Your take on online shopping is contrary to what most everyone else thinks. Why, really, should it cost more?
With a brick and mortar facility there are a huge number of additional expenses for the daily operation of the facility than there are for an online store. This overhead adds to the price of the products sold. This was supposed to be one of the founding principles of Amazon.com.
Amazon was supposed to be THE retail sales outlet because it would cost less. They didn't have the overhead that a brick and mortar would have and therefore, could sell the products at a significantly lower price.
An online shop avoids the overhead of multiple buildings, electricity, staff, taxes for property and staff, insurance and a whole lot more. The brick and mortar retailer is replaced by a machine. This is why banks use ATMs. It is not to give their customers convenience. It is to establish and expand the bank's presence without the expense that would be incurred by opening a branch office.
The fact is that online shopping should indeed be a lot cheaper than a retail outlet, even with paying taxes. But, for some strange reason, it doesn't look like it is going to work out that way.
I had no idea that the education system had degraded to such a point that one must rely on AIM in order to graduate. Truely very sad for today's students.
It means that there will now be a flood of "Paper RHCEs" just as was the case with the MCSEs. But there will be a big difference.
The difference will be that few Slashdotters will ridicule the RHCEs as they have done the MCSEs. And, the Slashdotters that do ridicule them will be classified as jealous of the certification, since they do not have one. Then they will be modded down to minus one, much as I suspect this post will be.
Let me say this again. X11 is a bandwidth hog. Numerous posts above defend it and try to explain why it uses so much bandwidth. A few posts seem like nothing more than defenses based on emotional attachment to X11. But, the fact remains that it uses too much bandwidth.
Numerous posts blame the high bandwidth on "poorly designed applications". This says that there needs to be a different protocol. It should not matter what the application is or how badly designed it is the display server should be able to reliably and consistantly export the display, regardless of the underlying application. If it shows up on the screen the display server should be able to push it across the network at a reasonable cost(bandwidth).
A few incredulous posts say that the problem is my use of "eye candy". Excuse me???? Remember that we are talking about X. X is a *GUI* display manager. If we cut out the GUI part, then we don't need X at all and can happily rely on SSH. The whole point of X is eye candy. What kind of display manager is it if it chokes on the *display*.
A few posts say that my numbers are way off base. They site their own experiences at 2Mbps and 200kbps. Regarless of my numbers, 200kbps for a static image is WAY too high, let alone 2Mbps or 11Mbps. See below for more acceptable bandwidth numbers.
As is always the case a few people piped up and offered VNC. VNC is a very nice remote control package but, it really can't be compared to X11 and similar products since VNC does not offer the same functionality. VNC does allow you to remotely control a desktop but X11, RDP and ICA do much more than that.
Which brings us to examples of protocols that offer similar X11 functionality at a MUCH lower bandwidth. VNC is relativley low bandwidth but, as stated above, is less functional than X. RDP consumes about the same amount of bandwidth, up to 200Kbps, but provides much greater graphics quality and far greater responsiveness than VNC or X. But, Citrix ICA is the hands down winner. It offers very similar functioinality to X much better performance than X, VNC or RDP and it is the lowest consumer of bandwidth.
A standard desktop application(not too graphics intensive) can consume as little as 14Kbps. It is possible to have 32 bit color depth with animated graphics(even a movie) and sound running on Citrix ICA at 200kbps or less. The average ICA session consumes 30kbps.
All this means that it *IS* possible to have a networkable display that consumes a minimal amount of bandwidth. X11 using 200kbps to 11Mbps is WAY too high. X needs a new protocol.
I know that Slashdot is rife with conspiracy theorists but, I don't think I've seen a single one lay out quite so many conspiracies at once. It seems that you live in a frightening world. I for one would be paralyzed with fear.
Remember, just because you are paranoid doesn't mean that they aren't out to get you.
I'll have to see the bandwidth tests first.
on
A Sound Server For X
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
It processes graphic information locally, alleviating the need for network transmission of uncompressed graphical content.
Since it relies on X11 I suspect the bandwidth requirements are going to be really high. X11 over the network is a bandwidth hog, that's all there is to it. Now they're adding sound?
X11 needs a new protocol. Graphical applications run across the network consume ridiculous amounts of bandwidth. If you want to do a test try running the XMMS gui across the network via X11. The last time I did it, XMMS was using 11 megabits per second. It would really suck to try that over a modem or a 64K frame-relay link.
First off, this is "supposed" to be a drop in replacement for Windows NT 4.0. Why? Even Microsoft is trying to abandon NT 4.0.
But, Ok you want a drop in replacement for NT 4.0. So, where is the GUI? There is no GUI. Second, but perhaps most importantly, where is the file system support. This thing uses FAT32. Windows NT 4.0 can use FAT32 but, its primary file system is NTFS.
How can they possibly call it a seamless replacement for NT 4.0 with no GUI and no NTFS file system. I'm sorry but, renaming FreeDos utilities to try to emulate the CMD.EXE shell is hardly a substitute for NT 4.0 and I won't even mention Windows 2000.
Ok, I have to upgrade my systems annually to maintain support, I'll "buy" that. But, could you tell me how I perform an OS upgrade on a remote headless system? Sure, I can throw on the latest RPMs for vi and emacs but I want to know how I do a complete system UPGRADE from 7.3 to 8.0 remotely via telnet, ssh, what-have-you. I may be thousands of miles away from my servers and they are located in lights out facilities.
P.S. Microsoft just had to restate their EOL on NT 4.0. Will you be doing the same in a couple of months?
I disagree, I don't think it should have the Java applet. First, the Java applet would need a web server to serve to the client(viewer) which would mean embedding a web server into KDE. This would be more code bloat, at best, and a major security risk at worst. Security will already be a concern with everyone running the VNC server.
Secondly, VNC viewer setup is dead simple. For Linux, download and install the TightVNC.RPM or.DEB. After install, run TightVNC and enter the address. For Windows clients, download VNC and click SETUP.EXE. Then run the viewer and enter the address.
I don't think that this is at all too difficult for anyone, let alone anyone that would use VNC. By comparison PCAnywhere is far more complicated to setup and yet is still used by millions of people.
I'm surprised that they did not mention massive numbers of "broken" requests from Windows 2000/XP systems. I see this all the time due to misconfigurations. Administrators often set up the Windows 2000 DNS servers incorrectly and Windows 2000/XP systems(workstations and servers) configured such that they constantly try dynamic DNS updates to the wrong DNS servers, even the root servers.
Linux too, has some issues here. Obviously misconfigured DNS servers will always be a problem but, distros like Red Hat have IPv6 support compiled into the BIND RPM, this results in an IPv6 formatted query folllowed by an IPv4 query for every request.
Nationalist History.
on
Tuxedo Park
·
· Score: 4, Informative
I'm always amused by this type of nationalist history where, people of various nations "adjust" the facts to take credit for work that isn't entirely their own. The Russian's are exceptionally good at this, as they claim to have invented the telephone, television, flight and probably RADAR too.
Englishman, Watt, was most definitely the inventor of RADAR. The Americans knew nothing about it until they were approached by the British regarding the need for a process to manufacture a single component in high volumes. This process, developed at Westinhouse, turned out to be the simple lamination of copper plates to make the part. The information about RADAR that was learned by the Americans lead to further R&D on Loomis' part as well as Westinghouse's development of the Microwave oven, the RADAR Range.
Loomis did contribute a lot of R&D to the further advancement of RADAR but, he most certainly did not invent it.
SCO owns the IP for System V. Linux uses several concepts from the System V design, not the least of which is the Linux init system which is a direct take off of the System V method.
As I stated in a post from the earlier article, this action is a serious threat to SCO's future and I am not certain that SCO has fully examined the fallout that this announcement will cause, regardless of the final outcome.
The very fact that SCO flat out lied, yes lied, in last week's announcement will seriously impact the level of trust that any vendor or customer might have had in SCO.
The CNet article did not discuss the audience's reaction to this announcement but, I doubt very much that it was well received. Would anyone that witnessed the announcement and the audience's reaction care to report on it?
Microsoft has adjusted their rehtoric against Linux, again, and says they will now be pushing the integration advantages of Windows over Linux. This, in my opinion, does have some merit as, management of a Microsoft network is highly integrate from groupware and databases to desktop workstations. The Linux environment however, is composed of individual projects with little or no integration which forces Linux management to be performed through kludges and custom scripts.
Indeed, the most popular and perhaps best, integrated management system for the Linux environment appears to be Webmin which, though very good, is forced to be a kludge and still falls short of a truely integrated enterprise Linux management system. While Red Hat offers RHN and SCO offers Volution Manager neither one truely integrates the overall management of a Linux shop.
Are you, the leading commercial Linux vendors targeting the enterprise market, planning on making any efforts to integrate Linux management on an enterprise level such as Microsoft and Novell already do? If so, what are these efforts and how will they be licensed?
I'll admit that it is terribly cool looking, though the concept is not entirely new. However, the practicality of it seems rather unlikely.
If you have to lug around a huge backpack of support gear, why not just carry a larger display, such as Apple's 17" laptop or a future roll-up screen. Now, I know everyone will jump on me and say that they will reduce the size of the support gear but, it is still going to be impractical.
In order to use this thing you must move around a fair bit. Imagine a subway train full of people gyrating with their PDAs. It will look like a bunch of DDR freaks on mescalin.
I think a much better solution would be to simple use a little track ball on the the bottom of the PDA to scroll around screen. but, that's not new technology at all.
As Unicenter was originally coded for Unix it was an easy step for them.
Additionally, HP OpenView also already has Linux support. But, people need to remember, HP openView is a Network Management application while Unicenter is an Enterprise Management application. They are not the same.
Ahh, the advancement of graphics.
on
SVG On the Rise
·
· Score: 2, Funny
It's amazing how graphics formatting is "advancing". But, SVG is a telling format for the future.
I predict that within the next 5 years W3 will have another new, "better", standard. It will rely on embeding the graphics in the web pages themselves, similar to SVG. But, it will greatly simplify programming with its Reduced Instruction Set Code(RISC). The code syntax will consist only of Peek(x,y) and Poke(x,y). Simple huh?
I've complained about a *major* degradation in performance since the move but, all I get is modded to -1. Seems that it is unacceptable to question the Slashdot admins.
This is a common situation in open source and I don't see it changing anytime soon. The fact is that apps such as middleware are business apps. They aren't terribly sexy or cool. They are however, important to business and are usually specific to a particular business.
On the other hand, it seems that most open source developers are motivated to scratch their own itch. They are drawn to apps that are cool and apps that meet their needs. This is perfectly understandable but, it does result in a derth of open source business apps that are either mundane or just plain boaring. For this reason, open source offers an emormous assortment of "toy" apps. There are countless cd burners/rippers, MP3/Ogg players/encoders, Linux utilities and so forth. There are also a ridiculous amount of frameworks and libraries, usually all repeating the same theme. If I see another "yet another framework" project I'm going to be sick.
There are only a few business type open source projects and even fewer ones that could be considered mature enough and good enough to run your business on them. If a business wants a particular app they must build it themselves. This of course costs money and in some cases it costs a huge amount of money. And there in lies the problem. Most businesses that have spent large amounts of money on development are not interested or willing to give it away by making their project open source. For these two reasons there are very few business type open source apps like middleware and it will be a long time before there are, if ever.
I was already concerned about having the "pedals" on the steering wheel but, now you want me to face a roadway full of people that learned to drive by playing Vice City?????
You are advocating cars with the brakes and the accelerator on the steering wheel and a tank full of hydrogen underneath? Looks like it's time to move to one of those islands where they don't have cars.
People still have trouble with the accelerator and brake pedals in their traditional spot. Now you want to put them on the steering wheel? I'd really rather not have one of these coming toward me.
SCO must consider all options, it is after all a revenue generating corporation (supposedly). But, they must consider the risk that such an action would have. Should they decide to enforce such a claim, they risk having to spend a great deal of money defending the lawsuits that would surely arise from other similar companies.
Now, let's assume for a moment that they go forward with their claim and that it is uncontestable. The next step, naturally, would be for every Linux distribution to switch to the BSD style init system. SCO has no claim to this and therefore gain no further revenue from their System V rights. But, most importantly, no one would trust SCO again. Everything SCO would be shunned by all Linux distros and the community at large. At that point SCO may as well forget their Caldera roots and stop selling Linux completely because no one will buy SCO Linux again. SCO will be forced to try to line from SCO Unix alone and the original SCO proved that this is a very hard thing to do. It will be even harder now, as Linux was not as strong a contender 3 to 5 years ago, at least in the mindshare department.
I'm sure that SCO will eventually say that they will NOT enforce this claim against Linux but, they need to do it quickly because the longer they wait the less people will trust them.
Slashdot Mirror
Your take on online shopping is contrary to what most everyone else thinks. Why, really, should it cost more?
With a brick and mortar facility there are a huge number of additional expenses for the daily operation of the facility than there are for an online store. This overhead adds to the price of the products sold. This was supposed to be one of the founding principles of Amazon.com.
Amazon was supposed to be THE retail sales outlet because it would cost less. They didn't have the overhead that a brick and mortar would have and therefore, could sell the products at a significantly lower price.
An online shop avoids the overhead of multiple buildings, electricity, staff, taxes for property and staff, insurance and a whole lot more. The brick and mortar retailer is replaced by a machine. This is why banks use ATMs. It is not to give their customers convenience. It is to establish and expand the bank's presence without the expense that would be incurred by opening a branch office.
The fact is that online shopping should indeed be a lot cheaper than a retail outlet, even with paying taxes. But, for some strange reason, it doesn't look like it is going to work out that way.
I had no idea that the education system had degraded to such a point that one must rely on AIM in order to graduate. Truely very sad for today's students.
It means that there will now be a flood of "Paper RHCEs" just as was the case with the MCSEs. But there will be a big difference.
The difference will be that few Slashdotters will ridicule the RHCEs as they have done the MCSEs. And, the Slashdotters that do ridicule them will be classified as jealous of the certification, since they do not have one. Then they will be modded down to minus one, much as I suspect this post will be.
Let me say this again. X11 is a bandwidth hog. Numerous posts above defend it and try to explain why it uses so much bandwidth. A few posts seem like nothing more than defenses based on emotional attachment to X11. But, the fact remains that it uses too much bandwidth.
Numerous posts blame the high bandwidth on "poorly designed applications". This says that there needs to be a different protocol. It should not matter what the application is or how badly designed it is the display server should be able to reliably and consistantly export the display, regardless of the underlying application. If it shows up on the screen the display server should be able to push it across the network at a reasonable cost(bandwidth).
A few incredulous posts say that the problem is my use of "eye candy". Excuse me???? Remember that we are talking about X. X is a *GUI* display manager. If we cut out the GUI part, then we don't need X at all and can happily rely on SSH. The whole point of X is eye candy. What kind of display manager is it if it chokes on the *display*.
A few posts say that my numbers are way off base. They site their own experiences at 2Mbps and 200kbps. Regarless of my numbers, 200kbps for a static image is WAY too high, let alone 2Mbps or 11Mbps. See below for more acceptable bandwidth numbers.
As is always the case a few people piped up and offered VNC. VNC is a very nice remote control package but, it really can't be compared to X11 and similar products since VNC does not offer the same functionality. VNC does allow you to remotely control a desktop but X11, RDP and ICA do much more than that.
Which brings us to examples of protocols that offer similar X11 functionality at a MUCH lower bandwidth. VNC is relativley low bandwidth but, as stated above, is less functional than X. RDP consumes about the same amount of bandwidth, up to 200Kbps, but provides much greater graphics quality and far greater responsiveness than VNC or X. But, Citrix ICA is the hands down winner. It offers very similar functioinality to X much better performance than X, VNC or RDP and it is the lowest consumer of bandwidth.
A standard desktop application(not too graphics intensive) can consume as little as 14Kbps. It is possible to have 32 bit color depth with animated graphics(even a movie) and sound running on Citrix ICA at 200kbps or less. The average ICA session consumes 30kbps.
All this means that it *IS* possible to have a networkable display that consumes a minimal amount of bandwidth. X11 using 200kbps to 11Mbps is WAY too high. X needs a new protocol.
I know that Slashdot is rife with conspiracy theorists but, I don't think I've seen a single one lay out quite so many conspiracies at once. It seems that you live in a frightening world. I for one would be paralyzed with fear.
Remember, just because you are paranoid doesn't mean that they aren't out to get you.
It processes graphic information locally, alleviating the need for network transmission of uncompressed graphical content.
Since it relies on X11 I suspect the bandwidth requirements are going to be really high. X11 over the network is a bandwidth hog, that's all there is to it. Now they're adding sound?
X11 needs a new protocol. Graphical applications run across the network consume ridiculous amounts of bandwidth. If you want to do a test try running the XMMS gui across the network via X11. The last time I did it, XMMS was using 11 megabits per second. It would really suck to try that over a modem or a 64K frame-relay link.
First off, this is "supposed" to be a drop in replacement for Windows NT 4.0. Why? Even Microsoft is trying to abandon NT 4.0.
But, Ok you want a drop in replacement for NT 4.0. So, where is the GUI? There is no GUI. Second, but perhaps most importantly, where is the file system support. This thing uses FAT32. Windows NT 4.0 can use FAT32 but, its primary file system is NTFS.
How can they possibly call it a seamless replacement for NT 4.0 with no GUI and no NTFS file system. I'm sorry but, renaming FreeDos utilities to try to emulate the CMD.EXE shell is hardly a substitute for NT 4.0 and I won't even mention Windows 2000.
Ok, I have to upgrade my systems annually to maintain support, I'll "buy" that. But, could you tell me how I perform an OS upgrade on a remote headless system? Sure, I can throw on the latest RPMs for vi and emacs but I want to know how I do a complete system UPGRADE from 7.3 to 8.0 remotely via telnet, ssh, what-have-you. I may be thousands of miles away from my servers and they are located in lights out facilities.
P.S. Microsoft just had to restate their EOL on NT 4.0. Will you be doing the same in a couple of months?
I disagree, I don't think it should have the Java applet. First, the Java applet would need a web server to serve to the client(viewer) which would mean embedding a web server into KDE. This would be more code bloat, at best, and a major security risk at worst. Security will already be a concern with everyone running the VNC server.
.RPM or .DEB. After install, run TightVNC and enter the address. For Windows clients, download VNC and click SETUP.EXE. Then run the viewer and enter the address.
Secondly, VNC viewer setup is dead simple. For Linux, download and install the TightVNC
I don't think that this is at all too difficult for anyone, let alone anyone that would use VNC. By comparison PCAnywhere is far more complicated to setup and yet is still used by millions of people.
3.0 and 3.1 both have vertical(middle click maximize button) or horizontal maximize(right click maximize button).
Frankly I wasn't aware that it had ever been removed. But, if it was, it is definitely back in 3.x
I'm surprised that they did not mention massive numbers of "broken" requests from Windows 2000/XP systems. I see this all the time due to misconfigurations. Administrators often set up the Windows 2000 DNS servers incorrectly and Windows 2000/XP systems(workstations and servers) configured such that they constantly try dynamic DNS updates to the wrong DNS servers, even the root servers.
Linux too, has some issues here. Obviously misconfigured DNS servers will always be a problem but, distros like Red Hat have IPv6 support compiled into the BIND RPM, this results in an IPv6 formatted query folllowed by an IPv4 query for every request.
I'm always amused by this type of nationalist history where, people of various nations "adjust" the facts to take credit for work that isn't entirely their own. The Russian's are exceptionally good at this, as they claim to have invented the telephone, television, flight and probably RADAR too.
Englishman, Watt, was most definitely the inventor of RADAR. The Americans knew nothing about it until they were approached by the British regarding the need for a process to manufacture a single component in high volumes. This process, developed at Westinhouse, turned out to be the simple lamination of copper plates to make the part. The information about RADAR that was learned by the Americans lead to further R&D on Loomis' part as well as Westinghouse's development of the Microwave oven, the RADAR Range.
Loomis did contribute a lot of R&D to the further advancement of RADAR but, he most certainly did not invent it.
SCO owns the IP for System V. Linux uses several concepts from the System V design, not the least of which is the Linux init system which is a direct take off of the System V method.
As I stated in a post from the earlier article, this action is a serious threat to SCO's future and I am not certain that SCO has fully examined the fallout that this announcement will cause, regardless of the final outcome.
The very fact that SCO flat out lied, yes lied, in last week's announcement will seriously impact the level of trust that any vendor or customer might have had in SCO.
The CNet article did not discuss the audience's reaction to this announcement but, I doubt very much that it was well received. Would anyone that witnessed the announcement and the audience's reaction care to report on it?
Microsoft has adjusted their rehtoric against Linux, again, and says they will now be pushing the integration advantages of Windows over Linux. This, in my opinion, does have some merit as, management of a Microsoft network is highly integrate from groupware and databases to desktop workstations. The Linux environment however, is composed of individual projects with little or no integration which forces Linux management to be performed through kludges and custom scripts.
Indeed, the most popular and perhaps best, integrated management system for the Linux environment appears to be Webmin which, though very good, is forced to be a kludge and still falls short of a truely integrated enterprise Linux management system. While Red Hat offers RHN and SCO offers Volution Manager neither one truely integrates the overall management of a Linux shop.
Are you, the leading commercial Linux vendors targeting the enterprise market, planning on making any efforts to integrate Linux management on an enterprise level such as Microsoft and Novell already do? If so, what are these efforts and how will they be licensed?
I'll admit that it is terribly cool looking, though the concept is not entirely new. However, the practicality of it seems rather unlikely.
If you have to lug around a huge backpack of support gear, why not just carry a larger display, such as Apple's 17" laptop or a future roll-up screen. Now, I know everyone will jump on me and say that they will reduce the size of the support gear but, it is still going to be impractical.
In order to use this thing you must move around a fair bit. Imagine a subway train full of people gyrating with their PDAs. It will look like a bunch of DDR freaks on mescalin.
I think a much better solution would be to simple use a little track ball on the the bottom of the PDA to scroll around screen. but, that's not new technology at all.
As Unicenter was originally coded for Unix it was an easy step for them.
Additionally, HP OpenView also already has Linux support. But, people need to remember, HP openView is a Network Management application while Unicenter is an Enterprise Management application. They are not the same.
It's amazing how graphics formatting is "advancing". But, SVG is a telling format for the future.
I predict that within the next 5 years W3 will have another new, "better", standard. It will rely on embeding the graphics in the web pages themselves, similar to SVG. But, it will greatly simplify programming with its Reduced Instruction Set Code(RISC). The code syntax will consist only of Peek(x,y) and Poke(x,y). Simple huh?
I've complained about a *major* degradation in performance since the move but, all I get is modded to -1. Seems that it is unacceptable to question the Slashdot admins.
This is a common situation in open source and I don't see it changing anytime soon. The fact is that apps such as middleware are business apps. They aren't terribly sexy or cool. They are however, important to business and are usually specific to a particular business.
On the other hand, it seems that most open source developers are motivated to scratch their own itch. They are drawn to apps that are cool and apps that meet their needs. This is perfectly understandable but, it does result in a derth of open source business apps that are either mundane or just plain boaring. For this reason, open source offers an emormous assortment of "toy" apps. There are countless cd burners/rippers, MP3/Ogg players/encoders, Linux utilities and so forth. There are also a ridiculous amount of frameworks and libraries, usually all repeating the same theme. If I see another "yet another framework" project I'm going to be sick.
There are only a few business type open source projects and even fewer ones that could be considered mature enough and good enough to run your business on them. If a business wants a particular app they must build it themselves. This of course costs money and in some cases it costs a huge amount of money. And there in lies the problem. Most businesses that have spent large amounts of money on development are not interested or willing to give it away by making their project open source. For these two reasons there are very few business type open source apps like middleware and it will be a long time before there are, if ever.
I'm gonna keep using gasoline. You know, terrorist and all that.
It's not jet fuel, it's ROCKET FUEL. Put it in a jet and it goes BOOM!!!!!
Another brilliant bit of motivation. Not!
I was already concerned about having the "pedals" on the steering wheel but, now you want me to face a roadway full of people that learned to drive by playing Vice City?????
God help us all.
You are advocating cars with the brakes and the accelerator on the steering wheel and a tank full of hydrogen underneath? Looks like it's time to move to one of those islands where they don't have cars.
People still have trouble with the accelerator and brake pedals in their traditional spot. Now you want to put them on the steering wheel? I'd really rather not have one of these coming toward me.
SCO must consider all options, it is after all a revenue generating corporation (supposedly). But, they must consider the risk that such an action would have. Should they decide to enforce such a claim, they risk having to spend a great deal of money defending the lawsuits that would surely arise from other similar companies.
Now, let's assume for a moment that they go forward with their claim and that it is uncontestable. The next step, naturally, would be for every Linux distribution to switch to the BSD style init system. SCO has no claim to this and therefore gain no further revenue from their System V rights. But, most importantly, no one would trust SCO again. Everything SCO would be shunned by all Linux distros and the community at large. At that point SCO may as well forget their Caldera roots and stop selling Linux completely because no one will buy SCO Linux again. SCO will be forced to try to line from SCO Unix alone and the original SCO proved that this is a very hard thing to do. It will be even harder now, as Linux was not as strong a contender 3 to 5 years ago, at least in the mindshare department.
I'm sure that SCO will eventually say that they will NOT enforce this claim against Linux but, they need to do it quickly because the longer they wait the less people will trust them.