SCO's Plan Examined 580
kevin@ank.com writes "In the best expose I've read since the original Halloween documents, Groklaw has links and analysis of Renaissance Ventures' rationale for investing in The SCO Group. Among other misrepresentations, SCO convinced Ren that SCO owned the root of the entire UNIX tree, and that Linux was just one branch of that tree. Linux gets a SCO tax... forever; or worst case, if Linux gets killed in the process, then so be it. Renaissance also estimated that IBM would have settled with SCO last April under the strength of SCO's claims, and the threat of terminating their UNIX license. Oops."
Wonder if they used this? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Wonder if they used this? (Score:3, Interesting)
Unix vs. the Bible (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Unix vs. the Bible (Score:5, Funny)
Password:
# cat
# rdev noah+beasts
# dd if=noah+beasts of=/dev/earth
Re:Wonder if they used this? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Wonder if they used this? (Score:3, Funny)
Heh -- it might not go back that far now, but they've managed to revise their history before. What's gonna stop them now?
Re:Wonder if they used this? (Score:5, Funny)
Aparently you don't know your Bible very well.
Daniel 1:3
"Then the king instructed Ashpenaz, the master of his eunuchs..."
As you can see, Ashpenaz is the first SysAdmin listed in the Bible, somewhere between 600 BC and 580 BC.
Re:Wonder if they used this? (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Wonder if they used this? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Wonder if they used this? (Score:3, Informative)
http://www.levenez.com/unix/
I know I'll be comparing the two for modifications.
Re:Wonder if they used this? (Score:3, Informative)
Although this difference initally appears to be a simple mis-reading of the arrows, it could be significant, since Xenix was bought by SCO [wikipedia.org].
There aren't any modificatio
Re:Wonder if they used this? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Wonder if they used this? (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Wonder if they used this? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Wonder if they used this? (Score:2)
Re:Wonder if they used this? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Wonder if they used this? (Score:5, Insightful)
A good many ditros do not, and never have even included those extensions.
Everything else is SCO claiming they claim, without actually claiming it, and then relying on public perception to equate the actual claim with the claimed claims.
And, of course, the second SCO bother to actually identify any code that actually infringes it will be written out of Linux in a matter of a few days and Linux will be "safe" again.
That's why SCO will actually, in the long run, refuse to defend their claims in court where such code will have to be made public knowledge.
Therefore Linux is not only safe, it's safe.
KFG
Re:Wonder if they used this? (Score:5, Funny)
So what you're claiming is they are making claims without actually claiming any of the claims they're claiming to claim?
Therefore Linux is not only safe, it's safe.
But is it safe?
Re:Wonder if they used this? (Score:5, Funny)
I have made that claim, yes. Or so I claim.
"But is it safe?"
Not only is it safe and safe, it's also well known for being safe ( although BSD may be safer, safer and safer, or so some claim. Some of them even claim to claim this, although I wouldn't necessarily accept may claim to this claim without claiming your research on said claims).
I stake my claim on it.
See what SCO has led me to become? Prove positive that they're evil.
KFG
Re:Wonder if they used this? (Score:5, Insightful)
GWB claims the Brits claim they have evidence of Iraq asking Niger for Uranium.
When the crap hits the fan, and the whole thing is exposed as a sham and an obvious one at that, Don Rumsfeld say, and I quote. "Technically this is correct."
The inferrence was that we KNEW Iraq had WMD, when we were not sure at all. The claim about the claims were much stronger than the claims themselves.
So, SCO is simply playing follow the leader. This, IMHO is completely dispicable, and deserves more than a simple mocking. Frankly, I think people ought to go to jail for these kinds of deceptions, esp when the public relies on them for investing, or for going to war.
If one has a case, simply be upfront and lay it out on the table. If you do have a case, then it's merit will be quickly apparent. If you don't, you can't afford to do this. You have to claim "we have to keep it secret" so that everyone will have no real basis for making an informed decision.
Secrecy, PR BS and "cloak and dagger" insinuations is at the heart of all lies and deceptions.
The moral is...When you hear someone say - "Well, we *know* it's true, but for reason X we can't tell you/show our proof, just trust us. Then run like hell. You've just been lied to in the most blatant way.
Cheers,
Greg
Re:Wonder if they used this? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Wonder if they used this? (Score:3, Interesting)
Original UNIX history chart created by Eric Levenez. Copyright (C) 1996-2003, Eric Levenez. January 2, 2003. Used with permission.
I've seen this tree before, printed it out and put it on my office walls (yeah, its that big
Re:Wonder if they used this? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Wonder if they used this? (Score:3, Informative)
Yeah, he has it online here: http://www.levenez.com/unix/. Though obviously without the prominence of SCO and without the inference that SCO owns anything and everything Unix related.
It does show Linux being forked from Minix, which isn't true. Linus developed the early versions in a clean-room fashion.
Re:Wonder if they used this? (Score:5, Insightful)
Besides Linux, they even got Minix and Xinu in there, which were both written from scratch, and are published in their entirety in books. Hmm...
I get it now! They took a chart that had lots of Unix -like operating systems on it (i.e. Xinu, Linux, etc.) and when they came out, and they added some dashed lines to hook them all up! In particular the dashed green line from V7 Unix to Sinix to Unicos and Xinu (which they didn't quite actualy connect) and then down and over to the start of Linux.
Didn't they realize that adding lines to a chart doesn't make it true?!?
Re:Wonder if they used this? (Score:3, Funny)
See... the lines. Look... the lines.
Don't you see?
Re:Wonder if they used this? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Wonder if they used this? (Score:5, Informative)
Wrong page to start on. (Score:4, Informative)
I pray SCO marches this document into court. It does not mean what they think it means.
Care to compare to the original? (Score:5, Informative)
As others have noted, this tree really means nothing in terms of actual code.
For instance, Linux appears to be an offspring of Minix, which in turn is an offshoot of the original Unix.
Now, anyone who's read the preface to Andy Tanenbaum's book (where the entire Minix code is listed) knows that Minix is a clean re-implementation of unix, and contains no UNIX code whatsoever.
Linus, in turn, used some Minix code to get started with Linux, but this was quickly replaced. Linux hasn't contained any Minix code for years.
So this chart, although correct with respect to 'influence' or 'inspiration'
has nothing to do with actual code. Naturally, it doesn't provide any real support to SCO's claims.
That would be something like Digital Research suddenly claiming ownership of Windows, since it's based on DOS, which in turn was based on QDOS, which was a CP/M clone.
Re:Care to compare to the original? (Score:5, Informative)
Linus used Minix as a development platform but Linux has never contained any Minix code, ever. Minix code was encumbered by a "look but don't touch" license. Well, sort of. You could touch but you couldn't redistribute the modified version. This draconian license was the reason for the Minix/386 patchset that was very popular before Linux took over. Andy refused to integrate the 386 patches into Minix because it would ruin Minix as a teaching aide, but the 386 patches fixed many of the limitations in Minix (eg, maximum 64kB executables) so nearly everybody applied them. Linux could not have used any Minix code as even the earliest version of Linux was GPLd and this was incompatible with the Minix license.
"Linux is derived from Minix" and "Linux once contained Minix code" are myths. I've seen both myths repeated fairly often but I think this is just confusion because Linus cross-compiled his kernel and gnuserspace from a Minix platform. The easiest way to disprove the myth is to ask Linus himself.
By "bootstrap" he means create the Minix filesystem and copy across the Linux kernel and gnuserspace. Linux used the Minix filesystem before EXTFS was written but it was a clean-room implementation. No Minix code was used in the Linux implementation of minixfs.
FYI, I've read the entire Minix source tree (I own one of the earlier editions of the book), I've been using Linux since 1992, I've read one of the earliest Linux source trees, and I've never seen any matching code.
Re:Wonder if they used this? (Score:3, Interesting)
Unfortunately for SCO, that's not correct. Linus used Minix as his operating system during some of the early work on Linux and he even used some of their file structures, but none of the Minix codebase was incorporated into Linux.
The UNIX History [levenez.com] graph that's based on does not show a strict flow of property nor even a comprehensive flow of ideas. It merely shows the general direc
The Chewbacca Defense (Score:3, Funny)
"Ladies and Gentlemen of this supposed jury, SCO's accusers would certainly want you to believe my client doesn't own the rights to Unix, and they make a good case. Hell, I almost felt pity myself. But Ladies and Gentlemen of this supposed jury, I have one final thing I want you to consider.
Ladies and Gentlemen, this is Chewbacca. Chewbacca is a Wookiee from the planet Kashyyyk who carried a gun and ran from the mob. But Chewbacca lives on the planet Endor. Now think about it. That does
The view from a large enterprise (Score:5, Interesting)
Which is nice.
Not much of a civil shield (Score:3, Interesting)
It would demonstrate that you knew you were vulnerable and you engaged in a conspiracy to mask your vulnerability.
IANAL, but I don't think you can shirk that easily. Perhaps if the shadow company had other customers unrelated to yours *and* there were no o
Re:The view from a large enterprise (Score:5, Informative)
Ren? (Score:5, Funny)
Ren was always easy, it was Stimpy that was always a stickler for details.
Sorry.
Re:Ren? (Score:5, Funny)
And SCO said to Ren:
- All the base are belong to us
--
Sco Sucks [scosucks.com]
Reminds me of the Cartoon... (Score:5, Funny)
One scientist says to the other, "that middle step seems a little fuzzy."
(Okay, that was paraphrased from memory, but the sentiment fits).
Re:Reminds me of the Cartoon... (Score:4, Informative)
http://freeserve.i-resign.com/images/mhproof.gi
Re:Reminds me of the Cartoon... (Score:3, Informative)
Although the link appears dead already... (Score:3, Insightful)
Article's Text (Score:5, Informative)
The first document is an explanation of Renaissance's reasons for thinking SCO was a good investment. I know you've been wondering what in the world those folks in the stock market have been thinking. The second is an analysis of the SCO v. IBM lawsuit. They are both so blazingly wrong in both facts and conclusions that I fully grasp for the first time how some people may have invested in SCO, based on such misinformation.
First, the investment document. It is based on SCO's telephone conference call in February of 2003. You can listen to it yourself on mp3 here. Renaissance thought it sounded like SCO's bottom line was about to get "prettier" because they believed what SCO reportedly told them in that phone call, namely that most companies were reacting to the new SCOsource licensing program in a positive way.
Renaissance also bought the story -- hook, line and sinker -- that SCO owned the UNIX tree trunk, so to speak, and that all other versions of Unix were branches, or derivatives, off of their tree, including, so they imagined, Linux. (I'm using their language, by the way. They actually mean GNU/Linux, the kernel plus the applications, not Linux the kernel.) They planned on hijacking the GNU/Linux applications and if that meant the death of Linux, so what?
That's their business proposition? And GNU/Linux gets what out of this, other than ripped off and ruined?
Their original strategy was based on the fantasy that the world was clamoring for the ability to stay with UNIX and yet run GNU/Linux applications, and there they'd be, like a troll hiding under the bridge, ready to exact a toll on all those wanting to cross.
SCO, in their daydream, thought they could be the gatekeeper making it possible for companies already on UNIX to sort of transition to Linux, which they knew everyone wanted to do, without leaving their UNIX environment behind. Next step? Backcharge for UNIX shared libraries they believed had been used inappropriately and start scooping the money up in royalties for UNIX code.
Why they imagined companies would rather follow that convoluted, expensive route instead of just running Linux itself is one of those mysteries the tech community can never solve, because it's not based on technical realities but on financial yearning. The tech makes no sense at all. But the ka-ching started ringing in Renaissance's ears, and you know how compelling that can be, like when your telephone starts ringing and you think you have to answer it. But the whole structure is based on a lack of technical knowledge and not enough true facts and a grievous miscalculation about the market. If ever there was a situation illustrating the importance of CEOs and financial analysts comprehending tech, this story is it. Money got invested in a dream that isn't coming true.
Let me let you read it for yourselves, because it's beyond my descriptive abilities to capture all the repulsive nuances, not that this is a subtle document. They begin by describing the conference call and then explain the math potential as they see it:
"We believe management's forecasted $10 million of SCOsource revenue in 2Q represents near-term settlement of possible license violations in arrears (related to heretofore unlicensed use of the SCOsource shared libraries) from one or more large vendors of Linux solutions, but we are unable to glean more specifics at this time. . . . SCO management also stated . . . that the vast majority of interactions with customers and other software vendors with respect to the SCOsource initiative were positive. Our view is that lumpy, and possibly large, bookings of SCOsource license fees will continue for several quarter
Re:Article's Text (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Article's Text (Score:5, Informative)
Even worse... (Score:3, Funny)
If their logic were correct, then by the same logic, Unix is a derivative of Multics, which in turn is a derivative of GCOS. Thus, by SCO's logic, General Electric owned the whole trunk, but sold it to Honeywell, who sold it to Bull of France.....
Maybe it is time to tr
Re:Article's Text (Score:3, Informative)
Indeed, the entire point of that post was to provide the article's text for those who didn't get to read it before it was slash dotted.
So why would I add my own commentary in there?
The article was reproduced in
that is the original article... (Score:3, Informative)
google cache [google.com.au]
Gambling. (Score:2, Interesting)
SCO conspiracy theory (Score:5, Funny)
I want to believe.
Re:SCO conspiracy theory (Score:2)
So perhaps... (Score:5, Interesting)
But then... (Score:3, Interesting)
Where does accountability for gross incompetence come into the equation though? Since IANAL, I can't begin to address this in a legal sense, but if I tell you "kicking your little brother's head in will make him smarter and transform him into Megatron" (which has a lot more backing it than SCO's claims, from what I hear), then you do it and he dies, obviously I'm a bad person for f
conspiracy theory (Score:2, Insightful)
Well thats my bit.
ta ta.
perlpimp
There's also Didiogate (Score:5, Informative)
It's also been discovered that our favourite clueless "analyst", Didio, has known McBride and Stowell for some fifteen years. Yeah, not like that could affect her "analysis" or anything.
''Pass the hookah please!''
Re:There's also Didiogate (Score:3, Informative)
Man, are you reaching.
Laura DiDio knows Sontag and McBride, not Stowell and McBride, and she's known them for 15 years since they all worked for Novell.
While her prior relationships with Sontag and McBride don't exactly encourage her to view them suspiciously, her reputation as an analyst is at stake if she doesn't hold Sontag and McBride to the same standards (higher, perhaps) as others whom she reports on and offers opinions about.
In other words, just because she knows them from having worked at Novell
Linq. (Score:4, Informative)
Crap, forgot to paste in the link [linuxworld.com].
Sue-happy U.S.? (Score:5, Insightful)
Send These bastards To Jail (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Send These bastards To Jail (Score:2, Informative)
their = Their days were numbered.
they're = They are a bunch of uneducated morons.
Suckers (Score:5, Insightful)
And according to recent SEC filings, wasn't it revealed that the only SCOsource licensing revenue they got last quarter was from Sun & Microsoft? Hardly a raving endorsement from the marketplace...
Worse than suckers. (Score:5, Insightful)
They didn't bother to check any of the information presented.
They did do any research into the market or Linux or SCO. None. Nada. Zero. Zilch. They took SCO's press releases as gospel.
They're idiots and anyone who invests based upon their advice is also an idiot.
Suckers? Really? (Score:3, Insightful)
Due diligence? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Due diligence? (Score:4, Funny)
Due Dilligence anyone? (Score:3, Insightful)
VC is always a bit of a gamble, since 2001, a very large gamble. However, it smells like they didn't examine SCO's claims very well. They were undoubtedly hoping for an exit via a trade sale to IBM but, it appears they have underestimated the reaction that "All your Unixes belong to us" has brought. They probably weren't even aware of the BSD settlement (maybe not Darl either).
just like the old days (Score:5, Funny)
It's just like the old days that I missed except now it involves linux and it's therefore even more exciting.
Maybe we should go back to the tactics of the old unix wars: We should catapult a plague-ridden cow into SCO's castle. Hmm. I think that's how it went.
graspe
Oh damn... (Score:2)
Speaking of... (Score:3, Funny)
JGG
Re:Speaking of... (Score:4, Funny)
When Ren Ventures has to say... (Score:3, Informative)
From their "about us" page: [renventures.com] (emphasis mine)
We believe the best investment opportunities for realizing outsized returns migrate from sector to sector over time: from buyout, to venture, to public markets, to conglomerates or pure plays within certain industry sectors, in public or private markets - in our view, in no particular order but contrary to the most recent, firmly established trend. We believe investors have a choice: either following the trend in hopes of jumping off early and profitably, or investing contrary to trend in search of outsized returns.
Renaissance subscribes to contrarian theory and believes the best opportunities now exist in microcap public companies that are orphaned from Wall Street with no institutional sponsorship. We will invest in mis-priced public securities and take an activist role in enhancing returns or sponsor management buyouts of undervalued public companies with high intrinsic value. Few investment groups are now equipped to source investment opportunities with enterprise values below $50 million, either due to their larger capital base or otherwise, which presents an opportunity for us. Aberrational pricing in the public markets often correlates with a despondent, disheartened and perhaps uninformed shareholder base, which helps reduce premiums paid while acquiring securities or entire companies.
If they were contrarian, I would think that they would be selling and go against the people who have bought the price up. But, they said they were looking for a whacked-out company, and they found one. Who knows.. they might buy out management and install some honest people.
But, they said it best.. SCO is at an aberrational price [google.com], but its abnormally high, not low. Hopefully they got in in January and aren't in it for the long term.
Complain about SCO to FTC and BBB (Score:4, Informative)
The BBB complaints become a permanent part of a corporation's record. Enough complaints can make a difference.
www.bbb.org
www.ftc.gov
(Simply click on "File a complaint" in both cases)
I have filed with both. I believe that SCO's conduct is essentially the same as trying to sell licenses to the Brooklyn Bridge and then threatening those that don't buy a license with lawsuits.
Make a real difference by allowing your voice to be heard. File a complaint.
--
Slash
Re:Complain about SCO to FTC and BBB (Score:3, Interesting)
http://www.saltlakecity.bbb.org/commonre p ort.html? compid=2007676&national=Y
BBB Membership
This company has been a member of this Better Business Bureau since April 2003. This means it supports the Bureau's services to the public and meets our membership standards.
Program Participation
This company participates in BBBOnLine, and the Membership Identification Program. This means the company has agreed to use special procedures including mediation and arbitration if necessary
Re:Complain about SCO to FTC and BBB (Score:5, Informative)
mirrored at live journal (Score:5, Informative)
All a lie? (Score:4, Interesting)
From a certain point of view... (Score:5, Informative)
SCO's position on this is... well, it seems to go something like this:
The original UNIX licenses most companies signed with AT&T stated that modifications to the UNIX codebase would be treated as derivatives of UNIX, and is owned by the UNIX copyright holder (now SCO).
Therefore, anything any UNIX licensee installs in their UNIX instantly becomes a derivative of UNIX, and owned by SCO.
Therefore, any code contributed by any UNIX licensee from their UNIX codebase to Linux is therefore SCO's property.
Therefore, by including this code in Linux, Linux becomes a derivative of UNIX, and becomes owned by SCO.
Now, this is really... creative reasoning at just about every step of the way. But it does seem to explain SCO's statements about millions of lines of code that they own in Linux. Basically, they are claiming that any code that comes from a UNIX licensee is their intellectual property, because it is a derivative of the AT&T-licensed UNIX code.
Or at least, I think that's the story this week.
The original papers (Score:3, Informative)
That IBM would have settled? (Score:4, Funny)
Re:SCO's plan (Score:5, Insightful)
4.Dump the stocks and escape from the sinking ship.
SCO is trying evry trick to make some money.
Tha's all this lawsuit is about.Cashing in on other people's hardwork
I do hope SCO's claims get trashed.
Any sensible person with a moderately fair background in Unix/Linux can see through SCO's claims
Re:SCO's plan (Score:4, Informative)
The 9th "Circus" in San Francisco, with it's stupid pledge ruling, and initial ruling that they had the power to STOP AN ELECTION FROM TAKING PLACE, before reversing themselves
Judge Lewis Kaplan of Time Warner (he worked for a firm that represented them prior to being placed on the bench by Clinton), responsible for the deCSS decision, and added the ability to BAN HYPERLINKS to the DMCA...
Judge Lee West, who seems to think that telemarketers have the right of free speech on the property of others, against their explicit will...
I'd not be CERTAIN about anything our fucked up legal system does, until it's DONE...
What is more certain than anything is that SCO will likely run out of money before the IBM suit goes to trial, if enough counter suits are filed against them.
Re:SCO's plan (Score:5, Insightful)
Now as far as the pledge of allegiance is concerned, hell yeah it should be changed. What part of separation of church and state do you not understand? Kids are required to be at school, and required in many schools to say the pledge. If they say the pledge they are acknolodging a god, and dont forget, freedom of religion includes freedom from religion. The pledge as originally written did not even include the words "under god" in it, and the family of the original writer protested its addition during the cold war.
Re:SCO's plan (Score:3, Insightful)
You can't. It isn't there. It was "added" by a federal judge.
If we are going to hold regulatory agencies back from exceeding their charter, fine. But let's put the same restraint on the courts. If you REALLY want seperation of church and state, there is a way to add it to the "charter"
Constitutional Amendment.
Re:SCO's plan (Score:5, Insightful)
You're completely backwards there. The Pledge of Allegance, teacher-led in a classroom, cannot be considered a "free" act -- it is coerced. Even though technically a student may opt out of it, peer pressure makes this impossible most of the time. As such, the 9th circut's ruling was a blow for the free exercise of relilgion.
You have to remember that the term "religion" means more than just judeo/christian/muslim beliefs. It also encompasses beleif systems in which God is thought not to exist, or at least is not to be worshipped.
Re:SCO's plan (Score:5, Insightful)
Notice that IBM doesn't feel compelled to publicize every exchange between SCO and Groklaw as if it's the discovery of life on Mars....
Well, DUH! (Score:3, Insightful)
Notice that IBM doesn't feel compelled to publicize every exchange between SCO and Groklaw as if it's the discovery of life on Mars....
Last time I looked, Slashdot was a NEWS site, THE premier site for news about Linux and open source software, and the SCO suit is the biggest threat to Linux and open source software in its history.
Given that de
Re:SCO's plan (Score:3, Funny)
[snip]
You must be new here.
No, I'm New Here (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Gawd. (Score:2)
Re:Gawd. (Score:2)
I'm talking about people that pay per Mb for the bandwidth used.
Re:Gawd. (Score:3, Insightful)
It's easy to work something out once you know about it.
But if you never knew it was coming? Imagine you ran a hobby site on a 2Gb per month, $10 per extra 50Mb deal. You might only find out 6 hours later, by which time you'd been hit with a bill of $500 or something. Nice, eh?
Not to mention it's absolutely useless if no-one at all can get to the story.
Re:Everybody knows SCO's bussiness plan (Score:5, Funny)
No, not all of humanity just corporate executives... but they're species has always been questionable anyway.
Re:Our company is switching again. (Score:2)
Someone earlier in this story's comments mentioned that their company simply spun off all their IT to a new company they formed, that way they would be held harmless from any suits, while still retaining all their data.
Not a bad idea, if you ask me, especially if you're so paranoid about SCO's bullshit.
Re:Our company is switching again. (Score:4, Informative)
I'll bet these posts are planted by people hoping to make a buck out of SCOX stock or something.
There's a no way a serious company would spend an incredible amount of time and money migrating away from Linux based on SCO's threats.
Hmm... (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Our company is switching again. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Our company is switching again. (Score:3, Interesting)
You, sir, are completely deluded to the merit of SCO's claims. They have none. IBM, Groklaw, FSF, Torvalds, HP and countless editorials concur.
SCO's ideals don't feed your employees. Money does, and the Linux OS is still free
Re:New light to shed on Bill Gates, Microsoft and (Score:4, Funny)
What a co-incidence! I am the CEO of a ginormous fortune 1 company that is doing exactly that! Joe, is that you? Don't even think of showing up to work on monday!
Re:New light to shed on Bill Gates, Microsoft and (Score:3, Insightful)
Nice troll, or plant. I really like the parts where you say they are wrong, but what can you do, it's a sound business decison.
Are you the same guy that posted the Our company is switching again post?
Re:New light to shed on Bill Gates, Microsoft and (Score:5, Interesting)
-- It will expose them for what they are and it's going to end in a PR disaster.
-- They won't be able to use apache or sendmail and such in SCO's Unix which would make it worthless. So it would imply an MS only environment. If anything, it would be the ultimate argument to go fully non MS instead.
So I'd say, good, let 'em bring it on.