This isn't the fault of a "greedy IP company" sueing businesses on alledged infringement, it's the fault of the government for allowing such a case to be made in the first place.
One really has to see the irony here: on the one side, Microsoft utilises and assimilates other peoples technology and property into one of their most important projects without even blinking an eye; and on the other, we have them spending millions "licensing" such "important" technology on extremely dubious reasoning to support SCO, because they "respect the importance of IP rights".
Now, I know that Microsoft will never be punished in the US, but isn't undermining a competing product, Linux, through unsubstantiated FUD, even by proxy, against the law to some degree? Even if its not, one has to seriously wonder whether it will be considered in the upcoming EU anti-trust case, as it should be now in the US.
But, what i'm really wondering is if it is uncovered in the IBM/RH vs SCO case that Microsoft had engineered the situation (which isn't has far fetched as it may sound) whether the Linux community would be compensated for any wrong doings, in a similar fashion to what is being sought by Eolas.
The important word there being 'preparing'. Like they're 'preparing' to audit AIX customers, sue AIX customers, sue Linus Torvalds, raise holy Jihad against the GPL... (continues) They've had months to carry this out, yet their STILL preparing to do so? Yeah, right! Looks like their just trying raise FUD to get their stocks out of a proverbial downard spiral, as seen for the last couple of days.
As far as I've been led to believe, there are *no* developers for the current Xfree, that being the need for a fork in the first place. Whereas now people may show an interest in working on Xfree, they have little hope of ever making an actual contribution (due to politics and the general lethargy surrounding the head honchos). So in that way, there really aren't any developers to lose.
I personally applaud this fork, anything that encourages support, and let's be honest, momentum, to a application as critical as X, can't be anything but a good thing. One thing is for certain, these guys have made an effort to changes things; and that's far more than those in Xfree, or the aborted mess of a website, xwin, have done!
Though it's great that somebody is willing to step up and offer legal protection to Linux, the kind that Microsoft are readily willing for the lack thereof. How will this help?
Take a look at SCO. For the last couple of months they have been spouting nonsense, slander and let's be honest FUD. In fact, in the face of the current IBM countersuit, they have the gall (read: stupidity) to launch another claim.
Now, all this is quite illegal, as IBM's lawyers have pointed out, but has it stopped SCO? No, not until 2005, at least. Until that time, SCO can say and do as it more-or-less pleases, until an injunction anyways. They will nodoubt reep the rewards for there behaviour, but that doesn't stop the damage they're causing in the meantime, until the courts get around to dealing with it.
Reason, let alone a cadre of Open Source Funded lawyers won't stop SCO. That's just the way it is.
This was an interesting post over on Yahoo (concerning the dramatic rise in SCO share price in the closing minutes of trading):
"100 share lots, and the whole last 1o minutes (half the gain on the day) were done on less than 5000 shares. Thats less than 1/250th ( 0.4% - 4/10 of a percent) of the daily volume accounting for over HALF the closing price.
If you look at the whole runup at the end, less than 1% of the volume accounted for 80% of the closing price gain.
Someone is playing real monkey business with this stock.
I wish there was full disclosure with buying and selling like there is on political donations. It would be very interesting to see who it is that keeps manipulating the closing price."
Let's be honest here, at the moment, is this entirely legal? Maybe...
At the moment, SCO's executives are profiting from allegation/conjecture/slander; there is also a clear correlation between the release of "news" and share movement. In the end, if IBM and RH et al. prove their claims, and to a degree the extent of the victory, the SCO executive will have a lot to answer for. This is not simply in the realms of a slap on the wrist or a demotion, but substantial fines and quite possibly time in a federal prison.
It's by no coincidence that soon after the FUD came flying from Utah, did SCO decide to Indemnify its executives for their actions. IBM has, in it's counter claim, made some very serious accusations concerning market manipulation; they would not release such material if they though for one minute that it rebound on them.
This has gone past the point of being a Microsoft vs Linux slagging match, this is serious. People are going to go "away" for it; families will live in the knowledge that their husbands/fathers are the worst lying thieves this country has to offer. So pick up some popcorn and watch, its only going to get better!
The removal of support for SCO Unix in GCC may indeed hurt its end users and developers to a greater extent than SCO itself, but, isn't it already common practise to remove deprecated/obsolete systems (I noticed they just removed a pile of old CPU architectures in the previous release). I don't think anybody will argue that the future prospects of the SCO Unix operating system are looking rosey at the moment. Indeed, in a few months, it maybe along side those old CPU's in the annals of computing history.
Furthermore, the process of eliminating support in future versions of gcc, does not detract from the fact that current versions *do* support SCO Unix. As such, couldn't current SCO Unix users simply use the older versions in any case?
I'm all for the impartiallity in the development of software as important and necessary as the open source compiler, however, there is a point where we, as a community, must take the stand. There is an acute difference between impartiallity in our work, and allowing those whom wish to assimilate it, walking all over us.
Just so that everyone knows. This "news" became public around the same time as SCO's stock was in free-fall. In fact, the stock was trading 2 dollars lower than its opening price and falling. I found this rather a coincidence because since the news came out, the stock actually regained an entire dollar to its value.
Oh, and by the way, one of the executives (ROBERT BENCH) unloaded 7,000 shares today just after the market opened. How strange.
Keep an eye out on who of loads their shares tomorrow!
Not necessarily. Operating systems are one practically the only technological example of a natural monopoly. Whoever controls the underlying operating system, controls whatever software maybe run on top of it. For example, Microsoft has the ability create products which maybe entirely integrated as part of the OS. Through this, Microsoft automatically has the upper hand, since if their product doesn't become popular through normal competition, they can change the rules as they require to make it (see: Netscape).
What the governments of the world should do is support Linux (or any free and open OS), and more importantly a standardised version of it. Which ever programs are produced, run on top of a common base; and, as a result, compete on a level playing field. On the other hand however, Governments shouldn't subsidize products which aren't subject to such a monopoly. This would not only stifle competition, but may indeed constitute unfair competition to those already incumbent in the market.
By the way SCO's stock is looking i wouldn't be surprise that, in true N.Korean fashion, SCO claims tomorrow to posses Nuclear Weapons, and demand one to one talks will the capitalist-scum IBM. Either that, or something about a mighty Jihad, Saurons dark forces, the mother of all court battles, the shadows, etc...
Anything to get those stocks back up so the execs can off load whatever shares they hadn't yet sold.
In a way, SCO has been good for the Linux/Open Source community. We have known for a long time that forces in the industry would try and disuade Linux's use on terms of IP and copyright FUD; Microsoft's Halloween documents are a prime candidate. If this is indeed an attempt by those companies to scuttle Linux, then they have failed. SCO's case and allegations are not only groundless, but -and time will tell- on the realms of illegality. This serve as a notice to those companies that might try to follow in SCO's steps that they will not get away with it; but also, that they will lose whatever customers they had and anger an entire industry.
What is now clear from this episode is that, if anybody thought otherwise, Open Source Software has now reached critical mass; not only will those in the industry strive to protect it, but that unfounded allegation will not stop it.
What thing I've learned from all this malarky surrounding SCO, and I'm by no means an expert, is that to find reason and logic behind it is pointless. Many people have tried to analyse and investigate SCO's claims, most have failed. Even watching the cnet interview, McBride comes over as a babbling idiot; no one is convinced.
In the end however, it all boils down to this: SCO cannot really do anything. Okay, they paint a nice picture, blag a good story, but nothing -nothing- stands up to the evidence. Sure they could sue over copyright, patents (or what ever they've decided upon that day); but, linux is an international collaboration, and although it may have hit a hitch in the USA, it hasn't anywhere else. Linux will continue to move from strength to strength, SCO will die.
>> The people pushing this war were the same >>people selling Saddam those weapons.
Incorrect. People who don't know the situation say this because thats all they know, but this is what happened: The Americans gave satellite inteligence to Iraqi, to support their war against Iran. Iran, which at the time was arguably a worst regime than Iraq was supported and funded by the Soviet Union.. In essence it was a Cold War by proxy. After the Gulf War, Sanctions were imposed on Iraq; out of the West it was France and Russia that continued trading with them, and had the most to lose from a war. Russia in particular had numerous billions worth of Oil contracts with Iraq. May i remind you, these were set up in the ninties, opposed to the US's, with where in the early 80's.
>>We didn't care about him killing his people when >>we were the ones selling him weapons. But now >>you think that it matters?
Simply because mistakes of the past had taken place, does not mean that we may not correct them TODAY. At the time, support (albeit limited) was to fight a greater enemy -Communism. Many people forget today forget the Cold War, but we won it, and although hard choices had to be made, we're better for it.
>>And where do you get off claiming that Bush is >>demonized more than Saddam? No one is saying >>Saddam is better than Bush (well, no one outside >>of Iraq).
Don't care
>>The problem is that the CIA had already CHECKED >>the "information" MONTHS before Bush used it. >>The CIA even told the British that the info >>wasn't good. But Bush needed something scary to >>push this war so he used information that was >>known to be bogus.
Lets be honest here, the chances of find WMD in Iraq were always slim. Especially considering Saddam had about 8 months of time to get rid of them, while the US and Britain were arguing endlessly in the UN. What is clear though is that he did in the past possess them, use them on a civialian population, and was actively seeking more. Whats more, the recent advances in the Israel/Palastine peace process would not have taken place in the presence of the Old Iraq.
>>As for this being another "Vietname" or >>"quagmire", check the body count since Bush >>claimed the war was "over".
Though the recent body count has been disturbing, I would hardly by any stretch of the imagination call it a quagmire.
>>No, we did not have any "moral, legal and >>political justification for removing Saddam >>Hussein".
Actually we did... The allied victory in the first Gulf war stipulated a number of conditions for cease fire. These were, among many, that Saddam destroy his WMD program and accept and comply with its obligations to the UN. As of 1991 these had been broken, along with 11 mandatory resolutions -none of these had been met. Action was not only legal, but necessary if the UN's command was to mean anything.
>>We couldn't even get the UN to vote to support >>our invasion.
The lack of a UN vote was not in part to the opposed countries "care" for their fellow man -France the week earlier had hosted Mugabe of Zimbabwe, in contravention of an EU travel ban- but because of there own interests. The two vocal dissentors, France and Russia, had significant multi billion dollar Oil contracts with Iraq, both of which they would have lost without Saddam in power.
>>As for those Iraqis being "free" now, wait until >>the first "elections" are held. Wait until they >>elect a radical Islamic priest.
Elections = free democracy Islam theocracy = not free democracy
Go figure
>>You'll never forget the image of those Iraqis >>and Saddam's statue. That's because our >>government doesn't want you to forget it. It was >>shot with a narrow lens so you couldn't see the >>US tanks and troops surrounding that "crowd" of >>Iraqis.
What makes me upset about this whole situation is the fact that once the true nature of SCO's allegations against Linux become apparent, the company will not be able to sustain itself financially long enough to recieve the retribution.
Eventually this mess will come to pass. Two things are certain: Linux cannot be disinvented, it exists -today- as a viable alternative for everything from embedded systems to mainframes; secondly, no one can claim ownership over it. What this means is that even though, in the worst case, the SCO suit may be successful in FUDing Linux in the short term, once this is discredited, Linux will still exist. Not only that, but it is improving exponentially. Whether companies switch to it, over their current proprietry OS, today or tomorrow, it will happen; and their is nothing SCO, or anyone else for that matter can do about it.
A ruling in the US does not apply to other countries of the world. Indeed, with the widespread support for linux in Asia and Europe, it is highlightly unlightly that SCO's endevours would even get as far there as it has today in the US.
In the long term, this suit presents no problems for linux. Though Linux's adoption may have been disrupted in the short term, its development has reached critical mass. Whether companies defer the transition to Linux based solutions for a couple of years or not, they will switch; and one thing is clear, that the Linux kernel will continue to improve. It's only a matter of time.
I for one supported the war in the gulf. Saddam was without a doubt a tyrant, who, if been able to regain the power he had in the early 80's, could have caused severe problems to the West (and it's Oil). At the time, i mocked the protestors' claims of imperialism and corruption -i thought we were right.
Now, that the war is over I've seen the reality of the situation. Huge contracts have been sneaked over the iraqi people with a nudge and a wink in Texas, the Americans military have absolutely *no clue* whatsoever about how to quelch the uprisings. Meanwhile, the iraqi people live in squalour.
It is completely beyond me how after about 12 months of diplomacy, the US didn't have a clearly defined idea about what to do after the war.
People don't hate America because of your percieved "greatness", the are not jealous of your 4*4's and McDonalds; the are pissed that the Israel's bulldose their houses and land with weapons that you've provided them. Their pissed that whenever foreign competition threatens a US industry, taxes are unfairly introduced. They are pissed that whenever people have you as an ally, they end up losing more "men" to friendly fire than the enemy.
We live in a world where Dr. Strangelove is a reality.
I disagree. I'm by no means anti-american, but i strongly disagree with your statements.
Your country men die because your military and their commanders have absolutely no clue about reality outside America. This is illustrated by the large number of American casulties currently being inflicted in Iraq; note, the British, on the other hand, have lost only 6 (not counting those killed by "Friendly Fire" -but we'll forget about that one), and conversely have succeed in winning the support of the iraqi's in their area.
US policy had nothing to do with the American's involvement in WW2, it was a little thing called Pearl Harbour. The mighty America got dragged kicking and screaming into the war -two years late, i might add! Only the American's would believe that it was their involvement that WON the war. I guess you are forgetting: the russians, british, french, australians etc...
If it wasn't for American foreign policy, their would be no South Korea, their wouldn't however be the majority of the worlds problems at the moment. I think the atrocities of 11th September 2001 highlight this fact.
Instead, you have an imbecilic, corrupt president, which goes to show the mentallity of your nation as a whole to the rest of the world -a laughing stock!
I think what the US needs first and foremost is a grasp of international politics -If it wasn't for the fact that the rest of the world has an extreme distaste for their foreign polices, they wouldn't *need* any more weapons.
Slashdot Mirror
This isn't the fault of a "greedy IP company" sueing businesses on alledged infringement, it's the fault of the government for allowing such a case to be made in the first place.
One really has to see the irony here: on the one side, Microsoft utilises and assimilates other peoples technology and property into one of their most important projects without even blinking an eye; and on the other, we have them spending millions "licensing" such "important" technology on extremely dubious reasoning to support SCO, because they "respect the importance of IP rights".
Now, I know that Microsoft will never be punished in the US, but isn't undermining a competing product, Linux, through unsubstantiated FUD, even by proxy, against the law to some degree? Even if its not, one has to seriously wonder whether it will be considered in the upcoming EU anti-trust case, as it should be now in the US.
But, what i'm really wondering is if it is uncovered in the IBM/RH vs SCO case that Microsoft had engineered the situation (which isn't has far fetched as it may sound) whether the Linux community would be compensated for any wrong doings, in a similar fashion to what is being sought by Eolas.
How many Boston companies does it take to replace a lightbulb?
Three, apparently!
Sorry. I don't get out much... back to the home for me.
The important word there being 'preparing'. Like they're 'preparing' to audit AIX customers, sue AIX customers, sue Linus Torvalds, raise holy Jihad against the GPL... (continues) They've had months to carry this out, yet their STILL preparing to do so? Yeah, right! Looks like their just trying raise FUD to get their stocks out of a proverbial downard spiral, as seen for the last couple of days.
I'll belive it when I see it!
As far as I've been led to believe, there are *no* developers for the current Xfree, that being the need for a fork in the first place. Whereas now people may show an interest in working on Xfree, they have little hope of ever making an actual contribution (due to politics and the general lethargy surrounding the head honchos). So in that way, there really aren't any developers to lose.
I personally applaud this fork, anything that encourages support, and let's be honest, momentum, to a application as critical as X, can't be anything but a good thing. One thing is for certain, these guys have made an effort to changes things; and that's far more than those in Xfree, or the aborted mess of a website, xwin, have done!
Windows Longhorn has been out for a long time now, it's called OSX. ;p
Though it's great that somebody is willing to step up and offer legal protection to Linux, the kind that Microsoft are readily willing for the lack thereof. How will this help?
Take a look at SCO. For the last couple of months they have been spouting nonsense, slander and let's be honest FUD. In fact, in the face of the current IBM countersuit, they have the gall (read: stupidity) to launch another claim.
Now, all this is quite illegal, as IBM's lawyers have pointed out, but has it stopped SCO? No, not until 2005, at least. Until that time, SCO can say and do as it more-or-less pleases, until an injunction anyways. They will nodoubt reep the rewards for there behaviour, but that doesn't stop the damage they're causing in the meantime, until the courts get around to dealing with it.
Reason, let alone a cadre of Open Source Funded lawyers won't stop SCO. That's just the way it is.
This was an interesting post over on Yahoo (concerning the dramatic rise in SCO share price in the closing minutes of trading):
"100 share lots, and the whole last 1o minutes (half the gain on the day) were done on less than 5000 shares. Thats less than 1/250th ( 0.4% - 4/10 of a percent) of the daily volume accounting for over HALF the closing price.
If you look at the whole runup at the end, less than 1% of the volume accounted for 80% of the closing price gain.
Someone is playing real monkey business with this stock.
I wish there was full disclosure with buying and selling like there is on political donations. It would be very interesting to see who it is that keeps manipulating the closing price."
That's Illegal.
Let's be honest here, at the moment, is this entirely legal? Maybe...
At the moment, SCO's executives are profiting from allegation/conjecture/slander; there is also a clear correlation between the release of "news" and share movement. In the end, if IBM and RH et al. prove their claims, and to a degree the extent of the victory, the SCO executive will have a lot to answer for. This is not simply in the realms of a slap on the wrist or a demotion, but substantial fines and quite possibly time in a federal prison.
It's by no coincidence that soon after the FUD came flying from Utah, did SCO decide to Indemnify its executives for their actions. IBM has, in it's counter claim, made some very serious accusations concerning market manipulation; they would not release such material if they though for one minute that it rebound on them.
This has gone past the point of being a Microsoft vs Linux slagging match, this is serious. People are going to go "away" for it; families will live in the knowledge that their husbands/fathers are the worst lying thieves this country has to offer. So pick up some popcorn and watch, its only going to get better!
The removal of support for SCO Unix in GCC may indeed hurt its end users and developers to a greater extent than SCO itself, but, isn't it already common practise to remove deprecated/obsolete systems (I noticed they just removed a pile of old CPU architectures in the previous release). I don't think anybody will argue that the future prospects of the SCO Unix operating system are looking rosey at the moment. Indeed, in a few months, it maybe along side those old CPU's in the annals of computing history.
Furthermore, the process of eliminating support in future versions of gcc, does not detract from the fact that current versions *do* support SCO Unix. As such, couldn't current SCO Unix users simply use the older versions in any case?
I'm all for the impartiallity in the development of software as important and necessary as the open source compiler, however, there is a point where we, as a community, must take the stand. There is an acute difference between impartiallity in our work, and allowing those whom wish to assimilate it, walking all over us.
Just so that everyone knows. This "news" became public around the same time as SCO's stock was in free-fall. In fact, the stock was trading 2 dollars lower than its opening price and falling. I found this rather a coincidence because since the news came out, the stock actually regained an entire dollar to its value.
Oh, and by the way, one of the executives (ROBERT BENCH) unloaded 7,000 shares today just after the market opened. How strange.
Keep an eye out on who of loads their shares tomorrow!
OMG! It's not a worm, ITS SKYNET! It's taking over! Make your time, judgement day is nigh!
Not necessarily. Operating systems are one practically the only technological example of a natural monopoly. Whoever controls the underlying operating system, controls whatever software maybe run on top of it. For example, Microsoft has the ability create products which maybe entirely integrated as part of the OS. Through this, Microsoft automatically has the upper hand, since if their product doesn't become popular through normal competition, they can change the rules as they require to make it (see: Netscape).
What the governments of the world should do is support Linux (or any free and open OS), and more importantly a standardised version of it. Which ever programs are produced, run on top of a common base; and, as a result, compete on a level playing field. On the other hand however, Governments shouldn't subsidize products which aren't subject to such a monopoly. This would not only stifle competition, but may indeed constitute unfair competition to those already incumbent in the market.
By the way SCO's stock is looking i wouldn't be surprise that, in true N.Korean fashion, SCO claims tomorrow to posses Nuclear Weapons, and demand one to one talks will the capitalist-scum IBM. Either that, or something about a mighty Jihad, Saurons dark forces, the mother of all court battles, the shadows, etc...
Anything to get those stocks back up so the execs can off load whatever shares they hadn't yet sold.
In a way, SCO has been good for the Linux/Open Source community. We have known for a long time that forces in the industry would try and disuade Linux's use on terms of IP and copyright FUD; Microsoft's Halloween documents are a prime candidate. If this is indeed an attempt by those companies to scuttle Linux, then they have failed. SCO's case and allegations are not only groundless, but -and time will tell- on the realms of illegality. This serve as a notice to those companies that might try to follow in SCO's steps that they will not get away with it; but also, that they will lose whatever customers they had and anger an entire industry.
What is now clear from this episode is that, if anybody thought otherwise, Open Source Software has now reached critical mass; not only will those in the industry strive to protect it, but that unfounded allegation will not stop it.
Tell that to SCO...
What thing I've learned from all this malarky surrounding SCO, and I'm by no means an expert, is that to find reason and logic behind it is pointless. Many people have tried to analyse and investigate SCO's claims, most have failed. Even watching the cnet interview, McBride comes over as a babbling idiot; no one is convinced.
In the end however, it all boils down to this: SCO cannot really do anything. Okay, they paint a nice picture, blag a good story, but nothing -nothing- stands up to the evidence. Sure they could sue over copyright, patents (or what ever they've decided upon that day); but, linux is an international collaboration, and although it may have hit a hitch in the USA, it hasn't anywhere else. Linux will continue to move from strength to strength, SCO will die.
Steve.
>> The people pushing this war were the same >>people selling Saddam those weapons.
Incorrect. People who don't know the situation say this because thats all they know, but this is what happened: The Americans gave satellite inteligence to Iraqi, to support their war against Iran. Iran, which at the time was arguably a worst regime than Iraq was supported and funded by the Soviet Union.. In essence it was a Cold War by proxy. After the Gulf War, Sanctions were imposed on Iraq; out of the West it was France and Russia that continued trading with them, and had the most to lose from a war. Russia in particular had numerous billions worth of Oil contracts with Iraq. May i remind you, these were set up in the ninties, opposed to the US's, with where in the early 80's.
>>We didn't care about him killing his people when >>we were the ones selling him weapons. But now >>you think that it matters?
Simply because mistakes of the past had taken place, does not mean that we may not correct them TODAY. At the time, support (albeit limited) was to fight a greater enemy -Communism. Many people forget today forget the Cold War, but we won it, and although hard choices had to be made, we're better for it.
>>And where do you get off claiming that Bush is >>demonized more than Saddam? No one is saying >>Saddam is better than Bush (well, no one outside >>of Iraq).
Don't care
>>The problem is that the CIA had already CHECKED >>the "information" MONTHS before Bush used it. >>The CIA even told the British that the info >>wasn't good. But Bush needed something scary to >>push this war so he used information that was >>known to be bogus.
Lets be honest here, the chances of find WMD in Iraq were always slim. Especially considering Saddam had about 8 months of time to get rid of them, while the US and Britain were arguing endlessly in the UN. What is clear though is that he did in the past possess them, use them on a civialian population, and was actively seeking more. Whats more, the recent advances in the Israel/Palastine peace process would not have taken place in the presence of the Old Iraq.
>>As for this being another "Vietname" or >>"quagmire", check the body count since Bush >>claimed the war was "over".
Though the recent body count has been disturbing, I would hardly by any stretch of the imagination call it a quagmire.
>>No, we did not have any "moral, legal and >>political justification for removing Saddam >>Hussein".
Actually we did... The allied victory in the first Gulf war stipulated a number of conditions for cease fire. These were, among many, that Saddam destroy his WMD program and accept and comply with its obligations to the UN. As of 1991 these had been broken, along with 11 mandatory resolutions -none of these had been met. Action was not only legal, but necessary if the UN's command was to mean anything.
>>We couldn't even get the UN to vote to support >>our invasion.
The lack of a UN vote was not in part to the opposed countries "care" for their fellow man -France the week earlier had hosted Mugabe of Zimbabwe, in contravention of an EU travel ban- but because of there own interests. The two vocal dissentors, France and Russia, had significant multi billion dollar Oil contracts with Iraq, both of which they would have lost without Saddam in power.
>>As for those Iraqis being "free" now, wait until >>the first "elections" are held. Wait until they >>elect a radical Islamic priest.
Elections = free democracy
Islam theocracy = not free democracy
Go figure
>>You'll never forget the image of those Iraqis >>and Saddam's statue. That's because our >>government doesn't want you to forget it. It was >>shot with a narrow lens so you couldn't see the >>US tanks and troops surrounding that "crowd" of >>Iraqis.
What makes me upset about this whole situation is the fact that once the true nature of SCO's allegations against Linux become apparent, the company will not be able to sustain itself financially long enough to recieve the retribution.
Eventually this mess will come to pass. Two things are certain: Linux cannot be disinvented, it exists -today- as a viable alternative for everything from embedded systems to mainframes; secondly, no one can claim ownership over it. What this means is that even though, in the worst case, the SCO suit may be successful in FUDing Linux in the short term, once this is discredited, Linux will still exist. Not only that, but it is improving exponentially. Whether companies switch to it, over their current proprietry OS, today or tomorrow, it will happen; and their is nothing SCO, or anyone else for that matter can do about it.
A ruling in the US does not apply to other countries of the world. Indeed, with the widespread support for linux in Asia and Europe, it is highlightly unlightly that SCO's endevours would even get as far there as it has today in the US.
In the long term, this suit presents no problems for linux. Though Linux's adoption may have been disrupted in the short term, its development has reached critical mass. Whether companies defer the transition to Linux based solutions for a couple of years or not, they will switch; and one thing is clear, that the Linux kernel will continue to improve. It's only a matter of time.
I for one supported the war in the gulf. Saddam was without a doubt a tyrant, who, if been able to regain the power he had in the early 80's, could have caused severe problems to the West (and it's Oil). At the time, i mocked the protestors' claims of imperialism and corruption -i thought we were right.
Now, that the war is over I've seen the reality of the situation. Huge contracts have been sneaked over the iraqi people with a nudge and a wink in Texas, the Americans military have absolutely *no clue* whatsoever about how to quelch the uprisings. Meanwhile, the iraqi people live in squalour.
It is completely beyond me how after about 12 months of diplomacy, the US didn't have a clearly defined idea about what to do after the war.
People don't hate America because of your percieved "greatness", the are not jealous of your 4*4's and McDonalds; the are pissed that the Israel's bulldose their houses and land with weapons that you've provided them. Their pissed that whenever foreign competition threatens a US industry, taxes are unfairly introduced. They are pissed that whenever people have you as an ally, they end up losing more "men" to friendly fire than the enemy.
We live in a world where Dr. Strangelove is a reality.
Try reading the BBC opposed to CNN for a change.
I disagree. I'm by no means anti-american, but i strongly disagree with your statements.
Your country men die because your military and their commanders have absolutely no clue about reality outside America. This is illustrated by the large number of American casulties currently being inflicted in Iraq; note, the British, on the other hand, have lost only 6 (not counting those killed by "Friendly Fire" -but we'll forget about that one), and conversely have succeed in winning the support of the iraqi's in their area.
US policy had nothing to do with the American's involvement in WW2, it was a little thing called Pearl Harbour. The mighty America got dragged kicking and screaming into the war -two years late, i might add! Only the American's would believe that it was their involvement that WON the war. I guess you are forgetting: the russians, british, french, australians etc...
If it wasn't for American foreign policy, their would be no South Korea, their wouldn't however be the majority of the worlds problems at the moment. I think the atrocities of 11th September 2001 highlight this fact.
Instead, you have an imbecilic, corrupt president, which goes to show the mentallity of your nation as a whole to the rest of the world -a laughing stock!
I think what the US needs first and foremost is a grasp of international politics -If it wasn't for the fact that the rest of the world has an extreme distaste for their foreign polices, they wouldn't *need* any more weapons.
Steve
Is it me, or does Bill Gates look like he's doing a bad William Shatner impression?