Does Unisys Really Get It? 253
Joe Barr writes "There's an interesting story on NewsForge today about Unisys and its new-found love for Linux. In the story, Robin Miller interviews Unisys VP of engineering Anthony Gold and asks such delicate questions as how Unisys 'planned to make amends for its use of GIF patents against open source projects'? It's a good read, and in this day and age of software dinosaurs trying for peaceful co-existence with Linux, a very timely one."
Patents (Score:5, Funny)
Does the GPL protect against that? (Score:5, Interesting)
No (Score:5, Informative)
No.
That's it, really. Patents are out of the scope of the GPL. The only way they interact is that if you don't have the rights to disribute the source (e.g. by patent liscence), you can't distribute the the binary.
It's oft talked about that patent might be a method of getting an end run around the GPL, and maintining restrictions on GPL'd code.
Re:No (Score:5, Informative)
Re:No (Score:5, Informative)
7. If, as a consequence of a court judgment or allegation of patent infringement or for any other reason (not limited to patent issues), conditions are imposed on you (whether by court order, agreement or otherwise) that contradict the conditions of this License, they do not excuse you from the conditions of this License. If you cannot distribute so as to satisfy simultaneously your obligations under this License and any other pertinent obligations, then as a consequence you may not distribute the Program at all. For example, if a patent license would not permit royalty-free redistribution of the Program by all those who receive copies directly or indirectly through you, then the only way you could satisfy both it and this License would be to refrain entirely from distribution of the Program.
Unisys would be prohibited from distributing any GPL code that contained patents not licenced for royalty-freedistribution by all.
So for any GPL code Unisys distributes, the result would be two fold if they attempted to enforce any patents there-in against GPL users:
(1) Their distribution of the code in the first place would in effect be copyright infringment.
(2) Their attempt to enforce the patent would probably be estopped by the courts.
ESTOPPEL: [mylawyer.com]
estoppel is one of those complicated legal concepts designed to prevent an injustice being done by the strict application of law. If someone states that something is so and, in reliance upon that statement, another person acts in a particular way, possibly to their detriment, then the person who made the statement is prevented, or estopped, from denying the correctness of the statement which they originally made.
If Unisys distributes code containing a patent, and represents that as a valid GPL distribution, and you then use and further distribute that code while relying on Unisys's presentation that it is a valid GPL distribution, then Unisys cannot sue you when you beleive them and further distribute the code they gave you. Unisys would in effect have induced you to infringe their patent by effectively telling you that you were properly licenced. You relied on Unisys's word, and it would be manifestly unjust for Unisys to go back on their word and and sue you and profit from their own bad act.
And yes, estoppel *may* at some point come up in the SCO case. They would claim ignorance and thus innocence of any knowing misrepresentation, which may or may not fly. However at this point the SCO case is pure contract dispute, and all of their hot-air about infringment has yet to see a courtroom. There is no need for (and no option to use) an estoppel defense unless they actually file an infringement case to defend against.
-
Re:No (Score:5, Interesting)
Not quite. Unisys would be unable to distribute GPL code that implemented the ideas covered by a patent, that they were aware of, and that the patent holder had denied the use of said patent.
That is, if you don't know it's patented, you still distribute. 'Cos, like, otherwise we'd all be paralysed.
If they own the patent, and then distribute GPL'd code, that's implicitly that the patent is liscenced under a liscence that allows the downloader a patent liscence suitible to fufil the GPL.
Thing is, that's a liscence to distribute the code. Not use.
See, funny thing about the GPL is that you don't have to agree to it to use the code covered by it. Actually, it's not funny at all, it's the norm, just years of (very porbably bogus) EULA's make that less clear. So all the GPL covers is distribution of the code.
But, a patent requires a liscence to 'use' the patented invention.
So, Unisys could do the following:
1) Patent an idea.
2) Impement the idea in code.
3) Release the code under GPL, and not mention the patent.
4) Let it grow.
5) Point out that they only gave a patent liscence to re-distributed the code, not use it, and charge for it's use. Once it's popular.
6) Profit!
Any explicit mention of the patent would make the situation clear - either by explict licence, estoppel, or clear that you don't have that. No mention of the patent makes it really, really, hard. That's the first patent/copyright GPL hack.
Now, consider what happens if they add a patented algorithm to a GPL'd codebase. The only liscence they can put the implentation under is GPL. But they can stick a patent liscence on top of thier implemention, that effectivly prohibits re-disribution by parties other than themselves. What happens then?
Section 7 does not apply, becuase the condition is not _imposed_ on them - they have chosen that patent liscence. (Semantic's, perhaps. Still, that's one to be settled by the courts).
So, they can offer it for download, and then anyone who does get the patented implementation from them can't redistribute. That's a second hack.
Or, another option - offer a royalty-free liscence to use and redistribute the patented implemention (in effect, giving the implemention all the GPL-type conditions). Great, you think, and grab a copy, and modifiy and resdistribute.
They then change the patent liscence. What?! Well, it's an explict liscence, and if it doens't say that it's irrevokable, or if it has a clause that lets them change it a bit, then tough. Estoppel doesn't apply - the terms were explicit, and clear.
There are probably other hacks that can be applied in a situation with patents, but that's more than plenty to be getting on with.
Re:No (Score:3, Informative)
Re:No (Score:4, Interesting)
Note, this end-run does not protect the end-user who compiles and then runs the code, but hunting them down and extorting fees out of them is orders of magnitude harder and more expensive than doing the same for a nice big fat slow moving target like HP or IBM.
Re:No (Score:2, Funny)
ebusiness, ecommerce, and now estoping, will it never end.
I can't wait for the apple version istop!
Re:No (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Does the GPL protect against that? (Score:5, Informative)
Yes (Score:2)
Once published under the GPL, they cannot "submarine" an attack since they are the ones who gave it up.
/NotALawyer
I would really like to know what Richard Stallman has to say about this.
Re:Does the GPL protect against that? (Score:4, Informative)
That being said, it would still be a pain in the ass for the GPL-using world, since we'd have to go back and rewrite code, but there would be no liability for anyone other than the person trying to insert patent-infringing code.
Re:Does the GPL protect against that? (Score:2)
Re:Patents (Score:2)
Gee... (Score:4, Funny)
Comment removed (Score:5, Funny)
My wife got the ES-7000 sales briefing last week.. (Score:3, Informative)
Apparently the box management is run from within the custom windows apps, so it won't be pure native Linux, at least not soon.
They say their market is datacenter server consolidation, specifically seeking sit
Re:Gee... (Score:2)
survival (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:survival (Score:5, Interesting)
They find out what you need, they either make or buy a program, install it, support it. Buy the hardware, install it, support it, etc.
While it is trailing in IBM's shoes, its not a bad business model.
Now Unisys is still pretty big, but we did miss expectations for the first time in 4 years, and the stock price dumped, its now ~$9. And our stock is considered 'moderate gain, low-risk'.
Still, I'm new here, so I don't have much info on the "why's" of GIF.
Re:survival (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:survival (Score:2)
Many here may be pissed about the GIF issue, but UniSys's finantial situation has neither gained nor lost because of it.
Re:survival (Score:2)
Re:survival (Score:2)
Re:survival (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:survival (Score:2)
Maybe. I've definitely worked with very smart IBMers, but I've usually had to wade through several levels of idiots first, and I'm not just talking about phone support. They Websphere and DB2 support is littered with idiots.
I had the power button break on one new server during shipping and they had some guy come in to replace the circuit board. No problem, except that the guy didn't recognize the server and started trying to take apart a Nortel switch that
Re:survival (Score:2)
> matter.
I've heard of those, but never worked at one.
Re:survival (Score:5, Interesting)
I have long years of experience with Unisys, back from the time they actually created fine technology (only way, way overpriced). Actually, I started working for them in the early 90s, about the time they started to devolve from a technology company into a "systems integrator", as they like to put it. I did a couple of small chores on series A equipment, but most of my work was done on the x86 BTOS, then CTOS, machines.
(Those were beautiful machines, by the way. You extended them by daisychaining "blocks" into a bus that started from the CPU and grew to the right. E.g., you snapped in a SCSI disk block, a video card block, etc., all without having to open the case or fiddle with cables. Your workstation just grew longer and longer with each hardware expansion---mine was just under a meter long. You created native "LANs" (called "clusters") daisychaining stations using the dual "cluster ports", zero configuration required. And every machine included high speed synchronous serial ports. Also, they had a really stable OS, I never saw a single crash. It was a bit weird, but in a creative, interesting way. Probably had to do with the mainframe background of the company, because it was completely different from UNIX inspired OSs. This thing was even more alien than the original MacOS. The text editor was lovely. One of my first Unisys workstations was a B28, which sported an Intel 286 @ 8MHz and a whole two megabytes of RAM, IIRC. I also remember using an Intel 186 processor on some BTOS box---yes, it really existed, it was sold, and used.)
Unisys management was never too bright, their pointy-hairness surpassed only by that of Commodore execs, IMO. And when they dropped their technology division, they fired almost every engineer. At least I can personally attest that every friend of mine that worked there, and knew two things about computers, was fired or left on his own. The execs and the salesmen stayed. Maybe they kept a couple of smart techs in Atlanta, but from what I've seen, from then on they've been hiring only inexperienced technical people (read: cheap interns) for when a project plan calls for that, and they fire them as soon as possible afterwards. And I've seen them blow projects, or lose money in penalizations, because they lacked competent techs to do the work, or even to timely warn their salespeople that they were being sold, and in turn selling, snake oil.
Today Unisys, the technology company, has been dead for over a decade. It is a company of salespeople, and they mostly trade with the Unisys name. You know, they deal with banks and airlines and the likes, customers who were buying Unisys stuff three decades ago, and still regard them as the company they used to do business with. They sell expensive software they buy from other companies (Microsoft being a major supplier, indeed), or consultancy projects where they hire experts in the market just for the event. And yes, the name is eroding, even as we speak. And there's not much left of it, again IMO.
That "ES7000" thing, well, it's a PC with 16/32 processors, large and ugly as a fridge, and it runs Windows. Which, by the way, does not seem to scale all that well on that many processors: I've seen several of those choke as application servers with just over 300 clients. To be fair, the application software was a hideous contraption that costs several hundred thousand bucks to license---so maybe the suckitude did not come from Windows entirely. Anyway, you may call the ES7K "innovative", but to me, having seen the stuff the old Unisys used to make, is only boring, and a bit sad.
Re:survival (Score:2, Interesting)
Yep, I'll vouch for that.
I used to own an 186 upgrade card for an 8086 PC. It was an interesting little card. Had an 80186 processor on it, plugged into an ISA slot, and a ribbon cable that was terminated with a connector that plugged into the CPU socket after you pulled the 8086 chip out.
I never got around to installing it, so I can't say how well it worked.
Re:survival (Score:2)
It was just an "Oh look what we found, we can make some free money!"
It was never part of Unisys's main buisnes
The "why's" of GIF (Score:5, Informative)
GIF was developed as an image format by Compuserve (I think). They used LZW compression, which was a Unisys patented compression algorithm, but they never notified, let alone licensed LZW. Unisys, being the mainframe shop it was, didn't even notice for a long time. When they did, they pressed the patent issue.
The important point is that they didn't press the LZW patent because of it's use in GIFs, per se. They pressed it because it was an important patent to them at the time for other compression purposes. Unisys was big in air-traffic control and a variety of other communications applications that used LZW for dynamic, real-time, streaming compression (which is about the only application it was still good for when you look at the other algorithms available, even then). If they didn't press it on LZW in GIFs, they could have lost the ability to press it in those other lines.
Remember that uncompressed GIFs did not infringe, they asked only for licensing on commercial use, and as the article states they did make not-for-profit licenses available. Questions like "What if a licensed program made the GIF, but I editted it with Gimp" made no sense to them. (Besides, Gimp didn't exist then either ;)
I was a Unisys systems programmer at the time, and I didn't know much about "open source", so I suspect Unisys management didn't have much of a clue either. I seriously doubt they had (or even now have) any idea how the community reacted to that issue. No one ever really grasped that it was Compuserve's fault for pushing a patent encumbered format (with the patent held by someone else) as a "standard". Unisys was caught by surprise and acted in the way most any company would at that time.
Times change. I learned about open source (and TCP/IP, and Unisys' brand new C compiler, and how a 36-bit word architecture complicates a C libarary implementation) by porting a subset of NCSA's httpd server to OS/2200, partially because the GIF issue introduced comp.sys.unisys to open source. (iirc, this was when Mosaic was the browser and the "graphical web" was barely graphical at all.) Some time later, Unisys demo'ed their ClearPath model for us and said "they were even working on a web server for it". I wasn't there, but a co-worker donned a medieval french helmet and said "I doubt if we're interested. We already have one, you see!"
So Unisys and I went different ways (although I did get a "wayback-machine call" for Unisys help last week). I moved on into UNIX, self-taught by downloading Slackware and trying to get it to do anything on Token Ring. Unisys moved on to buy Burroughs and into the "datacenter push" of Microsoft. One of us apparently learns quicker ;) Still, the 2200 was seriously unstoppable from both a hardware and a software standpoint, and even attemting to use MVS or anything else on the "newer" IBM 390 made me want to run screaming to the hills.
If Unisys has woken up, they have the potential to do incredible things with hardware and helping them release that hardware from the constraints of Windows is a huge opportunity for both Unisys and the Linux community. If the haven't woken up, then they will once the see what Linux can do on their hardware. I was on vacation when they demo'ed the ClearPath and heard I had already written a web server on their previous (non-Intel) hardware and the day I got back a Unisys SE was waiting in my cube to ask "how'ed you do that!". He was fascinated and ate up everything about open source I had to offer (sadly, not much at the time).
Bottom line: What does it hurt us to give them a chance? If they screw up, it's going to be their fault. We've already shown that we can help any company that really wants to play nice. If we snub them for what we see as a past slight to open source, when they probably didn't know what open source was, we present ourselves as being petty about something that we still, as a community, fail to acknowledge was a situation not of their own making.
Re:The "why's" of GIF (Score:2)
The following is not on topic.
I'm looking for help securing an OS/2200 mainframe (or access to one) so I can develop some code to integrate it against some IBM software. Apparently these systems are still big in Taiwan for running data warehouses. I may also need to hire an OS/2200 system programmer. So if you have some pointers or tips, please email me at tyen@netcom.com.
Re:survival (Score:2)
But don't they have the way out? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:But don't they have the way out? (Score:2)
Well, now they Have the Way In-n-Out, as in "all the employees will soon be flipping burgers" sort of a business plan...
Re:But don't they have the way out? (Score:2)
To add to the irony of www.wehavethewayout.com, the background image [wehavethewayout.com] shows what appears to be a way out of a window, whereas the whole point of the site is to show you a way into Windows (TM). Interesting mixed metaphor. Oh well.
I don't trust them (Score:2)
This is all a Microsoft plan... (Score:5, Insightful)
So in going open source, Unisys is planning on developing crappy code for Linux and souring the reputation of the OS everywhere. To Microsofts gain.
To quote Admiral Akbar once again, IT'S A TRAP!!!
Re:This is all a Microsoft plan... (Score:5, Funny)
Come on (Score:4, Insightful)
Honestly man, when it comes to open source, the more the merrier!
Besides we'll have lots of l33t coders to go through their code and make snide comments. I'm sure the devs at Unisys will die of shame, if they don't revise their coding practices.
Or even better (this way no one dies) someone who's better can fix their code and submit it back to them.
Wow, I love open source. Can you tell?
Re:This is all a Microsoft plan... (Score:4, Interesting)
I hate to admit it - I worked for Unisys (Australia) back in the day (and still know many people who continue to work there) - and although they treated their employee's very well - it was hell.
They're so top heavy its unbelievable. They charge more then even EDS does, and the service levels you get frankly leave something to be desired.
Thank God all their Patents from when they were a real (not a sleazy wintel) vendor in the 80s are expiring - without that teat to suckle upon, they should die a fast death.
Re:This is all a Microsoft plan... (Score:2, Interesting)
Bally Fitness? The one that requires you to hand over your bank accounts so that they can charge you even if they don't keep up their end of the bargain?
I had a sales guy repeatedly urge me to go to his club, saying that I could have a free this and a free that. Finally, because of his persistence, I visited the club. I didn't get to actually do anything except listen as he told me how great the club was, etc. Finally, it came down to this. If
Re:This is all a Microsoft plan... (Score:2, Interesting)
Enter the joke about my brother... THE BUISNESS MAJOR.
Phone Call: Hey Sean, I just got a health club membership, can you read over the fine print?
(Two hours later, over a couple of bears)
Me: And this line item is where you are essentially financing a non-refundable $1500 "membership application" over 12 months at an ungodly interest rate.
Brother: Well I guess I stepped in it this time.
(Keep in mind, his major was business. I'm an
Re:This is all a Microsoft plan... (Score:2, Funny)
Re:This is all a Microsoft plan... (Score:2)
Bears? No I meant BEERS!
Re:This is all a Microsoft plan... (Score:2)
Every time you use a cliche, God kills a kitten...
Re:This is all a Microsoft plan... (Score:3, Insightful)
Is a Northstar engine a modern ICE?
It's called modern because it's the same old stuff that's proven to work, yes, but with a lot of technical improvements and a solid helping of public perception dusting.
And also, the real value of Linux isn't its technology or its architecture (god forbids), but in its community. That concept, in the scale it's applied in the free software world today, is quite novel.
Re:This is all a Microsoft plan... (Score:2)
Very true. It's at least 3 years ahead of the state of the art in performance and theory. Unfortunately they are also 3 years ahead of the state of the art when it comes to driver support...
Forgive em. (Score:4, Interesting)
If Unisys really is willing to peacefully co-exist with Linux/OSS, I say we let them.
Re:Forgive em. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Forgive em. (Score:2, Insightful)
It didn't do any damage to anything apart from Unisys' reputation. Everyone who cared just used PNG, and laughed everytime Unisys was mentioned. Would you invite a chainsaw wielding a madman into your house? No, you'd point him to the nearest Microsoft developers convention. Begone Judas.
Re:Forgive em. (Score:5, Funny)
Coexistence? (Score:4, Insightful)
They coexist with Linux the same way Ralph Nader coexists with Bush and Kerry: occationally he makes noises and sounds really serious, but ultimately he doesn't really matter...
Re:Coexistence? (Score:2, Offtopic)
My take: "You can't trust us." (Score:5, Interesting)
Q: "How does Unisys plan to make amends for its use of GIF patents against open source projects?"
A: "No comment" [If they had plans to make amends, they'd share them.]
Q: "Why should open source developers trust Unisys after the GIF nastiness?"
A: "I can't comment on past activities. I can only talk about where we're going." [They refuse to apologize.]
If a human being dealt with you like this, you'd be right to shun them. Why is a corporation any different?
Take anything you want from Unisys, but don't expect anything good from them. They clearly understand the harm they did, and THEY DON'T CARE. They realize that they behaved badly, but THEY EXPRESS NO PLANS FOR CHANGING.
OK, now that the first paragraphs lost my respect for them, on to the rest of the article!
Re:My take: "You can't trust us." (Score:5, Funny)
Actually, corporations are treated as individuals under US law, IIRC. So i'm shunning them. Keep your nasty GIF patents where the sun doesn't shine!
Re:My take: "You can't trust us." (Score:2)
Actually, they do keep the patents where the sun doesn't shine. It usually is a safe or filing cabinet somwhere (the hard copies) or in softcopy. So, there, They're already doing what you've asked!
Re:My take: "You can't trust us." (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:My take: "You can't trust us." (Score:3, Insightful)
At the time I sent them a letter saying they weren't allowed to use any more of my code so they are still violating my copyright.
Sorry, you can't retroactively revoke the terms of a license, unless provisions exist in the license to do so. If you licensed them under the GPL, they can continue to use your code under the license you provided them.
The real question (Score:3, Interesting)
Dynamic partitioning... (Score:5, Insightful)
The dynamic partitioning stuff strikes me as very useful. I'm on some large Solaris machines here with static partitioning; if the Unisys boxen can shuffle CPUs around to adapt to load, that'd be pretty damn cool.
They might actually have some interesting products to offset their general cluelessness.
Re:Dynamic partitioning... (Score:3, Insightful)
Sun didn't make any domainable machines which aren't dynamic, unless not enough boards are present on yours. They're hardware domainable at the board level and at the Solaris level using processor sets or Solaris Resource Manager. Shifting CPUs around without some sort of hardware failure fencing is asking for trouble.
Re:Dynamic partitioning... (Score:2)
Please correct me if I am wrong. These are just opinions, I do not know the actual price of these Unisys "mainframe", so I might be totally wrong on the price/performance ratio. I just think it is impossible for proprietary hardware to match the
Re:Dynamic partitioning... (Score:3, Interesting)
Unisys = t3h sux (Score:2, Interesting)
Unisys sucks. I've known a number of people who've had to work there to make ends meet over the years, and to a (wo)man, they've all described it as a really toxic environment to work in, like a wanna-be EDS (which has been described to me as the 7th circle of IT hell).
Frankly, without even needing to RTFA, unless something really unexpected is happening here, this is just another example of a crass, stupid company trying to cover itself in the magic pixie dust of Linux or Open Source in the pursuit of a
Re:Unisys = t3h sux (Score:4, Interesting)
Check out their 3d Visual Enterprise [unisys.com] product. You would think that a 3D product would have some screenshots wouldn't you? Nope, it's just vaporware.
Re:Unisys = t3h sux (Score:2)
Re:Unisys = t3h sux (Score:2)
we seek... peaceful... co-existence!!! (Score:3, Funny)
Large companies are not single entities (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Large companies are not single entities (Score:2, Insightful)
But funny how when it comes to legal matters that might work out to its advantage, the whole company acts in unison... I mean, I didn't see anyone else from Unisys breaking away from the prosecution side and join the fight along with the defensive side.
Re:Large companies are not single entities (Score:2)
Yes, they are. (Score:2)
Useless-sys (Score:5, Interesting)
Seems they had a "mainframe" Windows system that only their team -- of three clueless fossils -- were authorized to service. I gave them the minimum list of patches, and they certified the system Y2K compliant.
Sure enough, on January 1, the system had WINS resolution problems and applications broke. So the system was reliant upon a kluge name resolution method that was -- you guessed it -- still on non-Y2K compliant SP3.
Well, I confronted the three fossils when they finally showed up (January 3), and they told me I did not know what I was talking about, turned around and walked out. I yelled down the hall after them that I was going to report each of them to their supervisor and would go after their jobs. They weren't impressed and left.
They must have gotten scared, because they came back 45 minutes later with coffee and donuts for the department VP, and tried to pin the blame on me. Well, the VP was a PHB-extrordinaire, but even HE understood only Useless-sys was authorized (under an expensive contract) to service the ancho -- er, server. He then invited me into the office to answer the charges they leveled against me.
Two days later they finally patched the server, because "applying SP4 to an NT server is very serious business and requires a great deal of advanced planning."
And this is the company you want to go to for a Linux solution? Umm, they have a long heritage of milking government contracts, but those worthless government contractor types are now the guys out there servicing businesses that rely on software to MAKE MONEY.
No thanks. Even without the legacy of the gif shakedown, the company chased me away long ago.
This is silly (Score:5, Insightful)
Unisys exists to make money, primarily by selling to big, dumb organizations that have a poor understanding of technology. If Linux is trendy they'll sell Linux. They don't care what slashdotters think. Nobody reading this will buy or recommend anything from Unisys, no matter how "nice" they act, because they simply inhabit a different sphere.
This idea that Unisys "sinned" by asserting their patent rights and should now beg for forgiveness is childish. Companies are moving to exploit their intellectual property. Read Rembrandts in the Attic [amazon.com] if you don't understand this trend yet. You think they're going to carve out an exception for free software, when that free software is being used by businesses to make money by infringing patents?
Quit attributing moral good and bad to profit-driven companies. They are all essentially running the same algorithm.
Re:This is silly (Score:2)
Seems from the post that it's the companies that are childish, and you are trying to excuse them by saying that they don't know better.
I say they should appologise, and try to be good little children.
Re:This is silly (Score:2)
The only reason why IBM is not going after folks for GPL infringement of Linux code, and in many other ways being a buddy to the Linxu world, is because it benefits them. IBM has a huge patent inventory and could make SCO look like a bunch of catholic schoolboys if they *wanted* to.
In the end, the only people that the open source community have to count on is themselves. Remember, openly published examples of code with verifiable history going back in time are sufficent for prior art.
Re:This is silly (Score:4, Informative)
All the desktop vendows have this boiler-plate phrase on their websites/advertising. When they put this in there - Microsoft gives them marketing dollers (read money).
So what if IBM recomends XP for it's Thinkpads. They certainly don't recomend it for their POWER5 servers or mainframes - the places where it counts.
Re:This is silly (Score:3, Interesting)
The "marketing development funds" for the company I work for are so large that they are actually hiring extra people to make extra sure we are compliant with Microsoft's random demands.
It kind of makes a mockery of the whole anti-trust thing. If you don't say "we recomment Microsoft AssHat 2.0" enough times you are effecively fined.
Re:This is silly (Score:2)
Re:This is silly (Score:2)
That's because Linux is a fashion statement; most people don't know what it is, but they know if you have it you're cool, modern and hip.
I recommend Linux to eve
Re:This is silly (Score:2)
I think it is worthwhile to tune your message to your market. If the target market doesn't care about Linux, why offer it?
You are right that businesses like IBM will try to do what suits them, and will ride what they see to be fads or trends, if they think it is profitable.
Re:This is silly (Score:2)
That may be true today, but who do you think will be the purchasers, decision makers and managers in 20 years time?
Re:This is silly (Score:3)
ES7000s are not good (Score:5, Interesting)
Once you've done all that work to partition to only run on 8 CPUs, you might as well just scale out like Google does. You can't truly scale up.
Of course things get better all the time, and maybe Linux will be a better NUMA os, but scaling up with Unisys is really just easier and cheaper to do with scaling out.
Re:ES7000s are not good (Score:2, Funny)
Actually, it kind of reminds me of Prime Computer from the late 70's/early 80's. They were so afraid of reducing sales from existing products that they wouldn't allow development of newer and faster products that would accidentally be cheaper and thus less profitable per unit.
Re:ES7000s are not good (Score:3, Interesting)
we ended up running RHEL 3 on the box, because of problems with suse. officialy supported my ass.
Funny thing is, they sell
Unisys MCP, Windows, their mainframe environment (Score:5, Interesting)
I wouldn't be surprised that Unisys would charge a transaction-based license for their Linux, or a Unisys-branded Linux licence (similar to SCO). Unfortunately, many East Coast (US) universities, especially in Pennsylvania, use their systems for accounting, grading, etc...
UNISYS is actually an acronym (Score:3, Interesting)
I do have a point here relevant to the current topic. In the "welcome to Uselessness" speech by the CMO (Chief Masturbatory Officer), he said all kinds of stuff about how the people were the real asset, and if they bought us just for the tech, well, there were easier ways to get our tech than to buy the company.
Then they failed to back that up with any kind of actual action, and people saw how full of shit they were. Fast-forward one year, and a junior-level CMO is out there announcing the slow closure of the division. Allow me to quote Mr. Ch***: "I know it's a bad decision, but we're going to do it anyway." Wow. One year later, it was all over. (At least I picked up a several $K worth of software and hardware that was headed directly for the trash bin. Thank you, ebay.)
So, based on their past double-speak corporate behaviour, of which I have been a direct victim, also remembering the GIF nastiness, I say, with friends like this, who needs enemies?
-paul
Yeah (Score:5, Insightful)
(a) There is no single atomic point where a "partner/foe" evaluation is made.
(b) Communities actually care about percieved relationships and treatments, and have a long memory. Every bias and irritation from years of experience comes out, because there's no requirement to "present a corporate front".
(c) If you have screwed people over quite a bit, you will pay for it for a long, long time in attacks, even when unjustified. Microsoft screwed a *lot* of people over for a long time (not that they've stopped). As a result, a lot of people really don't like Microsoft, and will bash them for anything they do (take SP2 as an example).
This means that there is no "person" who Unisys can win over to win over the open source world. Not ESR, not RMS, not Linus, not Perens, Lessig or PJ. It will take a long time and a lot of nice treatment for a long time, and probably be very discouraging.
If you want someone to support your platform, to write documentation for it and to avoid introducing compatibility issues, and they are doing this in their *hobby time*, then they have to feel rather friendly toward you. Unisys has spent years screwing people over in a rather unjustified manner. They wasted the time of *many* open source developers and users in the form of removed and disabled features, legal problems, anguished discussions, reformatting images, information campaigns, debugging software ported to PNG and other alternatives, and so forth.
So, is it impossible for Unisys to get OSS people to like them? No. Are there people in the OSS community that don't have any problem with them? Sure. Is it going to be long, hard and expensive (much more expensive than all the money they got from the GIF licensing stuff)? Probably.
Re:Yeah (Score:2)
uni-who? (Score:2)
dinosaurs? Please explain (Score:2)
Old dinosaur .. (Score:2)
Someone buy them and put them out of their misery.
Re:Do slashdot editors read slashdot? (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Do slashdot editors read slashdot? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Do slashdot editors read slashdot? (Score:3, Insightful)
how Unisys 'planned to make amends for its [former] use of GIF patents against open source projects'
Re:Do slashdot editors read slashdot? (Score:2)
And so what? Does their patents expiring mean that we should suddenly trust them?
Re:Do slashdot editors read slashdot? (Score:2)