It is not a shortcoming of Linux itself. It is a shortcoming with the ecosystem that has developed around Linux. If the applications that are not currently available for a Linux desktop (I sorely need Photoshop CS4 and Lightroom) were suddenly available and supported natively on the OS, would that change anyone's mind about Linux. I suspect the answer is yes.
This whole thing did exactly what it was meant to do.
Microsoft, whose new Vista operating system was woefully late, give a buch of money to SCO to cuase some FUD against a rival OS that is making strong inroads. The simple action of SCO filing a lawsuit and seemingly whole heartedly beleiving in it, is wnough to make some people quesiton the viability of Linux and FOSS in general. This has the desired effect of slowing the addoption of linux, buying MS some time to get Vista out the door. Suddenly a bit after Vista is released the code in question is revealed to be nothing of consequence.
In a superdome, you can create an N-Par, which is a hardware partition. This partition gets it's own hardware resources. These resources (including processor) are physically isolated from other N-Par's. You can power down, upgrade, remove, hot swap, etc... without affecting the other N-Pars. If you do V-PAR (Virtual Partitions) then you run into the sharing of resource problem.
Each N-PAR can run it's own Heterogeneous OS (HP-UX, Linux, Windows or soon OpenVMS). These can all be run simultaneously.
I find it amusing that the story states Copyright issues raised by Novell, from which SCO bought the rights to Unix, are irrelevant, McBride said during a conference call with media and analysts. SCO licensed the code to IBM, who allegedly misappropriated it. However, if they don't actually own the copyrights, then isn't SCO guilty of the same thing they are suing IBM for. Makes no sense to me, but I'm just a computer geek.
I think calling this thing a worm is a complete misrepresentation. This is a piece of software that does exactly what it's license says it is going to do. It is up to an end user to understand the ramifications of the software they install. By not reading or caring what they install, users are subject to whatever the consequences are.
Keep in mind, I think code that works toward the detriment of the internet as whole, should be dealt with (i'm just not sure how), but I think this code is an example of playing on the ignornace of the general user community.
I have done a great deal of consulting around the technology required to be HIPAA compliant. While there are many technology parts, one of the main issues is documenting and implementing proper procedures and policies.
Most of the physical security aspects can easily undo all the hard work that is put into securing things at the datacenter level. It is important to publish your standards, and ensure they are clear, and that your employee's are trained on them. It is your responsability to communicate the policies, but it is typically up to each department's manager to ensure they are followed.
As for the technology side, it is important to document how your systems and software were made compliant.
Microsoft is the company that could gain the most from this.
Not only will they sell yet another version of Windows, but they can now protect all those documents that leak out that. You know, all those emails and memos that are used against them in court and the media. With TCPA, no one could decode these critical pieces of evidence. After all you can't prove someone is doing something wrong if you can't uncover the facts.
Slashdot Mirror
It is not a shortcoming of Linux itself. It is a shortcoming with the ecosystem that has developed around Linux. If the applications that are not currently available for a Linux desktop (I sorely need Photoshop CS4 and Lightroom) were suddenly available and supported natively on the OS, would that change anyone's mind about Linux. I suspect the answer is yes.
This whole thing did exactly what it was meant to do.
Microsoft, whose new Vista operating system was woefully late, give a buch of money to SCO to cuase some FUD against a rival OS that is making strong inroads. The simple action of SCO filing a lawsuit and seemingly whole heartedly beleiving in it, is wnough to make some people quesiton the viability of Linux and FOSS in general. This has the desired effect of slowing the addoption of linux, buying MS some time to get Vista out the door. Suddenly a bit after Vista is released the code in question is revealed to be nothing of consequence.
Food for thought!
No wonder computers are so confusing!
In a superdome, you can create an N-Par, which is a hardware partition. This partition gets it's own hardware resources. These resources (including processor) are physically isolated from other N-Par's. You can power down, upgrade, remove, hot swap, etc... without affecting the other N-Pars. If you do V-PAR (Virtual Partitions) then you run into the sharing of resource problem.
Each N-PAR can run it's own Heterogeneous OS (HP-UX, Linux, Windows or soon OpenVMS). These can all be run simultaneously.
I find it amusing that the story states Copyright issues raised by Novell, from which SCO bought the rights to Unix, are irrelevant, McBride said during a conference call with media and analysts. SCO licensed the code to IBM, who allegedly misappropriated it. However, if they don't actually own the copyrights, then isn't SCO guilty of the same thing they are suing IBM for. Makes no sense to me, but I'm just a computer geek.
RandomIO
I think calling this thing a worm is a complete misrepresentation. This is a piece of software that does exactly what it's license says it is going to do. It is up to an end user to understand the ramifications of the software they install. By not reading or caring what they install, users are subject to whatever the consequences are.
Keep in mind, I think code that works toward the detriment of the internet as whole, should be dealt with (i'm just not sure how), but I think this code is an example of playing on the ignornace of the general user community.
I have done a great deal of consulting around the technology required to be HIPAA compliant. While there are many technology parts, one of the main issues is documenting and implementing proper procedures and policies.
Most of the physical security aspects can easily undo all the hard work that is put into securing things at the datacenter level.
It is important to publish your standards, and ensure they are clear, and that your employee's are trained on them. It is your responsability to communicate the policies, but it is typically up to each department's manager to ensure they are followed.
As for the technology side, it is important to document how your systems and software were made compliant.
RandomIO
Microsoft is the company that could gain the most from this.
Not only will they sell yet another version of Windows, but they can now protect all those documents that leak out that. You know, all those emails and memos that are used against them in court and the media. With TCPA, no one could decode these critical pieces of evidence. After all you can't prove someone is doing something wrong if you can't uncover the facts.
And the Monopoly Grows!
-RandomIO