Sun Rethinking Linux Strategy Over SCO Lawsuit 504
manyoso writes "Sun is waisting no time taking advantage of the SCO lawsuit against IBM. They are making statements trying to play up Solaris as a safe harbor for worried Linux and IBM users. John Loiacono, VP of Sun's operating platforms group, "For people looking at the issues at hand, we are a safe harbor. We have absolute rights to our technology ... We're changing our strategy around Linux (but) we're pausing because we're trying to figure out what the implications of this are going to be". So, this begs the questions... What are the short term implications for the new Linux based desktop we've been hearing about from our fair weather friends? How will the SCO lawsuit affect Sun's long term strategy with Linux and Open Source?"
This is Bill Gates' Wet Dream (Score:3, Interesting)
It would seem that SCO's current actions are very much helpful to microsoft in the end.
Just a thought...
Re:This is Bill Gates' Wet Dream (Score:4, Interesting)
Caldera/SCO hasn't been making money in a good long time and probably won't for the forseeable future. As of their last earnings release they were down to a little over $6 million, and they lost nearly $25 million last year alone.
The fact of the matter is the only reason they've survived as long as they have is the OpenDOS lawsuit proceeds, and now that they've burned through that they need to find another sucker to fleece.
Great business model, isn't it? You don't need to make a profit selling anything, just sue those who do.
Not good for Microsoft either (Score:5, Insightful)
If it is, Gates, Ballmer, and their entire legal department are far more incompetent than I had thought. Consider the following:
1: Microsoft licensed UNIX back in the day and produced Xenix. They then sold this to Santa Clara Operations (SCO). I would be *highly* surprised if *none* of the original Xenix engineers are still at Microsoft. So this suit could affect them too. And Caldera/SCO has a history of sueing Microsoft.
2: This whole thing is extremely bad for Shared Source. It may be bad for Open Source if it wins, but it would be far far worse for shared source.
Great business model, isn't it? You don't need to make a profit selling anything, just sue those who do.
Have you actually talked to the Caldera sales reps? They are either clueless about the licensing of RedHat or SuSE.
The business model of SCO seems to be based on an idea that since proprietary software is the most common way of developing corporate software today, that Linux should be put into that box. They think that customers need support and don't need the flexibility that open source offers.
In this view the GPL is bad, and Randsom Love's comments to this effect make sense. But it ignores the reason *why* open source is gaining in many markets-- becuase if I run a network, I can roll out a pilot database server using Linux and PostgreSQL with no licensing overhead. Sure, I will have to get approval for the hardware, but that is it (assuming the improbable, that the management understands the licensing). It is the flexibility that this sort fo thing offers a company that is important. If I want I can deploy now, test now, and then get support when I am ready to make it official.
So Caldera is not happy with the GPL, is not focused (as I think RedHat and SuSE are) on helping companies *use* linux. They are instead trying to sell it like NT.
Re:This is Bill Gates' Wet Dream (Score:2)
I wonder if Microsoft still holds SCO stock. They were a major SCO investor many years ago.
I wouldn't worry too much about this lawsuit though - IBM will cream SCO I think. :-)
Re:This is Bill Gates' Wet Dream (Score:4, Insightful)
(rolling eyes)
Microsoft are incompetent bullies, not evil geniuses. Heck, they can't even implement 64Bit Windows in a timely manner and will lose a lot of their server marketshare in the 32->64 Bit conversion.
Both SCO and Sun feel the heat from Linux. If this pointless suit gives Sun the opportunity to market their expensive hardware, why shouldn't Sun take that opportunity?
Usually the easy explanation is the right one.
Anyway, Sun certainly will not stop selling Linux machines, too and in 2 months this suit will be forgotten anyway.
Re:This is Bill Gates' Wet Dream (Score:5, Funny)
scripsit rseuhs:
Heck, when was it exactly that they finally got the 16 bit code out of Windows? Or have they? Does anyone even know? ;)
Please don't bring reasoned arguments into this. Conspiracy is more fun.
Anyway, I kind of like spheres on spheres, too -- what kind of geek wouldn't prefer that to boring old elliptical orbits?
SCO in its death throes. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:SCO in its death throes. (Score:4, Insightful)
That is, either everybody can share the code with no restrictions (other than the usual GPL), or nobody can - not even SCO themselves.
But the whole thing is silly anyway, it can only possibly affect more recent parts of Linux, the core parts (e2fs filesystem etc) are pretty obviously developed independently of SCO, and owes nothing to them. Indeed, the main response from everyone is that the whole complaint from the beginning is a load of hot air. Especially since they havn't actually given any details on exactly what parts of the kernel are supposed to be infringing their patents.
Re:SCO in its death throes. (Score:2)
Yep. I've got the impression that IBM has only recently started contributing scalability-related stuff, i.e. their work will be seen in 2.6 series of kernels. If this is what SCO is whining about, it is *very* hard to justify 1bn+ damages (from a non-production kernel!).
Re:SCO in its death throes. (Score:5, Informative)
What they did is contribute people. The Linux work done by those people is original. I know this to be true, since I've been working with them from the start (on the VM/scalability front) and we have the irc logs where the ideas were born and developed, including ideas originated by non-IBM people and developed further by IBM people. IBM also contributed the patented RCU lockless sharing algorithm and contributed a license as well, as required by the GPL. Besides that, I don't know of a single instance of IBM people contributing anything other hard work, original engineering and creativity.
Re:SCO in its death throes. (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:SCO in its death throes. (Score:2, Troll)
Re:SCO in its death throes. (Score:5, Insightful)
Keep your petty Trolltech FUD to yourself please.
Re:SCO in its death throes. (Score:3, Interesting)
Can you say "OpenSSH?" Can you say "GnuPG?"
Other companies have tried to make a business by closing what was open, by enslaving what was free. It has not worked. Ever. The free version is the one that has thrived, consistently. In the few cases where a closed version persists, it has moved along just fine with a parallel product.
The single major Qt "application" of consequence in the Linux market is KDE and all of its apps. If TrollTech closed the next version of Qt, KDE would continue with the present version. And, in all likelyhood, will take over development of "FreeQt" or "OpenQt" or whatever. No, they cannot relicense it under the BSD, but why would this be appealing? It would remain under the GPL, where it would continue to be useable by all. There is nothing to fear here. At all.
The patent encumberance issue is a bigger deal.
The paranoid part of me thinks Sun might have put SCO up to this to create FUD and sell some Solaris.
The more realisitic part of me says this is a desparation move by SCO to get someone interested in buying out their IP so they can pay off some investors before dying. This is a bleeding corporate carcass, writhing in its death throes. Nothing more.
I suspect there is no merit to their case (the filing contains no facts), but their hope is to make it easier for IBM to buy them than to fight them.
Re:SCO in its death throes. (Score:3, Informative)
it IS a BSD License. The license is quoted IN THE AGREEMENT. go READ the agreement, and you will see. Don't make false statements that you have no clue about.
the agreement is simple, and is in a legally binding contract.
1) TrollTech must release a new version of QT (even if its just bugfix revisions) every 12 months or the latest QT Free edition becomes BSD Licensed. (this is a REAL BSD license, not a BSD Like license)
2) If TrollTech is ever bought out, the latest QT Free edition automatically becomes licensed under BSD
3) If TrollTech ever goes out of business, the latest QT Free edition is automatically licensed under the BSD license.
4) If a majority vote of the members of the foundation vote that QT has not met its obligations in the agreement, the latest version of QT Free Edition is automatically relicensed as BSD.
All you people talking about not being able to relicense GPL work is full of crap. You don't know what a license is, and therefore, should not comment. When an entity wholely ownes the copyright to a work, they can release it with ANY LICENSE THEY WANT, no matter what their conflicts are. As it stands now, TrollTech wholely owns the copyright to QT, and can license it to whatever license it wants (and can license it to anything it is forced to via the foundation's agreement).
Your post is innacurate at best, and completely inflamatory. Please check your facts before you post bullshit next time.
Re:SCO in its death throes. (Score:3, Insightful)
It does not help your case when you continue to purposefully associate Trolltech with SCO when it has been pointed out *many* times that the Canopy Group invests no more than ~5% in Trolltech. They neither 'own' nor 'control' Trolltech.
Re:SCO in its death throes. (Score:5, Informative)
http://www.kde.org/whatiskde/kdefreeqtfoundatio
Re:SCO in its death throes. (Score:2)
Your number for the QT 'tax' (LOL) sounds wrong, I've always heard $1500. Anyway, why would people involved in Free Software give a damn about that? If you write GPLed code you can use it for free.
Eclipse of The Sun ? (Score:3, Interesting)
Tells you a lot... (Score:4, Insightful)
It's like David and Goliath - sure, David beat Goliath... once. Who's taking bets that SCO won't be the one killing the giant that is IBM?
Sun had better not gloat too much - they may as well be the next ones on SCO's list of people to sue for making something remotely resembling UNIX.
-Erwos
Re:Tells you a lot... (Score:4, Insightful)
That's right, but not because SCO might target them because Sun's claim to have a clear title to Solaris is valid, but because it shows them to be petty, short sighted and stupid. Sun has a lot of good-will amoung the /. demographic, but being a fair weather friend to Linux will only hurt them in the long run by turning people off. IBM will win big with this crowd if they can crush SCO and their lawsuit quickly, and they are more likely to be taking Sun's market share than anybody elses.
OTOH, I wouldn't count Sun out already an an earlier comment does.
Re:Tells you a lot... (Score:2)
Re:Tells you a lot... (Score:3, Insightful)
I also think you would be surprised at the number of people, myself included, who have been involved in the purchase of many Sun systems in the past that find their response offensive. It still might not tip all purchasing decisions, but it certainly erodes their good-will with a lot of people who would otherwise have only good things to say about Sun.
Re:Tells you a lot... (Score:5, Informative)
It's my impression (in my personal opinion, not based on anything "proprietary" I've been told because I haven't been) that this announcement is a combination of lawyers and PR folks wanting to make it clear that Solaris is not subject to any such lawsuits from SCO and wanting to reassure our customers and shareholders that we won't get so far with our linux strategy as to get ourselves entangled on that score. "We're pausing to see what the implications are" is not "AVOID LINUX!!! IT'S DANGEROUS!!". It's smart business practice to keep from being dragged into a potential tar baby.
Just because you and I believe that the lawsuit is completely frivolous doesn't mean that a large corporation can blythely assume the outcome of litigation and proceed on a path that might lead to problems for us and our sharelholders.
Re:Tells you a lot... (Score:3, Insightful)
Caldera had a very decent Linux distro and it was my choice for business installs. I hoped that they were going to leverage the SCO products for the businesses that wanted a more professional and pedigreed operating system.
The sad thing about how SCO and the Unix patents have turned out is that the folks that are being sued created move value from the covered information than the patent holder did. Ahhhh, the modern formula for sucess seems to be:
-hatch a good idea and patent it.
-screw up with business decisions and/or poor implementations
-sue the more adept businesses and make up for your poor business skills.
-profit!!!
SCO/Caldera seems to be turning into more of a suicide than a David and Goliath story.
Re:Tells you a lot... (Score:4, Insightful)
Actually, their stock rose steadily and dramatically [dbc.com] over the two week period just before the lawsuit. Looks like insider trading, and a matter requiring the involvement of the SEC.
Sun never really liked Linux anyway (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Sun never really liked Linux anyway (Score:3, Interesting)
Sun has a Linux strategy? (Score:3, Insightful)
This is SCO's last deep breath before the long sleep. Sun and Microsoft will also learn that you must move or get out of the way when a disruptive market mover is coming. IMO.
LoB
Re:Sun has a Linux strategy? (Score:3, Insightful)
They've decided to hold onto Solaris, at least at the high end, and they're stumbling around how to do that. They want to support GNU/Linux, especially afgainst Microsoft, without getting eaten by it (hence their support on the desktop). They may not be the world's greatest friend, but they are a significant contributer.
Re:Sun never really liked Linux anyway (Score:2)
Re:Sun never really liked Linux anyway (Score:3, Informative)
As someone who has worked at Sun as a Systems Engineer and now earn my crust supporting Solaris elsewhere, I can tell you that it's very easy to consider Linux and Solaris x86 toy operating systems for toy computers - dull, low end, low margin (but high volume) stuff. If your making 80%-90%+ margin on multi-million (insert local currency unit here) interesting, complex, geographically distributed clustered systems which solve a unique problem with excellent availability and guaranteed mission critical data integrity with decent application performance and a credible level of manageability, it's all too easy to ignore the low end. You'll have to forgive them, currently Linux is not the solution to many problems like this, but Solaris is (or possibly AIX, or HP-UX).
Probably sooner than anyone at Sun cares to imagine, you will be able to do stuff like this on Linux (and maybe even Windows
Sun have always been careful when it comes to litigation, look at how quickly they yanked MP3 support from the JMF when Fraunhofer started grumbling about the MP3 license (it was one or two days). They're still just testing the water when it comes to Linux - give them some encouragement, they're moving in the right direction. Lastly, don't think of Sun as a great big ogre, they are definately the best company I have ever worked for, some of the nicest people you could hope to meet and genuinely passionate about technology and open systems - except for iPlanet and S-Unprofessional Services, they're a bunch of arrogant gits
Dennis Ritchie's Thoughts on the SCO/IBM Subject (Score:5, Informative)
FUD (Score:2)
This is just FUD... plain and simple.
Sun paid Novell for Unix license (Score:2, Informative)
The suit has no merit anyway though, so the point may be rather academic.
Re:Sun paid Novell for Unix license (Score:3, Interesting)
Anyhow, paid-up or per-seat I sincerely doubt that even for $82M the license terms would have cleared Sun or HP from the issue of this suit, which is the accusation that AT&T/SCO code is being incorporated into Linux/GPL.
Now I can't see how SCO/Novell/AT&T would have written licensing contracts which permitted disclosure / general release of the code or trade secrets to SUN/HP. Yes, the continuing per-seat nature of IBM's agreement makes it easier for SCO to tactically make a threat to *stop IBM from shipping AIX*.
All of which seems like just so much noise. Solaris has been SystemV based from the git-go is my understanding, tho Sun has been saying for awhile now that it's completely free of any AT&T code. Even moreso HPUX and SGI IRIX began as pure SysV, and I don't think either has made a big effort to do a complete rewrite.
The amusing thing (as I've pointed out in prior comments) is that the source of the AIX *kernel* isn't in the least based on SysV. It's Mach which in turn is derived from BSD. Also nearly all of the AIX system utilities are BSD-flavored by default, ususally with SysV flavors available. AIX has recently adopted SysV-style init (a sad thing) but that's motivated with wanting to be aligned with the way most Linux systems are run.
Furthermore as many commentators have pointed out, AIX is one of the most heavily customized *nixes being sold today. Specifically, the VM design is markedly different, and the hardware interface is virtualized through an OO database.
So for my money SCO has nowhere to hang their (rather nebulous) accusations, and while I'm sure the fud-pushers will be all over this for awhile that kind of tactic usually involves an eventual backlash.
United Linux and lawsuits dont fit , right? (Score:2, Insightful)
But IBM has major cash now and can flex its muscles through this ; Big Blue is hitting back against SCO's charges that it misappropriated Unix trade secrets and used them in Linux.
Anyone know what the alleged infringement is? (Score:2)
Re:Anyone know what the alleged infringement is? (Score:3, Interesting)
Ideas are not patentable (Score:2)
Someone else suggests that it is based on trade secrets, but it is difficult to imagine how code can be widely licensed for the creation of derivative products and still remain a trade secret. Even if the licenses have language about requirements to maintain the trade secrets, SCO would have to prove that it was IBM who actually let the cat out of the bag. This is particularly weak since AT&T routinely allowed for academic access to the UNIX source (very openly before the break up, and after that as well). I may still have a copy of the version 7 sources that was published (i.e. printed form). There was restrictive language relating to actually controlling the distributed copies, but I'm sure I'm not the only one to get access this way.
Re:Anyone know what the alleged infringement is? (Score:3, Interesting)
IANAL, but the reason that organizations use a "clean room" process where one group of engineers extracts specifications from a piece of licensed technology, and a totally different one with no direct exposure the the original IP does the new product is to make sure that nothing "accidentally" infringes on the original license. This is to avoid the possiblity of a lawsuit and to strengthen their case if they are sued. The plantiff still has to prove the specifics of the infringement based on actual code in the infringing product. As pointed out by the Dennis Richie newsgroup posting linked in a comment, the court didn't see much merrit when AT&T sued over BSD. The outcome could be different this time, but that is very unlikely with IBM's legal resources.
Gee... no kidding. (Score:2)
"There's a fear that SCO is using this as a means of either selling the company or desperately attempting to find some other business model as an alternative to their current software business," Weiss said. "I would advise SCO (Unix) users that they should have a contingency plan or migration plan to an alternate platform."
Ya think?
I would assume that any organization that hadn't already received that message years ago must have some pretty intense clue-shielding in place.
Implications (Score:5, Insightful)
From where I stand, the implication of you pausing is that you're embarassing yourself worse than SCO. I'd never buy a product from a company scared that SCO will somehow take IBM for $1Billion, or somehow stop Linux development.
At least we can understand that the lawsuit is SCO gasping its dying breath. Sun just looks stupid.
Re:Implications (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Implications (Score:3, Interesting)
LoB
Re:Implications (Score:2)
Old-time UNIX sorts wear tattered PDP-11 t-shirts. They hope to one day name their two children Kernighan and Ritchie, but deep inside know it can never be.
It doesn't make much difference (Score:5, Insightful)
Sun's big contribution to Linux is OpenOffice. Their efforts on Linux proper have been pretty limited anyway.
Honestly, though, I don't think will effect their Linux strategy either. It's just a short-term marketing/PR stunt.
Despite what they say, I really doubt that Sun thinks they can keep people on Solaris long-term. They're just not that dumb. More likely they're trying to keep customers from defecting for a few years while they work on improving the upper layers of their environment (Java, SunONE). Then they can switch the bottom layer to Linux but keep some proprietary advantages.
Re:It doesn't make much difference (Score:4, Insightful)
The two OSes can sit together well in Sun's strategy.
Re:It doesn't make much difference (Score:2)
OS/2 still alive in various areas, but it's not bringing IBM any new business.
Same with Solaris in five years or so. I'm sure it will exist as a product for at least a decade, but within five years there won't be any reason for somebody to use it in a new project.
Sure there are some good reasons to go with Solaris today for certain applications, but they're becoming less all the time.
When I started with Unix SunOS was king, and all the applications you got anywhere always worked on SunOS. If you were lucky there might be a port to your alternative Unix (AIX, 386BSD, Irix), but you could always be confident that there would be support for Sun.
Now things have turned the other way. Every new Unix application is available for Linux. The old ones that still matter are being ported rapidly. It's getting so that Linux is the only "no-brainer" deployment. Everything else requires thought. Is AIX supported? Is Solaris supported? Who knows - just use Linux because you know it will work.
Re:It doesn't make much difference (Score:3, Informative)
Stuff from freshmeat doesn't count
Anything that matters runs on either Solaris, AIX, or HP-UX. Full stop. Nothing else scales.
Re:It doesn't make much difference (Score:5, Insightful)
Until it outperforms Solaris on a 106-way Sun Fire 15k, I'd say it doesn't scale enough.
Until it outperforms HP-UX on a Superdome, I'd say it doesn't scale enough.
Until it outperforms AIX on a Regatta, I'd say it doesn't scale enough.
"Most" people may use some desktop-class Intel PC-type servers, but the real money is in high-end systems.
At my job, I have all 3 of the above; Linux isn't even an option for us.
When you run Really Big Databases (tm), Linux isn't an option. When you require 4-9's or 5-9's of uptime, Linux isn't an option.
With Sun, HP & IBM, I get a bunch of suits who show up to soothe management every time there's an outage, large or small.
What do I get with Linux? Some 14-year old from the Czech Republic?
This isn't to say that Linux doesn't have a place in the world; it does. It just isn't on the high end.
--NBVB
Re:It doesn't make much difference (Score:2)
I think it's impossible to say for sure. But just because some exec. gives you the party line, doesn't mean that the people who really run the show don't know what's going on.
Of course, there's no guarantee that they do know what's going on either - certainly SCO is just as clueless as they appear.
Remember IBM in the mid-90's? - the people we knew there were pretty clueless, but Armonk managed to turn it around. I never would have believed it was possible.
Sun has some bright people too. They realize that they've got a problem, and you can see them trying to execute some strategy with their low-end offerings. I'm not sure what the strategy is exactly, but there's something going on. We'll have to see how it pans out.
Re:It doesn't make much difference (Score:2)
The point remains that they contribute to the technology around operating system, not the OS itself. They work on stuff that would benefit Solaris as well.
I don't think I've ever seen an e-mail from anybody at Sun on linux-kernel. There might be some contributions that I haven't noticed, but I doubt it's anything serious.
Where did they get this quote?? (Score:2, Insightful)
"We bought our Unix license out....We are unencumbered for all things," including Sun's version of Linux, he said.
How is does that quote imply they're a fair-weather friend?
Re:Where did they get this quote?? (Score:2)
Re:Where did they get this quote?? (Score:3, Insightful)
The king is dead...long live the King! (Score:4, Interesting)
Sun/SGI/HP/IBM all make big, expensive, customized Un*x-based platforms, that are huge cash-cows for a long time and get people to buy in on the promise of "open standards" while all the while working to "differentiate" their platform enough to keep customers from switching.
Meanwhile, IBM hedged it's bets on a low-end platform cooked up in Boca Raton with a crappy OS and a ridiculous licensing deal with some kid out of Seattle.
Ten years later, the gloss is starting to fade on the Un*x side (mostly due to lack of innovation broughht about by lack of real standards and a serious lack of competition) while the PC side is about to get into the fast track with 32-bit CPUs and a REAL OS co-written by IBM and the slimeballs from upstate Washington.
On the other side of the planet, a smart young CS student is whipping up a bit of the ole black magic, and with a little help from some GNU friends, will soon unleash the original Unix concept back onto the masses (Portability - what portability? This is UNIX my boy!).
Another ten years pass, the PC is ruling the roost once M$ screwed IBM, and the big Un*x guys are all searching high and low for a raison d'etre. The smart ones (read: IBM?!?) figure out that the kid from Finland was really on to something, and they'll never have to pay Redmond a damn cent for it, so they go whole hog. Those that keep fighting, start to die the slow death of ignorant luddites (can you say SGI boys and girls -- I knew you could! Gee, I wonder where 3Dfx and nVidia got all those engineers from!)
Ok, so who's still left out of our wrap up? SCO, who's failed attempt to corner the market on Un*x on Intel (haha, Open Server my A$$!)? Looks like tricky lawyering is truly the last bastion of the dying corporation (right up there with sneaky accounting tricks 101 on the VC Top 10 list).
What about poor Sun, who went from knowing the network was the computer before there even was a network, to being the dot in some dumbass VC plan, to being a wishy-washy half-way cover-our-asses supporter of all thing not-M$. Geez, the enemy of my enemy and all that, but Larry E? Come on guys. And now this? Forget the purple PC, and forget the Slowlaris "better TCO and long term stability" crap and contribute what you have to the one true Open movement - Open Source! IF Sun spent 1/4 of the $$$ they have on FUDding Slowlaris vs. Linux on porting theyr fantastic sh*t to Linux, they could be a real force to be reckoned with (hello IBM? Wannt do the enemry-of-my thing?).
All I know is they all better watch out, because once the Chinese start mass-producing cluster machines made with Godson-2's onto 1U racks running Linux, the game's up for those who would be king!
Just my $0.02...YMMV
The dot in dot com... (Score:2)
Re:The king is dead...long live the King! (Score:3, Insightful)
People pulled their money out of the stock market because they realized that their stocks weren't even worth the paper it was printed in.
"If our companies were focused on developing technology we might be able to recover. But that would probably require kicking the entire administration out of office so we weren't being constantly distracted by Bushy Baby throwing his temper tantrum about Iraq."
Give me a break. The economy always has been like a rollercoaster. It goes up and down like a wave. There are reasons why you cannot have unlimited growth in the economy. Consider taking courses in economics before lecturing on us about it.
"Japan already built a faster supercomputer that models global climate instead of nuclear blasts like the US."
Isn't Japan a capitalist like the US? And I suppose US should resort to real nuclear blasts instead of using computers? Oh I get it, US should destory all of its nukes because countries like China will destory their own nukes? Dream on.
"The US may have resources, but its entire economy is based on personal greed and the desire to horde those resources rather than distribute them to those that need them. In time this becomes extremely inefficient and will only seriously hurt the economy."
Greed is universal. Why do you think that many people full for Nigerian 419 scam? And tell me why the communist party members live in a better house, get more food, and driver nicer cars then the rest of the population? You failed to mention competion as a strong motivator. No one would attend sporting events if the outcomes were always a tie. Competion isn't just for sports either. How about people working on open source software? Do they not compete with other teams?
"China has how many billion people? That's billions of bright minds capable of creating software, hardware, and many other things us Americans can't even learn in school because our school system would rather pay Microsoft than teach us real technology, like Linux. Because its too hard."
That's funny cause two colleges I've attended both offers Linux classes. Besides, if you are a competent Windows user, there's no reason why you can't learn Linux on your own. And why are people in China priating Windows when they can use Linux?
"It feels good to me knowing that the war between communism and capitalism has not yet been won. Capitalists celebrated a premature victory when the USSR collapsed. Industrial automation, computerized automation, robotic automation, these things changed everything."
Compare Hong Kong to the mainland China. If capitalism is such a failure, why is China maintaining Hong Kong under a diffent system? And why is mainland China itself becoming more capitalistic? Automation was adapted by the capitalists because it is more efficent. And I don't see any communists having problems "borrowing" technology from the capitalists.
"Personally I'd rather work in a world that didn't have money than in America where all my friends lost their homes and jobs because of money."
How are you supposed to buy a house without money? Oh wait, you mean everyone will be given one? Who will build these free houses? How about people who are druggies and/or too lazy to work (I know plenty of them)?Won't it be shitty to break sweat and your back to build free houses for those people? And you really believe that people will be motivated to go though 8 years of schooling to be a doctor just to live next door to a high-school dropout that spends all day smoking pot? There is a reason why a true communism can't exist.
David Boies (Score:3, Funny)
Re:David Boies (Score:5, Informative)
No, David Boies didn't lose the DOJ case. He worked the trial before Judge Jackson, and won decisively -- most observers said that he beat the crap out of M$'s team. Then Bush got elected, and they certainly weren't about to keep working with Boies. Instead, it was the new administration who decided to let M$ walk.
As for Bush v. Gore, I think even if God Himself had been Gore's lawyer, He wouldn't have had a chance against the Rehnquist Five.
But at any rate, I was rooting for him in both of those cases, and I'm very dismayed to see him join the wrong side now.
Why fair weather friends? (Score:2, Informative)
Have they dropped their Linux strategy, Linux blades, stoppped supporting the various Open Source projects, dropped their 100% Unix background and started selling NT boxes like Unix' other 'fair weather friends'? Thought not...
For those who are as confused as i was (Score:5, Insightful)
Thus sun is in the mess that they decided to investigate how and if they should dive into the linux pool, but the day that news breaks, the pilar of their company (Unix servers, OS, etc) and the company they licence rights to use this from gets into a fight with linux and their bigest threat in the large-server-space.
It's gotta be shitty to be Sun to be in that position, they can't really afford to alianate either camp (openoffice, gnome2 and mozilla are contributed to or owned by them and linux seems to be a way to go for the future) but their current income comes largely from selling & maintaining large servers and they can not afford to give out the slightest impression that that market could be in any trouble, because customers buy them for the 'five nines' dream (99.999% availability)
To deep in either way to get out.. they'll have to do a switcherland if you ask me
Re:For those who are as confused as i was (Score:3, Informative)
COFF and ELF were both invented by Unix System Laboratories (for SVR3 and SVR4 respectively) so I don't see why it matters whether they are related. SCO will own any IP relating to either of them.
Why all of the antagonism against SUN (Score:2, Interesting)
Sun has also done quite a bit more than OpenOffice.
Try : NIS,NIS+,RPC,NFS, & Java,just for starters.
I could see it if it were Microsoft, what has MickeySoft ever done for us steal the code and tell everyone it was crap until brought into NT.
As for keeping people on Solaris. I don't think that will be hard. Linux is awesome for the desktop but I won't put it on another server again until the kernel VM is fixed and the directory structure and boot procedure is made somewhat sane. There are too many versions of Linux out there each comes with 5-9 CDs and none of them are laid out on the disk in a nice easy sensible manner. Granted the code is good, the code is there but it is a product obviously developed with little communication between the other developers. A simple example on RedHat 8.0 here I have 627 directories under
Give me a Linux with a mature kernel ( pre-emptive, multi-threaded etc... )
up2date -u on a test box on an almost daily basis before moving it into production. Then SUN/Solaris will need to get worried.
bigger question begged (Score:2)
I would say that "our" friends and enemies will be made known by their reaction to the specious suit SCO has filed against IBM. Someone is making a list, right?
More Proof That Linux Has Arrived (Score:3, Insightful)
Well, I'm looking at this as a good thing.
If SCO actually had a leg to stand on, I'd feel differently. But since this is a cross-court buzzer throw at the basket, I'm not too worried.
Read the article!!! (Score:5, Insightful)
NO WHERE in the article did they say they were stopping Linux support.
The original poster of this article makes it sound like Sun's just going to drop everything now that the lawsuit is happening to other folks, and THAT IS NOT WHAT THE ARTICLE SAYS.
Rethink Sun (Score:2)
For the Machiavellians out there... (Score:3, Interesting)
I do think that IBM has changed their spots to a large extent, though, and I'd be surprised if this was the actual strategy.
thad
The Great Savior (Score:5, Interesting)
With the $1b it spent on Linux a few years ago, it got the view of the great savior of linux and the rebel with a cause.
Now look at this suite and what half the linux community is seeing, its now the great defender and the motherly figure.
Thought it couldnt top itself before. Got to love IBM.
Expect? (Score:2)
It's been reported time and time again that it is Unix venders that feel the effect of losing sales to Linux rather than Microsoft. Microsoft does lose some sales to Linux, but not as much as Sun, HP, or IBM.
Sun would like Linux to go away so they can retake the low end and mid level markets, where Linux dominates.
People are showing their cards (Score:5, Informative)
I don't think SCO has a chance:
1 - First, IBM has too many patents to counter-sue SCO.
2 - Second, I think most the stuff that IBM has been bringing to Linux, like their journaling file-system and LVM is very recent software, that was develloped by IBM staff and not derived from the ancient Sys-V.
3 - Even if we have to remove the parts developed by IBM from the current Linux kernels, we would still have sevaral alternative implementations.
4 - Evern if SCO has patents that cover some parts of the Linux kernel, they (SCO) have also been distributing Linux under the GPL. Consequently, they have offered permition for everybody use it.
5 - SCO can also be sued for using the Linux trademark: remember Linus owns the Linux trademark.
Finally, this shouldn't be a major concern to the open source community, becvause even if we couldn't use the Linux kernel, we could allways move to HURD or a BSD kernel.
For most aplications, users wouldn't see almost any change.
BSD has already had a batle in court and won.
In the end, we will be stronger than now.
SOS: Same old Sun (Score:5, Interesting)
"Sell Solaris Computers" "Let's sell Intel computers running Linux." "Wait, uh, let's sell both" "Buy StarOffice" "Open Source StarOffice" "Uhh Whoops. Let's close source StarOffice again" "Whoa! This nanotechnology freaks me out. Maybe we should stop innovating altogether" "Java this. Java that. Java is great!" "Let's sue Microsoft and force them to include the latest Java on their desktop" "Strange, we don't seem to be using Java very often, I wonder if Microsft was on to something" "Whoa. SCO's suing everyone. Maybe we shouldn't be involved in Linux, after all."
There is a lesson here (Score:4, Interesting)
Although I don't believe that this will really damage the Linux movement, it certainly warrants each of us, as Linux supporters, carefully analyzing what this is all about, and just what it is we are working for.
I've played around with computers long enough to have been a part of the garage days of the early 80's, where the introduction of the personal computer turned everything everyone thought about computers upside down. The heart of computers before that time, the stuff you would have seen written up in national newspapers and in Wired magazine, as we did ad nauseum during the heady and ridiculous 90's bubble, was room sized mainframes sold at truly absurd prices from IBM. It was universally agreed that only the most wealthy corporations and governments could afford to use computers, and the technology remained safely ensconsed in the top 1%. Then a couple of idiots built one out of wood in their garage. I'll spare the historical details from here becuase the point is that the PC revolution put complex information tools in the hands of everyday people. This is what it took for computers as we know them now to come into being. This turned IBM from a 20's style all encompassing megacorp to an important but surpassed purveyor of technology as they are today. This was a shocking, powerful, important change that we need to keep in mind in todays age of mistaking computer science for what takes place in posh Silicon Valley campuses among people wearing Armani suits. Computers went for nearly 20 years in an environment of very big money with very professional researchers, programmers, and engineers working on them without becoming a revolution. Certainly, almost all of the important technology that makes up computers today, TCP/IP, the GUI, C, etc., were developed in the top 1% environment that I described, but when the day is over and the history is being written, what you know is irrelevant. History is a record of our actions. And history does not care how long the Chinese used magnetic compasses to build according the the laws of feng shui. Compasses began to matter when people starting using them to navigate ships. Similarly, computers started to matter when you and I started using them.
This history continued through the implementation of the Internet among those personal computers, the open source movement, and now through what I believe will be the next step in this new information revolution, which is the development and use of advanced peer to peer networks which will make information sharing completely uncontrollable. None of thse things, especially the last two, were envisioned, pioneered, or wanted by people like Microsoft, IBM, or Sun. I know we see IBM and Sun as friends, but we need to remember that their support of Linux is part of their business plan, and they are doing it because it damages Microsoft and puts them in a position to compete with that company. As this event demonstrates, corporate friends are fair weather friends.
What does all of this mean to us? It means, in short, that we need to remember that the computer revolution is and has always been about US. They are the ones who are marginalized (by history, not by RMS style activism), so it is wrong for us to believe that anything we do depends on their recognition, esteem, or money for it to become important. Furthermore, as this affair demonstrates, we need to be continually suspicious of their involvement, because their goals are not our goals. They will shove Linux into the underground through patent law just as quickly as they will spend money working on big open source projects if they believe it will make them money.
The last renaissance did not require a business plan. There is no need to believe that this one will.
Oh, and support Gnunet and/or Freenet. You may be downloading your ISOs from them before long.
What about BSD (Seriously)? (Score:5, Interesting)
Just wondering.
Re:What about BSD (Seriously)? (Score:4, Interesting)
SoupIsGood Food
Re:What about BSD (Seriously)? (Score:4, Insightful)
If the lawsuit never came to be its possible that slashdot would of been hosted on FreeBSD rather then Linux. Also FreeBSD or Netbsd might of had more marketshare then Linux or linux might not of even existed at all.
I heard of FreeBSD and BSD/OS long before Linux. I remember reading about bsdi bsd/os advertised in a bulletin board magazine as the ultimate bbs os before the www became popular. I also remember browsing the web with Mosiac and Netscape 2.x in 95 and 96 and seeing the "served by FreeBSD" logo. The first 2 versions of FreeBSD actually had real unix code in it and was the old standard 4.4 bsd os. It was only years later that I heard of Linux.
Many people were skeptical of BSD-lite and assumed it was inferior because it had the word "lite" in it. Linux was also invented because the distribution of the net/2 berkeley tapes could no longer be distributed.
I hope Linux is not damaged to much like BSD was with this lawsuit.
Sun misses point, shoots self in foot (Score:3, Informative)
Sun needs to realise without the free unixes they currently would be in a very poor position right now. Windows would own the less than 8-way market. Sun would be religated to the high end with Windows slowly creeping up (and don't talk to me about MacOS. Without the free unixes Jobs would still be faffing around with the next generation MacOS until it also gets canned, just like the 4 before it).
Re:The SUN is setting... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:The SUN is setting... (Score:4, Insightful)
At this time, you are correct.
My suspicion however, is that we will eventually see all proprietary UNIX's fall to Linux, and while RedHat is the market leader today, there is still Slackware, and Debian is not going away any time soon.
I also suspect that the domination of the market by Linux will also benefit *BSD as well. One of the issues is that choice is needed as you point out, but while the proprietary OS's are still in control, the big companies are unwilling to contribute code to FreeBSD because they are essentially subsidizing the proprietary software fo their competitors. So in Today's market, the GPL makes the most sense for operating systems, but that could change, and BSD license could be important as well.
Remember that when Apache was first developed, the market was dominated by two public domain web servers (CERN and NCSA). The BSD-like license of Apache is not a problem because the market share of open source and public domain comptetitors more or less was locking out higher-priced proprietary competitors. Even today Microsoft's "free" IIS is unable to get more than about 20% market share.
So I don't think that choice will go away. It will just change.
And yes, I think that proprietary UNIX is dying with the exception of a few specialized markets.
Re:I've karma to burn... (Score:4, Insightful)
OK, but think about this: If a company started using GPL code in a closed-source way, the Slashbots would be up in arms [slashdot.org] about it. Why then, are we so outraged at the mere idea that SCO might also seek to protect its licenced code?
Re:I've karma to burn... (Score:5, Interesting)
Goodbye SCO, I won't miss you...
Re:I've karma to burn... (Score:3, Informative)
Let's face it, IBM is a Business Machine company. They'll always be making metal plates to rivet onto whatever kind of business machines they're currently selling. Years ago it was wall clocks and timeclocks for factories, copy machines, etc. They've had a strong market share in computers for almost as long as computers have existed. But they're a business machine company that happens to make computers, not a computer company. So they hire out and borrow what they have to.
Re:I've karma to burn... (Score:2)
Point A: I also quote AIX. Point B: As shown by Berkely/Apple/MS/Palm etc, making an OS is fundamentally not that hard, just throw coders/money at it untill done. Are we now suggesting IBM has a shortage of either?
Re:I've karma to burn... (Score:2, Informative)
Re:I've karma to burn... (Score:3, Informative)
Oh, please... this is complete crap. IBM is profitable, they're smart, they've survived by knowing how to both leverage old technology in new ways (VMS, still making them hundreds of millions a year through various different business models), and pursuing "new" technologies in their own, conservative, focused, profitable kind of way (AIX, OS/2). Are they the most leading-edge? No. Are they the coolest? No. Are they a good example of how to keep your head down and make a profit in the software industry? Well, most of the time (yeah, they screw up like everybody else, but they recover more quickly than most too).
Don't get me wrong, I'm no IBM lover. I don't use any of their stuff at home, but when I've had large IT budgets to spend in big companies, they have often provided me the best price/performance I could find, and I went with them. And, my users have always been happy with the outcomes. I have always been impressed with their ability to roll with the changing industry and figure out a way to deliver value to people with checkbooks.
Oh, yeah -- just because *you* aren't in their target market doesn't make them wrong. They understand their target markets very well, and don't give a damn if you get it or not.
Why SCO is out of line (Score:3, Interesting)
If the SCO execs were Slashmonkeys, they would claim that Windows 2000 must have stolen pieces of Linux in it because it's so stable. The difference is that the Linux code is out in the open for SCO to inspect; indeed, they were a Linux distributor. They've had every opportunity of finding the specific parts of the Linux kernel that violate their IP, and yet they've failed to do so.
It's as if your neighbor, Bob, brought the police to your place and claimed it was full of his stolen property. When the police ask Bob what things are his, he says, "When sql*kitten first moved in, this place was bare. But now it's all gussied up with furniture, plants and art - he must have stolen it from me!"
What goes around, comes around (Score:2)
Caldera bought SCO, renamed to SCO then sued IBM. If you think back a few years, you'll remember Caldera buying the rights to DR-DOS and suing Microsoft - but that time everybody cheered.
I guess you can say what goes around, comes around.
Re:I've karma to burn... (Score:2)
Very possibly......
Remember that Xenix was originally a Microsoft product, and I would be surprised if the original Xenix engineers didn't go and work on Windows development (maybe at least on the Posix subsistem).
Re:I've karma to burn... (Score:3, Informative)
I don't think it's likely that IBM employees have misused IP licensed for AIX in Linux, but this sort of thing is always a possibility when two similar products with incompatible licences are being concurrently developed within one firm.
NT has never included any code licensed from Bell Labs/USL/Novell/SCO. Moreover, Microsoft Xenix was sold to SCO in 1985, three years before NT was started, so there was never any concurrent development. Finally, the original NT team comprised developers brought to MS from DEC, including the architect of the VAX/VMS OS, who may have had knowledge of DEC trade secrets relating to VMS (there's a rumour there was a lawsuit to this effect), but were never involved in UNIX development.
Re:I've karma to burn... (Score:2)
"Well i have karma to burn, so let me tell you, your an absolute mother fucker!"
My goodness that would make life really weird.. "Cheat my tax forms.. hmm.. *checking his real-life-karma-rating*
Or how about, you meet someone interesting and you think "Do i use my 'Karma bonus' this meeting or do i want to 'Meet Anonymously' ?"
Re:Mr. T gonna kick their butts! (Score:2, Funny)
"Hey sucka, I pity the fool that mess with IBM."
Re:GNU HURD (Score:3, Informative)
No, "set" is singular:
"set is stable."
your suggestion:
set are stable.
Re:GNU HURD (Score:2)
Re:Funny, lawsuits used to be good... (Score:2)
Re:Sun is stupid (Score:2)
And they are not being sued for patent issues!
They are being sold for violating an NDA (it's specious, believe me) something entirely different.
Re:It doesn't beg the questions (Score:2)
Re:It doesn't beg the questions (Score:2)
This is completely different from begging the question [wsu.edu], which means that in trying to prove something, you assume it's already true.
Both of these are completely different from what the summary author meant, which is "leads to the question."
Re:SunLinux protected (Score:2, Informative)
See section 7 of the GPL. If you cannot simultaneously satisfy the GLP and the patent license, then you have no right to distribute the program at all.
It is not called free software for nothing.