An Open Letter from Darl McBride 393
canfirman writes "Well, it seems Darl is changing tactics as he's now published an open letter proclaiming the benefits of UNIX over any other operating system. However, most of his letter involves comparing SCO Unix to Linux from not only a business acceptance point of view, but from a technical point of view, too. Darl throws in a bunch of stats in there, too: 'In a study
conducted only seven months ago they found that overall, the most
vulnerable operating system for manual hacker attacks was Linux,
accounting for 65.64% of all hacker breaches reported.' I'd love for somebody who has more technical knowledge than me to look at his points and see if what he says is true or not -- assuming anything coming out of Darl's mouth is true."
I can believe of the stats here... (Score:5, Interesting)
Also, companies have dedicated sysadmins or even IT security people which will (hopefully) constantly check for new vulnerabilities and immediately patch their systems.
Private "Home" Unix installations that aren't Linux based will in comparison be more likely to be in the hands of the more knowledgable folks, and hence also in the hands of people that will likely be more security aware than the average home Windows/Mac/Linux user.
How many private users with their linux box on broadband seriously do that (except for those that hold IT security / admin type positions)?
I'm a developer - and I'm not in the habit of daily (or even weekly) patching of systems. I'm occasionally checking the system and I do react (i.e. patch) when I hear about some (widely publicised) security hole...
Another factor in "less" security of systems in people's homes, is that most people just stay ignorant of the situation, because they think "my box doesn't contain anything important that would make it worth hacking"; but they're often with that ignoring the danger that someone might just break into their computer just to use the computer in further attacks on more "rewarding" targets.
Re:I can believe of the stats here... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:I can believe of the stats here... (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:I can believe of the stats here... (Score:5, Insightful)
No, just the opposite [slashdot.org].
There are four potential categories of machines here. Unmaintained Windows, Maintained Windows, Unmaintained Linux, Maintained Linux. Of these, UW is so easy to target that it can be done automatically. UL is hackable, too, but there's enough variation that it generally needs to be done manually. I would further say that ML is more secure than MW.
Linux, having existed in a kinder environment, is like the boy-in-the-bubble stepping out into the world for the first time.
Unix (which Linux inherits much from, and in software aquired traits can be inherited :-> ) has been in a much nastier environment than Windows for much longer. Recall that the Morris Worm targeted Unix and Vax systems...
Re:I can believe of the stats here... (Score:4, Interesting)
On the other hand, where Linux updating bests Windows by miles is that you can often update all the software on your computer at once—if you're using all free software packaged by your distro provider, that is.
Windows update (Score:3, Insightful)
One place where natural selection has helped is Windows Update.
I've had to reinstall Windows a number of tymes and one thing I found out quickly was to turn off automatic updates in Windows. This happened after I ran update after doing a compleat install and then running update only to have it break something. I went through this three tymes within a week. Install then run update, something gets broken so rerun install then update. Broke again so reinstall and this tyme not run update. No problems
Re:I can believe of the stats here... (Score:3, Interesting)
Funny. I'm used to the hacking scene of the late 80's early 90's. It seemed to me that the good penetrators never even bothered looking at Windows because breaking in had no payoff. Unix machines had fast Internet connections; Windows boxes were behind modems if they were online at all (remember
Re:I can believe of the stats here... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:I can believe of the stats here... (Score:5, Interesting)
I'd rather not have my system "owned". The Windows user attitude of, "I don't care if someone breaks into my system because it contains nothing important, and I already rebuild it every few months" is not encouraging.
What do you think the statistical likelihood of an overt attack is compared to an automated worm? Those weasels at mi2g who came up with this "study" of dubious merit, are simply looking for some way to get a dig in on Linux. Would you rather be on an OS that gets 52% of
Getting into a Linux box should require some overt effort. Breaking Windows boxes automatically using worms has been all too easy, as proven by numerous, catastrophic examples such as Code Red, Nimda, Sasser, Slammer, Loveletter, Melissa, etc. Please refresh my memory of all the high-profile, impactful, overt Linux attacks.
Manual hacker attacks (Score:3, Funny)
Yeah, don't fuck with the people who wrote nroff source for your manual pages.
Anyone got a SCO box handy?
$ man tunefs
If it doesn't say "You can tune a filesystem but you can't tune a fish" [freebsd.org], Darl deserves whatever he gets. Don't believe me? Use the nroff source, Luke.
$ cat /usr/share/man/man8/tunefs.8.gz | gzip -d
Re:I can believe of the stats here... (Score:5, Informative)
Re:I can believe of the stats here... (Score:4, Interesting)
It gets better (Score:2)
Re:It gets better (Score:2)
It will always get better.
I have a feeling Darl will be as prolific AD (after death) as L. Ron Hubbard has been. I think he (the latter) has written|published more since he died than when he was alive.
I fully expect Darl to publish missives from the grave about Unix & Linux for a long, long time.
(for all we know, he's writing this stuff from a casket)
Re:I can believe of the stats here... (Score:2)
Why not?
For my server (Debian):
apt-get update
apt-get upgrade
For my desktop (Gentoo):
emerge --sync
emerge --update world
Much of it can even be automated. I belive other distros have similar methods. (And the update and sync are actually done by cron.)
The FUD is strong with this one (Score:4, Informative)
Next Darl takes Linux to task for disorganization.
Linux will likely continue to face challenges about its development methodologies and roadmaps as long as it continues to be a loosely organized set of volunteers who develop what they want, when they want.. Has he not heard of Novell, RedHat, Mandriva, or Ubuntu? What about the OSTG?!? Are these "loosely organized volunteers?" NO! These are firms, supporting and developing Linux, firms that are pounding SCO into non-existence. [slashdot.org]
He claims The grand promise of Linux was that it wouldn't fork or fragment into multiple Linux operating systems. . Never have I heard that. The grand promise of Linux is that it is open. Free as in freedom. Unlike the "Open Server" SCO sells, which is neither open nor free.
Next he asks the following.
Who is checking for compatibility across thousands of applications, drivers, hardware and peripherals? Who is verifying backward compatibility? Well if you are using Debian, it is the Debian team. If you are using SuSE it is Novell. Et cetera et cetera. Darl betrays extraordinary ingorance in thinking that all operating systems built on GNU/Linux are the same. Gentoo != Mandriva != Slackware != Knoppix. Ye the media (and Darl, who shouldn't be able to plea ignoracne) continue to ignorantly blanket statement all Linux distros as "Linux".
Frankly this is crap. He admits to being biased, but doesn't have the balls to point out where his bias is. That is because it is everywhere, throughout this ridiculous article.
And who the heck has ever heard of "Steve the Linux Super Villain Guy?" And why would a "popular internet cartoon" lend credence to a serious business claim??
Though I am going to burn Karma for this, the holy Slashdot would be a lot more interesting if it didn't post Media/FUD as news.
Re:I can believe of the stats here... (Score:5, Funny)
apt-get update && apt-get upgrade
Whew, that was rough... back to work now!
Re:I can believe of the stats here... (Score:3, Interesting)
Stop the lies, Linux is free. (Score:4, Informative)
Yes it is. http://www.linux.org/dist/ [linux.org]
Re:Stop the lies, Linux is free. (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes it is. http://www.linux.org/dist/ [linux.org]
More importantly, Yes, it is. [gnu.org]
a Linux server isn't free; nothing else is either (Score:2, Troll)
2. It is likely that the lowest Total Cost of Ownership for your systems in the medium term is WHATEVER YOU HAVE NOW. Switching is expensive, and retraining your admins to know another system can be even more expensive. At first noone will be experienced with the new system, an
Re:ok then (Score:2)
Plenty of Linux experts ready to answer your questions, all you have to do is ask.
Re:ok then (Score:2)
http://www.google.com/search?q=linux+help&sourcei
Re:hehehe (Score:3, Insightful)
Terribly different from "Well, boss we're having problems with Linux at our datacenter, but don't worry, I can go to Red Hat's support and ask someone to help me."
Specially when going to Red Hat's support is GUARANTEED you will be talking with a first tier support drone, at least on the begining while chances are, if you know your work, that you can talk to the problematic program's
Comment removed (Score:5, Funny)
Re:hehehe (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:hehehe (Score:4, Insightful)
Me: "Well, boss, we're having problems with Linux at our datacenter, but don't
worry, I already found the answer on one of the newsgroups."
or
Me: "Well, boss, we're having problems with Linux at our datacenter, but don't
worry, I dug into the source code and found the issue."
or
Me: "Well, boss, we're having problems with Linux at our datacenter, but don't
worry, I messaged one of the original developers on IRC and worked out what the
problem was."
Not every shop has the in-house expertise to deal without support, but there are plenty of us out here that do it. Frankly, most vendor support is shit anyways. We have support contracts for some of the software we run, and I usually don't bother; it's quicker to figure it out myself.
Re:ok then (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Stop the lies, Linux is free. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Stop the lies, Linux is free. (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Stop the lies, Linux is free. (Score:3, Interesting)
Yes indedy. If you're on a commercial OS, you can use your valuable time waiting for return calls from the vendor's "help desk", learning to understand what passes for English in whatever fungal third-world nation the "help desk" is in this week, and writing long and desperate correspondence to various level of your management explaining why you haven't solved the problem yet.
Thanks, no thanks, I'd just as
Re:Stop the lies, Linux is free. (Score:5, Funny)
As opposed to Windows which plans its own deployment, installs itself, configures itself (all of that while serving you tea and biscuits), updates itself automatically and flawlessly (on production servers) and manages its own licencing schemes so that the corporation does not need 5 dedicated staff just to stay legal, no?
Sir, your bridge is beckoning you back, its so cool in its shadow, do not leave it lonely.
Re:Stop the lies, Linux is free. (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Stop the lies, Linux is free. (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Stop the lies, Linux is free. (Score:3, Insightful)
Harping on Linux because there are administrative costs is just plain silly.
Interestingly, one significant cost of adopting any given OS is the ability to hire people that already know the technology. Something tells me qualified Linux people are easier to find than qualified SCO people. Probably cheaper to hire, too.
--S
Re:Stop the lies, Linux is free. (Score:5, Interesting)
Nope, linux is still free, regardless of how you value your time.
My time is highly valuable to me, and I charge my clients for it. My clients love Linux because it "just works". Email server with uptimes of over a year or more, file servers that boot right up, no problem, after a power failure and the UPS is drained. Backups, networking, routing, firewalling, it all just works. No blue screens, no registraions, no licensing issues, no hassles, easy software patches, and best of all CHOICES of vendors.
Sure there are problems with various distos of linux. With any complex software there will be issues. But on the whole, Linux runs circles around windows in terms of the lack of headaches and reliability.
Turf? (Score:2)
So many options, mods! Troll? Flamebait? Astroturf? Idiot?
Where is slashdot's "-1, Astroturf" mod, anyway?
Re:Stop the lies, Linux is free. (Score:3, Insightful)
My time has much value, thank you very much, and wasting it removing viruses, spyware, and downloading endless updates to repatch a system so that it is only less vulnerable than before is not appreciated.
This is the same tired old Microsoft argument: You'll have to train folks to use Linux, so it'll cost you more.
Remind me again how much I had to spend training my folks to use Windows? Last I looked, those MCSEs were not free. Even now, a quick comparison shows me that a LPI certification [lpi.org] costs around
Re:Stop the lies, Linux is free. (Score:5, Insightful)
Oh give it up. I suppose you want a pony too? Well tough luck, even if I gave you a pony, you'd still have to feed it and take care of it. So you'll just have to suck up and make do with the freely modifiable, open standards based, non-vendor-locked-in, free-as-in-beer linux kernel and associated operating system, utilities, office suites and other freebies thrown in. Feel free to go sit in a corner and pout if you want. Then go and call SCOX to give you some free software, free support, and a pony. I doubt they'll come through, given that they already want to charge you $699 for something that's free.
"as i suppose you know" (Score:2)
his argument is a strawman.
sum.zero
Re:Stop the lies, Linux is free. (Score:2)
Not everyone drinks coffee. I had it once hot, once iced, and detested it both times.
It works out, by coincidence, that if you aren't hooked on cigarettes, coffee, or rap music by the time you are nineteen, there are significant odds you never will be.
((I get some caffeine from chocolate, but for the most part, I eliminated caffeine from my diet over 2 1/2 years ago. I'm in my mid-40s and can still work my younger co-workers under the table, stamina-wise, even when they're hyped on caffeine & HFCS
Re:Stop the lies, Linux is free. (Score:3, Funny)
Look at it this way ... (Score:2)
They want to decry the GPL and OSS in general as communist, bad for business and so on. Then they want to turn around and benefit from it.
Are we surprised by this?
An Open Letter Back to Darl (Score:5, Funny)
Too little, too late. Kiss our asses.
ChipMonk
Odd turnabout (Score:2)
Is this a concession that attacking Linux (via IBM) has failed? Or a merely a feint? Is he trying to window-dress SCO for some other buyer? Time will tell
Re:Odd turnabout (Score:5, Informative)
My guess is that he's trying to remove focus away from his unsuccessful lawsuits and trying to re-promote the business, something he should have done while CEO of The SCO Group. Let's face it, SCO's financial situation is precarious at best, downright dangerous at worse. It looks like his "golden egg" of Linux lawsuits has turned up a rotten egg, so he's trying to change direction. I'm wondering if the shareholders and/or the board is putting pressure on him to promote the business instead of the lawsuits?
Either that, or he needs more cash for his lawsuits.
mi2g (Score:5, Informative)
Re:mi2g (Score:4, Informative)
Groklaw Fisks McBride (Score:5, Informative)
Darl's Open Letter, "Long Live UNIX," and other PR Blizzardry from SCOForum [groklaw.net]
The horse died a couple months ago (Score:5, Insightful)
When it comes down to it, is it productive anymore to even worry about this guy? At one time, I think it was, but now, I'm not sure. If he's still a danger to the idea of OSS, then I'm all for taking him apart bit by bit until he cries. But if he's just a harmless troll now, I'm ready to move on.
Has anyone started a betting pool for the final day of SCO's existence? It can't really be that far away, can it?
Finally, one more serious question: He says that they are proud of and focused on their own for-sale version of UNIX. What advantages are there to going with a closed, expensive version of UNIX over either an open, expensive version of Linux or an open, free version of Linux? I really don't know and am very curious.
Stewardship Responsibility... (Score:5, Informative)
However, as the stewards of the UNIX operating system, SCO is committed to providing technology leadership and delivering on the promise of UNIX-based solutions for many years to come.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't Novell [novell.com] the stewards of UNIX?
Re:Stewardship Responsibility... (Score:2)
Of course, I'm sure the way he looks at it is that even though Novell refused to transfer the cop
Re:Stewardship Responsibility... (Score:3, Interesting)
If you read Novell's filing, you will see that they have, in fact, been doing this for the past two years. As litigation and public aggrandizement weren't their goals, they've been doing it privately (ie., the way business professionals work.) It's only when they're sure that they have 100% legal proof that SCOX wouldn't hold up their end of the contract that they brought it to court.
2. Darl et al probably w
Re:Stewardship Responsibility... (Score:2)
You are correct insomuch as Novell has publically stated they are.
SCO, in their usual manner, denies that [wikipedia.org] and the courts are involved.
Soon... (Score:2)
If they are not now, they sure will be after Novell forces the SCO/Microsoft UNIX license fee issue. SCO still owes Novell on that, and does not have enough cash or assets to pony up Novell's 95% cut.
Yes, but don't worry. (Score:5, Funny)
I expect it will end similiarly, with Darl coating himself in some type of oil, igniting himself and then running and jumping from the highest precipice as a plummeting human fireball.
Re:Yes, but don't worry. (Score:3, Funny)
Out of the mouths of Darls? (Score:2, Insightful)
That ain't the body part he talks with...
Duuuh (Score:2)
Seriously, you keep your linux system patched and you probably won't get hacked.
That being said, the two hacks I've seen on my boxen - one was from a vulnerable version of Ikonboard - and the IRCBot was running with "NOBODY" permissions... The other one someone found a way to drop a fake paypal site on (a different) box and I have the box sitting on by tech bench to figure out how they got in. Though, I'm guess
MY open Letter to SCO (Score:2, Interesting)
Uhhh no (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Uhhh no (Score:4, Informative)
"Minix"
What? (Score:2)
Lies, Damned Lies and Statistics (Score:2, Insightful)
Of course there are more attacks against linux than against SCO Unix. I'd imagine there are somewhere around, 300 to 400 trillion more instances of linux running than instances of SCO Unix. So it's not strange that there are more attacks against them. This is just an instance of failing to take into account the base rate [wikipedia.org].
Of course, I'm
Arguments that can't be won (Score:2, Insightful)
Current rankings from -- ZoneH (Score:3, Informative)
99 single IP
910 mass defacements
Linux (56.6%)
Win 2003 (28.9%)
Win 2000 (8.7%)
Win NT9x (2.9%)
FreeBSD (1.7%)
NetBSD (0.7%)
SolarisSunOS (0.1%)
Win XP (0.1%)
Re:Current rankings from -- ZoneH (Score:5, Insightful)
One of the problems is that there are a ton of badly written PHP apps that get installed on Linux mass hosting servers so some script kiddie just googles a string to find the vulnerable sites and uses their script to deface them.
PHP is ruining Linux's reputation. (Score:5, Insightful)
Nevertheless, the numerous insecurities found in PHP and scripts written in PHP are tarnishing the image of Linux. Hopefully the PHP developers put more effort into creating a web development platform that isn't as susceptible to scripts written by non-professionals. Just as Intel and AMD have moved to prevent stack overflow exploits via hardware improvements, it is time for PHP to do the same. They must make it so that insecure scripts do not run at all.
I can understand that percentage. (Score:2, Insightful)
Manual hacker attacks? (Score:4, Funny)
Or does he mean manual as in "the manual". I'd say my Assembler Language manuals have suffered from more attacks than average. They've all been manual, too, now that I think about it.
I guess they'd be manual manual attacks.
I've rarely been more tempted to just respond with "whatever".
Add a corollary... (Score:2)
My corollary would stipulate that if somebody writes an "Open Letter," it constitutes proof that nobody wants to listen to them.
Quotes (Score:2)
The quotes that he presents aren't attributed to any sources though. So my question is, how many of those quotes are from their own internal news letter? Or (more seriously) some organization that already has a vested interest in SCO?
what's sco running again? (Score:3, Funny)
Surreal excerpt (Score:2)
8. SCO is Unifying its Code Base - Yogi Berra once said, "If you come to a fork in the road, take it." Forking is exactly what is happening to Linux.
Whoa, dude... heavy. *puff puff... give*
"SCO Has a Superior Kernel" (Score:5, Informative)
Does anyone know if they ever changed the Open Server kernel so you don't have to recompile to change the domain name? Or add a disk drive? Or a tape drive?
How about RAID support? Is that still an "extra cost" item?
I once built a linux based dial-up router that connected to an OpenServer box on the other end. I tested it using Linux on both ends, but it didn't work connecting to OpenServer. The serial port handler was just too frellin' slow, running on a box that was twice as fast as the router.
I always give a snort when I read the PR about how much better SCO UNIX is. None of my customers run it anymore. It's just too much trouble, even compared to Windows.
Re:"SCO Has a Superior Kernel" (Score:5, Informative)
Thats funny, almost as funny as this piece from Darl's letter:
But since SCO owns the UNIX operating system and it made up 95 percent of our company's revenue, and we were getting strong demand from customers for a next generation version of UNIX, that's where we concentrated our efforts.
I didn't really know SCO had any customers. I've heard that some people are simply stuck with SCO for now because they made some decision to go with it at some time, and its difficult to migrate off of the platform right now, but real customers? Who in their right mind would use SCO?
Even funnier is:
In June, we released SCO OpenServer 6, which was a multi-year, multi-million dollar development effort that resulted in a product that goes beyond simply leveling the playing field with Linux.
So, they are just now beyond a level playing field with a clearly inferior product. OK.
He continues with an ordered list (Every one mentions Linux, so Linux must be a threat here somewhere):
1) SCO is cheaper than Linux. I've paid for Linux support from RedHat. I will no longer do this. Its a waste of money. When I was trying to figure out why their "enterprise" OS could not handle a block device over 1TB, and there was no solution, I figured out that paying for support was worthless. I've never needed support for linux over the past 10 years, I don't see where I would need it in the future. Linux works, and works well for servers on a slew of platforms. SCO and many other OSes simply don't work on many, if any platforms besides the x86 platform.
2) SCO has a superior kernel. Maybe. Aside from silly issues like hardcoded numbers for things like the number of open files by a process and the block device limit I've hit, I've never had a problem with a Linux kernel ever. Its as good as it needs to be. When I ran out of file descripters, I used a beta kernel until 2.2 was released with the fix in it (2.1.125 I believe. There was one stable kernel around that point of the 2.1 series. It worked well in production. The block device thing was fixed by other distro's, including RH9 at the time, but not RedHat's "enterprise" release.
3) OpenServer has better security. Maybe, maybe not. I've had no issues with Linux security over the years, but SCO could be more secure. If security is such a big issue for you, you probably will not run Linux or SCO.
4) SCO has a customer driven roadmap. Again, what customers? Linux is made by its customers.
5) SCO is more backwards compatible. I thought Microsoft had that job (Can't you still run DOS applications?) No real comment. I've never had issues, but then again if it ain't broke... don't "upgrade" and break it...
6) Its hard to sum this up, but it sounds like there is less administration on a SCO box than a Linux box. Its possible. I get pissed off at dependancy hell, but I think administrating a slew of Linux boxes is not that tough. From what I've learned today, maybe this has changed, but SCO used to require a recompile of the kernel to change its hostname. Provided this was recently fixed, it doesn't sound like SCO has come from a plug-n-play mentality.
7) SCO has a warrantee, Linux does not. OK. Score one for SCO _today_. Once SCO is out of business, I guess you can frame your warrantee, and stare at it when not trying to find people to port your apps to something else (probably Linux).
8) SCO won't fork and they have a unified code that is really UNIX.
OK. If that is a real benefit, then good for SCO. Other computer companies can change architectures, and stay in business. They can break stuff with the gentle application of a service pack and stay in business. This could be a niche market for somebody.
9) SCO is _the_ known reliable UNIX. Solaris is reliable. Linux is reliabl
Re:"SCO Has a Superior Kernel" (Score:3, Informative)
"SCO puts the backwards into backwards compatible."
This used to be a real advantage... we used to run Xenix-286 software from 1984 on SCO Unixware, and if you had a real need to run some program from the '80s it was the bomb. But this isn't something that's going to get you a lot of new customers... it's something that locks your existing customers in to you.
But they've dropped x286emul, so that's really not a good point for him to be bringing up any more. I'm still smart
Quotes and Soundbytes (Score:2)
I love this guy! he's great!
And his soundbytes at the end:
"OpenServer 6's features form a very powerful server."
"The price, for what you get, offers a significant return on
Re:Quotes and Soundbytes (Score:2)
An open letter (Score:3, Funny)
What Darl knows (Score:2)
but does Darl know Unix?
I think not.
SCO "leads" the way (Score:2)
Sorry, Darl. Things like large file support, additional processor support, and many other "advances" in OpenSewer 6 are things that Linux has had for a
A grave misconception for dear Darl (Score:2)
Notice the word 'defeat'. Any business wants to better their competitor, but defeat is a word, that I feel is better left on the battlefield.
Take all of his above rivalries, and
Give it up Darl. You're irrelevant and embarassing (Score:2)
You won't be the first OS maker, (Remember Keronics? How about Data General?) to do so and you won't be the last either.
Hurry up and get to your fate.
Why does Darl remind me of ex-Iraq Info. Officer? (Score:2, Interesting)
"They are lying every day. They are lying always, and mainly they are lying to their public opinion."
"They are achieving nothing; they are suffering from casualties. Those casualties are increasing, not decreasing."
"We are determined to defeat them an
I have two words for Mr. McBride (Score:2)
lets see (Score:2, Insightful)
viruses,scripts,malware,browser exploits,etc != manual hacker attack
i imagine linux has the most sites hosted?
Linux sites probably have less security minded ppl than someone that paid big $$ for thier system.
Could be true, not that it means anything. They probably hacked some poor linux server with 100 sites that nobody has been to. That could generate said statistic since i hear so little about 'manual hacker attack' lately, hehe.
Those without securit
Hmm.. yeah, he's probably right. Partially. (Score:2)
As for the rest - fuck it. Pure bullshit. And a bit more of shit, than bull. (Especially I like the part about SCO kernel and support teams)
Our company (Score:2)
Brought to you by SCO, "Downtime" IS our middl
A rebuttal (Score:5, Interesting)
Quoth the wikipedia:
The present owner of the UNIX trademark is The Open Group, while the present claimants on the rights to the UNIX source code are The SCO Group and Novell. Only systems fully compliant with and certified to the Single UNIX Specification qualify as "UNIX" (others are called "UNIX system-like" or Unix-like).
Novell also has source code rights. Also, Darl, you should be careful to use the UNIX trademark so freely as it is clearly a registered trademark of the Open Group. From their website [unix.org].
"Customers can identify UNIX certified products by the Open Brand logo and the mandatory attribution declaring to which version of the specification the product complies:"
So no Darl, you do not own UNIX. Get a clue.
"The competitive battle between Pepsi and Coke is legendary, as is the battle between GM and Ford, Boeing and Airbus, and the Red Sox and Yankees."
Your analogy between Pepsi and Coke (where did you learn to write anyways? 4th grade?) is so inherently flawed that the term "apples to oranges" doesn't even begin to describe how distorted this viewpoint is, as both are still fruit. My guess is that you were trying to provide some humour. I certainly got a good laugh.
" 1. OpenServer 6 Costs Less - OpenServer 6 offers very aggressive pricing.
The purchase price for SCO OpenServer 6 is priced from $599 to $1399
which includes the license to the product, software fixes, and access
to SCO's online knowledge base. Customers pay once for the product
and run it for as long as they like."
I don't really know what kind of math you are using Darl, because in my world, $599 is a whole lot more than $0. Also, I don't really see how asking for a support contract is a "bait and switch" tactic as you claim. If you don't need support, there are more than enough FREE, as in beer and speech, alternatives out there in the Linux universe.
" "Free" is one of the most searched words on the Web today. When you
type in "Free" in Yahoo search, it brings up more than 3 billion hits.
"Free" is a very powerful marketing concept. We all love free. Linux
lures you in with the promise of its being "free." But before you get
out of the "store," you are surprised to find out that it was anything
but free. Just remember the proverb, 'Free is the most expensive
price.'"
Darl. All I gotta ask is, can I have some of what you are smoking. It has GOTTA be good!
"OpenServer 6's features form a very powerful server."
Yeah. Especially now that you included a bunch of, get this, FREE software. How much did apache cost you? How much did you spend on developing the open source tools that you now use? Are we, as a collective, supposed to just swallow this pill, that you attack free, open source software, and then include it in your own operating system. If that is not sheer hypocricy that I have no idea what is. Go to hell Darl. We all know what UNIX is and was and it surely is not SCO anymore, or probably ever was for what it matters. Personally I hope your lawyers bleed what little liquidity you have left, if they are smart that is. You are a joke. Nobody respects your company anymore. I hope that you go to bed everynight worrying that your illegal insider trading activities may one day land you in court. Crooks like you, and the ones that fund your pitiful crusade, deserve to sit in a 4'x4' cell with your new wife, Bubba.
Have a wonderful day!
Sincerely,
Zos/Xavius.23
According to mi2g, eh? (Score:4, Informative)
Search for "mi2g" on Google. The second result is a Register article titled, "Why is mi2g so unpopular?" According to the article, "The chief charge against mi2g is its regular predictions of withering cyber-assaults which, critics say, rarely seem to materialise." It goes on to say, "most of its staff appear to be without significant operational IT security experience".
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2002/11/21/why_is_mi
Most of the rest of the google links are news storys about experts debunking the a mi2g "study" from about 9 months ago which reports Darl's numbers. Here's a choice quote from an article at http://nwc.serverpipeline.com/52500233 [serverpipeline.com] :
Mi2g appeared to anticipate criticism of its study. "We would urge caution when reading negative commentary against mi2g, which may have been clandestinely funded, aided or abetted by a vendor or a special interest group," it said in a press release publicizing the study.
Wow. Darl's been cloned.
Anyone want some free crack? (Score:3, Funny)
Come on now... a statment like that is like showing up at DefCon and handing out cards to with your IP addresses and telling everyone how you dont see the need to secure windows servers....
thats probably the best line from the whole post!
Re:Lies, damn lies, and statistics (Score:2)
Nevertheless, perhaps some of the most dangerous ones since they generally are perpetrated by people with specific targets and specific knowledge...
Re:Lies, damn lies, and statistics (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:the 65 percent thing isnt true (Score:2)
Hog Wash. (Score:5, Funny)
Nonsense. There are still huge tracts of undeveloped land in the Southeastern states beckoning for retirement developments. Such enterprises will need good multi-level marketing advice.
Re:It doesn't matter what McBride writes ! (Score:2)
Re:He's just started open season on SCO OpenServer (Score:2)
New business model: "Our operating system is the MOST SECURE EVER!!! Want to prove us wrong? Send $999 to the following address..."
Re:Darl = Steve (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:A typo in the first sentence... (Score:5, Insightful)
What Darl does not seem to understand is that people do not simply buy (exuse me, license) software, they buy the company as well.
The behavior of SCO toward their own clients is not exactly one that encourages people to buy in. Irrespective of everything else, and positing that SCO had the best operating system in the world (stop laughing and just humor me for the sake of the argument)I wouldn't go near them with somebody else's ten foot pole.
It isn't worth the aggrivation of vendor lock in by legal intimidation.
KFG