Slashdot Mirror
SCO Talks About Linux
jflynn writes "An interesting look at what SCO is telling it's customers about Linux is found here.
There seems to be a great deal of fear and loathing." The (unbylined) article appears on a Web site owned by X/OS, a Netherlands-based Unix and Linux consulting/R&D company. It makes some interesting points.
M$ not only owns a chunk of SCO, SCO used to be Microsoft Xenix!
This is just like television, only you can see much further.
I don't think it's a matter of strength so much as simply that SCO is the company that's standing most directly in front of the Linux steamroller. The other commercial Unix vendors are primarily hardware vendors. Sun and SGI aren't threatened by Linux, because they're not out to sell operating systems. They're out to sell the hardware. It doesn't matter much to them whether you run {Solaris,Irix} or Linux on it after you buy it. In some ways, Linux is advantageous to them... it frees them from having to devote the programmer-hours to develop and maintain the OS - that task gets done for them for free by the Linux community. SCO, on the other hand, is a software vendor. They sell an OS to run on readily available third-party hardware. Since SCO isn't making anything off the sale of the hardware, if Linux supplants SCO on that hardware, SCO is screwed... they no longer have a source of income. Companies without income don't last long. Even Microsoft has less cause to worry about Linux than SCO does. Though they're also a software vendor, Windows fills a different niche than Linux currently does, and so is less immediately threatened by Linux's growth. SCO, on the other hand, is an x86 Unix, just like Linux, so they're in direct competition for the same market. And Linux has the advantages of being free, open, and (arguably) simply better.
SCO's words bring to mind the image of a man standing on railroad tracks, complaining about how trains are just a fad while one approaches from behind at 80 MPH.
Let's face it, SCO Unix has no future; they haven't had a future for years now. Of all the UNIXes, SCO will be the first one to die. Their management can't seem to grasp this, or if they do understand, they seem to think that they can turn the tide back in their favor without some sort of major effort.
Fortunately, we don't need SCO (or any other UNIX) to recognize the error of their ways in order to succeed. One vendor, or even all vendors, can't stop the Second Coming of UNIX that is Linux. Smart vendors, like SGI, are dealing with the changes and embracing them. Mark my words, it's these companies that will come out on top from all this.
----
Every year during my review, I just pray the words "slashdot.org" aren't mentioned.
SCO of all companies should remember the history of Unix, and the mistakes Unix vendors made that helped Microsoft gain a foothold. Unix vendors spent years fighting amongst themselves in a shrinking market, all ignoring the threat of Windows NT, until it was too late. Now SCO is just repeating old mistakes. Idiots. Sun at least is smart enough to see that the correct strategy is to play nice with Linux, and let your products sell themselves on their merits. Bashing Linux, which has by far the most media attention that any Unix has received this decade, is definitely going to hurt SCO more than it helps. And this... this is beyond FUD, these are just lies.
Yes, we all know it's FUD. But isn't it interesting that all FUD seems to look about the same after a while? Observe:
... [b]ecause Linux is basically a free-for-all it means that no individual ... is accountable should anything go wrong[.]
Linux will mainly replace Windows desktop systems to run browser and X based applications, and maybe even some office applications. Therefore SCO feels no threat [etc.]
Now correct me if I'm wrong, but this sounds a lot like Microsoft's line (that Linux is not a threat to the Windows market but rather to Unix vendors - like SCO).
Linux at this moment can be considered more a play thing
This again sounds like the Microsoft/Jesse Berst line of "there's no one to sue if it goes wrong." Well, frankly, to me that's fine because most of the time the problems I've seen with an OS on the server level can be attributed to operator error or "act of God" type situations anyway.
d) It is often perceived to be dangerous when a company uses an operating system where the source code is available on the web to the whole world[.]
Again, it seems to me I've seen MS use this argument before, and it's just as fallacious. There's an easy solution: it's very easy to provide "look-but-don't-touch" or less access to the kernel sources or anything else that is considered potentially hazardous. Or if kernel hacking is necessary, do the work on another box and don't introduce it to the mission-critical systems until it's been reviewed and tested.
The last bit, even if it doesn't fall into the the category of repetitive FUD, seems to destroy the whole argument:
For 3 years now, SCO has supplied free of charge UnixWare and OpenServer for educational and non commercial use. SCO does not supply source code with its products. (emphasis mine)
Well, it's nice to get the OS free of charge, but the license is still restrictive, and you're still stuck with the kernel SCO gives you. The flexibility of the code is the #1 reason I've found for using Linux. -Drayke
-Drayke
If all the world's a stage, it must have been an easy audition.
If your main revenue stream is from providing closed-source operating systems software, it's time to find a new business. I'm sorry, but I just can't see any way around that. SCO had some great times and their founders made more money than they know what to do with. The engineers are able to find new work if the company isn't able to re-target itself appropriately. Companies have life-cycles and SCO's original mission is over. It's time for them to catch a new wave.
Thanks
Bruce Perens
Bruce Perens.
A bit of history.
Around eight months ago, I was hacking away at this economics essay regarding Open Source. With Linuxworld coming up, I chose to go around, soliciting opinions like any good annoying writer should.
I went to LinuxCare, spoke to Sifry, and received some interesting commentary. I walked up to the infamous Maddog, and had some nice flaws evicerated apart...then I went to the SCO booth.
Wow.
What you guys saw in that article wasn't just the ravings of a deluded marketroid. That's the corporate culture of SCO. I think SCO genuinely feels it owns Unix on Intel, and is desperately flummoxed that someone--anyone--would encroach on their domain.
SCO doesn't like Linux. That's not surprising. What's more interesting, arguably even fascinating, is the degree to which SCO Employees are public about this distaste. I mean, you know there are at least a few people in large corporations who believe very strongly in everything SCO has to degrade about Linux. But they're generally rather quiet about it.
SCO outscreams Microsoft--although, it's interesting to note that MS owns a chunk of SCO...
The question is: Is SCO the only company strong enough to wage those complaints(perhaps due to the MS connection?), or is it the only company weak enough to prevent its employees from spouting off?
I'd personally bet on the latter, but the former isn't altogether unfeasable.
Yours Truly,
Dan Kaminsky
DoxPara Research
http://www.doxpara.com
Once you pull the pin, Mr. Grenade is no longer your friend.
SCO took a real beating from the "cheap" Unix market until bad management on AT&T's, then Novell's, part forced what was left to be sold to SCO at fire-sale rates.
If I were an employee at SCO, I'd be sweating bullets right about now. Whatever Linux's flaws (and it does have its warts, just like every other OS), SCO is finding it an increasing challenge to show how they give better value than Linux (or BSD) or why they should charge such a premium for their OS. SCO is the last of the old-time OS vendors, where their first line offering is their OS, and you'll pay a literal small fortune to use it. It's only a matter of time before they slip into oblivion.
No. Free beer will mainly replace wine coolers and milkshakes. On the beer side, free beer poses so many risks that SCO beer perceives no direct competition in this area.
Why is the Free Beer Hype Good For SCO Beer?
The Free beer hype has generated a lot of interest in beer in frosty mugs. SCO beer has been the largest supplier of beer in frosty mugs for the past 20 years previous to this.
Why should I use SCO beer for my party and not Free Beer
Free beer, at this moment, is just a play thing for chemistry students. No one can be held accountable should you become drunk. Plus, SCO beer has born on dating, so that you won't mistakenly drink a 1998 bottle during your Y2K party.
Which Free Beer Should I Use?
There are over forty different kinds of free beer competing with eachother, and each one seems to have a different taste. That's just too many kinds of beer to chose from. Therefore it makes more sense to by a single commercial beer like SCO beer.