Increased Linux Use With SCO's Defeat Predicted

twitter writes "The defeat of SCO's infamous copyright attack has Forbes wondering if a GNU/Linux boom is upon us. They discuss how this will benefit Novel, IBM, Chrysler, AutoZone and Red Hat. 'The SCO Group frightened potential business users away from Linux with lawsuits demanding billions in royalties. But the litigious company's claims were shot down in a ruling that will likely boost uptake of the operating system.'"

Comments

Forbes? Today, yes.

[Anonymous Coward]

Confirmation bias in action. Twitter's sources are only as reliable as their recent ability to reinforce his world view.

Although, to be fair, Dan Lyons was pretty damn close to a paid SCO shill at times.

Re:Forbes? Today, yes.

[ozmanjusri]

Dan Lyons was pretty damn close to a paid SCO shill at times.

I suspect he'll start talking about the 235 patents soon.

All that's changed is the venue - the same people are pushing the same FUD - "Linux is a legal minefield". Just look at the shill posts around any discussion of ODF or GPL3.

That's Microsoft's best direction of attack. they can't win on price or quality, so they need to scare people away.

Yes, because they are Forbes.

[twitter]

Is this the same company you have repeatedly accused of being "paid M$ shills"? And now they're right on the money?

They are hardly, "right on the money", but at least one reporter there has woken up and it's better late than never. My hope is that this represents yet another company that's defecting from the M$ monopoly. Their defection would be remarkable when there is so much M$ advertising money at stake. The stock prices reported are accurate facts, their predictions are interesting because they have their head in the big dumb company world, and their defection could be a sign of shifting alliances.

A gnu/linux boom because the SCO threat is gone would be a double win. Any boom is a win, but one that proves the SCO attack succeeded will be fuel for the next M$ anti-trust case. Delayed justice is not very good, but it's better than none.

Re:Yes, because they are Forbes.

[Anonymous Coward]

Summary of above:

One Forbes reporter now agrees with me. This reinforces my assessment of worldwide conspiracy theories.

Re:Yes, because they are Forbes.

[mrchaotica]

Any boom is a win, but one that proves the SCO attack succeeded will be fuel for the next M$ anti-trust case.

But in the meantime, it would also be confirmation to Microsoft that it's attacks are working, and thus encouragement to continue.

I do agree with you, though... seeing a usually pro-MS business publication being bullish on Linux really is something to celebrate. I can only hope that more (e.g. the WSJ) follow Forbes' lead.

Re:Yes, because they are Forbes.

[somersault]

You either work for Microsoft, or live under a rock....

lol

[thatskinnyguy]

*Companies formerly threatened by SCO peek out from their spider holes*

"Is it safe to use Linux now?", they say timidly.

Re:lol

[CaymanIslandCarpedie]

Does this mean 2008 will be the year of the Linux desktop? ;-)

Re:lol

[thatskinnyguy]

Is there a "+1 Obligatory" mod we could give this guy?

Re:lol

[Shano]

Ooh, I remember the year of the Linux desktop.

In fact, I seem to remember about 10 years of the Linux desktop, and not seeing a lot of Linux desktops.

Re:lol

[Alien Being]

M$ will just buy more pawns.

Re:lol

[thatskinnyguy]

Actually, M$ is one of the ones looking out from the spiderhole.

Re:lol

[Yvanhoe]

Yes, 2008 will be the year of the Linux desktop. Unfortunately, it will also be the year of the laptop...

Re:lol

[IdleTime]

Well, I have used Linux on the Desktop since 1995, so for me it is 12 years of Linux on the Desktop.

Re:lol

[spun]

The Linux Desktop: yesterday, today and tomorrow's technology of tomorrow!

Re:lol

[tsa]

Yep, that's so true it's sad. Poor Linux. Always the third runner-up.

Let's all not forget who bankrolled SCO

[Nanite]

A little company with a lot to protect in the PC market. 20 Mil is such a paltry sum though, they probably don't even remember making the donation.

Re:Let's all not forget who bankrolled SCO

[jdubchak]

Sun had as much to do with the "Bank rolling" as did M$. I find it interesting that the community isn't nearly as vitriolic with the former as they are with the latter.

Re:Let's all not forget who bankrolled SCO

[morgan_greywolf]

A little company with a lot to protect in the PC market. 20 Mil is such a paltry sum though, they probably don't even remember making the donation. Ding! That 'lil company in Washington has already abandoned SCO. It got what it wanted: FUD. Now its out making more FUD, claiming that Linux infringes 235 patents. They've used their FUD tactics and kickbacks and by planting their operatives to kill ODF in the standards community with OOXML.

SCO may have lost the battle, but it was already a victory for Microsoft no matter what happened. The war is far from over, but we'll win it by keeping on churning out our best software and leaving the FUD battles to the evangelists like Perens, ESR, RMS and others.

Here's the fact: Microsoft's actions prove that Linux and Free/Open Source Software scares it shitless!

Re:Let's all not forget who bankrolled SCO

[apodyopsis]

Exactly. SCO were cannon fodder for MS, nothing more.

Much the same as Novell and Linspire look to be setting themselves up to be...

Re:Let's all not forget who bankrolled SCO

[kimvette]

Now its out making more FUD, claiming that Linux infringes 235 patents.

If 235 legitinate patents were being infringed, Microsoft would be revealing specifically which ones are being infringed and how they are being infringed, if they were truly interested in protecting their "IP" rather than spinning FUD. It is obvious to all watching that all they care about is scare tactics and saber rattling.

Re:Let's all not forget who bankrolled SCO

[NickFortune]

Ding! That 'lil company in Washington has already abandoned SCO. It got what it wanted: FUD. Now its out making more FUD,

I think that they wanted much more than FUD. Ideally they wanted to consolidate most of the rights to Linux, and to as much free software as possible in corporate hands where it could be neutralised using the same techniques MS have used to crush any number of would be competitors. The fact that this aspect failed dismally doesn't mean it wasn't a hoped for outcome.

There was some hope among the anti-free software crowd that SCO might break the GPL in the courtroom. That too looks unlikely now, but it had to be on the objective list.

They also, I believe wanted to give IBM a poke in the eye for daring to market Linux, and this they did. It remains to be seen if IBM will go on to poke back after the dust settles.

And lastly, as you point out, there was FUD. This they got in copious amounts.

MS got pretty much a worst case outcome out of the SCO fiasco, but that doesn't mean they didn't set their sights much higher.

Re:Let's all not forget who bankrolled SCO

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not obvious to my father, an executive at a Fortune 50 company.

Re:Let's all not forget who bankrolled SCO

[Anonymous Coward]

OK. Qualifier:

It's obvious to anyone with an IQ over 70?

Re:Let's all not forget who bankrolled SCO

[morgan_greywolf]

OK. Qualifier:

It's obvious to anyone with an IQ over 70? But, he said his father was an executive at Fortune 50 company...oh wait, nevermind... I see your point.

Re:Let's all not forget who bankrolled SCO

[Anonymous Coward]

Sun bought that license with money from the settlement with Microsoft ($2 Billion as I recall) . I have often wondered if buying the license was needed to get Microsoft to settle without going to court, they might well have felt that the few millions to SCOG were worth the billions.

Won't change a thing

[Bertie]

Nobody believed them anyway.

Did they?

Re:Won't change a thing

[nine-times]

That's what I was thinking. Did anyone actually cease using Linux or put off Linux adoption because they were afraid of SCO? I wasn't aware that people were taking SCO's claims that seriously.

Re:Won't change a thing

[Vlad_the_Inhaler]

Even if they had been worried about the lawsuit, companies like Novell and Red Hat were prepared to cover their customers. I am not sure how much that was *worth* - if Linux had gone down the tubes then Red Hat and Novell would have gone down as well.

Re:Won't change a thing

[M. Baranczak]

Nobody believed them anyway. There's a sucker born every minute. And right this very moment, some of those suckers are sitting in their offices, making decisions on purchasing software.

Re:Won't change a thing

[Andy Dodd]

I can't provide details, but yes. I know of companies that have had a VERY anti-Linux (in terms of allowing its use) stance over the past few years and the SCO case was a big contributing factor.

Whether or not the "thou shalt not use Linux" contingent in those companies will change their tune with this news, I do not know. My guess is they'll find another excuse.

Re:Won't change a thing

[nine-times]

That sounds pretty retarded. Most IT staffs I've been a part of tend to be frustrated at their own inability to use Linux, either because of the lack of a specific application or technical inexperience with anything but Windows. I've never been at a company with an anti-Linux policy.

Re:Won't change a thing

[fritsd]

I've never actually read Forbes magazine, but I get the impression that the kind of clueless people who DO read it are, well, your boss.

Re:Won't change a thing

[rumblin'rabbit]

Our company is a huge Linux user, with clusters of Linux nodes used for massive parallel computation.

So how much effect did SCO's threats have on us?

Nothin. Even though a number of developers and administrators were aware of the SCO situation, I don't recall it even coming up in a meeting. It's likely that upper management was complety oblivious to SCO.

Was it irresponsible for us not to take it seriously? Probably not. Our line of work is riddled with risk from every direction. The SCO affair was just another risk, and not a very credible one at that.

Re:Won't change a thing

[D'Sphitz]

Judging by the way SCO's stock skyrocketed, i'd say a lot of people believed them.

Re:Won't change a thing

[Anonymous Coward]

Some did: just have a look at the SCOX value. The fall actually means some people were trusting SCO.

Re:Won't change a thing

[baggins2001]

Nobody believed them anyway
I think if you look at or watch the financial market you'll find out whether anybody believed it or not. And based on what I currently see there, nobody gave a rats ass, or they just forgot.
I've had more flak recently defending issues with changes in licensing, dropped projects, dropped support (MySQL[not that it was a big deal], dspam, sybase and php). Those are the things which will create real drum beats in the future.

Re:Won't change a thing

[ivan256]

It was actually a bit of a boon to the likes of RedHat and Novell.

I work on embedded linux for a living, and all of the customers I have done work for switched from a "roll-their-own" (usually based on an existing freely-available distribution) model for their embedded solution to buying from RedHat or SuSE. The impression that investors and decision makers got was that it was worth the per-unit fee to go through one of them just to avoid the legal hassles down the road.

Now, though, I'm already transitioning an embedded linux appliance from SuSE to Debian... The company doesn't want to pay $200+ to SuSE for every box they ship anymore.

Re:Won't change a thing

[Andy Dodd]

Your legal department is saner than that of the companies in question then.

Re:Won't change a thing

[turbidostato]

"Judging by the way SCO's stock skyrocketed, i'd say a lot of people believed them."

Not at all. Let's refactor it:

Judging by the way SCO's stock skyrocketed, I'd say a lot of people believed that a lot of people would believe it. Quite different, isn't it?

Balls of crystal

[Anonymous Coward]

I PREDICT...

The sun will rise tomorrow! Or maybe not, if it rains...

How is someone predicting something in any way "news"? Send the Amazing Randi after this charlatain! It's a certainty that Linux use will rise, even if the SCO thing didn't go away. And it makes us Linux lovers happy, but ya know, it ain't news 'til it happens.

Sheesh. Get off my lawn, you damn kids. And no, you can't have your (crystal) ball back.

-mcgrew

Meanwhile Off In The Real World

[Anonymous Coward]

Microsoft is killing off open document format legislation all over the US.

Microsoft is establishing themselves in China where all open source crowd assumed was going to easily go to Linux.

Apache has a year or so left before it is overtaken by Microsoft.

Even though it took an embarrassingly long time Microsoft has finally gotten a handle on viruses/spyware etc. to the point where no one is running screaming from their platform anymore.

So, yeah, high five open source community!

And as to SCO, they did their part and have long been forgotten by Microsoft as they move on to bigger and better weapons against Linux and open source software.

Re:Meanwhile Off In The Real World

[Vlad_the_Inhaler]

Wait until Darl McBride (?) or one of his inner circle publishes the inside story - how a well known PC software company bankrolled SCO's scorched earth attack on IBM and Linux. Ooops.

Re:Meanwhile Off In The Real World

[Anonymous Coward]

> Microsoft as they move on to bigger and better weapons

That is one of the problems with Microsoft. They regard this as a war or even a crusade and what they produce and say are weapons. The customers and users are the cannon fodder and bystanders are caught in the cross-fire.

In fact what is left in the marketplace is Microsoft, a handful of fortress IBMs and HPs, and Linux because MS has bombed and mined everyone else out of existence, or buried them after paying them off. Linux has survived because it had to evolve like the shrewlike mammals did when the dinosaurs were killing each other. MS is trying to kill off Linux but its old ways that killed off every other competitor don't work.

The only way to kill off Linux is for Microsoft to make better products that customers actually want rather than being thrust down their throats, and MS have never been able to do that.

Re:Meanwhile Off In The Real World

[dexomn]

Have you been talking to Mr. Cringely? =)

houston's ev1.net

[mwilliamson]

Didn't Houston's EV1.net decide early on to bend over and take it from SCO? I wonder if they can sue SCO for fraud now, or at least what they paid for "a SCO linux I.P. license". If everyone who paid for a Linux license would file suit against SCO, it may help shoot the dying beast in the head and put it out of its misery. (and provide amusement for the rest of us)

Re:houston's ev1.net

[websitebroke]

This of course, is assuming that there is any money left in this beast after Novell and IBM are done with it. I bet the nazgul pick the carcass clean.

Re:houston's ev1.net

[thatskinnyguy]

The company is worth peanuts as it is. The pending lawsuits should be enough to shrink the company's assets to nearly $0 after attorney fees.

Re:houston's ev1.net

[Oddscurity]

From what I understand they've prepaid their lawyers to the tune of $33M. I'm not sure where I read it, could be either here or Groklaw.

Re:houston's ev1.net

[gweihir]

The company is worth peanuts as it is. The pending lawsuits should be enough to shrink the company's assets to nearly $0 after attorney fees.

Actually it should be a huge negative sum. Remember that all these "license fees" now belong to Novell. SCO does not have a dime. I hope they cannot pay their scum lawyers.

Also, I seem to remember a Sec invstigation into stock fraud against the SCO management. Maybe Darl will go to prison after all...

Re:houston's ev1.net

[Locutus]

but Novell was never paid for these licenses. So, does this make them void/invalid and require new licenses from the company who really owns the product? If so, it would leave those fools who signed up with SCO to be the ones who fight over the carcass instead of making Novell do it.

What this would also be good at would be invalidating Microsoft's and Sun's licenses since those were worth something like $25 million combined and these were directly used to finance SCO's fight against Linux.

LoB

Re:houston's ev1.net

[gweihir]

but Novell was never paid for these licenses. So, does this make them void/invalid and require new licenses from the company who really owns the product? If so, it would leave those fools who signed up with SCO to be the ones who fight over the carcass instead of making Novell do it.

Good question. In any case SCO has lost the money. They either have to give it back or give it to Novell. My bet would be that they have to give it to Novell and Novell then has the choice of giving the money back or granting licenses. Another question would be whether the livense-selling by SCO was fraud to begin with.

Re:houston's ev1.net

[Anonymous Coward]

All your license fees are belong to Novell.

Re:houston's ev1.net

[teh_chrizzle]

it may help shoot the dying beast in the head and put it out of its misery.

sco's stock price is shit now that the four people still stupid enough to own SCO stock are bailing.

(and provide amusement for the rest of us)

hilarity ensues when they are delisted.

Finally.

[RandoX]

The year of the Linux Desktop.

Re:Finally.

[tiananmen tank man]

Desktop users were in fear of being sued for using linux?

Re:Finally.

[MBGMorden]

That "year of the Linux Desktop" saying always sounded odd to me. Always made me think of Babylon 5.

It was the year of fire, the year of destruction, the year we took back what was ours. It was the year of rebirth, the year of great sadness, the year of pain and a year of joy. It was a new age, it was the end of history, it was the year of Linux on the Desktop.

Sadly, I do think that we may be waiting until 2261 for that one to happen too.

FTA

[grub]

The SCO Group did not return a call seeking comment on Monday.

Maybe their phones were disconnected for non-payment?

Re:FTA

[shadowspar]

Either that, or there are no employees left there to answer them.

Re:FTA

[Captain Sarcastic]

Maybe their phones were disconnected for non-payment?

No, the problem was that they're in the process of moving.

Perhaps they're setting up shop in Lagos, Nigeria, so they can pay their creditors with $20,000,000 cashier's checks and ask them to send the change back to their post-office box.

Re:FTA

[j_l_cgull]

Maybe their phones were disconnected for non-payment?

I hear there is an Open Source IP telephony solution called Asterisk or something. That should work without any payment. As an added bonus, SCO can sue themselves for not writing themselves a $699 check.

Imagine the (recursive) fun ! Woohoo.

Re:FTA

[Trillan]

The actual conversation:

Forbes: Hi, we're looking for a comment on a story we're about to run.
SCO: I am the janitor.
Forbes: Can you get someone to call us back with a comment?
SCO: Okay, but for who?
Forbes: Well, who else is there?
SCO: Uh... they want to take the phone system now. Bye!

I missed the boat

[gr8_phk]

I read about the ruling over the weekend. It never occured to me to short SCOX on Monday even though I thought about it on past occasions. OTOH, if I did think of it I probably would have seen how low it was already and not done it.

Dumb Dumb Dumb. It was like free money.

Re:I missed the boat

[maroberts]

You probably couldn't have shorted it. There have to be shares available in order for a short position to be taken up.

Re:I missed the boat

[Anonymous Coward]

and someone has to believe that you are wrong and bet against you.

Re:I missed the boat

[SadButTrue]

he is correct. I work for a hedge fund with a real prime brokerage account and we cannot borrow it. If we cant get it, no chance an individual account can.

Re:I missed the boat

[ucblockhead]

I *did* short it...back in 2003, but sold in 2004. Made a chunk of cash doing so, too. I'd have made more cash if I'd kept those shares until today, but it took a long, long time to get there and so in the end, it would have only been a marginal investment had I kept it longer. Basically, the stock didn't move for three years as the only people holding onto it were hanging on for dear life, hoping for a miracle.

The investment community decided that the case had no merit in 2004. You can see that in the stock price. SCOX has been a shitty investment in either direction for years.

Re:I missed the boat

[Alpha830RulZ]

Generally it's not possible to short stocks that are below $5, at least through my broker (Schwab). As another poster noted, there have to be shares available, too, and I doubt that would have been the case.

Re:I missed the boat

[mutterc]

I dunno. The usual wisdom is that, by the time you could hear material news about a company, fire up your broker website and take action, everyone else has also done so, and so the stock's price already reflects that news.

Grrrr

[Alioth]

Please. The name of the company that makes things like Netware and did a deal with Microsoft is Novell, not Novel. It's not that hard to get right!

Re:Grrrr

[Waffle Iron]

Apparently it was hard to get right:

The name for the company Novell was suggested by George Canova's wife who mistakenly thought that "Novell" meant "new" in French. (In fact, the feminine singular of "new" in French is "nouvelle").

Re:Grrrr

[canuck57]

Maybe Microsoft knew this was coming and want to lure Novell into an agreement so Novell would not go after Microsoft for it's involvement as SCO crumbled. Sort of like, here we will give you an agreement to make money if you don't come after us. If I was running Novell, I would take a hard look at my Microsoft agreement and it's real value.

SCO was partially owned by Microsoft at one point, is this the fate of companies who embrace MS? Seems to be a pattern here.

IBM will not be bought off so easily. Let the wolves have a good feast of SCO remains. This hasn't ended yet.

I actually do remember when SCO was a good company, when they first released ODT with Ingress it was in it's prime. Too bad they got hooked up with legal extortionists and scared off any real technical talent they might have had. SCO RIP.

Reports of a Linux Boom

[jessecurry]

Reports of a Linux boom have been greatly exaggerated... it's been slowly picking up market share over time and will continue to do so... nothing sensational is going to happen... it's a good OS... it's getting better every day... as the OS is made "idiot-proof" all of the idiots will adopt. A great strategy would be to get linux in the elementary and middle schools, get 'em young.... keep 'em for life. It's an ellipses heavy tuesday.

Re:Reports of a Linux Boom

[east coast]

A great strategy would be to get linux in the elementary and middle schools, get 'em young.... keep 'em for life.

Yeah, that worked out great for Apple.

Apple was falling flat on it's face at the same time it was giving out free goods to public schools. The few that stuck with Apple in their times of need are now helping to drive the Apple market with their expendable income since they're finally growing up a bit and not spending every spare dime down at the local bar. Apple is having mild success with a younger crowd because of the iPod hipster factor but how long will that really continue? The iPod will help keep Apple afloat if they take a downturn in the desktop market but that has nothing to do with having their PCs in the schools.

The problem with Linux right now is software support. Pure and simple.

Re:Reports of a Linux Boom

[Locutus]

>The problem with Linux right now is software support. Pure and simple.

and what software for K-12 is not supported on Linux?

BTW, Apple did a pretty good job getting school kids familiar with its product. What happened was about a billion dollars in Microsoft marketing of FUD that Apple Mac was dead because Windows 95 made it obsolete. I was there and I had school teachers asking me about Windows PC's "because Apple was going out of business". There were no exploding Macs or anything like it, just millions and millions of Microsofts money going out to the press to spread the FUD. Apple survived by the skin of their teeth and even had to take money from Microsoft and agree to drop Netscape for a Mac version of MS Internet Explorer.

Linux and OSS are a perfect match for K-12. It's inexpensive, completely open for their learning experiences if that is what they want to do, it works. Atleast here in the US, school systems are constantly fighting for their budgets and floundering with expensive support of Microsoft Windows software and their hardware requirements.

LoB

Re:Reports of a Linux Boom

[east coast]

and what software for K-12 is not supported on Linux?

No, what I mean by this is that getting kids into Linux isn't nearly as important for Linux as what some good old software support from major vendors would be.

BTW, Apple did a pretty good job getting school kids familiar with its product. What happened was about a billion dollars in Microsoft marketing of FUD that Apple Mac was dead because Windows 95 made it obsolete. I was there and I had school teachers asking me about Windows PC's "because Apple was going out of business". There were no exploding Macs or anything like it, just millions and millions of Microsofts money going out to the press to spread the FUD. Apple survived by the skin of their teeth and even had to take money from Microsoft and agree to drop Netscape for a Mac version of MS Internet Explorer.

So MS putting Windows in the schools and putting money into advertising their product now counts as FUD? Apple was going down like the Titanic. I was there too and a bit older then you to know the business side of it all. Windows was the smart choice for school since school are about training kids, not bringing in one's own compu-political agenda. You don't train jet mechanics on old prop planes. If my kid were going to a school where Linux was being favored over Windows for the training of students then the ones at the top would have to make a really seriously good argument for me not to yank my kid from their classes.

Linux and OSS are a perfect match for K-12. It's inexpensive, completely open for their learning experiences if that is what they want to do, it works. At least here in the US, school systems are constantly fighting for their budgets and floundering with expensive support of Microsoft Windows software and their hardware requirements.

What difference does it make if it's open to K-12? Kids coding, if they even have a class that involves coding, aren't going to be able to do jack with a large open source project like Linux. Hell, I've seen whats been offered to most freshmen and sophomores at the state colleges and even then access to large OSS projects mean nothing to the coding neophyte. And any other open source argument involving Linux dies right there. There is OSS for Windows and Mac. Don't act like Linux and OSS are mutually exclusive.

Also, rarely do schools budgeting problems center around MS fees. If you're really that concerned have the schools cut the serious budget fat and don't skirt the subject with them. Turning away from high end corruption (and that's what it is) in schools by cutting funding for real educational materials is an atrocity in itself. Microsoft or not, your kids shouldn't have to suffer with their education because someone is using school funds for what are essentially private little projects, in most cases.

Re:Reports of a Linux Boom

[Locutus]

it appears you don't quite get what an education is since you believe that being educated on what buttons to click is more important than the concepts of clicking buttons. You would yank your kid from a school which uses Linux? That's just plain idiotic thinking and I'm not falling for it.

As far as diverting attention to other aspects of school budgets and financial waste goes, forget it also. I'm not out to fix other aspects of the school system, just get them from wasting money and resources on tools when there are commodity replacements in the open source market. If anything, I'd go after the poor understanding teachers have of what is a product name is and what a data file is. I get sick when I hear an educator exclaiming, "I'll send you a powerpoint on that."! But then again, it sounds like this is just how you want your kids taught. Not I, not I.

LoB

Re:Reports of a Linux Boom

[east coast]

it appears you don't quite get what an education is since you believe that being educated on what buttons to click is more important than the concepts of clicking buttons. You would yank your kid from a school which uses Linux? That's just plain idiotic thinking and I'm not falling for it.

Absolutely I would. I would probably take my kids out of most schools as it is given their corruption but aside from that...

If a school is willing to skimp on getting their students the proper educational materials then I would hold them suspect on their willingness to educate properly as well. If they're skimping on software with no other excuse than it being cheap it would tell me a great deal about the rest of their spending habits.

As far as diverting attention to other aspects of school budgets and financial waste goes, forget it also. I'm not out to fix other aspects of the school system, just get them from wasting money and resources on tools when there are commodity replacements in the open source market.

See that, you doubt me but when it comes down to your convictions of open source your suppose to be trusted? Honestly, from the aspect of education, does it matter if the OS your kid is running in K-12 is open source? Give me a good reason.

If anything, I'd go after the poor understanding teachers have of what is a product name is and what a data file is. I get sick when I hear an educator exclaiming, "I'll send you a powerpoint on that."! But then again, it sounds like this is just how you want your kids taught. Not I, not I.

Yeah, Lord forbid someone call it "a powerpoint" instead of "a ppt file". That's fantastic that you consider something as minor as that as being earthshaking but not teaching your children with the proper tools to carry off into their professional lives isn't as important. Your argument is either made up or you really need to go back and get a hold of what you just posted.

Basically you're saying: I'd rather have my kids learn on a platform that they will not likely use in their careers instead of having to worry about a teacher calling a PDF "an acrobat"? Who's harder to believe here? And do you honestly think that is going to change if the teacher starts using Linux? Come on now.

Re:Reports of a Linux Boom

[catman]

No - like Debian Edu, or K12LTSP. Schools save money, but more important, sysadmin teachers can go back to teaching and stop running around ghosting the PCs at least once a week. Besides, at the 11-12 level many of the kids are already familiar with Linux.

Re:Reports of a Linux Boom

[catman]

Given the speed of development, it's likely that the kids in this family will use in their careers something completely different from what's on their school and home computers today.

You don't really believe that not using Microsoft products is skimping on software, do you?

Honestly, from the aspect of education, does it matter if the OS your kid is running in K-12 is from Microsoft? Give me a good reason.

I care that the school accepts assignment submissions in more than just Microsoft's format,
I care that the school has taught my 10 year old granddaughter what a file is and how to download
and upload using the school server (the system used is Class Fronter). I care that they use open standards
that don't shut out students based on the OS they use on their home systems.

I wish that they didn't send any of my tax money to MS, though.

Re:Reports of a Linux Boom

[brutal1]

Linux HURTS SELF AGAIN! I'm using Sabayon 2.64, despite my preference for debian packaging because this X11 version lets me zoom around using [ctrl][alt][+]. I figured out the ~captcha only by reducing my 1280x800 screen to 640x400 and moving to that part of the screen. I've been using that zoom command for half a decade and absolutely consider every distro lacking that feature "broken". BSD seems ahead of 'us' in kernels, particularly swapping; where I'd complain about how we get swapping pages back to ram even later than Completely Fair Scheduler but swapping pages back to ram didn't make it into the main kernel yet. When I was on the BayLisa board I heard BSD users call 'us' "Linux Children" and they have a good point except they still make dumping their flavors onto my multi boot grub menu difficult. I'm stuck with Linux because the numerous drivers let me pay much less against the insane expenses of the modern Amiga.

Re:Reports of a Linux Boom

[east coast]

Given the speed of development, it's likely that the kids in this family will use in their careers something completely different from what's on their school and home computers today.

Uh, yeah, because kids graduating today aren't running the same basic GUI and file system that was in place when they entered 1st grade? Windows has maintained it user interface and this is yet another reason it's acceptable by so many. Not to say that others haven't done the same but Windows has both the market share and the stablity behind it.

You don't really believe that not using Microsoft products is skimping on software, do you?

For the OS and the Office suite? I sure do. Since any kind of coding class is going to be simple I'd accept that using one of the free compilers is as good as anything else since it is such a narrow focus.

Honestly, from the aspect of education, does it matter if the OS your kid is running in K-12 is from Microsoft? Give me a good reason.

As I have already said; it's the most likely OS they're going to run in their professional careers. I want kids taught on the tools of the times, not what's cheap or what's speculative.

I care that the school accepts assignment submissions in more than just Microsoft's format

MS Office can save in more then just the proprietary MS formats.

I care that the school has taught my 10 year old granddaughter what a file is and how to download and upload using the school server (the system used is Class Fronter).

You can upload with Windows just like anything else.

I care that they use open standards that don't shut out students based on the OS they use on their home systems.

Again, MS can do open standards just like any other. And this is about what the school buys, not what you run at home. You want to run Linux at home? have a blast. If it works for you that's great. But I don't want a school administrator deciding that in exchange for saving a bit of money (that will likely be wasted on school sports programs for no good reason) that they can short my kids the real world experiences of computing.

I wish that they didn't send any of my tax money to MS, though.

I want my tax money to be effective. Teaching Windows today is more effective than teaching any other OS as Windows is what the students will most likely use for the foreseeable future.

Re:Reports of a Linux Boom

[yuna49]

As I have already said; it's the most likely OS they're going to run in their professional careers. I want kids taught on the tools of the times, not what's cheap or what's speculative.

I want kids to be taught about functionality, not about a specific OS or set of programs. Honestly if someone who was taught how to format a paragraph in OpenOffice is incapable of doing the same thing in MS Office then the original instruction was poor. You may be right that everyone will still be looking at Windows and Office in ten more years, but by then Windows and Office may look only somewhat like what they do now. (Office 2007 already looks a lot different than previous incarnations.) Too many people's training in computing is pure rote learning -- highlight this, click that, etc. That sort of hideous instructional approach just helps to cement Microsoft's position in the computing infrastructure.

I want kids today to know that powerful software can cost nothing at all and be infinitely redistributable. I don't want kids today to think that every computing solution requires spending money when we all know that's just no longer true. Schools that continue to "train" kids in how to use Microsoft software rather than "teaching" them how to use a computer do their students a disservice.

Re:Reports of a Linux Boom

[east coast]

That sort of hideous instructional approach just helps to cement Microsoft's position in the computing infrastructure

Ah ha! So the truth is that you don't like it because it makes MS's products too familure to the student and at the same time say that if the student can't adapt to a new OS/app then they've been taught poorly? Can't you see how this flies in the face of your own logic?

Again, I would want my kids taught on what will be used. That's the bottom line. If you can make the argument against MS that being taught with MS products cements Microsoft's way of doing things into the students mind that's what I want. I want them to know the productivity software they're likely to use in the field.

want kids today to know that powerful software can cost nothing at all and be infinitely redistributable. I don't want kids today to think that every computing solution requires spending money when we all know that's just no longer true. Schools that continue to "train" kids in how to use Microsoft software rather than "teaching" them how to use a computer do their students a disservice.

Kids can know about all types of alternatives without having to be dumbed down to an environment that they'll likely never use. If they can be taught basic methodology on Linux they sure as hell can be taught the same on Windows and with the benefit of getting a richer understanding of the software they're most likely to use in the future.

That's enough for me to support it.

Re:Reports of a Linux Boom

[turing_m]

"If they can be taught basic methodology on Linux they sure as hell can be taught the same on Windows and with the benefit of getting a richer understanding of the software they're most likely to use in the future."

At school I had a BBC Micro environment, Archimedes, then Mac. At the same time, I was getting experience with the C64 and Dos. None of that prevented me from becoming a Windows power user.

And I don't want my kids dumbed down. And there is an advantage with Linux at the moment, because not only do they have to get their hands dirty to do a lot of complex things (which is highly instructive), there is a path to becoming even more adept because the source code of nearly everything is open. Even with the C64, it was basically LOAD "*",8,1. After you figured out the CLI, the average smart kid couldn't see the code of his favorite game if he wanted to. The most he could do is type out a pre-written program from a book, to produce some crappy ascii game. And probably get stuck with syntax errors.

These days a smart child could conceivably start his own distro, contribute with an open source project, or fork it himself. Kids have time to hack, and linux is more hacker friendly. If you have smart kids, programming skill is one of the best things that they can get because there is no industry with a lower capital hurdles than software.

If they grow up to be an admin, then they already are learning the tools of the job. I don't see MS taking over the server market, and I think they have no where to go but to cede market share to linux on the desktop.

Re:Reports of a Linux Boom

[yuna49]

Ah ha! So the truth is that you don't like it because it makes MS's products too familure to the student and at the same time say that if the student can't adapt to a new OS/app then they've been taught poorly? Can't you see how this flies in the face of your own logic?

No, not really. A lot of "instruction" in the use of computers assumes, like you, that everyone is/should be using Windows and Office. This assumed uniformity often reduces the level of instruction to "find option X in menu Y." That kind of instruction is useless once menu Y doesn't exist or has new options or is replaced by a ribbon.

My daughter is fifteen and has already used at least three or four versions of Windows, Fedora and Ubuntu. She's happy with Ubuntu. I'd bet she's a lot more capable of adapting to an uncertain computing future than someone who's been taught only how to work with Microsoft products. I know lots of teens who've been using computers since they were little and demonstrate no real fear with trying new software or new ways of thinking about computing. Some of them grew up with Windows, some with Macs, few if any with Linux. Yet I doubt any of them would be unable to use gaim or kopete to keep up with their friends on IM networks. I wonder if their teachers have the same flexibility....

Re:Reports of a Linux Boom

[east coast]

No, not really. A lot of "instruction" in the use of computers assumes, like you, that everyone is/should be using Windows and Office

Face facts, it's the majority today and shows no right signs of slowing.

This assumed uniformity often reduces the level of instruction to "find option X in menu Y." That kind of instruction is useless once menu Y doesn't exist or has new options or is replaced by a ribbon.

Actually, it seems that you're the only one who has assumed that.

My daughter is fifteen and has already used at least three or four versions of Windows, Fedora and Ubuntu. She's happy with Ubuntu. I'd bet she's a lot more capable of adapting to an uncertain computing future than someone who's been taught only how to work with Microsoft products.

You know, as much as that sounds fantastic the bottom line is that I can get an 8 year old to do that in a day. The question goes from "using" it to understanding it. In an educational environment we can't introduce kids to 3 different office suites beyond the basics and expect for them to still learn other subject matter. By going with the prevalent office suite of today we can show them that a spreadsheet can be more then simple cell formulas and show them when a spreadsheet is being used erroneously like a database. These concepts are much more important then showing them that there is more then one office suite. Just because they're only learning RDBM on a single product doesn't mean that the only thing they learn is where a function is on a menu. That's far more important to me then the compupolitics of open versus closed source.

I wonder if their teachers have the same flexibility....

Given the current classroom political correct nonsense and only having these kids attention for about 20 minutes a day? I doubt they could teach it and even if they could teach it (which is the important question, imho) they'd only ever scratch the surface. But hey, if you're happy with a public school graduate looking at you and shrugging when you mention a concept like mail merge feel free to beat kids over the head with open source and linux and closed source. Fuck, take up some of their time teaching them about BeOS and Solaris while you're at it. If it's all about choice and nothing about concept I guess the level of comprehension means nothing as long as they can drop names.

Re:Reports of a Linux Boom

[east coast]

And I don't want my kids dumbed down. And there is an advantage with Linux at the moment, because not only do they have to get their hands dirty to do a lot of complex things (which is highly instructive), there is a path to becoming even more adept because the source code of nearly everything is open.

Yeah, an open source they're likely to never see or care about let alone make some use of it. It's K-12. Show me the complex things they're going to do in a classroom environment while they're learning math, science, history and such on the side? Show me how many of these kids will really benefit from ever seeing any amount of code let alone the code to Linux.

As I said before I have witnessed what is being taught on the college level today to fledgling coders; the For Dummies books are more insightful. This kind of curriculum just isn't being taught in public schools.

If they grow up to be an admin, then they already are learning the tools of the job. I don't see MS taking over the server market, and I think they have no where to go but to cede market share to linux on the desktop.

So the 1 in 300 kids in your kids graduating class should take priority why? Not to mention that Linux does not have that much of the market share to nail the coffin on Windows just yet.

But in any case, if you want future admins learning on Linux because it has the current marketshare don't be a hypocrite and demand Linux on the desktop since it suffers much worse then Windows does on the server marketshare.

Who's "You"?

[Doc Ruby]

Is this the same company you have repeatedly accused of being "paid M$ shills"? And now they're right on the money?

Who has accused Forbes, twitter? Or are you calling out Slashdot? Slashdot publishes all kinds of stories from all kinds of people who walk up and post. They're often contradictory, depending on the perspective of the submitter. Slashdot isn't a newspaper with an editorial board that decides it knows what the world is like, what's happening. It's a public printing press staffed by its readers. It doesn't have an Op-Ed page or an official position on any subject. Except maybe that "Nerds Matter".

Yeah, its quality kind of sucks, its news is fairly unreliable. But Slashdot isn't a basis for making decisions, it's a conversation piece. Like a fake unicorn horn in a 400 year old glass case: not authentic, but fun to talk about. With the benefit of links to the stories elsewhere on the Web, for you to check for corroboration. But with the downside of snipey discussions like these, peopled by the mis/uninformed, the inarticulate and even saboteurs.

The pickin's are slim, but there's plenty of 'em. If you need to get 'em at Slashdot, take what you can get.

Re:Who's "You"?

[jedidiah]

"paid shill"?

I'm not sure even Microsoft has enough money for that sort of bribe.

What Forbes is is naturally aligned to the Robber Baron. It's a publication for Robber Barons or would be Robber Barons. So it has a certain natural bias and a general cluelessness about the actual technical details if they aren't in the areas of finance.

Forbes is like your CEO.

Forbes is simply what would happen if Bill Gates created a magazine.

Re:Who's "You"?

[Doc Ruby]

I agree with you 100% about the actual mechanism by which Forbes shills for MS.

But I note that I didn't say that Forbes is a paid shill. I merely quoted that sentence from a post which in turn quoted an original post which said that about Forbes. The post I quoted accused the OP of saying "paid shill" as if Forbes' status had consequence, though someone (the OP'er or Slashdot itself) has said that Forbes' status has no consequence. An accusation that someone was being contradictory.

My post said nothing about Forbes' status. I said only that the contradictions were irrelevant because of how Slashdot works.

In short, I think you replied to the wrong post.

Re:Who's "You"?

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, Forbes is fairly clueless in the financial world as well. It's the Inquirer of financial magazines.

Re:Who's "You"?

['nother poster]

That is assigning them WAYYYY too much credibility.

Re:Who's "You"?

[jedidiah]

Then what does that make Fortune and Money?

How much lower can you go from The Inquirer?

What's the opposite of FUD?

[Tatarize]

What's the opposite of FUD? -- SCO doesn't matter. The stupid as court let them drag their feet before determining what we determined in ten minutes... they were so totally full of crap that it wasn't even amusing.

Re:What's the opposite of FUD?

[something_wicked_thi]

I was thinking the same thing. We need another acronym. I vote for POO - Presumption, Overconfidence, and Overzealousness.

Re:What's the opposite of FUD?

[NickFortune]

The stupid as court let them drag their feet

The general feeling on Groklaw seemed to be that, while SCO and BSF undoubtedly dragged their feet as long as they could, Judge Kimball (and to a lesser extend IBM) were happy to give them enough rope, simply to stop SCO from finding grounds for an appeal, and kicking the whole sordid mess off afresh again in size months time.

As it is, because SCO were given every possible chance to make their case, they are going to find it very difficult to go running to a higher court wailing "it's not fa-a-air!"

And that, I think, has to be a good thing.

Re:What's the opposite of FUD?

[MightyMartian]

I simply cannot side with this optimistic appraisal of the SCO trials. A lot of time and money was wasted, when everyone knew SCO was spouting crap. They never provided any meaningful evidence, just a wildass claim about all those lines of code that ended up in Linux. A properly functioning court wouldn't let discovery go on for years, but would have expected that SCO would have had the evidence in hand before they ever bloody showed up. A properly functioning court would have proceeded with disbarment proceedings against SCO's lawyers, would have charged those who had come up with the source code claim with perjury and would have tipped the SEC to investigate McBride and his croneys with a pump and dump scheme. All in one day, mind you.

The SCO saga is as good an example of how faulty the courts really are, not some shining example of a effective and efficient legal system.

Re:What's the opposite of FUD?

[Xtravar]

Justice and efficiency are mutually exclusive.

Think about the extreme opposite: a judge being able to rule within 5 minutes on complete bias.

The same goes with our governmental system- totalitarianism vs democracy. Yeah, the totalitarian government may be more efficient... but definitely less just.

And yes, it has to be that way to some extent. Could they put in provisions to help these crazy court cases? Perhaps, but there would still be a level of inefficiency in order to make room for justice.

Re:What's the opposite of FUD?

[MightyMartian]

No one can tell me that it should have taken four years to determine that SCO was full of shit. Everyone knew that SCO was full of shit the minute they started making their claims. How can you possibly walk into a court room, demand restitution, without a solid claim to back you up? Why did it take a judge over three years to toss out SCO's "evidence", when their claims changed like some people change underwear?

Re:What's the opposite of FUD?

[ajs318]

Which is why I say: Lawyers in civil cases must not be allowed to demand payment as long as any avenue of appeal remains open. That way, neither side gains anything by stalling; a rich nuisance with a meritless claim but deep pockets can't run a poor schmuck with a watertight case out of money. (That's why we have the "all-in" bet in in no-limit poker. A chip leader with 7-2 off-suit can't squeeze you out of the game when you have A-A. Sure, he may still flop 7-2-2, but hey -- that's poker.) Then you just have to make sure to claim enough to pay your legal team off at the end. And both sets of lawyers will want to hurry things along; because as long as they're arguing, they won't be putting food on their tables.

Re:What's the opposite of FUD?

[NickFortune]

No one can tell me that it should have taken four years to determine that SCO was full of shit.

I'm not even going to try. But I do think that some things that are intuitively obvious can be the very devil to prove - ask any mathematician!

And most mathematicians don't have Boies, Schiller & Flexner filing counter claims on each and every lemma. I won't argue that the court system is perfect in the US, but I think this one worked out about right.

Re:What's the opposite of FUD?

[MightyMartian]

It wasn't a matter of "intuitively" obvious. OS experts said right from the beginning that SCO's claims were rubbish. Attempts were made early on to check the source code which demonstrated that there was nothing to SCO's claims about copyrighted source code getting into the Linux development tree. It's one thing if the defense had been "We don't think that could have happened" or "My gut instinct tells me", but there was a solid evidentiary basis to the statement that SCO was full of crap.

Re:What's the opposite of FUD?

[NickFortune]

It wasn't a matter of "intuitively" obvious. OS experts said right from the beginning that SCO's claims were rubbish.

Yes, they did. And other experts, let us not forget, testified the opposite. Now to an industry insider, it's fairly obvious that Brian Kernighan's opinion is going to carry more weight than Jeffery Leitzinger's does (at least when it comes to computing). The trouble is that the courts don't know that, and cannot assume that one side's witness is better than that of the other.

Look, I really don't want to fight with you about this. If you're arguing that the US legal system is broken because it allowed BSF to file a gazillion timewasting motions and counter motions, then I think you may well be right. If you're arguing that Judge Kimball is broken, having allowed things to drag on so long, than I think you're probably not.

In any case, I don't have any great emotional investment in the issue. I'm not a US citizen, whatever problems may exist, they're not mine to solve. I'm just reporting what I've gleaned by lurking on Groklaw for the duration.

Re:What's the opposite of FUD?

[heinousjay]

Everyone knew that SCO was full of shit the minute they started making their claims.

That's some extremely low values of everyone. For that matter, it's an awfully loose definition of the word "know" as well. Let's not get flaming nerds ranting wildly on Slashdot confused with the way the justice system works, please.

Re:What's the opposite of FUD?

[nomadic]

And both sets of lawyers will want to hurry things along; because as long as they're arguing, they won't be putting food on their tables.

This would be a bad idea. First of all lawyers are generally paid on a monthly basis as they do the work; very, very few law firms have the resources to wait until the end of every lawsuit before they can collect their money.

Secondly, a lawyer's job is to be an energetic advocate for their client. What you're saying here is that you should put the lawyer in a position where their own interests conflict with their client's. Your assumption is not that the lawyer will put their own interests first, but that this will be a good thing.

Thirdly, you're making the very common, but erroneous, slashdot argument that somehow lawyers themselves are the ones who overwhelmingly drive litigation. IAAL, and my firm doesn't go around looking for clients, they come here when they have a specific problem that they need help with. When a case is over you give a client their appeals options, and its their decision as to whether file the appeal.

Re:What's the opposite of FUD?

[JohnBailey]

What's the opposite of FUD? -- SCO doesn't matter. The stupid as court let them drag their feet before determining what we determined in ten minutes... they were so totally full of crap that it wasn't even amusing. Except that courts are sometimes exceptionally stupid. Especially when it comes to technological cases. So at some point, it could perhaps have gone either way, or at least appeared to from a biased column or an uninformed article in a business journal.
I'd agree that for anybody who actually looked into the case, there would have been less perception of risk, but how many non technical suits would do so. Far better in their mindset to go for a system that didn't have any potential risks associated.

Re:What's the opposite of FUD?

[Darby]

I'm not even going to try. But I do think that some things that are intuitively obvious can be the very devil to prove - ask any mathematician!

Notation: let |A| be the cardinality of set A and |B| be the cardinality of set B.
Theorem:
If |A|<=|B| and |B|<=|A| then |A|=|B|

Proof:
Nowhere near as easy as you'd think given how freaking obvious it is.

Re:What's the opposite of FUD?

[MightyMartian]

I'm not referring to Slashdot, or even to Groklaw (I think she's done some pretty amazing stuff, but I never mistook her or her site for reliable, unbiased sources of data). The fact was that some of the leading authorities on operating system development, and in particular, one of the main creators of the original Unix system, stated that it was crap. What kind of legal system doesn't call upon guys like Ritchie or Thompson? The whole thing was a goddamn circus, funded by Microsoft and Sun to produce FUD, and the legal system, rather than demanding up front the evidence, allowed SCO's lawyers to waste years. Even worse, the issue of ownership wasn't even established sufficiently to know if SCO's claims, if true, meant a goddamn thing at all.

Re:What's the opposite of FUD?

[MightyMartian]

So what's your solution to spurious lawsuits like SCO vs. IBM? This is a legitimate question. I'd love to know from your perspective if there is a workable solution, or if there is even a problem.

Re:What's the opposite of FUD?

[nomadic]

So what's your solution to spurious lawsuits like SCO vs. IBM? This is a legitimate question. I'd love to know from your perspective if there is a workable solution, or if there is even a problem.

I think the most frustrating parts of the legal system involve the U.S.'s incredibly loose discovery rules. Discovery can cost millions of dollars, last years, and usually result in very little material that is actually important to the litigation. So placing more limits on discovery would make civil lawsuits go a lot faster and more efficiently.

I also think we need a lot more judges. What people don't always seem to realize is that a lawsuit might last 5 years, but the actual work done by both sides in it might in all that time add up to a month or so. The more judges, the faster cases should go, and the faster spurious lawsuits will end. This of course would require more actual court space, and more juries, but I think in the end it would be worth the added expense.

Re:What's the opposite of FUD?

[heinousjay]

You make some good points, although they're somewhat orthogonal to the current setup of the legal system. Frankly, it's just not built to deal with technical issues on technical terms.

Re:What's the opposite of FUD?

[MightyMartian]

Certainly criminal courts are equipped to deal with forensics evidence, which is often quite technical in nature. Courts deal with all sorts of tax and financial scams, and these can be quite complex in nature, and the auditing of such scams can be quite involved and technical, and courts aren't always paralyzed for years at a time.

I just think the very idea that someone can even serve notice of pending litigation and not have the their case constructed beyond vague claims to be outrageous. SCO had next-to-nothing beyond a rather incredible (and many said incredulous) claim of their copyrighted source code ending up in another Unix-like operating system. The evidentiary nature of their case shifted over time, and the claims were always rather vague, clearly a moving target (for reasons I won't point at in this post). Why should a court's time be wasted with discovery of this nature? Why shouldn't this investigation have been done before IBM was served?

Particularly in the case of Linux, the kernel source code was freely available, so that SCO's programmers could have come up with a complete report outlining every incident of alleged copyright violations. In SCO's case it was, from the very get-go "We claim you've got stolen code we own in your kernel, so you prove you don't"? That sort of spurious argument ought to be grounds for immediate dismissal of the case. What sort of technical knowledge does it require to dismiss that kind of a suit?

I'm sorry, no one can tell me a functioning court system would ever let such a case spend an hour in a courtroom, let alone four years.

Re:What's the opposite of FUD?

[something_wicked_thi]

How so?

Given:

i. |A| <= |B|
ii. |B| <= |A|

1. Assume |A| != |B|
2. |A| > |B| or |A| < |B| by 1.
3. Case 1: Assume |A| > |B|
4. Contradiction by i.
5. Case 2: Assume |B| > |A|
6. Contradiction by ii.
7. false => |A| = |B|

Re:What's the opposite of FUD?

[NickFortune]

I'm not referring to Slashdot, or even to Groklaw (I think she's done some pretty amazing stuff, but I never mistook her or her site for reliable, unbiased sources of data).

If by "unbiased" you mean impartial, then no PJ isn't, and nor should she be. She founded Groklaw to help defend the Linux kernel from what she rightly saw as a predatory corporation. Impartiality would be a bit stupid under the circumstances.

If on the other hand you're trying to suggest that she deliberately misrepresents the facts then do please provide some specifics. About the legal details if you please - I'm not talking about her opinion pieces.

Evey Groklaw topic has a thread for corrections. The site strives to be accurate. If you don't think it is, I'd love to know why.

Re:What's the opposite of FUD?

[Darby]

How so?

Well, no offense, but simply because you don't actually know what any of those symbols mean.

Your "proof" would only work if we were restricting ourselves to *finite* sets. < and > do not mean what you think they do in this case.
|A|<=|B| *is defined* as "There exists a one to one function from A -> B".
These are cardinal numbers, not integers.
Stating it differently you could say that if there is a one to one function from A to B *and* there exists a one to one function from B to A, then there exists a bijection (one to one and onto) between the 2 sets.

You'll note that I said that it *seems* really freaking obvious, but it isn't.

Maybe

[jimstapleton]

As long as it isn't mine. Tried it several times since 2001 (as recently as June/July), still would rather use FreeBSD or Windows, but Linux does make many users happy, so as long as it keeps them happy, that's a good thing.

Re:Maybe

[fotbr]

Well said, and same situation here.

Re:Maybe

[MartinG]

FreeBSD and Windows are very different.

What are some examples of what they offer that Linux does not for your usage pattern?

Re:Maybe

[jimstapleton]

FreeBSD gives much more useful error information in my experience, and often tells me what command to type to most likely fix the problem. Add the handbook and general mailing list to that (Gentoo and Ubuntu web forums seem to be compareable in quality in my experience to the mailing list), and it's just a whole lot easier to fix than Linux if something goes wrong, in my experience.

Application installation in Window and BSD have always been much more painless than apt/ubuntu/rpm/up2date/yum. In both cases things tend to work a bit more. Actuall, they work a bit more in Windows (maybe 1 in 100 fail), in FreeBSD using ports, I have similar failure rates as in Linux, but the system just seems a lot easier to fix. Within a week of starting to use it, I could fix most build errors fairly quickly (almost always updating the ports tree to a different date, or a dependancy change command), and a bad dependancy or broken port would fix. I didn't have that ease when I was in Linux, even though the amount of time I've spent aministrating/using FreeBSD has only just recently caught up with Linux.

Windows Updates has never broken my system, Ubuntu's update system has twice. The second time I was actually able to fix it with the help from the message board, but the error message wasn't terribly useful for solving the problem, until I ran into people with the same trouble.

Finally, Red Hat and Ubuntu performance doesn't seem any better than Windows in single taks, and Ubuntu somehow managed to be worse in multitasking than Windows on my notebook (Core Solo 1.63 Ghz, 512MB memory, 60GB 5400RPM hard drive). This is with KUbuntu, which was a bit more responsive than Ubuntu (Gnome) on my notebook for some reason. For performance, FreeBSD lives them in the dust across the board.

Meet new FUD, same as old FUD

[AHuxley]

In Capitalist West you note SCO Linux FUD expired.
In Soviet Redmond Novell Linux FUD wired to you.

SCO's products enough reason to use Linux

[shadowspar]

I think that the writing was on the wall for SCO long, long before this lawsuit got under way. The company I was working at back in 2000 had a number of boxes running SCO, presumably because they needed a *nix that ran on Intel x86 hardware. I remember looking through the godawful tangle of symlinks that was SCO's /etc directory and wondering why anybody would pay for it when the Debian build on my desktop seemed a lot more robust and did a better job of meeting my needs, for free. Seems I wasn't the only person thinking this.

Re:SCO's products enough reason to use Linux

[jmyers]

SCO Xenix was a great product for its time, I used it from 1985 until about 1990
SCO Unix was a great product for its time, I used it from about 1990-1995.
SCO Open Desktop/Open Server or whatever they called it was the horrible aberration with all the symbolic links, etc. By the time this product came out the other Intel Unixes (Linux, etc) had caught up to SCO. SCO Unix as a viable product ended in about 96, the only thing that kept them alive after that was a loyal VAR channel (developed when the product was the best Unix available for Intel).

Anyone using SCO in 2000 was on a dead end street.

Re:SCO's products enough reason to use Linux

[simong]

I was contracted to build a SCO UnixWare box in about 1998 as a mail server. It was so frustrating to configure with virtual hosts (impossible, as it later turned out), and support was non-existent on the web and only available on the presentation of a credit card on the phone that I advised the client to bin it and use Red Hat. It looks like I wasn't alone either.

Re:SCO's products enough reason to use Linux

[sparkz]

The symlinks were pretty nasty, but there was a certain logic behind the setup. It was disorienting if you're an expert on other UNIX systems and new to SCO OpenServer, but not actually bad, just different, IMHO. The product itself was okay; I was the SCO "expert" for (ironically enough) an IBM reseller I worked for in '97, and - amongst the short list of UNIX-type systems you could run on x86 hardware, SCO was pretty good, with better driver support than just about anything else (though that would have been about the time that Linux caught up and started to overtake). I even did some work on somebody's SCO OpenServer 5 box in January of this year!

Re:SCO's products enough reason to use Linux

[Greyfox]

That overpriced steaming turd of an operating system did't change appreciably from the time I first had to use it in 1989 to the last time I looked at it in 2000. Slakware 1.3 was a better UNIX than SCO ever was. I hope that all the proprietary vendors that locked in on SCO and forced me to use it all now go bankrupt. Then die. Of cancer. In the ass. I'm looking at YOU, Intermec...

Sorry, just had to get that off my chest...

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Official response from SCO

[Swampash]

The company is obviously disappointed with the ruling issued last Friday. However, the court clearly determined that SCO owns the copyrights to the technology developed or derived by SCO after Novell transferred the assets to SCO in 1995. This includes the new development in all subsequent versions of UnixWare up through the most current release of UnixWare and substantial portions of SCO UnixWare Gemini 64. Also, SCO owns the exclusive, worldwide license to use the UnixWare trademark, now owned by The Open Group. SCO's ownership of OpenServer and its Mobile Server platforms were not challenged and remain intact. These SCO platforms continue to drive enterprises large and small and our rapidly developing mobile business is being well received in the marketplace.

What's more, the court did not dismiss our claims against Novell regarding the non compete provisions of the 1995 Technology License Agreement relating to Novell's distribution of Linux to the extent implicated by the technology developed by SCO after 1995. Those issues remain to be litigated.

Although the district judge ruled in Novell's favor on important issues, the case has not yet been fully vetted by the legal system and we will continue to explore our options with respect to how we move forward from here.

http://www.sco.com/company/news/statement.html

Re:Official response from SCO

[Salo2112]

That sure is a lot of verbiage to say "Novell put sand in the KY and widened our hineys."

Re:Official response from SCO

[Technician]

However, the court clearly determined that SCO owns the copyrights to the technology developed or derived by SCO after Novell transferred the assets to SCO in 1995.

Instead of the word transferred which implies ownership, use licensed. The SCO group is still confusing the facts by implying that ownership transferred. Remember, the royalty payments are badly in default with no liquid assets. Novell may soon own SCO code. Don't count on SCO making lots of money with this asset. They will likely forfet it to Novell.

Re:Official response from SCO

[gkhan1]

Oh, the pain! My god it hurts! Thank you for that mental image.

The rise of the commodty software

[downix]

I wonder if the rise in popularity of such community-developed software will almost make software into a commodity, generally available for all. Perhaps Marx was not wrong in his assertion that a group dynamic can be as productive as any other, but it took a truely equalizing force, such as the internet, to put it to the true test.

Joe User's association

[Anonymous Coward]

1. SCO doesn't own Unix
2. Novell does
3. Microsoft has an agreement with Novell
4. Therefore...
5. ...

Insert at #5 any meaningful answer that will prevent users from thinking that MS owns, or could claim to own, even the minimal part of Unix.

Re:Joe User's association

[flyingfsck]

Well, long ago, Microsoft wrote a Unix system called Xenix. They sold it to SCO, who renamed it Netware.

Re:Joe User's association

[Anonymous Coward]

5. Profit

Re:Joe User's association

[Anonymous Coward]

Novell don't own Unix.
If I remember correctly, Novell and *nix had not much in common before suse...
Novell was just a reseller (windows reseller), so i dubt we can say "Neovell owns *nix...

Re:Joe User's association

[Anonymous Coward]

You appear to have missed:

3a) There is NO unix code in Linux.

but carry on spreading the FUD...its amusing for the moment.

Re:Joe User's association

[Anonymous Coward]

oh I forgot...the code in question is already under the GPL anyway (since Novell distributes SuSE).

SCO continues to thrash around.

[arkham6]

Statement from SCO Regarding Recent Court Ruling

The company is obviously disappointed with the ruling issued last Friday. However, the court clearly determined that SCO owns the copyrights to the technology developed or derived by SCO after Novell transferred the assets to SCO in 1995. This includes the new development in all subsequent versions of UnixWare up through the most current release of UnixWare and substantial portions of SCO UnixWare Gemini 64. Also, SCO owns the exclusive, worldwide license to use the UnixWare trademark, now owned by The Open Group. SCO's ownership of OpenServer and its Mobile Server platforms were not challenged and remain intact. These SCO platforms continue to drive enterprises large and small and our rapidly developing mobile business is being well received in the marketplace.

What's more, the court did not dismiss our claims against Novell regarding the non compete provisions of the 1995 Technology License Agreement relating to Novell's distribution of Linux to the extent implicated by the technology developed by SCO after 1995. Those issues remain to be litigated.

Although the district judge ruled in Novell's favor on important issues, the case has not yet been fully vetted by the legal system and we will continue to explore our options with respect to how we move forward from here.

http://www.sco.com/company/news/statement.html

Re:SCO continues to thrash around.

[The Analog Kid]

It doesn't matter. With a stock price of $0.40 and still falling (as of 9:49 AM EST) they'll soon be delisted from the Nasdaq and will go bust. No one believes their story anymore (like they shouldn't have in the first place) and no one really cares about them anymore.

Re:SCO continues to thrash around.

[Anonymous Coward]

But good sir knight, you have no arms and no legs.

Tis only a flesh wound.

What are you going to do, bleed on me?

No more sock puppets....

[Jerry]

It seems Microsoft will have to either sue or shut up.

They can't continue making public claims and not mitigate "damages" by pointing to a culprit and specifying THE EXACT lines of their code which they believe is in Linux. That will lead, of course, to the issue of the validity of their IP claims since most suffer severely from prior art.

Re:No more sock puppets....

[KarmaMB84]

Microsoft isn't claiming code was stolen. Microsoft is claiming patents are being violated. You can violate a patent without the plaintiff even knowing where the code that's violating it is located as long as they can show it's doing what they patented.

Not so fast my friend

[ICLKennyG]

So this is what was keeping Linux market share from increasing? I thought it was that most people were too used to windows and not willing to learn a new operating system. Thanks for clearing that up. Can we please get a bit of perspective on this. Linux is doomed to a fringe market share unless something extremely bad happens from Microsoft... yes even worse than Vista. This suit was not hindering all that many people from installing Linux. I know here at work we were running it on our servers, with nothing but mild amusement every time one of these stories came down. Linux will primarily be run in the server space with fringe desktop user space for the foreseeable future. Those who's management is in bed with Microsoft for what ever reason will continue to run Windows Server in their servers. Those who hate M$ and don't have any problems with some of the unsupported functionality will run Linux. This suit changes nothing.

Re:Not so fast my friend

[kebes]

So this is what was keeping Linux market share from increasing? I thought it was that most people were too used to windows and not willing to learn a new operating system.

Well, such things are rarely due to a single issue. The fact that most people are comfortable with MS Windows (and generally dislike change or learning new things) is a huge roadblock to widespread acceptance of Linux, to be sure. However, in addition to this, the trepidation of many companies regarding the legal status of Linux kept them from considering Linux as a viable business option. (Like it or not, the FUD works on some companies.) Now that Linux has been shown to be: (a) non-infringing, and (b) backed by stable, powerful companies (Novell, IBM, etc.), this makes it a much more reasonable option for businesses. So while this court case may not quadruple Linux usage overnight, it is certainly a powerful step in that direction.

This suit was not hindering all that many people from installing Linux. I know here at work we were running it on our servers, with nothing but mild amusement every time one of these stories came down.

I'm glad that your company did not buy into the FUD. Not all companies are as knowledgeable about Linux, FOSS, and the associated legalities.

This suit changes nothing.

So you say. Yet, Forbes at least appears to be of the opinion that this does make a difference, so to the extent that Forbes is able to correctly analyze the business sector, or to the extent that businesses value Forbes' opinion, this will make a difference. Now, you or I may not care what Forbes has to say about technology: we already have well-formed opinions. However a vast number of companies (or managers, rather) do not care about such details. For some of them, an article in Forbes will make them take notice far more than the recommendation of their own IT department.

My point is: like it or not, public perceptions do alter the adoption of technology. This means that lawsuits (even if baseless) and media attention (even if belated) can and do affect adoption.

Re:Not so fast my friend

[LingNoi]

Those who hate M$ and don't have any problems with some of the unsupported functionality will run Linux.

See my point! They don't even have to spread their own FUD anymore!

Why do you feel you need to draw a line in the sand. Grow up.

Re:Not so fast my friend

[catman]

Ah, Forbes, the fount of IT knowledge. "IBM, which failed in its attempt to market a proprietary operating system of its own, ..." Last I looked, IBM had several proprietary operating systems :-)

Re:Not so fast my friend

[Anonymous Coward]

So this is what was keeping Linux market share from increasing?
This has been one of the contributing factors.

I consult for businesses, and in my perception they have three different uses for Linux:

1. As corporate workstations. Linux cannot enter this market unless there is a viable groupware client-server combination here. Exchange is one of the players here (but by no means the biggest; I'd say it is Lotus).
2. As corporate intranet servers. Linux can make headway here.
3. As Internet-facing, e-Commerce or otherwise servers. While we all ridicule PHP, JSP is the dominant platform here and Java's platform-independence actually helps Linux in this market.

Where Linux is going to gain is in (2) above. There are several thousands of vendors at the moment who sell their products to enterprises with W2k3+MSSQL at the moment; their prices will drop (and hence sales will increase) by going Linux+Postgres in this market. There is quite some movement; several ERP, CRM and other vendors have started supporting Linux (albeit enterprise-class, like RHEL or SLES) and the numbers are only going to increase.

Re:Not so fast my friend

[kwabbles]

True.

Problem #1 is that people are comfortable with their operating system, and haven't experienced anything different, and don't care to.

Linux has typically only gained ground where Microsoft has lost it. When corps do chose to run foss - they do it primarily because:

1. They are staffed with IT that hates Microsoft products, or consult with staff that hates Microsoft products. (Because most conultants/techs will say "we like both Microsoft and foss, and they cooperate well" on the public side, but inside the IT dept after work is over - the techs are sitting around bashing Gates and Crew. Come on - you all know it, those of you in that group.)
2. They realize how insecure Microsoft products are.
3. They realize how hardware inefficient Microsoft products are.
4. They are fed up with licensing.
5. They are non-profit or educational and try to support coding research / other non-profit causes.
6. They realize they have no true control and customization of their system.

These big headlines lately, however, are being read by the MBA's as we chat about this.

An injured animal

[Skapare]

An injured animal might bite back even though it is doomed. Time to put it out of its misery.

Forbes right on top of last week

[HangingChad]

The mouthpiece of conventional wisdom. I'm been seeing more interest in Linux stemming from the progress in Ubuntu development than anything.

I never got the impression that anyone choosing Windows over Linux was doing so because of the SCO case. It may have been just one more excuse but I can't think of a time it was the primary reason a customer picked .NET over a LAMP stack. YMMV, of course.

I believe we will see more interest in Linux, mainly because interest was already picking up, not because of this ruling. And that includes Linux on the desktop. Again, mainly because it makes a nice desktop, not because of this case.

If Microsoft loses share in the server or desktop market they've got no one to blame but themselves. Vista was a giant FUM-BLE at a time they really needed to hit one out of the park. If you don't mind me mixing sports metaphors. ;) But the big problems aren't related to Vista. Byzantine license requirements, ever escalating fees, product activation, DRM, back-stabbing EULA's...those problems will continue to haunt Microsoft.

Re:Forbes right on top of last week

[east coast]

If Microsoft loses share in the server or desktop market they've got no one to blame but themselves. Vista was a giant FUM-BLE at a time they really needed to hit one out of the park. If you don't mind me mixing sports metaphors. ;) But the big problems aren't related to Vista. Byzantine license requirements, ever escalating fees, product activation, DRM, back-stabbing EULA's...those problems will continue to haunt Microsoft.

This is one of my big problems with the Linux community: You guys keep waiting for MS to fuck up.

Give me a reason to get rid of them first! Where is the software support, for one?

It actually makes me feel stand-offish about doing anything more with Linux knowing that they (as in the community) are waiting for someone else to fail enough to drive business their way instead of succeeding enough in their own right to give me a reason to look their way. Basing the value of your product on a competitors failures doesn't make me feel too confident. Endless stories of a new Linux revolution while the marketshare hardly creeps up doesn't make me feel too confident. The fact that major apps and games publishers are still taking a wait-and-see attitude towards Linux doesn't make me feel to confident.

For as much trash talk I hear about Vista around here I'm not seeing too much of it on the streets. The handful of Vista adopters I know don't seem to be having such a hard time with it and it seems that the situation is only getting better for Vista. And these guys aren't geeks, mostly. It's the fabled Joe Sixpacks I know who are adopting Vista. The geeks I know are sticking to XP. Even the biggest Linux advocate I know (whom I also respect his opinion) is running XP on his laptop and his main home desktop. As far as Linux goes he's still little more then a hobbyist. After talks with him I don't think he's going to switch to Linux as his main any time soon.

Give us a reason to switch. Don't wait for MS to file for Chapter 11. It's not going to happen anytime soon. As long as the Linux community and software publishers don't step up to the plate I don't think I'm going to see a time where I am forced to switch out of desperation.

So if the big plan in the community is to wait for the old guard to be weak, sick and feeble before they make their attack I'm afraid you guys are going to be hanging out in the bushes for a long long time. And no, talk of another wooden rabbit isn't going to do much to sway me. But I'll keep an eye open because it is mildly amusing.

Re:Forbes right on top of last week

[Lumpy]

Byzantine license requirements, ever escalating fees, product activation, DRM, back-stabbing EULA's...those problems will continue to haunt Microsoft.

All corporations spiral into blandness as soon as the guy that built it and kept telling everyone what to do leave. microsoft is ran by Bean counters now, nothing is important to microsoft other than profits. The men making the decisions are making them based on profits and not technology or innovation. This is why Microsoft is starting it's spiral into blandness, why the phone companies and cellular companies are more of jokes than leaders, and the leaders are the young upstarts.

Basically , fire all the lawyers and accountants and get people with vision and the balls to do something innovative in there. But that will never happen, innovation is dead as soon as the bean counters take hold in a company.

Re:Forbes right on top of last week

[YoungHack]

> I never got the impression that anyone choosing Windows over Linux was doing so because of the SCO case.

This happened at my workplace. Of course the manager that bought into all of the FUD was an idiot and has since moved on to some other suckers. Once he left, Linux started to pick up much faster for us.

For us, that means the ruling will cause no change. Wherever that manager works now, however, it could make a difference.

Re:Forbes right on top of last week

[kebes]

Where is the software support, for one?

Was that rhetorical? Seems like you can get Linux software support from IBM, Red Hat, Novell, Canonical and many others. This is in addition to the extensive free, community support, of course. The fact that you can actually "shop around" for your support when considering Linux is actually a huge advantage of FOSS over proprietary solutions (where typically you are stuck with a single vendor for support).

You guys keep waiting for MS to fuck up. Give me a reason to get rid of them first!

On that point I of course agree with you. FOSS should be striving to be better than anything else... not hoping that the competition stagnates. Yet it's important to see that the community is, in fact, doing just that... and has been the whole time. Yes, plenty of people hope for MS (or whoever) to "drop the ball" so that FOSS gains visibility. But the people actually doing the designing and coding are very much focused on making the best product possible. This is why, for many tasks, Linux is by far superior to the competition. This is why many of us actually prefer to use Linux on the desktop.

There are innumerable examples of FOSS and Linux being better than the equivalent proprietary solution. If you have not identified any examples where FOSS is beating proprietary, then you really have not investigated free software very deeply, and I recommend you give it further analysis.

Linux has already "won" in many different domains... the fact that it continues to strive to "win" in other domains (e.g. commodity desktop usage) just shows that the community isn't content to stagnate: they want to keep evolving the software into something better and better.

Re:Forbes right on top of last week

[LingNoi]

New flash..

Linux isn't a company. There are over 12,000 programs in Ubuntu (as an example). That is over 12,000 programmers.

Your assumption that everyone is waiting for Microsoft to die is such a windows user point of view. Linux users that only use Linux never even THINK of Microsoft, its out of sight, its out of mind. The only time it ever comes up is when Microsoft start spewing BS about patents and that is it.

Why do you need a reason to switch? If you want to try it out then just do it! You can download a vmware image, you can boot up on a CD. Its not like you're screwing up you life by trying something different.

Re:Forbes right on top of last week

[jedidiah]

Linux has already made itself superior to Windows in a number of ways. No one is 'resting on their laurels' or 'waiting for microsoft to screw up'. Linux developers continue to do their thing, occassionally managing to beat Microsoft at it's own game of "innovation" (which usually just means ripping off Apple again).

          If there's a reasonably cool idea out there in some product that represents genuine innovation or a level of progress above and beyond Linux/Windows/MacOS, then some Linux developer is working on a version (in parallel or as a clone).

          Based purely on quality and features, Microsoft lost that battle a long time ago and never really tried.

          DOS and Windows has always been about "compatability".

Re:Forbes right on top of last week

[xhrit]

Please do not mistake one slashdot poster for the entire Linux community. Do you really think OSS developers care who uses their software? Most just want to use good programs (and therefore have to write it themselves.)

Re:Forbes right on top of last week

[east coast]

Please do not mistake one slashdot poster for the entire Linux community

One slashdot poster? Come on now. Don't be so biased and act like you can't see the same exact thing I do. The vast majority of Linux users on Slashdot beat the same drum as the GP. Take a look around sometime at the stories and you'll see it plainly. Anytime a Linux article is up the response is, at best, lukewarm with mostly in-fighting and MS bashing and when the article is a blatant MS flamefest the replies are mostly that "this is the big chance we have been waiting for" and MS bashing. If the Linux community is so focused on their corner of computing that they don't have time to worry about MS where do all these posts come from?

Granted, the developers may feel different but there are certainly a ton of mouthpieces here that are of the "If MS fails, we will get ahead. It's MS that holds us back" mentality.

And stop and think about it: These are the people Joe Sixpack is most likely to get introduced to Linux by. Some of them sound like freaking cult members with their rhetoric. (Not that certain cults are a bad thing, mind you. I'a I'a!)

Re:Forbes right on top of last week

[east coast]

Linux users that only use Linux never even THINK of Microsoft, its out of sight, its out of mind.

This is such a load of bullshit. Check out the threads sometime, my man. Go find a story that is only about Linux and go through the thread and see how many times people defend their choices of Linux by dumping on MS. I've been around here for a long time and I know the story.

This is a Linux story right here and what are you debating? Microsoft!

There was a story not too long ago about Linux vs MacOS. Half the postings were MS bashes!

Why do you need a reason to switch?

You're right. I don't. I don't plan on switching. The software support just isn't there. But I am addressing the big ideals of "this is the year for Linux on the desktop" type of hype. That coupled with posters like the GP trying to calculate how MS screw ups will mean big gains for Linux. I was offering up the idea of "Hey, instead of waiting for MS to screw up to gain more users why not give users a reason to leave MS". If you don't know what I'm saying by this there isn't much I can do to explain it further.

If you want to try it out then just do it! You can download a vmware image, you can boot up on a CD. Its not like you're screwing up you life by trying something different.

I do have a Linux VM. I never said I didn't try it or that I've never used it. Granted, I only keep it now just in case someone brings up something about Linux and I want to investigate. I don't use it on a real productive level. I guess you really just aren't getting the point of what I'm trying to say.

Re:Forbes right on top of last week

[jon_anderson_ca]

Vista was a giant FUM-BLE at a time they really needed to hit one out of the park. If you don't mind me mixing sports metaphors. ;)

I'm sorry, could you translate that into a car analogy for me? :)

Re:Forbes right on top of last week

[moeinvt]

If you buy commodity PCs with OEM copies of Windows, and/or you have an installed Windows base that meets your needs, you probably don't have a compelling reason to switch. Microsoft has some good products that are easy to use and meet the requirements of most computer users. Some possible advantages of Linux are

Cost:
If you put together your own machines and compare the retail cost of Windows and MS software to Linux and FOSS, Linux might look quite attractive.

Configurability:
One thing I like about Linux is that it can be really fine tuned to the user's preferences. I can pretty much adapt my system to have the exact look and feel that I want. Some people like the Gnome/KDE look. I still prefer the old Motif/X-Windows environment, and with Linux, I can consistently create it.

Reliability:
I've currently got 2 Linux boxes running, and they have been up for 61 days and 75 days respectively running everything from basic utilities to heavy duty CAD software. These boxes are 2+ years old and I don't remember either of them crashing and forcing me to reboot. In my experience, you just don't get that with Windows.

Security:
You obviously need some special expertise for "real" security, but it's nice to know that with Linux, you're immune from the most common viruses, malware and trojans. Putting an unsecured Windows box on the Internet these days is like throwing a baby into the shark tank.

Principles:
I think that a lot of the abject hatred you see for MS is due to their past, and probably current business practices. For instance, their "MS-only" policy which forced computer makers into an all-Microsoft or no-Microsoft decision is one of the most hideous abuses of market dominance in contemporary industry. That single act poisoned the computing and software world and curtailed innovation and competition for the indefinite future. Yet they never paid for this crime. Buying MS products, either retail or OEM is a tacit endorsement of their behavior.

Re:Forbes right on top of last week

[Alpha830RulZ]

For as much trash talk I hear about Vista around here I'm not seeing too much of it on the streets. The handful of Vista adopters I know don't seem to be having such a hard time with it and it seems that the situation is only getting better for Vista.

I dunno. A good friend of mine described Vista as making a Core 2 Duo about as fast as a P3 with XP. He won't install it on his parents' computer yet. Oh yeah, he works at MSFT, in one of the OS teams. He recommends XP still. Have we heard that one before?

Re:Forbes right on top of last week

[Dr. Manhattan]

This is one of my big problems with the Linux community: You guys keep waiting for MS to fuck up.

Um... not exactly. Linux has, fair and square, won a major (and growing) chunk of the server business, against competition not only from Microsoft but other Unix vendors. Linux has also grabbed a significant chunk of the embedded business, and aside from PDAs Microsoft hasn't done terribly well there. Linux is pretty much the dominant platform for high-end (and a lot of medium-end) scientific computing - MS wants to compete there, but none of their efforts have gained any traction that I'm aware of. Thanks to IBM, Linux is even doing well in mainframes.

Microsoft makes money in only about three areas - desktop OS, Office, and servers. Everything else is pretty much a loss leader from what I've seen. MS has to work hard for server dollars, but the real cash cows are desktop and office. That's by far their biggest cash source, and it reflects monopoly pricing.

Busting into that market is tough. When dealing with an effective monopoly, to an extent you do have to capitalize on the mistakes of the competition. But you have to have a good product, too, and only in the last few years have distributions really been focusing on that. And they've done very well.

I switched my parents to Ubuntu a year and a half ago and they've been quite happy. They can surf the web, do their email, write letters, even make greeting cards, etc. I do their tech support, sure - but I was doing that when they were running Windows, too. (Come on - in the home desktop market, how many people call up their tech-savvy cousin rather than sitting on hold with some company? My wife got me a t-shirt, "No, I will not fix your computer.", to wear to family functions.) And now I don't have to worry about malware. I spend a couple minutes installing updates when I walk in the door (click on the icon, give their password, click on 'install updates') and I have time to actually talk instead of cleaning up crap.

For corporate desktops, yeah there's tech support available. I'm having a hard time coming up with a way to say, "For f&ck's sake, haven't you ever used Google?" without sounding snide, and I'm failing.

Re:Forbes right on top of last week

[east coast]

Buying MS products, either retail or OEM is a tacit endorsement of their behavior.

If you really beleive in this you're going to find that a lot of the product around your home are probably made by companies with policies that aren't much different. Exclusivity in the business world is far from uncommon. In fact, it happens so frequently that you don't even notice it any longer, not because you think objectively about choice but because you never knew it to be different in the first place.

I've currently got 2 Linux boxes running, and they have been up for 61 days and 75 days respectively running everything from basic utilities to heavy duty CAD software. These boxes are 2+ years old and I don't remember either of them crashing and forcing me to reboot. In my experience, you just don't get that with Windows.

While you may have issues of that nature I can tell you that I admin a site with over 600 PCs and the problems that we hear many people have with Windows simply doesn't present the same issues here. We have plenty of machines that have been up for months with no issues. BSODs are very exaggerated by most. The only time I see them here is hardware failure. The reboots are true but it's not as much as being forced as is suggested. In any case the reboot after patching issue is becoming less of a problem.

Your security concerns are also noted but once you put a machine behind any kind of firewall just about 98% of that disappears on the spot. As for malware? If someone puts out malware for Linux people are going to install it. The downside of security on Windows boxes has more to do with the people using them not using common sense then anything.

As for the rest? Eh, without the software support it still doesn't mean much to me. I rarely look at my desktop let alone to change it and I have never bought a copy of Windows off the shelf. I stick with the version that comes with the PC.

The bottom line is that Linux needs mainstream software support. People keep ignoring that. People at companies like Commodore and Atari will tell you that you have to be a fool to ignore it. Maybe within your own needs the apps out there are fine but lots of users are looking for apps that simply aren't out on Linux and the software publishers don't seem to be trying to satisfy that base market need.

Re:Forbes right on top of last week

[east coast]

Busting into that market is tough. When dealing with an effective monopoly, to an extent you do have to capitalize on the mistakes of the competition.

Ah yes, another "we need MS to fail because they're keeping us down" excuse. Again, pull yourself up by your bootstraps or fail. It's that simple. And so far the software offerings with Linux just are not there.

Microsoft makes money in only about three areas - desktop OS, Office, and servers. Everything else is pretty much a loss leader from what I've seen. MS has to work hard for server dollars, but the real cash cows are desktop and office. That's by far their biggest cash source, and it reflects monopoly pricing.

Yeah, the big monopoly. Free software that people just don't turn to versus the supposed evil empire complete with their own tax, as the Linux community constantly cries. If MS is charging so much over fair market value and if Linux and OSS alternatives are so fantastic you wouldn't need to worry about MS at all. But instead you have to fight tooth and nail for market share. Could lack of software support be the problem here? I have to keep hammering on this point over and over again and you guys just aren't getting it. I guess that's why Linux has such a low market share for all the pros that Linux carries with it? It's about software support. That's what my original post addressed but instead of people discussing it I have reply after reply of "Linux is fantastic, it doesn't have all these viruses" while the entire software support aspect is completely swept under the carpet. Not having a virus issue is fantastic until you get users who aren't getting the software support they need to justify turning the machine on at all.

I switched my parents to Ubuntu a year and a half ago and they've been quite happy. They can surf the web, do their email, write letters, even make greeting cards, etc. I do their tech support, sure - but I was doing that when they were running Windows, too. (Come on - in the home desktop market, how many people call up their tech-savvy cousin rather than sitting on hold with some company? My wife got me a t-shirt, "No, I will not fix your computer.", to wear to family functions.) And now I don't have to worry about malware. I spend a couple minutes installing updates when I walk in the door (click on the icon, give their password, click on 'install updates') and I have time to actually talk instead of cleaning up crap.

That's great. I've had my father on Windows for more then twice that amount of time. He's gone from a know nothing to a fairly knowledgeable home user. How many times have I had to reinstall Windows? None. How many times have I had to remove malware from his system? Never.

It just takes a half an ounce of knowledge to make a Windows user safe from the trash that is out there. And don't think malware will never be an issue if Linux gains enough market share. In any case...

For corporate desktops, yeah there's tech support available. I'm having a hard time coming up with a way to say, "For f&ck's sake, haven't you ever used Google?" without sounding snide, and I'm failing.

I really don't know what you're saying here.

Re:Forbes right on top of last week

[lordtoran]

One very big hindrance is: Linux is not in the head of average people. Nearly all computer users have heard of it, but they are used to Windows (including its shortcomings), it is forced upon them every day and they only have a very, very vague imagination about what Linux has to offer as an alternative; and even half of that is the usual anti-Linux FUD.

Linux needs a marketing campaign to counter that. Plain and simple. If people don't know more about it than it being "something else", it will not conquer the consumer market no matter how more advanced than the competition it is.

Re:Forbes right on top of last week

[east coast]

Nearly all computer users have heard of it, but they are used to Windows (including its shortcomings), it is forced upon them every day and they only have a very, very vague imagination about what Linux has to offer as an alternative; and even half of that is the usual anti-Linux FUD.

Granted, there is Linux FUD within the industry but I really don't see that from where Joe Sixpack sits. And if he's "forced" into Windows shortcomings don't you think he's be looking for an alternative? He's not being forced by anything more then himself. Granted, he may not have seriously looked over Linux (or MacOS) but that only shows how much he isn't struggling with Windows.

So, it can't be both ways. Either he knows about Linux and he's rejected it or the "tyranny" of Windows isn't so bad that he needs to run for cover. He's not being forced into the situation at all.

Re:Forbes right on top of last week

[lordtoran]

So, it can't be both ways. Either he knows about Linux and he's rejected it or the "tyranny" of Windows isn't so bad that he needs to run for cover. He's not being forced into the situation at all. Yes, this is an important point that is confirmed over and over when I interact with people of different computer knowledge. Windows is (subjectively) not bad enough, and Linux (something different and unknown) is not attractive enough. Hence my suggestion of a marketing campaign; many people tend to be more receptive for commercials than for simple word-of-mouth, especially when you are the only Linux user hanging around. You can't expect more than mild, polite interest and being forgotten again the next moment in that situation.

Re:Forbes right on top of last week

[east coast]

Hence my suggestion of a marketing campaign; many people tend to be more receptive for commercials than for simple word-of-mouth, especially when you are the only Linux user hanging around. You can't expect more than mild, polite interest and being forgotten again the next moment in that situation.

Well, if you have mild interest then a live CD wouldn't be a bad thing to keep around. But I still maintain that without mainstream software support Linux simply is not going to raise above the hobbyist level on the desktop.

But I guess that's the catch-22. Linux needs big software to get the user base that it take to make it worth big software's investments to support Linux.

I really just don't know.

Re:Forbes right on top of last week

[Dr. Manhattan]

Ah yes, another "we need MS to fail because they're keeping us down" excuse.

Yup, that's the only thing I wrote in my whole response. I certainly didn't point out plenty of areas where Linux is winning big in business on its merits or anything like that. Of course I didn't refer to greatly improved Linux desktop support in the last couple years. I didn't even point out, like others have, that Linux does have support if you want to pay for it.

You certainly showed me!

Re:Forbes right on top of last week

[east coast]

Yup, that's the only thing I wrote in my whole response. I certainly didn't point out plenty of areas where Linux is winning big in business on its merits or anything like that. Of course I didn't refer to greatly improved Linux desktop support in the last couple years. I didn't even point out, like others have, that Linux does have support if you want to pay for it.

I quoted a hell of a lot more of your post then you quoted of mine and I backed up my points. Who's being selective here?

And as for support? I don't mean tech support. I'm talking about software support for the platform. Who's out there writing the seriously productive desktop apps of today? Who's writing the gaming and entertainment software?

If you don't think this doesn't matter then you really haven't been keeping an eye on who lived and who died in the home computing market over the past 25 years.

Re:Forbes right on top of last week

[Drgnkght]

DOS and Windows has always been about "compatability". This is true. The important point here is that when people say "compatibility", they really mean "Microsoft Windows software compatibility". This means the deck is stacked. No one but Microsoft currently has the ability to have complete compatibility. (No one would claim Wine is completely compatible.)

Re:Forbes right on top of last week

[lordtoran]

The Live CD approach is a good idea. I think I should keep some in my locker at work and give them away whenever there is some kind of interest. Funny I didn't think of that yet :-)

"Mainstream" software support is a different story, because it is not really about software functionality, but format/vendor lock-in. This is a really hard one, especially with businesses fearing to be feature-wise incompatible with their partners or customers. We need to push even more for open data formats here, so no single vendor can control a universally used format in a way that you have to use his (usually overpriced) platform and software just to get your stuff done.

Re:Forbes right on top of last week

[turing_m]

"The bottom line is that Linux needs mainstream software support. People keep ignoring that. People at companies like Commodore and Atari will tell you that you have to be a fool to ignore it."

Mainstream software support would greatly stimulate Linux appeal. No one denies that. But it's not going to stop it. Linux market share would be going down if that argument were true, not increasing.

Comparing the hardware platforms of Commodore and Atari with Amiga also misses the mark. Even comparing different operating systems such as OS/2 is different. The lure of something truly free (not stolen, no strings attached) is immense, and it comes with the positive idealism of Open Source to boot. As a result, FLOSS operating systems have carved market (and mind) share inch by inch in very toxic conditions.

"Maybe within your own needs the apps out there are fine but lots of users are looking for apps that simply aren't out on Linux and the software publishers don't seem to be trying to satisfy that base market need."

It's not that black and white. Sure, it may be mainstream software support that pushes Linux from say, a 10% market share to market domination. If you have market share, the apps will come. But it will get to that initial 10% by a different means, one person at a time, finding those people for whom it DOES have the apps they require.

In fact, by failing to port to Linux quickly, companies like Photoshop may find that they will wind up in the position of Netscape. Users who have been happy with linux get trained to look first to the repositories. They may well persevere with something like Gimp before buying Photoshop. It's a bit like the advantage IE had in Windows, but in reverse.

As it is, Microsoft is in a bit of a quagmire. There are a glut of legacy XP machines on the market that will do everything most users require and can be converted to Linux easily. Malware is making those machines unusable and is a phenomenon that is growing. Upgrading to Vista realistically requires a new computer worth $$$. Microsoft can't make a new and non-bloated OS, because most of its sales come from new computers. And any move they make will take years because software doesn't get written overnight, a lot of their talent has left and they must also maximize backwards compatibility. There is good reason why Gates has been slowly selling his MS stock for a long time now.

If a user can switch to something like Ubuntu, it is a very rational economic decision to do so. A friend who can resurrect such a machine has just saved a friend a good chunk of change for work that probably only takes half a day. And economics is a powerful force for change.

Re:Forbes right on top of last week

[Dr. Manhattan]

I quoted a hell of a lot more of your post then you quoted of mine and I backed up my points.

Well, you reiterated your points, but that's not quite the same thing as backing them up. You can't really accuse 'Linux in general' of just sitting around waiting for the competition to fail. (First off, there isn't a 'Linux in general' anyway, but again, others made that point, too.) I pointed out four markets that Linux companies are actively competing in and doing quite well at. It's worth noting that none of those markets had any one company owning around 90% market share before Linux came along.

I further pointed out that it's only in the last couple of years that Linux companies have been seriously targeting the desktop, and I stated they've done well from a technical standpoint. But there really is a chicken-and-egg problem in the desktop arena, and just saying "Y'all need to try harder" isn't going to cut it.

Loki Games made some poor business decisions (though, actually, not all of them were poor) but one technical thing they did very right was SDL. That plus OpenGL plus OpenAL is really a very nice setup for making games, and it easily rivals DirectX (yes, DirectX is more than Direct3D, that's why I pointed out the other two libraries which cover the other stuff). Several top game engines (including a very biggie, Id's) support Linux. From a technical perspective, it's hard to be more welcoming. But there still aren't many commercial games for Linux, because there isn't a big market for Linux games, in part because... there aren't many commercial games for Linux. That's a real problem, and that's what I and others are referring to when talking about the trouble of invading a monopoly market. (Of course, the PC games market isn't showing all that healthy growth anyway... I'm not sure games will continue to be such a sticking point for Windows retention in the future.) Fortunately, it's not the only factor.

Linux companies like SUSE and Red Hat and Canonical are targeting corporate desktops first, because it's an easier market to break into. A smaller collection of necessary apps for the majority, and the features (lower price, lower hardware requirements, mature management features (like remote admin), and mature privilege separation, etc.) are a very good fit, enough to to drive some switching.

I rather think once people are exposed to Linux where they work they'll use it at home, too. (That's one of the ways Windows got to where it is now.) The underlying OS matters less and less these days anyway; 80% of the things average people do involve the web. The more cross-platform apps people use, the lower the 'potential barrier' is to switching. (Witness how fanatically MS is fighting Office interoperability...) There won't be a "year of desktop Linux" any more than there was a "year of server Linux". There wasn't a "year of Mozilla/Firefox", either; it just grew until... y'know, I can't remember the last time I ran into an IE-only site...

It'll happen eventually. Open standards are in the interest of the consumers, and eventually they spread. Consider how many networking models there were in the 80's, and then by the late 90's it was all TCP/IP, despite vendors attempts at lock-in. The same will happen with open-source software and general computing, it'll just take a while. (Note: I'm not predicting the demise of commercial software. In many areas, e.g. games, it makes a lot of sense. But I figure most companies will eventually go the Id model.)

Anyway, that's enough for now. Maybe you can respond to more than one point next time, or at least a single point in context.

Re:Forbes right on top of last week

[east coast]

Fine. You keep thinking that. I'm at the point where I'm beating a dead horse here. I never claimed anywhere that Linux has no success. You put that in there to make yourself feel good. I'd ask you to prove it but since you can't quote a user but instead try to make them seem like they said something they didn't...

So feel good about "winning" this arguement (only because this has become a waste of time since you won't stay on topic). Continue to feel good about your pet OS having single digit market share on the desktop since you're yet another Linux zealot who takes everything as an attack. But I will say it was refreshing to find one user who didn't have his head so far up his ass that he couldn't have an honest conversation. I even mentioned to him how he may be able to help spread Linux.

Huh, imagine that, a microsoft astroturfer who doesn't have a stick up his ass about Linux. Not to hard to imagine when you can look beyond the myth that someone needs to choose one side or another. As I told many users here: Nothing against Linux but the software support for the platform just doesn't exist on the level it would take to get me to switch.

Too bad you can't see that as a truth but instead insist that it's an attack on Linux.

Re:Forbes right on top of last week

[Dr. Manhattan]

...you're yet another Linux zealot who takes everything as an attack.

If I may diffidently suggest, the common participant in every argument you've ever had is... you. If you keep having the same arguments, it's at least conceivable that you have something to do with that.

it was refreshing to find one user who didn't have his head so far up his ass that he couldn't have an honest conversation. I even mentioned to him how he may be able to help spread Linux.

Oh, you mean here? Ah, yes, no one has ever thought of handing out LiveCDs before. Good one!

But let's see what you say in that comment: "I guess that's the catch-22. Linux needs big software to get the user base that it take to make it worth big software's investments to support Linux." And let's see what I had to say: "But there really is a chicken-and-egg problem in the desktop arena, and just saying 'Y'all need to try harder' isn't going to cut it... there still aren't many commercial games for Linux, because there isn't a big market for Linux games, in part because... there aren't many commercial games for Linux. That's a real problem, and that's what I and others are referring to when talking about the trouble of invading a monopoly market."

I guess I will keep thinking that. You certainly seem to, though you don't appear to recognize it when it's not stated in precisely your wording...

Re:Forbes right on top of last week

[east coast]

If I may diffidently suggest, the common participant in every argument you've ever had is... you. If you keep having the same arguments, it's at least conceivable that you have something to do with that.

Again, try twisting my words to give them meaning they never had. Not hard since they were never said either and your lack of a quote confirms it.

Oh, you mean here? Ah, yes, no one has ever thought of handing out LiveCDs before. Good one!

Oh, and your points were fresh and not mentioned for the thousandth time in this article alone? Please. Or do you go to every thread and point out every post that has thoughts that other people have thought of before? If you do you must not have much of a life since that's what 99.99% of slashdot really is.

Oh, and let's not forget the reply: "The Live CD approach is a good idea. I think I should keep some in my locker at work and give them away whenever there is some kind of interest. Funny I didn't think of that yet :-)". How about that? For as much as you've slagged me for bringing up something that others have already pointed out I've managed to get another user to consider it in the future. Maybe you should be off calling him a fucktard or something? It's unbelievable that you put me down for pointing something out to another user even when he admits that he never thought of it. I guess it make you feel like a real man.

Keep on trying to skirt the FACT that I'm in this for progress. You're here to pat yourself on the back.

But let's see what you say in that comment: "I guess that's the catch-22. Linux needs big software to get the user base that it take to make it worth big software's investments to support Linux." And let's see what I had to say: "But there really is a chicken-and-egg problem in the desktop arena, and just saying 'Y'all need to try harder' isn't going to cut it... there still aren't many commercial games for Linux, because there isn't a big market for Linux games, in part because... there aren't many commercial games for Linux. That's a real problem, and that's what I and others are referring to when talking about the trouble of invading a monopoly market."

And hey, that's what I'm referring to when I mention software support. My methodology is a lot less "poor me" and more "what can be done here". If you can't accept that attitude I guess you're the real loser.

I guess I will keep thinking that. You certainly seem to, though you don't appear to recognize it when it's not stated in precisely your wording...

No, I don't blame competition for my own failures. So I'm not thinking that at all. At least not for the same reasons you may think that.

Re:Forbes right on top of last week

[Dr. Manhattan]

My methodology is a lot less "poor me" and more "what can be done here".>

And, gee, I actually pointed out things that can be, and are, being "done here". But I can see how you'd miss it. I mean, look at me say "It'll happen eventually. Open standards are in the interest of the consumers, and eventually they spread. Consider how many networking models there were in the 80's, and then by the late 90's it was all TCP/IP, despite vendors attempts at lock-in. The same will happen with open-source software and general computing, it'll just take a while." That just reeks of "poor me" despair.

And I didn't 'blame the competition' any more than "to an extent". IBM owned computing until the late 80s, early 90s, but they made mistakes that MS took advantage of. It's not like IBM couldn't have stopped MS if they'd recognized the situation, but they were wedded to their mainframe business. Now MS is wedded to (a really ill-advised level of) backward compatibility (see the "Raymond Chen" stuff in that link) and the Windows codebase, which has grown to a size that it's unmanageable by the techniques they use. This leads to security issues (sure, it's possible to secure windows, but look how many people have trouble getting a regular oil change and ask yourself if they can keep a computer secure) and huge shipping delays and massive feature dumps so they can ship at all. Those are mistakes, and Linux is capitalizing on them.

You're just filing me away as another Linux zealot, even though I explicitly recognize the problem you point out and have listed specific strategies that are being pursued to deal with it. If that's your bag, well, okay, have a nice life and all.

Re:Forbes right on top of last week

[Sj0]

Give me a reason to get rid of them first

No need. Microsoft just revoked your license because you upgraded to a new Socket AM2 motherboard. Have a nice day. Enjoy buying another copy of Windows Vista.

Re:Forbes right on top of last week

[east coast]

No need. Microsoft just revoked your license because you upgraded to a new Socket AM2 motherboard. Have a nice day. Enjoy buying another copy of Windows Vista

yeah, I heard the same song and dance about XP. Odd thing is that it never happened.

Try again.

Re:Forbes right on top of last week

[east coast]

And, gee, I actually pointed out things that can be, and are, being "done here". But I can see how you'd miss it. I mean, look at me say "It'll happen eventually. Open standards are in the interest of the consumers, and eventually they spread. Consider how many networking models there were in the 80's, and then by the late 90's it was all TCP/IP, despite vendors attempts at lock-in. The same will happen with open-source software and general computing, it'll just take a while." That just reeks of "poor me" despair.

What does this do for software support again. Can we stay on topic here?

BTW: Another great attempt to take my quote out of context. Won't work here.

And I didn't 'blame the competition' any more than "to an extent".

Oh, now the excuse for the excuse. Ok, fine.

IBM owned computing until the late 80s, early 90s, but they made mistakes that MS took advantage of. It's not like IBM couldn't have stopped MS if they'd recognized the situation, but they were wedded to their mainframe business. Now MS is wedded to (a really ill-advised level of) backward compatibility (see the "Raymond Chen" stuff in that link) and the Windows codebase, which has grown to a size that it's unmanageable by the techniques they use. This leads to security issues (sure, it's possible to secure windows, but look how many people have trouble getting a regular oil change and ask yourself if they can keep a computer secure) and huge shipping delays and massive feature dumps so they can ship at all. Those are mistakes, and Linux is capitalizing on them.

Yeah, waiting for the other guy to fail to get ahead. You said it yourself right in the quote above. Isn't that what got you ranting in the first place?

You're just filing me away as another Linux zealot, even though I explicitly recognize the problem you point out and have listed specific strategies that are being pursued to deal with it. If that's your bag, well, okay, have a nice life and all.

I am taking you as another zealot. That's true. You're one of the people in the community that makes me uncomfortable taking up too much of my time with Linux. The rants alienates me. Too much fanaticism does that to people.

And if you recognize the problem you certainly haven't spoken about it. Tell me where in your posts you address the software support issues for the Linux platform that was originally addressed in my first posting.

Re:Forbes right on top of last week

[Sj0]

You must be new here. Slashdot is where people come to bash Microsoft and extoll the virtues of Linux, while using Windows XP on their Dells. It's pretty much Slashdot's raison d'etre.

Thing is, hatred of Microsoft isn't going to keep you on an OS. To think it will is asinine. Nobody does. Every single anti-Microsoft zealot I've ever met uses Windows. Myself, I've used dozens of operating systems on my main machine over the years, but if something isn't good, if something makes using a computer more difficult, and reduces the amount of time I spend actually using the computer, then simple hatred for a monopolist will never be enough to keep me from using Windows if it's the best solution.

Re:Forbes right on top of last week

[Sj0]

I'm going to start by saying that I was underinformed. I knew about the "one activation ever" controversy which occurred, I hadn't heard that Microsoft changed their policy in response to the public outcry.

Despite that, your response is asinine. The simple fact of the matter is that Windows XP and Windows Vista are different programs with different licenses. Saying "There was no problem last time" is feigning ignorance of the already increased license enforcement included in Vista, and the fact that there WAS an issue that required a public outcry to alter. If Microsoft thinks they can get away with stricter activation today than in 2001 when XP came out, they will, and they have.

Re:Forbes right on top of last week

[east coast]

Oh, so your response was underinformed. Mine is asinine? Ok, I see where this is going. Move along. I don't bother with trolls much.

Re:Forbes right on top of last week

[Sj0]

Keep putting me into your little boxes, if it makes you feel better. Sure, first I'm just another typical anti-microsoft zealot, now I'm a typical troll. Why even bother chatting on slashdot if you're only planning to bash your head against imaginary groupthink?

Re:Forbes right on top of last week

[east coast]

Hold on, I'm "asinine" and you're "underinformed"? And I'm the one putting people in little boxes? For what it is, yes, you're a troll.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Microsoft Wins

[JeremyGNJ]

Notice how the article talks about RedHat and Novell. Nowhere does it mention Debian or Slackware.

The result of this lawsuit is that Novell now holds the intellectual property that SCO claimed has been integrated into Linux. I wonder what it would take for them to use it for something?

Secondly all this does is solidify the idea that "If you're going to use Linux, you need legal protection from this sort of thing" It kind of legitimizes the type of deal that Novell has made with Microsoft.

Re:Microsoft Wins

[Locutus]

it shows you how ridiculous the US legal system is in this regard. SCO was able to bring a case against many companies without showing to a judge or jury there was any validity to their claim. How many years did it take for Novell to get this through the courts? 5 years! 10s if not 100s of millions of dollars were spent on this and it was all a smoke and mirror game.

And the tricks Microsoft played in backroom deals to help fund SCO was amazing. They paid SCO $16 million for a UNIX license? Sun, a company who's products are UNIX paid less than Microsoft for a license. $10 million IIRC. And then, we learned of how Microsoft help broker the millions put into SCO by a Canadian investment company and a Canadian bank. These are publicly traded US corporations doing this crap.

I hope Novell has some recourse to burn these companies and burn them well. And maybe AutoZone and Daimler Chrysler can jump in too.

LoB

Re:Microsoft Wins

[_Sprocket_]

The result of this lawsuit is that Novell now holds the intellectual property that SCO claimed has been integrated into Linux. I wonder what it would take for them to use it for something? What makes you believe this? The only time SCO came up with some kind of "proof" to this claim, it was quickly shown that the code example was BSD code, under the BSD license, and completely acceptable to be in Linux. Granted - SCO made a lot of noise since then. They made it in the public media. They made it in court. And at no time did they ever produce anything to back up their claims.

Granted - that this perception exists is probably playing in to someone's strategy. And you can expect people with vested interests in derailing Linux (and Open Source) to try and leverage it... keep that meme going. But that doesn't mean there's any substance to the claim.

Re:Not Dan Lyons

[Taxman415a]

Dude, at least make a partial attempt to check your facts, especially when you're being snide about someone else's supposed errors. The ruling states "For the reasons stated above, the court concludes that Novell is the owner of the UNIX and UnixWare copyrights." http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=200708101 65237718#comments in what appears to be the first sentence of the conclusion.

Thanks, SCO, for the riposte!

[BobMcD]

To anyone claiming 'this changes nothing', you're overlooking a great opportunity. Practice this phrase with me:

"Yeah because that worked out GREAT for SCO!"

Now, prepare to use this move to any and all of the following objections:

A) Linux is full of stolen code, and using it means you'll get sued.

B) Linux suffers from tons of IP problems, and using it means you'll get sued.

C) Microsoft is going to sue you for using Linux.

The thing that SCO did for us was dismiss the 'forgone conclusion' that the ability to sue is equivilent to the ability to WIN said suit.

Having survived this beast makes for a stronger FOSS community, so long as we don't forget it. Of course with all the noise SCO and Darl made when they thought they were certain to win, that isn't too likely...

Thank you sirs!

Re:Thanks, SCO, for the riposte!

[JeremyGNJ]

Wow, you TOTALLY misunderstand the rules. The court that that SCO cannot sue because "it does not own the Unix code in question". Novell does. There's nothing stopping Novell from filing a similar suit.

Re:Thanks, SCO, for the riposte!

[BobMcD]

I got that part, thanks.

And if Novell kills Linux, what exactly would they have left? Do you suppose they WANT to be Microsoft's lap dog? Because it would be either that or nothing. A non-Free Linux has no future.

Besides, Novell themselves have redistributed the code under GPLv2. As far as I know, they can't undo that nor can they remove the freedoms given after the fact.

If the crunchy bits of the code go GPLv3 this gets even more sticky.

My point, and the lesson learned from SCO: There's no slam-dunk here.

Re:Thanks, SCO, for the riposte!

[JeremyGNJ]

SCO was a linux distributor too. They would not want to "kill linux", however they might want to have a linux "with more stuff than the other guys, cause they cant use our UNIX intellectual property".

Re:Thanks, SCO, for the riposte!

[BobMcD]

I may be the only one that thought this, but I always assumed that SCO wanted to kill/absorb Linux in favor of their proprietary Unix. Their expensive, inferior product was dying a death of free markets and they wanted the law to bail them out.

If that's not your view of what SCO was seeking, please share.

Novell doesn't, as far as I know, have a viable product that is not Linux. Again, I could be wrong, but I'm fairly certain that SuSE is what they're currently selling.

I don't see the parallel.

I am intrigued, though.

Re:Thanks, SCO, for the riposte!

[JeremyGNJ]

Novell *could* pick out the parts in Linux that SCO was claiming it owned via Unix copyrights and tell all other vendors that they cannot include those parts because they are copyrighted. Force those parts out of Linux.

Then they could include all of those parts as part of SuSE, while other Linux vendors cannot use them. It becomes "value added" service of Novell/SuSE.

It *could* happen like that, not saying it *will*.

Did any business take SCO seriously?

[UnknowingFool]

At first, some companies back in 2003 may have been scared of Linux because of the lawsuit, but later polls seem to suggest that the SCO lawsuit has done little to affect Linux adoption. Any company concerned about Linux would have had to do a little research to see the SCO scam for what it was. After all they sued Daimer Chrysler (one of their former customers) for doing little more than switching to Linux 7 years before the suit. And when they sued them, it was shown that SCO really had no reason, and it was summarily dismissed.

Right now Linux adoption on the desktop is probably more affected by three factors: 1) The ease of use of Ubuntu, 2) The lackluster offerings of Vista, 3) The buzz/hype surrounding Mac OS X. On the server side, the adoption of Linux is still governed by TCO, hardware, and reliability concerns.

Re:Did any business take SCO seriously?

[DannyO152]

Autozone got sued for switching because SCO alleges that there was a point during the transition when Linux applications are linking to unix libraries. Daimler/Chrysler got sued because they didn't respond within 30 days to a letter sent to the wrong address and, eventually, SCO alleged that when DC said "we are not using Unix" they didn't answer the question "which servers are running Unix" and SCO claimed that they had audit rights to Linux usage. For the latter two points, the Michigan state court sent SCO packing with another expensive goose egg.

Re:Did any business take SCO seriously?

[UnknowingFool]

In Autozone, one of the things SCO is alleging is that Autozone could not have replaced their SCO Unix system with a Linux system without illegally using (or reverse-engineering) their libraries. The case was stayed pending the outcome of IBM, Redhat, and Novell. Now that it has been shown that Novell owns the Unix copyrights, it will limit what SCO can claim. To proceed, SCO would have to show that the libraries in question are under their copyrights and not Novell's or anyone else's. After all, a lot of the libraries used in Unix and Linux share a common lineage like BSD, GNU, etc. If the libraries were reverse-engineered, SCO would have to show how it was illegally done as reverse-engineering is not illegal per se.

I can see that if it gets to discovery, SCO will show the same ineptitude in code review as it has shown these last several years.

SCO: See, right here, Autozone uses ncurses, which is a rip off of our curses library!
Autozone: First, ncurses came from the GNU project. Second, curses came from BSD.
SCO: So you admit you stole our code!
[Autozone laywer bangs head on table]

Linux chain reaction

[turing_m]

"Even though it took an embarrassingly long time Microsoft has finally gotten a handle on viruses/spyware etc. to the point where no one is running screaming from their platform anymore."

When did this happen? Viruses/spyware was one of the largest stimuli for me to finally suck it up and emigrate for good (I was under no circumstances going to reinstall XP or buy Vista). And I'm not alone. Now I've found that Ubuntu does everything I want it to do, my friends will be getting a taste too.

It would not surprise me in the slightest if we were to see Linux achieve double digit market penetration (i.e. 10%) within 2 years. It's kind of like being one of the first kids to play multiplayer Doom and then Quake. You think to yourself "Damn! This is fun! I wonder why everyone else isn't doing this?" And soon enough (given several years), everyone IS doing it. It spreads from person to person virally.

The phenomenon itself parallels atomic physics; as soon as you have on average every split atom triggering another atom to split, you get a chain reaction. This is the same with people and ideas, software (or human diseases). It's just that the chain reaction aspect seems less obvious to us because of the time scale. It might be 2 months before I get around to install Ubuntu on a friend's machine, whereas a neutron emitted from a nucleus will strike another atom on the other side of the bomb in much, much less than a second.

Ubuntu is mostly there. It is there enough that I believe if I installed it myself on a poweruser friend's computer, helped sort out some driver issues, he'd be able to take it from there with the occasional internet search. And it is better than MS in a lot of important areas: stability, security, efficiency (in Watts), ease of installing new software (Synaptic). Not having to worry about spyware or viruses is HUGE. And it's free, by emigrating you've permanently opted out of the eternal upgrade for $$$ cycle, along with acquiring a mental Unix toolkit that will enable further migrations if necessary (e.g. to BSD or other free ixes).

And it is the power users who are critical to this chain reaction. It's not grandma using mail and web who will be installing it on friend's computers. It is the power user. So by all means, get your grandma and girlfriend using it, but if you really care about adoption rates, find another power user and guide them through an installation. Note that something like Ubuntu is gold to a power user (someone who is doing free tech support for friends and family) because it has the potential of being much lower in maintenance. No finding new spyware removers, reinstalling, or any of that. Convert, done.

After that, it's just a matter of time before you have hardware manufacturers and gaming companies coming over too. Then it's over. Within a year you'll get everything of note imported or created. Be it photoshop or office, the bugs will be ironed out extremely quickly. Word will become like Wordperfect used to be. There will still be a few people whining "But word used to work so much better!", but they will be ignored.

Re:Linux chain reaction

[Anonymous Coward]

Ok

Re:Linux chain reaction

[Anonymous Coward]

And back in the real world......

Yes linux will be adopted just for the sole reason "it's free." However it will never compete with a desktop or A/D.

"After that, it's just a matter of time before you have hardware manufacturers and gaming companies coming over too." --- Yea right, I have been hearing this for the last 10 years from the Linux community.

"Then it's over. Within a year you'll get everything of note imported or created. Be it photoshop or office, the bugs will be ironed out extremely quickly." -- Really? Wow, so why has it taken so long now?

Sorry guys, Linux is good no doubt but I am telling you now, it will NEVER compete with Microsoft. I, as a Sysadmin for a Fortune 500 Company, can tell you that no SysAdmin wants to deal with recompiling kernels, writing scripts for hours on end when I can just install Microsoft, lock it down and forget about it.

Yes Microsoft has spyware and viruses and if anyone remembers the report released in 2005 about Linux having more holes then Microsoft that will shoot your main point out of the water. The majority of people that have problems with spyware and viruses are companies that do not have knowledgeable admin's that do not use PKI, firewalls, standard users accounts, etc.

BTW, here is the report on how linux has THREE times as many security holes as Microsoft:

http://www.us-cert.gov/cas/bulletins/SB2005.html

Sorry Fella's you lose and please don't give me the standard B/S about different Distro's and how you can lock it down, I just made that same point with Windows....don't turn into the Macintosh crowd about how secure your O/S is :)

This is the same story I heard after XP was released, how the mighty linux O/S will dominate the field and still MAC OS X is beating it.

It will always be an enthusiasts Operating System.

Re:Linux chain reaction

[gtall]

MonkeyBoy!! You should post more often, we just love to hear those "Get the Facts" arguments.

Gerry

Re:Linux chain reaction

[Bert64]

Firstly, i doubt that many linux users actually bother recompiling the kernel, all of the deployments i've seen use the kernel shipped with whatever distro they run. Recompiling the kernel is the domain of hobbyists, that said at least you have the choice.

Those security bulletins are pure FUD in this context...
The microsoft ones list things that *only* run on windows, whereas most of the linux/unix advisories count a large amount of cross platform software (which can usually also be run on windows).
They also count updates to advisories seperately...
The linux/unix category includes not only linux, but also all the bsd's, macos, solaris, aix, hp-ux and a lot more... the windows category only includes windows.
Microsoft don't release advisories for vulnerabilities found internally, only vulnerabilities found by external testers.. Internally found issues are usually fixed silently, whereas with open source the process is usually far more open.

Plus your counting a lot of third party applications for all platforms, you should evaluate the platform and the applications you intend to use seperately...
I could write a stack of intentionally vulnerable windows-only applications myself, release them and then release a ton of advisories for them. That would tilt the stats unfairly, since very few people would be running my intentionally-vulnerable applications.

The fairest (tho ultimately not perfect) way to do it, is to configure systems for a set purpose, with the same or equivalent applications, and then count the number of applicable advisories (applicable to your configuration, assuming unnecessary applications have been removed and only what you actually need is installed).

That said, i would like to see comparisons between specific systems configured for a specific purpose...
Most security criteria typically specify a specific "approved" configuration. Systems approved for various government uses etc, typically have an "approved" configuration, and often a list of caveats.

Re:Linux chain reaction

[Anonymous Coward]

It would not surprise me in the slightest if we were to see Linux achieve double digit market penetration (i.e. 10%) within 2 years. lol

Re:Linux chain reaction

[Anonymous Coward]

So, let's say linux becomes extremely popular and takes over 90% of the desktops out there. Won't the virus and spyware producers move over to the more popular OS?

Re:Linux chain reaction

[lordtoran]

Repeating the FUD you were spoon-fed during your MCSE training doesn't make it less FUD. And posting crap as AC doesn't make you more credible.

Re:Linux chain reaction

[lordtoran]

Of course, but since Linux is open source and not controlled by a single company, it would be easier to patch vulnerable parts if required.

Re:Linux chain reaction

[Anonymous Coward]

Riiiiiight. Everyone will be using Ubuntu... and then it will have all the same problems XP does now. There is no perfect platform.

Re:Linux chain reaction

[_Sprocket_]

Sorry guys, Linux is good no doubt but I am telling you now, it will NEVER compete with Microsoft. I, as a Sysadmin for a Fortune 500 Company, can tell you that no SysAdmin wants to deal with recompiling kernels, writing scripts for hours on end when I can just install Microsoft, lock it down and forget about it.

...

BTW, here is the report on how linux has THREE times as many security holes as Microsoft:

http://www.us-cert.gov/cas/bulletins/SB2005.html

I work for a major US Government organization. We also have a lot of Windows servers. We also have a lot of Unix systems. And as we deploy additional systems, it isn't uncommon for them to be Linux based. We're constantly asking vendors if they have Linux support. Most either do or are working on it.

We can take a Linux system, lock it down, and forget about it just like a Windows system. That is... if we want crappy infrastructure. Both systems require care and feeding. Both require more than a vendor is going to admit.

We have Unix / Linux folks who spend a good amount of time writing scripts and figuring out configurations for everyone else to follow. The same goes for the Windows side. I'm biased - I'm much more impressed with the extent of what we do on the Unix / Linux side of the house. But I am also occasionally surprised and impressed with what knowledgeable Windows admins come up with.

Of course, we also have aspects of our IT environment that are Windows-only who would never even dream of looking at anything that didn't come from Microsoft (or at least have Microsoft approval). But that doesn't mean Linux isn't making headway in our environment. And it doesn't mean that just because you're a Windows shop that others aren't.

By the way... I'd look a little closer at that report you're quoting. It's a much more complex story than those numbers would make it seem. There's the issue of how severe a flaw is. But even more basic is numbers that don't add up and flaws that are double-counted.

Re:Linux chain reaction

[jhol13]

It is there enough that I believe if I installed it myself on a poweruser friend's computer, helped sort out some driver issues, he'd be able to take it from there with the occasional internet search. Unfortunately I do not think so. The biggie is need to recompile gspca (webcam) and nVidia and ... drivers after every kernel update - which are quite frequent.

I would not put Linux to a friends system whom I am not certain is capable of compiling and installing those drivers - and debug problems which will happen. I think it is above "power user".

Linux really needs a stable KBI (kernel binary interface), no matter what Linus, etc. claim.

Re:Linux chain reaction

[jddunlap]

Yes linux will be adopted just for the sole reason "it's free." However it will never compete with a desktop or A/D. 1) A/D sucks... Why you windows people think it makes sense to lock stuff down on the client side of things I'll never know... Security should always be maintained on the server. And don't give me some crap about how A/D is controlled by the server because it's enforced by the client.
2) That's not even true. I use Linux on my desktop at home and at work and, in addition to being free of viruses, it can do a lot of things that Microsoft simply cannot do. Add to that that Samba 4 will include A/D support. The Samba group already has a development prototype.

Re:Linux chain reaction

[Anonymous Coward]

"Ubuntu is mostly there. ...And it is better than MS in a lot of important areas: stability, security" - by turing_m (1030530) on Tuesday August 14, @10:04AM (#20224233)

Ok, then... PROVE IT!

See this url below:

http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=264303&thresho ld=1&commentsort=0&mode=thread&cid=20159515

And, then, tell us all, the answer to this:

Why is it that not a single *NIX person (when challenged now, over 30 total times here @ /., & other *NIX oriented websites) have not posted a better score than the 84.735/100 done on a security-hardened build of Windows Server 2003 SP #2, fully hotfix patched as of today's date (since yesterday was "patch Tuesday" from MS) on the multiplatform CIS Tool test of security?

Thanks for the answer... I would, however, actually LIKE to see a score posted from a *NIX person, on the *NIX of their choice & configuration no less, that exceeds that score & even IF NOT (which they probably won't, if history is ANY indicator, thusfar - given the trend noted above? They won't exceed that score!).

APK

P.S.=> National Cyber Alert System: Cyber Security Bulletin 2005 Summary

http://www.us-cert.gov/cas/bulletins/SB2005.html

A quote from it:

"There were 5198 reported vulnerabilities: 812 Windows operating system vulnerabilities; 2328 Unix/Linux operating vulnerabilities; and 2058 Multiple operating system vulnerabilities."

Also, that URL & report show LINUX as having 3x as many security holes/vulnerabilities in it than Windows NT-based OS' have mind you (in year end 2005/beginning of 2006, between the OS & its apps riding on it), so, let's compare them on security & vulnerabilities on THAT note as well... apk

Re:Linux chain reaction

[jaseuk]

As long as their is a SINGLE windows only app that is essential to a person's computer use then Linux will struggle to make it on the desktop. If you must have app xyz to conduct your work which is a Windows only app then you must have Windows. Sure a hobbyiest or enthusiast might run a virtual machine or second windows machine in order to accomodate the application, however for the typical home or corporate user this is going to be an unnessassary time expense. Certainly for the corporates the often touted cost saving advantage has just evaporated, perhaps even costing more with two seperate platforms to support.

I support perhaps 50 applications in some manner (various varieties of accounting, compliance, workflow, CRM, forms), pretty much each one of these applications are Windows only and each one would be a show stopper. This is perhaps why the government opensource / Linux projects rarely work, with so many specialised applications and services that cannot be met using Opensource software - weights and measures, health and safety, trading standards, cms, document management/archiving, building maintenance, roads maintenance, livestock tracking, town and country planning, building control, social care / social services, finance/accounting/procurement, legal casework, educational records, GIS / Mapping, the list is almost endless. Sure some of these apps might work under Linux, but not all and again their may be opensource solutions or customisations available, but the maintenance work and integration work trying to keep all this working smoothly is more than what can be reasonably managed by a typical IT department. This software is also the backbone of someone's working life, it needs to be the best possible software available to keep them productive. Their managers view of getting the best available system might not gell with the techies dream of Linux on a corporate desktop.

If just one game, one piece of hardware, one accounting package, one piece of compliance software is available for Windows only, then the battle for Linux will be lost with that user. In a corporate environment a single app could derail an entire Linux project. Why give yourself the overhead of supporting Linux AND Windows when you could just support Windows. Also Microsoft are getting very crafty with enterprise agreements / software assurance and are beginning to make certain applications only available to SA / EA customers (Bitlocker Disk Encryption / Softricity / Office Enterprise) a trend which I'm sure will continue until we are all hooked. Once an organisation has committed to these agreements there is no cost benefit from Linux on a selection of desktops.

There are similar problems with what is seen as a simple Microsoft Word -> OpenOffice Writer conversion. Whilst it's well known that nobody uses all the funcionality available within Microsoft Word, everyone uses a different feature set and in order for OpenOffice Writer to compete and gain anywhere near the marketshare of Microsoft Word it would have to duplicate virtually all of the functionality. Even for straightforward home / schools users, the killer feature might be the available clipart. For others it might be that Microsoft Office includes a grammar / spell checker in a minority language.

Perhaps the solution is with WINE, *if* and a very big if WINE could reach the stage where it can run close to 100% of windows applications reliably under Linux then their is a hope, although I can't see how this could happen without breaching some Windows patents and a china sized army of coders to keep up with the size of the Windows API.

Jason.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Too late

[CottonThePirate]

I was really surprised how many upper level folks at my rather large organization at the time paid attention to SCO. It hit at just the right time when Linux was being seriously considered by timid managers, the lawsuit threat scared them and they didn't want to get stuck. It was sad, all the tech guys would say it was crap, but the idea of a lawsuit is scary to some. (myself included). The last year or two the case was known to almost everyone to be without merit, but it's the opposite of shock and awe, it came about so slowly that there was never a great "Linux is ok again" moment.

Re:Too late

[KarmaMB84]

I doubt they wanted to lose their jobs and the possibility of ever finding work again when SCO brought a bad lawsuit against their company...

The Forbes view of the world

[simong]

Which has little to do with those who work in IT and much to do with those who pay for IT. It may have made some US CEOs think twice but it wouldn't have affected the workers on the ground. Next week Forbes will tell its readers that mauve has the most RAM.

Re:Not Dan Lyons

[Locutus]

having read the article, I felt it was either thrown together or built from pieces of a larger article. The sections just didn't flow very well and there was no depth to any of it. IMO, this seems to be a poor hack at getting something regarding this news into their content.

Notice that they totally missed that Microsoft had put $15M into SCO for a UNIX license and Sun put in $10 million for their UNIX license. Now, it turns out that SCO does not own UNIX and though they were allowed to sell licenses, they were legally obliged to pay 95% of those fees to Novell. IMO, this is atleast as important to the story since both these companies are still around and still fighting against Linux. Not to mention that Novell has some legal issues to deal with related to those licenses and their validity. As the owner of the product, do they not have the right to void such licenses since they were never paid?

LoB

sure

[nomadic]

'The SCO Group frightened potential business users away from Linux with lawsuits demanding billions in royalties. But the litigious company's claims were shot down in a ruling that will likely boost uptake of the operating system.'

So what's the excuse for the non-adoption of Linux for all those years before the SCO mess?

Re:sure

[MixMasterMizzike]

Smartest thing I've heard anyone say in this thread!

Re:sure

[mattpalmer1086]

Well, that's simple, but no "excuses" are required by anyone as far as I can see. There were always enthusiasts who liked to say how great it was, while shooting down "noobs" (I take it you were trying to bait one of them?), but IMHO, Linux was only approaching readiness for the wider market 3-4 years ago, and finding people who knew the system was hard.

Now it's pretty damn good, with a much broader userbase. As a system, it's better than windows in some respects and worse in others, but definitely comparable. It wasn't 4 years ago.

"You" is Twitter.

[Anonymous Coward]

Who has accused Forbes, twitter? Or are you calling out Slashdot?

I hate to deflate your entire post, but he was talking directly to Twitter. That comment was posted before Zonk front-paged Twitter's journal entry.

Re:"You" is Twitter.

[Doc Ruby]

Maybe so. The substance of my comment still stands, even if it is off-topic.

But how do you know they're talking directly to twitter? Even if it's not front-paged, it's still published by Slashdot. Is there any evidence to believe that twitter fits the post's bill, having dismissed Forbes in the past, but now making a big deal of Forbes' current statements?

Re:"You" is Twitter.

[Anonymous Coward]

dedazo has a long history of being enemies with twitter. Look at twitter's user page - you'll see what I mean.

Twitter is a faggot

[Anonymous Coward]

ignore him

Year of the Desktop? LOL!

[DrDitto]

The year of the desktop has come and past. The desktop is dying.

Who's afraid of the Big Bad SCO?

[Anonymous Coward]

You're kidding me... people were actually hesitant to use Linux because of the SCO lawsuits? What a bunch of wussies! Anyone could see that SCO's claims were "out there". I never had any doubt that this silliness would turn out against SCO. We've tripled (possibly quadrupled) the number of Linux servers in our server room since the SCO lawsuits began. Screw them!

Re:Who's afraid of the Big Bad SCO?

[Billly Gates]

Many financial instutions have anti gnu rules about using free software thanks to the sco ruling due to potential liability. If the company is sued then the person who chose linux job is on the line. Its just so much easier to pick ms.

Yes it hurt linux and forbes help spread alot of fud to many CIOs who now wont touch it. It worked.

Requires cheap means of production

[Lonewolf666]

It is interesting that successful community projects happen mostly in software, a field where all of the necessary tools are affordable to hobbyists, and manufacturing/distribution is even cheaper.

I guess Marx wanted to achieve that for all fields by socializing the means of production, but that did not work out because in many cases the tools are simply too expensive to give everyone a chance at playing with them. The result was management by bureaucracy and a less efficient economy than in capitalism.
If we ever get really cheap and versatile manufacturing tools for hardware, we may see a repetition of that success. But I think we are a few generations of machine tools away from that (think Star Trek style replicators as an extreme scenario).

Not the same SCO

[sconeu]

The SCOundrels are in now way related to the old SCO (Santa Cruz).

The SCOundrels are what used to be Caldera, who bought Santa Cruz's Operating Systems Divison, and then changed their name to "The SCO Group" (SCO not apparently standing for anything).

After Santa Cruz sold off the OS Division, they changed their name to Tarantella, to reflect their major product at the time. Tarantella was bought by Sun about a year ago.

I agree with you though, ODT was a solid, if stodgy platform. We ported an artillery control system to it in the early 90s.

Re:Not the same SCO

[walt-sjc]

they changed their name to Tarantella

Yes, quite an unsurprising name from a bunch of pot smoking nerds... Ahh, for the old days of SCO, where "tea time" meant lighting up a fattie and jumping in the clothing-optional hot tub. Then they got all corporate...

Re:Not Dan Lyons

[sconeu]

Maybe the court meant "The copyrights in question", and perhaps didn't feel the need to add that qualification?

Richard Stallman, your phone's ringing

[john-da-luthrun]

From TFA:

Unix was developed by the old American Telephone & Telegraph. The company allowed the system to be copied, leading to multiple versions, some of which effectively leaked into the public domain. In the early 1990s, Linus Torvalds, then a college student in Helsinki, wrote a version of the program from scratch that he called Linux. Torvalds posted Linux on the Internet, allowing others to copy and improve upon it. The sytem became popular for use on servers as an alternative to Microsoft's Windows.

Yup, that's right, ol' Linus just sat down and cloned the entire Unix operating system from scratch. On his own. With no antecedents.

Re:Richard Stallman, your phone's ringing

[fritsd]

Ken Brown, is that you? Sold a lot of copies of your book to CIO's lately?

Re:Richard Stallman, your phone's ringing

[jon_anderson_ca]

Wait a minute, what are you implying? I though that "GNU's Not Unix"!

Thank you, I'm here all week.

Re:Richard Stallman, your phone's ringing

[MightyMartian]

Well, of course he had antecedents, but that's not the same thing as what SCO and its allies were saying. They were saying he outright ripped other people off, stealing their code.

...exclusive offer - LIMITED TIME

[Anonymous Coward]

You won't wanna miss out on shares of SCO!

...and for a very reasonable price!

Is this thing on?

Not possible

[sheldon]

Since 1997 we've been living in a Post-Desktop world. The Desktop is dead.

Long live the Palm PDA!

Re:Not possible

[Sj0]

Yuck. The only thing scarier than the fact that someone said that is that someone probably believes it.

Indeed it won't

[Anonymous Coward]

The kinds of users that were scared away by SCO probably will continue to find reasons not to run Linux, and frankly those are exactly the kind of users we don't want. Let Microsoft have them, they're nothing but misery.

Re:Already heard this line in 2000

[MightyMartian]

Could you point out precisely how the GPL is hostile to business and commercial software? Last time I checked you can run closed source software on Linux. Last time I checked there are no more severe legal ramifications for using open source software than there is for using proprietary closed source software. Sure, if you make changes and then want to redistribute the software, you're bound to make the source code available. If you don't want to do that, then don't distribute the altered software.

Unfortunately, you're right in a way. Your kind of FUD is precisely what has harmed all open source software. Making up lies about GPL does influence decision makers.

True, but...

[Anonymous Coward]

You're absolutely right about those other points. The ODF / OOXML troubles me the most because this may be our one best shot to break free of the upgrade treadmill. Otherwise, they'll keep raising the bar every year until no one else can interoperate with Office properly. I have more hope that the foreign market will standardize on ODF, but who knows?

Still, there are some upsides we're neglecting:

* Vista is a compatibility & usability nightmare so far. You're going to have to rewrite everything to go to Vista, XP only has a few years before they cut the cord, and now is the time to migrate.

* Ubuntu is "ready for the desktop" and more people are willing to switch thanks to Vista.

* You can get Linux from major retailers like Dell.

* People are building ODF plug-ins for Office. Yes, thanks to Microsoft, interoperability is a one-way street, but it's still possible to minimize the trouble.

It's really too bad they noticed the Mass. legislation right away. If it could've started a domino effect before they pulled out all the stops to kill it, ODF would be the standard and we could actually choose which word processor we wanted to use with some expectation of being able to work with others who insist on Microsoft products.

Why...

[Dausha]

SCO v. World: Why I decided to go to law school.

No change is expected.

[twitter]

... it would also be confirmation to Microsoft that it's attacks are working, and thus encouragement to continue.

Failures have not been a deterrent to them either. Nothing will work for them but product, which they can't deliver. I expect M$ to squander every penny of their ill gotten money on more of the same kinds of FUD and ill advised products. The root problem is that global, non free domination was always an evil pipe dream. Sooner or later, they will pay for the damage they do.

seeing a usually pro-MS business publication being bullish on Linux really is something to celebrate.

Indeed. Now, if they can only understand how the whole thing depends on freedom.

NEWS FLASH!!! Microsoft buys NOVELL!!

[Anonymous Coward]

and Claims Unix source code and copywrite!!11?? j/k but wouldn't that just turn the world on head.

Re:NEWS FLASH!!! Microsoft buys NOVELL!!

[emb3dd3d]

sorry for spelling.. i have my speelcheck turned off

linux mentioned on forbes?

[teh_chrizzle]

on the heels of an article about defcon that was almost fair. is it just me or does this seem like one of the horsemen of the apocalypse?

Possible catalyst for the Linux chain reaction

[e2point71828]

If all the chief Linux distributions actually roll out installation-training (NOT installation AND traning - that is different) and support websites, making full use of web2.0, Linux might spread quickly (....virally?).
See EyeOS and Cornelios for example.
Google Docs/spreadsheets, Zoho, Thinkfree etc. show that the GUI can be handled pretty well.

Move from man2html to man-2-web2.0

A man(ual) page-like web widgets system with:
+ autocomplete dropdowns,
+ popup Javascript help boxes,
+ videos of personal real-installation experiences,
+ running known issues ticker,
+ integrated web interface to IRC servers in a small live-chat window at the bottom left/right corner of the screen,
+ a linked-commands graph (a network graph - with nodes and traversal, not a statistics bar graph),
+ VOIP(!),
+ [insert your cool idea here]

Make one in each language with user groups or forums in that language.
So there! Don't ever complain again that Linux adoption is a markteing problem.

And if you want to pay some good bucks to a squatter domain use:
lol.com - linux online learning or
loiter.org -Linux Online Install TrainER

The outline is ready. What are you waiting for?

Confirmation

[foldingstock]

SCO is dead, Netcraft confirms it.

autozone and chrysler

[EdelFactor19]

hmm, there were lots of names i expected to see up on the title line. RedHat, Novell and IBM were obviously expected. Autozone and chrysler? that seems a little odd to me. The article just notes that they were companies who got sued by SCO for using linux, they arent linux produces or developers, heck some might say chrysler isnt much of a car developer lately :-p. If you are going to name them you might as well name anyone selling or using linux too...

plus isnt this technically good news for mac-land as they move closer to being unix based? i remember somewhere reading they were edging closer to that.

Dream on...

[Eric Damron]

This wishful fantasy brought to you by an Anonymous Microsoft fanboy and a whole lot of alcohol.

Business Use.

[twitter]

So this is what was keeping Linux market share from increasing? [sarcasm, FUD and bullshit follow]

Forbes thinks that multi billion dollar litigation faced by Chrysler and others made others shy about using gnu/linux. Legal extortion was a real cost for them and could be for other big companies who continue to "partner" with M$ and use their garbage on desktops.

M$ patent threats are much the same. While equally empty, the threat of court costs is real. Hopefully, the courts will take notice and save everyone time and trouble by rejecting the next round.

Sooner or later, M$ will be held accountable for these actions. Chrysler and friends should launch a class action lawsuit to cover the cost of the trial. They could use the fines to finish up their gnu/linux conversions and then put money into what they are supposed to be doing. M$ has lots of ill gotten cash from this and is a fitting target.

Re:Business Use.

[Anonymous Coward]

[sarcasm, FUD and bullshit follow]

And you wonder why you get moderated Troll...

Re:Not Dan Lyons

[Chris Brewer]

For example the court did not rule that Novell owns copyrights to Unix...

Wrong! The very first sentence of the ruling states:

[T]he court concludes that Novell is the owner of the UNIX and UnixWare Copyrights.

Read the ruling here...

Re:Already heard this line in 2000

[Drgnkght]

Sure, it's technically possible, but due to the GPL's open hostility to both business and commercial interests, they have killed any willingness to support teh Lunix as a platform. <feeding_troll mode="on"> The GPL isn't hostile to business or commercial interests. What it is hostile towards is taking GPL licensed code, modifying it and claiming it as your own. I fail to see how that is any different than any other license. </feeding_troll>

Keep modding this guy up

[Anonymous Coward]

And he'll keep doing things like these

A note to SCO employees

[merc]

In response to today's Daily Herald article (and I quote) SCO, which had also spent millions of dollars in its four-and-a-half year legal campaign, is, as one worker puts it, "sticking it out to the end. The floor may be gone, but we're still hanging on to the pipes."

My advice to SCO employees: put down those crack pipes and look for another job if you can.

Pointless speculation from Forbes - as usual

[Master of Transhuman]

Everybody knows from previous IT industry articles that pretty much nobody cared about the SCO suit once it was clear that it was going nowhere. Almost no companies said it had any impact on their Linux provisioning considerations.

This is highly unlikely to have any effect on anybody - even Novell, much less IBM or Red Hat.

I certainly don't trust them ...

[Krishnoid]

Especially after reading this article:

Sun says it has finally figured out what's wrong. It is an odd problem involving stray cosmic rays and memory chips in the flagship Enterprise server line, whose models are priced at $50,000 to more than $1 million. Yet Sun won't fix all of the servers it has sold; instead it will make repairs when it deems them necessary.

I remember hearing physicists (at the Laboratory for Astrophysics and Space Research) saying that if that was the case, they could use those chips as part of the most inexpensive cosmic ray detector ever made. So since then, I may trust Forbes to understand finance, but not technology or science or pretty much anything else.

Since you asked. Re:Business Use.

[twitter]

A nasty little AC predicts yet another mod bomb:

you wonder why you get moderated Troll...

... and sure enough, my last eight posts are slapped with "Troll" mods. If it makes AC losers angry, I must be doing something right.

Re:Since you asked. Re:Business Use.

[Anonymous Coward]

I must be doing something right.

You sure are.

Re:I'm so sorry.

[Anonymous Coward]

http://www.hitchhiker.org/~josh/fun/fuckwad.jpg

to quote your sig [tqys] -

[Anonymous Coward]

retrorocket.o not found, launch anyway?

This is in reference to a moment in the future when people can run software, but cannot read it. An object called retrorocket is missing and is a compatibility layer for live weapon systems, the operator now has the option of launching "anyway?".

Play the song in your head...
3
2
1
now.

--
Anonymous Stoned Guy .^///($)

Linux On The Desktop

[stilgar59]

Maybe what should happen in 2008 is that the major distro makers should get together and get Linux on the desktop by bringing out a game that just runs on Linux. I have a perfect game to go with LOTD and that is Duke Nukem Forever. I mean they could probably make a port of the game faster than it will ever make it on a Windows desktop and you have the one game that everyone will want to play since it will be so advanced and will be just available on Linux. Well we might have to wait a while for that to happen ;).

Re:Since you asked. Re:Business Use.

[Anonymous Coward]

It doesn't matter if you're right or not. You're a dick. You get moderated appropriately.

This is Forbes trying to claw back credibility..

[Anonymous Coward]

If I recall correctly from their earlier style of "news" of SCO vs Linux, reality wasn't much a feature of their Linux reporting. IMHO they had plenty of opportunity to redeem themselves.

It shouldn't have needed an almost slam dunk court decision to see that something was seriously afoul with the SCO case, and a few more 'positive' articles are not going to restore that credibility in a hurry..

a day late and a dollar short

[westlake]

A great strategy would be to get linux in the elementary and middle schools, get 'em young.... keep 'em for life.

The perfect strategy...for 1995. No later. I remember watching my niece playing with Windows 95 at age four. XP hit the market in 2001. "Get 'em young?" Microsoft has been a force in the PC market for thirty years.

Wha authorithy gives you to work in a Forbes 500?

[jotaeleemeese]

I work in another one, and in more likelihood it is bigger than yours, dear AC.

We are deploying Linux all around the place and the legal proceeding initiated by SCO did not stop us.

But alas, we have a good legal team and a very good technical team, both of which understand the issues at hand.

Not all Forbes 500 companies are created equal, you will find amongst them some ready to fall for any scam.

MS is the equivalent of Nazis in IT discussions.

[jotaeleemeese]

Any discussion about computing will eventually mention MS.

This is not gratuitous, their pervasive influence in all the industry is a concerted effort on their part, as soon as somebody make something moderately successful they try to supplant it with their own offerings.

Re:MS is the equivalent of Nazis in IT discussions

[east coast]

as soon as somebody make something moderately successful they try to supplant it with their own offerings

Yeah, I hear a lot about this. I notice the same taboo status isn't applied to the likes of Google.

It also bothers me that the same people who claim that MS copies everything everyone else does also claims that long copyright policies stifle innovation too. So on one hand copying something lacks innovation but if someone can't copy something innovation is suddenly stifled? I must have missed something there.

NEW NEWS: This just in - UBUNTU SERVERS HACKED!

[Anonymous Coward]

"Ubuntu is mostly there. ...And it is better than MS in a lot of important areas: stability, security" - by turing_m (1030530) on Tuesday August 14, @10:04AM (#20224233)

UBUNTU SERVERS HACKED/CRACKED:

http://it.slashdot.org/it/07/08/15/1341224.shtml

Might as well add "insult to injury" per this earlier reply of mine, here in this thread, in reply to yourself (and, a challenge I issued & have issued here repeatedly which NO *NIX USER HAS MET, mind you) here:

http://linux.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=268693&c id=20234767

APK

P.S.=> After all: We don't see Microsoft Windows Server 2003 + SQLServer 2005 (both fully patched & admin'd well + setup propertly) failing over @ their roles @ NASDAQ, do we? No, we see them achieving the "fabled 5-9's" (99.999% uptime)...

So much for your statement!

BUT, there is always the challenge I posted in the 2nd URL above, so take it, beat the score posted there on the multiplatform CIS TOOL, a test for security!

(One that is noted by both SANS & COMPUTERWORLD as legit/valid tool for the testing of security based on best practices for either platform tested)

*NIX variants this test runs on, that is... which is odd, in & of itself!

Mainly, because FreeBSD can run it, OpenBSD can't (though the test is JAVA runtime driven & thus SHOULD run on both fine, but it does not) EVEN THOUGH they are both BSD variants, & from the SAME basecode trees!

(That fact also shows a lack of development for say, MacOS X & OpenBSD (both BSD derivants)

vs. Windows NT-based OS'! apk

Re:I'm so sorry.

[Anonymous Coward]

A much better solution would be if you were to build a time machine and then take that coat hanger to the time six months before you were born, and perform an abortion on your mom.

As an added bonus, this would be give great peace of mind to the tens of thousands of men that fear they might be your father.