Increased Linux Use With SCO's Defeat Predicted

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.'"

Yes, because they are Forbes.

[twitter]

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 have their head in the big dumb company world, and their defection could be a sign of shifting alliances.

A gnu/linux boom because the SCO threat is gone would be a double win. Any boom is a win, but one that proves the SCO attack succeeded will be fuel for the next M$ anti-trust case. Delayed justice is not very good, but it's better than none.

Re:Yes, because they are Forbes.

[mrchaotica]

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.

Won't change a thing

[Bertie]

Nobody believed them anyway.

Did they?

Meanwhile Off In The Real World

[Anonymous Coward]

Microsoft is killing off open document format legislation all over the US.

Microsoft is establishing themselves in China where all open source crowd assumed was going to easily go to Linux.

Apache has a year or so left before it is overtaken by Microsoft.

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.

So, yeah, high five open source community!

And as to SCO, they did their part and have long been forgotten by Microsoft as they move on to bigger and better weapons against Linux and open source software.

Reports of a Linux Boom

[jessecurry]

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.

Re:I missed the boat

[maroberts]

You probably couldn't have shorted it. There have to be shares available in order for a short position to be taken up.

Re:Let's all not forget who bankrolled SCO

[morgan_greywolf]

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!

Forbes right on top of last week

[HangingChad]

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.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:Not so fast my friend

[kebes]

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.

Linux chain reaction

[turing_m]

"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.

Re:Won't change a thing

[M. Baranczak]

Nobody believed them anyway.

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.

Re:Not so fast my friend

[LingNoi]

Those who hate M$ and don't have any problems with some of the unsupported functionality will run Linux.

See my point! They don't even have to spread their own FUD anymore!

Why do you feel you need to draw a line in the sand. Grow up.

Re:Won't change a thing

[fritsd]

I've never actually read Forbes magazine, but I get the impression that the kind of clueless people who DO read it are, well, your boss.

Re:What's the opposite of FUD?

[MightyMartian]

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 proceedings against SCO's lawyers, would have charged those who had come up with the source code claim with perjury and would have tipped the SEC to investigate McBride and his croneys with a pump and dump scheme. All in one day, mind you.

The SCO saga is as good an example of how faulty the courts really are, not some shining example of a effective and efficient legal system.

Re:Let's all not forget who bankrolled SCO

[NickFortune]

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.

There was some hope among the anti-free software crowd that SCO might break the GPL in the courtroom. That too looks unlikely now, but it had to be on the objective list.

They also, I believe wanted to give IBM a poke in the eye for daring to market Linux, and this they did. It remains to be seen if IBM will go on to poke back after the dust settles.

And lastly, as you point out, there was FUD. This they got in copious amounts.

MS got pretty much a worst case outcome out of the SCO fiasco, but that doesn't mean they didn't set their sights much higher.

Re:Won't change a thing

[D'Sphitz]

Judging by the way SCO's stock skyrocketed, i'd say a lot of people believed them.

Re:What's the opposite of FUD?

[Xtravar]

Justice and efficiency are mutually exclusive.

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.

Re:What's the opposite of FUD?

[NickFortune]

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.