bill Gates,

What are those guys smoking?? by surprise_audit · 2004-02-12 04:40 · Score: 1, Funny

Whatever it is those SCO guys are smoking, I want some...

5 Reasons by crow · 2004-02-12 04:41 · Score: 4, Interesting

1. SCO UNIX(R) is a Proven, Stable and Reliable Platform
Linux is a proven, stable, and reliable platform.

2. SCO UNIX(R) is backed by a single, experienced vendor
Linux is backed by multiple, experienced vendors

3. SCO UNIX(R) has a Committed, Well-Defined Roadmap
Linux has a Committed development team and is actually going somewhere

4. SCO UNIX(R) is Secure
Linux is Secure.

5. SCO UNIX(R) is Legally Unencumbered
Linux is Legally Unencumbered and Open

Re:5 Reasons by Here+I+Stand · 2004-02-12 04:52 · Score: 2

1. SCO UNIX(R) is a Proven, Stable and Reliable Platform
Linux is a proven, stable, and reliable platform.
2. SCO UNIX(R) is backed by a single, experienced vendor
Linux is backed by multiple, experienced vendors
3. SCO UNIX(R) has a Committed, Well-Defined Roadmap
Linux has a Committed development team and is actually going somewhere
4. SCO UNIX(R) is Secure
Linux is Secure.
5. SCO UNIX(R) is Legally Unencumbered
Linux is Legally Unencumbered and Open

all of which goes to show that a statement that x has characteristic y does not mean only x fulfills this condition nor preclude z having characteristic y. sco and advertisers the world over would have us believe otherwise
Re:5 Reasons by milkman_matt · 2004-02-12 09:41 · Score: 1

3. SCO UNIX(R) has a Committed, Well-Defined Roadmap
Linux has a Committed development team and is actually going somewhere

Hey, they said they have a roadmap -- They're not obligated to let us know that they don't employ anybody who can actually read a map.. though.. :)

-matt
Re:5 Reasons by Anonymous Coward · 2004-02-12 09:42 · Score: 0

5. SCO UNIX(R) is Legally Unencumbered
Linux is Legally Unencumbered and Open

WRONG! Both SCO and Linux are legally encumbered!
If linux were legally unencumbered I could take you code and
do anything I wanted with it. This is not that case. Depending on your point of view Linux can be seen as MORE legally encumbered than other OS's because of the GPL. IF I use any
of your code in producing my product I MUST release ALL of my code using your license. Read the GPL folks, it the legal encumberance calling you.
Re:5 Reasons by Anonymous Coward · 2004-02-12 12:13 · Score: 0

Untrue. Linux is less legally encumbered than SCO. I can take linux source, and integrate it into an already GPL'd app. I'm not allowed to even see the SCO source, but if I did, you can be sure that I wouldn't be allowed to use it in anything at all.

SCO's 5 reason page by Xpilot · 2004-02-12 04:41 · Score: 5, Funny

I skimmed over it, laughing out loud at the incredibly great and skillfully humourous page that someone took great lengths to make in parody of SCO... until I realized it was at scogroup.com, and it was:

done by SCO
not intended as humour.

--
"Backups are for wimps. Real men upload their data to an FTP site and have everyone else mirror it." -- Linus Torvalds

Re:SCO's 5 reason page by dacarr · 2004-02-12 08:42 · Score: 1

This is why you take the text and "dispress" it.
There's this wonderful thing called Dissociated Press in EMACS, which turned out this after two cycles:
Properating System Intinue to offer the owner of the UNIX(R) System licenses the copyrights and core way back to 1969, whenses to preserve, protect, and enhance UNIX(R) System. The SCO 1969, when the owner of the owner e owner of the UNIX(R) Operating System Intellectual Property that dates all the way back to 1969, when the UNIX(R) System was created at Bell Laboratories. Through a series of mergers and acquisitions, SCO has acquired ownership of the copyrights and core technology associated with the UNIX(R) System. The SCO source division will continue to offer traditional UNIX(R) System licenses to preserve, protect, and enhance shareholder
(By jove, it sounds like Dubya plugging for them!)
Play with it at your leisure. Hilarity may ensue. =^_^=

--
This sig no verb.

5 Reasons?? by zulux · 2004-02-12 04:42 · Score: 5, Funny

I can tell SCO isen't serious about Unix or Linux:

Their list started at 1 for cryin' out loud.

--

Moneyed corporations, non-working 'poor' and criminal prisoners are turning productive citizens into tax-slaves.

Re:5 Reasons?? by happyfrogcow · 2004-02-12 04:55 · Score: 2, Funny

Of course they started at "1". "0" is part of their "Intellectual Property" in the disputed source code, and revealing "0" would break the liscensing agreements they have between themselves and their clients. They could not, without breaking contract, reveal "0".
Re:5 Reasons?? by Neop2Lemus · 2004-02-12 05:06 · Score: 1

Its meant to start at 5 and work its' way up to 1, like Letterman's Top-Ten lists.

--
Needle Nardle Noo
Re:5 Reasons?? by DeadSea · 2004-02-12 05:20 · Score: 3, Funny

Well it certainly isn't a Linux Slashdotter's list. Otherwise it would contain:
6. ???
7. Profit
Re:5 Reasons?? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-02-12 05:43 · Score: 0

In russia the Profit makes you.
Re:5 Reasons?? by swv3752 · 2004-02-12 08:31 · Score: 1

That was implied.

--
Just a Tuna in the Sea of Life

The "5 Reasons To Choose" models by Anonymous Coward · 2004-02-12 04:42 · Score: 0

Is it just me, or does it look like they're having a hard time keeping a straight face?

Real SCOoby Snacks by c64cryptoboy · 2004-02-12 04:42 · Score: 1

Saw these in the pet store yesterday.

--
I put the 'fun' in fundamentalism

Re:Real SCOoby Snacks by Anonymous Coward · 2004-02-12 04:51 · Score: 0

I used to eat scooby snacks in high school...
of course they were actually shrooms...

Poor SCO by Durzel · 2004-02-12 04:42 · Score: 3, Insightful

They missed the obvious 6th reason, SCO UNIX(R) will be a valuable piece of memorabilia in a few years time after the company itself has long since buried itself both commercially and perceptually.

I liked this quote by tornado2258 · 2004-02-12 04:43 · Score: 2, Funny

SCO UNIX(R) has all of the security features of the higher priced UNIX(R) solutions but at a fraction of the cost. These security features guard against business interruption, denial of service attacks...

I thought that was brilliant.

SCO and Costco..."CoSCO???" by ErnstKompressor · 2004-02-12 04:43 · Score: 1

Costco has pharmacies in more than 200 of its stores. The pharmacies had been running their day-to-day operations on a DOS-based system, but it was unable to keep pace with business growth. Costco needed a robust server system that could easily grow with the company.

The answer was SCO UNIX(R) running on Compaq(R) Proliant(R) 800 servers. Fred Floyd, director of Costco's pharmacy network, said Costco chose the SCO(R) and Compaq solution to run its in-house pharmacies because of its superior reliability and price/performance value.

Not only has the SCO and Compaq solution reduced Costco's computing costs, it has virtually eliminated unscheduled downtime on the company's mission-critical pharmacy network. And that has helped the company sharpen its competitive edge. As Mr. Floyd said, "The SCO and Compaq solution has allowed Costco to remain competitive and, in fact, set standards in an ever-changing pharmacy market."

And to think, I really liked Costco... Maybe it's time to have a 'talk' with the management...

--
We apologise for the fault in this post. Those responsible have been sacked. -- Signed RICHARD M. NIXON

Re:SCO and Costco..."CoSCO???" by psychoid · 2004-02-12 04:48 · Score: 1

Hold on. Proliant 800?!? That was like 5 years ago
Re:SCO and Costco..."CoSCO???" by Anonymous Coward · 2004-02-12 04:56 · Score: 0

So SCO is slightly more robust than DOS.

Not exactly a great claim to fame.
Re:SCO and Costco..."CoSCO???" by Anonymous Coward · 2004-02-15 12:48 · Score: 0

Yep, and sadly, some of those servers are still around. SCO is still at Costco, but it's such a small part of the total server count that most IT people at Costco don't even know that they are there.

No. 2 by rokzy · 2004-02-12 04:43 · Score: 5, Insightful

since when is being "backed by a single... vendor" a good thing?

also, does anyone else read the slogan "SCO Grows Your Business" and immediately associate them with the "G3n3r1c Vi 4g ara!!!"-type of business?

Re:No. 2 by Anonymous Coward · 2004-02-12 05:33 · Score: 0

I think they mean grow like a farmer grows a seed i.e:

1. drop it in the mud.
2. dump copious amounts of animal excrement on top
3. when it's grown, cut it down and sell it off.

That's exactly what I want to happen to my company.
Re:No. 2 by Jonny+Cat · 2004-02-12 05:38 · Score: 1

I'd prefer it if SCO left my "business" well enough alone, thanks.
Re:No. 2 by Imperator · 2004-02-12 14:17 · Score: 1

You mean:

>>MEN: SC0 grows your BU.SI NESS ! ! pineapple verbatim halliburton

--

Gates' Law: Every 18 months, the speed of software halves.

Butter your anus. by Anonymous Coward · 2004-02-12 04:43 · Score: 0

Try this:

You know what, I had this great analogy typed out that showed how your analogy was flawed, but fuck it. SCO contributed their butter KNOWING that by doing so they were giving up their "cake-ownership rights". Also, they don't own IBMs pie (by contract addendum) so they can't claim ownership of Linux' cake because some (non-SCO) ingredients used in IBMs pie were also used in Linux' cake.

SCO should be burned to the ground, WITH the executives and lawyers inside.

just posted over at groklaw by Samari711 · 2004-02-12 04:43 · Score: 5, Insightful

it appears Novell has just torpedoed SCO's newest acusations against IBM. here's the letter they sent SCO waiving the claim to any Sequent developed code that touched SysV. Since Novell already waived the claim to IBM code, there's not a lot left for SCO to stand on.

--

I never said I was smart, I just said I was smarter than you

Re:just posted over at groklaw by Anonymous Coward · 2004-02-12 07:52 · Score: 0

well SCO are still claiming Novell has no right to do so, and that all rights and copyrights were transfered to SCO. So in Darl's dillusional little head, they still have a case

What would happen by Anonymous Coward · 2004-02-12 04:43 · Score: 0

if SCO(formaly known as linux) won the court cases?

Would linux go underground and the tux became a pirate?

Would SCO become the a new MS?

Would Santa Cluas get sued for having the same initials?

Would WMD be found?

Would SCO crush all those pirate copies of linux?

Would Redhat become the black hat operations of IBM?

Would Darl become richer then Billy boy?

Would SCO and MS merge or co-op and drag the global IT industry by it's balls?

Would.....

SCO UNIX(R) has a Committed, Well-Defined Roadmap by rjamestaylor · 2004-02-12 04:43 · Score: 5, Funny

SCO UNIX(R) has a Committed, Well-Defined Roadmap

I guess "stagnant" is well-defined. SCO's recent investments in its technology core ($0) prove they are committed to stagnation, too.

How many people are thinking, "Whew, I'm glad my company isn't listed on that Hall of Shame page? I know I am!"

--
-- @rjamestaylor on Ello

Unencumbered? Not Quite by fjaffe · 2004-02-12 04:44 · Score: 5, Interesting

SCO UNIX(R) is Legally Unencumbered

Guess they forgot to update the page after receiving formal notice, in a lawsuit no less, of 4 patent infringement claims. And, of course, unlike copyright claims, the patent claims could be applied directly to SCOX customers.... Better check that indemnity clause.... oops no indemnity.....

ROTFLMAO

Re:Unencumbered? Not Quite by Ixitar · 2004-02-12 06:52 · Score: 1

What is the legal standard that has to be met to win a lawsuit for false advertising?

#5 by Lord_Frederick · 2004-02-12 04:44 · Score: 2, Funny

Buy our product, because we'll sue you if you use anything else.

I've got one reason to choose Linux over UNIX-SCO by BoomerSooner · 2004-02-12 04:45 · Score: 4, Funny

Linux is unencumbered by Darl McBride. The audacity of this asshole is amazing.

When Will they Learn by 9812713 · 2004-02-12 04:45 · Score: 1

When the heck will SCO learn that they are fighting and already lose the game. I mean they are sueing over Code similarities.... It's the Same thing as bill gates patent of binary Numbers (0,1) it's not going to happen. I guess SCO is in a losing battle, If they let things slide, they will be bankrupt, and not have a leg to stand on. On the other hand, if they don't Fight, there is going to some pee'd off Share Holders.

IMO - I think they should just give up, and distribute what $ they have left, and go away from the world of computing.

My Two Pennies..
-- Have a good day --

Re:When Will they Learn by Samari711 · 2004-02-12 04:54 · Score: 4, Informative

ah but they're not suing over code similarities anymore. they're suing because they see AIX and dynix as "derivative works" of SysV, which they are, but then SCO concludes (and it seems overreachingly) that therefore every line of code in AIX and dynix are "derivative works" of SysV as well. the suit is now about whether or not IBM violated the contract they signed with SCO by distributing publicly "derivative work" code.

--
I never said I was smart, I just said I was smarter than you
Re:When Will they Learn by Samari711 · 2004-02-12 04:57 · Score: 1

hate to respond to my own post but a small correction. they didn't sign a contract with SCO, they signed it with AT&T but SCO is now in control of the contract after it changed hands several times

--
I never said I was smart, I just said I was smarter than you

bluh by Anonymous Coward · 2004-02-12 04:45 · Score: 0

The 5 SCO stories a day are getting pretty old. Maybe a weekly summary of what they've done? Why is it only taco posts decent stories?

Daryl's take on POSIX standards by GillBates0 · 2004-02-12 04:46 · Score: 5, Informative

While some application programming interfaces ("API Code") have been made available over the years through POSIX and other open standards, the UNIX(R) ABI Code has only been made available under copyright restrictions. AT&T made these binary interfaces available in order to support application development to UNIX(R) operating systems and to assist UNIX(R) licensees in the development process. The UNIX(R) ABIs were never authorized for unrestricted use or distribution under the GPL in Linux(R). As the copyright holder, SCO has never granted such permission. Nevertheless, many of the ABIs contained in Linux(R), and improperly distributed under the GPL, are direct copies of our UNIX(R) copyrighted software code.

Most of the code that SCO came up with as evidence of stolen IP consisted of header files, which all of us concluded was part of the POSIX standard. That's Daryl's comeback from the 5 reasons link.

Essentially, what he's saying is that ABI code (including headers) is not part of the standard, but their IP. Atleast we know now what their defense will be if IBM lawyers argue that the headers are part of the POSIX standard, and not their IP.

--
An Indian-American Hindu committed to non-violent thought/speech/action alarmed by the global explosion of radical Islam

What about SCO/Caldera distributing Linux by displague · 2004-02-12 04:47 · Score: 1

I heard this point brough up long ago, but haven't heard anything about it since.

As Caldera, and still as SCO (a few months ago atleast), ftp.sco.com distributes Linux with ANY code that they may be complaining about under the GPL license. Why isn't this a show-stopper for their campaign?

--
Marques Johansson

One lousy reason by Unnngh! · 2004-02-12 04:47 · Score: 5, Funny

From the Five Reasons...

SCO is the owner of the UNIX(R) Operating System Intellectual Property that dates all the way back to 1969, when the UNIX(R) System was created at Bell Laboratories.

Yes, I remember that great day, when Darl reached out of his crib, played with some punch cards, and voila!, a multi-user operating system was born. He was years ahead of Gates' measly DOS, and I know that Linus reveres him deeply as the grandfather of his own IP.

Of course, none of this would have been possible without the hard work of his venerable company, SCO, who, since the 1830s has been an innovator in computer technology.

*mods SCO up +1 funny* by LordK3nn3th · 2004-02-12 04:48 · Score: 2, Funny

*watches others mod SCO down -1 troll*

--

---
Never criticize religion on Slashdot. You will be modded down for "Troll" no matter how factual it is.

Comment removed by account_deleted · 2004-02-12 04:48 · Score: 5, Funny

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Support? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-02-12 04:49 · Score: 0

After all the layoffs and becoming a company living off of lawsuits rather than production, they talk about having better support? From whom? Does their contracted janitor answer phones in empty cubicles if he happens to be passing by? Can somebody point out if there's any proof of the existence of the USG anywhere anymore?

A day with SCO is like a day without sunshine by HarveyBirdman · 2004-02-12 04:49 · Score: 3, Funny

No, a day without SCO is a day WITH sunshine.

SCO is the little gray raincloud that follows the Unix world around.

--
--- Ban humanity.

SCOverlords on Crack by BubbaTheBarbarian · 2004-02-12 04:49 · Score: 1

Your kidding, right?

In the SCO UNIX(R) is Legally Unencumbered section they refrence the rant Darl came out with about copyrights. It was bad enough that when Darl printed the who copyright letter that it was blasted to hell and back. Now they are using it in a PR push?

Truely, this smacks of desperation. The only case studies that are mentioned are POS situations, where SCO Unix could interface with what is more then likely some old ass mainframe. Translation, a stop-gap measure to get functionality now. You know these companies will not be using SCO as a perm solution.

As far as the case goes, the two are one. SCO screwed up by fileing the Slander of Title case, as they gain NOTHING if they win. It should have been breech of contract, in that way with one win they could sweep away Novell and boost the IBM case.

SCO is a bunch of big fish from a little pond getting their asses kicked. These guys think they can whine and threaten and get what they want, as most of Utah is a bunch of pushovers. Don't make waves!!! They figured the rest of the world was like that, and they could push over IBM.
Well, they are getting the kametic payback of a lifetime of being bullies.

Karma can be a bitch.

(no spelling check)

Groklaw wants a reason? by LuxFX · 2004-02-12 04:49 · Score: 4, Informative

From the Groklaw article:
Why didn't SCO sue for breach of contract, then, if their position is correct and copyrights were supposed to transfer and Amendment 2 is the contract that was to make that happen? No one I have talked to can figure that out.

Well, I know why.... SCO must know their copyright claims are questionable at best. They're not claiming breach of contract so not to draw attention to the contract. Because, once the contract is fully analyzed by a court, SCO will know they've lost.

(this, of course, won't stop them from filing at least 8 more stupid lawsuits within a three month period)

--
Punctanym: alternate spelling of words using punctuation or numerals in place of some or all of its letters; see 'leet'

Re:Groklaw wants a reason? by Sique · 2004-02-12 05:16 · Score: 4, Informative

Yes... because the contract states in 4.16(b) that SCO can't waive any rights of licensees without asking Novell for permissions. So technically the AIX license of IBM they have waived is still intact because Novell didn't agree. (See GROKLAW as a reference.)

--
.sig: Sique *sigh*
Re:Groklaw wants a reason? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-02-12 05:28 · Score: 0

import IANAL.*;
The point is that SCO's suit is "Slander to Title" - to prove which, SCO must show that not only do SCO own the copyrights but that Novell knew that SCO owned the copyrights and maliciously made public statements to the contrary. If there is a genuine dispute as to who owns the copyright, "Slander to Title" must fail regardless of who actually would be judged to own the copyrights in court.
Re:Groklaw wants a reason? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-02-12 05:42 · Score: 0

Remember -- Melinda Gates has been allegedly buying large amounts of SCO stock, to the tune of about 5% of the company (according to another /. poster who pointed to recent SEC filings). Could it be that Darl, aware that SCO is a zombie corporation -- dead already but not quite aware that it's time to stop twitching -- has made an under the table deal with Billy G? MS spends some of its war chest indirectly through Melinda in order to artificially boost SCO's stock values long enough for Darl to sell off his shares, on the condition that SCO-the-corporation throw itself under the wheels of the oncoming Linux locomotive in a vain attempt to slow its progress?
(This message brought to you by Conspiracies-R-Us, purveyors of fine conspiracy theories since 1939.)

SCOoby Doobie Doo-doo by Anonymous Coward · 2004-02-12 04:50 · Score: 0

It would suck to be a company touted in a direct assualt from SCO against Linux. Lots of reasons why. Use your imagination. Obey laws. Respect rights. If your company is listed on that page put out a contradictory press release and buy an ad promoting it on OSDN, quick!

No, you don't want some by Deraj+DeZine · 2004-02-12 04:51 · Score: 1

I've heard that they're smoking ground up human babies--or at least what's left after they eat the meat.

--
True story.

With/without by Anonymous Coward · 2004-02-12 04:51 · Score: 0

A day with SCO is like a day without sunshine, I know that's what you're thinking.

Given the number of SCO-related postings on /. each day, shouldnt' that read "A day without SCO..."?

Re:With/without by bhtooefr · 2004-02-12 06:29 · Score: 1

I thought a day without sunshine is good for nerds, which according to the Slashdot logo, is the intended audience of this site.

5 Real Reasons to Pick SCO by Anonymous Coward · 2004-02-12 04:51 · Score: 0

1) SCO UNIX(R) is a proven, stable, and reliable platform:
We accomplished this through buying and licensing other peoples code.

2) SCO UNIX(R) is Backed by a Single, Experienced Vendor:
This means that if we go bankrupt, there goes your tech support. But what are the chances of that?

3) SCO UNIX(R) has a Committed, Well-Defined Roadmap:
This well-defined roadmap will lead our company right into the ground.

4) SCO UNIX(R) is Secure:
Yes, we have secured the rights to use the name UNIX.

5) SCO UNIX(R) is Legally Unencumbered
Some may argue that by releacing the entire Linux Kernel in binary form with other people's Intellectual Property againsed their licensing is okay. We justify this through selectively ignoring the rights of others.

No cake for me, I'm on Atkins... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-02-12 04:52 · Score: 0

Kudos on a very effective troll, sir!

The Real Five Reasons by Infonaut · 2004-02-12 04:53 · Score: 5, Funny

1) SCO UNIX(R) is a Proven, Stable and Reliable Platform - just like our experienced, capable, and truly ferocious attorneys.

2) SCO UNIX(R) is backed by a single, experienced vendor - and Lord knows, vendor lock-in is a GOOD thing!

3) SCO UNIX(R) has a Committed, Well-Defined Roadmap - who cares if it's a highway to Hell.

4) SCO UNIX(R) is Secure - from legal attacks, unlike you, you friggin' thief! Give us your money! You owe us! Give it to us!

5) SCO UNIX(R) is Legally Unencumbered - and we truly believe that IBM's counteroffensive will do nothing to harm us. Really! It's all sunshine here at SCO!

--
Read the EFF's Fair Use FAQ

Dump by Lodragandraoidh · 2004-02-12 04:53 · Score: 1

It boggles the mind to see these folks on the one hand invoking the U.S. Constitution, the idea of justice, mom, apple pie and the American flag, all the while taking a big dump all over it.

Sic Semper Tyranis.

--

Lodragan Draoidh
The more you explain it, the more I don't understand it. - Mark Twain

Re:Dump by Anonymous Coward · 2004-02-12 05:07 · Score: 0

It boggles the mind to see these folks on the one hand invoking the U.S. Constitution, the idea of justice, mom, apple pie and the American flag, all the while taking a big dump all over it.
It always boggles my mind to see anybody on one hand taking a dump.

whack a mole? by IDigUNIX · 2004-02-12 04:53 · Score: 1

OK, I cannot resist. If anyone has some flash/applet skillz, I'd love to see a game where the picture of the cubicle farm at the top of the "5 reasons" link becomes the backdrop for a game of whack-a-mole.

Imagine the fun when Darl's head pops up, and you're madly trying to whack it. For added challenge, when you get into the higher levels various opensource people would popup. Obviously hitting their image would take away big points.

Public Relations Intern by Anonymous Coward · 2004-02-12 04:53 · Score: 2, Funny

Anyone? Give it a shot, there's not much room left to screw up...

Re:Public Relations Intern by oscarh · 2004-02-12 05:49 · Score: 1

From the posting:
"Candidate will play an active roll"
Does that mean the candidate gets to roll around in the ...?

--
OK, oscar

SCO UNIX(R) has a Committed, Well-Defined Roadmap by castlec · 2004-02-12 04:53 · Score: 1

So which insane asylum did SCO UNIX(R) have its Well-Defined Roadmap committed to?

The map:

Buy SCO UNIX(R) =>Show map to be Well-Defined=>Commit map to insane asylum

--
When I tell an object to delete this, am I killing it or telling it to kill me?

ess see oh by Anonymous Coward · 2004-02-12 04:54 · Score: 0

Am I the only one who pronounces 'SCO' as Ess See Oh, rather than "Scow"?

Re:ess see oh by Anonymous Coward · 2004-02-12 07:25 · Score: 0

Most people pronounce it "skoe" rather than "skow".

In the court transcript the court reporter wrote 'S.C.O.' and 'I.B.M.' indicating spelling out of initials rather than pronunication as an acronym by the judge and lawyers.

It would take... by virid · 2004-02-12 04:54 · Score: 1

a lot more than 5 reasons for me to leave Linux, and those are NOT the reasons. Ooooh, McTrash uses SCO. What a Mc-Frickin-Surprise

--
"The world only exists in your eyes. You can make it as big or as small as you want." - F Scott Fitzgerald

SCO and IBM the forgotten connection! by Anonymous Coward · 2004-02-12 04:55 · Score: 0

Radioshack uses SCO/Unix for their backend computer support in each store (AFIAK). And as a complete joke, they run this wonderful software on IBM NetVista machines. Peace

A bad pun (to begin with) by djeaux · 2004-02-12 04:56 · Score: 1

All this needs to go into Webster's next to the word "SCOfflaw"...

Semi-seriously -- who can take SCO seriously anymore? -- let's look at the slander of title claim as delineated in Groklaw:

"[t]o prove slander of title, a claimant must prove that (1) there was a publication of a slanderous statement disparaging claimant's title, (2) the statement was false, (3) the statement was made with malice, and (4) the statement caused actual or special damages."

"publication of a slanderous statement disparaging claimant's title" -- So Novell published as statement contesting SCO's claim to the copyright. Is that "slanderous"? To what extent are company letters really "published"?
"the statement was false" -- My first reaction is that this is redundant, given that "slanderous" is in point #1. SCO has yet to disclose any "proof" that their claim is valid. They contend it's valid, but that's not proof. SCO will have to show its hand to prevail on this & I don't think they're holding any face cards.
"the statement was made with malice" -- I think SCO has a tough row to hoe with this one, too, given that McBride worked for Novell & that Novell willing sold the product (and not the copyright) to SCO to market.
"the statement caused special damages" -- SCO will have it easy on this one. Any counterclaim obviously means that the day-trading SCO execs lose money ;-)

Caveat: IANAL (thank goodness!)

--
"Obviously, I'm not an IBM computer any more than I'm an ashtray" (Bob Dylan)

"Great Manchester Police"? by Nexus+Seven · 2004-02-12 04:56 · Score: 2, Funny

You'd think that SCO would at least be able to spell the names of their customers correctly: "Greater Manchester Police".

It's not like they have many. Even less that would agree to be listed as a case study.

You missed the funny bit. by Anonymous Coward · 2004-02-12 04:56 · Score: 0

SCO UNIX(R) has all of the security features of the higher priced UNIX(R) solutions but at a fraction of the cost.

Um, right. So what is this doing on a page about "reasons to choose SCO Unix over Linux"?

I Like Reason Five by nuintari · 2004-02-12 04:56 · Score: 2

Reason five is great, it basically says:

Use Linux, and we'll sue you!

The rest of the list basically says, "We couldn't compete with IBM, Red Hat and SuSE in the Linux market, so it must suck, use our crap instead! (or we'll sue you!)"

--

--Nuintari

slashdot : where an opinion can be wrong.

Point of Sale -- that's all by praxis · 2004-02-12 04:57 · Score: 1

It is just me, or does it seem like most of their case studies are POS systems of the earlier 90s?

Re:Point of Sale -- that's all by doon · 2004-02-12 05:02 · Score: 2, Funny

It is just me, or does it seem like most of their case studies are POS systems of the earlier 90s?

Where POS == Piece of $h*t. Sorry couldn't resist :)

--
To E-mail me, replace the first period in my domain with an @
Re:Point of Sale -- that's all by Dr.Dubious+DDQ · 2004-02-12 05:29 · Score: 1

Given the apparent quality of the proprietary Point Of Sale software that was coming out of a company that I used to work for, I'd say you were correct...

The sad thing is, it STILL seemed to be one of the better proprietary packages available in its niche at the time. Nowadays, though, I think a skilled coder could replicate pretty much all of its features with open source components in a month or so...
No, it wasn't SCO's stuff - old MS-DOS based system. However, I'd be surprised if similar arguments didn't apply for most proprietary 'niche' programs (which seem to lack real competition to keep them from being shoddy) in most areas.

--
Hacker Public Radio is our Friend
Re:Point of Sale -- that's all by corngrower · 2004-02-12 09:07 · Score: 1

I can just hear a salesman trying to sell one...

"I'ld like to show you this POS from SCO.
What would it take to get you to buy this POS?"

SCO claims that SCO UNIX(TM) is legally safe by Performer+Guy · 2004-02-12 04:57 · Score: 4, Insightful

SCO's reasons to use list is very strange, SCO while presenting themselves as the legally safe option is actually a very risky prospect. They are currently the target of a massive countersuit by IBM, Red Hat is suing them and they're also in a legal tussle with Novel. They're running out of cash obtained from their initial shakedown and it looks like other attempts at intimidation won't work because people are learning more about the facts. It is doubtful they'd actually sue anyone else purely on the basis of their legal bills and the OSDN defense fund that would eliminate any chance of an early settlement even if they weren't laughed out of court on day one. So there are serious doubts about the medium term viability of SCO as a company.

You simply cannot risk using SCO UNIX(TM) as a solution if you're serious about your IT strategy. They represent a huge risk.

UH, you don't get it by Anonymous Coward · 2004-02-12 04:57 · Score: 0

I like how of the five reasons, only one of them even mentions Linux,

Dood, they don't have to mention Unix because it's understood that the first 4 plus's are plus's vs Linux (e.g. single vendor). They are all slams against perceived weaknesses of Linux (or at least in SCO's perception).

+1 interesting, yeah right :(

Re:SCO UNIX(R) has a Committed, Well-Defined Roadm by drizst+'n+drat · 2004-02-12 04:57 · Score: 1

While that may be true, they do have a committed, well defined roadmap -- sue everyone everywhere who runs a "unix" platform (unless of course it's from sco)

After digging through their site a bit.... by Lehk228 · 2004-02-12 04:57 · Score: 1

For customers ...The telephone number

Africa +353 (0) 1260 6300
Americas 1 (800) 726-8649
(831) 427-6730
Europe +353 (0) 1260 6300
Middle East +353 (0) 1260 6300
Pacific Rim 1 (800) 726-8649
(831) 427-6730

Product and Sales Inquiries
1-800-726-8649

Contact Us

The SCO Group
355 South 520 West
Suite 100
Lindon, Utah 84042 USA
801-765-4999 phone
801-765-1313 fax

Lets "Contact" them to let them know what we think of them.... especially snail mail, they cannot just throw out a bunch of mail especially if you make the letters seem like legitimate correspondance (to take some ideas from the troll groups we could add lines like "think about your breathing" to the letters), but more importantly letters require significant time for processing unlike email that can be deleted with one click

--
Snowden and Manning are heroes.

Re:After digging through their site a bit.... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-02-12 05:13 · Score: 0

Please don't do this. We don't want anymore articles in the mainstream about "Linux Zealots".

Trepanning by burgburgburg · 2004-02-12 04:57 · Score: 5, Funny

Cutting a hole in one's skull is called trepanning. And it makes a lot more sense than SCO ever will.

Re:Trepanning by GreyWolf3000 · 2004-02-12 05:22 · Score: 1

Trepanning? As in let in the bad air out of the skull and let in the fresh air? Comon....you can't be serious...

--
Slashdot: Where people pretend to be twice as smart as they really are by behaving like children.
Re:Trepanning by Short+Circuit · 2004-02-12 05:41 · Score: 1

Well, in the case of a bleeding artery, it's better than letting the pressure build up inside the skull.

--
tasks(723) drafts(105) languages(484) examples(29106)
Re:Trepanning by inode_buddha · 2004-02-12 05:44 · Score: 1

No, the Daemons need an escape...

--
C|N>K
Re:Trepanning by Nurseman · 2004-02-12 05:55 · Score: 2, Funny

Cutting a hole in one's skull is called trepanning. And it makes a lot more sense than SCO ever will
It can also be called a Burr Hole
It is used to relieve excess pressure in the brain, due to swelling. Also to relieve excess lawsuits

--
Save a Life. Donate Blood. Please.
Re:Trepanning by the+Man+in+Black · 2004-02-12 06:02 · Score: 5, Funny

My god man! Drilling holes in his head isn't the answer!

--
El riesgo vive siempre!
Re:Trepanning by Just+Some+Guy · 2004-02-12 06:51 · Score: 4, Funny

And it makes a lot more sense than SCO ever will.
And even if it doesn't, you can find 2 or 3 people who openly claim that trepanning is a Good Thing, but nobody admits to liking SCO.

--
Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
Re:Trepanning by spitefulcrow · 2004-02-12 07:43 · Score: 1

Are you using an alternate spelling because you're from a country where that's standard or to make a pun on the concept of a system 'daemon'? :)

--
Sorry, my karma just ran over your dogma.
Re:Trepanning by inode_buddha · 2004-02-12 08:21 · Score: 1

A pun. Headaches were supposedly caused by demons a couple thousand years ago.

--
C|N>K
Re:Trepanning by Bob+McCown · 2004-02-12 08:24 · Score: 1

Headaches were supposedly caused by demons a couple thousand years ago.
Still are, at least the ones I get from interacting with my ex.
Re:Trepanning by Tiro · 2004-02-12 08:32 · Score: 2, Insightful

man.. you killed the joke : [
Re:Trepanning by nutznboltz · 2004-02-12 12:30 · Score: 1

Headaches were supposedly caused by demons a couple thousand years ago.

Thank goodness these days we have killall.

# killall headachesd
# echo Ahhh...

Re:I've got one reason to choose Linux over UNIX-S by nocomment · 2004-02-12 04:58 · Score: 1

or there #2 SCO UNIX(R) is backed by a single, experienced vendor

So I guess it's time to brush up on my SCO so that I can help McDonald's , Costco, Safeco, Save Mart, etc... migrate to linux. Well maybe BSD *ducks*

--
/* oops I accidentally made a comment, sorry */
/* http://allyourbasearebelongto.us */

No it doesn't by Anonymous Coward · 2004-02-12 04:59 · Score: 1, Informative

This has been discussed ad-nauseum before. Someone downstream from them is running Linux, not SCO.

Translations by Experiment+626 · 2004-02-12 04:59 · Score: 5, Funny

1. SCO UNIX(R) is a Proven, Stable and Reliable Platform
Well, it worked when we bought it, and we're too busy suing people to update anything.

2. SCO UNIX(R) is backed by a single, experienced vendor
Vendor lock in, you know you want it!

3. SCO UNIX(R) has a Committed, Well-Defined Roadmap
Updates will only come when and if we feel like it.

4. SCO UNIX(R) is Secure
With market share like ours, who would bother to crack this platform?

5. SCO UNIX(R) is Legally Unencumbered
We're the one company you know SCO won't be suing.

Re:Translations by Ark · 2004-02-12 09:54 · Score: 1

For some reason, this point by point rebuttal made me think the following:

1) SCO are mammals
2) SCO sues all the time
3) The purpose of SCO is to totally flip out and sue people.

Although, I doubt that SCO once sprung an 8 foot boner for charity.

Keith

A Day Without ... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-02-12 05:00 · Score: 0

A day with SCO is like a day without sunshine.

Yes, but what would a day without analogies be like?

Re:A Day Without ... by Little+Brother · 2004-02-12 05:11 · Score: 1

I don't know, but you've got a much better chance to see the day without sunshine.

--

Little Brother, watching the watchers

IF THE SCO PAGE DOESN"T LOAD RIGHT AWAY.. by Anonymous Coward · 2004-02-12 05:01 · Score: 0

...just click "refresh" about 10 times...i promise it'll load faster!

Slow SCO at McDonalds by jefu · 2004-02-12 05:01 · Score: 2, Interesting

The last time I got something at a McDonalds their computers were running very, very slowly. I asked how frequently this occurs and the counter person said it was a recurrent problem - a couple of days a week their system gets really really flakey for a couple hours then gets better for no apparent reason.

Undoubtedly this is the intellectual property that SCO put into Unix.

Re:Slow SCO at McDonalds by Short+Circuit · 2004-02-12 05:43 · Score: 1

Sounds like a cron'd updatedb with a poor I/O scheduler. I hardly notice any slowdown with the 2.6 anticipatory I/O scheduler. I remember the system crawling under 2.4 whenever I had to run updatedb.

--
tasks(723) drafts(105) languages(484) examples(29106)
Re:Slow SCO at McDonalds by HiThere · 2004-02-12 06:22 · Score: 1

I remember that with the older kernels there were lots of things that had to be scheduled for late at night. Nice wasn't enough.

(OTOH, my memories are really of an Altos 386 running System V...so I don't know how comparable that is to a current SCO install.)

--

I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
Re:Slow SCO at McDonalds by Short+Circuit · 2004-02-13 01:56 · Score: 1

Yeah, definately an IO problem. AFAIK, nobody's bothered to extend process priorities to areas other than the CPU scheduler.

It'd be interesting, for sure. Especially considering the implications for real-time jobs.

I think I'll try to grok the kernel and see if things like system calls share the priority of the process that calls them. I know that microkernel architectures like QNX do this.

--
tasks(723) drafts(105) languages(484) examples(29106)

Derivative works by tr0llb4rt0 · 2004-02-12 05:02 · Score: 5, Informative

I think that this snippet from SCO's original purchase agreement with Novell is superb.

"(b) Buyer shall not, and shall not have the authority to, amend, modify or waive any right under or assign any SVRX License without the prior written consent of Seller. In addition, at Seller's sole discretion and direction, Buyer shall amend, supplement, modify or waive any rights under, or shall assign any rights to, any SVRX License to the extent so directed in any manner or respect by Seller. In the event that Buyer shall fail to take any such action concerning the SVRX Licenses as required herein, Seller shall be authorized, and hereby is granted, the rights to take any action on Buyer's own behalf."

Basically the original contract says "SCO all your base are belong to us! signed Novell."

Novell can instruct SCO to amend or invalidate any of their license agreements on demand and if SCO refuses then Novell can go ahead and amend them anyway.

"Well that just about wraps it up for SCO." -- Gag Halfrunt.

--
Worst .sig ever!

Reason #5: UNIX is Legally Unencumbered... by stop14 · 2004-02-12 05:02 · Score: 1

... by our frivolous fucking lawsuits. LOL.

Legendary by starling · 2004-02-12 05:03 · Score: 2, Funny

SCO sez :

Its scalability, reliability and flexibility are legendary.

Merriam-Webster sez :

Main Entry: legendary
synonym see FICTITIOUS

Shocker! SCO isn't lying!

Re:Legendary by WWWWolf · 2004-02-12 07:07 · Score: 1

Actually they're not exactly "fictitious", just exaggerated. The bards, passing this legendary tale around when they travelled from town to town, tended to exaggerate a bit. (They had to, because otherwise their record labels might sue them for breach of contract, or something.)

SCO's tale, of course, tells of a great fortress that could withstand the attack of a gigantic fire-breathing dragon. In reality, the fortress was actually a barely standing shack in a slum. The dragon was actually a teenager punk who aimed at the windows with a slingshot when he sped past on a skateboard, which apparently had a dragon pattern on it. Thank God he didn't manage to hit the window. Or even side of the wall, because the thing might have collapsed.

One Reason by the_flatlander · 2004-02-12 05:03 · Score: 5, Funny

One reason to choose Linux over SCO-Unix:

In a year, there will likely still be Linux vendors.

The SCO Group? In a year? Are you kidding? With IBM gunning for them? They are history; just a stain on IBM's rug.

That's a typo; what they meant was... by schon · 2004-02-12 05:04 · Score: 1

Unencumbered

That's actually a typo. SCO knows that Patriotic Americans don't eat salad - only Unamerican hippy freaks eat vegetables.

What they meant was that it was legally uncucumbered.

The L. and B. Words by Anonymous Coward · 2004-02-12 05:04 · Score: 0

Every time I visit the SCO site (mostly for amusement or because someone linked there) I make a point to go to their search page and type in "litigious bastards". There is never any hit, but it is worth trying.

SCO EULA by eheldreth · 2004-02-12 05:04 · Score: 1

SCO the Licence holder of the UnixWare Software in order to maintain its "IP" rights will maintain owner ship of both the operating system, and the hardware on this computer. In addition to ensure that no third party vendors have a chance, um, err, I mean to make sure our competitors due not have access to this proprietary "IP" all information, documents, ideas, images, music, or videos contained on, viewed on, created, or inspired by this system or any system which has come within 25 miles of this system, even those not running our Windows XP will become the permenant property of the SCO Corporation and the end user must obtain SCO's written permission to use any of our property. Faurther more to insure that no ideas which could have been formed as a result of using our operating system could be given to our competitors, and to faurther protect our "IP" rights, The SCO Corperation shall have complete ownership of all individuals who have used, handled, viewed, or heard described any of the above claimed property. The SCO Corporation faurther states that it would be unfare to allow any ideas which are contrary to our own to be created with our software/hardware/slaves any atempt to create, think, do, or converse in any way which does not benifit SCO will be taken as a direct violation of this EULA. If any portion of this EULA is violated, in order to ensure cooperation from other end users, The SCO Corperation will oversee the offending partys emediate execution and a picture of there head on a wooden pole will be posted to http://www.SCO.gov/education.asp. Any laws enacted to prohibit the SCO Corporation from presuing its end goal of making lots and lots of money will also be viewd as a violation of the EULA and the goverment enacting said law will forfit there country to SCOs control. If said country is not emediatly forfit to SCO then the use of Intercontinintal Balistic Missels will be warnted to ensure the uprising is squashed. All generic carbin life forms, in order to abide more fully with this EULA shall also refer to Mr. Darl McBride by his birth name of Suron the Destroyer, Dark king of Mordor. If you have any questions or complaints you should refer to our helpful full color examples at http://www.SCO.gov/education.asp.

--
The perversity of the Universe tends towards a maximum. - O'Toole's Corollary

The're not up to what you think they're up to. by djh101010 · 2004-02-12 05:05 · Score: 4, Interesting

When the heck will SCO learn that they are fighting and already lose the game.

You think that their goal is to win a lawsuit. I disagree; I think their goal is to cast FUD on the GPL specifically, and open-source in general.

I mean they are sueing over Code similarities.... It's the Same thing as bill gates patent of binary Numbers (0,1) it's not going to happen.

Exactly. They're not stupid, they know that they have no case. Therefore, winning isn't their goal. Even if they lose, the FUD that they've spread is going to stick, even if it's just a little bit. I can't even propose linux-based projects because my employer (a fortune-50 insurance company) doesn't want the hassle. The FUD is working already.

IMO - I think they should just give up, and distribute what $ they have left, and go away from the world of computing.

If they just go away, the FUD sticks. If they get bought out, the FUD sticks. If they get shot down legally in no uncertain terms, some of the FUD will _still_ stick. Their goal isn't to win money, their goal is to try to destroy or cripple the Open Source Software community.

When one's enemies' actions are illogical, it makes sense to re-evaluate what that enemy's goals might be.

Re:The're not up to what you think they're up to. by Anonymous Coward · 2004-02-12 07:27 · Score: 0

I usually don't post, but I think the parent is mostly FUD itself. Note, also most of the posts on /. are like this, so this isn't a bash against djh.

Where were all these businesses years ago when Linux started? Didn't Linux start pretty much underground, by a bunch of nerds and geeks? Who cares of any of the FUD sticks? It may hinder progress of Linux in the mainstream, but I don't give a rat's ass about that. Sure, it is nice to see it succeed and become a very viable alternative to MS, but damn, this won't turn out like Old Yeller.

FUD or not, Linux isn't going away ever. If SCO comes out owning it 100% (yea, I know), it will NOT go away. Linux started underground, and totally thrives there. Short of a nuclear holocaust, it is here to stay.

SCO is the first deep notch in Linux's bedpost... it has played out to be the first MAJOR casualty against Linux. Sure, SCO's business model sucked, but SCO made a lot of noise. We should make that noise be a warning. IBM knows where Linux stands, and its future possibilities.
Re:The're not up to what you think they're up to. by djh101010 · 2004-02-12 07:42 · Score: 2, Insightful

Where were all these businesses years ago when Linux started? Didn't Linux start pretty much underground, by a bunch of nerds and geeks? Who cares of any of the FUD sticks?

Y'know, it's all well and great to be an underground Linux hacker. I learned alot about it that way, but didn't start all that early (RedHat 4.something was my first). However, to roll over and let McBride and company (or more likely, the people pulling his strings) succeed in driving it underground don't do me a bit of good, or you a bit of good.

Linux won't go away, but if the doubts linger, I will continue to not be able to use it as much as I want to, and people like this AC who don't care as long as it doesn't affect them are not helping. It's a damn fine tool; not the best, perhaps, but I'm not willing to let some litigious bastard and people who are too cowardly to even put their names with their opinions deprive me of it.

If you want to keep using it, but aren't even willing to say who you are, then your opionion is worse than useless.

Tipping Point by jeeves1914 · 2004-02-12 05:06 · Score: 1

I can't help but wonder id something like this (judge siding with Novell) is going to be the tipping point for the whole SCO legal debacle. I realize that SCO will go on gasping and wheezing for years as it's litigious corpse begins to fall apart. But what will be the fulcrum? What event will start the slide to non-credibility, stockholder abandonment, managament jettisoning stock options, and Darl jumping off the building with his golden parachute? Personally I'm getting a little impatient. -There are 10 kinds of people in this world, those who understand binary and those who don't

One reason to think again by G3ckoG33k · 2004-02-12 05:06 · Score: 5, Interesting

Apparently, some guy posting at Yahoo Finance has done some digging:

The SEC will be *VERY* interested in this. The SCO debacle is a big story, but SCO may simply be a pawn in a bigger scandal. The big story is about market manipulation and insider trading. It isn't just about pump and dump. It is about buy, then pump, then short, then dump, then cover using the money of Royce clients and some assistance from the Royal Bank of Canada. SCOX investors are being played for fools.

Here we go...

Jonathan Cohen is the CEO of JHC Capital and is an investment advisor to Royce & Associates. Cohen is the fund manager for the Royce Technology Value fund.
www.roycefunds.com/funds/technologyValue.ht ml
Under Cohen's direction, this fund has acquired 430,000 shares of SCOX.
www.roycefunds.com/funds/holdings_rtv.html
He is also the CEO and Director of Technology Investment Capital Corporation (TICC) and owns 139,100 shares:
www.ticc.com/management.html#cohen
www.s ec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1259429/0000947871 03002580/xslF345X02/form3_112603cohenex.xml

Charles M. Royce is President, Chief Investment Officer of Royce & Associates.
www.roycefunds.com/about/inside_royce .html
The Royce Low-Priced Stock Fund owns 943,600 shares of SCOX:
www.roycefunds.com/funds/holdings_rlp.html
However, Charles Royce is also a Director of TICC and personally owns 69,500 shares of TICC.
www.ticc.com/management.html#royce
www.sec .gov/Archives/edgar/data/1259429/0000947871 03002585/xslF345X02/form3_112603royceex.xml

Royce & Associates owns a total of 1.4M shares of SCOX.

Cohen went on a whirlwind publicity tour the second half of last year to pump SCO for the Royce Technology Value fund that he manages for Royce & Associates.
www.threenorth.com/sco/cohen.html
At the same time Cohen stopped talking about SCOX and Deutsche Bank takes over the PR duties, initiating coverage with highly suspect rationale and rating:
siliconvalley.internet.com/news/article.p hp/309220 1

RBC Dain Rauscher is the U.S. wealth management subsidiary of Royal Bank of Canada.
www.rbcdain.com
RBC Dain Rauscher Inc. was an underwriter for the IPO of Technology Investment Capital Corporation (TICC), underwriting an initial share allotment of 1,304,348 shares of TICC.
www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1259429/000 0950136 03002896/file001.txt

Of course RBC initiates coverage of TICC with an "Outperform" rating.
10:22am 01/15/04 Tech Investment Capital started at 'outperform' by RBC - CBS MarketWatch.com

RBC also participated in the private placement for SCOX, accounting for 2.3M of the Series A shares. www.globetechnology.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.200312 09.gtscodec9/BNStory/Technology/
"An RBC spokesman was reluctant to comment, saying the SEC filing was about how SCO operates its business. He said that RBC's "investment in SCO is passive, made to hedge an economic exposure resulting from client transactions."

Re:One reason to think again by liquidsin · 2004-02-12 05:45 · Score: 1

Ok, so for those of us with A.D.D., what does all of that mean in english?

--
do not read this line twice.
Re:One reason to think again by six11 · 2004-02-12 07:43 · Score: 1

The parent post (the one from Yahoo Finance) made a whole bunch of connections, which in a murder-mystery sort of way, is saturated with innuendo. There may be something there, but, I don't know if it would be easy to prove securities fraud.

In english, the yahoo post says this: Guys A and B are intimately involved with corporations C, D, and E. A and B had C, D, and E collectively buy 1.4 million shares of SCOX, underwritten by corporation F. SCOX has about 13.8 million outstanding (tradeable) shares.

(As an aside, 75% of SCOX stock is owned either by insiders or by institutions--10.4M shares. The remaining 25% are owned by the schmucks who think they can outsmart the pump&dump operation that is clearly underway.)

Guy A has gone around saying "Yay SCOX", which given his stature involving C, D, and E, and given their large investment in SCOX, may constitue fraud. I don't know if it is fraudulent, but it definitely is slimey.
Re:One reason to think again by Anonymous Coward · 2004-02-12 09:25 · Score: 1, Interesting

Here's the breakdown (as presented by the original author) to that "Big Story" potential scandal:

OK, now we have some background. Here is how it works.

Cohen likes small-cap companies with very little analyst coverage because they are easy to manipulate. He says this outright in an interview, but I can't find the URL just now. Cohen suggests to Charles Royce that Royce & Associates acquire a large chunk of SCOX; the company is a story stock that should be easy to work with. They build the price up by working the press and simply creating momentum through non-stop buying using the money of Royce clients.

Meanwhile, Cohen and Royce set up this other company, TICC, that is underwritten by RBC. They negotiate with RBC to build a short position for TICC in SCOX. TICC has an agreement to borrow 1.4M of RBC's 2.3M convertibles at the convertible price. Some other RBC client probably purchases the original notes.

Cohen and Royce win twice... they work the press and buy into SCOX early in the game before it hits $10. Of course TICC has advance knowledge of Royce plans to sell SCOX. 1.4M shares would, of course, take SCOX's share price down to $5 or less. Then they dump the Royce shares, building the value of the TICC short position. Royce shareholders win (maybe) or break-even, but TICC shareholders win for sure, and Royce and Cohen win for sure. Not a bad deal if you don't get caught.

Now we just need to uncover the Deutsche Bank connection with Brian Skiba. I am sure he is in on this. Brian showed an unusual amount of interest for a company as small as SCO. He made that trip out to Utah to visit with SCO execs, sign the NDA and view the "evidence." I'm betting Brian doesn't believe SCO has a prayer. From his initial coverage:

www.thestreet.com/_intuit/tech/ronnaabramson/101 19 639.html
"Although his buy rating was triggered by the legal case, Skiba calculated his $45 price target by forecasting earnings and revenue based on licensing agreements for Unix and other licensing opportunities. He estimated SCO could post earnings per share of $1 in calendar-year 2003 and $2.29 per share in 2004, leading to a forward price-earnings ratio of 20.

Skiba recently reiterated the $45 target and buy rating even though the reasons he stated for calculating the $45 target are gone and everybody is laughing at the coverage. Novell has put a stop to any more Unix licensing agreements and the copyright dispute has put an end to other "licensing opportunities."

SCO does an injustice to Unix technology. by openmtl · 2004-02-12 05:06 · Score: 4, Insightful

Windows was allowed to gain a foothold because of stupid in-fighting within the Unix community.

Current SCO management are old-school; they simply want traditional Unix technlogy to die under a mound of legal paperwork. They don't care who loses as long as the lawyers get paid.

Linux is Unix is Linux. As far as joe-user or joe-admin is concerned the GUI or shell is identical in that its not Microsoft Windows.

All they simply seem to be upset about is some ABI headers !. The joke being that they then seem to go on about the Linux Kernel Personality (LKP) in Unixware. So they quite happily take but don't want to give back.

Their Unix is chocka full of juicy Open Source contributions which they have merrily grabbed and then they try and deflect interest in what they are doing by pointing fingers at others and calling these other Operating System developers pirates.

Pre-2.6 everyone knows what deficiencies there where in the Linux scheduler. This wasn't a cut+paste from Unix but was a paragmatic easy-to-understand scheduler that evolved over many years by many developers. Along comes 2.6 and it has fixes for the main known deficiencies. SCO have seen this happen. Why is it that both kernel 2.6 and 2.4 are priced the same from SCO's point of view ?. If the technology in 2.4 was top-of-the range Unix Intellectual Property then why was it so poor that it needed fixing for 2.6 to get 2.6. to scale ?. Something tells me 2.4 did not have any Unix SMP technolgy else it would not have been able to scale better in 2.6 !

--

I didnt know by kerb · 2004-02-12 05:06 · Score: 1

I didnt know they were still selling products. the 5 items presented sounded more like 5 last breaths of a dying animal.

They left out Reason Number 6 by Anonymous Coward · 2004-02-12 05:07 · Score: 1, Interesting

Your support staff become more knowledgeable trying to install common programs (such as Python 2.3) because they have to trouble shoot *everything* that is built on SCO due to non-shared libraries, problems with random number generation, and libraries that are not compatible with Linux libraries.

The SCO Roadmap by ch-chuck · 2004-02-12 05:07 · Score: 4, Funny

(taking a page from Dave Barry)

SCO has a well defined roadmap, unfortunately the lug nuts of ethical competition came off the left front wheel of research and marketing, causing the SUV of profitability to crash into the ditch of bankruptcy.

--
try { do() || do_not(); } catch (JediException err) { yoda(err); }

Re:The SCO Roadmap by Anonymous Coward · 2004-02-12 09:21 · Score: 0

your sig is awesome. just wanted to say.
Re:The SCO Roadmap by johno.ie · 2004-02-12 10:23 · Score: 1

the sig is also missing several ()'s. my maths teachers would shoot you.

--
872835240

Manchester PD running Solaris? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-02-12 05:09 · Score: 0

Manchester PD runs Solaris? I'm surprised -- the city (which, to my knowledge, includes the Manchester PD) used to run SCO Openserver and MUNIS (MUnicipal Information System, formerly put out by the MUNIS corporation which is now a wholly owned subsidiary of Tyler Technologies out of Texas).

Of course, they might have migrated, but municipalities tend to have the inertia of a small black hole when it comes to IT....

Re:Manchester PD running Solaris? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-02-12 05:40 · Score: 0

Manchester, England you asshat
Re:Manchester PD running Solaris? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-02-12 08:05 · Score: 0

Stone cold.
Re:Manchester PD running Solaris? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-02-12 17:03 · Score: 0

Were you born a moron, or did it take training?
Or Perhaps its just cold, hard, brain-dead ignorance.

Greater Manchester Police

from the SCO site -- w/ commentary by Anonymous Coward · 2004-02-12 05:10 · Score: 0

From the SCO site --- NB SCO UNIX is a trademark of SCO.
1. SCO UNIX(R) is a Proven, Stable and Reliable Platform

aka it's a cranky old OS

2. SCO UNIX(R) is backed by a single, experienced vendor

aka we've been "about to go under" for years

3. SCO UNIX(R) has a Committed, Well-Defined Roadmap

aka file lawsuits to prop up the non-business model

4. SCO UNIX(R) is Secure

aka cranky old unix with very limited functionality which could provide risk exposure

5. SCO UNIX(R) is Legally Unencumbered

aka we won't sue you if you buy our product

Time for a Linux slander suit? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-02-12 05:10 · Score: 0

Quoted from the "UNIX is legally unencumbered" (snicker, snicker) page on SCO's site:

As early as May 2003, SCO warned Linux(R) users that enterprise use of the Linux(R) operating system was in violation of its intellectual property rights in UNIX(R) technology. Certain copyrighted application binary interfaces ("ABI Code") have been copied verbatim from SCO's copyrighted UNIX(R) code base and contributed to Linux(R) for distribution under the General Public License ("GPL") without proper authorization and without copyright attribution. These facts support SCO's position that the use of the Linux(R) operating system in a commercial setting violates our rights under the United States Copyright Act, including the Digital Millennium Copyright Act.

Not even counting the Novell issues... since that hasn't been proven in a court of law, the judge said they failed to produce the evidence, and SCO themselves dropped that from their lawsuit I'd say there's a pretty good case.

Registered trademark by super_ogg · 2004-02-12 05:10 · Score: 0

I love how they have the circled R beside UNIX pointing out the 'obvious' fact that Unix is registered (under SCO). hahaha
ogg

--
Black cat, searing pain, flames...? I must be in Heaven! - Homer Simpson

Re:SCO = the best! by Anonymous Coward · 2004-02-12 05:11 · Score: 0

no just bad humor!

Linux is the Recipe not the Cake by 1HandClapping · 2004-02-12 05:12 · Score: 1

The source code is like the recipe. A distribution or compile is the "cake".

SCO claims to own one or more of the ingredients but wont say if it's the butter or flour or salt. It may even be just a procedual step (e.g. fold sugar into butter)

The problem is every time SCO tried to be specific, it turns out that they do not own the ingredient.

Hyprocracy by FortKnox · 2004-02-12 05:12 · Score: 2, Insightful

I can't BELIEVE the hypocracy of this site. All *nix bigots, but now I see insults on how SCO UNIX isn't stable or isn't secure? Yeah, we all hate SCO and their frivolous lawsuits, but does that mean UNIX isn't stable and secure anymore?

And an insult at a top 5 list which is EXACTLY what PHB's and executives want to hear. I think its time some linux companies made similar top 5 lists. This is a PR gimmic that linux needs if it intends to market with the big-boys.

--
Good quote, too many chars. Seriously, the slashdot 120 char limit sucks!

Re:Hyprocracy by zulux · 2004-02-12 06:29 · Score: 1

All *nix bigots, but now I see insults on how SCO UNIX isn't stable or isn't secure?

SCO's version of Unix cam from Microfost XENIX. It's a nasty little hack of an OS that hasen't grown up from when multitasking on a 286 was a "big thing."

Other vensore Unix have been developed on 32 bit processores with huge resources over the past 20 years.

SCO Unix is like a Tricycle with a V-8 engine strapped on the side, trying to pass itself off as a industrial earth mover.

--
Moneyed corporations, non-working 'poor' and criminal prisoners are turning productive citizens into tax-slaves.
Re:Hyprocracy by inode_buddha · 2004-02-12 07:17 · Score: 1

er, since when was linux or UNIX concerned with markets or big boys? Hey, it's not my problem if you bought too much hype during the dot-com or something. FWIW, this was all around *long* before all that. And since when is *nix associated with bigotry?

--
C|N>K

Sco Unix is DDOS protected? by alexborges · 2004-02-12 05:12 · Score: 1

According to the 5 reasons to choose Sco Unix over Linux, the fifth, labeled security, includes:

SCO UNIX(R) has all of the security features of the higher priced UNIX(R) solutions but at a fraction of the cost. These security features guard against business interruption, denial of service attacks and protect against identity or corporate information theft.

Wa Wa HAHA WEAHAHAHA HA HA HAHAHAHHAH aaahahaha /me chokes

--
NO SIG

Tivo by Lord+Apathy · 2004-02-12 05:13 · Score: 1

Fuck the home made linux boxes out there, think of the tivo users. There is gold in them thar DVR's. Just think, right now my unlicensed linux box, which has better taste in tv that I do, is worth $699 to some people.

--

Supporting World Peace Through Nuclear Pacification

Case Study: Great Manchester Police by Threni · 2004-02-12 05:14 · Score: 1

Uh..I think they mean "Greater Manchester Police".

If you're going to quote your clients, get their name right!

Re:Case Study: Great Manchester Police by BenjyD · 2004-02-12 05:35 · Score: 1

So Manchester uses SCO and Yorkshire uses linux? But they normally get on so well ;).
Re:Case Study: Great Manchester Police by darth_silliarse · 2004-02-12 08:44 · Score: 1

Being a resident of the Manchester area I now know why Manchester's crime problems have not been resolved. It's official - blame SCO!

--
I've noticed that everyone who is for abortion has already been born - Ronald Reagan

Re:I've got one reason to choose Linux over UNIX-S by Short+Circuit · 2004-02-12 05:15 · Score: 1

I can't believe they'd say that one. Other UNIX vendors ought to go after SCO for misleading advertising. (Last I knew, BSD was in the UNIX royal family. So is Solaris. And HP/UX. I don't know about Minix, but Linux wasn't born of a contract or flamewar(fork).)

--
tasks(723) drafts(105) languages(484) examples(29106)

A day without rain. by lullabud · 2004-02-12 05:16 · Score: 1

A day without SCO is like a day without rain, and i'm sick of this weather.

What they're really saying... by MoeMoe · 2004-02-12 05:16 · Score: 4, Interesting

From reason number 5 on their own site:" The SCO source division will continue to offer traditional UNIX(R) System licenses to preserve, protect, and enhance shareholder value."

Translation: We will sell you something that is distributed for free so we can make ourselves (and our stockholders) richer.

This must be the only true thing that SCO has ever stated...

--
Business \Busi"ness\, n.;
A scam in which all people involved perceive as beneficial...

Re:What they're really saying... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-02-12 11:13 · Score: 0

What like Red Hat? Pfeh.

Single vendor; that's a BAD thing by jridley · 2004-02-12 05:17 · Score: 5, Insightful

Backed by one vendor? And what if they go out of business, which is very likely, considering the desperate flailing legal moves they're trying?

Better to go to a solution that has MULTIPLE vendors so you're not screwed if one of them goes out of business.

Re:Single vendor; that's a BAD thing by Short+Circuit · 2004-02-12 05:29 · Score: 1

Which is why free software is so good. :)

I think their point is that if you have problems, you automatically know where to go. At least, that's the only sensible point I can think of.

--
tasks(723) drafts(105) languages(484) examples(29106)
Re:Single vendor; that's a BAD thing by shrikel · 2004-02-12 07:53 · Score: 1

If you can't fix it, list it as a "feature".

--
Any sufficiently simple magic can be passed off as mere advanced technology.

#2 is better by blorg · 2004-02-12 05:17 · Score: 1

2. SCO UNIX(R) is backed by a single, experienced vendor

I don't think that's much an advantage, when that single vendor is SCO. Like, how much longer are they going to be around?

And "lower[ing] the dependency on single software vendors" , as the German government is attempting to do in moving to Linux, is surely a good thing, anyway.

McBride is such a glaring hypocrite... by KC7GR · 2004-02-12 05:19 · Score: 1

I'm amazed the whole SCO mess has dragged on as long as it has, especially considering that SCO incorporates Samba (scroll down towards the bottom, look for an announcement dated 19-Aug-03) into their own OS releases, and Samba is licensed under - you guessed it - the GPL.

As Andrew points out on the web page, SCO can't have it both ways. They're bashing the GPL on one side, and reaping its benefits on the other.

Or does 'Dalek' McBride (scroll towards mid-page) really think he's going to gain anything other than a corporate bloody nose from the whole fiaSCO?

--

Bruce Lane, KC7GR,

Blue Feather Technologies

5 reasons to chose UNIX over Linux by kyoko21 · 2004-02-12 05:20 · Score: 1

Well, SCO may have a page dedicated for telling us why UNIX is better than Linux, here is a book (funny read for any side of the debate) that many slashdot readers will love to love and love to hate. The UNIX-Haters Handbook. It's a funny read.

McDonalds and SuSE by bstadil · 2004-02-12 05:21 · Score: 2, Informative

Well Maybe they are not so happy with SCO in Germany

--
Help fight continental drift.

SCO & Novell Same Images by Anonymous Coward · 2004-02-12 05:21 · Score: 2, Interesting

Notice on SCO's 5 reasons page here, the Image is the same as on Novell's support site here. Conspiracy maybe?

The plural of anecdote by Gothmolly · 2004-02-12 05:21 · Score: 1

is not data. All they show to support their claims are customer testimonials. And what customer is going to say 'nah, SCO is teh suck, we wasted millions on them' ?

--
I want to delete my account but Slashdot doesn't allow it.

Re:The plural of anecdote by Anonymous Coward · 2004-02-12 08:30 · Score: 0

They may say it, but SCO wouldn't report it.

The SCO theroy by deck · 2004-02-12 05:21 · Score: 5, Insightful

SCO to Judge:

The derivitive work, AIX or DYNIX (containing SysV and IBM code), is to be treated as the original work per 2.01(OK by US copyright).
AIX or DYNIX contain RCU, NUMA, JFS, etc. Linux also contains these.
Here is source code (in C) from AIX, DYNIX, and Linux. See how they are similar in implementing these functions.
Since AIX and DYNIX are to be treated as the original work (No. 1), see Judge, how they have stolen OUR code.

My butter anology:

SCO makes butter churning equipment (Patented).
IBM bought SCO butter churning equipment design as a basis to make their own.
IBM added their own improvements (Patented by IBM) to this design and sells that equipment.
IBM discovered a free design for butter making equipment and found they could add their improvements to that design. But to use the free design they had to make their improvements available in that design for others to build from.
SCO claims that since the improvements were originally used with their design even though they don't own the improvements they are theirs anyway.
SCO sues IBM for adding the improvements to the free design. They also say they will sue the people who use butter from the free design equipment.

Re:The SCO theroy by Anonymous Coward · 2004-02-12 07:34 · Score: 0

Also, SCO claims the free butter churner design is viral. They say it makes everything it touches free, giving away your entire business.

This is, of course, ignoring (#5) the fact that SCO claims that any gadget glued onto their churner becomes their property.
Re:The SCO theroy by donnz · 2004-02-12 08:36 · Score: 1

Then Novell (via AT&T in 1985) say:

"well, when we sold the original butter making patent to you we made it absolutely clear, at the time, that any improvements you make to the design are yours to do exactly what you like with. And just so there is no confusion we wrote it down 100's of times and sent it off to out licence holders."

So dericative works, out the window, breach of contract, ditto, copyright issues, SCO have seemingly dropped that part of the case by not supplying *any* examples of Sys V code to the judge.

QED, really.

--
-- Free software on every PC on every desk
Re:The SCO theroy by Grendol · 2004-02-12 12:02 · Score: 1

Well, that is part of the problem here you said Patent, as opposed to Copyright. GM/Ford/Chrysler can modify and patent the hell out of each others engines for decades. But if I ran the replace command and replaced "Harry Potter" with "The Amazing Grendol" to tell the same story in a different way, that violates copyright, while it would not violate a patent. You can modify an internal combustion engine and sell it as your own under patent law, this has been proven time and time again. SCO is trying to say that since Linux's story is so similar to theirs, they must own it. Even though, there is no proof that the alleged modification of their story happened. Copyright law makes this problem worse than it should be, in my opinion.
Even under patent law, when a component of a system if found to infringe, the royalties paid are not the price of the entire system, but fair market value of the components found to infringe. SCO charging $700 for the cost of the infringed code components is ludicrous and is not fair market value when with Win XP, you can get the whole OS for only $300, not just comparable components. Even when MS blatantly infringed code back in DOS 6.x, the infringeing code components were not awarded at fee rates higher than the sales cost of the whole OS.
Even in the really remote chance that SCO has a legal leg to stand on, their fee is exhorbitantly high anyways. Kinda interesting that Santa Cruz Operating systems is using the stereotyped Californian legal theory of sue for everything, even when you are probably wrong.
Re:The SCO theroy by prtsoft · 2004-02-17 02:45 · Score: 1

Thats the best description I've seen since this started!

Great Article by GoodNicsTken · 2004-02-12 05:21 · Score: 1

Anyone know why the SCO links don't work? :)

The Open Letter in the 5th "point" by Anonymous Coward · 2004-02-12 05:21 · Score: 0

Um...maybe I'm really misremembering...

But are there not NINE Justices of the Supreme Court, instead of the SEVEN Darl tries to justify himself with? I'd just hate to see him misrepresenting information with his stellar performance to date...would hate to think it's not the iron clad case he believes it to be.

After all...these reasons are just so compelling! /me goes back to tinkering with SUSE, giggling to himself

I guess... by NitroWolf · 2004-02-12 05:25 · Score: 1

...that they forgot to mention as number six that SCO will be out of business in the next few years.

Of course... that's probably not really good marketing strategy. I'd leave off point number 6 myself.

HOLY CRAP by first.last · 2004-02-12 05:27 · Score: 2, Funny

The Raelians don't have shit on these fuckers

--
Wishing I was a millionaire since 1969.

Re:HOLY CRAP by sg_oneill · 2004-02-12 06:05 · Score: 4, Informative

Well Maybe.

The Raeleans claim a mission going back to the beginning of time despite the cult starting in the 60's or whenever.

SCO claim 20 years experience in the article (despite that caldera was started in 1995).

So Raeleans are ridiculous by a few million years, and caldera ridiculous by only 13 (thereabouts) years. :) see.

--
Excuse the Unicode crap in my posts. That's an apostrophe, and slashdot is busted.

Re:oh my god! by Anonymous Coward · 2004-02-12 05:27 · Score: 0

I want to marry y o u r sister!

Ironic? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-02-12 05:27 · Score: 2, Interesting

Compare the image on SCO's Top 5 reason's page to http://support.novell.com Novell has been using the image for at least a couple of years.

Re:Ironic? by C_Kode · 2004-02-12 07:30 · Score: 1

Mod this up. hah Thats not only ironic, thats down right amusing.

I will eat at Burger King from now on... by tiger99 · 2004-02-12 05:28 · Score: 1

...because apparently McDonalds are using SCO.

Reason #3 by jmv · 2004-02-12 05:28 · Score: 2, Funny

SCO UNIX(R) has a Committed, Well-Defined Roadmap

Translation: We hit the wall within a year.

--
Opus: the Swiss army knife of audio codec

Which brings up a Question or two ... by pmaccabe · 2004-02-12 05:28 · Score: 1

What is Slashdot going to cover to fill up all that space taken up almost daily, sometimes several times a day, once this whole matter is resolved? I wonder if any single company, application, or topic has consumed this much slashspace (if no one has coined this one yet, I lay claim to it here) since /.'s inception. Anyone know the stats on that? What other topic do you think competes?

SCO: GPL unconstitutional? by Loopy · 2004-02-12 05:29 · Score: 1

Didn't hear about this in the original furor. Anyone got a synopsis of their position regarding this statement?

Or in other words by A+nonymous+Coward · 2004-02-12 05:30 · Score: 1

SCO UNIX(R) is a Proven, Stable and Reliable Platform
So is a rock.

SCO UNIX(R) is backed by a single, experienced vendor
No one else wants anything to do with it.

SCO UNIX(R) has a Committed, Well-Defined Roadmap
Yep, whatever appears in Linux, appears in SCO UNIX(R) years later.

SCO UNIX(R) is Secure
So obscure that no one notices when it is cracked.

SCO UNIX(R) is Legally Unencumbered
... by any legal sense whatsoever.

--
Infuriate left and right

Anyone notice the typo? by tiger99 · 2004-02-12 05:30 · Score: 2, Funny

On the stupid SCO page, they call the Greater Manchester Police the "Great Manchester Police". I think that some of the locals might disagree with that assessment of the quality of their local constabulary.

Re:I've got one reason to choose Linux over UNIX-S by first.last · 2004-02-12 05:30 · Score: 1

As an official asshole, I find myself utterly offended by your statement.

--
Wishing I was a millionaire since 1969.

Re:For the lazy: - did you look at the roadmap??? by sprior · 2004-02-12 05:31 · Score: 2, Interesting

Part of their roadmap is more use of open source tools!!! They specifically mention OpenLDAP, Tomcat, PHP, and Mozilla. Uh, isn't that what they are saying is a bad thing????

Re:SCO UNIX(R) has a Committed, Well-Defined Roadm by rjamestaylor · 2004-02-12 05:33 · Score: 1

I think they're rather intent on suing those who run UNIX platforms from SCO! In fact, that seems to be the only ones they're threatening (IBM, SGI, and the SCO Unix licensees with their "swear you comply or die!" letter of last month).

--
-- @rjamestaylor on Ello

Some of the testimonials are very old by DesScorp · 2004-02-12 05:33 · Score: 5, Interesting

Cardkey's in particular. Note that the testimonial mentions choosing "SCO and Compaq". I know about this one because I work at an airport, and we're phasing out our old Cardkey access control system right now (which runs on the aformentioned SCO and Compaq platform).

First off, Cardkey doesn't exist anymore, really. They were bought out by Johnson Controls years ago. Secondly, Compaq became HP years ago. Thirdly, most vendors are moving to Windows 2000 based ACS, so I'd be very surprised if Johnson Controls was still using SCO for new installs. They have to support their older Pegasys systems, but I'd be willing to bet they've gone Wintel along with everyone else.

All this raises a good question: how many NEW installs is SCO doing? Who's buying OpenServer and UnixWare NOW?

--
Life is hard, and the world is cruel

Re:Some of the testimonials are very old by fltsimbuff · 2004-02-12 06:08 · Score: 4, Funny

From SCO site:
"
1. SCO UNIX(R) is a Proven, Stable and Reliable Platform [Maybe 10-15 years ago...]
2. SCO UNIX(R) is backed by a single, experienced vendor [Experienced litigators...]
3. SCO UNIX(R) has a Committed, Well-Defined Roadmap [Over the river and through the woods... then to hell in a handbasket when their litigation fails.]
4. SCO UNIX(R) is Secure [Can't exploit something no one uses...]
5. SCO UNIX(R) is Legally Unencumbered [Buy Unix, and we promise we won't sue you.*]"

*Limited time only!

[Comments added for clarification.]

Now back you your regularly [re-]scheduled fiaSCO.
Re:Some of the testimonials are very old by Goo.cc · 2004-02-12 07:18 · Score: 1

You know, by copying and pasting portions of SCO's Five Reasons into a Slashdot thread, you may have given SCO a copyright infringment suit that they could actually win! (Fiction is protected by copyrights, right?)
Re:Some of the testimonials are very old by Anonymous Coward · 2004-02-12 07:46 · Score: 0

All this raises a good question: how many NEW installs is SCO doing? Who's buying OpenServer and UnixWare NOW?
Answer: 0, 0
SCO P/E Ratio: divide by zero error
Re:Some of the testimonials are very old by Quila · 2004-02-12 08:28 · Score: 1

If you look at their last annual report, not many. Their UNIX revenue has been declining for the last four years, and the deferred income from long-term contracts got cut in half from 2002-2003. I guess they're getting little new business and current contracts are expiring or being canceled.

And as opposed to the public statements we've heard, the report states that Novell and others indemnifying Linux users is a risk to their business.
Re:Some of the testimonials are very old by fltsimbuff · 2004-02-12 08:40 · Score: 1

I did leave the (R)'s there, and put it in quote form, as well as citing the source at the top.

What a depressing photo. by iturbide · 2004-02-12 05:33 · Score: 1

Can someone tell me what image they are trying top project here? It sure looks like Hell to me.

Is is just me... by Ghengis · 2004-02-12 05:34 · Score: 1

Is is just me, or does "www.thescogroup.com" sound more like a lawfirm's website than a software company's website?

--

"The best laid plans of mice and men gang oft agley..." - ROBERT BURNS

Pull the other one, it's got stock on by Anonymous Coward · 2004-02-12 05:35 · Score: 1, Insightful

Quite frankly, it doesn't really matter if SCO wins or loses this. Do you think Darl will ever have to work again with the money he's currently making selling grossly inflated stock? People only look at the side of SCO desperately trying to prove they're right, but the longer they keep this up the harder their stock will probably rise. If they keep a solid marketing campaign around the case, they'll soon have the wealth of kings. Or queens, your pick.

Ah, customer lists by Trailer+Trash · 2004-02-12 05:35 · Score: 1

I love it when someone hands me a cold call list, ripe at that given SCO's market standing. I wonder how many of these companies know that they're on SCO's web site....

--
Do you have ESP?

Bullpies by pantherace · 2004-02-12 05:35 · Score: 3, Informative

SCO UNIX is actually more encumbered than Linux, because they are being sued, for violating 4 of IBM's patents (well 4 they chose to sue about). Guess what? They have dropped all thier copyright stuff against IBM. Where is Linux Legally Encumbered?

They meant Linux is Legally Unencumbered.

and SCO Unix is Legally Encumbered.

I just don't see it by Anonymous Coward · 2004-02-12 05:36 · Score: 0

Trying to find proof that anything SCO says is true is liking trying to find the "S" in their logo.

I only see "C" and "O".

SHIT! have to boycot the mariners now by Anonymous Coward · 2004-02-12 05:37 · Score: 0

Safeco is a GREAT stadium (with a shitty sponsor), now I have to avoid M's games due to their unholey relationship with these SCO pricks.

the horror

Re: You don't need those by Mr.+Arbusto · 2004-02-12 05:39 · Score: 1

spent having a hole slowly drilled in my head. Without pain killers

You don't need pain killers. You'll passout from the pain before too long.

SCO Is Legally A Cucumber by judmarc · 2004-02-12 05:41 · Score: 2, Funny

So they run McDonald's systems, eh?

OK, I think we all know who it is behind that Hamburglar mask now.

Re:SCO Is Legally A Cucumber by DangerSteel · 2004-02-12 07:20 · Score: 1

SCO UNIX(R) has been a dependable platform for thousands of McDonald's restaurants over the past 10 years and we're looking forward to migrating our restaurants to the current version.
Step 1: Wait for SCO to implode (should happen soon)
Step 2: Sell (eeechh) Windows to all McDonalds to replace unmaintainable SCO driven devices.
Step 3: Jobs for everyone supporting McDonalds terminals. I estimate one person per terminal.
Step 4: PROFIT!

Now that you mention it... by first.last · 2004-02-12 05:43 · Score: 1

Remember a few years ago when the kids were smoking cow manure? Darl never quite put down the bong.

--
Wishing I was a millionaire since 1969.

I'm not a trepanner by burgburgburg · 2004-02-12 05:46 · Score: 1

Personally, I've got enough holes in my head with the nose/ears/mouth/eyes things, thank you very much.

But the people at http://www.trepan.com ARE serious. They have videos and photos of people who have been trepanned (and have trepanned themselves).

The epithet "Loony" comes to mind. Let's get the tar.

www.thescogroup.com by hemabe · 2004-02-12 05:47 · Score: 1

The website is online and survived a good-old slashdot!? Hello!? Where are the script-kiddys if you need them ...

Possibly SCO Unix can prevent DOS attacks... by blorg · 2004-02-12 05:47 · Score: 1

...what it can't protect against is a company removing their own DNS record in an attempt to garner some free publicity (and sympathy).

Amazing by bogie · 2004-02-12 05:48 · Score: 1

SCO apparently never understood the rights they were granted in the first place from the sale. God, did they think this wouldn't come out? Did they think that Novell "lost" their copy of the sale contract? I know its been a long road, but at this point I honestly do think we are near the end. I give it three months before we get to wrap this whole thing up. Within that time a judge will rule that SCO never really had a leg to stand on.

Rot in hell lying scum!

--
If you wanna get rich, you know that payback is a bitch

Re:Amazing by fredrik70 · 2004-02-12 06:22 · Score: 1

oh, but then the *fun* starts! Like IBM's counter suit for example, Novell's audit as well. SCO apparently owns Novell dosh for the MS and Sun licences (SCO is only allowed to keep 5% of them, IIRC). We also got RedHat's suit to follow. Gonna be interesting to see how much is left after al this really! *grin*

--
if (!signature) { throw std::runtime_error("No sig!"); }
Re:Amazing by HiThere · 2004-02-12 06:47 · Score: 1

I suspect that it would be a large negative number if it actually got that far. Unfortunately, SCO won't be able to pay for the damages it has done, and substantially before the completion of the process it will be sold off for kindling.

--

I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
Re:Amazing by Anonymous Coward · 2004-02-12 07:13 · Score: 0

Novell really had lost the contract -- although they later found it. You could argue that SCO didn't understand the contract, but Novell apparenlty didn't understand the contract either. More lawsuit fun for everyone involved.
Re:Amazing by Maserati · 2004-02-12 07:52 · Score: 1

SCO doesn't get to keep 5%, they turn it all over to Novell, who in turn cuts them a check.

--
Veteran, Bermuda Triangle Expeditionary Force, 1992-1951
Re:Amazing by milkman_matt · 2004-02-12 09:47 · Score: 1

but at this point I honestly do think we are near the end. I give it three months before we get to wrap this whole thing up.

Dammit, then what will slashdot do for stories!?

-matt
Re:Amazing by fredrik70 · 2004-02-12 21:56 · Score: 1

Ah, even better!

--
if (!signature) { throw std::runtime_error("No sig!"); }

Was escorted out of McDonalds by Sabalon · 2004-02-12 05:48 · Score: 4, Funny

I had taken my kids there to play since it was cold and raining out. I was going to do some work on my notebook while they navigated the maze of plastic.

I had just logged into my Linux notebook when I was approached by a SCO employee who escorted me out of the "resturaunt". He told me he was sorry, but those were the orders from above. He told me he didn't have enough stock to dump before he then went back to his fry station.

As we left, I swear the guy running the drive through was Darl McBride himself. He was claiming complete ownership of all the fries in the bag and bemoaning the fact that Burger King fries are stolen from McDonalds because there is no way that Burger King could figure out how to fry a potato on their own.

False claims by phorm · 2004-02-12 05:50 · Score: 1

Firstly, SCO has many people gunning against them on the legal battleground right now, not just the cases they are pressing against others.

Secondly, if SCO is involved in litigation against Linux, then it seems to me that both are in some what legally enmeshed.

How they can claim they are not "encumbered" is beyond me.

Attention Redhat by MarkGriz · 2004-02-12 05:50 · Score: 1

Why not come up with your own "5 reasons to choose Linux over Unix and Microsoft" ad campaign. Hell, go for 10.

--
Beauty is in the eye of the beerholder.

Re:Attention Redhat by Pharmboy · 2004-02-13 14:34 · Score: 1

Why not come up with your own "5 reasons to choose Linux over Unix and Microsoft" ad campaign. Hell, go for 10.

1. Linux is not owned by one individual or company. While the actual kernel is copywrited by Linus Torvald, who also owns the name "Linux", the code is under the GPL, so no one could ever take it away. Even if Linus quit tomorrow, Linux would live on. The vast majority of programs in a typical Linux distribution are owned by different persons, and also under the GPL.

2. Linux is not proprietary. This means you can take code from any flavor of BSD, any flavor of Linux, and any other code you own, is public domain, or you have a license for, and combine it into a custom operating system unlike any other available. The only caveat is you must share source code changes to GPL software if you distribute the binaries.

3. Linux is backed by an entire community rather than an individual company. This means software you develop today grow and still be serving you 20 years from now, because Linux will never be "unavailable". This also allows you better support, either for free from the community, or from a number of vendors for a fee, or your own modifications. The loss of any one company or individual will never cause Linux to "go out of business".

4. Linux is based upon open standards. This means that software designed to run on other open standard systems will likely run on Linux with a minimum of modification. It means that all your software can work together because there is no central authority attempting to "corner the market" by keeping other software from running on the system. Development is much faster in an open enviroment where all APIs are known.

5. Linux is Legally Unencumbered. This was settled in the recent lawsuits, Novell vs. SCO, where it was demonstrated that Linux is Free of any Unix code or intellectual property and the owner of the Unix Copyrights, Novell, Inc., has demonstrated no interest in persuing any IP claims. In the SCO vs. IBM case, it was demonstrated that original programs designed on a Unix system are not considered derivative works, and the GPL is a constitutionally valid license that protects the rights of the Copyright holders.

--
Ok, maybe 5 is a bit premature, but I wrote it that way in case someone reads this in a couple of weeks ;)

--
Tequila: It's not just for breakfast anymore!

Case Studies Page by milkman_matt · 2004-02-12 05:51 · Score: 1

Ok, not to stray from the trend of SCO threads being nothing but jokes -- but, did anybody else see that "5 Reasons To Choose UNIX Over Linux" page? Under reason 1) "SCO UNIX(R) is a Proven, Stable and Reliable Platform" it has a list of case studies such as SafeCo Field, McDonalds, and the Great Manchester Police. Given the legal battles that they're in, how fast do you think these people will demand to have their names stripped from this website? I know I would, most of them can stand up on their own publicity, this can only make people say "What were they thinking?"

-matt

Re:I've got one reason to choose Linux over UNIX-S by whovian · 2004-02-12 05:51 · Score: 1

Heh, unencumbered. Reminds me of the Car Talk guys who have a saying that IMO seems appropriate to Darl here:

"unencumbered by the thought process"

--
To-do List: Receive telemarketing call during a tornado warning. Check.

game, set, match - Novell ends the game by gsfprez · 2004-02-12 05:52 · Score: 1

Groklaw headline - Novell waives all SCO rights to Sequent and its SVRX License

which means, that even IF IBM put SYS V in Linux - Its Novell's problem, not SCO's any more.

this is fun like watching a little kid kick a bully in the nuts fun!

Joseph A. LaSala, Jr.
Senior Vice President
General Counsel and Secretary

VIA FACSIMILE AND CERTIFIED MAIL
RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED

February 11, 2004

Mr. Ryan Tibbitts
General Counsel
The SCO Group
[address]

Mr. Ronald A. Lauderdale
Vice-President, Assistant General Counsel
International Business Machines Corporation
[address]

Re: Sequent Computer Systems

Dear Counsel:

Reference is made to the following:

* Asset Purchase Agreement by and between The Santa Cruz Operation, Inc. and Novell, Inc. dated as of September 19, 1995, and more particularly to Section 4.16(b) of that agreement;
* Software Agreement No. SOFT-000321, et seq., between AT&T Information Systems Inc. and Sequent Computer Systems, Inc. ("Sequent's SVRX license);
* Letters dated May 29, 2003 and August 11, 2003 from The SCO Group to Sequent Computer Systems, Inc.;
* Letter dated August 14, 2003 from IBM to The SCO Group;
* Letter dated October 7, 2003 from Novell, Inc. to The SCO Group regarding IBM Code; and
* Letter dated February 6, 2004 from Novell, Inc. to The SCO Group regarding Sequent Computer Systems.

In its February 6 letter to The SCO Group, Novell directed "SCO to waive any purported right SCO may claim to require Sequent (or IBM as its successor) to treat Sequent Code as subject to the confidentiality obligations or use restrictions of Sequent's SVRX license." The letter defined Sequent Code as code developed by Sequent, or licensed by Sequent from a third party, which Sequent incorporated in its UNIX variant but which itself does not contain proprietary UNIX code supplied by AT&T under the license agreements between AT&T and Sequent. Novell directed SCO to take this action by noon, MST, February 11, 2004.

SCO has failed to take the actions directed by Novell.

Accordingly, pursuant to Section 4.16(b) of the Asset Purchase Agreement, Novell, on behalf of The SCO Group, hereby waives any purported right SCO may claim to require Sequent (or IBM as its successor) to treat Sequent Code as subject to the confidentiality obligations or use restrictions of Sequent's SVRX license.

Sincerely, /s/ Joseph A. LaSala, Jr.

cc: Mr. Darl McBride
President and CEO
________________

I would have paid him $20 to end the letter with "Thank you, drive thru".

--
guns kill people like spoons make Rosie O'Donnell fat.

5 reasons to choose to ignore SCO by jrl2 · 2004-02-12 05:52 · Score: 5, Funny

1. SCO have proven themselves unstable and can be relied on only to make random legal claims with no actual backing.
2. SCO have recent experience only in pissing off their entire potential customer base and making half assed threats.
3. SCO CEO, Darl McBride should be committed.
4. SCO can't even take simple steps to stop a DoS of their own webserver.
5. SCO are currently in a legal quagmire of their own devising.

--
Disclaimer: This isn't a troll, I'm just a fucking idiot.

MOD PARENT DOWN by negacao · 2004-02-12 05:52 · Score: 2, Informative

Yeah, we all hate SCO and their frivolous lawsuits, but does that mean UNIX isn't stable and secure anymore?

SCOware != Unix
Linux != Unix
AIX != Unix

The IDEALS of Unix are what make Unix secure. Any idiot can easily produce a VERSION of Unix that, while adhering to the standards, is notoriously insecure. (e.g. bad default install, buffer overflows, ... etc)

SCO/MICROS partnership by Anonymous Coward · 2004-02-12 05:54 · Score: 1, Informative

Dear God, they're flaunting Micros as a *reason* to buy SCO software? I've worked with a Micros customer before on a software development contract -- that's where my (slightly ir)rational hatred of SCO began. Micros' software itself was pretty good as a POS (but heavily black-boxed, though I understand it's gotten better now that they have RDBMS support), but the hardware/OS platform it's built upon is arcane, unstable, and absolutely nonstandard. My final recommendation to that customer was to get a contract with Aloha.

Bleah.

I love their reasons... by adrianbaugh · 2004-02-12 05:55 · Score: 1

Particularly this one: We have a clear roadmap for the future. They go on to explain how they have a clearly laid-out plan to support exciting new technologies - such as USB. Huh!??? What, you mean the same USB that every other OS I can think of has supported for years and years? Other exciting features: NIC support. Oh... my... god.... They think this is somehow a reason to use SCO? Because of course all those other OSes are really struggling to implement NIC support, obviously.

Now obviously I realised SCO had been smoking plenty of the bad weed on the legal front, but I didn't realise just how out-of-touch and crack-happy they were on the technical front. Their "roadmap" is pathetic - completing it would just about bring SCO up to where competitor OSes were a year or so ago.

--
"'I pass the test,' she said. 'I will diminish, and go into the West, and remain Galadriel.'"
- JRR Tolkien.

I disagree, by pair-a-noyd · 2004-02-12 05:58 · Score: 1

on the "A day with SCO is like a day without sunshine" issue.

I was thinking it was more like,
A day with SCO is like a day without gas..

I would really rather that SCO just go ahead and pass on, like a bad case of gas, if you know what I mean..

For those who don't know by axxackall · 2004-02-12 05:59 · Score: 4, Insightful

SCO UNIX(R) is a Proven, Stable and Reliable Platform - false, back few years many Oracle admins prefered unsupported (by Oracle then) way of running Oracle on Linux than on SCO due to system crashes and badly implemented multitasking. In my personal experience it is proven as unstable and unreliable.
SCO UNIX(R) is backed by a single, experienced vendor - false, we all know that the single vendor means the lack of competition means ignoring the user demands means low quality.
SCO UNIX(R) has a Committed, Well-Defined Roadmap - false, as it is driven by the marketing rather than by the user demands. Linux Roadmap (the list of changes in upcoming 2.7) gives me much more useful prospective that I can rely. SCO roadmap is useless marketing.
SCO UNIX(R) is Secure - false, no proprietary system is more secure than an open source one. The recent case with 6 months of Microsoft hiding the security bug is proving it. The open source community doesn't hide it and fix it right the way. Although, I agree that SCO Unix is more obscure.
SCO UNIX(R) is Legally Unencumbered - false, until all claims are proven in the court. Besides, SCO cannot refer to its own case until it's proven.

--

Less is more !

Re:For those who don't know by Anonymous Coward · 2004-02-12 11:01 · Score: 0

Actually, 2. would be better addressed by pointing out that there has been no consistent focus on SCO UNIX by any single organization over the years.

Single vendors generally do reasonably well, over time...if you look at vendors like Sun, HP, IBM, SGI...in the past, DEC...and more recently, Apple.

Re:I've got one reason to choose Linux over UNIX-S by trb · 2004-02-12 05:59 · Score: 1

Encumbered? That's chutzpah. The famous Yiddish definition of chutzpah is when a man kills his parents and then throws himself at the mercy of the court because he is an orphan.

Grandparent could end up legendary post... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-02-12 06:00 · Score: 0

Come on, years from now, /.ers will refer to the "Linux cake/SCO butter" debacle. I love it.

Stay tuned. This could be a meme in the making.

Let the best OS win by Anonymous Coward · 2004-02-12 06:00 · Score: 3, Insightful

"The motive of profit is the engine that ensures the progress of science."

If that was true your OS would be better then Linux

WTF??? by FictionPimp · 2004-02-12 06:02 · Score: 0

SCO UNIX(R) is Legally Unencumbered

Someone should tell Novell that. Or at least let SCO know they are getting into deep shit.

Re:I've got one reason to choose Linux over UNIX-S by tiger99 · 2004-02-12 06:02 · Score: 4, Informative

The position of BSD is not quite as clear as that. All BSDs are thought to be unencumbered (although the court did not make a ruling, that one was sensibly settled out of court). Also, no BSDs are thought to contain any code claimed to belong to McFraud, in fact it may turn out that his code came from BSD and is therefore subject to the minimal restrictions of the BSD licence.

Minix is not anywhere in the family tree, I am glad to say. Its limited kernel bears no relation to any of the others, and was created from scratch. Linux sort of came from Minix, although it seems that Linus sensibly threw away all the Minix code very near the beginning. Solaris is influenced by the original BSD, pre the BSD court case. What we now know as BSD of the Free, Open or Net varieties, is unencumbered and therefore has little of Unix as such in its parentage. Don't know about the commercial BSD, I ahven't even seen it advertised for a while....

Now SCO's stupid advert does reveal something that I had not noticed before.

While some application programming interfaces ("API Code") have been made available over the years through POSIX and other open standards, the UNIX(R) ABI Code has only been made available under copyright restrictions. AT&T made these binary interfaces available in order to support application development to UNIX(R) operating systems and to assist UNIX(R) licensees in the development process. The UNIX(R) ABIs were never authorized for unrestricted use or distribution under the GPL in Linux(R). As the copyright holder, SCO has never granted such permission. Nevertheless, many of the ABIs contained in Linux(R), and improperly distributed under the GPL, are direct copies of our UNIX(R) copyrighted software code.

They are alleging that the ABIs (Application Binary Interfaces) are at the centre of their case. Now, correct me if I am wrong, but an ABI definition tells you what to put in which registers and how to make the system call. BSD and Linux use different mechanisms for this, including how the registers and stack are used, and which interrupt. Because of that, and in particular the use of a different interrupt, it is conceptually simple to run BSD code on Linux or vice versa, by adding a handler for the alternative interrupt which shifts the call parameters to where they should be, on the stack or in registers, and invokes the native system call. Now, SCO has a Linux Personality Module, which does the same sort of thing. For this to be possible, without horrendously complex programming causing inefficiency, SCO must be using an ABI set which is entirely different to Linux. Now, the SCO ABIs can not be the same as BSD either, because Linux has a module to enable SCO (and other) Unix code to run, and it is not the same as the BSD module.

So, if we have three orthogonal sets of ABIs, how do they think they have a case? At most, the module, or kernel compile option, to allow SCO code to be run, would be the only place where there was any kind of ABI issue, and of course SCO are using a GPL ABI, and probably some of the associated code, in their Linux Personality Module.

So, on what precisely is SCO's allegation based? Or has Darl confused ABIs with APIs, which are similar in every *nix?

If using similar ABIs or APIs was in any case a copyright issue, would the Convicted Monopolist not have sued DRDOS, Freedos etc out of existence many years ago, and now be taking action against Wine? Or is this a small-scale test by M$ (who after all have funded SCO) to see if they will be able to win a case like that in court? IIRC there have already been court rulings to the contrary, involving M$.

bad marketing method. by generic · 2004-02-12 06:03 · Score: 1

See by SCO getting the Linux community to HATE it, no *NIX shop will ever buy SCO. We use BSD/Linux/Solaris where I am. If I am asked to pilot a new OS for some project, I sure as hell won't suggest SCO. They are pretty much making the people who heavily influence buying decisions hate them.

--
Microsoft aggravates my tourettes syndrome.

Linux developers sue SCO with Slander of Title? by GodWasAnAlien · 2004-02-12 06:08 · Score: 1

SCO has been claiming for a year that they own the deed to the Linux property, even though they own none to little of it.

The false accusations have cost the authors considerable time and effort and reputation.

The accusations are at times obviously done with malice towards the Linux and FOSS communities.

Could there be such a thing as a class action Slander of Title against SCO suit led by Linus Torvalds.

Yes, but is it really a map? by MystikPhish · 2004-02-12 06:11 · Score: 1

3. SCO UNIX(R) has a Committed, Well-Defined Roadmap

Well... does this really qualify as a map???

. <------ You are here.

--
"I'm about to drop the hammer and dispense some indiscriminate justice!"

They won't even manage that... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-02-12 06:12 · Score: 0

...Haven't you heard of the recent partnership agreement between IBM and Resolve Carpet Cleaner?

Boycott SCO's Customers by Anonymous Coward · 2004-02-12 06:14 · Score: 0

1. LUG's UNITE!

2. Write letters to SCO's customers...

3. ...boycott SCO's customers until they dump SCO products.

4. End of SCO!

No linux in the "why we're better page" by Anonymous Coward · 2004-02-12 06:15 · Score: 0

Did anyone else notice that SCO doesn't mention Linux once until they got to point 5?

How about ... by jonathan_the_ninja · 2004-02-12 06:16 · Score: 1

one reason to use Linux instead of UNIX: Because I like it.

--
I love NetHack.

YOU FAIL IT by Anonymous Coward · 2004-02-12 06:23 · Score: 0

you completely missed his point. people are claiming sco unix is insecure cause they dont like sco, not cause they are insecure.

Re:YOU FAIL IT by negacao · 2004-02-12 12:19 · Score: 1

sco, not cause they are insecure.

You used SCO Unix recently?

Didn't think so.

Re:Scooby Snacks: Think of the butter...or the MJ by DigitalHammer · 2004-02-12 06:26 · Score: 1

Yup its like when a drug dealer passes out free marijuana to potential customers. After they get addicted, the dealer demands that they pay him for the MJ or they will be shot. If they wanted money for the MJ, they shouldve gotten the bong before everyone got addicted.

Speaking of SCOoby...
Question: What does Scooby Doo like to smoke?
Answer: Scooby Doobies.

Q: What does Darl like to smoke? :P

How is that a comparison article? by silicon+not+in+the+v · 2004-02-12 06:29 · Score: 1

Their marketing people should be shot. The title of the page is "5 Reasons to Choose UNIX Instead of Linux". That would imply that this is supposed to be a comparison article. So for each of their 5 points, they should be demonstrating why UNIX is good in that respect and Linux is not. Did anyone notice their failure to do any comparisons until the last one? Do they not have a concept of what comparison and contrast writing is supposed to be?

If their marketing department can get paid good money to come up with remedial logic like that, I want to make a commercial on "Why Ford trucks are better than Chevy trucks"
#1 Ford trucks are powerful.
#2 Ford trucks have 4WD.
#3 Ford trucks come in extended cab models.
#4 Ford trucks are made in the U.S.
#5 Ford trucks get 100 miles per gallon, while Chevy trucks get 100 gallons per mile. (That's about equivalent to the accuracy of the only comparison SCO makes.)

--
We may experience some slight turbulence and then...explode. -Capt. Mal Reynolds

Not Quite by Anonymous Coward · 2004-02-12 06:30 · Score: 0

SCO UNIX is legally encumbered because once you buy SCO UNIX you are in the somewhat precarious position of being an SCO customer. Legally this is not a great idea. SCO recently sent a letter to the SCO UNIX licensees demanding that the licensees potentially legally incriminate themselves by certifying that they are not using a version of Linux containing SCO code.

So, if you have SCO UNIX: one, SCO will revoke your license if they feel like it, two, SCO will try to push you into legally dangeroud situations.

SCO is simply... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-02-12 06:32 · Score: 0

attempting to become the Microsoft of the Unix world with all this licensing crap... One is enough... I say let them rot.

5 reasons reality check: item 2 by asr_man · 2004-02-12 06:33 · Score: 2, Informative

This made me laugh out loud...

Case Study: Nuance ...

"The UNIX(R) system environment is an extremely strong solution for any telecommunications application and SCO's market leadership on the Intel(R) platform provides Nuance's customers with the ultimate, secure solution package."
SCO and Nuance: Reliability for the New Millennium

The referenced article is 5 years old. To the best of my knowledge, Nuance does not currently support SCO UNIX in any of its products.

Have you ever used SCO Unix? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-02-12 06:36 · Score: 0

Its absolutely worthless. Stable? Secure? No more secure than linux, likely less secure - but because there are so few deployments it doesnt get nearly the ammount of exposure to crackers. Infact, when speaking of the kernel, how many real "linux" exploits exist? I can only think of one in recent memory. Most of what SCO offers these days is based on opensource software, and likely SCO is attributing some of the "linux" insecurity to these packages (like apache, samba, etc) that they themselves ship.

Code is so stable.... by innerweb · 2004-02-12 06:45 · Score: 1

... that as soon as I hit their page, I started getting javascript errors!

-InnerWeb

--
Freud might say that Intelligent Design is religion's ID.

Forgive my ignorance... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-02-12 06:45 · Score: 0

This appears that the domain is running on a Cable TV descrambler box?

Huh?

Buy air by Anonymous Coward · 2004-02-12 06:48 · Score: 0

Untill the mid 70's free software was a way of life. Only since the advent of software only companies has it not been this way.

I have an idea, let's do away with the whole free air thing. Have congress pass a law that free air is unfair to the air-supplying industry of the US, and without government protection, this whole new segment of the economy will fail. Besides if people don't buy there air, who knows what they'd be breathing. It shure wouldn't pass the high QA testing that the air-supplying industry's air would.

Number 4 is a RIOT!!! by Slavinski · 2004-02-12 06:50 · Score: 2, Funny

Not vulnerable to Denial of Service????
What the *&^%? Why didn't they put it up
instead of the other web server?
That was hilarious!!

Slander? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-02-12 06:53 · Score: 0

Isn't all this crap about Linux infringing on their IP slander until proven in court?

They're in the middle of the court battle now, and while they might be sure how it's going to end, I don't think the rest of the world is.

what a great list by sad_ · 2004-02-12 06:53 · Score: 1

The pharmacies had been running their day-to-day operations on a DOS-based system. The answer was SCO UNIX(R) running on Compaq(R) Proliant(R) 800 servers.
They found an OS that is worse then SCO Unix running somewhere.

We evaluated a number of options but felt that SCO UNIX(R) had the proven reliability and scalability we needed
translation: The application running on these boxes is not important to the business what so ever

McDonald's restaurants over the past 10 years and we're looking forward to migrating our restaurants to the current version.
translation: SCO promises us all those #@$% bugs will be fixed in the next release, we believe them, we've got hamburgs for brains

SCO has a channel of more than 11,000 solution providers, a developer network of nearly 8,000, thousands of direct account customers and an installed base of more than two million servers.
yeah, right, and what, 1.9 million of those servers are running in the SCO data centre? Where the hell do these marketing people keep pulling these figures, 8000 developers! i would be surprised if there are still 8 people working over at SCO!

SCO will continue to listen to the market requirements
Either they have something stuck in their ears, or they are not listening hard enough.

The 'Legend' edition of SCO UNIX(R), which is targeted at SMB customers, will be refitted with SCOx Web services support, an XML parser and SOAP toolkit, an OpenLDAP directory, better multithreading, open-source tools Tomcat, PHP and Mozilla
This will sure be the legend edition, as it will be the last freaking bastard unix they produce before going belly up. Oh, look, they include open source! Nothing like those linux distros, because these have been improved by our 8000 developers!

SCO also plans to debut in 2004 or 2005 a 64-bit version of SCO UNIX
or 2006 or 2007 or 2008, no really we will get there...

SCO has had an amazing year as a company. We've enjoyed record earnings during the past two quarters, been one of the top performing stocks on the NASDAQ, been a pioneer in intellectual property protection.
they certainly have been a pioneer in getting hated by lots of people in a record time, telling lies, making no sense, the number of press releases (they are so proud of this one),... what an amazing year!

the future continues to look extremely bright for SCO and its partners.
SCO has a future?

SCO UNIX(R) has all of the security features. These security features guard against business interruption, denial of service attacks and protect against identity or corporate information theft.
First, we all know how good sco unix protects you against a DOS (mydoom), and second, if sco unix protects your company against theft, how the hell did all that sco code get into the linux kernel?

I will stop now, but that page is one to print out and read again after 5 years... hu... months ;)

--
On a long enough timeline, the survival rate for everyone drops to zero.

Re:Scooby Snacks: Think of the butter...or the MJ by falsified · 2004-02-12 06:58 · Score: 1

Darlboros?

--
HI, MY NAME IS ISAAC.

From Reason 4, SCO UNIX(R) Is Secure... by cschmidt · 2004-02-12 07:01 · Score: 2, Funny

SCO UNIX(R) has all of the security features of the higher priced UNIX(R) solutions but at a fraction of the cost. These security features guard against business interruption, denial of service attacks and protect against identity or corporate information theft.

If only! MyDoom would have been rendered impotent!

--

Who am I to blow against the wind? -- Paul Simon

Re:Scooby Snacks: Think of the butter...or the MJ by Anonymous Coward · 2004-02-12 07:03 · Score: 0

It's pedantic I know but...

s/marijuana/crack/g
s/MJ/8ball/g

Pot isn't all that addictive.

SCO is right, Unix is often better than Linux by killmeplease · 2004-02-12 07:04 · Score: 5, Insightful

The Unix that is better than Linux

AIX - when you need to use 64-bit IBM hardware for DB2 databases or custom IBM software to run a website like Ebay.com. Very robust OS/Hardware combo with rock solid reliability, hot-swappable hardware, and scalability to run on huge systems.

Solaris - When you would like the 64-bit capability and scalability of Sun Hardware and all in one enterprise resource management. Solaris runs huge applications on 128 processor servers with terabytes of disk space capable and 64+ GB of RAM capabilities.

IRIX - If you are running graphics apps on an Silicon Graphis system, there is excellent software written for this OS and the hardware defined what you could do with computers for CGI.

HP-UX - I don't know why anyone wants to use HP-UX unless they have custom software that won't port to another UNIX.

SCO UNIX - If you want to run a 10-15 year old cash register software that already has a superior Linux or Windows counterpart, money is no option, or you were recently made retarded SCO Unix is the only viable option.

Linux - Use Linux anytime you want a low cost, reliable Unix-like workhorse for applications like as Network Server (Web, Email, DNS, News, et...), database server, development machine, low cost UNIX workstation, the list goes on.

Just my $0.02

--
- Kill Yourself, spare us all! -

Re:SCO is right, Unix is often better than Linux by CSG_SurferDude · 2004-02-12 09:16 · Score: 0, Offtopic

I hate to say this, but the last time I looked, Cadence only last month was ported to 64bit Linux
Now maybe in a year or two my company can start running Cadence on cheaper boxen.

--
LongTail SSH Brute Force analysis tool is here!

The weather in my hometown by bonch · 2004-02-12 07:05 · Score: 1

A day with SCO is like a day without sunshine, I know that's what you're thinking.

Why is it I'm suddenly frightened that I woke up this morning to an inch of snow in New Mexico?

Re:The weather in my hometown by stoolpigeon · 2004-02-12 07:13 · Score: 0, Offtopic

More people will be voting for Edwards once all this affair stuff really hits the fan and Kerry tries to pull a Clinton- only to crash and burn like Dean.

In fact this may be Dean's chance to be reborn like the mythical Phoenix.

--
It's hard to believe that's how Micronians are made. Why don't we see it right now by having you both kiss one another?

MICROS 8700 on SCO by bad-badtz-maru · 2004-02-12 07:05 · Score: 4, Interesting

The Safeco Field "study" is whack. The Micros 8700 only runs on SCO UNIX. It's not like the customer chose SCO at all, it was "we need a point of sale system, let's get a Micros 8700". The 8700 is a very widely deployed system that is very reliable. It's also been around since christ was a pup, which is probably why it uses SCO.

The way SCO presents the Safeco Field study, as if the customer chose SCO, is deceptive at best, in my opinion.

Re:MICROS 8700 on SCO by cschmidt · 2004-02-12 07:42 · Score: 1

"We knew there was an integrated and reliable solution out there, but at first we were not quite sure who the right partners were to make this a winning season for everyone," said Larry Witherspoon, Director of Information Systems at Safeco Field.

"to make this a winning season for everyone"... Safeco field... Give me a break. It sounds like it came directly from SCO's marketing staff.

--

Who am I to blow against the wind? -- Paul Simon

Anyone notice the blatant graphics ripoff? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-02-12 07:05 · Score: 2, Interesting

I was just checking out the Novell support
website and noticed the exact same image on
the sco website.

Compare:

http://support.novell.com/img/n_t2_image-support .j pg

and

http://www.thescogroup.com/images/landing_pages/ 5_ long.jpg

Hmmmmmmmm. Is this right?

- Don Brearley

Re:Anyone notice the blatant graphics ripoff? by garstka · 2004-02-12 08:01 · Score: 0, Flamebait

It's called clip-art or stock photography. Both companies could've conceivably bought the same images from a third-party stock photography vendor. It's quite common and most likely the reason behind the coincidence.

Inferring that SCO are 'dirty Internet image theives ' is really pointless...their legal claims are either right or wrong and it will be worked out, hopefully in short order. In the meantime, there's no real need for us all to become MSLZs.

MSLZ = mindless Slashdot Linux zealots
Re:Anyone notice the blatant graphics ripoff? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-02-12 12:46 · Score: 0

It's called clip-art or stock photography. Both companies could've conceivably bought the same images from a third-party stock photography vendor.

Yes, we no.

Inferring that SCO are 'dirty Internet image theives ' is really pointless...their legal claims are either right or wrong and it will be worked out, hopefully in short order. In the meantime, there's no real need for us all to become MSLZs.

MSLZ = mindless Slashdot Linux zealots

The original poster said no such thing. Just means they're unimaginative corporate swill with a pabulum image (to cover the fact that their products and services are collapsing crap!)

Re:Scooby Snacks: Think of the butter...or the MJ by Anonymous Coward · 2004-02-12 07:07 · Score: 0

What? I have been smoking for years. It's not addictive.

look at the silly monkey by Purificator · 2004-02-12 07:11 · Score: 1

obviously you can't see the brilliant logic they're using. i'll lead you through one of their examples:

PREMISE: costco was running their network on DOS.
PREMISE: DOS didn't scale
PREMISE: costco found SCO worked better than DOS
CONCLUSION: use (SCO) unix instead of linux

my philosophy 101 professor would be so proud of such sound reasoning.

it's almost like that south park episode in which johnny cochraine distracts the jury with random babble about chewbacca and "look at the monkey. look at the silly monkey."

--
"Mister Potato-head --MISTER POTATO-HEAD! Backdoors are not secrets!" (War Games, 1983)

NSS by Anonymous Coward · 2004-02-12 07:15 · Score: 0

(No shit, Sherlock)

Darl looks nervously at the floor... by currychicken · 2004-02-12 07:16 · Score: 1

IBM:(curious) What?
Darl: Just checking to see if there's plastic on the floor.
IBM:(grinning) It's Scotch Guarded(tm).

Heh. Ok, I've watched too many Mafia movies. So Sue me.

See SCO. See SCO sue IBM. Sue, SCO, sue!. See IBM. See IBM pull out the Pulvernator 56000XL. See SCO go splat! Splat, SCO Splat! -CC

Sir. by Anonymous Coward · 2004-02-12 07:17 · Score: 0

"Re:Hyprocracy"

Sir,

First, I'll assume you meant "Hypocracy"; but that is immaterial to my larger point, of which you must agree that it has merit, potentially more than in the abstract.

Clearly SCO is a type of UNIX; that is probably beyond discussion, although no part of SCO is actively involved in UNIX development they clearly have an interest in it; the way a young boy might have interest in a beautiful woman. That is, they would like to have it, but have no chance of getting same.

Now, how is this even remotely relevent. Please bear with me, for this tale although simple, is quite complex. SCO has been involved with computer code and through various means have come in possession of a right to distribute unix based operating system.

Through an equally plausible, yet less interesting story, Linux has become yet another form of Unix. Further, SCO has acknowledged the superiority of Linux, ever for applications that require no form of computing hardware.

How can this be? Clearly, the free and open nature of Linux has tricked the less wary and intelligent with its siren song of free free free.

Clearly free cannot be better than SCO, therefore the only reasonable conclusion a right-thinking person could come to is that Linux is stolen! Stolen, I tell you. It must be. It is true.

Therefore we must change. You must change. I must. Linux is the mother. The one who makes our Unixes (Uni) whole.

God bless the mother. And help her fight for her children.

Re:Scooby Snacks: Think of the butter...or the MJ by rajafarian · 2004-02-12 07:23 · Score: 1

Q: What does Darl like to smoke? :P

Crack?

Re: You don't need those by thelasttemptation · 2004-02-12 07:23 · Score: 2, Funny

nah... no brain, no pain :P

Re:I've got one reason to choose Linux over UNIX-S by Anonymous Coward · 2004-02-12 07:32 · Score: 1, Interesting

> correct me if I am wrong, but an ABI definition tells you what to put in which registers and how
> to make the system call.

More or less right, yes...

> BSD and Linux use different mechanisms for this, including how the registers and stack are used,
> and which interrupt. Because of that, and in particular the use of a different interrupt, it is
> conceptually simple to run BSD code on Linux or vice versa, by adding a handler for the
> alternative interrupt which shifts the call
parameters to where they should be, on the stack

Hmm, for as far as I know on *BSD, this is done entirely differently.
Based on a value in the elf header of a binary (which can be set with the brandelf utility) a different ABI is used for a binary. This is set at execv time (ie, when the binary is started)

As a result, it is pretty easy to hack a *BSD kernel a little bit to differentiate between different linux distributions and kernel versions etc as well.

How this works on Linux I do not know, but I'd imagine it works in a rather similar way. There is no need for runtime interpretation of what kind of binary you may be running, all you need is setup the correct interface when the binary is started really, a lot cheaper :)

Interupts play no role other then that they happen to be an easy way to transfer control between different spaces, ie user space vs kernel space.
They also happen to be an easy way to make user code independent of where in memory a library or such might be, but in a world of cpus with mmu, there are way better and less obscure means of achieving that

That said, the ABIs of linux and SCO unix are similar but not identical, but even if they were, it would still be possibel to distinguish the 2 and giev them their own native environment (emulated if need be) on a single kernel.

Wasn't there a song about this? by Sax+Maniac · 2004-02-12 07:33 · Score: 2, Funny

A few years ago? Running around, robbing banks, all whacked on Scooby Snacks? How appropriate. I think the group was Fun-Loving Criminals, which is appropriate, too, except maybe for the fun-loving part.

--
I can explanate how to administrate your network. You must configurate and segmentate it, so it can computate.

thanks for the link! by sootman · 2004-02-12 07:34 · Score: 1

here it is in black and white from the "5 reasons" page: "SCO asserts that the GPL, under which Linux is distributed, violates the United States Constitution and the U.S. copyright and patent laws"
-- from "SCO Open Letter on Copyrights - from Darl McBride, CEO"

Now, does anyone have a recent document that shows SCO uses Samba? I tried to look myself but *ahem* sco.com is down.
"Samba is an Open Source/Free Software suite that provides seamless file and print services to SMB/CIFS clients. Samba is freely available under the GNU General Public License."
http://www.samba.org/samba/samba.html

I heard they do (in fact I think I heard it here) but if anyone could provide a URL for proof, that'd be perfect. Nothing says professional & stable like rampant hypocrisy. I can't think of an easier way to make a point than to let them make it for you.

--
Dear Slashdot: next time you want to mess with the site, add a rich-text editor for comments.

Science for profit alone?! by cagem0nkey · 2004-02-12 07:34 · Score: 3, Interesting

"We take these actions... knowing that those who believe 'software should be free' cannot prevail against the U.S. Congress and voices of seven U.S. Supreme Court justices who believe that 'the motive of profit is the engine that ensures the progress of science.'"

This is utterly rediculous. Just because SCO is greedy doesn't mean everyone is. Where in the Constitution does it say "All science must be done in the name of capitalism and greed"?!

--
ninja monkeys are meeting as we speak, plotting my demise

Can you say "stock fraud"? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-02-12 07:46 · Score: 0

I knew you could.

Been a stock fraud since the Caldera pre-IPO.

my company is one of the "case studies" by Anonymous Coward · 2004-02-12 07:53 · Score: 2, Interesting

I'm an engineer at one of the "case studies" in the 5reasons page. I've never SEEN a sco box here. Most of our deployments are either windows or solaris, actually.

Webservers of the case study companies by Anonymous Coward · 2004-02-12 07:57 · Score: 0

According to Netcraft:

The site www.safeco.com is running Microsoft-IIS/4.0 on NT4/Windows 98.

The site www.costco.com is running Microsoft-IIS/5.0 on Windows 2000.

The site www.gmp.police.uk is running Lotus-Domino/0 on Windows 2000.

The site www.tabletrac.com is running Apache/1.3.26 (Unix) on BSD/OS.

The site www.mcdonalds.com is running Communique/3.5.1.0.2377 on Solaris 8.

The site www.nuance.com is running Stronghold/2.4.1 Apache/1.3.3 C2NetEU/2409 (Unix) PHP/3.0.12 on Solaris.

The site www.eckerd.com is running unknown on unknown. (Was Windows 2000 Microsoft-IIS/5.0 earlier.)
They also have some connection mentioned in the case study with:
The site www.jcpenney.net is running Netscape-Enterprise/3.6 SP2 on Solaris 8.

The site www.zenez.com is running Apache/1.3.22 (Unix) PHP/4.0.6 mod_perl/1.26 FrontPage/5.0.2.2623 AuthMySQL/2.20 mod_ssl/2.8.5 OpenSSL/0.9.6a on FreeBSD.

Save Mart doesn't seem to have a website.

The site www.cardkey.com is running Stronghold behind a computer running unknown. (Was NT4/Windows 98 Microsoft-IIS/4.0 earlier)

Note: the above doesn't necessarily invalidate their claims, I just find these results interesting.

Safeco Field and SCO by dokhebi · 2004-02-12 07:57 · Score: 1

I have to refute one of SCO's claims (see "5 Reasons..."). I talked to the tech at Safeco Field, and they are no longer using Micros 8700 on SCO OpenServer 5. They have switch to Micros 9700 on Windows 2000.

The blame for this can be shared between SCO and Micros: SCO never made a better offer to Micros for staying with them, and Micros fell to the dark side (went to Microsoft) through some internal mechanations...

a day without sunshine? by vladkrupin · 2004-02-12 08:06 · Score: 1

... that means SCO's gotta have an office down in Seattle somewhere!

--

Jobs? Which jobs?

CASE STUDY by macshune · 2004-02-12 08:10 · Score: 1

David Boies

"During my trial against Microsoft with the FTC, I used SCO UNIX to help manage my paperwork, research and knee-cap assailants to help me win the case.

Now, as Chief Litigant in the SCO vs. The World case, I'm using SCO UNIX in a unique and innovative way. Few software companies would champion or even think of the use of hysterical barrantry in order to solicit increased revenue, but SCO developed this idea virtually overnight. I have helped to refine this idea to make it an art -- enriching me as well as SCO itself.

We have created a new corporate paradigm, where products need not exist, only vague notions of plagarization by other non-corporate entities. Through litigation, intimidation, and of course SCO UNIX, I have helped usher in a new era of corporate dominance over innovation that had threatened to cut off established sources of revenue. Now, businesses the world over will no longer have to engage in R&D or any sort of product development. Lawsuits and aggresive licensing contracts will sustain corporations for the next century or even longer. Longer that is, if SCO UNIX continues to be a great product at a great price."

Drill Holes in someone elses head? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-02-12 08:14 · Score: 0

Ancient Civilizations did this type of head drilling...

Some drank their own urin too...

Is this stuff for real or do you hear a Duck?

To re-use a popular phrase: by Trogre · 2004-02-12 08:19 · Score: 1

I am pounding Darls head on the table, saying

"The concept of 'no free lunch' only applies to scarce resources, not to truly abundant ones like computer software, fool!".

--
"Nine times out of ten, starting a fire is not the best way to solve the problem." - my wife

The web page is hysterically funny! by Anonymous Coward · 2004-02-12 08:21 · Score: 0

"2. SCO UNIX(R) is backed by a single, experienced vendor " - who specializes in litigation, and when they run out of money, they're out of business. So who will support those customers after SCO is no more?

"4. SCO UNIX(R) is Secure " - specifically - "These security features guard against business interruption, denial of service attacks [...]" - that explains why SCO's site is down so much!

"5. SCO UNIX(R) is Legally Unencumbered " - so who exactly owns the copyrights? This is particularly priceless, given that SCO's entire business model seems to now be centered on litigation. Being "Legally Unencumbered" would seem to indicate that a litigation business model would ultimately fail them, but that's what the business model is. See #2 above for more. :-)

Re:The web page is hysterically funny! by Anonymous Coward · 2004-02-12 15:03 · Score: 0

Note that since this afternoon, they've removed a significant portion of #4, including the bit quoted above. The original read:

"SCO UNIX(R) has all of the security features of the higher priced UNIX(R) solutions but at a fraction of the cost. These security features guard against business interruption, denial of service attacks and protect against identity or corporate information theft. You can count on SCO UNIX to address the ever increasing privacy concerns and the government regulations regarding data protection, data accuracy and privacy."

Check your favourite search engine cache to see the original.

Now it reads:

"SCO UNIX(R) has all of the security features of the higher priced UNIX(R) solutions but at a fraction of the cost. You can count on SCO UNIX to address the ever increasing privacy concerns and the government regulations regarding data protection, data accuracy and privacy."

Note that they've removed the claim about protecting against DoS attacks. Guess they decided it wasn't so good at that.

AAANnnnd... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-02-12 08:27 · Score: 0

That's Why I like Rainy Days.

Chewbacca Defense by d34thm0nk3y · 2004-02-12 08:29 · Score: 1

Look at the cake, look at the silly little cake. We are arguing a multi-billion dollar contract case, and I am talking about a cake. That does not make sense! If Chewbacca lives on Endor you must acquit!

Re:Chewbacca Defense by Anonymous Coward · 2004-02-12 09:37 · Score: 0

I've never understood the chewbacca defense. Chewbacca does not live on Endor. He is originally from Kashykk (sp?) he may have had a little adventure on Endor in Episode 6, but He never lived there

Can anyone clear this up? Anyone?
Re:Chewbacca Defense by Anonymous Coward · 2004-02-12 14:28 · Score: 0

That was dumb. You're stupid.
Re:Chewbacca Defense by Anonymous Coward · 2004-02-13 09:53 · Score: 0

::nasally Warsie nerd voice:: In reality, Chewbacca was never on Endor. He was on the Forest Moon of Endor. Endor itself is a gas giant.

Re:I've got one reason to choose Linux over UNIX-S by nzkoz · 2004-02-12 08:33 · Score: 2, Interesting

Now, correct me if I am wrong, but an ABI definition tells you what to put in which registers and how to make the system call

You're not wrong, however all Darl's talking about here is the value of the symbolic constants in headers like "errno.h". i.e. #define EPERM 1. That's his highly secret ABI IP. His conclusion is that because linux and SVRX use the exact same values for those errors (they don't), Linux violates their ABI copyright.

Now Linus says that he took the specific values from minix, and I believe that he'd know. So SCO's entire ABI argument comes down to the fact that 'some' of the values of 'some' symbolic constants are the same. Therefore we're gonna sue you.

Dunno about you, but I'm not losing any sleep

--
Cheers Koz

I love free employees, too by Anonymous Coward · 2004-02-12 08:35 · Score: 0

Actually hardened conservative capitalists like myself see Linux as the ultimate level playing field for software development - a playing field where the best applications win, not where one company has access to underlying OS features and can freeze out competitors using predatory behavior...

No doubt they (the hardened conservative capitalists) also like having talented people work for free. Do not expect the capitalists to give anything to society in return, however. They are still just enriching themselves.

worldwide presence? by sdibb · 2004-02-12 08:37 · Score: 3, Funny

Based in Lindon, Utah, SCO has a worldwide presence

Uh, worldwide presence? I live in Orem, literally blocks from Lindon. The last thing I'd call their presence is "worldwide"

"Behind Home Depot" comes more to mind, than worldwide.

Fish like bicycles. by 0mni · 2004-02-12 08:40 · Score: 1

Unfortunately there are a lot of salesmen who think so highly of themselve that they beleive they could convince a fish to buy a bicycle. Guess its the same with SCO, they are so arrogant that they think that they are so good Linux NEEDS them, They're wrong.

yeah I use lynx by Tiro · 2004-02-12 08:45 · Score: 1

lynx is simply the best for reading text on a bad old computer, like /. or nytimes or anything without javascript. It just rocks.

Patents? by Mr.+Underbridge · 2004-02-12 08:46 · Score: 1

And, of course, unlike copyright claims, the patent claims could be applied directly to SCOX customers

Care to explain? I wasn't aware of anything that allowed a company to hit customers of products that infringe patents.

Re:Patents? by fjaffe · 2004-02-12 09:28 · Score: 1

Patents create a legal monopoly on the right to practice the inventions of the patent. This is very different from copyright which deals with the right to copy and distribute.

In practice, very few patents are enforced at the end user level, simply because it is not economical to do so. This is probably why you're not aware that it does, in fact, allow for suits directly to the infringing user, rather than just the product developer.

Recently, however, there have been a number of companies formed to try to exploit patent portfolio's. When they can, they go after suppliers, but in some cases they go after end-users, typically large corporations.

There is one group with 150 patents on call center technology trying to get every company that runs a call center to pay them money. I remember a company lawyer telling me they had received a notice offering to license the portfolio. The letter was one page, the list of addressees was 90 pages long.

Legally Unecumbered? by catdevnull · 2004-02-12 08:51 · Score: 2, Interesting

Legally unencumbered = we won't sue you if you pay us!
SCO: Let us build a solution for you or we'll sue you for using someone else.

Wow. Back in the day, we used to call that extortion. Now they call it "intellectual property." Nice to see that "the family" has moved away from old school "protection" to the high tech world. *cue theme to The Godfather*

--

I might know what I'm talkin' about, but then again, this is Slashdot...

5 reasons full text in case of slashdotting by cgenman · 2004-02-12 08:52 · Score: 2, Funny

Five Reasons to Choose UNIX(R) Instead of Linux(R)

1. SCO UNIX(R) is really, really old.

SCO UNIX(R) has been used in thousands of businesses and governments around the world for centuries. Its scalability, reliability and flexibility made it the number one choice of Alexander Gram Bell, Augustus Caesar, and the East India Spice Company. SCO UNIX(R) is the number one UNIX(R) on transistors, vacuum tubes, and parchment. It's so old even we don't have a copy of our source code anymore.

Case Study: the Russian Revolution

"We knew there was an integrated and reliable solution out there, but at first we were not quite sure who the right comrades were to make this a winning solution for the people," said Joseph Stalin, Director of Information Systems. "SCO provided the most flexible and manageable solution to handle our glorious revolution's requirements for counter-revolutionary espionage, tracking, and disposal, and the even dispersal of grain to the ruling class. Plus, they provide a positive model for our society."

Not only has the SCO solution reduced redundancy in Russia's information torture program, it has virtually eliminated errors in the country's nuclear launch program. "The SCO solution has allowed Russia to remain a glorious world power, with a brilliant, controlled future and no end in sight. Just like SCO."

2. SCO UNIX(R) is ours, everywhere

All ours. Yup. SCO's award winning team sells our SCO unix worldwide, in all 7 continents and several oceans. Based in a P.O. Box at a Mail Boxes Etc. in a mall in Florida, SCO's millions of technical staffers and billions of happy support personnel provides the infrastructure your business needs to avoid copyright tussles with companies like SCO, who, BTW, owns UNIX(R).

Case Study: AT&T

"And we thought we had a monopoly. It turns out not only does SCO own the operating system we created, they also own our infrastructure, parasitic business practices, and the customer service reputation we built up over many years."

"They own the software that runs my car, the printing press, catfish, and the insanity defence."

SCO's lawyer interjects. "Don't forget, We also own your children."

3. SCO UNIX(R) has a Committed, Well-Defined Roadmap

Umm...

4. SCO UNIX(R) is Secure

SCO UNIX(R) combines the security of high-priced UNIX(R) solutions with the low cost of high-priced UNIX(R) solutions. We do, after all, own UNIX(R). These security features include Obscurity, and a free trial copy of Zone Lab's ZoneAlarm(R).

Case Study: the PHB

"What we really needed was a rock-solid, reliable operating system clueless people like me could buy without configuring anything," recalls the Pointy Haired Boss, technology manager at your company, between the 17th and 18th holes. "That's where SCO came in. Once I got past that whole 'double clicking' thing, SCO UNIX(R) was a breeze to install, with a little animated wizard and everything. And unlike other operating systems that issue security bulletins every few months, I've never heard of a problem with SCO UNIX(R)."

"SCO UNIX(R) has absolutely no security flaws," Said the PHB's caddy, wearing $200 Tiger Woods Nike shoes, a Rolex, and a smirk the size of his Hummer.

5. Buy SCO UNIX(R) or we shoot this dog

SCO is the sole owner of the UNIX(R) Operating System Intellectual Property Related Activities that dates back to the discovery of electricity and beyond. Through a hole in space and time, SCO has acquired ownership over UNIX (and its derivative QNX), BSD, Nils and Anna Torvalds, and mathematics. We're not going to let a good side business like selling UNIX(R) go to waste.

As early as May 2003, we warned Linux(R) users that enterprise use of the Linux(R) operating system was in violation of its intellectual property rights in SCO UNIX(R) technology, as will be determined in US courts. Linux(R) users were warned to either pay a reasonable 699$ per processor per user per ye

--
The ______ Agenda

Linux(R)... by holizz · 2004-02-12 08:52 · Score: 2, Funny

I didn't realise 'Linux' was a registered trademark. Who owns that trademark?
Maybe SCO registered it because they clearly own it...

Re:Linux(R)... by hendersj · 2004-02-12 08:57 · Score: 3, Informative

As I recall, Linus owns the Linux trademark...

--
Insanity is a gradual process; don't rush it.

Re:I've got one reason to choose Linux over UNIX-S by kelnos · 2004-02-12 08:58 · Score: 2, Informative

Now, correct me if I am wrong, but an ABI definition tells you what to put in which registers and how to make the system call.

i wouldn't call that an ABI - that's really just a calling convention.

the ABIs include such things as the integers that correspond to each syscall, the actual integers behind error codes that we think of as ENOMEM, EAGAIN, etc., the numbers used for each signal (SIGBUS, SIGTERM, etc.). also you'd include in the ABI e.g. the format of the ioctl() call - what arguments it takes, in what order, and what each argument means and does.

ever seen a run-time linker error when you try to run something compiled against an incompatible glibc? that's a user-space ABI incompatibility at work.

think about the words that make up the acronym 'ABI'. it's an 'interface' (function calls, defined constants) that 'applications' use. the 'binary' portion just means that differing ABIs don't impact how the code is written (i.e., you can have correctly-compiling code that is ABI-incompatible with a particular library or whatever). assuming that all else was the same (binary format, linker format, calling conventions, etc.), you could theoretically compile a binary on BSD or SCO UNIX that would run on linux. unfortunately, it wouldn't actually do anything - it would probably crash almost immediately - because, for example, when linux sends a signal to the app with number 14, linux is sending SIGALRM. but the app, compiled against a different ABI, may believe that 14 means something else, say, SIGIO (contrived example).

when we're talking about user-space, ABI incompatibilities usually manifest themselves as link time errors (compile-time or run-time). when we're talking about the user/kernel interface, ABI incompatibilities manifest themselves as crashes, because the application erroneously believes it is doing one thing, but the kernel believes it's trying to do something else (possibly in violation of what it's allowed to do).

but the point that you made is still correct - much of linux's ABI does differ from SCO UNIX (and BSD), so i don't see where SCO is going with this...

--
Xfce: Lighter than some, heavier than others. Just right.

Additional links. by Jaywalk · 2004-02-12 09:01 · Score: 2, Informative

Here are three of SCO's "five reasons" with appropriate links:

SCO UNIX(R) is backed by a single, experienced vendor. Where "experienced" is defined as less than four years .
SCO UNIX(R) has a Committed, Well-Defined Roadmap
SCO UNIX(R) is Legally Unencumbered

--
===== Murphy's Law is recursive. =====

Re:Scooby Snacks: Think of the butter...or the MJ by Tony+Hoyle · 2004-02-12 09:15 · Score: 1

Pity MJ isn't addictive, or it'd be a nice analogy :)

Try 'crack' or 'linux'.

Sco World by essreenim · 2004-02-12 09:32 · Score: 1

A day with SCO is like a day without sunshine

Yes, as seen with their globe icon complete with blood coloured sea!!

Five Reasons to Choose Linux(R) Instead of UNIX(R) by �berhund · 2004-02-12 09:34 · Score: 2, Funny

"1. Linux(R) is a Proven, Stable and Reliable Platform"
"2. SCO UNIX(R) is backed by a single experienced vendor"
"3. SCO UNIX(R) has a Committed, Well-Defined Roadmap"
- Monday: lawsuit.
  Tuesday: lawsuit.
  Wednesday: MadLibs Lawsuits(R)! "__ is __." [Linux, GPL, IBM] [unconstitutional, scary, stealing our money].
  Plan B: Sell the stock quick before we file bankruptcy.
"4. Linux(R) is Secure"
"5. SCO UNIX(R) is Morally Unencumbered"

--
-Uberhund

Is there a way to screen out Funny posts? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-02-12 09:36 · Score: 0

Forgive my ignorance, but is there a way to screen out the "Funny" comments on Slashdot. First, cause funny, they are not. Second, especially with SCO, the majority of the posts moderated up to 5 are neither informative, nor interesting, and one does get enough of funny SCO posts every day.

Re:Is there a way to screen out Funny posts? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-02-12 11:08 · Score: 0

Good job, someone has to choose between OffTopic, Flaimbate, and Troll for that post.

I was wondering... by MonkeyGone2Heaven · 2004-02-12 10:21 · Score: 1

why the food at Safeco tasted 'off'. It's contaminated with SCO! As a Seattle native and Mariners fan I must register my deep shame and embarrassment.

Oh, the humiliation!

SCO's 5 Reasons by dot_borg · 2004-02-12 10:56 · Score: 1

1. SCO UNIX(R) is a Proven, Stable and Reliable Platform... because we say it is.

2. SCO UNIX(R) is backed by a single, experienced vendor... so if you upset us we'll pull your license.

3. SCO UNIX(R) has a Committed, Well-Defined Roadmap... to sue all companies that support Linux.

4. SCO UNIX(R) is Secure... that you know of.

5. SCO UNIX(R) is Legally Unencumbered... until proven otherwise.

Interesting... by John.Thompson · 2004-02-12 11:19 · Score: 2, Funny

Here's what NetCraft shows for SCO today:

OS, Web Server and Hosting History for www.thescogroup.com

OS Server Last changed IP address Netblock Owner

Linux Apache 3-Feb-2004 216.250.128.21 NFT

NetBSD/OpenBSD Apache 2-Feb-2004 216.250.128.21 NFT

And when you go to the the Netblock owner and peruse the SCO entries there, you see that 19 of the 22 SCO servers shown are apparently running linux.

You may draw whatever conclusions you wish from this... :-)

Re:I've got one reason to choose Linux over UNIX-S by Anonymous Coward · 2004-02-12 11:37 · Score: 0

They want 5 billion because linux defines EPERM
as 1 and not 2. Well SCOG knows more about
arbitary numbers than IBM, Novell or Red Hat ever
will so perhaps they have a point.

This is the best IP case they can make? My God!

Doesn't quite match up with what SCOG executives
and lawyers have been saying. And what about
Deutch Bank? Was it defrauded by SCOG. All this
news is new to us but old hat to SCOG as proved
by Novell's letters.

Comment removed by account_deleted · 2004-02-12 12:19 · Score: 1

Comment removed based on user account deletion

UNIX over .... what? by SeanAhern · 2004-02-12 12:44 · Score: 1

Just doing a quick search over that page, the word "Linux" doesn't even appear until #5, where they get into their IP crap. Hm...

Re:I've got one reason to choose Linux over UNIX-S by foidulus · 2004-02-12 13:16 · Score: 1

Though you have to wonder where he got the name McBride? Last names in the west seem to be based on what your family used to do for a living way back when. Maybe the McBride's where drive-through whores?

Still a Little Off (more perfect analogy) by IBitOBear · 2004-02-12 13:36 · Score: 1

0. Lots of people made lots of differnt kinds of butter for years using everything from a shaker bottle to a rolling-drum churn.
1. SCO buys a company that had licensed the idea of the "four bladed" butter churn from another 3rd company.
2. IBM licensed the idea of the "four bladed" butter churn from that same 3rd company.
3. IBM added a motor and non-skid feet to their churn device.
4. An independent guy comes along and makes another set of butter churn equipment, it takes up less volume and it happens to have "four blades" because that is a very hot idea just then. The four blades look nothing like that 3rd company's blades, they are made of a completely different material by a completely different means, and they churn the butter more efficently, but there are undeniably four "blades".
5. IBM takes their motor and rubber feet and discover they work well on this other design too.
6. SCO cries foul. They assert:
6a. the 3rd company said that only they are allowed to let people make butter.
6b. anything ever put onto one of "their style" churn must have been given to them and can never be used for any other purpose and only they (SCO) can decide if IBM can even keep putting the motor and feet on the old butter churns.
6c. Anything that has four of anthing that could be called "blades" in a court of law and comes into contact with heavy cream can't possibly be based on anything other than "their" churn.
6d. Everybody who doesn't like dry toast owes them 1 dollar per slice eaten, even if the toast was "moistened" with jam or eaten dry, because toast is _typically_ moistened with butter and since they licensed the same four bladed churn as everybody else they own anything toasted.
7. SCO goes on a rampage shooting cows to stop the spread of "unauthorized cream."
8. The worlds largest goat-farmer (Microsoft) dips into his "spreadable goat cheese" profits to keep SCO in bullets "on the sly."
9. A nearby bagel bakery (SUN) not knowing whether boiling and baking are "like enough" to toasting to cause trouble, decides to cater the rampage.
10. Lots of savy food eaters decide to take side bets based solely on the ideas that there has to be money in toast since people eat it, and after all aren't they eating right now...?

--
Innocent people shouldn't be forced to pay for inferior software development.
--"Code Complete" Microsoft Press

LOL More, please! by Slur · 2004-02-12 15:39 · Score: 1

Is that everything in the case? If there are more foibles I'd love to see them included.

I believe that one day all information theory will be centered around analogies derived from condiments. Of course this cannot occur until the Ketchup Renaissance and the Guacamole Reconstruction have played out.

--
-- thinkyhead software and media

oh boy! by maxdamage · 2004-02-12 16:57 · Score: 0

With such names as McDonnalds and Ekfards backing SCO, you cant loose!!! I mean, just read this testimonial from their own site "'We've had tremendous success with SCO UNIX(R) ... and found it to be reliable and dependable for our POS [Piece of sh*t] ... pharmacy ..."

Re:I've got one reason to choose Linux over UNIX-S by Anonymous Coward · 2004-02-12 18:13 · Score: 0

Convicted Monopolist

HAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!! I mean, HAHAHAHA!!!

Coming to a cinema near you... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-02-12 21:56 · Score: 0

[6Hz Man] Coming to a cinema near you in 2004;

Lord of the IP: Return of the Lawsuit.

It was a time of war... one man, with a heart of stone, could change the world! Against an army of unspecified individuals and free thinkers, he would fight to the death with his company of merry lawyers. Darl McBride stars as Sellum, a crazed creature turned evil by the lure of the source of power;

[Darl McBride's voice with lots of cool CGI... err.. wait... it's not CGI... it's Darl]

Give us our precious, it our source code and we wants it.

Linux! Aieee it burns us!

GPL!!! You ruins it! You keep your nasty GPL. We likes it in law and wriiiiggly.

Stock and fool, all nice and cool, pays our lawyers biscuits...

Yes, yes... we take them to court... she'll fix them, and then we'll takes it... our precious.... [stock] [sellum] [sellum]

[6Hz Man] See it in the cinemas now! Before Darl sues them for using Linux.

Nominated for 6 Golden FUDs and 3 DAFTAs.

--Viper

598 comments