Slashdot Log In
SCO Threatens Red Hat and SuSE
Posted by
timothy
on Wed Apr 23, 2003 03:24 PM
from the court-battles-are-fun dept.
from the court-battles-are-fun dept.
Guy Smith writes "CRN reports that SCO will target SuSE and Red Hat with lawsuits after they are finished with IBM (providing that IBM allows them live). To quote Sco, "There will be a day of reckoning for Red Hat and SuSE when this is done." They seem bent on destroying the Open Source community and they deserve to hear the community's opinion on the matter."
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
SCO Threatens Red Hat and SuSE
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 1007 comments
(Spill at 50!) | Index Only
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Beautiful (Score:5, Insightful)
(http://homepage.mac.com/inertia186/iblog/ | Last Journal: Monday February 09 2004, @08:06PM)
Ya think? As you may or may not recall [sourcemagazine.com], SCO had ties to Microsoft back in the day, when it was called XENIX. So I guess it's still in it's blood to threaten the other operating systems on the block.
Re:Beautiful (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Beautiful (Score:5, Informative)
(http://homepage.mac.com/inertia186/iblog/ | Last Journal: Monday February 09 2004, @08:06PM)
Link 1 [martin-studio.com]
Re:Beautiful (Score:5, Insightful)
(Last Journal: Wednesday August 24 2005, @09:37PM)
What message DID resonate with IT managers? The possibility of being sued for Linux/OSS patent voilations.
"Linux patent violations/risk of being sued" struck a chord with US and Swedish respondents. Seventy-four percent (74%) of Americans and 82% of Swedes stated that the risk of being sued over Linux patent violations made them feel less favorable towards Linux. This was the only message that had a strong impact with any audience.
Hmmm... the only thing that might work is very public lawsuits and threats about patent voilations and what begins to happen?
But M$ would never actually bribe another company to sue (and threaten to sue) the companies that represent the biggest threats to them just as a marketing ploy would they?
This was the only message that had a strong impact with any audience.
Would they?
=tkk
Re:Beautiful (Score:5, Funny)
(http://www.example.net/)
May I quote a stable space opera move Star Wars?
So, before you think that successfully suing Microsoft is proof against future alliance with Microsoft against Open Source, remember Yoda's words:
Re:Beautiful (Score:5, Interesting)
(http://stefanco.com/ | Last Journal: Sunday October 14, @11:09AM)
You're making the assumption that the Halloween VII memo is an authentic, unaltered memo from Microsoft. How do you know it's not a forgery? Where's the proof?
I have an email from Bill Gates that says he'll give me $1000 if I forward the email to all my friends, but I don't think it's real.
Re:Beautiful (Score:5, Informative)
(Last Journal: Wednesday August 24 2005, @09:37PM)
Are these for real?
Yes. Microsoft has acknowledged the authenticity of these documents. Halloween I, II, III and VII are real;
[VII is the one I cited.]
M$ has openly acknowledged that several of them are, in fact, true leaks of M$ memos. I don't have a specific link for that document but someone probably does - ESR says it is and I think it's too boring and buzzowrd compliant to be fake.
But feel free to show us as wrong.
=tkk
Re:Beautiful (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Beautiful (Score:4, Funny)
(http://music.download.com/fearofzero | Last Journal: Saturday November 03, @08:55AM)
Re:Beautiful (Score:5, Funny)
(http://slashdot.org/)
If L is the installed base of Linux, then dL/dt is the net rate of adoption. and if you were to decelerate the adoption, then that would be a negative value of d2L/dt2. But he said de-accelerate which would be a negative value of d3L/dt3, but a positive va....ok I'll go back to sitting in the corner and muttering to myself..
From the interview: (Score:5, Interesting)
McBride: In our case, Linux comes from Unix and we own the Unix operating system. How this plays out with other code bases, I don't know.
CRN: What are you trying to do? Some say you are trying to compete against Linux by destroying it.
McBride: We will use our best efforts to protect our source code.
If that's not a battle cry, what is?
I probably won't join the flamewar on their inbox, but in EVERY circumstance where I find their products from this point forward I will offer that client a special discount on the hours I spend replacing it with any other product that will do the job.
Re:From the interview: (Score:5, Insightful)
(http://www.daphne-emu.com/ | Last Journal: Wednesday November 30 2005, @05:59PM)
SCO appears to be trying to change their primary source of revenue to be that which they get from lawsuits rather than actually selling services like they used to be doing. I don't know how viable of a business strategy this is, but even if they were to successfully sue every linux company into bankruptcy (hypothetically) they would eventually run out of people to sue and go bankrupt themselves. It's like a virus that feeds on other living cells until it has no more hosts. Once it runs out of hosts, it must itself die.
Re:From the interview: (Score:5, Interesting)
(Last Journal: Friday December 01 2006, @10:51AM)
No they don't (Score:5, Interesting)
(http://benambra.org/)
From a business perspective, such a policy can make good sense. According to a book I once read, Xerox came to the same conclusion. Back in the 60's and 70's, they chased after everybody that might be violating their patents, but in the 1980's they decided that chasing people through the courts was a distraction from their main business and more trouble than it was worth.
Re:From the interview: (Score:4, Funny)
(http://www.doublefine.com/)
Oh lordy. If suing Linux vendors is their new business plan... okay. Makes sense. Because, as we know, packaging and selling Linux distributions is such a profitable business that SCO is bound to cash in big time with this strategy.
*snicker*
Re:From the interview: (Score:5, Insightful)
(http://www.capybara.org/~hylaride)
"our source code." (Score:5, Interesting)
(http://www.ringworld.org/~zibby | Last Journal: Wednesday August 27 2003, @04:17PM)
Seems like their issue isn't the kernel, but the software being distributed with the kernel.
Remember folks, Linux is the kernel, not the OS. Distributions are the OS. SCO is after distributers, not the kernel. If anyone tells you Linux is an operating system, they're wrong.
If you read the lawsuit.. (Score:5, Interesting)
(http://slashdot.org/)
SCO DOES believe that IBM has illegally taken SCO Intellectual Property and deliberately fed it into the linux community. If you read the complaint the scenario goes something like this...
SCO and IBM enter into agreement to produce 'hardened' Unix for the Intel Platform. When this development is done, and SCO expects IBM to market it, IBM says "nevermind we don't want to go in that direction anymore". Months later IBM announces an initiative to help the linux community 'harden' linux
SCO claim that IBM illegally used what they learned from SCO to make IP contributions to Linux. So even if the code wasn't copied the knowhow was illegally transfered from a private partnership with huge NDA coverage, to a public project without SCO's consent. If this is true, they have a case against IBM
I do not know what there case may be against Red Hat etc.
Re:From the interview: (Score:5, Informative)
(http://web.abnormal.com/)
Re:From the interview: (Score:5, Informative)
(http://cstefan.multiply.com/ | Last Journal: Monday December 03, @12:09PM)
Not exactly.
BSD was based on version 7. Over the years the AT&T and BSD codebases diverged quite a bit. Many UNIX vendors including AT&T copied bits of the BSD codebase back into their implementations of the AT&T codebase. The BSD TCP/IP stack is probably the best known of these.
Flash forward to the early 90's, BSD 4.4 is released, AT&T sues BSDI and the University of California for copying it's source code. After much lawyering the case is eventually settled and the handful of files that still contain AT&T source are removed leading to the 4.4-lite release.
In the interim AT&T has sold the UNIX source code and trademarks to Novell. A couple of years later Novell sells the UNIX code to SCO and donates the UNIX trademarks to X/Open. A few years later SCO sells its UNIX OS businesses to Caldera and Caldera changes its name to SCO.
So the current batch of idiots isn't really SCO but Caldera who has managed to get it's grubby hands on the old AT&T codebase.
Re:Community Response? (Score:5, Insightful)
(http://www.grown-up.org/)
As opposed to posting direct contact information like names and email addresses... and including people with *absolutely no involvement* with the decision, and encouraging people to spam them. And there was spamming involved on the forums, as well, which interfered with other *users*.
We're talking apples and oranges here.
Re:Community Response? (Score:5, Interesting)
It's pretty despicable to realize your product can't stand on its own merits and thus to resort to lawsuits, on the basis of the argument that your "competition" must have stolen your code because their product improved too much too fast. I think people in the Open Source community should be polite when trying to resolve disputes or negotiate with companies or organizations that have committed license violations unknowingly, or otherwise skirted around the rules, and should generally give others the benefit of the doubt initially - the light touch is usually the best first approach with anybody.
SCO has gone beyond the point of getting the benefit of the doubt, however. There can be no doubt about the intentions of their actions, or about their attitude towards Linux and its backers. If they were willing to point to specific code that has been lifted, or other specific copyright violations, which they've been asked repeatedly, I think the majority of the Linux community would support removing those portions from the codebase. However, SCO has been unable and unwilling to do that, and has not only brought this to the courts, but is threatening widening their lawsuit against pretty much everybody who has financially benefitted from and supported the Linux community. I say fuck SCO and the horse they rode in on. Of course, I think emailing them is pretty much guaranteed to be useless and I wouldn't even bother - let IBMs lawyer's eat these fuckers for lunch, but I don't see any hypocrisy in differentiating between these two situations.
Summary (Score:5, Funny)
A: Yes.
Re:Summary (Score:4, Funny)
SCO abviously a superior product..... (Score:5, Funny)
(http://www.softwarearchitects.ca/)
Contact Us
The SCO Group
355 South 520 West
Suite 100
Lindon, Utah 84042 USA
801-765-4999 phone
801-765-1313 fax
Choose Location:
Please Select a Location Warning: Too many connections in
Database error: pconnect(teak.lg.center7.com, web, $Password) failed.
MySQL Error: ()
Session halted.
Re:SCO abviously a superior product..... (Score:5, Funny)
(http://slashdot.org/~joe_bruin/ | Last Journal: Wednesday April 14 2004, @09:25PM)
Re:SCO abviously a superior product..... (Score:5, Funny)
netcraft.com reports:
The site www.sco.com is running Apache/1.3.14 (Unix) mod_ssl/2.7.1 OpenSSL/0.9.6 PHP/4.0.3pl1 on Linux. FAQ
Cheers,
cdc
Re:SCO abviously a superior product..... (Score:5, Funny)
After they're finished with IBM... (Score:5, Funny)
"Hey, you! When I'm done kickin' these four bouncers' asses, you're next! You and your huge friends, there!"
Re:Chances? (Score:5, Insightful)
But if there is significant proprietary code in open source that the owner did not put some type of open license
Which is exactly what sco themselves does when distributing OpenLinux. Any claim they may have had on any part of the code is uninteresting now since they themselves (as copyrightholders) have distributed the source under GPL (and other lisences).
If they never themselves ditributed linux they might have had the snowball's chance, now they haven't even got that.
Astounding. (Score:5, Insightful)
(http://www.buildhigh.com/)
Believe me, all the feedback in the world won't matter to the SCO folks. They want attention. They want everyone up in arms. They want this to hinder the adoption of Linux in business.
Why? They want to be bought. SCO figures that if IBM's linux related sales start to drop (and IBM makes a fair amount of cash on linux related sales) IBM may just buy SCO to shut them up and end the lawsuit. It's pretty slimy on SCO's part. It's downright microsoftish.
I'm not saying don't send SCO feedback. I'm saying that whatever you send won't matter to them. They're not interested in using linux for anything other than making a quick buck and exiting the market. They're like LinuxONE was, just a lot more insidious and poisonous.
Re:Astounding. (Score:5, Interesting)
(Last Journal: Friday December 01 2006, @10:51AM)
As much as I dislike MS (and SCO), this really is not an MS tactic. Overall MS remains "ethically challenged", but I have noticed that the courts are a true last resort for them. I am actually quite impressed by that.
Re:SCO is a piece of garbage. (Score:5, Interesting)
(http://www.sigsegv.cx/)
1. SCO was slower
2. SCO was horrible to maintain
3. The file system hierarchy had nothing in common neither with system V, nor with posix, nor with anything else for that matter
4. It was so ridden with security holes that it could be hacked by script kiddiez on the fly. Raising the sec to higher levels (C2) even made the job easier for them beacause half of executables were setuid to maintain the functionality for C2 and almost every one of them had a buffer overrun.
5. The only thing it was useful for was running Oracle on a PC.
Since then, linux has got better. And as 5 is no longer the case SCO is dying. Frankly it deserves anything it gets. All IBM needs is an injunction preventing SCO from enforcing the 100 day clause in its contract. After that it is game over.
Sure they will... (Score:4, Insightful)
What parts do they have a problem with? (Score:3, Insightful)
(http://spf.pobox.com/)
Re:What parts do they have a problem with? (Score:5, Interesting)
(http://www.cs.utah.edu/~andersbr/)
Now, the simple fact is that SCO's code base is irrelevant. Many of the "high performance" features (SMP, NUMA, journalled file systems, etc.) that they claim IBM put into Linux aren't present in the original Bell Labs code, or even in SCO's latest-and-greatest OS offering.
So my impression is that SCO is actually claiming ownership of all of IBM's improvements, and charging that those improvements were illegally added to Linux.
Sounds stupid? It is.
[Note: any errors of fact are directly attributable to me not knowing of what I speak.]
Don't they? (Score:5, Interesting)
Simple solution (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Simple solution (Score:5, Interesting)
(http://127.0.0.1/ | Last Journal: Wednesday March 31 2004, @01:41PM)
As groundless as the accusations may be, and as much as I spit at the feet of SCO for their tactics, I cannot agree with a system that rewards the richest litigant, instead of the one that deserves to win on the merit of the case.
I guess the US has gotten used to having corporations possessing so much power that it's considered normal to wave it around like a plush toy.
But what if they're right? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:But what if they're right? (Score:5, Insightful)
(http://www.buildhigh.com/)
Besides... (Score:5, Funny)
(Last Journal: Saturday June 04 2005, @11:50AM)
[thumbs through unix reference for 'SCO']
Here it is. SCO Unix is known as "the lamest unix implementation on the lamest CPU family in the history of technology, several notches below Minix, which itself was an intentionally incomplete unix implementation meant to teach students OS theory".
There you have it.
Re:But what if they're right? (Score:4, Funny)
(http://trolltalk.com/ | Last Journal: Saturday November 24, @08:16AM)
I wrote them a few months ago when this all started, asking them for specific examples and they don't have any, because there are none.
It's a slap-suit, and I hope IBM bitch-slaps them back all the way to bearskins and stone knives (now let's see who get's the reference to bearskins and stone knives).
Re:But what if they're right? (Score:5, Funny)
(Last Journal: Sunday January 08 2006, @06:08AM)
Think of it as an old Warner Bros cartoon:
(350-pound lawyer/gorilla): "Oh, you like lawsuits, eh? Well, let me indulge you... MUHAHAHAHA Let 'em have it, Ray!"
(98-pound milquetoast pipsqueak): "Um... What did you mean by that?" (looks up as a shadow expands around him, then forlornly says,) "Mother..."
BAM. An entire pallet of legal briefs drops out of the sky and lands on the pipsqueak with a little puff of dust. All that's left is his left hand, with a school ring on it, and his right hand, clutching a little briefcase. A groan is heard from under the pallet...
Re:But what if they're right? (Score:5, Informative)
SCO is not claiming IBM put actual SCO code into Linux. They are claming that that IBM took concepts/techniques/whatever that were trade secerts and gave them to linux developers. They claim that this is the only thing that could have made Linux what it is today.
I hope SCO's CEO ends up as IBM's CEO's pool boy. SCO wants someone to come along and buy them out to shut them up, but I hope IBM crushes them and we all get to watch them go bankrupt from deliberately pissing off their entire customer base. Then, when they do, IBM or Redhat can buy SCO's IP for a song
Reminds me of my favorite hockey cheer:
Awwwww...see ya asshole! You goon!
Re:But what if they're right? (Score:5, Insightful)
(http://cstefan.multiply.com/ | Last Journal: Monday December 03, @12:09PM)
First of all the "features" SCO alleges were copied by IBM aren't even present in the System V codebase. Secondly most if not all of these features such as SMP, NUMA, jornalling filesystems, etc first appeared 20-30 years ago in IBM mainframe operating systems. One of the pioneers in bringing SMP and NUMA to UNIX for large numbers of procesors was Sequent who IBM bought a couple of years ago. To claim IBM somehow copied these features from System V is absurd considering IBM probably invented the features in question.
I hope IBM throws its patent portfolio at SCO and crushes them like a bug.
even now they are crying for mercy (Score:3, Funny)
Money (Score:3, Insightful)
(http://www.pbm.com/~lindahl/)
Doesn't Redhat have more money in the bank than SCO's market capitalization?
Raging geekery (Score:5, Funny)
(Last Journal: Tuesday August 03 2004, @01:16PM)
Does someone have an update for the hate list. Apparently I'm behind because I still have IBM scheduled for the first and second tuesday of each month.
Thanks ahead of time. Rant on.
Who's next? (Score:4, Funny)
(http://paradoxinc.net/ | Last Journal: Tuesday March 09 2004, @09:18AM)
Re:Who's next? (Score:4, Funny)
(http://slashdot.org/)
Hey, don't give them any ideas.
From the horse's mouth... (Score:5, Funny)
(http://www.snowplow.org/tom/)
McBride: Everyone just says we're a company going out of business, and throwing a Hail Mary pass, but once we get to court, those who say that will look as strange as the Iraqi information minister on TV saying the infidels are defeated and did not get into Baghdad.
Wow. That's like the Iraqi Information Minister saying that Rummy is going to look as strange as the Iraqi Information Minister when this is all over...or...something.
The apocalypse must be emminent... (Score:3, Funny)
(Last Journal: Thursday October 02 2003, @03:54PM)
What happens if Microsoft Buys SCO? (Score:5, Interesting)
(http://www.moveon.or...ficulties/index.html | Last Journal: Tuesday October 26 2004, @10:46AM)
Think anti-trust law (Score:5, Informative)
It would be like GM trying to buy Ford.
Remarkable (Score:5, Funny)
(http://www.thomas-galvin.com/)
This should be amusing.
Re:Remarkable (Score:5, Funny)
(http://lylejohnson.name/)
I believe (Score:5, Funny)
(http://slashdot.org/)
why? .... (Score:5, Insightful)
(Last Journal: Thursday May 13 2004, @07:26PM)
Okay.. (Score:5, Interesting)
but have they actually said what it is they are suing over? What code is it, exactly, that the lawsuit is over? Linux wasn't derived from BSD or SYSV.. it was written from scratch.
Sco appears to be basically mounting nothing more than a smear campaign.
If there IS copyright infringement... and there IS code that SCO has the rights to in there:
It would be awfully hard for them to show intent - that the code was actually knowingly used without their permission. This is obvious.. as the entire linux world is going "HuH? What are you talking about?"
That means that all we would have to do is politely remove the code covered by their copyright, and have it re-implemented.
It's dumber than that. (Score:5, Interesting)
(Last Journal: Tuesday December 19 2006, @05:12PM)
Beyond that, however, when Caldera bought SCO, they did it for around 7 million dollars. And now they're suing IBM for like a billion for DEVALUING their 7 million dollar product. It's completely retarded, and I eagerly await the righteous can of whoopass that IBM is about to unleash.
Even if IBM had stolen ALL of SCO's code verbatim, and Linux had incorporated all of it verbatim, it is highly unlikely, based off past precidents, that they could recover even a fraction of what they are asking for.
I would almost welcome MS buying SCO, just for the amusement value of watching a convicted monopoly, and a convicted code stealer trying to sue someone else for monopolistic code stealing.
Re:Okay.. (Score:4, Informative)
(http://www.cs.utah.edu/~andersbr/)
Now, IBM has their AIX team. Whatever relationship their code has to the original Bell Labs code, AIX is now light years ahead. None--I repeat, NONE--of the "improvements" to Linux that SCO is suing over were present in that original code base. So basically they're claiming that IBM's license to the original Bell Labs code gives SCO ownership of all the improvements IBM made.
That is effectively the entire claim of the case: SCO owns AIX, even though IBM developed it all by themselves. I'm guessing if the license actually came close to saying what SCO is now claiming, IBM would have ripped out what (very little) Bell Labs code was in AIX a decade ago.
YHBT (Score:5, Insightful)
(http://www.biglumber.com/ | Last Journal: Tuesday November 27, @12:44PM)
Let's see the evidence. If there is no evidence, or the evidence turns out to be bogus, then you can accuse them of trying to destroy OSS and flouridating our precious bodily fluids.
But even if they're right, licensing won't be the answer. The infringing code will have to go, instead. Well, unless the license they have in mind is the GPL, which I kind of doubt. ;-)
Am I missing something? (Score:5, Interesting)
I didn't know BSD wasn't "outside of Redmond". It looks like McBride has a firm handle on things. No wonder he thinks they have a case!
Re:Am I missing something? (Score:5, Insightful)
(http://cstefan.multiply.com/ | Last Journal: Monday December 03, @12:09PM)
Huh? What rock has this guy been living under?
OS/360, VM/CMS, MVS, Z/OS, OS/400, OS/2, and several others are all operating systems developed in-house by IBM. Mythical Man Month was written about the OS/360 project IBM had during the 60's. None of these owe any heritage to Redmond or System V. Many of the concepts used in modern operating systems first appeared on "big iron" like IBM mainframes: symetric multiprocessing, NUMA, clusters, failover, fault tolerance, transaction processing, pre-emptive multitasking, virtual memory, journaling, etc.
There are others such as VMS or Mac OS9 that have no connection to System V or Redmond as well. I do think it is safe to say that much of the technology used in modern enterprise operating systems was invented at IBM and first appeared in an IBM mainframe OS.
Ridiculous ravings (Score:5, Funny)
(http://moreati.org/)
He went on to add "We are wiping their CVS and Bitkeeper repositories as we speak, the legions of IBM a fleeing at the meerest glimpse of our glorious crack lawer squads. I have personally caught the imperialist general Alan Cox, and the Dictator excuse for a warleader Torvalds will be tried for his crimes. We are victorious!"
IBM will crush SCO (Score:3, Insightful)
Need we remind SCO that IBM has been building operating systems, middleware, and software for quite some time?
Threatening the AIX license is absurd. That will fly back in their face. ("Use Linux because it *isn't* under an SCO royalty!")
Disclaimer - I am an IBM employee. This opinions are my own.
What? (Score:3, Interesting)
(http://operagost.com/ | Last Journal: Monday May 01 2006, @12:08PM)
System V is the basis for all operating systems outside of Redmond, AIX, HP UX, Solaris, Apple and Linux.
Ever heard of:
OS/2
MS/DR/PC DOS
BeOS
OpenVMS
AmigaDOS
etc.
Day of reckoning? (Score:5, Funny)
(Last Journal: Wednesday October 22 2003, @08:13AM)
Wow. Reminds me of every cardboard villain in every hokey 1980s action cartoon...
SCO: "You haven't seen the last of us, do-gooders!"
Thanks for the memories, SCO. We'll miss you after your well-deserved demise...
Then who next? (Score:3)
(http://www.linuxsimulations.org/ | Last Journal: Friday January 17 2003, @01:13AM)
1. IBM; Big and Blue
2. RedHat and SuSE; Arguably two of the most succesful distro's
3. Apple?
Re:Then who next? (Score:4, Funny)
Somewhere, somehow.. (Score:5, Funny)
I can feel it. There's a definite disturbance in the Source...
Blacken the sky? (Score:5, Funny)
(http://www.bopo.net/)
Blockquoth the article: Jeez, does IBM have so many lawyers that they have to catapult them in?
What source code, specifically? (Score:4, Insightful)
(http://omg.tfenet.com/ | Last Journal: Monday August 19 2002, @10:09AM)
End-All of Operating Systems? (Score:3, Interesting)
(http://paradoxinc.net/ | Last Journal: Tuesday March 09 2004, @09:18AM)
...
System V is the basis for all operating systems outside of Redmond, AIX, HP UX, Solaris, Apple and Linux.
This sound very arrogant and egotistical to me.
So SCO is saying that they own every operating system available...except BSD. That's good to know, in a few years the world will be either SCO free, or two OS's to use...BSD or SCO =(
Come on gloomy Gus (Score:3, Insightful)
Please put all predictions of doom on the shelf with the other stupid predictions that are made every day about computers and business.
Ironic? (Score:5, Funny)
What SCO doesn't realize... (Score:3, Insightful)
We should consider the possibility that SCO is right, as well. They're undertaking a billion dollar lawsuit against one of the largest technology corporations on the planet. Everyone says they're stupid, but it looks to me like they know something we don't.
I wrote SCO, but I couldn't tell them that they should stop because they're wrong, because we just don't know that. We want them to be wrong, but we really can't say. They should stop because they won't get anything with it except general hatred from a very large part of the IT world. SCO was never popular or "poised" to take the X86 server market. MS stole more "umph" from SCO's strategy than Linux did. Blaming Linux is just a convenient way to explain their company's loss.
I think we've heard this before (Score:4, Funny)
I think I know where the the Iraqi Information Minister [welovethei...nister.com] is now working.
Worst Metaphors ever (Score:3, Funny)
2000lb man??
hehe..maybe he metaphored his way to the top! Hmm...maybe I can make it too since the early dog gets the oats!
Link to Complaint of SCO vs IBM (Score:5, Informative)
http://www.caldera.com/scosource/ip.html [caldera.com]
This contains links to the complaint and 5 exhibits. If you're going to write to SCO, you really ought to RTFDocs.
Goodbye SCO (Score:5, Interesting)
Hello. I'm an admin at a medium sized company that currently uses SCO OpenServer 5.0.5 to run our accounting package.
I just thought I would voice my opinion that I am totally disgusted with the lawsuit against IBM, and after reading the threats to RedHat and SuSE I'm making it a personal goal of mine to see that Server stripped of SCO software, and running RedHat Linux within a time frame of 1 month. I'm currently testing the Linux version of our software which our vendor has agreed to supply us with free of charge.
I think your actions are well deserving of a response such as this, and would also recommend other admins in my position do the same.
I'll keep you posted as to the date of our SCO license burning festivities.
Thanks for your time.
Re:Goodbye SCO (Score:4, Informative)
(http://www.slashdot.org/~teddyr | Last Journal: Wednesday February 04 2004, @07:35PM)
I know of several companies that had sco versions of software that had changed to Linux versions.
One even offered their existing SCO users "free" feature/product upgrade and a "free" 3 months of additional "prime" support...
Where's the beef? (Score:3, Insightful)
(http://threeseas.net/ | Last Journal: Friday January 18 2002, @01:44PM)
What would happen if IBM turned around and backstabbed Linux?
Authors need to revoke SCO's rights NOW (Score:5, Interesting)
(http://wcmi.myftp.org/)
I'd imagine there are even GPL'ed apps bundled in UnixWare...
SCO is announcing to the world that they are prepared to go nuclear on this. So, everyone else needs to nuke them FIRST.
How strong will they be with no product to sell?
Make GNU software incompatible with SCO (Score:3, Funny)
(http://www.doofus.org/)
For example, we could make autocon, autogen, automake, binutils, gcc, emacs/xemacs, KDE, Gnome, gdb, gnu tar, cpio, ghostscript, gzip, bzip2, and any other essential GNU tools refuse to compile or run on SCO. SCO would then have to go and spend all of their time patching everything to run on their dead platform. Just make certain that any new GNU software does not work with SCO.
That will get their attention.
Pack of Lies (Score:3, Informative)
That is to say that even Red Hat several years ago (1999's IPO filling) knew they may have IP issues in the future. SCO is not threatening Red Hat, SuSE or Grandma's Apple Pie despite some people's reaction. McBride is simply saying that the fears Red Hat had in 1999 are accurate, not because of anything they did, but because of IBM's arrogance.
Further, the Slashdot post makes the statement "They (SCO I guess) seem bent on destroying the Open Source community." What a stupid statement especially since McBride says specifically:
Since when is the Open Source movement 100% dependant on IBM? Open Source grew and flourished for years before IBM got on board, and it would do fine without them. Sure, if IBM looses OSS projects may be much more careful about where they get their code, but is that a bad thing? The GNU folks don't thinks so.
The best word on the subject was what McBride said himself:
Unfortunately for McBride the
Is this a joke?? (Score:4, Interesting)
(http://meta.slashdot...nelcode.com/~cwarner | Last Journal: Friday May 30 2003, @11:45AM)
SCO, you will not be missed and I think the place where you once stood will be scorched earth and well deserved. You're terrorists by every definition of the word.
SCO will stop terrorism!! (Score:4, Funny)
SCO - Stop Creating Open-source...
Dude, where's my karma...?Uh.. what? (Score:3, Insightful)
(http://developers.sl...dMcMan/journal/33834 | Last Journal: Sunday May 18 2003, @10:16PM)
I really don't know either. Something about Linux stealing 'unix source code', then about stealing 'libraries source code'. Linux comes from Unix? Since when? Is the idea of a posix operating system IP? It isn't to my knowledge.
I think it's pretty obvious what's going on. SCO is spiraling down, and in an attempt to get some business back, they're trying to portray using Linux as illegal. Unless their lawyers are complete idiots, they realize suing RedHat would result in a) them losing b) RedHat not having any money to give them even if they won.
A copy of what I just send them (Score:3, Interesting)
(Last Journal: Monday March 01 2004, @11:39PM)
------8<--------8<--------
I do not understand why you are pursuing these blatantly insane legal shenanigans. As a SCO stock holder, I do not feel that your present actions are in the best interest of me, my shares or the Linux world in general. I originally purchased $4500 worth of stock at the IPO and had intended to keep this stock for the long haul, even though it is now nearly worthless. But if you insist in your attempts to harm the Linux and, by association, the IT/IS world I will have to dump my shares.
I had great hopes for Caldera. I go back far enough to remember when it first started up; when the name changed from Corsair to Caldera; I helped friends with recommendation to use Caldera Linux and even helped a friend get a job there. Now, it seems like you are doing everything you can to kill Linux, UnixWare & SCO Unix. It is a shame.
------8<--------8<--------
Late to the rant party . . . what about China? (Score:4, Insightful)
Let's say IBM chooses to fight this (this seems to be the plan), and let's say some idiot US judge actually sides with SCO, and let's say SCO looses on appeal. Won't this really end up meaning that all Linux development will happen outside of the states? (a whole slew of it does already.) Think about Alan Cox's "I can't describe this security patch because it's a violation of the DMCA." Think about how open source cryptology was developed when encryption was considered a munition. Remember poor Phil Zimmerman? [skypoint.com]
I figure if they do win, they'll only be screwing over those of us who live (and program) in the states. Will China care? Especially two years from now when Red Flag Linux [redflag-linux.com] has gotten that much better. Will Europe care? (It's not like there is a whole lot of love between the US and Europe these days.) I suspect the rest of the world will shrug their shoulders at the silly Americans and their inane legal system and that will be the end of it.
Interesting... (Score:3, Informative)
I dunno, I see this lawsuit as baseless. It is being done by a company that is going under and is merely an attempt at reaching the surface of the water for one last breath of air.
Re:Sco wants to be bought out. (Score:5, Interesting)
(http://www.router12.net/)