SCO vs. IBM Battle Over Linux May Finally Be Over (networkworld.com)

JG0LD writes with this news from Network World: A breach-of-contract and copyright lawsuit filed nearly 13 years ago by a successor company to business Linux vendor Caldera International against IBM may be drawing to a close at last, after a U.S. District Court judge issued an order in favor of the latter company earlier this week.
Here's the decision itself (PDF). Also at The Register.

Comments

Geez, it's like clamydia

[halivar]

SCO is never going away. Fifty billion years from now, long after the last human is dead, alien successors-in-interest will still be suing each other over it.

Whatever happened to Groklaw?

[Cassini2]

The groklaw coverage was so good. I know that PJ closed the site down. Did anything ever spring up in its place?

Simple car analogy

[dbIII]

Darl McBride drove the public company that he'd been allowed to run into the brick wall that is IBM and took it to his brother's panel shop (legal firm). Both made a fortune out of the destruction. Massive legal fees and a golden parachute draining all value out of the company before bankruptcy.

Linux was just the distraction for an old fashioned two man scam.

Re:systemd has done more harm to Linux than SCO di

[MrKaos]

SysV and the flusterfuck dyslexic script hackery behind SysV was a constant nightmare with a mountain hardware complaints leading back to it.

Even so the clusterfuck of rc scripts in most redhat derivatives was Red-Hat's creation. People aren't using init, via inittab, properly and now the reason cited to replace init is because the rc system, and the script hackery behind it created by red-hat is disliked. Keh?

Wouldn't a better rc system work better?

Here is a thought, why not learn how to use the shell properly so that shell hackery is not required. Or another idea, learn how to implement design patterns in bash/sh/ksh/zsh. Init is a simple elegant idea, people are arguing for it's removal because they aren't skilled enough writing *shell scripts*. It seems a bit silly to me that people who can't write something so simple have any business modifying the way the OS initializes.

It would be great to get Ken Thopson's opinion on the situation.

However, since we have the attention of many systemd advocates, can someone please throw a use case at me that init doesn't satisfy that systemd does? I'm really trying to understand why it is supposed to be better than something that is as tested as init. I don't mind using it, but why it is supposed to be so compelling?