From what I understand it's fairly similar to what SCO/Caldera/SCO group or whatever they refer to themselves as now. It's just that when Caldera released the UNIX code into linux, they provided information that said that the users of Caldera's Linux are covered because they own the rights to the code, etc etc. blah blah. They are alledging that IBM added the same value to their products.
Like I said before, I don't necessarily agree with SCO suing IBM in any way, but pointed out that they did have a valid case. I know it's the unpopular view around here, ie. the TROLL designation of the original post, but if you read the court papers carefully, they did reserve the right to enforce the IP of their UNIX source. To me it's just enforcing a contractual agreement and nothing more or less than that. That's the reason contracts are made in the first place, right?
SCO has a very good case and they should have the right to enforce the contracts that were under their umbrella of responisibility. IBM does not own the original rights to the source that they built AIX around. Yes, they recently re-wrote most of the inefficent code that they were more or less "renting", but contracts are contracts. If you can't follow the rules of the contract, then you deserve everything you have coming to you. This has ABSOLUTELY nothing to do with the LINUX/Open Source community. This has to do with basic business practices. IBM violated the terms of the contract and YES they were measures to get them to settle the matter peacefully. When IBM more or less said SCREW YOU, then yes, SCO was left to either drop the issue or take it a step further. I believe SCO is doing the right thing here. I don't agree with the dollar amount, but they do have a very valid legal case. The courts will decide what is right and wrong. Open source is open souce. Source code that was developed for profit and IP before the GPL and other free movements don't automatically become open source because LINUX is hangin around out there promoting its practices. I love LINUX and UNIX. UNIX is UNIX and LINUX is LINUX/UNIX. LINUX was built around the ideals of UNIX and yes IBM did release, either knowingly or not, SYS V code into the OSS realm without permission. I wish everyone would open their eyes in the business world and realize that just because you don't understand that contracts are binding, to stop kicking around that which you know very little about.
*steps off soapbox* Time to go home little kiddies.
I agree with you. It does handle initial hardware installation a bit differently than AIX/solaris/and HP. It is a bit more cumbersome, but SCO has always said what it supports and what it may support and what it doesn't support through their hardware certification program. Not that I'm overly defending SCO, I've had my share of problems with them over the years, but if you follow their rules, hardware issues can easily be avoided. Of course, I understand that most of us like to get creative and install that cheap netgear NIC card in an older version of SCO and find that it is not compatible the hard way, but like I said before, the hardware compatibity list would suggest that if we were to install a NIC card, we would choose a 3COM 980C or 905Tx, etc.. I, for one, just started writing my own device drivers and implementing them where there were problems, but then again as an admin, that's my job and what i get paid to do, so-to-speak. Enough of this line of thought. Hell, I'm probably one of the few people posting that actually will admit I like windows XP pro (comparing to older windows versions, of course).
Sometimes it helps to have end-users that know what they are doing. I've been supporting/administering SCO for many, many years. Never had any hardware problems that couldn't be resolved. But then again, experience using UNIX and SCO and understanding the system play a role. It's definately not as point and clickish as Linux can be made to be, but there are many things that SCO does so much more efficiently than any other operating system such as load handling and clustering and mail services, Multi-processoring, etc. etc.
Although I don't agree with them suing over their IP that they originally liscensed for use to IBM, I do think Caldera should have not used SCO to support their shitty Linux distro. If they would have enforced their liscensing issues all along, there probably wouldn't be any question to the use of IP and they would have had their development team updating their money-making products more often to satisfy the users/admins that require the OS to be hand-fed to them.
That's my opinion and mine alone, I'm sure, but since I can't sue over IP of my opinions you can take it and sho...
It's my damn X-box. I payed money for it. It resides next to my TV. So why would they care if I put a mod chip in there to make it do something? Why can't I hack it and play with it. I paid my 200 + dollars for it. If they could make it where it works after spilling 2 + beers in it. Then I would be impressed. The point is that I spent my money to OWN this piece of crap, I'm going to mod the crap out of it if I want to. They can't stop me. They shouldn't even try.
IBM was the one considering the security vulnerabilities from 30 years ago. I suppose it really wouldn't matter who the producer is. In keeping with the subject, IBM was the producer of these reports.
BeOS had it's own problems that were unrelated to the operating system. BeOS had/has potential, but a better business plan would have helped. Perhaps marketing to us geeks;) I don't know, but they were at least on the right track with the OS.
It would be a great opportunity for IBM to look back on its roots and develop another OS that is built for security from the ground up. Too bad the price for that would be ungodly. They could have a new OS platform that would be innovative, yet built on the ideas that got IBM to where they are today. I would honestly like to see ANOTHER alternative to Microsoft/UNIX/ and yes, Linux. Although I am a true believer in old school UNIX, I would like to see a new platform that is interesting, bullet-proof, and innovative. Anyone else?
j
We all still waited to the LAST minute to fix the bugs:) I know that the accounting software company that I work for was up very late many nights in December 1999, upgrading UNIX servers and program files so that the "world" would not come to an end in the Oil Marketers pocketbooks.
J
Slashdot Mirror
That this certification is worth more than my SCO Master ACE. Cheers,
No jobs currently availiable. Surprise, Surprise...
From what I understand it's fairly similar to what SCO/Caldera/SCO group or whatever they refer to themselves as now. It's just that when Caldera released the UNIX code into linux, they provided information that said that the users of Caldera's Linux are covered because they own the rights to the code, etc etc. blah blah. They are alledging that IBM added the same value to their products. Like I said before, I don't necessarily agree with SCO suing IBM in any way, but pointed out that they did have a valid case. I know it's the unpopular view around here, ie. the TROLL designation of the original post, but if you read the court papers carefully, they did reserve the right to enforce the IP of their UNIX source. To me it's just enforcing a contractual agreement and nothing more or less than that. That's the reason contracts are made in the first place, right?
SCO did not release the code in question under the GPL. They released their code in their version of LINUX with licenses for their proprietary claims.
SCO has a very good case and they should have the right to enforce the contracts that were under their umbrella of responisibility. IBM does not own the original rights to the source that they built AIX around. Yes, they recently re-wrote most of the inefficent code that they were more or less "renting", but contracts are contracts. If you can't follow the rules of the contract, then you deserve everything you have coming to you. This has ABSOLUTELY nothing to do with the LINUX/Open Source community. This has to do with basic business practices. IBM violated the terms of the contract and YES they were measures to get them to settle the matter peacefully. When IBM more or less said SCREW YOU, then yes, SCO was left to either drop the issue or take it a step further. I believe SCO is doing the right thing here. I don't agree with the dollar amount, but they do have a very valid legal case. The courts will decide what is right and wrong. Open source is open souce. Source code that was developed for profit and IP before the GPL and other free movements don't automatically become open source because LINUX is hangin around out there promoting its practices. I love LINUX and UNIX. UNIX is UNIX and LINUX is LINUX/UNIX. LINUX was built around the ideals of UNIX and yes IBM did release, either knowingly or not, SYS V code into the OSS realm without permission. I wish everyone would open their eyes in the business world and realize that just because you don't understand that contracts are binding, to stop kicking around that which you know very little about. *steps off soapbox* Time to go home little kiddies.
I agree with you. It does handle initial hardware installation a bit differently than AIX/solaris/and HP. It is a bit more cumbersome, but SCO has always said what it supports and what it may support and what it doesn't support through their hardware certification program. Not that I'm overly defending SCO, I've had my share of problems with them over the years, but if you follow their rules, hardware issues can easily be avoided. Of course, I understand that most of us like to get creative and install that cheap netgear NIC card in an older version of SCO and find that it is not compatible the hard way, but like I said before, the hardware compatibity list would suggest that if we were to install a NIC card, we would choose a 3COM 980C or 905Tx, etc.. I, for one, just started writing my own device drivers and implementing them where there were problems, but then again as an admin, that's my job and what i get paid to do, so-to-speak. Enough of this line of thought. Hell, I'm probably one of the few people posting that actually will admit I like windows XP pro (comparing to older windows versions, of course).
Sometimes it helps to have end-users that know what they are doing. I've been supporting/administering SCO for many, many years. Never had any hardware problems that couldn't be resolved. But then again, experience using UNIX and SCO and understanding the system play a role. It's definately not as point and clickish as Linux can be made to be, but there are many things that SCO does so much more efficiently than any other operating system such as load handling and clustering and mail services, Multi-processoring, etc. etc. Although I don't agree with them suing over their IP that they originally liscensed for use to IBM, I do think Caldera should have not used SCO to support their shitty Linux distro. If they would have enforced their liscensing issues all along, there probably wouldn't be any question to the use of IP and they would have had their development team updating their money-making products more often to satisfy the users/admins that require the OS to be hand-fed to them. That's my opinion and mine alone, I'm sure, but since I can't sue over IP of my opinions you can take it and sho...
It's my damn X-box. I payed money for it. It resides next to my TV. So why would they care if I put a mod chip in there to make it do something? Why can't I hack it and play with it. I paid my 200 + dollars for it. If they could make it where it works after spilling 2 + beers in it. Then I would be impressed. The point is that I spent my money to OWN this piece of crap, I'm going to mod the crap out of it if I want to. They can't stop me. They shouldn't even try.
IBM was the one considering the security vulnerabilities from 30 years ago. I suppose it really wouldn't matter who the producer is. In keeping with the subject, IBM was the producer of these reports.
BeOS had it's own problems that were unrelated to the operating system. BeOS had/has potential, but a better business plan would have helped. Perhaps marketing to us geeks ;) I don't know, but they were at least on the right track with the OS.
It would be a great opportunity for IBM to look back on its roots and develop another OS that is built for security from the ground up. Too bad the price for that would be ungodly. They could have a new OS platform that would be innovative, yet built on the ideas that got IBM to where they are today. I would honestly like to see ANOTHER alternative to Microsoft/UNIX/ and yes, Linux. Although I am a true believer in old school UNIX, I would like to see a new platform that is interesting, bullet-proof, and innovative. Anyone else? j
We all still waited to the LAST minute to fix the bugs :) I know that the accounting software company that I work for was up very late many nights in December 1999, upgrading UNIX servers and program files so that the "world" would not come to an end in the Oil Marketers pocketbooks.
J
Yeah. I think we've heard this one before...