Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
SuSE Businesses Software Linux

SuSE may drop out of UnitedLinux 419

Posted by CmdrTaco from the standardizing-on-no-standards dept.
Corrado writes "According to this article over at Linux Box SuSE Is "Reevaulating Our Relationship" with SCO Group. There is also a reference to this article in wired about OSS developers rallying behind IBM. The best line of the article is "Eric Raymond called SCO's move 'deeply stupid...'""
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

SuSE may drop out of UnitedLinux More

SuSE may drop out of UnitedLinux

Comments Filter:

  • Good. (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Drathus ( 152223 ) on Monday March 10, 2003 @05:15PM (#5479751)
    Good for SuSE.

    Why should they stick around when SCO shoots itself in the foot?
    • I have been in many "my OS is better than yours" arguements where I stood up for SuSE and without getting on a soap-box now, this is yet another point in their favour. However this pans out they have stated that they are not happy with what SCO have done.

  • SuSE *IS* United Linux (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anthony Boyd ( 242971 ) on Monday March 10, 2003 @05:16PM (#5479759) Homepage

    If SuSE drops out, do the "UnitedLinux" gang have anything left? Isn't UnitedLinux based upon SuSE 8.1?

  • In other news.... (Score:5, Funny)

    by Ogrez ( 546269 ) on Monday March 10, 2003 @05:16PM (#5479766)
    SUSE spokesman Bruce Campbell was quoted as saying... "Look man, I dont even know these assholes!"

    • Re:In other news.... (Score:5, Funny)

      by JudgeFurious ( 455868 ) on Monday March 10, 2003 @05:19PM (#5479798)
      ...and he further stated "So now you send me back right? Like in the deal!"

    • Re:In other news.... (Score:2, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward
      Ash: Whoa Whoa you .. you don't understand you've got the wrong guy. I've never even seen these assholes before.

      Henry, Henry ... you've gotta tell em ... you've gotta tell em you've never seen me before.

      Henry: I do not think he'll listen lad ... oh sorry

  • Hard to believe they're the only ones (Score:5, Funny)

    by corebreech ( 469871 ) on Monday March 10, 2003 @05:16PM (#5479767) Journal
    SCO lets loose with one of the silent-but-deadly variety, and everybody is still in the room?

  • Wrong Wired Link (Score:5, Informative)

    by Mr.Phil ( 128836 ) on Monday March 10, 2003 @05:17PM (#5479778)
    At my viewing, the wired article link goes to the talk back, not the article.

    This is the correct link [wired.com] http://www.wired.com/news/infostructure/0,1377,579 55,00.html

  • Bad news. (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 10, 2003 @05:18PM (#5479779)
    This is very bad news. I thought UnitedLinux was actually a good idea. It's sad to see it start dissolving because of one bad member. Is there any way for the other groups to kick SCO out, or perhaps form a different group and exclude SCO. This would be a better alternative than everyone splintering again.

    • United Linux and/or LSB (Score:5, Interesting)

      by einhverfr ( 238914 ) <chris...travers@@@gmail...com> on Monday March 10, 2003 @05:26PM (#5479853) Homepage Journal
      Personally I am looking forward to seeing the vendors do exactly what you are describing. But take a look for a moment--

      The standardization process for Linux is the LSB. That is where our efforts should be placed. If vendors want to pool their efforts beyond that, all good and well, but the LSB should be our primary focus.

      Actually, I am glad to see SuSE make this move. Unfortunately this may be *REALLY BAD* for TurboLinux but they should have known what they were getting into.

    • Re:Bad news. (Score:5, Insightful)

      by gmp ( 155289 ) on Monday March 10, 2003 @05:38PM (#5479954) Homepage
      The SCO suit is an example of what happens to former SCO technology development partners. Its perfectly reasonable to view a frivolous lawsuit like this as an indication that SCO is not a safe company to collaborate with. UnitedLinux members: watch out.

  • Which would be better... (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Nate B. ( 2907 ) on Monday March 10, 2003 @05:18PM (#5479782) Homepage Journal
    ... for SuSE to drop out or for the other participants to kick SCO-Caldera out? Could the members even boot another out of the consortium?

    Perhaps SCO-Caldera has made it plain that they have no intention of leaving United Linux. If so, then it's a good bet that the other vendors will find it necessary to withdraw and leave SCO-Caldera holding the bag, so to speak.

    • Re:Which would be better... (Score:2, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward
      Although I have no legal background on this, I would surmise that leaving an organization and reforming would be better than kicking someone out.

      If they kicked SCO out, SCO would probably turn around and find some excuse to sue. Leave, wait a bit, and reform under a different name would probably be better.


    • > ... for SuSE to drop out or for the other participants to kick SCO-Caldera out? Could the members even boot another out of the consortium?

      Yep, they could all quit and then start a new consortium without inviting SCO to join.

      SCO would undoubtedly sue them though, claiming that it was impossible for a consortium to work without stealing something from SCO.

    • I'm sorry, but did I miss something here? Why does everyone think SuSE is quiting UnitedLinux?
      How does "*reevaluating* our relationship with the SCO Group" get universally interpreted as "unconditional withdrawl from UnitedLinux"? If I'm not mistaken, the SuSE guy also said: "That said, we want to very clearly and unequivocally voice our support of the ideals and goals of UnitedLinux and the Linux community." To me, it seems like SuSE is sending a subtle message to the other members of UnitedLinux, urging them to adopt their own posture toward SCO. I mean, it seems childish for SuSE to quit on account of one rogue member. Doesn't the rest of UnitedLinux stand to loose much more from loosing SuSE than keeping SCO? Perhaps I don't understand the group dynamics involved in a collaberation like UnitedLinux, but the impression I get from reading the threads on this story make it seem like individual members of the consortium, for the most part, do their own thing....hardly a good way to accomplish a *United*anything.

  • Irony (Score:5, Insightful)

    by GreyWolf3000 ( 468618 ) on Monday March 10, 2003 @05:18PM (#5479784) Journal
    It is ironic that Caldera's last stand in Linux territory, UnitedLinux, is losing support because its only potential source of income (licensing and suing for license violations) seems to have its sights on milking IBM and Linux itself. Am I smelling mismanagement? UnitedLinux could have actually migrated SCO from UNIX to Linux, but instead now they're going to have to either convince companies to not migrate to Linux, or convince judges that Linux is a derivative of UNIX, and start charging license fees.

    • Re:Irony (Score:2, Funny)

      by Ed Random ( 27877 )
      SCOldera is starting to look a lot like that other lawfirm passing for a tech company. They really should change their company motto to

      "SCOldera - You Innovate, We Litigate"

      With the current legal system, those with the money always win. Companies like SuSE cannot possibly sustain legal action. So in a way it's good they picked a fight with IBM - at least they've got lawyers to spare.

      It'll be interesting to see how SCOldera either tries to backpedal or dies a horrible flaming death. I vote for option 2 ;)

      • Re:Irony (Score:4, Interesting)

        by crawling_chaos ( 23007 ) on Monday March 10, 2003 @07:31PM (#5480868) Homepage
        One thing I find funny about this. I contracted for a very large chemical company's R&D function for a while. They were in to patenting everything they discovered. The idea they had was that if some piss-ant company tried to file a patent infringement on them, they'd have a patent on respiration or something and make the piss-ant pay licensing fees for breathing.

        An interesting strategy to be sure, but here's the kicker: the company that they borrowed this strategy from was none other than IBM. I wonder if IBM is looking real hard at SCO's products for violations right now...

    • Re:Irony (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Ed Avis ( 5917 ) <ed@membled.com> on Monday March 10, 2003 @05:59PM (#5480146) Homepage
      They don't have to convince judges that Linux is 'a derivative of' UNIX. At least not for patent infringement lawsuits. With patents, you are still infringing even if you independently come up with the same idea. This is one reason why patents suck when applied to software, where coming up with new ideas is not the difficult part so much as the implementation, even though patents may give a net economic benefit in other fields of endeavour.
      • But SCO released a distro with Caldera, release their code as the GPL. Doesn't that freely permit use of the patents in any GPL code?
        • Hmm, good question. Maybe they are infringing copyright (in a way) by distributing GPLed code but then ignoring the GPL's stipulations about patent licences. But if they get sued over that, the case probably wouldn't be very clear-cut (is that part of the GPL enforceable?) and the damages might be a lot less than they're hoping to get out of IBM. IANAL and all that.

        • Re:Irony (Score:3, Interesting)

          by SN74S181 ( 581549 )
          That's a little bit like saying that all a company needs to do is release one of their software products under the GPL and magically, any other party can then put that company's code into a GPL product and it's legal.

          Unless SCO/Caldera put the code in question into the Linux software base themselves, that sorts of claims are groundless. If we're gonna defeat the SCO suit against IBM/Linux we need to do it with arguements that make sense.

          • Re:Irony (Score:5, Insightful)

            by ivan256 ( 17499 ) on Monday March 10, 2003 @07:06PM (#5480666)
            That's a little bit like saying that all a company needs to do is release one of their software products under the GPL and magically, any other party can then put that company's code into a GPL product and it's legal.

            It's not at all like saying that. It's saying that if you hold a software patent, and release an implementation of that patent under the GPL, everybody who uses the GPL can use your patent. If they have patents that cover Linux, and they ship linux under the GPL, they've given free license to their patents, but if they have other patents that aren't implemented in linux, then other companies/people still have to arrange for licensing.

            Unless SCO/Caldera put the code in question into the Linux software base themselves, that sorts of claims are groundless.

            They didn't have to put them there, they just had to ship them. By redistributing them they agreed to the terms of the GPL implicitly.

  • Way to Go SCO! Maybe there is life in Minix (Score:3, Interesting)

    by BoomerSooner ( 308737 ) on Monday March 10, 2003 @05:18PM (#5479793) Homepage Journal
    since you've pissed off everyone in the Linux community.

    Assholes.

  • Suse Run (Score:5, Funny)

    by codepunk ( 167897 ) on Monday March 10, 2003 @05:20PM (#5479804)
    Run like your thong is on fire....

    I would not let my dog be associated with the three lettter acronym SCO.


    • > I would not let my dog be associated with the three lettter acronym SCO.

      I wish some of my neighbors would have their dogs "associate with" SCO rather than with the lawn in front of my apartment.

  • Doesn't appear that way? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by manyoso ( 260664 ) on Monday March 10, 2003 @05:21PM (#5479815) Homepage
    SuSE, "That said, we want to very clearly and unequivocally voice our support of the ideals and goals of UnitedLinux and the Linux community."

    So, how do you interpret this to mean that SuSE is backing out of UnitedLinux?
    • They wish to achieve the ideals and goals of UnitedLinux and the Linux community without being part of UnitedLinux in its current form? Perhaps it's a statement to simply say "even if we back out now, our goals haven't changed, but we don't think the current form of UnitedLinux and cooperation with SCO etc will do any good"?

      Now I'm rambling on... I didn't even RTFA. =)

    • Re:Doesn't appear that way? (Score:4, Insightful)

      by einhverfr ( 238914 ) <chris...travers@@@gmail...com> on Monday March 10, 2003 @05:48PM (#5480050) Homepage Journal
      SuSE, "That said, we want to very clearly and unequivocally voice our support of the ideals and goals of UnitedLinux and the Linux community."

      The article is very vague and so are the statements.

      My guess is that SuSE is attempting to use what leverage they have to affect a change in the direction of United Linux and SCO. My guess is that SuSE in its statements is also attempting to speak to the other UL parners as well.

      This does not mean that they have made a decision one way or another. But they may be consulting with Turbolinux and Conectiva as to options for ditching SCO. That will be about time ;-)

  • SCO sues IBM (Score:5, Funny)

    by Dunark ( 621237 ) on Monday March 10, 2003 @05:21PM (#5479818)
    Twenty years ago, I never would have believed that I'd be rooting for IBM's lawyers today.

  • Caldera sposored the work in question (Score:5, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 10, 2003 @05:22PM (#5479824)
    Caldera (as early as 1995) sponsored the work they now have a problem with.

    The so called "Enterprise features" were developed by the Linux community on hardware provided by Caldera and with support of Caldera Engineers. Which means that they knew what development was under way, at the very least. IBM had very little to do with it, but some of the Linux Community hackers now work there (yeah IBM).

    Caldera was involved in selling Linux into the traditional SCO markerplace long before IBM even took notice, and had some of the best talent in Utah, who had seen the internals of UNIX at Novell before it was sold to SCO, working on it.

    This suit shows a complete lack of history at Caldera/SCO, which is not surprising since they have had huge staff turn over in thier death throws. Here's hoping they go away quickly, if not quietly... just like their bastard child Lineo did.

  • Another over reaction (Score:3, Informative)

    by andrewm ( 9862 ) <andrewm@netwinder.org> on Monday March 10, 2003 @05:22PM (#5479826) Homepage
    SCO has grounds for their suit, though I can't say I agree SCO should win it based on the information that appears in the filing.

    SCO's mistake was holding up Linux as being indirectly responsible, and worse, insulting it and all the volunteers that worked on it over the years.

    Linus seems to share a similar point of view, if I've understood his comments correctly.

  • SCO v. IBM...it's not gonna happen. (Score:5, Funny)

    by MsGeek ( 162936 ) on Monday March 10, 2003 @05:23PM (#5479831) Homepage Journal
    Fearless prediction: SCO's lawsuit isn't going to get a chance to happen. IBM buys SCO. End of lawsuit, end of story. I think this is the outcome the tattered remnants of SCO wanted in the first place.
    • It's not going to happen, but IBM would be stupid to pay 2 cents to "buy peace" when they can clearly litigate the hell out of SCO. Not only is the suit groundless on the face of it (if you've read it, you can see it's lame), but it draws attention to the fact that SCO really has no products anymore.

      My prediction: YANC (Yet Another Name Change) for SCO/Caldera/Flavor_OF_The_Week. Then Chapter 7 (a Chapter 11 filing would be pointless, as there's really nothing left worth anything anymore).

      • It's still a good idea for IBM to buy whatever "proprietary intellectual property" remains of UNIX. They can lay this problem to rest once and for all and prevent anyone else from buying SCO so that they can sue random Unix vendors.

        That's not to say that IBM shouldn't DEVALUE SCO stock before buying a controlling interest. Remember, IBM only has to be the largest shareholder. They don't have to buy ALL of SCO.

    • So could IBM then bless Linux "UNIX" if it wanted to?
    • Fearless prediction: SCO's lawsuit isn't going to get a chance to happen. IBM buys SCO. End of lawsuit, end of story. I think this is the outcome the tattered remnants of SCO wanted in the first place.

      No, I think IBM is going to fight it. Why would they want SCO? True, it would get them off the hook for any Unix licensing issues, but it would also leave them stuck with supporting OpenServer, UnixWare... and a Linux distribution, which is a business they've made it clear they don't want to be in.

      I think the closest they'd come to buying SCO is counter-suing them over their IBM's own IP, and possibly forcing them to re-negotiate their SYS V licensing. But most of SCO would be a white elephant to IBM.

  • Which Article Did Slashdot Editors Read? (Score:5, Informative)

    by Carnage4Life ( 106069 ) on Monday March 10, 2003 @05:23PM (#5479836) Homepage Journal
    According to the current text in the linked article SuSe explicitly stated that they still support UnitedLinux. The relevant excerpt is
    "Accordingly, we are currently reevaluating our relationship with the SCO Group," Seibt continued. "That said,
    we want to very clearly and unequivocally voice our support of the ideals and goals of UnitedLinux and the Linux community."
    Checking out the original press release on Linux Today [linuxtoday.com] doesn't seem to indicate SuSe is getting out of UnitedLinux either.

    • Re:Which Article Did Slashdot Editors Read? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Gleef ( 86 ) on Monday March 10, 2003 @05:33PM (#5479909) Homepage
      We all read the same article. SuSE said it supports the ideals and goals of UnitedLinux, but left out any indication of support of the actions or current composition. They also said they were reevaluating their relationship to the SCO group and that:
      SuSE's VP of Corporate Communications. Eckert confirmed that the "relationship with the SCO Group" was in fact the UnitedLinux consortium aarrangment[sic].


      So they are reevaluating their membership in the UnitedLinux consortium, as that membership is their primary (and perhaps only) relationship with SCO Group. I'm sure if SCO were to leave the UnitedLinux consortium, SuSE would be happy to stay.
    • "Accordingly, we are currently reevaluating our relationship with the SCO Group," Seibt continued. "That said, we want to very clearly and unequivocally voice our support of the ideals and goals of UnitedLinux and the Linux community."

      That's certainly NOT how I read it. He said he was supporting the ideals and goals which would be completely different from actually saying he'd support UnitedLinux itself.

      On the contrary, it seems to me that he purposefully avoided saying that he supported UnitedLinux. This is political-talk, didn't you learn how to decode it at school?

  • Oh no! (Score:3, Funny)

    by MisterFancypants ( 615129 ) on Monday March 10, 2003 @05:26PM (#5479852)
    Surely this spells the end of LINUX!

    Anyone know where I can pick up a cheap copy of Windows??

    Last one out, turn off the lights!

    • Linux is dying... (Score:5, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 10, 2003 @05:40PM (#5479972)
      ...as independent reports confirm. So before you're forced to buy Windows and go to the Dark Side, come on over to the BSD. It's like the Other Light Side Of The Force.

      FreeBSD is an excellent choice of operating system. We're happy to share it with any poor Linux refugees such as yourself. I think you've all suffered enough.

      (With only a hint of sarcasm. :)

  • Right On! (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Bowie J. Poag ( 16898 ) on Monday March 10, 2003 @05:27PM (#5479871) Homepage


    They'd be making the right decision in pulling out of UL. From my own personal experience working _at_ IBM, I can tell you first hand the commitment they have towards the Linux community is very real. Conversely, I don't think the Linux community has anything to fear by putting their support behind Big Blue.

    Its pretty obvious that SCO's recent "Hail Mary" play is falling flat on its face..Rather than adapt their business model, they're executing one last, desparate attempt to stay in business without a viable customer pool.

    Sad, when you get down to it. The suits at SCO are going to run that company into the ground.

  • ESR (Score:5, Interesting)

    by cperciva ( 102828 ) on Monday March 10, 2003 @05:28PM (#5479879) Homepage
    "Eric Raymond called SCO's move 'deeply stupid...'"

    During a talk here in Oxford University's computing lab, Eric Raymond proclaimed that "UNIX died because it was closed-source", and then refused to accept that Microsoft's multi-billion dollar success suggested that otherwise.

    Ever since then, I've taken ESR's pronouncements with several grains of salt.
    • During a talk here in Oxford University's computing lab, Eric Raymond proclaimed that "UNIX died because it was closed-source", and then refused to accept that Microsoft's multi-billion dollar success suggested that otherwise.

      In a more recent talk at the Comlab, a Microsoft demonstrator said that one of the most exciting things about .NET was the shared source scheme, through which you could obtain source code for the CLR.

      He then explained that this wasn't the same source code as that which the CLR actually used. Kindof suggests that although Microsoft are paying attention to the increasing call for Open Source, they still don't quite get the point.

      I realise I've gone offtopic now, I just wanted to prove what a useful tool the 'net can be. Two people a few tens of yards away from each other can now communicate via a server in America, ain't technology wonderful? :-)

    • In other news, the dinosaurs... (Score:4, Insightful)

      by expro ( 597113 ) on Monday March 10, 2003 @05:49PM (#5480053)

      Um, where was the open source version of Windows that Microsoft had to compete against?

      In other news, scientists proclaimed that dinosaurs died because they were no longer adapted to the environment, and then refused to accept that their huge skeletons and the large quantity of other life forms they consumed proved otherwise.

    • Re:ESR (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Julian Morrison ( 5575 )
      During a talk here in Oxford University's computing lab, Eric Raymond proclaimed that "UNIX died because it was closed-source", and then refused to accept that Microsoft's multi-billion dollar success suggested that otherwise.

      It's true, it's just incomplete.

      Unix died because it was closed source and internally competitive. It fractured into a slew of islands of mutually incompatible enhancements, none of which, with the possible exception of Solaris, had sufficient momentum to stand alone.

      By contrast, Microsoft, being closed source and a unity, is motivated to converge rather than diverge its OSes, so it doesn't fragment its' user base.

  • Although... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by frodo from middle ea ( 602941 ) on Monday March 10, 2003 @05:30PM (#5479897) Homepage
    Although I agree in principle with Suse.
    I dont think this decission has got anything to do with Linux or Open Source Philosophy as Suse is trying to make it look it.
    Suse has business relation ships with IBM, if i am not wrong IBM linux m/cs do run Suse linux on them .And this is calculated business move.
    SCO should realise that with out UnitedLinux they don't have much business to look forward to. Infact i would be surprised if they can even afford the legal fees to persue the lawsuit.

  • Typical SuSE (Score:5, Insightful)

    by k8to ( 9046 ) on Monday March 10, 2003 @05:34PM (#5479920) Homepage
    1) Try to choose working with as many partners as possible in a spirit of cooperation.

    2) Do not reap the PR benefits, nor spin the relationship strongly in the public eye at all.

    3) Allow some partner to control the spin to their own agenda (in this case Caldera/SCO).

    4) Eventually find that the partner has taken a (to SuSE's viewpoint) incredulous stand. Publically state that they do not agree.

    5) Partnership and sails of other company deflate/dissolve.

    SuSE is a somewhat naive company in the way it forms alliance, makes choices, etc. They do not believe in strong spin or overbearing marketing. They do not believe in half-truth statements or downplaying their competitors. There may be exceptions to this (there's no single decisionmaker running the whole show), but as a general rule it holds.

    When I was there, it was fairly common for them to observe a sharply competitive move and collectively shake their heads. They _do_ believe in making better products, so this kind of competition is welcomed with open arms, but patent lawsuits are viewed in this sort of way I see as typical german: "This is not good."

    All in all, I have to say I saw this as the eventual outcome of United Linux. I see SuSE and Connectiva as technology leaders, with Turbo and SCO/Caldera ultimately hamstrung by the strange politics/business of their leadership. The former can make a solid partnership, no doubt, the latter pair do not belong in the same ship.
  • This makes me start to wonder if this might be the start of the finish for the Unix codebases.

    SCO is threatening to cancel IBM's license to distribute AIX. They have the ability to do this since they own the rights to the original Unix codebase. Could it be very long before they start going after the other Unix vendors?

    Sun, SGI, IBM, and other Unix vendors are already throwing their support behind Linux in a lot of ways. Perhaps this will give them the added incentive to finally throw full support into Linux, in order to avoid being subject to the whim of a failing company that may or may not decide to blackmail them.

    Of course, the end of Unix has been predicted for many years now, so maybe this will turn out to be nothing.

  • Piracy (Score:5, Interesting)

    by kfg ( 145172 ) on Monday March 10, 2003 @05:36PM (#5479941)
    No, no, not *that* kind of piracy. I mean *real* piracy. With ships, and cannon, and lots of a "Avast there"'s in it and stuff.

    I think Doug Fairbanks might have something to do with it too, but I'm a little fuzzy on that part, so don't quote me.

    Anyway, around the turn of the century, no, not *that* century. Ummmm, no, not that century either. 1700 to 1800. Various "states" in Northern Africa practiced actual piracy, capturing ships, ransoming the men on board or selling them into slavery if no ransom was paid.

    Better yet, they could make a lot of money without any risk if they captured a few ships and then used the terror factor to demand *tribute* from other nations. The would be known as a "protection racket" if it were done on a smaller scale.

    And it worked. Most of Europe caved in and payed the tribute. ( Not that the pirates didn't make the occasional "mistake" and sieze a lucrative looking prize anyway, but what the hell).

    America held out. America had no Navy and no standing army. So they bloody well built them and went to war. In legitimate defense, of the world even (go figure). The modern Marine Corps was born out of this, and when the song mentions Tripoli this is the conflict it refers to.

    The conflict lasted four years, but America, young, brash and still idealistic America, on its own, rid the world of these pirates.

    Why am I going on about this?

    Well, think about it, what is SCO doing right now?

    Practicing true computer piracy, that's what. Demanding tribute on a claim that everyone knows is essentially bogus.

    What do we do about it?

    Well, an American congressman, in reaction to the demand for tribute from the pirates, made a statement that became the rallying cry in the war against the pirates of the Barbary Coast and an American policy for ever after ( well, at least until Reagan).

    "Millions for defence. Not one damned penny for tribute."

    That's the way to handle SCO. This is not a time to be "pragmatic" as the lawyer and the accountant see pragmatism.

    At the very least SCO should be shunned and isolated. Compleat noncooperation throughout the entire industry. Ostracised in the literal sense. Banished to die in the wilderness. Call them Ishmael. SuSE shouldn't pull out of United Linux. SCO should be ejected.

    But beyond that they should not be payed one single penny, not even to save millions in legal fees. They are pirates. They are demanding tribute AS pirates. They need to be crushed. Ultimately and completely.

    Please. IBM, I implore you. Stay the course. Buy up what remains of their bloody legal corpse for fractions of a penny on the dollar *after* you have crushed them and reduced their value as a company to nil.

    But not one damned penny for tribute.

    KFG

    • Re:Piracy (Score:5, Interesting)

      by rossz ( 67331 ) <ogre@@@geekbiker...net> on Monday March 10, 2003 @07:12PM (#5480717) Journal
      "Millions for defence. Not one damned penny for tribute."

      I'm pretty sure it was President Andrew Jackson made this statement. Other than that, you pretty well cover the Barbary pirates situation, though you failed to mention that several European countries could have easily dealt with the problem, but refused to do so due to politics - much to the anger of many British naval officers who didn't like to see British sailors in slavery.

      But I'm off-topic and will probably be moderated as such (and I deserve it).

  • In other news ... (Score:5, Funny)

    by dago ( 25724 ) on Monday March 10, 2003 @05:38PM (#5479957)
    A big well known network gear manufacturer has decided to rename itself 'CI'.

    Its spokesman stated : 'With those #@$à3 guys there over at SCO, we didn't wanted anymore to have this acronym inside our name, so we just removed it'

  • Who'd blame 'em? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 10, 2003 @05:41PM (#5479973)
    First TurboLinux implodes. Now SCO's starting to sue companies who they once looked at as partners, and in the process they're alienating pretty much any and every UNIX related sales opportunity they once had (not to mention they're probably making it tons more difficult for resellers to sell their wares).

    That leaves Conectiva and SuSE, at least for now. The rest are business partners who are putting their names behind the UL effort, but many of them are on the "will SCO sue them next" list. Yeah, I'd like to go to a party where I know there's a good chance a certain jerk will want to pick a fight with me. No thanks...

    The UnitedLinux effort, for all its hype and all the hope people (some, at least) put in it, is no doubt bruised all over the place by SCO's recent actions. And the incorrect perception that SCO owns UnitedLinux can't be helping the other Linux players who are participating in the project. I can only guess that some folks think SuSE and Conectiva are also evil, if only by association.

    It's unfortunate that nobody at SCO thought about the trickle effect and what this lawsuit would do to its former allies "downstream". They've pulled some really stupid stuff in the past, but I truly think this time they've outdone themselves.

    UnitedLinux may very well be a sinking ship.

    Thanks for nothing, SCO.
  • ... but I don't see nowhere that they are reevaluation their relationship with UnitedLinux. Maybe will be more helpful this interview [techtarget.com] to the SuSE CEO where he talks about United Linux, the SCO suit, and the company, and don't say nothing about dropping UnitedLinux neither.

  • UnitedLinux is a scam (Score:2, Insightful)

    by zbik ( 194004 )
    What does UnitedLinux have to offer as Yet Another Distribution? They aren't promoting any new ideas or technologies; their only selling point is to be a "single stable, uniform platform for application development, certification, and deployment" (UL FAQ). In other words, they offer no value unless they become a monopoly. Why on earth would we support a free kernel monopolized by a proprietary distribution? Far better to throw your support behind Gentoo, Debian, or Mandrake. We don't need another RedHat.

  • *sigh* (Score:5, Funny)

    by horse_pheathers ( 657504 ) on Monday March 10, 2003 @05:55PM (#5480113)

    Cue up the banjoes, boys. "The Beverly Hillbillies", if ya please.

    o/~ Ooooooo...lemme tell a story 'bout a group called SCO,
    they was havin' them some difficulty rakin' in the dough.
    They was lookin' at th'marketplace, decidin' what to do
    when they saw this li'l penguin an they figgered they would sue....

    Big Blue that is. IBM. Deeeep pockets. Moola moooola....

    So they filed them a lawsuit a couple billion deep
    allegin' Blue had fed that bird through source code feature creep.
    Blue an' Penguin shook their heads, an' marvelled at this feat,
    sayin' "Not our faults you silly gits ain't able to compete..."

    Squeezed by th'market. Billy Gates on one side, Torvaldes on t'other....squisha squish, yeah.

    o/~

    -- Horse_Pheathers

  • We must be all missing the point (Score:3, Interesting)

    by The Analog Kid ( 565327 ) on Monday March 10, 2003 @05:56PM (#5480127)
    SCO is suing IBM not to win, but they are hoping that IBM will buy them out before the case. IBM could also not buy them out immediatly but drag the case out and put SCO out of buissness or dissolve the case. Then IBM can buy their assets and own Unix. Ofcourse they can GPL Unix (who really care if they do or don't besides the vendors themselves, its going to happen anyway if UNIX wants to still compete with Linux). Put all the good stuff into Linux that isn't there and wala a excellent 1st rate operating system.

  • does sco hire any techies? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by kevin lyda ( 4803 ) on Monday March 10, 2003 @06:02PM (#5480168) Homepage
    and if so, what's their opinion of this?
  • I think that everyone in the open source community that has relations with SCO must re-evaluate those relationships. SCO's actions seem to be motivated by desperation. UNIX is dying as cheaper UNIX-like alternatives gain acceptance.

    This lawsuit is SCOs last gasp for air before going under. IBM should use its muscle to put SCO under once and for all. Giving them any quarter will only fuel more lawsuits.

  • Linux was a bicycle (Score:3, Interesting)

    by k-hell ( 458178 ) on Monday March 10, 2003 @06:10PM (#5480227)
    I haven't been reading many such complaints before (luckily I'm no lawyer ;), but it's actually quite interesting to read the complaint from SCO [sco.com].
    84. Prior to IBM's involvement, Linux was the software equivalent of a bicycle. UNIX was the software equivalent of a luxury car. To make Linux of necessary quality for use by enterprise customers, it must be re-designed so that Linux also becomes the software equivalent of a luxury car.
  • SCO started out life as a part of (tada!) Microsoft under the name Xenix. The group was then then split off/sold to the Santa Cruz Operation and then morphed into SCO.

    They just happened to purchase the rights to UNIX somewhere along the line (that somewhere being rather near the end).

  • The thing that worries me (Score:3, Insightful)

    by rudy_wayne ( 414635 ) on Monday March 10, 2003 @06:25PM (#5480345)
    It happens over and over again. These stupid lawsuits never turn out the way they should.

    What SHOULD happen:
    Small Scum-Bag Company A, with very little in the way of legitimate product or profits, files a ridiculously stupid lawsuit against Big Deep-Pockets Company B.

    Big Deep-Pockets Company B uses their comsiderable financial and legal resources to win the case, crush Small Scum-Bag Company A and obtain a court ruling that deters future stupid lawsuits by other small scum-bag companies..

    What ACTUALLY heppens:
    Big Deep-Pockets Company B doesn't want to be bothered, so they have their insurance company send off a nice fat check to Small Scum-Bag Company A, which now is flush with cash and able to pursue other victims with its stupid lawsuits.

  • News Flash! Rambus and SCO to merge! (Score:5, Funny)

    by Newer Guy ( 520108 ) on Monday March 10, 2003 @08:03PM (#5481084)
    In a surprise news announcement, the Chairman of rambus announces a historic merger with SCO unix. "The merged company - to be called RAMBO - will be poised to respond to the challenges of the 21st century" Chairman David Boies said today. "We are in the enviable position of controlling both hardware and software Intellectual property" Boies also announced Rambo's decision to sue Microsoft for the use of the name "windows". and it's use for networking. "I came up with the idea of windows networking 30 years ago" Boies said. "When I was a kid I opened the window and yelled to my friends that it was time to play baseball. This involved using a window to spread information to them. In other words, Windows networking"

  • I'm rubber, you're glue (Score:4, Funny)

    by Sgs-Cruz ( 526085 ) on Monday March 10, 2003 @08:33PM (#5481268) Homepage Journal
    best line of the article is "Eric Raymond called SCO's move 'deeply stupid...'
    To which a spokesman from SCO commented 'no, you're stupid, stupid. And I've kidnapped your Tux doll, too.'

    I love it when people get quoted not using their 'mass media language' :).

Slashdot Top Deals

"Protozoa are small, and bacteria are small, but viruses are smaller than the both put together."

Close