Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Caldera Government Software The Courts Linux News

SCO's McBride Testifies "Linux Is a copy of UNIX" 446

Posted by kdawson from the can-you-spell-perjury dept.
eldavojohn writes "Here's a short update on the Novell Vs. SCO case we've been following. Our good friend Darl McBride made some interesting comments in court yesterday. He stated (under oath): 'Many Linux contributors were originally UNIX developers... We have evidence System V is in Linux... When you go to the bookstore and look in the UNIX section, there's books on "How to Program UNIX" but when you go to the Linux section and look for "How to Program Linux" you're not gonna find it, because it doesn't exist. Linux is a copy of UNIX, there is no difference [between them]." This flies directly in the face of what SCO found in extensive investigations in 2002 and contradicts what SCO Senior Vice President Chris Sontag had just finished testifying earlier that day (testimony that McBride did not hear)."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

SCO's McBride Testifies "Linux Is a copy of UNIX" More

SCO's McBride Testifies "Linux Is a copy of UNIX"

Comments Filter:

  • This should be good (Score:4, Funny)

    by IHawkMike ( 564552 ) on Friday May 02, 2008 @08:41AM (#23273658)
    Unfolds chair. Grabs popcorn.

    • Re:This should be good (Score:5, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 02, 2008 @08:42AM (#23273686)
      Not Steve Balmer's chair I hope.

      • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

        by Anonymous Coward
        Finders keepers. You know, you can find the darndest things outside his office window.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by yog ( 19073 ) *
      God, is this Darl McBride still alive and kicking? You'd think he would have found another job by now. I can't believe that after having essentially bankrupted his company with these ruinous lawsuits, he continues to attract naive investors who keep propping him up. It's like that guy who's running Zimbabwe into the ground--just go already.

      Linux is NOT Unix, there's never been shown to be any shared code, and SCO lost the battle years ago. It seems that once the lawyers took over SCO, it became just a l

      • Re:This should be good (Score:5, Funny)

        by doti ( 966971 ) on Friday May 02, 2008 @09:25AM (#23274274) Homepage

        Linux is NOT Unix.
        You got it wrong. It's GNU that is not Unix.

      • Re:This should be good (Score:5, Funny)

        by E IS mC(Square) ( 721736 ) on Friday May 02, 2008 @10:17AM (#23275110) Journal
        >> Linux is NOT Unix.
        Only 20%. See this proof - http://uncyclopedia.org/wiki/Image:SCO_proof.png [uncyclopedia.org]

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by KillerBob ( 217953 )

        Linux is NOT Unix

        You're right. It isn't. It is, however, Unix-like. And intended to be POSIX compliant. And an awful lot of Unix utilities and abilities have found their way into Linux, starting with the System V-compatible init. X, BASH (and its variants)... you could go on for hours listing programs and commands that have found their way into Linux from the Unix world. Perhaps the most obvious example aside from BASH would be XFCE, which models its interface after the CDE.

        I don't think that's grounds for

        • Re:This should be good (Score:5, Informative)

          by Simon Brooke ( 45012 ) <stillyet@googlemail.com> on Friday May 02, 2008 @11:17AM (#23275982) Homepage Journal

          You're right. It isn't. It is, however, Unix-like. And intended to be POSIX compliant. And an awful lot of Unix utilities and abilities have found their way into Linux, starting with the System V-compatible init. X, BASH (and its variants)... you could go on for hours listing programs and commands that have found their way into Linux from the Unix world. Perhaps the most obvious example aside from BASH would be XFCE, which models its interface after the CDE.

          <sigh/>

          You expect Slashdot readers to be tech literate, but sadly they ain't. Not these days anyway.

          'Linux' is a kernel. Both in fact and in the context of this court case, that's all 'Linux' is. Bash is not part of Linux. Init is not part of Linux. They are programs which can run on top of Linux (or any other POSIX compliant operating system, including UNIX).

          Yes, I know we've all got lazy and refer to Ubuntu and Debian and Slackware and RedHat as 'Linux', but they aren't. They are software distributions which use the Linux kernel. The kernel - and only the kernel - is 'Linux'.

      • Seems? (Score:3, Informative)

        by TWX ( 665546 )

        It seems that once the lawyers took over SCO, it became just a litigation machine and lost whatever technological brainpower it once had. This illustrates why most lawyers should NOT be involved in running companies because their natural orientation is not toward creating products but rather toward, well, practicing law, which usually translates into litigation.

        Seems? Seems? That's not just what seemed to happen, that's exactly what happened, and it was intentional. Lawyers figuring that they could make

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by doti ( 966971 )
      I was expecting the big-foot icon.
  • Didn't they already bring the evidence, and have it shot down? IBM's "Show us the code"?

  • So if Novell Owns Unix... (Score:4, Interesting)

    by geoffrobinson ( 109879 ) on Friday May 02, 2008 @08:43AM (#23273692) Homepage
    If Novel Owns Unix and if SCO got money for Linux and its relationship to Unix-rights, McBride basically said "we need to pay Novel the money we got."

    The only reason I can think he said this:

    1) He actually believes it.
    2) He is afraid of fraud charges if he says otherwise. Throw lawsuits into this as well.

    • The awesome part about this (Score:5, Interesting)

      by WindBourne ( 631190 ) on Friday May 02, 2008 @08:59AM (#23273944) Journal
      is that McBride really COULD go to prison over this for perjury. And if done right, a deal could be offered to him (1 month or year, instead of 20 years), if he will spill the beans about it. That would have to include MS's and Sun's participation in this. I would guess that McBride is enough of a gutless wonder that he would take the deal. But if he confirms that (Gates and/or Balmer) and McNealy were participants to fleece the companies, what could happen to them? I am guessing nothing.
      • I may be misremembering, but Sun's involvement turned out to be Sun buying the IP they had licensed for Java from SCO so the JDK could be legally and unquestionably GPL'd.
      • Comment removed based on user account deletion

      • Re:The awesome part about this (Score:5, Insightful)

        by hackstraw ( 262471 ) on Friday May 02, 2008 @09:41AM (#23274490)
        McBride really COULD go to prison over this for perjury

        Obviously, you've never been busted, or had much experience with "the system".

        Criminal charges come like a tidal wave for larger offenses. Its never, "The state vs McBride on one count of perjury". Its the state vs McBride for a laundry list of ranges of crimes, and odds are one of em will be good enough.

        Now with the supposed McBride quote to the supposed jury: "When you go to the bookstore and look in the UNIX section, there's books on "How to Program UNIX" but when you go to the Linux section and look for "How to Program Linux" you're not gonna find it, because it doesn't exist."

        That is utter bullshit. At least where I live, if I go to the local Barnes and Noble, and look in their computer section, there is the Linux section, and under it are the books on "UNIX".

        Even though McBride is backwards in his evidence collecting, the same result could be said by a nutcase like him. That Linux is so much of a now popular version of UNIX that you can't even find a programming UNIX book, you have to look between the Linux books for a UNIX book.

        I simply can't wait until this is over. This has been going on how long now? Like 6-7 years or so. My employers have lost some significant amount of money over this thing while I waste my time commenting/reading on slashdot about this train wreck.

        Its also interesting to note that chages against companies take about an order of magnatude longer to try than those against an individual. For business, this is just part of the game of business. Even when you lose. as in theory McBride has done here, he has been able to finacially gain what? What have the lawyers and other people part of the pump and dump scam gained as a result of this?

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by SatanicPuppy ( 611928 ) *
      Darl's not a technical guy; for all we know he really does believe it.

      I'm not sure which is worse; a mindless zealot, or a flaming hypocrite.
      • True non-technical people like him might believe Linux is Unix, but to say that there are no books on Linux is complete idiocy. All it takes is to go a bookstore or amazon.com. Either he is completely out of touch with reality or he is desperately lying through his teeth.

    • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

      by tiocsti ( 160794 )
      Unix has moved from being an operating system, and in modern times is a set of standards, so basically he's right, linux is unix -- it complies to most of the standards people find relevant. There's no shared code with system v though, nor is it certified (it's unix, but not UNIX).

      This does not mean that linux is based on sco or novell code, though. Not all UNIXes are; for example, OS X is also unix, although in the case of leopard it is actually certified as being so, but as in linux, does not share any co

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by mabhatter654 ( 561290 )
        But the Open Group is responsible for licensing the name "Unix" and setting the compatibility standards, not SCO. Basically SCO and Open Group were shell companies so that AT&T, IBM, HP, SUN, Novell and other Unix licensers would not get in trouble for anti-trust violations by holding the other companies hostage for technology they all shared.

        Daryl is a classic case of the low-level lackey trying to be the tail wagging the dog. That's why Novell is so quick to put them in their place with extreme mali

  • Eh? (Score:5, Informative)

    by Harold Halloway ( 1047486 ) on Friday May 02, 2008 @08:43AM (#23273698)
    I have a copy of 'Beginning Linux Programming' from Wrox. Doesn't say UNIX anywhere. Hey guys, if you want me to testify I'd be happy to fly over. All expenses paid of course.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by iamacat ( 583406 )
      In fact, I challenge Darl to find one book talking about programming UNIX in general written in last 10 years for a dozen dedicated to Linux programming. There are just too many platform-specific libraries and tools (such as Qt, gcc, python) needed to create any useful application. Also, readers of UNIX programming books would do best to practice their skills on a Mac or a Sun workstation, as neither Linux nor SCO are certified against current UNIX standard and entitled to claim that they are selling UNIX.

  • Contradiction=bad things (Score:3, Insightful)

    by LostCluster ( 625375 ) * on Friday May 02, 2008 @08:43AM (#23273704)
    IANAL, but if I've ever learned anything from Mock Trial in high school, it's that you never want to contradict what you say on the stand with what you've ever said publicly or under oath. See, it tends to give the impression that you're changing your story, and if the court doesn't know which one to think is true, they're just gonna ignore you.
    • Unless it is under certain circumstances, it is not illegal, in general, to lie. If it were, we would all be doomed.

  • Hopefully (Score:3)

    by markov_chain ( 202465 ) on Friday May 02, 2008 @08:44AM (#23273718)
    Nobody will tell Darl about POSIX, or the poor guy will have a heart attack of litigation-happy joy!

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Goaway ( 82658 )
      POSIX, that thing that Linux isn't?

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Creepy ( 93888 )
        Linux is POSIX compliant, which only means it hasn't been certified. Many free BSDs are POSIX compliant but not certified, as well.

        Saying Linux isn't POSIX is like saying Mesa isn't OpenGL - it is a functional work-alike that runs the same code using the same API. It is written from scratch to not require paying for the certification license or per-unit fees (I recall SGI required OpenGL vendors pay a small per-unit fee in the 1990s - I'm not sure if that is how it is licensed today).

  • lol (Score:2)

    by smash ( 1351 )
    • one [amazon.com]
    • two [linuxtoday.com]

    • should i continue? or is there already abundant proof out there that darl is a lying sack of shit?

    • ... anyone who has administered a Linux machine and/or coded on more than one breed of *nix knows that there's a fuckload of difference as far as programming goes between say, Linux and Solaris or FreeBSD.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by ari_j ( 90255 )
        Not just that, but the things that are the same are that way because of language and POSIX standardization, and apply in many instances to operating systems that are not Unix-like.
  • The thing is, his bookstore argument isn't even right. If you go to a bookstore, there are scores of Linux books and relatively few Unix books. If anything, you would probably find Unix books in the Linux section and not the other way around. Linux is driving Unix and anyone who doesn't see that has a hole in their head the size of JFK's.

    The thing is, lawyers and judges are ornery types, and, having heard McBride's bookstore theory, the judge might well take a trip to the computer section at the bookstore

    • Re:There's more Linux books than Unix books (Score:5, Funny)

      by ari_j ( 90255 ) on Friday May 02, 2008 @08:56AM (#23273906)
      "I'm sorry, your honor. I wasn't clear. I was referring to a 1980 bookstore."

      • Oblig. Strange Brew Reference (Score:4, Funny)

        by cvd6262 ( 180823 ) on Friday May 02, 2008 @09:31AM (#23274344)
        Claude Elsinore: And I'd like to point out that these tapes have not been faked, or altered in any way. In fact they have time coding, which is very hard to fake.

        The Judge: Would you please explain for the court "time coding."

        Claude Elsinore: Well, uh, just because I don't know what it is, it doesn't mean I'm lying.
    • OK now: I did list two of my Linux programming books, so that shoots McBride's (or at least whoever quoted him) argument. But let's not partisanship blind us - there's more Unix programming books than Linux programming. I'm talking "Programming", not system administration or such.

    • The thing is, lawyers and judges are ornery types, and, having heard McBride's bookstore theory, the judge might well take a trip to the computer section at the bookstore and see it for himself. He will see Linux everywhere, and no Unix, and probably conclude that McBride is a liar.

      It turns out that most lawyers and judges have very limited imaginations and are terrible at what they do. Most likely this sort of thing would never occur to them. Quite likely, they won't even recognize the contradiction with the recent testimony mentioned in the summary.

      • It turns out that most lawyers and judges have very limited imaginations and are terrible at what they do. Most likely this sort of thing would never occur to them. Quite likely, they won't even recognize the contradiction with the recent testimony mentioned in the summary.

        I worked once for the law firm that helped invent the class action law suit, helped sue Exxon for billion dollars in Valdez and won, helped police the securities industry when there was no enforcement, brought down Milken...and that was just to start.

        There is not a writer for a TV show or a movie that could even accurately depict just how smart these people are. Those lawyers ask those sorts of questions all the time. These are all Ivy Leaguers that came from the likes of U-Penn, Harvard and they do. It wasn't even worth lying to these people because they could just pick you apart like a rotisserie chicken and you wouldn't even know it until they are ready to throw the bones out.
    • Comment removed based on user account deletion

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by Lord Apathy ( 584315 )

      This monkey needs to get his sak out of the fire. I don't know how many people remember Unix before Linux. I do. And I think I can safely say that unix was on the way out before linux came along. Many unix shops where ether packing up or converting to windows nt at that time.

      Then out of the fray come a penguin with a mission. Linux put unix in the hand of whole new generation of hackers and programmers. McBride and his monkeys need to be down on their knees sacrificing a goat to the penguin gods for

  • "Linux Programming" book (Score:4, Informative)

    by blind biker ( 1066130 ) on Friday May 02, 2008 @08:51AM (#23273806) Journal
    Well, I actually do have a book on how to program Linux: "Beginning Linux Programming" (Matthew and Stones), in all its red glory here on my shelf. Now I don't know whether the summary quoted McBride very well and I don't have much time to investigate right now, but if he did say what he said, that was pretty silly.

    I also have the "Teach yourself Linux Programming in 24 hours, did not read it much, though. However, it exists, and more Linux programming literature exists, too.

  • Dear Mr. McBride, (Score:3, Funny)

    by r_jensen11 ( 598210 ) on Friday May 02, 2008 @08:51AM (#23273808)
    I write to inform you that the product you are bullshitting about is not Linux, but GNU/Linux. GNU/Linux, unlike products released by Microsoft (Such as OPENXML), tend to have names which are not doublespeak. This practice of not praciticing doublespeak is also adopted by the Free Software Foundation.

    As you are most certainly aware, GNU/Linux stands for GNU is Not Unix. Ergo, Linux is not Unix.

    Thank you for your time. My lawyers will send you the bill for mine.

    • Re:Dear Mr. McBride, (Score:5, Interesting)

      by vux984 ( 928602 ) on Friday May 02, 2008 @10:38AM (#23275408)
      GNU/Linux, unlike products released by Microsoft (Such as OPENXML), tend to have names which are not doublespeak. This practice of not praciticing doublespeak is also adopted by the Free Software Foundation.

      What a load. You tell me which products tell you what they do:

      Internet Explorer
      SQL Server Management Studio
      Photoshop
      Windows Mail
      Windows Live Messenger
      Remote Desktop Connection
      Adobe Acrobat Reader

      or their FOSS equiv's..

      Firefox / Konqueror / IceWeasel...
      pgAdmin III / FlameRobin ...
      gimp
      Thunderbird / Evolution
      Pidgin / Gaim
      TightVNC / FreeNX
      Evince ...

      I could go on all day. Sure there are plenty of bad proprietary names, and lots of descriptive OSS names, but suggesting that a characteristic of open source projects is good names is utterly laughable.

      • Re:Dear Mr. McBride, (Score:4, Insightful)

        by Afecks ( 899057 ) on Friday May 02, 2008 @10:46AM (#23275512)
        You're the only one that said "good names". The GP said "doublespeak". There is a difference.

        • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

          by vux984 ( 928602 )
          You're the only one that said "good names". The GP said "doublespeak". There is a difference.

          Fair comment.

          But that just underscores the whole issue that half the oss community explicitly disagrees with calling linux GNU/Linux. A FUD spreading cynic might even think it odd that half the community wants to lose the part about saying its 'not unix'. Hmmmm. :)

          But actually, this gets even more deliciously ironic when you realize that "GNU/Linux" really represents the pairing of the 'gnu' userland, and the 'linux

  • I figured they would do this (Score:4, Insightful)

    by mlwmohawk ( 801821 ) on Friday May 02, 2008 @08:52AM (#23273832)
    In a trial, with a jury, they are introducing their opinions as testimony. Even though the facts have been proved this theory to be wrong, this is EXACTLY what they have been waiting for.

    Linux and UNIX are very similar. Just as a Toyota is similar to a Ford, 4 wheels, gas powered motor, disk brakes, etc. Hell take a tundra and an F-150 and put them side by side. Besides aesthetic differences, explain to me how one is "clearly" different than the other. Using SCO's logic, the Tundra contains a Ford.

    They will use the similarities to confuse the jury who have no clue about the history of "*NIX* beginning with Multics. I certainly hope Novell is ready.

    PARANOID FEAR: Novell is working with SCO to establish in a court of law, by losing, that Linux is the property of Novell.

    • Judge only (Score:2, Informative)

      by symbolset ( 646467 )

      No jury.

    • Re:I figured they would do this (Score:4, Informative)

      by CyberZen ( 97536 ) on Friday May 02, 2008 @09:01AM (#23273970) Homepage
      No worries! This is a bench trial, so there is no jury. Just judge Kimball.

      • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

        by sm62704 ( 957197 )
        No worries! This is a bench trial, so there is no jury. Just judge Kimball.

        "And I find the bench guilty as charged!" -Steve Ballmer (throws bench across room)
    • Too many people have taken the deal with MS the wrong way. Novell really tried to make both camps happy by making Linux and Windows play nicely, but people seem to think that even trying to work with MS in any shape or form is a pact with Satan himself.

      I understand that there is danger in dancing with the devil, but when you have asbestos underwear and lots of experience under your belt, you are not always foolish for doing so.

      Novell contributes SO much to the Linux user experience, and under F/OSS li

      • Re:I figured they would do this (Score:4, Interesting)

        by mlwmohawk ( 801821 ) on Friday May 02, 2008 @09:32AM (#23274356)
        people seem to think that even trying to work with MS in any shape or form is a pact with Satan himself.

        I would like to see an example where a "big" company did business with Microsoft and did not end up selling out or going out of business. Even DEC caved into Microsoft,
        • This is not to say Novell will not somehow implode due to the bad publicity of the deal or perhaps some of the minutia embedded in the legal documents, however Novell has money, experience and a good product. They were/are not trying to scuttle Linux to somehow make MS proud or destroy open source.

          Many people on board with Novell drank the kool-aid on Linux and GNU tools. If they lost Linux they would lose a TON. They contribute to OSS projects, and even pay their devs to work on them for a week as pa

      • Comment removed based on user account deletion
    • Not only as mentioned that there is no Jury, but also:

      Remember that Novell already got money from MS for their interop deal. Wonder what happens if Novell can now chase after MS and sue them due to the interop deal if something pops up as a result of this trial? Novell has a lot to go after in this case, especially if they force SCO to liquidate and/or take control of SCO.

      Huge, enormously huge win for Novell on this case. Not to mention for Linux in general.

      This is not Toyota and ford. This is like comparin
      • Also the judge (Judge Kimball) that ruled that Novell owns the copyrights and dismissed SCO's claims is the same judge in this trial so he's heard all this BS before and didn't find it persuasive the first time around.
  • But it's not an exact copy, and according to SCO's internal memos, there's no copyright infringement found in the Linux codebase.

    Also, I hope something comes from SCO making false corporate filings - it'd be nice to see a few of them get some criminal penalties from this.
  • They are right there, next to the books on how to program in Solaris, HP-UX, and, of course, SCO.

  • when you go to the Linux section and look for "How to Program Linux" you're not gonna find it,

    um O'Reilly begs to differ http://www.oreilly.com/catalog/9780596009588/ [oreilly.com]
  • I thought we settled this dispute with a precedent. I don't remember particulars, but remember when IBM made "IBM PCs" and tried to sue the pants off of people making "clones"? Comes out you can clone something without "copying" it. If Daryl said something to the tune of "Linux is a Clone of Unix" he *may* have been ever so slightly closer. But saying it's a copy, is showing his ignorance or his idea that most of the world is ignorant and will believe him.
    • This is the current situation of US business at the moment. Which is that companies want more than anything to use the current patent system to try to hold the industry hostage while they do a "make money for nothing" business model... Meaning if the system worked the way they want it to work, we would still be paying money to the family of the caveman that developed the rolling wheel.... Talk about stupid...

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Animats ( 122034 )

      I don't remember particulars, but remember when IBM made "IBM PCs" and tried to sue the pants off of people making "clones"?

      Wrong. IBM did not try to sue "clone" makers, because IBM already lost an antitrust case on that issue over mainframes. There were IBM mainframe clones, from Amdahl, Fujitsu, Hitachi, and National Semiconductor. Hitachi still makes IBM mainframe clones, and they run IBM mainframe software, including IBM's OS/390.

  • ...because after all, the oparating controls are essentially the same.

  • The obvious solution... (Score:4, Funny)

    by Vexler ( 127353 ) on Friday May 02, 2008 @09:24AM (#23274268) Journal
    ...is to treat Darl McBridge the same way some people dealt with Alan Ralsky: Send him as many Linux programming books as we can.

  • O rly? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by aztektum ( 170569 ) on Friday May 02, 2008 @09:26AM (#23274290)
    I realize this is a bit redundant now, but Darl, you're a fuckin' idiot. [amazon.com]
  • Cross out "copy of", and you get a correct statement:

    Linux is a Unix.

    As are FreeBSD, Darwin, Solaris and Minix. Most of which borrow at least some concepts from System V, but barely a single line of code. (OK, to be a pedant, they are Unix-like OSes, but they are compatible OSes.)

    Does this mean SCO plans on suing for compatibility? Standards, even? Even if SCO did own the Unix copyright, there would be no grounds for suing based on something that works in a similar way.

  • To a zombie: Eat Me!

    To a loan shark: I'm a little short right now...

    To a woman: Yeah, they do make you look a little heavy, why do you ask?

    To a lawyer: We have evidence....

    All of these have ... consequences.

  • Comment removed based on user account deletion

  • This is from McBride's own website [darlmcbride.com] (ego much?)

    From 2005: "But since SCO owns the UNIX operating system and it made up 95 percent of our company's revenue, and we were getting strong demand from customers for a next generation version of UNIX, that's where we concentrated our efforts."

    Well the courts will decide that. "'Isn't SCO just all about defeating Linux?' Of course we are innovating and we absolutely want to defeat Linux, just as we want to defeat any other competitor."

    Following is usual FUD a

  • ....Daryl has a mental deficiency.

    The question now is who's been paying for the mental circus of SCO?

  • Darl is a copy of an asshole.

  • not too often the case of how these go (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Locutus ( 9039 ) on Friday May 02, 2008 @11:01AM (#23275744)
    but because SCO went after some deep pocketed businesses( IBM, Novell, etc ) they actually got a fight instead of being handed over millions and millions. Usually this is a bully vs weakling type of fight and the weakling must give in. It takes alot of weaklings to make a business plan work though so there are $ in the eyes when someone gets the bright idea to go for the big guys pockets.

    Come to think of it, Lindows wasn't really a big-guy but I guess Microsoft had to stop them one way or another. I'm thinking of this case because it is another case where the outcome wasn't what was expected. ie, Microsoft almost lost their "Windows" trademark and the result was that Lindows became Linspire, Lindows got paid millions, and Lindows got 5 years of licensed software.

    At least the Lindows vs MSFT case only took a couple years. Had it taken longer and Lindows/Linspire might have had to settle for much much less. They were not rolling in the doe.

    This case has been dragging on for over 6 years and in that time, just little me, I've had small business owners mention licensing issues with regard to using Linux and OSS. The exact reason why I feel Microsoft and Sun helped fund SCO and the reason why Microsoft created their own SCO-ish licensing threats against Linux and OSS.

    Unfortunately, Microsoft is learning alot from all this and will most likely stay way clear of filing suit against any of the big companies using or backing Linux and OSS. They know that they get more value from threats and little fear of having those threats exposed as long as they stay out of court. Their game is to use the threats to keep the Linux/OSS market contained and then use their wealth to pay off any large business thinking of being a GNU/Linux/OSS poster child. They have the funds to keep down alot of the uprising and the business customers are the ones willing to take short term payola from Microsoft to keep the current course with running Microsoft Windows, Microsoft Office, and Microsoft Server software.

    Where this is not in Microsoft's control is in government and the public sector. They've already had a tough time using the BSA to muscle some school districts into longterm licensing contracts when the Linux K12LTSP group showed the way to Microsoft/BSA independence and low cost computing. Recent financial belt tightening is opening the door further and there's little Microsoft can do but deeply discount their software and they are already showing signs of reduced revenues( (24%) this quarter ) from their big money maker, the Windows OS.

    SCO is smart to try to devalue the licenses paid by Microsoft and Sun and if they are able to pull it off and get Novell out of the revenue stream, Novell also knows that Microsoft and Sun will not ask for their money back. After all, both Microsoft and Sun got what they paid for and that was not really a license for UNIX. IMO.

    One more thing, McBride should get burned for what he's done to SCO, IBM, Novell, AutoZone, and all others involved. It was a scam of epic proportions and took way too long. IMO.

    LoB

  • O RLY DARL? (Score:4, Funny)

    by Kymermosst ( 33885 ) on Friday May 02, 2008 @11:24AM (#23276056) Journal
    when you go to the Linux section and look for "How to Program Linux" you're not gonna find it, because it doesn't exist.

    That's funny, my copy of Linux System Programming [oreilly.com] must be a figment of my imagination, then.

  • Pretty bad way of stating it (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Andy Dodd ( 701 ) <atd7@c[ ]ell.edu ['orn' in gap]> on Friday May 02, 2008 @11:54AM (#23276498) Homepage
    He's effectively saying that they are the same because their APIs are (mostly) the same.

    This is true, but not because Linux is a copy of UNIX, but because Linux and UNIX both conform to a published API standard (POSIX). One can easily implement something that behaves like UNIX without looking at a single line of code, because the API (POSIX) is documented, standardized, and published.

Slashdot Top Deals

There is no opinion so absurd that some philosopher will not express it. -- Marcus Tullius Cicero, "Ad familiares"

Close