SCOoby Snacks

A day with SCO is like a day without sunshine, I know that's what you're thinking. Novell is asking the court to dismiss SCO's lawsuit against them. Groklaw has taken a look at what is necessary to prove a 'slander of title' claim. And finally, reader loonix_gangsta wrote in and pointed to SCO's humorous 5 reasons to choose UNIX over Linux webpage.

Comments

Scooby Snacks: Think of the butter

[SimianOverlord]

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.

Re:Scooby Snacks: Think of the butter

[Anonymous Coward]

> 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

[maisenhe]

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.

Re:Scooby Snacks: Think of the butter

[Anonymous Coward]

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

[kfg]

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

[crimethinker]

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

Re:Scooby Snacks: Think of the butter

[DaSpudMan]

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:

Re:Scooby Snacks: Think of the butter

[Anonymous Coward]

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

[jgabby]

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

[pesc]

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.

Re:Scooby Snacks: Think of the butter

[snoopsk]

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

[hcg50a]

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.

Re:Scooby Snacks: Think of the butter

[Firehawke]

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

[chiark]

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

[Pontiac]

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..

Re:Scooby Snacks: Think of the butter

[scambaiter]

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?

Re:Scooby Snacks: Think of the butter

[ben_white]

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

Re:Scooby Snacks: Think of the butter

[kfg]

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

[dipipanone]

Oh, come on. I Can't Believe It's Not Butter.

Re:Scooby Snacks: Think of the butter

[R2.0]

"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."

Re:Scooby Snacks: Think of the butter

[RedK]

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".

Re:Scooby Snacks: Think of the butter

[molnarcs]

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

[great_flaming_foo]

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

[winse]

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.

A day with SCO is like a day without sunshine

[Anonymous Coward]

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

Re:A day with SCO is like a day without sunshine

[AndroidCat]

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.

Re:A day with SCO is like a day without sunshine

[Tackhead]

> 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

[Anonymous Coward]

Reason 6.) We are fucktards.

Re:A day with SCO is like a day without sunshine

[SiaFhir]

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".

Actually...

[Noryungi]

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.

*5* Reasons?

[yttrbium]

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?

[Tenebrious1]

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

Re:*5* Reasons?

[thinkliberty]

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?

[TheZax]

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

Re:*5* Reasons?

[steve_l]

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?

[MrLint]

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?

[KilobyteKnight]

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.

I really tried...

[stoolpigeon]

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

yeah right

[Dreadlord]

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.

Re:yeah right

[vaginitis]

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.

Re:yeah right

[cygnusx]

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

[Anonymous Coward]

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

[martinjd]

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

thanks for coming out.

Re:yeah right

[TheLinuxSRC]

According to netcraft it is Linux and NetBSD/OpenBSD:

http://uptime.netcraft.com/up/graph/?host=www.thes cogroup.com

Re:yeah right

[fsmunoz]

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

[Eccles]

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

McDonalds and SCO

[Anonymous Coward]

"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

[grasshoppa]

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.

Re:McDonalds and SCO

[rkhalloran]

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

[AndyCap]

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

[Short Circuit]

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.

Re:McDonalds and SCO

[DR SoB]

"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.. :)

Re:McDonalds and SCO

[max cohen]

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

I thought the Red Hat suit took care of that...

Re:McDonalds and SCO

[Dr.Zong]

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.

Reason #6

[swoebser]

Because we're litigious bastards.

Unencumbered??!?

[sonoluminescence]

SCO UNIX(R) is Legally Unencumbered +5 Funny

Re:Unencumbered??!?

[highwebl]

So their point is: You can trust us because we aren't taking legal action against ourselves. Yet.

Sure

[BenSpinSpace]

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

[mahdi13]

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

Re:Sure

[spinozaq]

Hit Goodwin's Law quick with this one.

Re:Sure

[RailGunner]

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

[JaredOfEuropa]

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

Re:Sure

[mahdi13]

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?

Re:Sure

[Sique]

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.

Re:Sure

[mahler3]

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

[Progman3K]

> 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...

Re:Sure

[BenSpinSpace]

(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

[HiThere]

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.

Re:Sure

[shanen]

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.)

There appears to be a typographical error in #5

[mkettler]

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?

Re:There appears to be a typographical error in #5

[Asprin]

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.

Re:There appears to be a typographical error in #5

[tb3]

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.

Re:There appears to be a typographical error in #5

[hal9000]

... "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.

Re:There appears to be a typographical error in #5

[mysticgoat]

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.

For the lazy:

[Anonymous Coward]

• 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:

[slipandfall]

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:

[Hangtime]

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:

[Lxy]

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.

Re:For the lazy:

[Billy the Mountain]

4. SCO UNIX(R) is Secure

Heh, yeah. "Bring 'em on!"

Re:For the lazy:

[Tuqui]

SCO had been using Linux in their Web Servers!
And still using Linux in their Web Servers!

speed

[Anonymous Coward]

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

Or is this link to SCO just a masked DOS??

[DOCStoobie]

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

Great. Another Linux Community DDoS

[Anonymous Coward]

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

I like reason #4

[Stalke]

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

[Anonymous Coward]

their webservis isnt running sco unix anyway....

Re:I like reason #4

[surprise_audit]

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

[sean1121]

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.

I love these case studies...

[Valar]

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...

A Day without SCO...

[weshart]

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

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

Re:A Day without SCO...

[Brahmastra]

When did the average geek see sunshine last?

5 Reasons

[crow]

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

[Here I Stand]

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

SCO's 5 reason page

[Xpilot]

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:

1. done by SCO
2. not intended as humour.

5 Reasons??

[zulux]

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

Their list started at 1 for cryin' out loud.

Re:5 Reasons??

[happyfrogcow]

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??

[DeadSea]

Well it certainly isn't a Linux Slashdotter's list. Otherwise it would contain:

6. ???
7. Profit

Poor SCO

[Durzel]

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

[tornado2258]

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.

No. 2

[rokzy]

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?

just posted over at groklaw

[Samari711]

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.

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

[rjamestaylor]

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!"

Unencumbered? Not Quite

[fjaffe]

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

#5

[Lord_Frederick]

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

I've got one reason to choose Linux over UNIX-SCO

[BoomerSooner]

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

Daryl's take on POSIX standards

[GillBates0]

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.

One lousy reason

[Unnngh!]

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*

[LordK3nn3th]

*watches others mod SCO down -1 troll*

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

A day with SCO is like a day without sunshine

[HarveyBirdman]

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

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

Groklaw wants a reason?

[LuxFX]

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)

Re:Groklaw wants a reason?

[Sique]

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.)

The Real Five Reasons

[Infonaut]

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!

Public Relations Intern

[Anonymous Coward]

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

Re:When Will they Learn

[Samari711]

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.

"Great Manchester Police"?

[Nexus Seven]

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.

I Like Reason Five

[nuintari]

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!)"

SCO claims that SCO UNIX(TM) is legally safe

[Performer Guy]

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.

Trepanning

[burgburgburg]

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

Re:Trepanning

[Nurseman]

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

Re:Trepanning

[the Man in Black]

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

Re:Trepanning

[Just Some Guy]

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.

Re:Trepanning

[Tiro]

man.. you killed the joke : [

Translations

[Experiment 626]

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.

Slow SCO at McDonalds

[jefu]

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:Point of Sale -- that's all

[doon]

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 :)

Derivative works

[tr0llb4rt0]

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.

Legendary

[starling]

SCO sez :

Its scalability, reliability and flexibility are legendary.

Merriam-Webster sez :

Main Entry: legendary
synonym see FICTITIOUS

Shocker! SCO isn't lying!

One Reason

[the_flatlander]

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.

The're not up to what you think they're up to.

[djh101010]

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.

[djh101010]

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.

One reason to think again

[G3ckoG33k]

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."

SCO does an injustice to Unix technology.

[openmtl]

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 !

The SCO Roadmap

[ch-chuck]

(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.

Hyprocracy

[FortKnox]

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.

What they're really saying...

[MoeMoe]

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...

Single vendor; that's a BAD thing

[jridley]

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:what?

[squiggleslash]

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.

McDonalds and SuSE

[bstadil]

Well Maybe they are not so happy with SCO in Germany

SCO & Novell Same Images

[Anonymous Coward]

Notice on SCO's 5 reasons page here, the Image is the same as on Novell's support site here. Conspiracy maybe?

The SCO theroy

[deck]

SCO to Judge:

1. 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).
   
2. AIX or DYNIX contain RCU, NUMA, JFS, etc. Linux also contains these.
   
3. Here is source code (in C) from AIX, DYNIX, and Linux. See how they are similar in implementing these functions.
   
4. 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:

1. SCO makes butter churning equipment (Patented).
2. IBM bought SCO butter churning equipment design as a basis to make their own.
3. IBM added their own improvements (Patented by IBM) to this design and sells that equipment.
4. 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.
5. SCO claims that since the improvements were originally used with their design even though they don't own the improvements they are theirs anyway.
6. 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.

HOLY CRAP

[first.last]

The Raelians don't have shit on these fuckers

Re:HOLY CRAP

[sg_oneill]

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.

Ironic?

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Reason #3

[jmv]

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

Translation: We hit the wall within a year.

Anyone notice the typo?

[tiger99]

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:For the lazy: - did you look at the roadmap???

[sprior]

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????

Some of the testimonials are very old

[DesScorp]

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?

Re:Some of the testimonials are very old

[fltsimbuff]

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.

Bullpies

[pantherace]

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.

SCO Is Legally A Cucumber

[judmarc]

So they run McDonald's systems, eh?

OK, I think we all know who it is behind that Hamburglar mask now.

Was escorted out of McDonalds

[Sabalon]

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.

5 reasons to choose to ignore SCO

[jrl2]

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.

MOD PARENT DOWN

[negacao]

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)

For those who don't know

[axxackall]

1. 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.
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. 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.
5. 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.

Let the best OS win

[Anonymous Coward]

"The motive of profit is the engine that ensures the progress of science."

If that was true your OS would be better then Linux

Re:I've got one reason to choose Linux over UNIX-S

[tiger99]

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$.

5 reasons reality check: item 2

[asr_man]

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.

Number 4 is a RIOT!!!

[Slavinski]

Not vulnerable to Denial of Service????
What the *&^%? Why didn't they put it up
instead of the other web server?
That was hilarious!!

From Reason 4, SCO UNIX(R) Is Secure...

[cschmidt]

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!

SCO is right, Unix is often better than Linux

[killmeplease]

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

MICROS 8700 on SCO

[bad-badtz-maru]

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.

Anyone notice the blatant graphics ripoff?

[Anonymous Coward]

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: You don't need those

[thelasttemptation]

nah... no brain, no pain :P

Wasn't there a song about this?

[Sax Maniac]

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.

Science for profit alone?!

[cagem0nkey]

"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"?!

my company is one of the "case studies"

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:I've got one reason to choose Linux over UNIX-S

[nzkoz]

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

worldwide presence?

[sdibb]

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.

Legally Unecumbered?

[catdevnull]

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*

5 reasons full text in case of slashdotting

[cgenman]

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

Linux(R)...

[holizz]

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)...

[hendersj]

As I recall, Linus owns the Linux trademark...

Re:I've got one reason to choose Linux over UNIX-S

[kelnos]

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...

Additional links.

[Jaywalk]

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

Five Reasons to Choose Linux(R) Instead of UNIX(R)

[�berhund]

• "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"

Interesting...

[John.Thompson]

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... :-)