Slashdot Mirror
The Microsoft/SCO Connection
rocketjam writes "CNET is running a long question-and-answer format article which takes an in-depth look at the relationship between Microsoft and SCO and the financial support SCO has received both directly and indirectly from Microsoft in their ongoing litigation alleging that Linux violates the intellectual property rights they claim to hold on UNIX. The article details the money Microsoft has paid to SCO to "license" UNIX as well as the role they played in BayStar's $50 million investment in SCO in late 2003. Microsoft paid SCO $16.6 million for a UNIX license. The only other company that has come close to paying SCO that much money for a license is Sun, who paid $9.3 million to license UNIX for their Solaris operating system."
It's nice to know there is a connection, but nothing out of the blue. Corporates are known to use lawsuit to 'retard' competitors, and there are enough memos from MS that suggested they don't really like Linux. How about FUDs and some creative TCO analysis? Those are equally damaging.
Wasn't it not long ago that we see Google 'embraces' Firefox by having www.google.com/firefox? And what came with this? People started suggesting that Google would of course support anything that kills IE since MS is now attacking Google's search market.
It's almost as exciting as a lobbyist who 'invested' $xxx million in a presidential campaign so that certain laws can be passed.
Rock that crushes, Paper & Scissors that don't matter.
I paid $26.4 Million for my Unix License... Now I feel like I got ripped off. Do you think I can ask for a refund?
- Your stupidity got you into this mess, why can't it get you out? -Will Rogers
You'll note in the article he states that this isn't quite an anti-trust violation, but rather an act of a competitor suing a competitor. That's not the case, it's more like a competitor trying to get the little company to step up to the behemoth. Looking at how this is setup, I'm confused... How is this NOT an anti-trust violation? They're attempting to 'destroy' the competition in unethical manners.
I see an automatic pistol holding a lit cigarette. . .
You are not the customer.
The enemy of my enemy is my friend.
He who can destroy a thing, can control a thing.
He who controls the spice... Oh, wait.
...everyone knows that Microsoft is the savior of all mankind and couldn't possibly have extorted money, doctored evidence, threatened OEM's, coded bugs into Windows to lock out third party software, and other mean and nasty crap.
Without Microsoft, what would we do? Perhaps progress technology forward instead of backward?
After all of this, who could possibly believe that they would funnel money to SCO in order to destroy Linux?
of course this is to be expected. i mean, microsoft, though they may not admit it, knows that linux is a big block in the way of their domination of the software market (how many sane people use microsoft on any kind of serious server?). it's not that M$ is evil either, they're just another capitalist corporation. just because they've been hugely sucessful doesn't make them evil. but they are ruthless and that's probably how they got to the top.
I'm against picketing but I don't know how to show it.
It's a shame M$ feels they have to attack Linux in this way. They may actually win some support from the tech crowd if they fought the battle based on the quality of their products. I think we are more likely to see the second coming first though :o) (please don't mod me down for mentioning religion)
I can't help feeling that M$ is a company that can't decide whether they want to cater to the server market or the home market when it comes to Windows.
I used to have a better sig but it broke.
It will be interesting if (when?) Novell and Microsoft succeed in demonstrating that SCO has no clear title to "Unix." Depositions in the trial, by people who negotiated the contract between AT&T and SCO, seem to indicate that the Unix copyrights didn't change ownership. SCO just got right to copy, modify, and sell.
Perhaps this was not beyond Sun, and perhaps Sun was just trying to weaken Linux in the marketplace. After all, Linux competes with Solaris. The 9.3 million could have been intended to support the company that was trying to throttle Linux.
Still, if (when?) it comes out that SCO did not have a Unix copyright to license, then there will be some 'splainin for Sun to do, having paid SCO for a license to something SCO doesn't own.
I hope you all at least consider that MSFT paid 16.6 million for the SCO Unix license, just to avoid lawsuits from them, with no "evil plans" againstLinux whatsoever. Of course, when they saw the whole affair unwrap last year, it surely made them smile (for a little while at least). But maybe (MAYBE) it wasn't intentional... SCO did it all by itself (Hey look! Big companies give up big money easily! Lets continue!). Sun gave them 9 millions and nobody is accusing them...
Eureka Science News - automatically updated
I agree with the post except for the part where you are clueless to the fact that if SCO successfully destroys Linux, theoretically they can also go after Apple because a large portion of OS X contains open source code.
By redefining the UNIX rights, Microsoft hopes to quell the growth of UNIX family operating systems, of course.
Why Microsoft doesn't just embrace the UNIX family and not fight it beats the hell out of me.
Take a Linux distribution (or BSD, or Darwin, or whatever), place a Windows GUI on it, port their apps so that anyone can buy Office (profit!), inherit stronger security from the UNIX model, and add classic Windows support with their Virtual PC/Virtual Server technology they bought from Connectix.
Perhaps they feel that are in too deep to change.
"Hear that, Mr. Gates? It is the sound of inevitability..."
Vos teneo officium eram periculosus ut vos recipero is.
The consumer will be one of the first against the wall when the glorious revolution comes. Go SCO, I suppose.
I wish there was some more references to the fragile legality many of SCO's claims are riding on.
Getting C-Net exposure is great, and the article paints an obvious picture of the Microsoft contirbution to the SCO effort...
But I just wamted the article to mention that all of SCOs claims are false, or at least unfounded...
On the other hand, Linux is a potential legal minefield, Windows is dangerous and Solaris is too hard to understand.
Yeah, but at least our mice can right-click! Ooooooo...
... are there that could potentially be threatened by SCOs litigious ways? It makes sense for any company (MSFT, SUNW etc) to evaluate their risk and cut a check accordingly.
If there were other OS vendors that went through the same evaluation I'm sure we would see more payments to SCO along identical lines.
This is a non-story.
I wonder how much of that licensing money ever made it to Novell? See as how SCO only go the rights to license UNIX and was supposed to be a caretaker of the licensing. I'm thinking....uh...none. :) That's a lot of money to bank with giving that Novell now has documentation showing that they own the UNIX copyrights after all.
It's pretty obvious that Microsoft doesn't like Linux. Linux is giving away what Microsoft sells. Microsoft sees an opportunity to help an enemy of an enemy ... and acts on it.
I don't see any sneaky or suspicious stuff going on here. I think Microsofts actions are underhanded and not above-the-board. But I don't think there are any smoke and mirrors/conspiracies to be uncovered.
Slashdot Syndrome: the sudden, extreme urge to correct someone in order to validate one's self.
Homer: In America, first you get the sugar, then you get the power, then you get the women
Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
You mean a company that's losing business to Linux (MS) might be helping another company (SCO)that's also losing users to Linux?
Sort of like "the enemy of my enemy is my friend"?
Who'd a thunk it!
HexaByte - he's a square and a half!
I still can't understand how a "serious" company like Sun can pay millions to SCO...
Did SCO win or loose money with their lies ??
Doesn't Sun's UNIX licensing agreement predate SCO's switch to a screw-with-Linux-and-live-off-the-tips business model? I mean, unlike MSFT, it would seem Sun has the excuse they're actually selling a SysV derivative.
Irritable, left-wing and possibly humorous bumper stickers and t-shirts
SUN paid 9 mil for Solaris and Microsoft paid almost double that and yet MS doesn't even have a real UNIX OS product. I agree, that "licensing" money was really spent in something else.
[alk]
Microsoft didn't buy a license with those $16.6 million. They just wanted to protect themselves from law suits in the future because they used Linux as well.
I wonder how much a Beowulf cluster would cost then? But knowing SCO they would say that they don't exist.
if Sun paid 9.3 million why is there no discussion of their relationship with SCO? maybe I just missed it...
Well, the parent said "our mice" can right click. Sure, OSX can recognize a right mouse click, but your standard Mac mouse still can't right-click.
-- If god wanted me to have a sig, he'd have given me a sense of humor.
he's referring to paul seizing the throne by threatening the universe with the complete destruction of the spice, melange.
the aphorism speaks to natural resources - paul was ready to destroy the spice and damn the universe to slow death. the guild and emperor realized he was not fucking around and he would do it.
Up front!
Except that he lied about the amounts.
Except that Microsoft lied about their involvement with Baystar.
Except that SCO has yet to produce a single line of infringing code.
Nothing about the fiaSCO has been up front.
Fact and Fiction, eh? Looks like CNet got the facts! M$ facts.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
Funny quote of the day (from the article): ""They're[Microsoft] very careful and concerned about not doing anything that's violating their DOJ agreements," Sontag said."
> ...in their ongoing litigation alleging that
> Linux violates the intellectual property rights
> they claim to hold on UNIX.
While The SCO Group has repeatedly made such allegations in the press they have never done so in any litigation. Their statements to the contrary are lies.
Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
SCO is not going after Open Source, they are going after Linux. BSD has already gone through this type of thing with AT&T in the early 90's, and they ended up changing a few suspect lines of code, and 4.4BSD is 100% free of AT&T code, since they changed it because of AT&T's suit. So no, they can't go after Apple or any BSD-based kernel.
Quite the good deal, if you ask me.
....
/. rather than 'real' people" :-]
But why are the majority of people[1] not suprised by this? when will we be suprised at something MS does[2]? The more I see of MS the more Antitrust looks like a training guide.
Jaj
[1] "People" as in "the posters on
[2]Other than opensource windows.
I would reccomend you check this out then.
It seems Microsoft did more than just act as a reference. It's not stated what was actually said, but for it to be "shocking" in an environment where competition is normally aggressive to hostile, we can assume that it was something highly out of the ordinary and probably very unethical.
Although Microsoft seems to have been careful to not be "too" active in this lawsuit, it seems evident that they are far from innocent bystanders. If the SEC could find some guts, they really aught to be investigating this matter. If the objective is to intimidate potential Linux customers, or drain pro-Linux corporations of cash, provided the lawsuit really is without merit, and SCO & Microsoft knew this then I feel sure that there are provisions under racketeeing laws (esp. with regards to "protection rackets") that cover this situation.
This, I think, is the point that the law enforcement agencies and SEC need to remember. (This is why John Mohammed could be found guilty for murders commited by Lee Malvo. The so-called "trigger-man" hypothesis. It doesn't matter if you feel this is right or wrong, what matters is that this is the viewpoint the law in the US currently takes.)
If SCO is shown to be guilty of trying to extort money through the willful pursuit of lawsuits they knew to be without merit, then the Federal authorities have the legal right (and legal obligation) to take SCO out of business. You can't go around saying that racketeering is bad - unless it's by someone in Silicon Valley and/or a contributor to Government political funds.
If, as I think increasingly likely, Microsoft is shown to have (from the background) put SCO in a position where SCO was going to shoot, then the "triger-man" hypothesis applies, which means Microsoft would also be guilty, even if their role was totally passive. It would be no different, in the eyes of the law, than the DC shootings, insofar as distribution of responsibility was concerned.
If there's even the slightest suspicion of such a scenario, the FBI and the SEC should be all over this case, to determine who knew what, when, and how culpable that makes them.
Of course, that's not happening. The SEC can't even be pressured into enforcing the whistleblower protection laws, in relatively minor cases.
The ability of the SEC to stand back and ignore numerous laws, across the board, in spite of pressure from law enforcement, does not bode well. It does not bode well for industry, where upper management are now essentially being told they are at liberty to ignore any rules or laws they feel like. Good working practices produce good work, in good quantities. Poor working practices make things profitable in the short-term but kill the business in the long-run.
It does not bode well for law enforcement, where we can expect those pushing for enforcement to be replaced by "pro-business" opportunists.
It definitely does not bode well for Linux and *BSD. The outcome of this trial is almost irrelevent, as all Microsoft has to do is "lean" on someone else to start a new one. From Microsoft's standpoint, it makes more in a day from interest earned than it spends on propping up such lawsuits, and even if the lawsuit fails, it pretty much kills off whoever they used (and therefore a competitor). Microsoft might even pick up a little IP on the way. Linux and *BSD have to be "lucky" in every lawsuit thrown at them. Microsoft only has to be lucky once.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
Well, does it?
:-)
Mac runs microsoft office and internet explorer just fine.
just buy a mac
nobody gives a fuck about SCO anymore.
When I first suggested that M$ was behind/involved in the SCO lawsuits in April based on the one of the later "Halloween" documents people seemed to suggest I was reaching and/or my medictaion dosage was wrong.
You gotta say one thing for M$ - they are predictable. And they're not subtle either but I guess they don't feel they need to be.
=tkk
Bill Gates - Creationist?!?
Can we throw Karl Rove in there somewhere to give this story the true Slashdot experience?
Sun Solaris is now going Open Source. What does this mean to SCO? Anyone here thiink SCO will go after Sun now, since they paid SCO millions? Does this legally make Sun "recognize" the "Unix Property"?
After all, SCO isn't claiming much code is stolen anymore, just a bunch of header files and comments...
Of couse, this case looks like it's entering the final stages and that SCO will lose. But could opening Solaris give them a little water and food into their attack to keep the rats alive for a few months longer?
Power: domination, beyond what is required for a healthy business, is what Bill wants. He does not care for profits. He no longer cares about making a good business and cool software (I think perhaps many years ago he did). Now it is all about power and dominance and seeing the Microsoft wedge of the pie get bigger.
Being thought of as a nice guy: All the feel-good that comes from the Gates Foundation with spending $20M on upgrading a university building or xxx M on AIDS research etc.
You've got to feel sad for someone that gets into a position like this.
Engineering is the art of compromise.
It's true, we see too often computer security and computer usability going in opposite directions, but it does not have to be so.
This occurs when the security function is an afterthought of the design, patched in a hurry on a system not designed initially for it. When it's the case, adding security is essentially the task of filling the holes when they are found, and each hole filled is a restriction in functionality/usability.
If the product has been designed with the usability and security requirements in mind right at the beginning, there should be no opposition between these two aspects.
Well...Closed source too often hides myopic design and sloppy developments
MS: So, Caldera, you say you want to sue us for using your "Unix(tm) IP" in our Windows(r) Services for Unix(r)(tm) Product?
Caldera: Yeah, and we're suing other big bullies too.
MS: What if we give you $6.66 Million dollars for an "intellectual property license", Will that make the law suit go away?
Caldera: Oh yeah! Now you're talking my language.
MS: You say you want to sue other big guys too? If we give you $10 Million more, could you make it IBM and drag Linux in with them?
Caldera: Sure thing boss, where do I sign?
MS: Don't call me that. Sign here, initial here, here and here.
Yes, in blood please.
He who controls the Spice Girls has fun?
OR was there another wise saying you were going for?
Food not Bombs is a nice platitude but it breaks down when you notice that the Bombees are usually well fed
Except that in the US ther eis no law that says a company has to tell consumers the truth unless they are stockholders in which case it is in the yearly reports.
Except that in the US it is perfectly legal for me to give company X millions to aid them in their quest to destroy company Y
Except in the US the biggest fear concernign monopoly coorps is not extortion but rather theat they stop support.
Except teh sad truth is that Windows (in some iteration) controls over 80% of the desktop market and will continue to do so as long a people are fearfull of Linux becasue of SCO.
Except that in the US the law and what is right and wrong rarely have a connection adn SCO could very well win on the working in their contract with IBM
Stop being a Zealot and face the facts.
SCO has a case, they may not win but when it comes down to the wire a judge will decide if they get paid based on working in a contract.
and finially,
except I am a really poor speller adn don't feel like spellchecking this post
Sure, MS supported SCO because they hate Linux.
But the OTHER thing they are doing is entrenching the "Intellectual Property" mindset. They have a long history (long before they were huge - remember the Altair BASIC hobbyist letter Gates wrote in the 70's?) of pursuing this kind of thing. Why? Because they come up with 1 idea and make horrendous piles of money, whether they do any work or not. Sort of like their OS - it all seems to be the same crap, just a different look and feel. They move a few buttons around, and everyone thinks it's totally new...
Both prongs of the attack benefit them financially and legally, particularly if SCO wins (yeah, I know it's not gonna happen)...
Not to knock slashdot, but most people who browse slashdot already have some negative feelings towards microsoft and don't necessarily feel that they practice the most responsible business practices. Its nice to see a more "mainstream" (read John Q. Public can't use a computer might read) is carring a story like this.
My mistake. Posted my reply on the wrong topic
Why is Linux replacing Unix so quickly? Because it's free? Because it's better? Because it will never go away?
Linux is friggin' everywhere and it's obviously *never* going to go away (unless maybe you kill or bribe the millions of developers around the world working on it).
Both SCO and Microsoft have to know this (just like the many other companies and governments replacing Unix around the globe).
The Linux Desktop can replace the Windows or Mac OS Desktop for *most* people. Especially a computer newcomer. Interestingly, my younger sister told me half the computer lab at her school are Linux Desktops. Why is this happening?
Will we see Microsoft suing Novell or Redhat one day for copyright infringement?
-Joe
s/Linux/OSS/g
Perhaps the number 1 reason that Sun released the "Java" desktop system to run on Linux and not Solaris was the wider availability of drivers for Linux than Solaris.
At least one vendor (IBM) looked around at what SCO was claiming, said "you have to be kidding" and realized that if they let SCO get away with their little extortion scheme(let's call it what it is -- i am going to sue you so that you buy my company isnt exactly a business plan) then there will be a lineup of equally baseless lawsuits.
While it is certainly true that IBM has the financial resources to cut a cheque to make SCO go away it will only encourage other bottom-feeders to line up at the trough(sorry for the mixed metaphor) and that would make for a constant distraction.
Even a company the size of IBM can be impaired by a barrage of deposition requests, email hunts, paperwork diving expeditions, etc.
Don't think that IBM defended the lawsuit because of some political stance in favour of Open Source. They defended the lawsuit for pure practical purposes. They saw that the long term costs of the lawsuit went far beyond the $100,000,000 (for sake of argument) that it would have taken to make SCO go away
Why is this surprising? SCO and M$ have had a longstanding relationship that began with SCO acquiring the Xenix operating system in 1993.
Wikipedia Entry
It looks like they left a couple of words out of this quote in the article:
"They're very careful and concerned about not [getting caught] doing anything that's violating their DOJ agreements," Sontag said. While not commenting specifically, Microsoft didn't deny Sontag's account.
We may experience some slight turbulence and then...explode. -Capt. Mal Reynolds
SCO did report that MS had bought a UNIX license (and withheld the name of the other company, which turned out to be Sun, which bought one). They claimed it as a success of their licensing program. So, while SCO has lied about practically everything else, this actually went their way (since MS actually wanted to fund them).
This whole thing has been based on a couple of grains of truth which, while they don't mean what SCO wants them to mean, can't be completely disregarded. If there weren't any truth to anything SCO says, the case would have been dismissed immediately. There's just not enough truth to what SCO says for them to get anywhere.
The nice thing is for both M$ and $un, their contribution is tax deductible either way. If it was an investment then it is a business loss now and so can be deducted over a period of 6 years (I believe). If it was a license, then again it was a business expense. Either way it was paid at . . .
People started suggesting that Google would of course support anything that kills IE since MS is now attacking Google's search market.
I don't think Google needs to worry about the new M$ search engine quite yet. You can tell it still has a few kinks in it when they put themselves on top for anal sex.
"You are the Gibberish Master. Let me guess, you work for Microsoft."
If you are too stupid to understand my point, and wonder why you are modded as Flamebait, let me sum it up in 2 sentences:
Open Source is a phenomenon that is not fully understood. Companies need to work with Linux, not against it, in order to survive.
And, for the record, I don't work for Microsoft or use any of their softwares. I strictly use Linux for all my computing wants and needs.
-Joe
Aren't you all a bit hot in those tinfoil hats?
Dude, the shiny part goes on the outside!
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
They are at it again..
I don't care that it's "someone" in the microsoft organization that told Baystar that Sco would be ripe for the pickings.
The Fact that this person works for Microsoft makes me want to go back to school and become a lawyer. When will the FUD from this organization end?
Hi, on the end of this story SCO will be dead, the problem with $ companies is they did not realize that it would make no sense to mess with the internet community, nobody will buy anything from SCO, and as soon as all the stupid MS believer may realize the got also cheated and pay for really poor products to much money also MS will see that politics and marketing will work for some time but not for ever. In this bussines nobody lives forever. And if there is only Linux/BSD we will find a new way to keep the IT world colorfull. Monocultures have a short lifetime. my 0.02 cent
Sun has been saying that since version 7.0. It's just a lie that sunw keeps telling for the publicity.
...than Bill Gates's and Steve Ballmer's cocks in Darl McBride's ass and mouth. There's your fucking connection dickheads. They're allz a bunch a queeeeerass mothah Fuckaz!!!
If this is the case, then how is Sun going to be able to Open Source Solaris 10?
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
Google embraces IE:
http://www.google.com/ie
I believe so, spend your money only if you are sure it makes really sense, you the customer have the power to control the market. This is what MS tries to get out of your mind. Bill says "make the people need us". My personal opinion is, this company makes products not to make my life easyer the only target is my pocket. my 0.02 cent
No text
Irritable, left-wing and possibly humorous bumper stickers and t-shirts
"The Linux Desktop can replace the Windows or Mac OS Desktop for *most* people. Especially a computer newcomer."
Bollocks. That will work unless and until they need to do anything not conceived of by the geek that set it up. They will then run headlong into the cliff-like learning curve of Linux.
Easier than macOS? Dude. Puff puff pass. You've had too much.
Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
I'd like to see some numbers on how much Redmond spends on fighting Linux and Open Source. What is also interesting is that MS would do this indirectly, which indicates that there is a belief in Redmond that fighting Open Source and Linux publicly is dangerous. Sweet.
So are you saying that Apple hasn't added any code into their OS that has been written since the early 90's?
No, I'm saying they havn't put any code into their BSD kernel that was at one point in AT&T UNIX(r) or copyrighted by SCO/Novell or whoever owns the UNIX source.
IBeatUpNerds announced plans to remodel his "crib", located in the basement of his mother's house.
It's not offtopic, dumbass. It's orthogonal.
Solaris is too hard to understand? You're joking aren't you?
I've never had any problems with it.
What a long, strange trip it's been.
"They will then run headlong into the cliff-like learning curve of Linux."
Have you installed any recent Linux distros lately?
I've installed Suse Linux (and recently Ubuntu Linux) for people that either have little or no computer skills. Most of them have figured out (on their own), how to browse the internet, chat with their friends, burn cds/dvds, create documents, etc. without any help.
I agree that Linux much more complex than Windows or MacOS. You can't say "I've clicked on every button in every window and now I know all there is to know about this OS.".
If someone wants to go beyond all the buttons and dialogs and delve into the Linux OS, you're in for a ride. It's a bottemless pit of learning. I don't think one can ever have the satisfaction of mastering Linux.
Also, I never said Linux was "easier" than MacOS. MacOS is by far the easiest. If everyone was rich, we'd all be using OS X.
-Joe
Maybe he was referring to the science fiction novel. In it's original language.
It's not offtopic, dumbass. It's orthogonal.
Yes, as long as you stay on the primrose path paved by the geeks that go before, Linux will be a good desktop experience.
What happens when you need a scanner, or a digital camera, or get a new printer? Might as well hit the computer with an axe. The average user has a staggeringly low probability of getting one of those to work.
In a corporate managed environment? Sure. Front-line relatively unsupported home use? Absolutely not.
I'm not rich. I use OSX. I don't understand why people put up with the headaches of anything else.
Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
I made a mistake. In the last sentence fragment, I used "it's" instead of the proper "its".
Can anyone explain to me how Sun can open source Solaris which was licensed from SCO while SCO is suing IBM for supposedly putting AIX code (under license from SCO) into Linux? I understand that the licenses to IBM and Sun could very well have different clauses and the open source license Sun is planning to release Solaris under probably won't be GPL-compatible... but still, how is this possible?
We always knew Comcast was corrupt, here's the proof: http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1909890&cid=34545432
Well ... possibly. Although it was pretty readable in translation, I can see that it might be hard in the original.
What a long, strange trip it's been.
"Yes, as long as you stay on the primrose path paved by the geeks that go before, Linux will be a good desktop experience."
Haha, good one.
But seriously, the *Modern* Linux Desktop is easy to use. For example, a scanner/printer is really easy to set up in Suse. Just plug it in and it will be autodetected. To configure it, just double-click the icon (http://osdir.com/shots/slideshows/158/36.gif).
That's not difficult, is it?
-Joe
Although I have not looked at O'Reilly books from this perspective, I can imagine a "how to" book for Linux which your grandmother could use. I can imagine a support service which could help her find drivers (e.g. send a driver as an email attachment or mail a CD) if she has trouble with new hardware. Why should this be so hard? She could learn to type "emerge sync", "emerge -u world", etc. I believe someone will make money from support for "grandmas" and this support will be cheaper for grandmas than the sum of the MS tax + the anti-virus tax + the cost of recovering from spyware/virus/worm/etc.
You might check out a computer company called "Apple". They pretty much make what you describe.
Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
Caldera changed their name to scox about three years ago. The new "scox" is based in Lindon Utah, not Santa Cruz.
$16.6MM is nothing to msft, that wouldn't pay for half a comercial, msft makes more than that in interest everyday.
Even the $3 billion or so that msft has paid in the last year due to msft's crimminal activities are nothing to msft - just the cost of doing business. A very small price to pay.
Sure, YMMV, but here's my recent experiences with one each of the three aforementioned devices under linux:
Scanner - plugged it in, recognised by XSane, scanning into GIMP without any problems.
Digital Camera - plugged it in, gthumb pops up and displays all the photos on the camera, drag and drop photos to folder of choice.
Printer - plugged it in, Computer > System > Printing > New Printer, selected the printer make & model, voila - printing for all applications.
The only one that really needed any user interaction was the last one, and in reality it's no harder than installing a printer under Windows - it's just slightly different. This was all done on Ubuntu Linux (an excellent distro, I might add), running on an IBM Thinkpad.
Sure, even as recently as, say, a year ago, the ease of using such devices would've been unthinkable, but the gap is almost non-existent these days. The ultimate goal with most of the major distributions seems to be this GUI seamlessness that will allow Linux to compete with Windows & OSX on the desktop for the average Joe Q. User.
I thought about installing Ubuntu on my parents' computer recently when they had some major virus/malware issues, but baulked, pretty much for the reasons you mentioned. But you've given me cause to reassess the situation - every time I visit them (or take a phone call from them!), I'm helping them set up or fix something or other on their Windows PC. If it was Linux, I'll probably still get those phone calls, but not through any fault of the operating system. I know I'll be asked how to create a spreadsheet macro, but it'll be on OpenOffice, and not Excel. I'll be asked how to rip songs for a media player, but it'll be teaching them how to use Grip instead of CDex. I'll have to show them how Synaptic works instead of Windows Update (which they're still unsure about). And yes, before anyone points it out, I am aware of the distinction between kernel/os/Xserver/GUI/application... But this is as valid at the distribution level as it is at the operating system level.
Sure, there are going to be devices that will throw up problems (HP scanners spring to mind...), but you're going to get that with any operating system. Just ask my parents...
~
~
~
-- INSERT --
Low prices? Strong OS development into the future?
... but it doesn't look like Frank, does it? Perhaps I just have a too high opinion of Frank Herbert's books, but I don't think his son's hold a candle to them.
xkcd is not in the sudoers file. This incident will be reported.
"Just because everyone knows about it doesn't mean it isn't a conspiracy."
Yes, when everyone knows about it is in fact OK. Just ask the vice president of the united states.
xkcd is not in the sudoers file. This incident will be reported.
"The only one that really needed any user interaction was the last one, and in reality it's no harder than installing a printer under Windows - it's just slightly different"
You're right. But what happens when the printer happens to not be one on the Blessed List? How do you know that the printer Grandma bought at Best Buy is going to be on that list?
HP scanners are some of the most popular ones out there. They might suck, but in order for Linux to be Grandma-accessible, it MUST play nice with them.
Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
My beef with HP scanners isn't to do with their Linux compatibility; rather, as you mentioned, their suckiness. I'm yet to see Linux stumped by a scanner (although I don't doubt that it can be done).
Having said that, I recently used a particular HP scanner that worked out of the box in Linux, but caused all sorts of hell under Windows (2k) - two hours and lots of frustrating driver-searching later, the thing was up and running. Can't see Grandma even getting past the first step on that one. Granted, seems there's some OSX evangelism taking place here, rendering Linux - Windows comparisons fairly reduntant; as I haven't had that much experience with OSX I can't really make that comparison.
As far as printers go, well... I don't know the current state of the Blessed List, however I would wager that it would take a pretty damn obscure device to trip it up. But... I could be wrong.
~
~
~
-- INSERT --