twitter writes "The defeat of SCO's infamous copyright attack has Forbes wondering if a GNU/Linux boom is upon us. They discuss how this will benefit Novel, IBM, Chrysler, AutoZone and Red Hat. 'The SCO Group frightened potential business users away from Linux with lawsuits demanding billions in royalties. But the litigious company's claims were shot down in a ruling that will likely boost uptake of the operating system.'"
A little company with a lot to protect in the PC market. 20 Mil is such a paltry sum though, they probably don't even remember making the donation.
Ding! That 'lil company in Washington has already abandoned SCO. It got what it wanted: FUD. Now its out making more FUD, claiming that Linux infringes 235 patents. They've used their FUD tactics and kickbacks and by planting their operatives to kill ODF in the standards community with OOXML.
SCO may have lost the battle, but it was already a victory for Microsoft no matter what happened. The war is far from over, but we'll win it by keeping on churning out our best software and leaving the FUD battles to the evangelists like Perens, ESR, RMS and others.
Here's the fact: Microsoft's actions prove that Linux and Free/Open Source Software scares it shitless!
Now its out making more FUD, claiming that Linux infringes 235 patents.
If 235 legitinate patents were being infringed, Microsoft would be revealing specifically which ones are being infringed and how they are being infringed, if they were truly interested in protecting their "IP" rather than spinning FUD. It is obvious to all watching that all they care about is scare tactics and saber rattling.
Ding! That 'lil company in Washington has already abandoned SCO. It got what it wanted: FUD.
Now its out making more FUD,
I think that they wanted much more than FUD. Ideally they wanted to consolidate most of the rights to Linux, and to as much free software as possible in corporate hands where it could be neutralised using the same techniques MS have used to crush any number of would be competitors. The fact that this aspect failed dismally doesn't mean it wasn't a hoped for outcome.
That's what I was thinking. Did anyone actually cease using Linux or put off Linux adoption because they were afraid of SCO? I wasn't aware that people were taking SCO's claims that seriously.
It was actually a bit of a boon to the likes of RedHat and Novell. I work on embedded linux for a living, and all of the customers I have done work for switched from a "roll-their-own" (usually based on an existing freely-available distribution) model for their embedded solution to buying from RedHat or SuSE. The impression that investors and decision makers got was that it was worth the per-unit fee to go through one of them just to avoid the legal hassles down the road.
There's a sucker born every minute. And right this very moment, some of those suckers are sitting in their offices, making decisions on purchasing software.
Didn't Houston's EV1.net decide early on to bend over and take it from SCO? I wonder if they can sue SCO for fraud now, or at least what they paid for "a SCO linux I.P. license". If everyone who paid for a Linux license would file suit against SCO, it may help shoot the dying beast in the head and put it out of its misery. (and provide amusement for the rest of us)
I read about the ruling over the weekend. It never occured to me to short SCOX on Monday even though I thought about it on past occasions. OTOH, if I did think of it I probably would have seen how low it was already and not done it.
I *did* short it...back in 2003, but sold in 2004 [yahoo.com]. Made a chunk of cash doing so, too. I'd have made more cash if I'd kept those shares until today, but it took a long, long time to get there and so in the end, it would have only been a marginal investment had I kept it longer. Basically, the stock didn't move for three years as the only people holding onto it were hanging on for dear life, hoping for a miracle.
The investment community decided that the case had no merit in 2004. You can see that in the
Apparently [wikipedia.org] it was hard to get right:
The name for the company Novell was suggested by George Canova's wife who mistakenly thought that "Novell" meant "new" in French. (In fact, the feminine singular of "new" in French is "nouvelle").
Maybe Microsoft knew this was coming and want to lure Novell into an agreement so Novell would not go after Microsoft for it's involvement as SCO crumbled. Sort of like, here we will give you an agreement to make money if you don't come after us. If I was running Novell, I would take a hard look at my Microsoft agreement and it's real value.
SCO was partially owned by Microsoft at one point, is this the fate of companies who embrace MS? Seems to be a pattern here.
Reports of a Linux boom have been greatly exaggerated... it's been slowly picking up market share over time and will continue to do so... nothing sensational is going to happen... it's a good OS... it's getting better every day... as the OS is made "idiot-proof" all of the idiots will adopt. A great strategy would be to get linux in the elementary and middle schools, get 'em young.... keep 'em for life. It's an ellipses heavy tuesday.
>The problem with Linux right now is software support. Pure and simple.
and what software for K-12 is not supported on Linux?
BTW, Apple did a pretty good job getting school kids familiar with its product. What happened was about a billion dollars in Microsoft marketing of FUD that Apple Mac was dead because Windows 95 made it obsolete. I was there and I had school teachers asking me about Windows PC's "because Apple was going out of business". There were no exploding Macs or anything like it, just millions and millions of Microsofts money going out to the press to spread the FUD. Apple survived by the skin of their teeth and even had to take money from Microsoft and agree to drop Netscape for a Mac version of MS Internet Explorer.
Linux and OSS are a perfect match for K-12. It's inexpensive, completely open for their learning experiences if that is what they want to do, it works. Atleast here in the US, school systems are constantly fighting for their budgets and floundering with expensive support of Microsoft Windows software and their hardware requirements.
The company is obviously disappointed with the ruling issued last Friday. However, the court clearly determined that SCO owns the copyrights to the technology developed or derived by SCO after Novell transferred the assets to SCO in 1995. This includes the new development in all subsequent versions of UnixWare up through the most current release of UnixWare and substantial portions of SCO UnixWare Gemini 64. Also, SCO owns the exclusive, worldwide license to use the UnixWare trademark, now owned by The Open Group. SCO's ownership of OpenServer and its Mobile Server platforms were not challenged and remain intact. These SCO platforms continue to drive enterprises large and small and our rapidly developing mobile business is being well received in the marketplace.
What's more, the court did not dismiss our claims against Novell regarding the non compete provisions of the 1995 Technology License Agreement relating to Novell's distribution of Linux to the extent implicated by the technology developed by SCO after 1995. Those issues remain to be litigated.
Although the district judge ruled in Novell's favor on important issues, the case has not yet been fully vetted by the legal system and we will continue to explore our options with respect to how we move forward from here.
So this is what was keeping Linux market share from increasing? I thought it was that most people were too used to windows and not willing to learn a new operating system. Thanks for clearing that up.
Can we please get a bit of perspective on this. Linux is doomed to a fringe market share unless something extremely bad happens from Microsoft... yes even worse than Vista. This suit was not hindering all that many people from installing Linux. I know here at work we were running it on our servers, with nothing but mild amusement every time one of these stories came down.
Linux will primarily be run in the server space with fringe desktop user space for the foreseeable future. Those who's management is in bed with Microsoft for what ever reason will continue to run Windows Server in their servers. Those who hate M$ and don't have any problems with some of the unsupported functionality will run Linux. This suit changes nothing.
So this is what was keeping Linux market share from increasing? I thought it was that most people were too used to windows and not willing to learn a new operating system.
Well, such things are rarely due to a single issue. The fact that most people are comfortable with MS Windows (and generally dislike change or learning new things) is a huge roadblock to widespread acceptance of Linux, to be sure. However, in addition to this, the trepidation of many companies regarding the legal status of Linux kept them from considering Linux as a viable business option. (Like it or not, the FUD works on some companies.) Now that Linux has been shown to be: (a) non-infringing, and (b) backed by stable, powerful companies (Novell, IBM, etc.), this makes it a much more reasonable option for businesses. So while this court case may not quadruple Linux usage overnight, it is certainly a powerful step in that direction.
This suit was not hindering all that many people from installing Linux. I know here at work we were running it on our servers, with nothing but mild amusement every time one of these stories came down.
I'm glad that your company did not buy into the FUD. Not all companies are as knowledgeable about Linux, FOSS, and the associated legalities.
This suit changes nothing.
So you say. Yet, Forbes at least appears to be of the opinion that this does make a difference, so to the extent that Forbes is able to correctly analyze the business sector, or to the extent that businesses value Forbes' opinion, this will make a difference. Now, you or I may not care what Forbes has to say about technology: we already have well-formed opinions. However a vast number of companies (or managers, rather) do not care about such details. For some of them, an article in Forbes will make them take notice far more than the recommendation of their own IT department.
My point is: like it or not, public perceptions do alter the adoption of technology. This means that lawsuits (even if baseless) and media attention (even if belated) can and do affect adoption.
The mouthpiece of conventional wisdom. I'm been seeing more interest in Linux stemming from the progress in Ubuntu development than anything.
I never got the impression that anyone choosing Windows over Linux was doing so because of the SCO case. It may have been just one more excuse but I can't think of a time it was the primary reason a customer picked.NET over a LAMP stack. YMMV, of course.
I believe we will see more interest in Linux, mainly because interest was already picking up, not because of this ruling. And that includes Linux on the desktop. Again, mainly because it makes a nice desktop, not because of this case.
If Microsoft loses share in the server or desktop market they've got no one to blame but themselves. Vista was a giant FUM-BLE at a time they really needed to hit one out of the park. If you don't mind me mixing sports metaphors.;) But the big problems aren't related to Vista. Byzantine license requirements, ever escalating fees, product activation, DRM, back-stabbing EULA's...those problems will continue to haunt Microsoft.
If Microsoft loses share in the server or desktop market they've got no one to blame but themselves. Vista was a giant FUM-BLE at a time they really needed to hit one out of the park. If you don't mind me mixing sports metaphors.;) But the big problems aren't related to Vista. Byzantine license requirements, ever escalating fees, product activation, DRM, back-stabbing EULA's...those problems will continue to haunt Microsoft.
This is one of my big problems with the Linux community: You guys keep waiting for MS to fuck up.
Give me a reason to get rid of them first! Where is the software support, for one?
It actually makes me feel stand-offish about doing anything more with Linux knowing that they (as in the community) are waiting for someone else to fail enough to drive business their way instead of succeeding enough in their own right to give me a reason to look their way. Basing the value of your product on a competitors failures doesn't make me feel too confident. Endless stories of a new Linux revolution while the marketshare hardly creeps up doesn't make me feel too confident. The fact that major apps and games publishers are still taking a wait-and-see attitude towards Linux doesn't make me feel to confident.
For as much trash talk I hear about Vista around here I'm not seeing too much of it on the streets. The handful of Vista adopters I know don't seem to be having such a hard time with it and it seems that the situation is only getting better for Vista. And these guys aren't geeks, mostly. It's the fabled Joe Sixpacks I know who are adopting Vista. The geeks I know are sticking to XP. Even the biggest Linux advocate I know (whom I also respect his opinion) is running XP on his laptop and his main home desktop. As far as Linux goes he's still little more then a hobbyist. After talks with him I don't think he's going to switch to Linux as his main any time soon.
Give us a reason to switch. Don't wait for MS to file for Chapter 11. It's not going to happen anytime soon. As long as the Linux community and software publishers don't step up to the plate I don't think I'm going to see a time where I am forced to switch out of desperation.
So if the big plan in the community is to wait for the old guard to be weak, sick and feeble before they make their attack I'm afraid you guys are going to be hanging out in the bushes for a long long time. And no, talk of another wooden rabbit isn't going to do much to sway me. But I'll keep an eye open because it is mildly amusing.
Imagine that, Danny boy isn't too keen to comment. Still it is a bit depressing to realise how much of the article is only approximately accurate.
For example the court did not rule that Novell owns copyrights to Unix - rather, the court ruled that no copyrights were transfered to (old) SCO in the Asset Purchase Agreement.
Similarly the article says "Santa Cruz Operation, which later became SCO" with the implication that the SCO in that sentence is the same SCO as in the headline. It is not. It is hard to blame the writer because SCOX has encouraged this exact confusion. Still, even Dan Lyons would have got THAT right.
Also the article stated "IBM, which failed in its attempt to market a proprietary operating system of its own...". We techies know this refers specifically to OS/2. but it is hardly accurate to say that IBM has been unsuccessful in marketing its own operating systems. I could forgive this in a tech publication, but the typical Forbes reader would probably think that IBM had no successful operating systems.
having read the article, I felt it was either thrown together or built from pieces of a larger article. The sections just didn't flow very well and there was no depth to any of it. IMO, this seems to be a poor hack at getting something regarding this news into their content. Notice that they totally missed that Microsoft had put $15M into SCO for a UNIX license and Sun put in $10 million for their UNIX license. Now, it turns out that SCO does not own UNIX and though they were allowed to sell licenses, they
To anyone claiming 'this changes nothing', you're overlooking a great opportunity. Practice this phrase with me:
"Yeah because that worked out GREAT for SCO!"
Now, prepare to use this move to any and all of the following objections:
A) Linux is full of stolen code, and using it means you'll get sued.
B) Linux suffers from tons of IP problems, and using it means you'll get sued.
C) Microsoft is going to sue you for using Linux.
The thing that SCO did for us was dismiss the 'forgone conclusion' that the ability to sue is equivilent to the ability to WIN said suit.
Having survived this beast makes for a stronger FOSS community, so long as we don't forget it. Of course with all the noise SCO and Darl made when they thought they were certain to win, that isn't too likely...
Unix was developed by the old American Telephone & Telegraph. The company allowed the system to be copied, leading to multiple versions, some of which effectively leaked into the public domain. In the early 1990s, Linus Torvalds, then a college student in Helsinki, wrote a version of the program from scratch that he called Linux. Torvalds posted Linux on the Internet, allowing others to copy and improve upon it. The sytem became popular for use on servers as an alternative to Microsoft's Windows.
Yup, that's right, ol' Linus just sat down and cloned the entire Unix operating system from scratch. On his own. With no antecedents.
Is this the same company you have repeatedly accused of being "paid M$ shills"? And now they're right on the money?
They are hardly, "right on the money", but at least one reporter there has woken up and it's better late than never. My hope is that this represents yet another company that's defecting from the M$ monopoly. Their defection would be remarkable when there is so much M$ advertising money at stake. The stock prices reported are accurate facts, their predictions are interesting because they h
Any boom is a win, but one that proves the SCO attack succeeded will be fuel for the next M$ anti-trust case.
But in the meantime, it would also be confirmation to Microsoft that it's attacks are working, and thus encouragement to continue.
I do agree with you, though... seeing a usually pro-MS business publication being bullish on Linux really is something to celebrate. I can only hope that more (e.g. the WSJ) follow Forbes' lead.
The general feeling on Groklaw seemed to be that, while SCO and BSF undoubtedly dragged their feet as long as they could, Judge Kimball (and to a lesser extend IBM) were happy to give them enough rope, simply to stop SCO from finding grounds for an appeal, and kicking the whole sordid mess off afresh again in size months time.
As it is, because SCO were given every possible chance to make their case, they are going to
find it very difficult to go running to a higher court wailing "it's not fa-a-air!"
I simply cannot side with this optimistic appraisal of the SCO trials. A lot of time and money was wasted, when everyone knew SCO was spouting crap. They never provided any meaningful evidence, just a wildass claim about all those lines of code that ended up in Linux. A properly functioning court wouldn't let discovery go on for years, but would have expected that SCO would have had the evidence in hand before they ever bloody showed up. A properly functioning court would have proceeded with disbarment
Think about the extreme opposite: a judge being able to rule within 5 minutes on complete bias.
The same goes with our governmental system- totalitarianism vs democracy. Yeah, the totalitarian government may be more efficient... but definitely less just.
And yes, it has to be that way to some extent. Could they put in provisions to help these crazy court cases? Perhaps, but there would still be a level of inefficiency in order to make room for justice.
No one can tell me that it should have taken four years to determine that SCO was full of shit. Everyone knew that SCO was full of shit the minute they started making their claims. How can you possibly walk into a court room, demand restitution, without a solid claim to back you up? Why did it take a judge over three years to toss out SCO's "evidence", when their claims changed like some people change underwear?
It wasn't a matter of "intuitively" obvious. OS experts said right from the beginning that SCO's claims were rubbish.
Yes, they did. And other experts, let us not forget, testified the opposite. Now to an industry insider, it's fairly obvious that Brian Kernighan's opinion is going to carry more weight than Jeffery Leitzinger's does (at least when it comes to computing). The trouble is that
the courts don't know that, and cannot assume that one side's witness is better than that of the other.
Look, I really don't want to fight with you about this. If you're arguing that the US legal system is broken because it allowed
BSF to file a gazillion timewasting motions and counter motions, then I think you may well be right. If you're arguing that Judge Kimball
is broken, having allowed things to drag on so long, than I think you're probably not.
In any case, I don't have any great emotional investment in the issue. I'm not a US citizen, whatever problems may exist, they're not mine to solve. I'm just reporting what I've gleaned by lurking on Groklaw for the duration.
Is this the same company you have repeatedly accused of being "paid M$ shills"? And now they're right on the money?
Who has accused Forbes, twitter? Or are you calling out Slashdot? Slashdot publishes all kinds of stories from all kinds of people who walk up and post. They're often contradictory, depending on the perspective of the submitter. Slashdot isn't a newspaper with an editorial board that decides it knows what the world is like, what's happening. It's a public printing press staffed by its readers.
"Even though it took an embarrassingly long time Microsoft has finally gotten a handle on viruses/spyware etc. to the point where no one is running screaming from their platform anymore."
When did this happen? Viruses/spyware was one of the largest stimuli for me to finally suck it up and emigrate for good (I was under no circumstances going to reinstall XP or buy Vista). And I'm not alone. Now I've found that Ubuntu does everything I want it to do, my friends will be getting a taste too.
It would not surprise me in the slightest if we were to see Linux achieve double digit market penetration (i.e. 10%) within 2 years. It's kind of like being one of the first kids to play multiplayer Doom and then Quake. You think to yourself "Damn! This is fun! I wonder why everyone else isn't doing this?" And soon enough (given several years), everyone IS doing it. It spreads from person to person virally.
The phenomenon itself parallels atomic physics; as soon as you have on average every split atom triggering another atom to split, you get a chain reaction. This is the same with people and ideas, software (or human diseases). It's just that the chain reaction aspect seems less obvious to us because of the time scale. It might be 2 months before I get around to install Ubuntu on a friend's machine, whereas a neutron emitted from a nucleus will strike another atom on the other side of the bomb in much, much less than a second.
Ubuntu is mostly there. It is there enough that I believe if I installed it myself on a poweruser friend's computer, helped sort out some driver issues, he'd be able to take it from there with the occasional internet search. And it is better than MS in a lot of important areas: stability, security, efficiency (in Watts), ease of installing new software (Synaptic). Not having to worry about spyware or viruses is HUGE. And it's free, by emigrating you've permanently opted out of the eternal upgrade for $$$ cycle, along with acquiring a mental Unix toolkit that will enable further migrations if necessary (e.g. to BSD or other free ixes).
And it is the power users who are critical to this chain reaction. It's not grandma using mail and web who will be installing it on friend's computers. It is the power user. So by all means, get your grandma and girlfriend using it, but if you really care about adoption rates, find another power user and guide them through an installation. Note that something like Ubuntu is gold to a power user (someone who is doing free tech support for friends and family) because it has the potential of being much lower in maintenance. No finding new spyware removers, reinstalling, or any of that. Convert, done.
After that, it's just a matter of time before you have hardware manufacturers and gaming companies coming over too. Then it's over. Within a year you'll get everything of note imported or created. Be it photoshop or office, the bugs will be ironed out extremely quickly. Word will become like Wordperfect used to be. There will still be a few people whining "But word used to work so much better!", but they will be ignored.
Sorry guys, Linux is good no doubt but I am telling you now, it will NEVER compete with Microsoft. I, as a Sysadmin for a Fortune 500 Company, can tell you that no SysAdmin wants to deal with recompiling kernels, writing scripts for hours on end when I can just install Microsoft, lock it down and forget about it.
...
BTW, here is the report on how linux has THREE times as many security holes as Microsoft:
I work for a major US Government organization. We also have a lot of Windows servers. We also have a lot of Unix systems. And as we deploy additional systems, it isn't uncommon for them to be Linux based. We're constantly asking vendors if they have Linux support. Most either do or are working on it.
We can take a Linux system, lock it down, and forget about it just like a Windows system. That is... if we want crappy infrastructure. Both systems require care and feeding. Both require more than a vendor is going to admit.
We have Unix / Linux folks who spend a good amount of time writing scripts and figuring out configurations for everyone else to follow. The same goes for the Windows side. I'm biased - I'm much more impressed with the extent of what we do on the Unix / Linux side of the house. But I am also occasionally surprised and impressed with what knowledgeable Windows admins come up with.
Of course, we also have aspects of our IT environment that are Windows-only who would never even dream of looking at anything that didn't come from Microsoft (or at least have Microsoft approval). But that doesn't mean Linux isn't making headway in our environment. And it doesn't mean that just because you're a Windows shop that others aren't.
By the way... I'd look a little closer at that report you're quoting. It's a much more complex story than those numbers would make it seem. There's the issue of how severe a flaw is. But even more basic is numbers that don't add up and flaws that are double-counted.
Autozone got sued for switching because SCO alleges that there was a point during the transition when Linux applications are linking to unix libraries. Daimler/Chrysler got sued because they didn't respond within 30 days to a letter sent to the wrong address and, eventually, SCO alleged that when DC said "we are not using Unix" they didn't answer the question "which servers are running Unix" and SCO claimed that they had audit rights to Linux usage. For the latter two points, the Michigan state court sent SCO packing with another expensive goose egg.
In Autozone, one of the things SCO is alleging is that Autozone could not have replaced their SCO Unix system with a Linux system without illegally using (or reverse-engineering) their libraries. The case was stayed pending the outcome of IBM, Redhat, and Novell. Now that it has been shown that Novell owns the Unix copyrights, it will limit what SCO can claim. To proceed, SCO would have to show that the libraries in question are under their copyrights and not Novell's or anyone else's. After all, a lot
lol (Score:3, Funny)
"Is it safe to use Linux now?", they say timidly.
Re:lol (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
What are some examples of what they offer that Linux does not for your usage pattern?
Let's all not forget who bankrolled SCO (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Let's all not forget who bankrolled SCO (Score:4, Insightful)
SCO may have lost the battle, but it was already a victory for Microsoft no matter what happened. The war is far from over, but we'll win it by keeping on churning out our best software and leaving the FUD battles to the evangelists like Perens, ESR, RMS and others.
Here's the fact: Microsoft's actions prove that Linux and Free/Open Source Software scares it shitless!
Parent
Re:Let's all not forget who bankrolled SCO (Score:4, Informative)
If 235 legitinate patents were being infringed, Microsoft would be revealing specifically which ones are being infringed and how they are being infringed, if they were truly interested in protecting their "IP" rather than spinning FUD. It is obvious to all watching that all they care about is scare tactics and saber rattling.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I think that they wanted much more than FUD. Ideally they wanted to consolidate most of the rights to Linux, and to as much free software as possible in corporate hands where it could be neutralised using the same techniques MS have used to crush any number of would be competitors. The fact that this aspect failed dismally doesn't mean it wasn't a hoped for outcome.
There was some ho
Won't change a thing (Score:5, Insightful)
Did they?
Re: (Score:2)
That's what I was thinking. Did anyone actually cease using Linux or put off Linux adoption because they were afraid of SCO? I wasn't aware that people were taking SCO's claims that seriously.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I work on embedded linux for a living, and all of the customers I have done work for switched from a "roll-their-own" (usually based on an existing freely-available distribution) model for their embedded solution to buying from RedHat or SuSE. The impression that investors and decision makers got was that it was worth the per-unit fee to go through one of them just to avoid the legal hassles down the road.
Now, though, I'm already transitioni
Re:Won't change a thing (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
houston's ev1.net (Score:2)
FTA (Score:4, Funny)
The SCO Group did not return a call seeking comment on Monday.
Maybe their phones were disconnected for non-payment?
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Either that, or there are no employees left there to answer them.
I missed the boat (Score:2)
Dumb Dumb Dumb. It was like free money.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The investment community decided that the case had no merit in 2004. You can see that in the
Grrrr (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Grrrr (Score:5, Interesting)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Maybe Microsoft knew this was coming and want to lure Novell into an agreement so Novell would not go after Microsoft for it's involvement as SCO crumbled. Sort of like, here we will give you an agreement to make money if you don't come after us. If I was running Novell, I would take a hard look at my Microsoft agreement and it's real value.
SCO was partially owned by Microsoft at one point, is this the fate of companies who embrace MS? Seems to be a pattern here.
IBM will not be bought off so easily. L
Reports of a Linux Boom (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Reports of a Linux Boom (Score:4, Interesting)
and what software for K-12 is not supported on Linux?
BTW, Apple did a pretty good job getting school kids familiar with its product. What happened was about a billion dollars in Microsoft marketing of FUD that Apple Mac was dead because Windows 95 made it obsolete. I was there and I had school teachers asking me about Windows PC's "because Apple was going out of business". There were no exploding Macs or anything like it, just millions and millions of Microsofts money going out to the press to spread the FUD. Apple survived by the skin of their teeth and even had to take money from Microsoft and agree to drop Netscape for a Mac version of MS Internet Explorer.
Linux and OSS are a perfect match for K-12. It's inexpensive, completely open for their learning experiences if that is what they want to do, it works. Atleast here in the US, school systems are constantly fighting for their budgets and floundering with expensive support of Microsoft Windows software and their hardware requirements.
LoB
Parent
Official response from SCO (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Not so fast my friend (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Not so fast my friend (Score:5, Insightful)
My point is: like it or not, public perceptions do alter the adoption of technology. This means that lawsuits (even if baseless) and media attention (even if belated) can and do affect adoption.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Why do you feel you need to draw a line in the sand. Grow up.
Forbes right on top of last week (Score:3, Insightful)
The mouthpiece of conventional wisdom. I'm been seeing more interest in Linux stemming from the progress in Ubuntu development than anything.
I never got the impression that anyone choosing Windows over Linux was doing so because of the SCO case. It may have been just one more excuse but I can't think of a time it was the primary reason a customer picked .NET over a LAMP stack. YMMV, of course.
I believe we will see more interest in Linux, mainly because interest was already picking up, not because of this ruling. And that includes Linux on the desktop. Again, mainly because it makes a nice desktop, not because of this case.
If Microsoft loses share in the server or desktop market they've got no one to blame but themselves. Vista was a giant FUM-BLE at a time they really needed to hit one out of the park. If you don't mind me mixing sports metaphors. ;) But the big problems aren't related to Vista. Byzantine license requirements, ever escalating fees, product activation, DRM, back-stabbing EULA's...those problems will continue to haunt Microsoft.
Re:Forbes right on top of last week (Score:4, Interesting)
This is one of my big problems with the Linux community: You guys keep waiting for MS to fuck up.
Give me a reason to get rid of them first! Where is the software support, for one?
It actually makes me feel stand-offish about doing anything more with Linux knowing that they (as in the community) are waiting for someone else to fail enough to drive business their way instead of succeeding enough in their own right to give me a reason to look their way. Basing the value of your product on a competitors failures doesn't make me feel too confident. Endless stories of a new Linux revolution while the marketshare hardly creeps up doesn't make me feel too confident. The fact that major apps and games publishers are still taking a wait-and-see attitude towards Linux doesn't make me feel to confident.
For as much trash talk I hear about Vista around here I'm not seeing too much of it on the streets. The handful of Vista adopters I know don't seem to be having such a hard time with it and it seems that the situation is only getting better for Vista. And these guys aren't geeks, mostly. It's the fabled Joe Sixpacks I know who are adopting Vista. The geeks I know are sticking to XP. Even the biggest Linux advocate I know (whom I also respect his opinion) is running XP on his laptop and his main home desktop. As far as Linux goes he's still little more then a hobbyist. After talks with him I don't think he's going to switch to Linux as his main any time soon.
Give us a reason to switch. Don't wait for MS to file for Chapter 11. It's not going to happen anytime soon. As long as the Linux community and software publishers don't step up to the plate I don't think I'm going to see a time where I am forced to switch out of desperation.
So if the big plan in the community is to wait for the old guard to be weak, sick and feeble before they make their attack I'm afraid you guys are going to be hanging out in the bushes for a long long time. And no, talk of another wooden rabbit isn't going to do much to sway me. But I'll keep an eye open because it is mildly amusing.
Parent
Not Dan Lyons (Score:4, Insightful)
For example the court did not rule that Novell owns copyrights to Unix - rather, the court ruled that no copyrights were transfered to (old) SCO in the Asset Purchase Agreement.
Similarly the article says "Santa Cruz Operation, which later became SCO" with the implication that the SCO in that sentence is the same SCO as in the headline. It is not. It is hard to blame the writer because SCOX has encouraged this exact confusion. Still, even Dan Lyons would have got THAT right.
Also the article stated "IBM, which failed in its attempt to market a proprietary operating system of its own
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Notice that they totally missed that Microsoft had put $15M into SCO for a UNIX license and Sun put in $10 million for their UNIX license. Now, it turns out that SCO does not own UNIX and though they were allowed to sell licenses, they
Thanks, SCO, for the riposte! (Score:3, Interesting)
To anyone claiming 'this changes nothing', you're overlooking a great opportunity. Practice this phrase with me:
"Yeah because that worked out GREAT for SCO!"
Now, prepare to use this move to any and all of the following objections:
A) Linux is full of stolen code, and using it means you'll get sued.
B) Linux suffers from tons of IP problems, and using it means you'll get sued.
C) Microsoft is going to sue you for using Linux.
The thing that SCO did for us was dismiss the 'forgone conclusion' that the ability to sue is equivilent to the ability to WIN said suit.
Having survived this beast makes for a stronger FOSS community, so long as we don't forget it. Of course with all the noise SCO and Darl made when they thought they were certain to win, that isn't too likely...
Thank you sirs!
Richard Stallman, your phone's ringing (Score:3, Funny)
From TFA:
Unix was developed by the old American Telephone & Telegraph. The company allowed the system to be copied, leading to multiple versions, some of which effectively leaked into the public domain. In the early 1990s, Linus Torvalds, then a college student in Helsinki, wrote a version of the program from scratch that he called Linux. Torvalds posted Linux on the Internet, allowing others to copy and improve upon it. The sytem became popular for use on servers as an alternative to Microsoft's Windows.
Yup, that's right, ol' Linus just sat down and cloned the entire Unix operating system from scratch. On his own. With no antecedents.
Yes, because they are Forbes. (Score:2, Insightful)
Is this the same company you have repeatedly accused of being "paid M$ shills"? And now they're right on the money?
They are hardly, "right on the money", but at least one reporter there has woken up and it's better late than never. My hope is that this represents yet another company that's defecting from the M$ monopoly. Their defection would be remarkable when there is so much M$ advertising money at stake. The stock prices reported are accurate facts, their predictions are interesting because they h
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
But in the meantime, it would also be confirmation to Microsoft that it's attacks are working, and thus encouragement to continue.
I do agree with you, though... seeing a usually pro-MS business publication being bullish on Linux really is something to celebrate. I can only hope that more (e.g. the WSJ) follow Forbes' lead.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:What's the opposite of FUD? (Score:5, Interesting)
The general feeling on Groklaw seemed to be that, while SCO and BSF undoubtedly dragged their feet as long as they could, Judge Kimball (and to a lesser extend IBM) were happy to give them enough rope, simply to stop SCO from finding grounds for an appeal, and kicking the whole sordid mess off afresh again in size months time.
As it is, because SCO were given every possible chance to make their case, they are going to find it very difficult to go running to a higher court wailing "it's not fa-a-air!"
And that, I think, has to be a good thing.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:What's the opposite of FUD? (Score:4, Insightful)
Think about the extreme opposite: a judge being able to rule within 5 minutes on complete bias.
The same goes with our governmental system- totalitarianism vs democracy. Yeah, the totalitarian government may be more efficient... but definitely less just.
And yes, it has to be that way to some extent. Could they put in provisions to help these crazy court cases? Perhaps, but there would still be a level of inefficiency in order to make room for justice.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:What's the opposite of FUD? (Score:4, Insightful)
Yes, they did. And other experts, let us not forget, testified the opposite. Now to an industry insider, it's fairly obvious that Brian Kernighan's opinion is going to carry more weight than Jeffery Leitzinger's does (at least when it comes to computing). The trouble is that the courts don't know that, and cannot assume that one side's witness is better than that of the other.
Look, I really don't want to fight with you about this. If you're arguing that the US legal system is broken because it allowed BSF to file a gazillion timewasting motions and counter motions, then I think you may well be right. If you're arguing that Judge Kimball is broken, having allowed things to drag on so long, than I think you're probably not.
In any case, I don't have any great emotional investment in the issue. I'm not a US citizen, whatever problems may exist, they're not mine to solve. I'm just reporting what I've gleaned by lurking on Groklaw for the duration.
Parent
Who's "You"? (Score:2)
Who has accused Forbes, twitter? Or are you calling out Slashdot? Slashdot publishes all kinds of stories from all kinds of people who walk up and post. They're often contradictory, depending on the perspective of the submitter. Slashdot isn't a newspaper with an editorial board that decides it knows what the world is like, what's happening. It's a public printing press staffed by its readers.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Linux chain reaction (Score:5, Insightful)
When did this happen? Viruses/spyware was one of the largest stimuli for me to finally suck it up and emigrate for good (I was under no circumstances going to reinstall XP or buy Vista). And I'm not alone. Now I've found that Ubuntu does everything I want it to do, my friends will be getting a taste too.
It would not surprise me in the slightest if we were to see Linux achieve double digit market penetration (i.e. 10%) within 2 years. It's kind of like being one of the first kids to play multiplayer Doom and then Quake. You think to yourself "Damn! This is fun! I wonder why everyone else isn't doing this?" And soon enough (given several years), everyone IS doing it. It spreads from person to person virally.
The phenomenon itself parallels atomic physics; as soon as you have on average every split atom triggering another atom to split, you get a chain reaction. This is the same with people and ideas, software (or human diseases). It's just that the chain reaction aspect seems less obvious to us because of the time scale. It might be 2 months before I get around to install Ubuntu on a friend's machine, whereas a neutron emitted from a nucleus will strike another atom on the other side of the bomb in much, much less than a second.
Ubuntu is mostly there. It is there enough that I believe if I installed it myself on a poweruser friend's computer, helped sort out some driver issues, he'd be able to take it from there with the occasional internet search. And it is better than MS in a lot of important areas: stability, security, efficiency (in Watts), ease of installing new software (Synaptic). Not having to worry about spyware or viruses is HUGE. And it's free, by emigrating you've permanently opted out of the eternal upgrade for $$$ cycle, along with acquiring a mental Unix toolkit that will enable further migrations if necessary (e.g. to BSD or other free ixes).
And it is the power users who are critical to this chain reaction. It's not grandma using mail and web who will be installing it on friend's computers. It is the power user. So by all means, get your grandma and girlfriend using it, but if you really care about adoption rates, find another power user and guide them through an installation. Note that something like Ubuntu is gold to a power user (someone who is doing free tech support for friends and family) because it has the potential of being much lower in maintenance. No finding new spyware removers, reinstalling, or any of that. Convert, done.
After that, it's just a matter of time before you have hardware manufacturers and gaming companies coming over too. Then it's over. Within a year you'll get everything of note imported or created. Be it photoshop or office, the bugs will be ironed out extremely quickly. Word will become like Wordperfect used to be. There will still be a few people whining "But word used to work so much better!", but they will be ignored.
Parent
Re:Linux chain reaction (Score:4, Interesting)
BTW, here is the report on how linux has THREE times as many security holes as Microsoft:
http://www.us-cert.gov/cas/bulletins/SB2005.html [us-cert.gov]
We can take a Linux system, lock it down, and forget about it just like a Windows system. That is... if we want crappy infrastructure. Both systems require care and feeding. Both require more than a vendor is going to admit.
We have Unix / Linux folks who spend a good amount of time writing scripts and figuring out configurations for everyone else to follow. The same goes for the Windows side. I'm biased - I'm much more impressed with the extent of what we do on the Unix / Linux side of the house. But I am also occasionally surprised and impressed with what knowledgeable Windows admins come up with.
Of course, we also have aspects of our IT environment that are Windows-only who would never even dream of looking at anything that didn't come from Microsoft (or at least have Microsoft approval). But that doesn't mean Linux isn't making headway in our environment. And it doesn't mean that just because you're a Windows shop that others aren't.
By the way... I'd look a little closer at that report you're quoting. It's a much more complex story than those numbers would make it seem. There's the issue of how severe a flaw is. But even more basic is numbers that don't add up and flaws that are double-counted.
Parent
Re:Did any business take SCO seriously? (Score:4, Informative)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
In Autozone, one of the things SCO is alleging is that Autozone could not have replaced their SCO Unix system with a Linux system without illegally using (or reverse-engineering) their libraries. The case was stayed pending the outcome of IBM, Redhat, and Novell. Now that it has been shown that Novell owns the Unix copyrights, it will limit what SCO can claim. To proceed, SCO would have to show that the libraries in question are under their copyrights and not Novell's or anyone else's. After all, a lot