Slashdot Mirror
More on IBM's Project Monterey and SCO
karvind writes "Groklaw has posted another interesting article about AIX/Monterey/POWER research. The primary purpose of Project Monterey was to provide a stepping stone to Linux. IBM clearly stated this in promotional and technical materials, some of which SCO participated in publishing. It was always the plan that Project Monterey would be for POWER and SCO knew about IBM using SVR4 on POWER as far back as 2001. The article asks (and answers) some interesting questions: 'Where is the monetary damage to SCO? Where is there copyright infringement? Was SCO fully aware how quickly Linux would develop, that it would replace Unix, or did it take them by surprise?'"
Here is the timeline for SCO vs IBM and Linux: Click here
fuvoo: watch something
Sounds cheesy doesnt it
There is no sig
looks like ibm got the better of SCO
data... check
supporting information...check
patents...gotta wait till the courts are out on this one
copyright...check
liscensing...check
having lots of high priced lawyers.....priceless.
Check journal for info on Anti-TextBook, an idea by me.
In the question and answer session at the end of the keynote (44:30 minutes into the videostream), Love was asked about the possible confict over Monterey and Linux IA-64. (A mp3 capture of the transcribed portion)
...that SCO actually launched this case on their own behalf and with some merit?
I thought it was obvious from very early on that this was a proxy attack on behalf of Microsoft against its two main enemies, IBM and Linux?
Also, clear by now that the attack failed, with heavy losses to Microsoft.
The actual contents of SCO's case seem pretty irrelevant.
Sig for sale or rent. One previous user. Inquire within.
...but why stop beating it now? Since the conclusion is pretty obvious now, the announcement I am waiting for is the final judgement on the SCO cases.
In the late 90's and early 00's, SCO was messing around with a product called LKP (Linux Kernel Personality) which was a method for allowing system calls from linux applications to the UNIX kernel.
If SCO was so anti-linux, why would they make a move to incorporate linux into its own product. That step right there discounts any claims they might have regarding linux code source.
To the best of my ability to recall...
in 96-97, SCO and HP and Intel were all joined in happy hands developing what was going to become Itanium.
HP and SCO were going to merge their flavors of UNIX, as well - a move that fell apart (rumor has it) when SCO showed up to the table with something like 1/10th of the developers HP did.
Remember that it takes a while for Monterey-like deals to be created from a BizDev standpoint, maybe as much as 6-12 months - so it's likely that Monterey came about as a response from SCO's viewpoint as a substitute for the aborted HP collab. (A quick google for Monterey will turn up all sorts of anti-HP language circa 1998). IBM had nothing to lose, AIX was already a poor performer - heck up until 2000 or so the largest Sun reseller was IBM (one of the smartest things IBM did was embrace Linux).
And knowing SCO circa 1998 - I really doubt they thought of Linux as much more of a fad... a predominant source of income at that point being support contracts and services (NT 4 was the major threat to platform migration away from SCO at the time).
"oohhh... I didn't know Schopenhauer was a philosopher!"
SCO actually launched this case on their own behalf and with some merit?
Of course not. There was never any merit.
this was a proxy attack on behalf of Microsoft against its two main enemies, IBM and Linux
Actually, it started out as a way for SCO executives to bail out a dying company. They threatened IBM with a bogus suit, expecting to be bought out. When they weren't, they shopped it to MS as a way to continue to make IBM's life painful, and for MS to smear Linux.
Both McBride and Sontag have publically stated this - they were "amazed" that IBM chose to fight, instead of taking the easy way out, and purchasing them.
Except there is no evidence at all that IBM used SCO's code to enhance linux, to date there has not been one shred of code that suggests this.
IBM was supposed to use SCO's code to develop Monterey, and instead, they apparently used it to enhance Linux.
The word you're looking for is "allegedly", not "apparently". SCO alleges that this happened, but it doesn't appear that their allegations are correct. They have been asked to produce evidence that IBM took the code SCO provided for Monterey and put it in Linux. that's when they started saying IBM put code that IBM had developed but which allegedly (there's that word again) belonged to IBM because of some allegedly viral language in the license for System V. The problem is that IBM has explicit documentation that this is a misreading of the license and Novell who wrote the license backs them up on it.
The issue is really quite simple. SCO is claiming ownership of any UNIX code developed by any company with a System V source license, whether the software in question was licensed System V code or not.
The people who are now in charge of SCO saw that their business was failing. Their only workable solution was to get bought out and quickly. They looked at all their existing contracts and decided that they could tilt at IBM and get some attention.
This is completely unrelated to their expectations in the Monterey project, when different people were running the company with different goals.
There are no trails. There are no trees out here.
"The issue is really quite simple. IBM was supposed to use SCO's code to develop Monterey, and instead, they apparently used it to enhance Linux."
Except they have yet to show a single piece of SCO code that IBM included into Linux. If your statement is true then SCO would not need any source code from IBM to prove their point. They have the source to Linux and the source to Unixware. So as the man said, "show me the code".
The last time I checked SCO was claiming that SCOs owns code that IBM wrote and that IBM put that code into Linux. Hence the reason that they need the source for AIX.
I would say your answers are out of date at best.
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
The issue is really quite simple. IBM was supposed to use SCO's code to develop Monterey, and instead, they apparently used it to enhance Linux. Everything else being said about this case is just rehashing of religious fervor and procedural issues.
Wow, Deja vu. IBM paid MS to code OS/2, and they instead worked on NT. maybe IBM just figured if it worked once...
"Unlike IBM, virtually none of these (Linux) software developers and hobbyists had access to enterprise-scale equipment and testing facilities for Linux development."
This was back in 2001.
Pardon me, but this is blatent nonsense. SGI had a significant push to put Linux on the Itanium Processor back in 2001. I don't believe that it was announced publically then, but it was a significant effort, and the NUMA stuff resulted from it (among other things). This is definitely Enterprise-class equipment, well beyond the price range for your average "hobbyist". And needless to say, this required Enterprise-class testing. I speak from direct experience, as I was involved with the project.
So this statement alone is blatently false, and here's some more ammo for PJ to shoot down SCO's claims.
Heck, 64-bit Linux appeared on Sun's 64-bit SPARC machines before SunSoft had completed it's 64-bitization efforts as well. This was back in the Solaris 2.7 timeframe, around 1998, IIRC. Most people would consider the 64-bit SPARCs to be Enterprise level as well.
The best way to predict the future is to create it. - Peter Drucker.
At least SCO knew about IBM using SVR4 on POWER, I never could get caldera running on anything so esoteric as electricity though. I had to read through the cheap book supplied in the boxed set, then barely get it running with my own human generated bio-chemical and electrical imagination unit.
Al right, enough already. This SCO suit has become so absurd that no one is buying it anymore. It's time to drop the act, and admit the truth. ... so as I was saying, Linux is clearly a pirated version of SCO UNIX....
The whole SCO fiasco was just an attempt to cover up the true origins of Linux. If we could create the rumor that Linux was a pirated version of AT&T UNIX, then we wouldn't have to admit that it was really reverse engineered from the computers aboard alien spacecraft under study by project BlueBook in Area 51 of the Nellis Airforce base in Groome Lake, NV.
So there, now the secret is out!
Wait, who are those men in black suits on my front lawn? Wait, stop, what does that thing do?
****FLASH*****
"Sic Semper Path of Least Resistance"