New Caldera Promised

An anonymous reader writes "SCO has announced their plans to release a new version of Caldera Linux by the end of the year. From the announcement: 'To provide extensive reliability and performance features, the Linux Kernel 2.5 codebase has been merged with recently developed additions to SCO's world leading UNIX core operating system. Already contained code owned by SCO is still included benefiting the stability and overall experience opposed to recent Linux kernel releases.' The question is, is anyone listening?"

Comments

Really?

[gbulmash]

The GPL is a license, not a surrender of copyright, so if SCO does not accept the GPL, isn't all the GPL'ed code they're using in this distro is being used illegally? Is EFF prepping a lawsuit?

OTOH, why would SCO even do this? Any belief that it will give them some cash flow or some other position that benefits them is irrational.

This must be the hallucination that precedes death.

- G

Re:Really?

[stinerman]

If SCO does not abide by the GPL for all code that they do not have the copyright to, then they will be in violation of the GPL and may be sued by the copyright holders of any such code.

Re:Really?

[rehabdoll]

I guess they could just release everything as is with the GPL intact, since the pressrelease claims the lawsuit is nearing the end and they probably know they will lose.
They could also, in theory, strip out disputed code.. but I doubt they will.
And the suicide option to close the code also exist i guess. The last option might not be that far fetched, since their entire buisiness has been located in the courtroom these last couple of years.

I really like their disclaimer where they, if they so choose, say it's all the communitys fault if they fail with their "new" endeavour.

Re:Really?

[nmb3000]

OTOH, why would SCO even do this?

A better question is what about this? It's going to need to be updated :)

Re:Really?

[HiThere]

So far they haven't identified any code as "disputed". None. (Well...possibly some that's been sealed by the court, but I doubt it. IBM would probably have challenged, and I can't see any reason for the court to allow the seal to remain.)

Re:Really?

[kfg]

. . .the pressrelease claims the lawsuit is nearing the end and they probably know they will lose.

I particularly like this following bit:

"SCO is eager to be the only future provider of Linux Systems for the enterprise market."

I'll just bet they are.

I really like their disclaimer where they, if they so choose, say it's all the communitys fault if they fail with their "new" endeavour.

Ah, well, but then that's a responsibilty I'm willing to shoulder:

"It's all your fault."

"Why, thank you."

KFG

Re:Really?

[k33l0r]

Not to mention that "Linux" is a trademark owned by Linus Torvalds himself!

Re:Really?

[Anonymous Coward]

I think they want a test of the GPL. It's bait. Someone is going to take their code and redistribute it "according to the GPL", if just to spite them. Then SCO can decide if, when and where they want to sue. They think they own Linux (via Unix), so they don't need to rely on the GPL to redistribute Linux. From that point of view refuting the GPL doesn't hurt them but it would shatter Open Source. It's a bet against all odds, but what have they got to lose?

Re:Really?

[ClamIAm]

I know we all heard mountains of FUD where SCO claimed the GPL was not valid and such, but I don't know whether or not they ever formally claimed this in court. Even if they did, the IBM and Novell lawsuits seem to be boiling down to contract violations.

Re:Really?

[Millennium]

OTOH, why would SCO even do this? Any belief that it will give them some cash flow or some other position that benefits them is irrational.

Oh, they don't plan to release the code at all. This is a setup on their part; they want to get sued for violating the GPL. They will then attempt to argue in court that the GPL is "unenforceable" and therefore invalid. If they win in court (a very big [i]if[/i], given that this has been tried before but it's always failed), then they'll claim ownership over all of the Linux codebase and that will be that.

They'll lose, of course; it takes little more than common sense to see that. But since when has common sense ever reigned in that company?

Re:Really?

[Tim C]

If they win in court (a very big [i]if[/i], given that this has been tried before but it's always failed)

Got any links for that?

then they'll claim ownership over all of the Linux codebase and that will be that.

Claim ownership on what grounds? If the GPL is invalid, then the original copyright holders still retain copyright - there's nothing in the GPL giving up their claim to ownership, and even if there was, the GPL was just (hypothetically) ruled invalid, remember?

If the GPL were ever ruled invalid, no-one could suddenly claim ownership of any GPLed code (other than the original authors). What would happen, however, is that no-one (other than the original authors) would be able to distribute GPLed code; it would shut down every distro in the jurisdiction in which the ruling was made overnight.

Re:Really?

[IWannaBeAnAC]

Even if the GPL was invalid, that wouldn't suddenly give SCO ownership of it (and why would it be SCO, in particlar? Why not give me ownership of it ? ;-)

In the case that the GPL was invalid, nobody other than the original copyright holder has any rights to distribute. Even in the dreamworld where SCO was claiming large parts of Linux was actually misattributed and the copyright was actually held by them, it was by no means all of it, and over those parts they have no rights over.

In short, I think it must be a hoax. Either that or they are desperately short of cash and hoping that a few people accidentally buy it on pre-order?

Re:Really?

[CastrTroy]

That Is True. I wonder if Linus could stop them from putting out something called Linux because he owns the trademark. They could still use the Kernel, as per the GPL, but they wouldn't be allowed to call it Linux because Linus wouldn't give them the rights to use that name. Kind of like how CentOS is just Redhat with all the Redhat TM taken out. How does the GPL deal with this stuff. If someone is allowed to take your code and tweak it, and redistribute it, are they required to take out all the TM because they don't really own the Trademark? As far as I'm aware, you don't have to ask anybody to make your own Linux distro and release it. Has the Linux trademark become diluted because so many different people are using it?

Re:Really?

[Ronin Developer]

"...and may be sued by the copyright holders of any such code."

What a great way to ferret out all the code authors who "stole" from them - make 'em all standup so SCO can get a clean shot at them for the next round of lawsuits.

Personally, I know I will not buy this product if it provides any means of support for such an abomination of a company.

RD

Re:Really?

[Pharmboy]

Regarding this one action, I don't think they can be sued for INTENDING to distribute GPL material, while in violation of the GPL.

They haven't violated anything unless they actually DO distribute GPL code while not complying with the license, hense, they would have no right TO distribute GPL material, and they would be guilty of copyright infringment.

There is also the issue about who would sue. Of course, IBM owns lots of copyrights in the kernel. Don't look for Linus to get involved, however, as he is (thankfully) politically neutral about most everything.

Re:Really?

[Burz]

OTOH, why would SCO even do this? Any belief that it will give them some cash flow or some other position that benefits them is irrational.

Perhaps because more lawsuits allows Daryl to shovel more legals fees over to his brother. Like a money-laundering scheme.

Re:Really?

[dbIII]

Then SCO can decide if, when and where they want to sue.

Remember that a very highly paid member of the legal team is the brother of the CEO, who has a history that few would think would justify the very large amounts. Perhaps that will be a major factor if SCO takes more unwinnable legal action that will last for years - I personally think it was a major factor in going after IBM in the first place. Linux is not the victim here - SCO is getting milked by a two man scam right out of an old story about confidence tricksters.

Re:Really?

[thePowerOfGrayskull]

1. Launch Open Linux 10.
2. Abbreviate to Open Linux X
3. Abbreviate further to OL X
4. Confuse Mac fans into thinking it has something to do with OS X.
5. ?
6. Profit!

Re:Really?

[tomhudson]

Missing step 5 to abbreviate OpenLinux by SCO X to OS X.

Not thaqt they have a hope in hell - this is just another attempt to "wookie wooke" potential bagholders.

Re:Really?

[Helldesk Hound]

> It's a bet against all odds, but what have they got to lose?

SCO has nothing to lose.

It has already lost its reputation - and most of its cash reserves - and any chance of getting its user base back.

But aside from that, it is likely that this was a bogus press release - http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=200606171 85813203 has information about it.

Re:Really?

[LordOfTheNoobs]

"conspiracy to commit copyright infringement"

http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/archives/004586.php

Re:Really?

[ozmanjusri]

it is likely that this was a bogus press release

Yeah, it's a joke - pretty funny too when you start looking closely. Apart from the 2.5 kernel hint, here's a few gems.

Already contained code owned by SCO is still included benefiting the stability and overall experience opposed to recent Linux kernel releases.

What you say!! Somebody set us up the bomb!!

SCO is eager to be the only future provider of Linux Systems for the enterprise market.

The "only" provider? Yup, a realistic goal there, if you're a megalomaniac...

As according to the Yankee Group SCO OpenServer products still outbeat Linux' yearly uptime by about 20 percent

Outbeating is good. Not grammatically of course, but still good.

And of course the kicker is the uptime claim - Yankee Group actually claimed that it was Microsoft's Windows 2003 Server that had the 20% better uptime. Funny when you know many people think MS are behind SCO's litigation.

Laugh, people. It's a pisstake, and a pretty good one.

Re:Really?

[Schraegstrichpunkt]

SCO may have already lost the right to distribute GPL code anyway, thanks to their $699 "IP licensing" program.

Re:Really?

[Schraegstrichpunkt]

Missing step 5 to abbreviate OpenLinux by SCO X to OS X.

Hmm...

SCO OpenLinux 10
SCO OpenLinux X
OpenLinux by SCO X
SCO X (Their stock ticker symbol!)
SCO OS X
... Apple sues
X
... The Open Group sues

The SCO Group has just announced its new product: "" (pronounced "hot air")...

Re:Really?

[Mr. Shiny And New]

Well, there was once an argument put forward by Sco that was along the lines of "the GPL isn't valid, yet these people gave the code away anyway, thus it's now public domain". Nonsense, I know, but if it WERE true it'd be good news for SCO. Maybe they're believing their own dog-poop?

Re:Really?

[tomhudson]

I see this as a way to try to position themselves to sell off assets (their sco unix business) before the inevitable bankruptcy. Of course, Novell will soon be getting a large enugh judgment against them (unpaid $$$) that it will put them into bankruptcy.

Re:Really?

[skwirlmaster]

They still distribute other GPLed applications with/for their server software. First link i found: ftp://ftp2.sco.com/pub/skunkware/uw7/net/samba/

Re:Really?

[einhverfr]

IBM is already suing them for copyright infringement re: GPL'd code in the Linux kernel that IBM owns.

Re:Really?

[m0rph3us0]

2.5 Kernel?
It's clear this is a massive troll. In addition to 2.5 being unstable due to its version number (odd point releases being unstable) it isn't even the latest version.

Re:Really?

[sheimers]

The problem is not that SCO wouldn't accept the GPL, but that they claim their non-GPL code was put in GPL projects.

The original poster might think that SCO distributed Linux under the GPL with the code they think is theirs and thus cannot revoke the GPL.

But if the code actually was stolen (which I personally don't believe) and they distributed it without knowing, then the code would not be under GPL. Just writing a GPL mark in the headers and distributing code does not make it GPL, if the original author does not agree.

Stefan

Re:Really?

[zaphod_es]

so if SCO does not accept the GPL, isn't all the GPL'ed code they're using in this distro is being used illegally?

No. Fortunately it is not SCO who decides what is illegal. The question is no more logical than asking if, because you do not accept the Microsoft licence it is not illegal to pirate it

Inconsistent, illogical, farcical and pathetic: yes. Illegal no.

Re:Really?

[Vlad_the_Inhaler]

No way would I sue them, even if I had good grounds.
When their IBM lawsuit is finally over, they will be bust bust bust. Move along there, no money left to grab. Anyone who sues them now will be left sitting on their own lawyers' bills.

Re:Really?

[Vlad_the_Inhaler]

You make it sound as though someone has cracked their website - which would not be the first time - but very subtly and very convincingly. Why else would this happen on a Saturday?

Re:Really?

[ultranova]

This is a setup on their part; they want to get sued for violating the GPL. They will then attempt to argue in court that the GPL is "unenforceable" and therefore invalid.

You can't be sued for violating the GPL. The license itself says:

5. You are not required to accept this License, since you have not signed it. However, nothing else grants you permission to modify or distribute the Program or its derivative works. These actions are prohibited by law if you do not accept this License. Therefore, by modifying or distributing the Program (or any work based on the Program), you indicate your acceptance of this License to do so, and all its terms and conditions for copying, distributing or modifying the Program or works based on it.

If distribute copyrighted code licensed under GPL, for which you have no other license to distribute and are not the copyright holder to, and do not abide by the GPL, the GPL is null and void (since you haven't abided by the terms under which it is in force) and you are guilty of copyright violation.

The GPL does not restrict you, it grants you more rights than you normally have under law, under certain conditions. Refuse those rights by failing to meet the conditions, and normal copyright law applies.

That's why the whole argument about the "unenforceability" of the GPL is just plain stupid.

Re:Really?

[Ohreally_factor]

I think you're right. It's a joke/hoax or a hoax/joke (but not a joex/hoaks). No way is this real. Too many tell tale signs give it away.

#1 is who bases a distro on an unstable kernel?

Re:Really?

[turbidostato]

"I wonder if Linus could stop them from putting out something called Linux because he owns the trademark"

Well, we all know this news is a fake by now. Anyway, that's a good question.

My bet is the answer would be "no" anyway.

The Linux foundation clearly states that they release licenses for the Linux trademark on a "one payment" basis. I bet SCO did make such payment time ago (back on the Caldera/United Linux days), so they are already licensors for that trademark.

Of course, unfair usage can be claimed, but I bet Linus would have a hard day to demonstrate such unfair usage as long as SCO (or any other licensed company) actually releases a Linux distribution under that name and limits the "Linux TM" brand to their Linux-related bussiness. What else does the company (like sueing everybody and his cat) doesn't have too much to do with the very specific Linux (TM) usage (unless, of course, the litigation were based on the very usage of the LinuxTM, which is not the case here).

Re:Really?

[OriginalArlen]

We in the EFF don't hold the copyright to the Linux kernel, or indeed any other GPL'd software apart from Tor (AFAIK?).

However, we in the FSF do hold the copyright to a huge collection of Free software, and will enforce that copyright with legal action where appropriate. (So far, it hasn't been appropriate; infringers tend to drop their pants and bend over once the FSF lawyers have had a little chat with their lawyers.)

(Yes, I'm a member of both the EFF and FSF, aren't you?)

Re:Really?

[vertinox]

OTOH, why would SCO even do this? Any belief that it will give them some cash flow or some other position that benefits them is irrational.

My question would be... Are there any businesses dumb enough to purchase products from SCO willingly and without bribes to the CFO?

Re:Really?

[Helldesk Hound]

#2 is that this "press release" does not follow the usual form and wording of all of The SCO Group's previous press releases.

GPL

[TwilightSentry]

So, seeing as their code is integrated into the Linux kernel, it has to be GPLed, right?

Re:GPL

[Aadain2001]

Technically, yes.

Two things can happen with this. One, the release the new version of Caldera like a normal Linux distro, in which case SCO has actively released all the "infringing" code under GPL. The second thing that could happen is that they don't release it like a normal distro and put out a binary only version. This of course will lead to the EFF suing them into Oblivion (bada-ching) because of the copyright violations as listed under the GPL.

I guess there is a third possibility: they release Calder and the source, and continue to be asshats and try to sue everyone who uses Linux. Saddly, the third option is looking more and more likely.

Re:GPL

[AuMatar]

The EFF can't sue- only holders of GPLed code can. So Linus, Alan Cox, etc could sue. THey could ask EFF for financial/legal support. But the EFF can't directly sue.

Re:GPL

[Anonymous Coward]

From the article:

Forward Looking Statements
The statements set forth above include forward-looking statements that involve risks and uncertainties. The Company wishes to advise readers that a number of important factors could cause actual results to differ materially from those in the forward-looking statements. .... unenforceability of the GNU general public license; ......

As I read it, they are saying they are going to be the only legitimate linux distro if and only if the GNU is unenforcable.
Is that the same as saying they dont think its legal or is it we dont care you cant stop us?
The rest of it seems to be saying the rest of the press release is us lying out of our arse, and this is the disclaimer.

Re:GPL

[Aadain2001]

Sure they can. The EFF can ask, nicely of course, for all contributors to the Linux kernel, or at least as many as they can get, so sign over their copyright them the EFF. They do this all the time. Once they have the copyrights, they can bring suite against infringers. How else do you think they have been able to go after companies like LinkSys and a few others? They were using a modified embedded Linux without making the code available on request. So the EFF sued and won (or LinkSys caved, can't remember exactly, all I know is that the source code became available). The EFF has the power to sue SCO if need be.

Re:GPL

[CastrTroy]

How do you actually prove that a binary release is compiled from GPLd code. Could enough changes were made to the code base, such that the functionality wasn't changed, but that it was hard to tell wether they rewrote something from scratch with the same functionality?

Re: GPL

[Anonymous Coward]

You forget that in their view, the GPL is NOT a valid license and, hence, they don't have to comply with it.

Re:GPL

[Anonymous Coward]

The EFF can ask, nicely of course, for all contributors to the Linux kernel, or at least as many as they can get, so sign over their copyright them the EFF.

You mean the FSF. The FSF has got copyright holders to assign them ownership of GPLed code. The EFF, to my knowledge, owns no such copyrights.

Re:GPL

[Anonymous Coward]

There wouldn't really be that much to worry about in that case, what we're expecting is for SCO to dump large chunks of their own 'enhancements' into the kernel for their new distribution giving them lots of features to crow about, whether they're worth using or not, and challenging the FOSS community to go after them.

Re:GPL

[arb]

Another bit from the "Forward Looking Statements" section:

our reliance on developers in the open source community; [...] unenforceability of the GNU general public license

Who from the open source community is going to be willing to freely and openly work for/with SCO if SCO continue to insist the GPL is unenforceable?

Re: GPL

[Rekolitus]

From the GPL:

5. You are not required to accept this License, since you have not signed it. However, nothing else grants you permission to modify or distribute the Program or its derivative works. These actions are prohibited by law if you do not accept this License. Therefore, by modifying or distributing the Program (or any work based on the Program), you indicate your acceptance of this License to do so, and all its terms and conditions for copying, distributing or modifying the Program or works based on it.

Re:GPL

[rm69990]

Or else....nothing will happen....because the Slashdot editors are retards and linked to a hoax press release hosted on some random website SCO abandoned years ago and that is hosted from a German University. It isn't even distributed through SCO's regular press channels, and whomever the prankster is, he obviously doesn't know about a wonderful technology called "Grammar Check".

I wouldn't expect something this completely stupid from even the Slashdot editors....they continue to amaze me....Thank god for Slashback where they can fix their dumb ass mistakes. Perhaps everyone's predictions that the Slashdot editors are in-fact monkeys is true afterall, and the single human employee uses Slashback to fix the monkey's mistakes.

Re:GPL

[spike1]

The slashdot front page article did have something to say about that though didn;t it...

They're not releasing any of the violating code (in their eyes)
They're releasing "2.5 kernel technology with recent sco additions"

I think all their "IBM stole from SCO" arguments were over the 2.6 kernel.

So, they're releasing a 4 year old unstable branch patched with their additions back into the market as an "enterprise" operating system?

They don't stand a chance either way.

No

[amcdiarmid]

We stopped listening a long time ago. Suing people for using technologies you claim were in your product, then telling them they should use your technologies does not win friends or clients.

Linux Kernel 2.5 codebase

[Iphtashu Fitz]

The current linux kernel is version 2.6.x. IIRC, the 2.5 branch was a development branch. Why would anybody want to use a linux distro based on an old developers version of the kernel?

Re:Linux Kernel 2.5 codebase

[ZakuSage]

It's SCO. I'd be seriously suprised if it wasn't managed by a panel of feces-throwing monkeys.

Re:Linux Kernel 2.5 codebase

[garcia]

Why would anybody want to use a linux distro based on an old developers version of the kernel?

It's the only one that they had time to make sure that all their code was removed so that they wouldn't invalidate their desire to be distributing "their" code under the GPL.

That and it's a conversation piece (as you just made it). Who the fuck would care if they said, "we're going to release Caldera on 2.6?" Not many more people than would give a shit if they released it on 2.7 but at least it got our attention for a short time.

Now, the other question, asked in the blurb, does anyone really care? No, no one cares. No one cared when the first Caldera versions came out and no one cares now. Other distributions are way ahead of whatever SCO could come up with and the rest of us are still running what we've been running comfortably for years.

Re:Linux Kernel 2.5 codebase

[ArbitraryConstant]

You say that like 2.6 isn't a development branch as well.

Re:Linux Kernel 2.5 codebase

[Anonymous Coward]

IIRC it is the even numbered releases (2.2, 2.4, 2.6 etc) are the "development" versions.

Re:Linux Kernel 2.5 codebase

[Anonymous Coward]

You recall incorrectly. 2.5 was a development branch.

Re:Linux Kernel 2.5 codebase

[weierstrass]

YDRC

Re:Linux Kernel 2.5 codebase

[EvilMonkeySlayer]

It works for Microsoft.

*Ducks*

Re:Linux Kernel 2.5 codebase

[pla]

Why would anybody want to use a linux distro based on an old developers version of the kernel?

Well, the FP did read: "included benefiting the stability and overall experience opposed to recent Linux kernel releases.' The question is, is anyone listening?"...

Let's face it - Since the pre-1.2 line, 2.6 has some of the worst stability ever seen. Yes, it also supports quite a few nice things (like massively better USB support than its predecessors), but anyone using it on critical systems needs a lobotomy.


Of course, I wouldn't give SCO anywhere near so much credit as to go back to what amounts to 2.4 with a few backports of the best of the 2.6 line... So their motivation? I'd put my money on either "ignorance" or "more legal BS".

Re:Linux Kernel 2.5 codebase

[Akaihiryuu]

I thought Ballmer threw chairs...but then again, I wouldn't be a bit surprised if he was throwing feces too.

Re:Linux Kernel 2.5 codebase

[spauldo]

The odd ones (2.1, 2.3, 2.5) _were_ development versions.

Nowdays (starting with 2.6), all the action happens in the mainstream kernel. Generally, distributions are a few kernel releases behind anyway, so it doesn't affect people who use the kernel that their distro provides.

Re:Linux Kernel 2.5 codebase

[cp.tar]

In Croatian, 'stolica' (pronounced something like /stolitzah/) can mean both a chair and feces.
Something like 'stool' in English, if I'm not mistaken.

So you could be right.

Re:Linux Kernel 2.5 codebase

[Anonymous Coward]

I thought Ballmer threw chairs...but then again, I wouldn't be a bit surprised if he was throwing feces too.

Of course. When he runs out of chairs, he has to make do with stools instead.

Re:Linux Kernel 2.5 codebase

[martinultima]

If you ask me, anything that's actively maintained is a "development branch" – 2.6 is just considered to be a more stable, ready-to-go development branch than 2.5. And honestly, since 5 and 6 are right next to each other on the keyboard, isn't there a possibility that it was just a typo? After all, it only says once that it's based on 2.5, for all we know they may have just let their fingers slip or something.

Either way, I'm not buying it – any way you interpret the phrase – I'd rather just keep developing my own distribution, violating their bullshit patents or not :-)

Re:Linux Kernel 2.5 codebase

[sbrown123]

Let's face it - Since the pre-1.2 line, 2.6 has some of the worst stability ever seen.

I have actually seen better stability under the current versions of 2.6 as compared to 2.4. Also, 2.5 includes featues in 2.6 (since it was the development branch for that version). 2.5 is not "2.4 plus", but rather "2.6 minus".

Yes, it also supports quite a few nice things (like massively better USB support than its predecessors), but anyone using it on critical systems needs a lobotomy.

You are mentioning the best feature that desktop Linux users probably noticed. Why would usb support be important to Linux servers? 2.6 includes a huge amount of features over 2.4, but sadly most people just didn't notice them. Kernels are not very glamorous but very, very important.

Re:Linux Kernel 2.5 codebase

[sedyn]

The current linux kernel is version 2.6.x. IIRC, the 2.5 branch was a development branch. Why would anybody want to use a linux distro based on an old developers version of the kernel?

They seem to have a bizarre interest in odd numbered kernels.

Re:Linux Kernel 2.5 codebase

[Anonymous Coward]

That's managed by feces-throwing *zombie* monkeys -- as in, they're the walking undead, and don't realize it.

Re:Linux Kernel 2.5 codebase

[Anonymous Coward]

Was this a joke, 'cause i don't get it, i guess they're just extremely thick.

Re:Linux Kernel 2.5 codebase

[ArbitraryConstant]

If you ask me, anything that's actively maintained is a "development branch"

No. A branch that has been put under a feature freeze and only gets bugfixes is not.

Re:Linux Kernel 2.5 codebase

[martinultima]

(1) Bugfixes are a part of development. (2) If bugfixes are being made, the program is still under active development, at least in a very loose sense of the term. (3) Therefore, anything actively maintained is a development branch.

Obviously this is in the absolute loosest sense of the term, but the point I'm trying to make here is that until the thing has ceased to have any work done on it at all, not even bugfixes, only then can you say that it's not a development branch. Besides, the Caldera people are so busy suing everyone – and then trying to get them back so they can sue them some more – so how would they know what a dev branch is anyway?

Question

[Anonymous Coward]

What is Caldera?

Re:Question

[Anonymous Coward]

Its a delusional fantasy

Re:Question

[haschka]

A commercial linux distribution. That didn't seem to make it very far. I remember the Booth at CeBIT 1999 .

Re:Question

[Anonymous Coward]

What is Caldera?

*Sigh* why can't people learn to use Google?

"A caldera is a large depression at the top of a volcano, caused by collapse or explosion."

That's also what SCO will be like when the Nazgul are through with them.

Re:Question

[Aphrika]

Well, one description is here
 
A caldera is formed when a company ejects a large volume of magma, fire and crap, creating a huge void within itself. Consequently, it collapses under its own weight.
 
Oh, did I say company? I meant volcano.
 

Re:Question

[Anonymous Coward]

An old linux distro, the best feature was a tetris game in the installer.

Re:Question

[tukkayoot]

As far as I know, it's a city on the island of Vvardenfell in the Imperial province of Morrowind.

Re:Question

[LordOfTheNoobs]

I know this is funny and all, but having not previously looked into the name of the company and now looking at what the company has done in relation to its name, I read that as 'Insightful'.

Starting to understand that book title now

[frovingslosh]

Is this what they mean by "Linux for Dummies"?

Re:Starting to understand that book title now

[jcr]

I think that would be "Linux for Suckers", technically.

-jcr

Re:Starting to understand that book title now

[Anonymous Coward]

This is actually "Linux by Dummies"

Re:Starting to understand that book title now

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, Linux for Dummies describes mainly Fedora and Knoppix. There's no Caldera material in there.

Re:Starting to understand that book title now

[Anonymous Coward]

Woooooosh!

Re:Starting to understand that book title now

[Anonymous Coward]

No, that's Linspire.

Re:Starting to understand that book title now

[martinultima]

One of the older editions – the one that came with Red Hat 8.0 – mentioned Caldera briefly, although that's as far as it went. Yes, I actually did read through the entire thing cover to cover...

2.5? Wtf?

[codergeek42]

"[...] Linux Kernel 2.5 codebase has been merged [...] benefitting the stability and overall experience opposed to recent Linux kernel releases."

Maybe if they didn't use an old and known-broken kernel series, it might be stable?

Re:2.5? Wtf?

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe they figure usong old and known-broken kernel series is just as good as using new and known-broken kernel series.

old kernel version?

[Darkon]

the Linux Kernel 2.5 codebase

Err... isn't that rather out of date now? Last time I checked 2.6 was where it was all happening.

Re:old kernel version?

[Opportunist]

I was wondering myself. Wasn't it so that the odd numbered sub-versions were the development and the even numbered ones the stable ones?

Re:old kernel version?

[cp.tar]

Oh, worry not...

Weren't they also claiming they owned (sorry: pwned) 2.7 branch or something like that?

Re:old kernel version?

[petermgreen]

it *was* but with 2.6.x linus has decided not to fork off a new development branch yet. IIRC the reason for this is he belives most changes for the time being will be confined to subsystems and only major reworking of the kernel as a whole deserves a new branch.

However unfortunately some people are finding that this results in a new kernel version fixing support for one peice of hardware they own at the same time as breaking support for another.

SCOs Reasoning...

[pavera]

It states in the press release that they are anticipating winning their lawsuits so they are releasing this version of Linux because as soon as they win they will be the only legal provider of Linux solutions.

Obviously as others have already stated, if they are using linux 2.5 codebase, don't they have to GPL everything they added? If not, can't Linus et al sue the pants off of them?

Talk about backfiring, here's a scenario for you.. MS gives SCO a chunk of cash to go fight linux, SCO illegally uses Linux code, Linus Torvalds sues them and gets all of MSs money to further linux development...

Re:SCOs Reasoning...

[mellonhead]

It states in the press release that they are anticipating winning their lawsuits so they are releasing this version of Linux because as soon as they win they will be the only legal provider of Linux solutions.

Wrong. It says the lawsuit will be over soon. It says nothing about winning or losing it.

Due to the number of typos, it's evident that this release is a hoax.

Re:SCOs Reasoning...

[pavera]

winning is strongly implied by the statement in the release that they will be the only legal linux distributor once the lawsuits are over...

Or do you think that IBM will win, but SCO will be granted ownership of linux by the court just because they felt like it?

Re:SCOs Reasoning...

[mellonhead]

winning is strongly implied by the statement in the release that they will be the only legal linux distributor once the lawsuits are over...

The original poster stated,"It states in the press release that they are anticipating winning their lawsuits..."

I replied that it doesn't state that. I stand by my statement.

Or do you think that IBM will win, but SCO will be granted ownership of linux by the court just because they felt like it?

Your second sentence is non sequitur bullshit, but I'll play. I think IBM will win. The second half of your sentence is moronic and not worthy of a serious response. Thanks for playing, have a nice day.

Hmm....

[fuzzyfozzie]

caldera
n : a large crater caused by the violent explosion of a volcano that collapses into a depression
It somehow just seems so fitting...

uh oh

[Anonymous Coward]

"To provide extensive reliability and performance features, the Linux Kernel 2.5 codebase has been merged with recently developed additions to SCO's world leading UNIX core operating system. Already contained code owned by SCO is still included benefiting the stability and overall experience opposed to recent Linux kernel releases."

Maybe they should call this "Radioactive Linux".

Not really a good parody

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, I'm not impressed by openlinux.com's parody skills. Using the SCO logo as well as statements that look like standard SEC disclaimers aren't a good idea. How different is this from someone trying to fake news in order to manipulate a stock price? The average user will not realize this is fake.

Re:Not really a good parody

[Anonymous Coward]

The average Joe user doesn't use Linux.

Re:Not really a good parody

[swdunlop]

Self parody seems a little highbrow for SCO.. $ whois openlinux.org | grep Registrant Registrant ID:DOTR-00936995 Registrant Name:Domain Administrator Registrant Organization:The SCO Group Registrant Street1:355 S 520 W Registrant Street2:Suite 100 Registrant Street3: Registrant City:Lindon Registrant State/Province:UT Registrant Postal Code:84042 Registrant Country:US Registrant Phone:+1.8019325800 Registrant Phone Ext.: Registrant FAX: Registrant FAX Ext.: Registrant Email:domain.admin@sco.com

Re:Not really a good parody

[WindBourne]

Actually, they do. Many of the firewalls, routers, web servers, and even cable/dsl modems are based on Linux. In addition so are some of the mp3 players and the cell phones. Heck, many are using Tivo which is of course, Linux. So why do they not realize this? simple; few to no crashes.

Re:Not really a good parody

[kfg]

http://www.theosfiles.com/os_linux/ospg_Linux_Cald era.htm

KFG

Re:Not really a good parody

[orzetto]

Well, I'm not impressed by openlinux.com's parody skills.

If it is a parody, they went to impressive lengths. According to whois, openlinux.org does belong to SCO. Registering a domain under a false name only for a parody? It's a bit far-fetched.

Re:Not really a good parody

[martinultima]

Although honestly, it would probably be trivially easy – hell, I'm only sixteen and I already know how to set up an Apache virtual server (I use the things all the time), so is it really all that hard to imagine someone at the university or wherever registering a domain name under a false identity, and using a virtual server or a similar technique to create a fake site? I wouldn't be surprised at all, honestly, considering the circumstances.

Re:Not really a good parody

[fermion]

The press release is not on the SCO website. The website has a list of all press releases, and the last on is dated June 8. Openlinux.org does appear to an SCO property, and one that is not new.

The question becomes why is the SCO group hosting two pages on a domain that is 18 months old, and will expire in a month, but not linking back to the original website? Is it a big joke? Is the site hacked?

Does the URL resolve to to any known SCO netblock, or does it resolve to another entity?

Re:Not really a good parody

[rm69990]

As stated elsewhere, SCO abandoned this server years ago and it is hosted at a university in Germany. Some student playing a prank hoping to dupe a bunch of dumb asses that read Slashdot....at least the people on Groklaw actually have some level of intelligence and can tell a true press release from a hoax. For example, SCO ALWAYS distributes press releases through PR Newswire, and then makes them available on SCO.com....explain to me why this release is available in neither place, despite using PR Newswire's copyrighted page layout, with credit to PR Newswire removed, hmmmmm? Also explain to me why this page wasn't updated for 5 years, and then all of the sudden was again? And also explain to me why whomever wrote this doesn't know how to use proper grammar? And last but not least, explain to me why it went Caldera Linux 3, SCO Linux 4, then Caldera Linux X?

The sad thing is that they were able to dupe as many people as they were on Slashdot, including the editors (whom, judging by this slip on their part, really are monkeys as predicted elsewhere), while only a few were smart enough to see fact from fiction.

Re:Not really a good parody

[rm69990]

Yes, the domain belongs to SCO, however the server is hosted in a German university. Clearly a hoax....SCO's regular press channel was not used in this press release, which has never been done before by SCO. It is available at neither PR Newswire, nor SCO.com. It not being a hoax is clearly more far-fetched than it being one.

Re:Not really a good parody

[rm69990]

It resolves to a server in a German University that students have access to....what does that tell you?

Re:Not really a good parody

[Deadguy2322]

No, more that, as long as it works, they don't give a shit. Hell, even if it breaks they won't give a shit, since to them, none of those devices are computers.

The sad part is Caldera was a noble linux

[ACK!!]

One of the more user-friendly distros and one of the first with a graphical install complete with a tetris game. Then SCO got a hold of it and ...

yuck you know the rest.

Re:The sad part is Caldera was a noble linux

[kimvette]

Actually, the company formerly known as SCO did not get ahold of Caldera. When management at Caldera changed (Caldera was once a great company with great products), Caldera bought SCO's old line of business (Xenix plus the right to broker licenses to Novell's IP) as the original SCO (now Tarantella) wanted to exit the Unix/UNIX market and go on to new emerging markets before the commercial UNIX/Unix market becomes too small for long-term sustainability.

In other words, Caldera IS the bad guy here, not the original SCO (Santa Cruz Operation). What is currently SCO is just Caldera renamed.

Re:The sad part is Caldera was a noble linux

[Stephan Schulz]

One of the more user-friendly distros and one of the first with a graphical install complete with a tetris game. Then SCO got a hold of it and ...

You got your history mixed up. Caldera was founded as a Linux company. Real SCO was founded as a UNIX company. Caldera used the money from their IPO to buy the SCO name and UNIX business from RealSCO (which became Tarantella and was acquired by SUN in 2005), with the idea of pushing Linux down the existing SCO sales channel. That failed, and when they noticed they created most of their revenue via the old SCO UNIX business, they renamed themselves to "The SCO group" and concentrated on UnixWare, OpenServer, and litigation.

Re:The sad part is Caldera was a noble linux

[Andrew10AE]

Acctually, SCO did not get hold of Caldera, Caldera got it's hands on SCO... It went like this

(a long long time ago in a land far far away...)

A company called The Santa Cruz Operation (SCO) had a product called SCO Unix, and owned many of the original copyrights on UNIX from the AT&T System V days (how they got there is not important). The market for their product was not wonderful, so they created a product called Tarantella http://www.tarantella.com/ and decided to sell the UNIX part of the business. With that went the SCO name, and the old Santa Cruz Operation was forever to be called Tarantella... that is, untill they were purchased by old UNIX buddy Sun Microsystems...

The company that bought the UNIX stuff (and the SCO name) was a little Linux outfit called Caldera... which is now called... SCO

so the irony here is that a company that got it's start packaging and selling Linux buys the UNIX copyrights and uses them to threaten former competiters in the Linux space...

sad really, if you ask me (not that you did)

Re:The sad part is Caldera was a noble linux

[Anonymous Coward]

Caldera was the first flavour of GNU/Linux I installed & used (I think it was the year 1997 at the time and kernal 2.0) and I still look on it affectionately - despite what anyone might say.
 
It was and still is the most enjoyable linux based experience I've had and I worked for a software company with several dozen *nixs on all sort of hardware from cheap PCs to multi-million dollar mainframes.

Talk about Caveat Emptor...

[tdvaughan]

FTFA:

The Company wishes to advise readers that a number of important factors could cause actual results to differ materially from those in the forward-looking statements. Those factors include the failure of the products described above to operate as designed due to incompatibility with some platforms or other defects; our reliance on developers in the open source community; new and changing technologies and customer acceptance of those technologies; the Company's ability to compete effectively with other companies; failure of our brand to achieve the broad recognition necessary to succeed; unenforceability of the GNU general public license; our reliance on third party developers of components of our software offerings; claims of infringement of third-party intellectual property rights; and disruption in the Company's distribution sales channel.

Sounds like someone at SCO is covering their arse...

Re:Talk about Caveat Emptor...

[dbullock]

Absolutely, but nothing too exciting.

This is standard boilerplate required for press releases by public companies. Look at any press release from a public company like SCO and you will see very similar variations on this format at the bottom of their release with verbiage tailored to their particular industry and message.

Related to the lawsuit

[Iphtashu Fitz]

I wonder if their decision to make this announcement is directly related to their ongoing lawsuit against IBM over linux? I can't believe it's entirely unrelated.

The wikipedia entry for OpenLinux describes it as "now-defunct".

Slashdot

[Anonymous Coward]

Anyone posting here is listening. Now finding anyone who cares, on the other hand, may be more difficult. The general level of goodwill towards SCO throughout the tech community (excluding the Uncle Fester like CEO of a certain large unnamed WA based software maker) probably boils down to something ranging from utter disinterest to "burn in hell for eternity!" Actually, I'd be surprised if even SCO cares at this point: surely anyone left must already be resigned to their fate.

That's quite silly

[mcc]

In some alternate universe where SCO had a case, they perhaps might wind up with copyright ownership of some small part of the linux kernel. But that wouldn't mean they own linux. SCO would own part of the Linux kernel, and all the other parts of the Linux kernel would be owned by a wide variety of other persons who wrote those parts of the kernel. SCO could wind up with ownership of part of the kernel, and say "all you other people, you don't have the right to distribute what we own". But then this raises the question of why SCO has the right to distribute Linux-- they don't, except under the terms of the GPL. And the GPL says that if you can't allow free relicensing and free use of a piece of GPLed software, you aren't allowed to distribtue it at all.

In other words if SCO had valid claims to copyright over part of the Linux kernel, and denied anyone the right to distribute that part of the Linux kernel except under propreitary terms, it would be illegal for ANYONE, INCLUDING SCO, to distribute Linux. But if SCO distributed even one copy of Linux anyway, then they'd lose the ability to deny anyone the rights to distribute Linux, because the GPL says that anyone SCO distributes to automatically has the right to redistribute the copy of Linux they got from SCO...

I wonder if SCO, when they distribute these new copies of Linux, is including and adhering to the requirements of the GPL. If not they're opening a floodgate of lawsuits from all the people who own copyrights to parts of Linux and have only granted ability to use them under the GPL. Either way just this press release might open up for some nasty slander of title lawsuits or at least extensions of the Lanham Act cases already filed against them by Redhat etc...

This is interesting, SCO has made a major misstep here. The only way they can keep this latest action from destroying them is if they know that they'll be bankrupt by the time anyone has the time to respond to it...

Re:That's quite silly

[NitsujTPU]

Maybe the purpose of the lawsuit was to allow SCO to develop enhancements to Linux without fear of people using their code. Afterall, who the hell wants to deal with anything that SCO has ever touched these days?

Now, that is a proper conspiracy theory.

Re:That's quite silly

[Anonymous Coward]

I think they're just trying to dupe a few randoms into ordering something, or setting up some sort of a deal like that.

Re:That's quite silly

[Halo1]

According to this post, they are distributing a version of the Linux kernel with the pieces they claim copyright on removed (which also explains why it's a 2.5 kernel instead of 2.6).

Re:That's quite silly

[wkitchen]

In other words if SCO had valid claims to copyright over part of the Linux kernel, and denied anyone the right to distribute that part of the Linux kernel except under propreitary terms, it would be illegal for ANYONE, INCLUDING SCO, to distribute Linux.

Given McBride's venomous rants against free software and Microsoft's early bankrolling of SCO's legal and media attacks on Linux, IBM, etc., I don't think it's too far fetched to think that this is exactly the precident they're trying to set. IMHO, the resurrection of Caldera Linux as an SCO closed-source proprietary product is not just destined to fail due to copyright infringement, but is designed to do so. SCO is a paid fall guy. Darl and a few others will make out like bandits while employees and investors get screwed. And quite likely, at least a few of those investors will not feel screwed at all, as SCO's demise and the damage caused in the process is exactly what they were investing in. I'm sure that won't keep them from claiming it as a loss for tax purposes though.

Re:That's quite silly

[mcc]

Huh. Then how could that make SCO, as this press release claims, the "only" allowed distributor of Linux, if anyone could just distribute Linux by going back to 2.4 or 2.5 and distributing that?

Or is the idea that they took 2.5 and stripped out the parts SCO alleges copyright to, and nobody else can do that since nobody knows what SCO's secret allegations are except SCO?

And how could SCO take out the parts they claim copyright on? They've claimed copyright on nearly the whole thing at one point or another. At one time they were claiming ownership of 2.4, and just a couple weeks ago it came out that even now one of their export reports SCO is claiming ownership of the ELF magic number. Did they just take out ELF support or what?

The whole thing defies logic at every level.

Re:That's quite silly

[schon]

In some alternate universe where SCO had a case, they perhaps might wind up with copyright ownership of some small part of the linux kernel.

Actually, that exactly what they've got right now. (Do a grep for caldera on the kernel source tree to find out.)

It's all stuff they've released under the GPL.

Funny though, that the "best case" they could have hoped for (even in said alternate universe) is exactly what they had before they began the lawsuits.

And the worst (or "actual", in the real world) is much, much worse.

I wonder if Darl still thinks the lawsuits were a good idea? :o)

Re:That's quite silly

[rm69990]

Use your head, this is a hoax

Hoax

[Anonymous Coward]

I small a rat

this can't be real

[cmoss]

I find it more likely that openlinux.org is a spoof site or it has been compromised.

TSG can't release a new version and avoid problems with IBM counterclaims.

Re:this can't be real

[Sheridan]

One odd thing about the site is that the www.openlinux.org address resolves (at least from here) as 131.188.40.90 which according to a Network whois is in a netblock owned by the University of Erlangen, Nuremberg.

The domain name does look to be SCO owned though according to the domain whois.

See this link for details.

Re:this can't be real

[Anonymous Coward]

I didn't see confirmation on SCO's web site, yet this doesn't seem like a hoax. It has many typos (including "Linux 2.5"), on one hand, but lots of careful marketing-speak on the other, and none of the outrageous lines that could jump out as gotchas after the joke was revealed. Besides, the hoax writers would have to realize that SCO executives are not known for their sense of humor.

Re:this can't be real

[NihilEst]

It's a spoof. It's gotta be. Not even SCOX is this stupid. It isn't hard to ape the language McBride and the rest of those inbred assholes use. The law firm representing SCOX is just too good to let them act like this. If this thing is real, Boies, Schiller et al just walked out the door. Trust me.

Re:this can't be real

[Anonymous Coward]

Seems to me.. that when you change the GET string to any number, or completely delete the string at all you get the same relese, it has to be fake.
http://www.openlinux.org/releasedetail.cfm is the same as http://www.openlinux.org/releasedetail.cfm?id=2137 0 which is the same as http://www.openlinux.org/releasedetail.cfm?id=foob ar

Re:this can't be real

[FooAtWFU]

Wasn't sco.com hacked once before?

Re:this can't be real

[zsau]

In addition, the grammar is appalling. Now, my German is obviously much worse than the writer's English, but one thing particularly stood out to me: "Customers will again benefit from the high reliable SCO products", which should be "... highly reliable ...". As I said, my German's not worth speaking of, but ISTR that German has no adverbs (the -ly forms of adjectives), they just have adjectives...

Re:this can't be real

[Ying Hu]

How could you trust a corporate software product from someone who writes such appalling grammar...but upon a closer reading of paragraphs 3 and 4, it is clear that they at least were written by a non-English speaker. However, the writing feels East Asian rather than German.

• overall experience opposed to recent
• was made after it is evident...are to be finished soon
• high reliable SCO products
• As according to
• world Leading companies
• should still consider to upgrade to

They have trouble with the small modifications in meaning provided by subtle changes in verbs, adjectives, and adverbs, as these are done differently in East Asian languages, and they virtually always screw up or omit prepositions. European language speakers are very familiar with these kinds of changes, even if they don't always know the right ones.

• Already contained code
• still outbeat

They also often coin new "shorthand" idioms that are perfectly understandable to native English speakers but would never be made by them.

SCO Linux

[bhima]

We all know SCO will eventually loose this lawsuit against IBM and most likely will loose big. I know a few small businesses in the medical industry who are pretty much trapped with SCO.

After this transpires, I'd bet that a SCO Linux with some sort of SCO Unix migration support would be popular and pretty profitable.

Also I wonder what Novell will do with code once SCO augers in. I dare say they don't really need it.

Re:SCO Linux

[Anonymous Coward]

The lawsuit has already been loosed against IBM. What we all know, or at least hope, is that SCO will lose it.

Is it a parody?

[mcc]

Real or not, this is absolutely SCO's website. Look at the whois.

Domain ID:D1704028-LROR
Domain Name:OPENLINUX.ORG
Created On:03-Aug-1998 04:00:00 UTC
Last Updated On:10-Nov-2004 04:47:01 UTC
Expiration Date:02-Aug-2006 04:00:00 UTC
Sponsoring Registrar:Dotster, Inc. (R34-LROR)
Status:CLIENT UPDATE PROHIBITED
Registrant ID:DOTR-00936995
Registrant Name:Domain Administrator
Registrant Organization:The SCO Group
Registrant Street1:355 S 520 W
Registrant Street2:Suite 100
Registrant Street3:
Registrant City:Lindon
Registrant State/Province:UT
Registrant Postal Code:84042
Registrant Country:US
Registrant Phone:+1.8019325800
Registrant Phone Ext.:
Registrant FAX:
Registrant FAX Ext.:
Registrant ******************@sco.com
Admin ID:DOTC-03050361
Admin Name:Domain Administrator
Admin Organization:The SCO Group
Admin Street1:355 S 520 W
Admin Street2:Suite 100
Admin Street3:
Admin City:Lindon
Admin State/Province:UT
Admin Postal Code:84042
Admin Country:US
Admin Phone:+1.8019325800
Admin Phone Ext.:
Admin FAX:
Admin FAX Ext.:
Admin ******************@sco.com
Tech ID:DOTC-03050361
Tech Name:Domain Administrator
Tech Organization:The SCO Group
Tech Street1:355 S 520 W
Tech Street2:Suite 100
Tech Street3:
Tech City:Lindon
Tech State/Province:UT
Tech Postal Code:84042
Tech Country:US
Tech Phone:+1.8019325800
Tech Phone Ext.:
Tech FAX:
Tech FAX Ext.:
Tech ******************@sco.com
Name Server:NS.CALDERASYSTEMS.COM
Name Server:NS2.CALDERASYSTEMS.COM

Caldera nameservers and everything. So this is not a parody site. If this press release isn't real, it's only because SCO got hacked. Which is, y'know, a possibility. Weirdly enough, if you go to the IP address that openlinux.org currently points to (thus stripping away the openlinux.org site's virtual server), you get.. a page saying nothing but "FSI INF". "FSI INF"? WTF?

Meanwhile it is awfully suspicious that caldera.com says nothing about this that I can see. Is there any evidence this "press release" has been... you know... released to the press? Or is it just a page on a website?

Re:Is it a parody?

[Anonymous Coward]

traceroute shown that this IP is fsi-server.informatik.uni-erlangen.de which explains FDI INF

SCO is known to have some activities in germany so this is plasible.

The strange part is that www.uni-erlangen.de is an university.
Do they really use their server to host commercial website?

Re:Is it a parody?

[Anonymous Coward]

a page saying nothing but "FSI INF". "FSI INF"? WTF?

Thats all openlinux.org said two days ago: Google Cache of openlinux.org

Re:Is it a parody?

[Sweetshark]

Its pretty save that they got hacked
- The page has been pretty dead since 2001 according to archive.org
- There is no official pres release by SCO
- The page has awful spelling and grammar errors.
- fsi-server.informatik.uni-erlangen.de sounds like "Fachschaft Informatik" - a server students have access to.

Re:Is it a parody?

[mentaldingo]

If you go direct to the IP address, your browser won't send the Host header. If you connect to openlinux.org, your browser will send "Host: openlinux.org". It's used by shared hosting servers so many domains can point to the same IP and serve different pages depending on the host. "FSI INF," I guess, is the content of another website on the same server?

Re:Is it a parody?

[Trona Andy]

Is it me or does anyone else find it strange that the press release page is generated by Cold Fusion?

Re:Is it a parody?

[nuin]

The IP Address (131.188.40.90) belongs to the network of the University of Erlangen, the address resolves into fsi-server.informatik.uni-erlangen.de, hence the FSI INF (Informatik is German for Computer Science). So guys, this is most likely a joke.

Try the following commands:

• host openlinux.org
• host 131.188.40.90
• whois 131.188.40.90

Re:Is it a parody?

[Novus]

As far as I can tell, what has happened is this:

• Caldera in Erlangen runs openlinux.org site from 1998 or so.
• Caldera shuts down operation in Erlangen but leaves DNS entry intact.
• IP address is reallocated to Fachschaftsinitiative Informatik.
• Someone at FSI decides to play a little prank on SCO.
• openlinux.org entry is removed by SCO.

Re:Is it a parody?

[stsp]

a page saying nothing but "FSI INF". "FSI INF"? WTF?
Heh. That's shorthand for "Fachschaftsinitiative Informatik". Translates roughly to "Student Council of the CS department."

The quote to read:

[TodLiebeck]

SCO is eager to be the only future provider of Linux Systems for the enterprise market.

(emphasis added)

Re:The quote to read:

[kabloie]

Continuing on that thread: I know what a Linux system is (or a GNU/Linux system), but what is a Linux System?

"As according to the Yankee Group SCO OpenServer products still outbeat Linux' yearly uptime by about 20 percent, world Leading companies should still consider to upgrade to SCO's UnixWare and OpenServer series."

They have summer interns writing these releases, right? Outbeat isn't a word. "world Leading" companies? "consider to upgrade" ?

Rather, I think they have an 8th grader in their shop. "I outbeat you on that UT2K4 swerver bizzitchizzzz!!!"

Re:The quote to read:

[Anonymous Coward]

That entire press release reads like something composed by a dyslexic monkey. I can imagine Darl hanging a small "Secretary Wanted" sign on the main SCO sign outside his office...

Re:The quote to read:

[cdrudge]

"As according to the Yankee Group SCO OpenServer products still outbeat Linux' yearly uptime by about 20 percent, world Leading companies should still consider to upgrade to SCO's UnixWare and OpenServer series."

Depending on how they measured uptime, that wouldn't suprise me. OpenServer's bread and butter type of installation is with cash register type point of sale systems that are for the most part very stable. Often they are not internet facing and once they are setup are essentially forgotten about until there is an absolute reason to fix something. The concept of service and maintenance packs aren't followed much.

Re:The quote to read:

[Dystopian Rebel]

"Outbeat"... It's not a known verb, but "to beat out" is valid although not formal. If we take "outbeat" seriously (this is Slashdot, where we can get into a tizzy for less), "outbeat" suggests:

1. to beat more (victims) than others who are beating
2. to out-drum other drummers
3. if spelled "outbeet", to turn more red in the face in shame than any other competitor in the Shame Olympics

I could see SCO outbeeting several competitors. The final match against Microsoft would be a tough call, though.

Will they sue OpenLinux users ?

[Anonymous Coward]

What is the purpose of this release ? Try to get a few more Linux users that you can you can positively identify in order to sue them for using your own product ? Sorry, I'm just trying to think like Darl here ...

If SCO fell in the woods and no one was around...

[davmoo]

...would anyone still give a shit?

SCO could create the Perfect Operating System. It could be blessed by God, Linus Torvalds, Steve Wozniak, Steve Jobs, and Bill Gates at a joint press conference. And I still wouldn't use it just because it was SCO that released it. They've shown us that just because they support it today doesn't mean they won't file a lawsuit against anyone using it tomorrow. Any business that trusts SCO is obviously being run by idiots.

Hoax?

[drivekiller]

Apparently hosted on a german university server.

////

;; ANSWER SECTION: openlinux.org. 21600 IN A 131.188.40.90

////

;; ANSWER SECTION: 90.40.188.131.in-addr.arpa. 86400 IN PTR fsi-server.informatik.uni-erlangen.de.

Re:Hoax?

[mbaciarello]

... But published on calderasystems.com nameservers:

;; ADDITIONAL SECTION:
ns.calderasystems.com. 76500 IN A 216.250.130.1
ns2.calderasystems.com. 76500 IN A 216.250.130.5

I don't know anything about this stuff... Could the nameservers have been compromised?

GPL: FSF not EFF

[weierstrass]

I think it's also likely the GP was confusing the EFF with FSF..

Re:GPL: FSF not EFF

[jpardey]

I doubt it. The EFF has a lot of money to spend on lawyers to defend free speech and permissive copyrights, where the FSF dosen't.

ROFL! What a waste of time

[HangingChad]

The question is, is anyone listening?

Well, let's see.

<cricket_chrip.wav>

Not a good sign.

Ah, memories

[christurkel]

Caldera was my first Linux, with a cutting edge installer you could play Tetris in while the game installed. Kde 1.1, Netscape 4. It was all good.

Then came the dark times, then came the Empire!

High Times in Lindon, UT

[cdr_data]

Version X? More like version Ex, when the lawsuits get finished. They're right, it'll all be over soon. Obviously, they've resolved all the license issues that led them to take it off the market in the first place.

I hope folks remember that the only companies to be sued are the ones that have done business with SCO. There'll be a certificate in each box to be sent back to SCO's legal department. Please spell your name correctly, folks, so they get it right on the service papers.

I just want some of what they're smoking in Utah. Must be good stuff.....

The supreme arrogance

[gnarlin]

SCO is eager to be the only future provider of Linux Systems for the enterprise market

There are no words for this. To announce that no only that they will succeed in ripping off the community, but that they will sell it back the very code they they lovingly made through hard work, snack eating and soda drinking all through the night at a mearly 300% markup. They even generously suggest that it would be helpful to supply oneself with lubricant before purchasing a lisence from them. Wow! Thanks SCO!

The decision to reanimate the very popular OpenLinux product series was made after it is evident that certain lawsuits regarding UNIX® System intellectual property and contractual rights are to be finished soon.

Finished soon eh? Might that not have something to do with Magistrate Judge Brooke Wells Granting IBM's Motion to Expedite despite SCO's endless attempts to stall the judgements day?

giggle

[phrostie]

lol

LOL

Lmao

LMAO

Rotfl

ROTFL

ROTFLMAO

Geez, times like now i miss the old segfault site.

Particularly since

[IANAAC]

A whois gives SCO as the owner of the domain. And their DNS servers are from calderasystems.com.

Re:Particularly since

[mbaciarello]

Sorry about the dupe post below. However, the latest press release according to their official archive dates back to June 8, and it's about their second quarter results.

Talk about fact-checking...

Re:Particularly since

[Saven Marek]

Not only that, but take a look at the URL for the new supposed press release. Change the number after it, they all refer to the same press release

http://www.openlinux.org/releasedetail.cfm?id=2137 0 is the same as http://www.openlinux.org/releasedetail.cfm?id=2137 1 is the same as http://www.openlinux.org/releasedetail.cfm?id=21 is the same as http://www.openlinux.org/releasedetail.cfm?id=5000 0

Scary

[Anonymous Coward]

This gave me a head trip. I feel like I am on the same Acid I took 11 years ago. What if they win the case? What if their forward looking statements with other claims can be held up in a Court of law in the United States? I've seen weirder things happen, believe me the Internet adoption by billions of people was one of them.

Perfect Operating System?

[Anonymous Coward]

In my world, POS stands for something totally different! Maybe it's just a case sensitivity issue, but is this Caldera the PoS you speak of?

Incidentally, "Darl Mcbride - SCO" has a great anagram - IBM scarred clod...

Caldera bought SCO, not the other way around.

[Anonymous Coward]

The original owners of SCO dumped all the rights to the business and moved on to some sort of web application. Caldera bought SCO and bought the Unix stuff from them as well of the name.

I figure Caldera figured they do a dual OS model.. With 'High end' respected Unix and a 'Low end' Linux... Well when 2.6 linux finally materialized you have a situation were the Linux was now more high end then their high end Unix..

So when it was obvious that their investment was turning to shit SCO-Caldera hit the 'OH SHIT UNIX IP!!!' panic button and the lawyers ran into action.

That's why you can't trust all Linux vendors just because they are Linux vendors. It's to bad to Caldera did a lot of good for the Linux kernel once apon a time.

Simpson's quote

[FudRucker]

Most hated distro, ever! -comicbook guy

*sigh* You're getting old, guys

[Opportunist]

Almost 100 postings and no joke about SCO and Linux... I don't wanna be witty, it's my weekend, so, heck, come up with something funny-witty about SCO soon suing itself for infringing its copyright or something.

Gah, today /. is more boring than sitcoms.

Re:*sigh* You're getting old, guys

[kimvette]

SCO is so much of a joke that it's hard to post a joke that is more funny than the situation itself. What will top it though, is news about Darl being some inmate's bitch in a federal penitentiary. :)

Re:*sigh* You're getting old, guys

[Anonymous Coward]

i'm new at this, but i'll try anyway...

-Violate GPL to release new version of Caldera
- ???
- Profit!!!

Re:*sigh* You're getting old, guys

[Billly Gates]

Speaking of SCO jokes there were 2 I tried googling that I can not find. One was a parady of the "See johnny run" chidren's book with "See sco" and another a parody of the Nigerian scam letters claiming to be Darl McBride asking for money for a lawsuit agaisnt linux in exchange for some profits from the lawsuit.

both were pretty funny. Unless you actually mean real news.... forgot about that part.

Re:*sigh* You're getting old, guys

[ModernGeek]

This guy made a pretty funny joke in this thread, pay attention!

Or maybe, just maybe...

[NoMaster]

... it's a strategic ploy?

Read it like this: The press release is the teaser; it gets people reading, it gets SCO back in the news, and on the face of it they look like the good guy.

But the disclaimer is the real story they want to get out there - Caldera Linux, and by inference all versions of Linux, are suspect; reliant on the whims of non-paid developers, released under a suspect licence, and quite probably in violation of copyright and IP laws.

Under those conditions, what sane company would base any part of their business on it?

In other words, the whole statement is carefully-crafted FUD...

I, for one...

[vga_init]

...am intrigued.

I have interest in trying this new distro, as I'm curious to see what a company like SCO would turn out. Sure, they were bastards, but it could be good. Who knows?

I for one...

[xXDarkNinjaXx]

welcome our new, entirely and absolutely psychotic, "only linux distributor" overlords. wait...

Poofreaders Wanted

[jabberw0k]

Displaying a remarkable failure in the Grammar section of their grade, SCO writes:

The SCO Group... today announced plans to release a new version of it's former OpenLinux franchise...

Brushing aside the common mistake ("it's" = "it is") -- if OpenLinux was formerly their franchise, to whom does it currently belong? The mind reels...

The decision... was made after it is evident...

Lack of verb parallelism

...SCO OpenServer products still outbeat Linux' yearly uptime...

How do you "outbeat" something? It sounds lewd.

Re:Poofreaders Wanted

[cab15625]

That's because it's hoax and it's translated from German. Granted, I'm not the most proficient at using whois, but if you do run a whois on the www.openlinux.org ip address, you get a bunch of stuff talking about contact info at "Friedrich Alexander Universitaet Erlangen Nuernberg" So, have yourself a couple of chuckles. One for the hoax, and one for the sad state of computerized translations.

Burp!

[WillRobinson]

HAHA haha Woooo Hooo makes me want to puke!

Best hoax of the year

[Mostly a lurker]

I am amused, but worry that this may get Linux adherents some unwelcome publicity. Presumably, someone has hacked the openlinux.org DNS info.

Re:Best hoax of the year

[Anonymous Coward]

more likely the server itself was hacked. It is hosted on a german university since 2000 (according to netcraft).

I also noticed that the story came on saturday evening (in europe) which is a good timing.
Even if some SCO execs are working during the WE, they will likely have troubles to contact the german sysadmin before monday morning.

I really liked Caldera Linux

[KugelKurt]

It was (around version 2.3 or something like that) the only Linux distro that allowed you to play Tetris while beeing installed to the hard disk. :-)

SCO isn't really an option anymore.

[eyegor]

What self-respecting SA would buy SCO anyway? Sheesh.

already taken care of! :)

[Xtifr]

> they want to get sued for violating the GPL.

They already are; it's one of IBM's counterclaims in SCO v IBM.

http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=200403310 43539340

The sixth counterclaim, to be precise. (Just search for "SIXTH".)

But of course, in a case like this (as opposed to the IBM case), you don't normally sue for "GPL violations"; you sue for simple copyright violation, and leave it up to the defense to raise the issue of the GPL if they think it will help (which it won't if they haven't followed its terms). Note that IBM also includes copyright violations for their code in Linux in their eighth counterclaim (which is going to be the basis of a motion for summary judgement as soon as expert testimony is complete).

If they want to get the GPL ruled unenforceable, they're going to need to find a better trick than distibuting someone else's code without that someone else's permission. 'Cause that's illegal whether or not the GPL is involved.

Giggle ...

[Mostly a lurker]

Try entering an invalid page for openlinux.org (e.g. this) Note that repeated requests result in different responses.

Re:Giggle ...

[Lord of Ironhand]

Hey! That was my idea, dammit!

Think I should sue? ;-)

Re:Giggle ...

[megabunny]

Looks like it just dropped off the net.

Seems to be a Joke

[Anonymous Coward]

I am not sure, but the wording make it sound like a joke, for something interesting, type the following in your browser and read:

http://www.openlinux.org/r

Re:Seems to be a Joke

[Anonymous Coward]

Funny but this is probably the normal behavior on that server since http://131.188.40.90/xxx does the same.
A defaced 404 page would not provide the webmaster email (or maybe is it a phony one).

Re:Seems to be a Joke

[Anonymous Coward]

Also, the "Excuse" changes everytime you refresh the page.

SCO, Linux? I'm Dumbfounded and Confused

[ehaggis]

SCO & Linux? Linux & SCO? You got your Linux in my SCO? Two great tastes that don't taste good together. Sorry, but this news makes my brain hurt.

Hello, SCO? Please...

[Esion Modnar]

die in a fire!

Re:Hello, SCO? Please...

[Xtifr]

> die in a fire!

I'm not going to argue whether the moderation was justified or not, but there's certainly something amusing about seeing this comment moderated "flamebait". :)

Question

[loconet]

Where is the foot graphic on this story?

I call hoax

[Anonymous Coward]

informatik.uni-erlangen.de = Department of Computer Sciences at Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg.

fsi-server.X.uni-erlangen.de (where X is a department name) appears to be student/faculty web space, for instance this one. There are also numerous wiki scripts (many old versions I can see), etc, loaded onto fsi.informatik.uni-erlangen.de, so its quite possible the system may have been comprimised.

More then likely some wise ass is responsible for this.

SCO's secret strategy

[bdwoolman]

'Okay, Here's the plan:'

'We take our cyanide capsules now so the enemy can't kill us.'

'I'm with you J.B.'

Interesting errors

[Anonymous Coward]

When I type in the 131.188.40.90/ftp, I get a 'mouse out of cheese' error. I got many different joke errors when I typed the numerical address with guessed file names.

Don't forget...

[Anonymous Coward]

to pay your $699 you cocksmoking teabaggers

SnapShots

[protich]

This is a hoax or a hack job...someone please take snapshots. I can see SCO coming after slashdot to get the IP and ID or the submitter.

This is a hoax

[Anonymous Coward]

If you do a ping www.openliux.org, you get:

PING www.openlinux.org (131.188.40.90) 56(84) bytes of data.
64 bytes from fsi-server.informatik.uni-erlangen.de (131.188.40.90): icmp_seq=0 ttl=47 time=121 ms

If you do a whois 131.188.40.90, you find out that the address block belongs to University Erlangen Nuremberg. It looks like some student hijacked www.openlinux.org.

Nice trick.

Your Sig

[Anonymous Coward]

My guess is you are for gun control? If I'm correct then you aren the one who doesn't understand what 'regulated' meant in Colonial times. 'Well regulated' meant well trained. It had nothing to do with government control.

Come on...

[Anonymous Coward]

It's an obvious hoax. Run a friggin' traceroute on openlinux.org. Do any of the editors ever check these things?

Come to think of it, I've heard of this new console that's going to be launched soon. Gimme five minutes and I'll submit a story on it.

wait...

[Zidane-The-Dom]

you mean SCO actually make stuff?

damn, i thought all they had was an office full of angry lawyers.

That's because this IS A FAKE

[shaneh0]

For example:

- Remove the &id=24097 from the Querystring. The page still loads this press release. Releasedetail.cfm is nothing but a static page

- Now mess w/ the URL to generate a 404. You'll get this error:

> 404
> [...]
> because Bill Gates is a Jehovah's witness and so nothing can work on St. Swithin's day.

Not to mention the whole front page is reduced to linking to this single press release? The site has no navigation.

Re:That's because this IS A FAKE

[algae]

because Bill Gates is a Jehovah's witness and so nothing can work on St. Swithin's day.

I tried this and got various different messages on each reload. It looks like the server is just calling fortune with the BOFH excuses file. Still unlikely to be a real press release though.

Re:That's because this IS A FAKE

[infosec_spaz]

Try this one... It is more believable. Object not found! The requested URL was not found on this server. If you entered the URL manually please check your spelling and try again. If you think this is a server error, please contact the webmaster. BOFH Excuse: We've picked COBOL as the language of choice.

Re:That's because this IS A FAKE

[s4m7]

Not that I'm offering conclusive proof otherwise, but I refer you to the whois entry FWIW. Apparently posting a whois as a comment has too few characters per line so i'm removing the blank domain server lines and also typing this line really long to average it out.

Server Used: [ whois.pir.org ]

openlinux.org = [ 131.188.40.90 ]

Domain ID: D1704028-LROR
Domain Name: OPENLINUX.ORG
Created On: 03-Aug-1998 04: 00: 00 UTC
Last Updated On: 10-Nov-2004 04: 47: 01 UTC
Expiration Date: 02-Aug-2006 04: 00: 00 UTC
Sponsoring Registrar: Dotster Inc. (R34-LROR)
Status: CLIENT UPDATE PROHIBITED
Registrant ID: DOTR-00936995
Registrant Name: Domain Administrator
Registrant Organization: The SCO Group
Registrant Street1: 355 S 520 W
Registrant Street2: Suite 100
Registrant Street3:
Registrant City: Lindon
Registrant State/Province: UT
Registrant Postal Code: 84042
Registrant Country: US
Registrant Phone: 1.8019325800
Registrant Phone Ext.:
Registrant FAX:
Registrant FAX Ext.:
Registrant Email: domain.admin@sco.com

Admin ID: DOTC-03050361
Admin Name: Domain Administrator
Admin Organization: The SCO Group
Admin Street1: 355 S 520 W
Admin Street2: Suite 100
Admin Street3:
Admin City: Lindon
Admin State/Province: UT
Admin Postal Code: 84042
Admin Country: US
Admin Phone: 1.8019325800
Admin Phone Ext.:
Admin FAX:
Admin FAX Ext.:
Admin Email: domain.admin@sco.com

Tech ID: DOTC-03050361
Tech Name: Domain Administrator
Tech Organization: The SCO Group
Tech Street1: 355 S 520 W
Tech Street2: Suite 100
Tech Street3:
Tech City: Lindon
Tech State/Province: UT
Tech Postal Code: 84042
Tech Country: US
Tech Phone: 1.8019325800
Tech Phone Ext.:
Tech FAX:
Tech FAX Ext.:
Tech Email: domain.admin@sco.com

Name Server: NS.CALDERASYSTEMS.COM
Name Server: NS2.CALDERASYSTEMS.COM

... I'm just sayin.

Re:That's because this IS A FAKE

[Anonymous Coward]

Some of the 'random' responses in there were pretty interesting. My favorite, especially given the source: Backbone Scoliosis

Re:That's because this IS A FAKE

[blackest_k]

ok looking at the page source we have app.shareholder.com and whois tells us this

      Domain Name: SHAREHOLDER.COM
      Registrar: NETWORK SOLUTIONS, LLC.
      Whois Server: whois.networksolutions.com
      Referral URL: http://www.networksolutions.com/
      Name Server: NS2.SHAREHOLDER.COM
      Name Server: NS1.SHAREHOLDER.COM
      Status: REGISTRAR-LOCK
      EPP Status: clientUpdateProhibited
      EPP Status: clientTransferProhibited
      EPP Status: clientDeleteProhibited
      Updated Date: 15-Nov-2005
      Creation Date: 28-Nov-1994
      Expiration Date: 27-Nov-2011

Registrant:
Direct Report Corporation
      12 Clock Tower Place
      Maynard, MA 01754
      US

      Domain Name: SHAREHOLDER.COM

      Administrative Contact, Technical Contact:
            Direct Report Corporation netops@SHAREHOLDER.COM
            12 Clock Tower Place
            Maynard, MA 01754
            US
            999 999 9999 fax: 999 999 9999

      Record expires on 30-Nov-2010.
      Record created on 29-Nov-1994.
      Database last updated on 17-Jun-2006 23:46:57 EDT.

      Domain servers in listed order:

      NS2.SHAREHOLDER.COM 170.224.5.50
      NS1.SHAREHOLDER.COM 206.17.96.209

ok so who is direct report corperation?

http://www.choate.com/practice/litigation/intellec tual_property_litigation/index.asp

"Direct Report Corporation d/b/a Shareholder.com v. CCBN, Inc.. et al., D. Mass. We represent Direct Report Corporation with respect to claims that the defendants' employees infiltrated the plaintiff's computer network and acquired commercially sensitive, proprietary information."

now this isn't proof of anything but it sure makes me wonder if this SCO announcement is genuine.

It's bait for the FSF.

[Anonymous Coward]

IMHO this announcement sounds like bait. I think they are trying to get more Linux organizations to sue them, so that they can point the judge in the IBM case to those lawsuits and have it delayed.

SCO's nameserver hacked?

[Snowhare]

The 'www.openlinux.org' site is being served from the IP of a German University (131.188.40.90), and it is SCO's own name servers that are pointing there as far as I can tell. Also, although the 'Press Release' looks like it is being dynamically generated via ColdFusion, deleting the CGI parameters _delivers the same page_. It is a static page masquerading as a dynamic page.

Additionally, the webserver appears to be running the version of SSH that Fedora Core 3 uses...

An OpenLinux press announcement pretending to be delivered from a content management system released via a German University site running Fedora Core. Riiiiight.

I think SCO's nameserver has been subverted.

Re:SCO's nameserver hacked?

[glasn0st]

I don't think that the nameserver has been compromised. The site has always been at the same IP address. See its history at: http://toolbar.netcraft.com/site_report?url=http:/ /www.openlinux.org

But it could still be a hoax or a compromised site. Google cache for openlinux.org only shows the "FSI INF" text, so the front page has been put up very recently. Also, releasedetail.cfm defaults to the same story, no matter which ID is supplied.

Re:SCO's nameserver hacked?

[Snowhare]

You're right. I'll bet you that the University re-assigned the IP to another machine at some point without really being aware that it hosted openlinux.org once upon a time (while SCO completely forgot about it being in their DNS at all). And the new owner got funny HTTP access attempts to their Apache caused by old links. And one thing lead to another....

Probably a hoax

[lightbox]

Almost definately a hoax. Proof follows: 1. The press release just has that fake "feeling" 2. Neither sco.com or caldera.com have the "press release" anywhere on their sites. 3. The server belongs to a German university. 4. The 404 page has BOFH quotes. How professional is that? 5. If you look in the source, some of the image links point directly to sco.com/images/... On most websites, wouldn't the images be linked to a local directory? Even more suspicious, on sco.com & caldera.com, the images are located locally.

Re:Probably a hoax

[dmbtech]

More evidence it could be fake. Notice the press release url is http://openlinux.org/releasedetail.cfm?id=21370 . Try changing that id to something else like http://openlinux.org/releasedetail.cfm?id=69 . It still goes to the same press release. Also, wouldn't they announce that on the real openlinux website? Also, 2.5? Its gotta be some kind of joke. Err 404 is diferent as mentioned before also. It *is* a hoax, so nothing to see, move on to the next sorry.

Re:Probably a hoax

[dmbtech]

Also, take a look at this, completely diferent DNS entries: dmb@downpenguin:~$ host openlinux.org openlinux.org has address 131.188.40.90 openlinux.org mail is handled by 10 openlinux.informatik.uni-erlangen.de. openlinux.org mail is handled by 50 fauern.informatik.uni-erlangen.de. openlinux.org mail is handled by 100 mailhub.rrze.uni-erlangen.de. dmb@downpenguin:~$ host sco.com sco.com has address 216.250.128.12 sco.com mail is handled by 10 mail.ut.sco.com. Sco is not based in germany. I hope that is enough proof.

Netcraft confirms it

[Billly Gates]

It is official.
Netcraft confirms: SCO is dying

One more crippling bombshell hit the already beleaguered SCO community when IDC confirmed that SCO market share has dropped yet again, now down to less than a fraction of 1 percent of all Linux distribution versions. Coming on the heels of a recent Netcraft survey which plainly states that SCO has lost more market share, this news serves to reinforce what we've known all along. SCO is collapsing in complete disarray, as fittingly exemplified by falling dead last in a recent Linux distribution study.

You don't need to be a Kreskin to predict SCO's future. The hand writing is on the wall: SCO faces a bleak future. In fact there won't be any future at all for SCO because SCO is dying. Things are looking very bad for SCO. As many of us are already aware, SCO continues to lose market share. Red ink flows like a river of blood.

SCO UNIX is the most endangered of them all, having lost 93% of its core developers. The sudden and unpleasant departures of long time developers Simon Baldwin and Andrew Sharpe only serve to underscore the point more clearly. There can no longer be any doubt: SCO is dying.

Let's keep to the facts and look at the numbers.

SCO UNIX project leader Darl states that there are 7000 users of SCO UNIX. How many users of OpenServer are there? Let's see. The number of SCO UNIX versus OpenServer posts on Usenet is roughly in ratio of 5 to 1. Therefore there are about 7000/5 = 1400 OpenServer users. SCO UNIX posts on Usenet are about half of the volume of OpenServer posts. Therefore there are about 700 users of SCO UNIX. A recent article put SCO UNIX distribution at about 80 percent of the market. Therefore there are (7000+1400+700)*4 = 36400 SCO UNIX users. This is consistent with the number of SCO Usenet posts.

Due to the troubles of half-baked SCO lawsuits, abysmal sales and so on, many development companies is going out of business and will probably be taken over by another company who will sell another troubled product. Now SCO is also dead, its corpse turned over to yet another charnel house.

All major surveys show that SCO has steadily declined in market share. SCO is very sick and its long term survival prospects are very dim. If SCO is to survive at all it will be among dilettante dabblers. SCO continues to decay. Nothing short of a miracle could save it at this point in time. For all practical purposes, SCO is dead.

How was that?

Re:Netcraft confirms it

[Opportunist]

I asked for a joke, not for a newscast of 2008.

Three words

[Anonymous Coward]

Fuck you SCO

Suicide is painless.

[NickFortune]

And the suicide option to close the code also exist i guess

Which code would that be?

Not the GPL code in the kernel, because that's not owned by them. I suppose the courts could still rule in SCS's favour, but if they could prove ownership of anything, we'd have seen it by now. And if they can't, all they can close is their own contributions.

And, thinking about, not all of those. Stuff released under the GPL before all 2002 is still GPL'd, since the licence wasn't challenged at that point. They can cease to distribute their own code under the GPL, but that doesn't affect the code already distributed, since it remains under that licence - which allows unlimited redistribution under the same terms.

So, all they can really close are those parts of the UNIX codebase to which they can show clear title and which they have not so far incorporated into the kernel. Since they are disputing the GPL, they could probably withdraw the stuff they're adding in now, but they're modding an obsolete development version of the kernel with code that we've survived quite nicely without for years.

So I guess I missed something. How did that suicide option work again?

Re:Suicide is painless.

[Bob MacSlack]

I believe he means closing ALL the code (owned by them or otherwise) and having the courts very efficiently tear them to pieces for copyright infringement.

Re:Suicide is painless.

[NickFortune]

I believe he means closing ALL the code (owned by them or otherwise) and having the courts very efficiently tear them to pieces for copyright infringement.

The point is that they can't close the code. To do that they'd have to hack every ftp mirror world wide - and even then, it'd still be restored from backups and local copies on home computers. I suppose they can distribute binary only mods of GPL software in defiance of the licence, but really, who does that inconvenince? I wouldn't touch binary only at the best of times, let alone after SCO have mess about with it.

The only meaningful way they can close anything, would be to declare the GPL invalid, assert ownership over the Linux codebase, and start suing ... which would have been +5 insightful in 2002, but is just plain confusing at this late stage.

IT'S A FAKE!

[martinultima]

Just try any one of these out:

http://www.openlinux.org/releasedetail.cfm?id=
http://www.openlinux.org/releasedetail.cfm?id=5435 63463
http://www.openlinux.org/releasedetail.cfm?id=2352 561

You can put in whatever value you want for the releasedetail.cfm id field, but either way it shows the same thing. I don't think any real company would have a Web site which worked like that – if it were real there would be some sort of error message or another press release.

And as I said earlier, I don't think it's that hard to set up an Apache virtual server and provide false information when registering a domain... depending on the registrar it may be quite a while before they realize that the domain doesn't belong to who it says it belongs to.

Besides, notice that there are (1) a lot of typos, and (2) no references on the main SCO site...

Re:IT'S A FAKE!

[Anonymous Coward]

And don't you think a genuine press release would have turned up on the appropriate page on the SCO main site?

It's a HOAX

[bmo]

DUH

Let's look at the whois, shall we?

Registrant:
Linux Systems Lab
      P.O.Box 2714
      Lodi, CA 95241
      US

      Domain Name: OPENLINUX.COM

      Administrative Contact, Technical Contact:
            Brown, S info@CHEAPBYTES.COM
            CheapBytes
            PO BOX 2714
            LODI, CA 95241-2714
            US
            209-367-8518

      Record expires on 10-Jun-2007.
      Record created on 11-Jun-1996.
      Database last updated on 17-Jun-2006 19:06:28 EDT.

      Domain servers in listed order:

      NS97.WORLDNIC.COM 205.178.190.49
      NS98.WORLDNIC.COM 205.178.189.49

So why is this not a Caldera/SCO domain, eh? IT'S BECAUSE IT'S A HOAX

WTF, don't people check these things?

--
BMO

Re:It's a HOAX

[rm69990]

It is obviously fake, but we're talking about openlinux.ORG here, not .COM! Jesus....

on the other hand

[RedHatChilliPeppers]

on the other hand New Caldera Promised a new lawsuit
this is probably one of their strategies to put their proprietary code in Linux
then distribute it
but behind this code there's a tiny clause somewhere w/c is a trap
to prove that GPL doesn't work or otherwise can be manipulated for misuse
so then they could counter sue major Linux corporations like RH, Novel etc.
its like the Windows 2000 source code that got leaked w/c is believed to be a conspiracy
that may be one day some idiot would place their proprietary code in Linux kernel.
and then get approved by the Linux kernel maintainers
due to human errors
its possible we're only human

looks like a prank, ignore it.

[Anonymous Coward]

see groklaw.net http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=200606171 85813203. Some of the commentors have already debunked this.

Oh geez..

[bmo]

Open Mouth, Insert Foot. Echo Internationally.
Domain ID:D1704028-LROR
Domain Name:OPENLINUX.ORG
Created On:03-Aug-1998 04:00:00 UTC
Last Updated On:10-Nov-2004 04:47:01 UTC
Expiration Date:02-Aug-2006 04:00:00 UTC
Sponsoring Registrar:Dotster, Inc. (R34-LROR)
Status:CLIENT UPDATE PROHIBITED
Registrant ID:DOTR-00936995
Registrant Name:Domain Administrator
Registrant Organization:The SCO Group
Registrant Street1:355 S 520 W
Registrant Street2:Suite 100
Registrant Street3:
Registrant City:Lindon
Registrant State/Province:UT
Registrant Postal Code:84042
Registrant Country:US
Registrant Phone:+1.8019325800
Registrant Phone Ext.:
Registrant FAX:
Registrant FAX Ext.:
Registrant Email:domain.admin@sco.com
Admin ID:DOTC-03050361
Admin Name:Domain Administrator
Admin Organization:The SCO Group
Admin Street1:355 S 520 W
Admin Street2:Suite 100
Admin Street3:
Admin City:Lindon
Admin State/Province:UT
Admin Postal Code:84042
Admin Country:US
Admin Phone:+1.8019325800
Admin Phone Ext.:
Admin FAX:
Admin FAX Ext.:
Admin Email:domain.admin@sco.com
Tech ID:DOTC-03050361
Tech Name:Domain Administrator
Tech Organization:The SCO Group
Tech Street1:355 S 520 W
Tech Street2:Suite 100
Tech Street3:
Tech City:Lindon
Tech State/Province:UT
Tech Postal Code:84042
Tech Country:US
Tech Phone:+1.8019325800
Tech Phone Ext.:
Tech FAX:
Tech FAX Ext.:
Tech Email:domain.admin@sco.com
Name Server:NS.CALDERASYSTEMS.COM
Name Server:NS2.CALDERASYSTEMS.COM

GPL Enforceability

[nurb432]

Dont forget, they feel the GPL is invalid an unenforceable. So why is this strange?

Im not commenting on the reality that the GPL is, or isnt, enforceable, just that the canopy group has made this statement before so they are not the least bit concerned of a 'backlash'.

In a bit OT note: Its really a shame that the good name of "SCO" was tarnished in all this. Even in the beginning Caldera ( linux ) wasnt all that bad of a company/distro. Its the lawyers that got a hold of both names ( cant say they got ahold of the companies really.. its all just a name shell game ) and ruined them.

Sigh.

[dremelofdeath]

Weirdly enough, if you go to the IP address [131.188.40.90] that openlinux.org currently points to (thus stripping away the openlinux.org site's virtual server), you get.. a page saying nothing but "FSI INF". "FSI INF"? WTF?

Oh, God. I hope this isn't another Alternate Reality Game.

Sco and Caldera are parasites

[Anonymous Coward]

There was Caldera and now is SCO and now is SCO and there will caldera again. It seems that SCO business is not going well because they all releasing again OpenLinux. As I think they are "Parasites", they wanted to destroy our comunity and know they are releasing again the GNU software that make rich?. People is not stupid, I remembered what SCO did for the free software comunity and I would not recomend them anymore. And people should not buy their software.

I'd try it out but...

[ejaw5]

$699 seems a bit expensive for linux.

666 exposed

[ylikone]

It's fake because they use "color:#666;" in a few spots in their CSS code (just view the source)... meaning that obviously the page was made by evil hackers.

To prove it's a hoax...

[Admiral Justin]

openlinux.org
[Querying whois.publicinterestregistry.net]
[whois.publicinterestregistry.net]

openlinux.net
[Querying whois.internic.net]
[Redirected to whois.emilynamesdomains.com]
[Querying whois.emilynamesdomains.com]
[whois.emilynamesdomains.com]
But, this one is smarter...
Administrative Contact:
Dotstar, inc
James Bond (daebak@gmail.com)

sco.com
[Querying whois.internic.net]
[Redirected to whois.dotster.com]
[Querying whois.dotster.com]
[whois.dotster.com]

And... sco.com has a nice clean whois record, openlinux.org has a messy one. I don't think a big company like that would go for a sloppy whois record.

Re:To prove it's a hoax...

[Anonymous Coward]

lol SCO has this domain for years and it was always that messy (see other comments above)

Rearranging deckchairs on the Titanic

[witte]

Yep, free entertainment.
It's like the sitcom that wouldn't die.
*grabs more popcorn*

Also, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Escalation_of_commitm ent.

I love this part...

[jpellino]

"world leading UNIX core operating system"

What color is the sky in that world?

The real nameservers don't match whois

[df5ea]

The whois info for openlinux.com is posted enough times, here is the output of dig which i did not see:

hecabe:~ jp$ dig openlinux.com NS

; > DiG 9.2.2 > openlinux.com NS ;; global options: printcmd ;; Got answer: ;; ->>HEADER- opcode: QUERY, status: NOERROR, id: 29870 ;; flags: qr rd ra; QUERY: 1, ANSWER: 2, AUTHORITY: 0, ADDITIONAL: 1 ;; QUESTION SECTION: ;openlinux.com. IN NS ;; ANSWER SECTION:
openlinux.com. 6403 IN NS NS98.WORLDNIC.com.
openlinux.com. 6403 IN NS NS97.WORLDNIC.com. ;; ADDITIONAL SECTION:
NS97.WORLDNIC.com. 172185 IN A 205.178.190.49 ;; Query time: 37 msec ;; SERVER: 192.168.1.1#53(192.168.1.1) ;; WHEN: Sun Jun 18 03:15:00 2006 ;; MSG SIZE rcvd: 94

As you see those nameservers don't match the whois record. Another piece of evidence that this is a hoax.

Re:The real nameservers don't match whois

[Anonymous Coward]

Heeelllloooo!! RTFURL .. OpenLinux.ORG ! Did you see that? ORG!! Why they hell is everyone looking at the .com address??

unenforceability of the GNU general public license

[Anonymous Coward]

If we assume that GPL is not enforcible, then:

  - No one has any right to distribute GPL code without authors permission.

  - Many linux devices have no software license. Tivo, cell phones linksys boxes, other routers, some parking meters, goverment software.
  - Many companies that use Linux internally or externally would probably go under.
  - Time to move to a "free" country that either cuts back the 120 year copyright to something reasonable for software, or allows "open software" as a valid protection of public information.

Foreign.

[SanityInAnarchy]

Probably Indian.

It has the feel of the kind of grammar I get in spam. That's right, this is a spam trying to encourage me to use their service to send spam:

Grow solutions for you:

- Provide e-maiI Iist according to your need.

- Send over e-maiIs according customers orders:
        We will custom your Iist and mailing your email
        message for you.

* We also supply maiIing solutions (Server).

Aprea
Grow Support
Contacta@sohu.com

THANKS F0R ninja@slaphack.com.
TALK OFF: Off0@Yahoo.com

It's late at night in Germany

[Anonymous Coward]

There's nobody to call to get the site pulled down. My WAG is that it disappears about five hours from now.

They want to be sued?

[Sir_Lewk]

It almost seems as if (assuming they don't release the source) the want to be sued. Perhaps they beleive the GPL won't stand up in court, and this is their way of challenging it. Obviously they are insane.

Caldera?

[ozbird]

A smoking hole in Lindon, Utah? Once IBM's lawyers have finished with them, I can believe that.

That's nice but...

[Svartalf]

...SCO owns the domain (Do a 'whois' next time before proclaiming "fakeness"...) and
the site IS on one of their servers. Not to mention that the site's main page happens
to be referring to the same thing, coming Early Q1 of 2006.

Just like SCO... Promise everything, have nothing in hand.

Re:That's nice but...

[rm69990]

SCO abandoned this server years ago, and if you would use the *nix utility dig, you would see that the server is hosted at some random university in Germany. Also, the site wasn't updated for years. This is clearly a hoax.

Re:That's nice but...

[Svartalf]

Gonna tell you the same thing... This server's always been in Germany. The site's
very likely to be bogus, but it's NOT for the reasons people keep proposing.

The odds it's somebody at the university that has access that decided to be funny are good.
But because it's where it is has no bearing on it. Keep in mind, also, that what graphics
are there on the main front page are professional quality work- this is not to say that the
site's legit because of that, but someone put a lot of work into making a logo that doesn't
exist just for a prank. Again, not to say this isn't a prank or hoax it's very likely to be
one- but again, none of the things you or anyone else have come up with actually make it so.

Why this is a good thing...

[borgheron]

Because one of SCO's arguments has been that they "never meant to distribute the code." If they *willfully* distribute the code, such as it is, then they (per the distribution clause in the GPL) will effectively eradicate thier own argument.

Not that they had a case in the first freakin' place.

Later, GJC

It's a sin to touch anything from SCO

[Anonymous Coward]

People, even for free, never ever touch anything from SCO, the dogs. They have no ethical right to Linux. They should keep away from Linux. Now without a shame they are coming to Linux. Please don't be part of a mass betrayal. They should die if they cannot sell their SCO Unix.

If you want try a good Linux, try Open SUSE, Ubuntu, Tomahawk Desktop, etc.

If you do not want Linux and if you can afford by a Mac or else buy Microsoft still you won't commit a sin. If you touch anything from SCO, you commit a sin that you cannot payoff in this life.

Re:It's a sin to touch anything from SCO

[Anonymous Coward]

YEAH!!!!! I really agree with you. Anybodoy should no accept or buy anything from SCO. They are the devil, they are a sin and they are betrayers. Please, Don't play with fire........... there are some nice distributions overthere and better things than caldera and SCO.

Slashdot Editors MIA?

[rm69990]

Seriously Slashdot editors, pull this story and make yourselves look less retarded.

1) SCO distributes ALL of their press releases through PR Newswire, not through some random website

2) the openlinux.org site hasn't been changed in years before this change, and has obviously been hacked, or a student at the hosting university in Germany is playing a nice prank

3) This press release is not available on SCO.com

4) The grammar in this press release is atrocious, which is highly unusual, even for SCO. Probably written by a non-native english speaker, which makes sense since this abandoned web server is hosted at a German university.

Seriously....just pull the freakin article....

Morons.

/. has been punked

[Yonder Way]

magnus@orca:~$ host www.openlinux.org
www.openlinux.org has address 131.188.40.90
www.openlinux.org mail is handled by 100 mailhub.rrze.uni-erlangen.de.
www.openlinux.org mail is handled by 10 openlinux.informatik.uni-erlangen.de.
www.openlin ux.org mail is handled by 50 fauern.informatik.uni-erlangen.de.
magnus@orca:~$ host 131.188.40.90
90.40.188.131.in-addr.arpa domain name pointer fsi-server.informatik.uni-erlangen.de.
magnus@orc a:~$

No Linux For You!

[RoadWarriorX]

Hoax or not: IMO, I do not think SCO should be allow to distribute Linux again, ever. I think it's fair to say that since SCO tried to declare the GPL invalid, they do not accept the terms of the license. Therefore, according to the GPL, section 5, they have no permission to modify nor distribute the work.

Additionally, I would hope that all GPL copyright holders explicitly revoke SCO's license to distribute of their GPL software, not just Linux. Let the devil squirm and die.

My favourite two...

[Burning Plastic]

Your Pentium has a heating problem - try cooling it with ice cold water.(Do not turn of your computer, you do not want to cool down the Pentium Chip while he isn't working, do you?)

We are a 100% Microsoft Shop.

True BOFH responses...

Hacked, not faked

[Anonumous Coward]

Perhaps the webserver, perhaps the DNS, Whatever. Look at the whois:

Domain Name:OPENLINUX.ORG
Created On:03-Aug-1998 04:00:00 UTC
Last Updated On:10-Nov-2004 04:47:01 UTC

Domain Name: CALDERASYSTEMS.COM
            Created on: 13-AUG-98
            Expires on: 12-AUG-06
            Last Updated on: 28-JUL-04

Not very likely for someone to anticipate in 1998 what SCO would do in 2003, register domains in their name, go unnoticed until 2006 and then use the domains for a funny press release with funnier 404 fortune cookies.

Hosted at a university in Neurnberg?

[HardCase]

Check out RIPE's WHOIS for 131.188.40.90. openlinux.org is hosted at a university in Neurnberg, Germany. Bogus.

-h-

Re:Hosted at a university in Neurnberg?

[Svartalf]

Uh, it's always been in Germany for this DNS entry... That's the rub. It's likely to be
bogus, yes- but for NONE of the reasons you folks keep proposing.

All alone in the world

[lars_boegild_thomsen]

I found it mildly amusing that a search of partners in Europe and Asia returned - well - exactly ZERO matches in both cases.

I guess I'll have to pre order my new Caldera systems directly from SCO.

And they call it stable, no less.

[einhverfr]

That was the part I found most odd-- the idea that you go back to a dev version for stability.

There is no question any more?

[meowsqueak]

Well, when I visit the site, it freely admits it's a hoax:

"Recently, on this site a fake anouncement of Caldera Open Linux X was found.

We thought it was obvious enough that it was fake. We had to learn it was not for all people reading it. So we took it down now. Apparently, also the DNS records are changed/deleted, so soon enough you won't get to this site using openlinux.org anyways.

We thought, it would not spread from Slashdot before we stop it (ie, this weekend). It was funny to follow people speculating and finding out about this site. Some people pointed out good reasons why this is hoax/parody, some bad or wrong reasons. Overall, we hope most people concluded it indeed was a parody.

Our submit to Slashdot concluded with "Is this real?" - sadly enough, Slashdot's editor wrote up a new text without any hints about this. We can't blame him, he maby was just in a hurry..

Nothing got hacked, it's just we got a previously used IP for this machine, so why not having some fun content on it? We apologize for any inconviences arised though! We didn't suspect it would be taken so serious. Some hints in the text proving this weren't read (talking about XML on a Server OS?), others were found but still taken serious. Please stop spreading this fake news, and if you know some sites who published it, please inform them to update their content. Thanks."

openlinux.org down?

[Anonymous Coward]

The url and the server are no longer reachable?
Server not found?

By the way: what a fitting name ...

Fake

[Anonymous Coward]

The original "release is down now, but if you add the following line to
your /etc/hosts file:
131.188.40.90 www.openlinux.org
you can read the following confirmation of it beeing a hoax:

"Recently, on this site a fake anouncement of Caldera Open Linux X was found.

We thought it was obvious enough that it was fake. We had to learn it was not for all people reading it. So we took it down now. Apparently, also the DNS records are changed/deleted, so soon enough you won't get to this site using openlinux.org anyways.
We thought, it would not spread from Slashdot before we stop it (ie, this weekend). It was funny to follow people speculating and finding out about this site. Some people pointed out good reasons why this is hoax/parody, some bad or wrong reasons. Overall, we hope most people concluded it indeed was a parody.

Our submit to Slashdot concluded with "Is this real?" - sadly enough, Slashdot's editor wrote up a new text without any hints about this. We can't blame him, he maby was just in a hurry..
Nothing got hacked, it's just we got a previously used IP for this machine, so why not having some fun content on it? We apologize for any inconviences arisedthough! We didn't suspect it would be taken so serious. Some hints in the text proving this weren't read (talking about XML on a Server OS?), others were found but still taken serious. Please stop spreading this fake news, and if you know some sites who published it, please inform them to update their content.
Thanks."

Re:Fake

[tomhudson]

After all the nonsensical uninformed crap from SCO, this sort of press release would be all to believable - after all, the claims and arguments in their press releases usually read like they're on the 'shrooms collective bus.

Practical Joke

[Ohreally_factor]

From this post at Groklaw:

Sorry, Guys And Gals!
Recently, on this site a fake anouncement of Caldera Open Linux X was found.

We thought it was obvious enough that it was fake. We had to learn it was not for all people reading it. So we took it down now. Apparently, also the DNS records are changed/deleted, so soon enough you won't get to this site using openlinux.org anyways.

We thought, it would not spread from Slashdot before we stop it (ie, this weekend). It was funny to follow people speculating and finding out about this site. Some people pointed out good reasons why this is hoax/parody, some bad or wrong reasons. Overall, we hope most people concluded it indeed was a parody.

Our submit to Slashdot concluded with "Is this real?" - sadly enough, Slashdot's editor wrote up a new text without any hints about this. We can't blame him, he maby was just in a hurry..

Nothing got hacked, it's just we got a previously used IP for this machine, so why not having some fun content on it? We apologize for any inconviences arised though! We didn't suspect it would be taken so serious. Some hints in the text proving this weren't read (talking about XML on a Server OS?), others were found but still taken serious. Please stop spreading this fake news, and if you know some sites who published it, please inform them to update their content. Thanks.

So, basically, Scuttlemonkey fucked up.

Re:Practical Joke

[stinerman]

Scuttlemonkey fucked up.

I wouldn't be so hard on him. It wasn't too obvious it was a hoax.

Re:Practical Joke

[weeboo0104]

Nothing GNU to see here, move along.

Way to go SCO

[DrXym]

I urge you to throw man years of effort on your version of Linux. I'm sure people will be FLOCKING to use it, especially as its based on the LATEST 2.5 kernel. It certainly won't be a miserable flop that opens you up to further litigation or drags you into bankruptcy any quicker. Oh no indeed.

SCO?

[OriginalArlen]

Oh Zarquon, haven't they collapsed yet?

The question is, is anyone listening?

[danratherfoe]

What a silly question, of course we are listening! This is the only operating system that can run Duke Nukem Forever.

Uni-Erlangen.De

[bmo]

First off, I made a mistake posting what I thought was openlinux.org's nslookup, because I typed in .com. Duh.

Anyway...

When one types in the dotted quad for the machine NEXT TO the "openlinux.org" machine, you wind up with...

The uni-erlangen.de OpenBSD mirror.

What? What what what?

http://131.188.40.91/ http://131.188.40.90/ -- the former "openlinux.org"

I could nmap the entire 255 machine IP block, but I think that people might object.

--
BMO

I think this shows they are liars

[Eric Coleman]

I'm not 100% on this, but I'm pretty sure that software released under the GPL requires you to distribute the source code if it is asked for. If SCO were to release a version of Linux with their so called proprietary code removed then it could be compared, not easily, to other distros to see what code they are claiming ownership of, since it would be missing in the GPL code. They're covering their asses by including "their" code because they won't have to identify it. This prevents anyone from rewriting the disputed sections and it prevents the community from disputing their claims of ownership. It's even possible that they're not allowed at this point to disclose such information because of some legal issues. IANAL.

Re:I think this shows they are liars

[NickFortune]

I'm not 100% on this, but I'm pretty sure that software released under the GPL requires you to distribute the source code if it is asked for.

right enough.

If SCO were to release a version of Linux with their so called proprietary code removed then it could be compared, not easily, to other distros to see what code they are claiming ownership of, since it would be missing in the GPL code.

mmm... the thing is, they already did that. They were releasing Caldera Linux (with Caldera devloped code, obviously) before, this whole kerfuffle started. Even odder, they continued to do so after they brought their lawsuit against IBM. SCO, of course challenge the validity of the GPL and say that an illegal licence should not bind them. However in the Real World, they've been oddly reticent to make that claim in court. That can't last long though: If IBM don't force them to it, Novell surely will.

Over on Groklaw PJ reckons that this release is most likely a hoax. I think I'm inclined to agree. I can't see anything SCO stand to gain from this, but loads of ways they could lose.

Re: Is anybody listening?

[rnturn]

Sure. Most people enjoy a good joke.

But then I'm not sure this is a good joke. If SCO really think they could pull something like this off, it's more pathetic than funny. I'd suggest that they give it up and start an online T-shirt business or something similar that could actually make them more money than continuing to try to convince people to buy their dinosaur of an operating system.

There's only one thing to say in response

[oldstrat]

SCO to Hell
Doing business with this "company" would be the computing equivalent of sleeping with Lorena Bobbitt.

Until I noticed the Category...

[Criceratops]

... well, I thought it was about vulcanism.

Was wondering how geologists knew where a new volcano was going to form... ah well.

Its a hoax.

[EQ]

YHBT. HAND.

HTH

The question is, is anyone listening?

[sm62704]

I'm sorry, what did you say?

who do they think would want it?

[sl4shd0rk]

Mysql?

are you threatening me?

[Anonymous Coward]

are you threatening me?

why don't they release SCO windows too?

Re:are you threatening me?

[chawly]

But they already released SCO Windows. Microsoft is their agent.

Is it freely downloadable?

[mh101]

Imagine the effect on our "friends" at SCO if every one of us downloaded this continually. I have plenty of spare bandwidth... count me in!

Just don't forget to delete whatever you download immediately. And by no means set up any torrents to help its spread.

Why Hoaxes Fail...

[scottsk]

Hoaxes are rarely stranger than the truth. If there was a red penny to be made, SCO probably WOULD release a new version of Caldera. The fact that their legal dept was suing someone over the GPL would probably not even be known to the marketing department who are presumeably still trying to sell products. Like the April's Fool Day when I ordered something at a fast-food place and the guy at the drive-thru said they were out of it. I'm so used to unbelieveable incompetence at these places (screwed up orders, out of what I ordered, our equipment doesn't work today, etc) that the fact that what he said was a hoax never occurred to me. To make a good hoax, it has to be fiction stranger than the truth, and that's difficult to come up with anymore.

Re:If SCO fell in the woods and no one was around.

[LMacG]

the Perfect Operating System

It could be SCO, Apple, Microsoft, or all the open-source developers in the world, but it would still be a POS.