New Caldera Promised 291
An anonymous reader writes "SCO has announced their plans to release a new version of Caldera Linux by the end of the year. From the announcement: 'To provide extensive reliability and performance features, the Linux Kernel 2.5 codebase has been merged with recently developed additions to SCO's world leading UNIX core operating system. Already contained code owned by SCO is still included benefiting the stability and overall experience opposed to recent Linux kernel releases.' The question is, is anyone listening?"
Really? (Score:5, Insightful)
OTOH, why would SCO even do this? Any belief that it will give them some cash flow or some other position that benefits them is irrational.
This must be the hallucination that precedes death.
- G
Re:Really? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Really? (Score:3, Insightful)
It's clear this is a massive troll. In addition to 2.5 being unstable due to its version number (odd point releases being unstable) it isn't even the latest version.
Re:Really? (Score:5, Insightful)
When their IBM lawsuit is finally over, they will be bust bust bust. Move along there, no money left to grab. Anyone who sues them now will be left sitting on their own lawyers' bills.
Practical Joke (Score:5, Informative)
So, basically, Scuttlemonkey fucked up.
Re:Really? (Score:3, Interesting)
They could also, in theory, strip out disputed code.. but I doubt they will.
And the suicide option to close the code also exist i guess. The last option might not be that far fetched, since their entire buisiness has been located in the courtroom these last couple of years.
I really like their disclaimer where they, if they so choose, say it'
Re:Really? (Score:2)
Re:Really? (Score:5, Funny)
I particularly like this following bit:
"SCO is eager to be the only future provider of Linux Systems for the enterprise market."
I'll just bet they are.
I really like their disclaimer where they, if they so choose, say it's all the communitys fault if they fail with their "new" endeavour.
Ah, well, but then that's a responsibilty I'm willing to shoulder:
"It's all your fault."
"Why, thank you."
KFG
SCO isn't really an option anymore. (Score:2)
Re:Really? (Score:2)
A better question is what about this? [nyud.net] It's going to need to be updated
Re:Really? (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Really? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Really? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Really? (Score:5, Informative)
SCO has nothing to lose.
It has already lost its reputation - and most of its cash reserves - and any chance of getting its user base back.
But aside from that, it is likely that this was a bogus press release - http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20060617
Re:Really? (Score:4, Interesting)
Yeah, it's a joke - pretty funny too when you start looking closely. Apart from the 2.5 kernel hint, here's a few gems.
What you say!! Somebody set us up the bomb!! The "only" provider? Yup, a realistic goal there, if you're a megalomaniac... Outbeating is good. Not grammatically of course, but still good.And of course the kicker is the uptime claim - Yankee Group actually claimed that it was Microsoft's Windows 2003 Server that had the 20% better uptime. Funny when you know many people think MS are behind SCO's litigation.
Laugh, people. It's a pisstake, and a pretty good one.
Re:Really? (Score:3, Informative)
Oh, they don't plan to release the code at all. This is a setup on their part; they want to get sued for violating the GPL. They will then attempt to argue in court that the GPL is "unenforceable" and therefore invalid. If they win in court (a very big [i]if[/i], given that this has been tried before but it's always failed), then they'll claim ownership over all of the L
Re:Really? (Score:3, Insightful)
Got any links for that?
then they'll claim ownership over all of the Linux codebase and that will be that.
Claim ownership on what grounds? If the GPL is invalid, then the original copyright holders still retain copyright - there's nothing in the GPL giving up their claim to ownership, and even if there was, the GPL was just (hypothetically) ruled invalid, remember?
If the GPL were ever ruled invalid, no-on
already taken care of! :) (Score:5, Informative)
They already are; it's one of IBM's counterclaims in SCO v IBM.
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20040331
The sixth counterclaim, to be precise. (Just search for "SIXTH".)
But of course, in a case like this (as opposed to the IBM case), you don't normally sue for "GPL violations"; you sue for simple copyright violation, and leave it up to the defense to raise the issue of the GPL if they think it will help (which it won't if they haven't followed its terms). Note that IBM also includes copyright violations for their code in Linux in their eighth counterclaim (which is going to be the basis of a motion for summary judgement as soon as expert testimony is complete).
If they want to get the GPL ruled unenforceable, they're going to need to find a better trick than distibuting someone else's code without that someone else's permission. 'Cause that's illegal whether or not the GPL is involved.
Re:Really? (Score:2)
In the case that the GPL was invalid, nobody other than the original copyright holder has any rights to distribute. Even in the dreamworld where SCO was claiming large parts of Linux was actually misattributed and the copyright was actually held by them, it was by no means all of it, and over those parts they have no rights over.
In short, I think it
Re:Really? (Score:3, Interesting)
Perhaps because more lawsuits allows Daryl to shovel more legals fees over to his brother. Like a money-laundering scheme.
No (Score:2)
Linux Kernel 2.5 codebase (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Linux Kernel 2.5 codebase (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Linux Kernel 2.5 codebase (Score:2)
*Ducks*
Re:Linux Kernel 2.5 codebase (Score:2)
Re:Linux Kernel 2.5 codebase (Score:3, Insightful)
In Croatian, 'stolica' (pronounced something like /stolitzah/) can mean both a chair and feces.
Something like 'stool' in English, if I'm not mistaken.
So you could be right.
Re:Linux Kernel 2.5 codebase (Score:3, Informative)
It's the only one that they had time to make sure that all their code was removed so that they wouldn't invalidate their desire to be distributing "their" code under the GPL.
That and it's a conversation piece (as you just made it). Who the fuck would care if they said, "we're going to release Caldera on 2.6?" Not many more people than would give a shit if they released it on 2.7 but at least it got our attention
Re:Linux Kernel 2.5 codebase (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Linux Kernel 2.5 codebase (Score:3, Insightful)
Either way, I'm not buying it – any way you interpret the phrase – I'd rather j
That's because this IS A FAKE (Score:5, Informative)
- Remove the &id=24097 from the Querystring. The page still loads this press release. Releasedetail.cfm is nothing but a static page
- Now mess w/ the URL to generate a 404. You'll get this error:
> 404
> [...]
> because Bill Gates is a Jehovah's witness and so nothing can work on St. Swithin's day.
Not to mention the whole front page is reduced to linking to this single press release? The site has no navigation.
Re:That's because this IS A FAKE (Score:5, Interesting)
I tried this and got various different messages on each reload. It looks like the server is just calling fortune with the BOFH excuses file. Still unlikely to be a real press release though.
That's nice but... (Score:3, Interesting)
the site IS on one of their servers. Not to mention that the site's main page happens
to be referring to the same thing, coming Early Q1 of 2006.
Just like SCO... Promise everything, have nothing in hand.
Hosted at a university in Neurnberg? (Score:3, Informative)
-h-
Re:Linux Kernel 2.5 codebase (Score:2)
Re:Linux Kernel 2.5 codebase (Score:2)
Nowdays (starting with 2.6), all the action happens in the mainstream kernel. Generally, distributions are a few kernel releases behind anyway, so it doesn't affect people who use the kernel that their distro provides.
Question (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Question (Score:5, Funny)
A caldera is formed when a company ejects a large volume of magma, fire and crap, creating a huge void within itself. Consequently, it collapses under its own weight.
Oh, did I say company? I meant volcano.
Starting to understand that book title now (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Starting to understand that book title now (Score:2, Funny)
SCOs Reasoning... (Score:5, Interesting)
Obviously as others have already stated, if they are using linux 2.5 codebase, don't they have to GPL everything they added? If not, can't Linus et al sue the pants off of them?
Talk about backfiring, here's a scenario for you.. MS gives SCO a chunk of cash to go fight linux, SCO illegally uses Linux code, Linus Torvalds sues them and gets all of MSs money to further linux development...
That's quite silly (Score:5, Insightful)
In other words if SCO had valid claims to copyright over part of the Linux kernel, and denied anyone the right to distribute that part of the Linux kernel except under propreitary terms, it would be illegal for ANYONE, INCLUDING SCO, to distribute Linux. But if SCO distributed even one copy of Linux anyway, then they'd lose the ability to deny anyone the rights to distribute Linux, because the GPL says that anyone SCO distributes to automatically has the right to redistribute the copy of Linux they got from SCO...
I wonder if SCO, when they distribute these new copies of Linux, is including and adhering to the requirements of the GPL. If not they're opening a floodgate of lawsuits from all the people who own copyrights to parts of Linux and have only granted ability to use them under the GPL. Either way just this press release might open up for some nasty slander of title lawsuits or at least extensions of the Lanham Act cases already filed against them by Redhat etc...
This is interesting, SCO has made a major misstep here. The only way they can keep this latest action from destroying them is if they know that they'll be bankrupt by the time anyone has the time to respond to it...
Re:That's quite silly (Score:2)
Now, that is a proper conspiracy theory.
Re:That's quite silly (Score:2)
Re:That's quite silly (Score:4, Insightful)
Or is the idea that they took 2.5 and stripped out the parts SCO alleges copyright to, and nobody else can do that since nobody knows what SCO's secret allegations are except SCO?
And how could SCO take out the parts they claim copyright on? They've claimed copyright on nearly the whole thing at one point or another. At one time they were claiming ownership of 2.4, and just a couple weeks ago it came out that even now one of their export reports SCO is claiming ownership of the ELF magic number [slashdot.org]. Did they just take out ELF support or what?
The whole thing defies logic at every level.
Re:That's quite silly (Score:2)
Given McBride's venomous rants against free software and Microsoft's early bankrolling of SCO's legal and media attacks on Linux, IBM, etc., I don't think it's too far fetched to think that this is exactly the precident they're trying to set. IMHO, the resu
Re:SCOs Reasoning... (Score:2)
Wrong. It says the lawsuit will be over soon. It says nothing about winning or losing it.
Due to the number of typos, it's evident that this release is a hoax.
Hmm.... (Score:5, Funny)
n : a large crater caused by the violent explosion of a volcano that collapses into a depression
It somehow just seems so fitting...
Not really a good parody (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Not really a good parody (Score:2)
Is it a parody? (Score:5, Interesting)
Caldera nameservers and everything. So this is not a parody site. If this press release isn't real, it's only because SCO got hacked. Which is, y'know, a possibility. Weirdly enough, if you go to the IP address [131.188.40.90] that openlinux.org currently points to (thus stripping away the openlinux.org site's virtual server), you get.. a page saying nothing but "FSI INF". "FSI INF"? WTF?
Meanwhile it is awfully suspicious that caldera.com [caldera.com] says nothing about this that I can see. Is there any evidence this "press release" has been... you know... released to the press? Or is it just a page on a website?
Re:Is it a parody? (Score:2, Informative)
SCO is known to have some activities in germany so this is plasible.
The strange part is that www.uni-erlangen.de is an university.
Do they really use their server to host commercial website?
Re:Is it a parody? (Score:3, Informative)
The IP Address (131.188.40.90) belongs to the network of the University of Erlangen [uni-erlangen.org], the address resolves into fsi-server.informatik.uni-erlangen.de, hence the FSI INF (Informatik is German for Computer Science). So guys, this is most likely a joke.
Try the following commands:
Re:Is it a parody? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Is it a parody? (Score:3, Informative)
Heh. That's shorthand for "Fachschaftsinitiative Informatik". Translates roughly to "Student Council of the CS department."
Re:Not really a good parody (Score:3, Interesting)
The question becomes why is the SCO group hosting two pages on a domain that is 18 months old, and will expire in a month, but not linking back to the original website? Is it a big joke? Is the site hacked?
Does the URL resolve to to any known SCO netblock, or does it resolve to another entity?
Re:Not really a good parody (Score:2)
The sad part is Caldera was a noble linux (Score:2)
yuck you know the rest.
Re:The sad part is Caldera was a noble linux (Score:3, Informative)
In other words, Caldera IS the bad guy here, not the or
Re:The sad part is Caldera was a noble linux (Score:3, Informative)
You got your history mixed up. Caldera was founded as a Linux company. Real SCO was founded as a UNIX company. Caldera used the money from their IPO to buy the SCO name and UNIX business from RealSCO (which became Tarantella and was acquired by SUN in 2005), with the idea of pushing Linux down the existing SCO sales channel. That failed, and when they noticed th
Re:The sad part is Caldera was a noble linux (Score:2, Informative)
(a long long time ago in a land far far away...)
A company called The Santa Cruz Operation (SCO) had a product called SCO Unix, and owned many of the original copyrights on UNIX from the AT&T System V days (how they got there is not important). The market for their product was not wonderful, so they created a product called Tarantella http://www.tarantella.com/ [tarantella.com] and decided to sell the UNIX part of the busi
Talk about Caveat Emptor... (Score:4, Interesting)
Sounds like someone at SCO is covering their arse...
Or maybe, just maybe... (Score:2)
Read it like this: The press release is the teaser; it gets people reading, it gets SCO back in the news, and on the face of it they look like the good guy.
But the disclaimer is the real story they want to get out there - Caldera Linux, and by inference all versions of Linux, are suspect; reliant on the whims of non-paid developers, released under a suspect licence, and quite probably in violation of copyright and IP laws.
Under those conditions, what sane company would base any par
Related to the lawsuit (Score:2)
The wikipedia entry [wikipedia.org] for OpenLinux describes it as "now-defunct".
this can't be real (Score:2, Interesting)
TSG can't release a new version and avoid problems with IBM counterclaims.
Re:this can't be real (Score:3, Interesting)
The domain name does look to be SCO owned though according to the domain whois.
See this link [centralops.net] for details.
SCO Linux (Score:2)
After this transpires, I'd bet that a SCO Linux with some sort of SCO Unix migration support would be popular and pretty profitable.
Also I wonder what Novell will do with code once SCO augers in. I dare say they don't really need it.
The quote to read: (Score:5, Informative)
(emphasis added)
Re:The quote to read: (Score:4, Funny)
"As according to the Yankee Group SCO OpenServer products still outbeat Linux' yearly uptime by about 20 percent, world Leading companies should still consider to upgrade to SCO's UnixWare and OpenServer series."
They have summer interns writing these releases, right? Outbeat isn't a word. "world Leading" companies? "consider to upgrade" ?
Rather, I think they have an 8th grader in their shop. "I outbeat you on that UT2K4 swerver bizzitchizzzz!!!"
If SCO fell in the woods and no one was around... (Score:5, Funny)
SCO could create the Perfect Operating System. It could be blessed by God, Linus Torvalds, Steve Wozniak, Steve Jobs, and Bill Gates at a joint press conference. And I still wouldn't use it just because it was SCO that released it. They've shown us that just because they support it today doesn't mean they won't file a lawsuit against anyone using it tomorrow. Any business that trusts SCO is obviously being run by idiots.
Hoax? (Score:2, Interesting)
Particularly since (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Particularly since (Score:2)
Sorry about the dupe post below. However, the latest press release according to their official archive [sco.com] dates back to June 8, and it's about their second quarter results.
Talk about fact-checking...
Re:Hoax? (Score:2)
... But published on calderasystems.com nameservers:
I don't know anything about this stuff... Could the nameservers have been compromised?
ROFL! What a waste of time (Score:3, Funny)
Well, let's see.
Not a good sign.
Ah, memories (Score:2)
Then came the dark times, then came the Empire!
High Times in Lindon, UT (Score:2, Insightful)
I hope folks remember that the only companies to be sued are the ones that have done business with SCO. There'll be a certificate in each box to be sent back to SCO's legal department. Please spell your name correctly, folks, so they get it right on the service papers.
I just want some
The supreme arrogance (Score:2, Interesting)
There are no words for this. To announce that no only that they will succeed in ripping off the community, but that they will sell it back the very code they they lovingly made through hard work, snack eating and soda drinking all through the night at a mearly 300% markup. They even generously suggest that it would be helpful to supply oneself with lubricant before purchasing a lisence from them. Wow! Thanks SCO!
*sigh* You're getting old, guys (Score:2)
Gah, today
Re:*sigh* You're getting old, guys (Score:3, Funny)
Netcraft confirms it (Score:3, Funny)
Netcraft confirms: SCO is dying
One more crippling bombshell hit the already beleaguered SCO community when IDC confirmed that SCO market share has dropped yet again, now down to less than a fraction of 1 percent of all Linux distribution versions. Coming on the heels of a recent Netcraft survey which plainly states that SCO has lost more market share, this news serves to reinforce what we've known all along. SCO is collapsing in complete disarray, as fittingly exemplified by falling dead last
I, for one... (Score:2)
...am intrigued.
I have interest in trying this new distro, as I'm curious to see what a company like SCO would turn out. Sure, they were bastards, but it could be good. Who knows?
Poofreaders Wanted (Score:3, Funny)
Burp! (Score:2)
Best hoax of the year (Score:2)
Giggle ... (Score:5, Informative)
SCO, Linux? I'm Dumbfounded and Confused (Score:2)
Question (Score:2)
IT'S A FAKE! (Score:5, Informative)
http://www.openlinux.org/releasedetail.cfm?id= [openlinux.org]
http://www.openlinux.org/releasedetail.cfm?id=543
http://www.openlinux.org/releasedetail.cfm?id=235
You can put in whatever value you want for the releasedetail.cfm id field, but either way it shows the same thing. I don't think any real company would have a Web site which worked like that – if it were real there would be some sort of error message or another press release.
And as I said earlier, I don't think it's that hard to set up an Apache virtual server [slashdot.org] and provide false information when registering a domain... depending on the registrar it may be quite a while before they realize that the domain doesn't belong to who it says it belongs to.
Besides, notice that there are (1) a lot of typos, and (2) no references on the main SCO site...
I'd try it out but... (Score:5, Funny)
Caldera? (Score:3, Funny)
Slashdot Editors MIA? (Score:5, Informative)
1) SCO distributes ALL of their press releases through PR Newswire, not through some random website
2) the openlinux.org site hasn't been changed in years before this change, and has obviously been hacked, or a student at the hosting university in Germany is playing a nice prank
3) This press release is not available on SCO.com
4) The grammar in this press release is atrocious, which is highly unusual, even for SCO. Probably written by a non-native english speaker, which makes sense since this abandoned web server is hosted at a German university.
Seriously....just pull the freakin article....
Morons.
/. has been punked (Score:4, Informative)
www.openlinux.org has address 131.188.40.90
www.openlinux.org mail is handled by 100 mailhub.rrze.uni-erlangen.de.
www.openlinux.org mail is handled by 10 openlinux.informatik.uni-erlangen.de.
www.openli
magnus@orca:~
90.40.188.131.in-addr.arpa domain name pointer fsi-server.informatik.uni-erlangen.de.
magnus@or
There is no question any more? (Score:5, Informative)
"Recently, on this site a fake anouncement of Caldera Open Linux X was found.
We thought it was obvious enough that it was fake. We had to learn it was not for all people reading it. So we took it down now. Apparently, also the DNS records are changed/deleted, so soon enough you won't get to this site using openlinux.org anyways.
We thought, it would not spread from Slashdot before we stop it (ie, this weekend). It was funny to follow people speculating and finding out about this site. Some people pointed out good reasons why this is hoax/parody, some bad or wrong reasons. Overall, we hope most people concluded it indeed was a parody.
Our submit to Slashdot concluded with "Is this real?" - sadly enough, Slashdot's editor wrote up a new text without any hints about this. We can't blame him, he maby was just in a hurry..
Nothing got hacked, it's just we got a previously used IP for this machine, so why not having some fun content on it? We apologize for any inconviences arised though! We didn't suspect it would be taken so serious. Some hints in the text proving this weren't read (talking about XML on a Server OS?), others were found but still taken serious. Please stop spreading this fake news, and if you know some sites who published it, please inform them to update their content. Thanks."
Re:GPL (Score:5, Informative)
Two things can happen with this. One, the release the new version of Caldera like a normal Linux distro, in which case SCO has actively released all the "infringing" code under GPL. The second thing that could happen is that they don't release it like a normal distro and put out a binary only version. This of course will lead to the EFF suing them into Oblivion (bada-ching) because of the copyright violations as listed under the GPL.
I guess there is a third possibility: they release Calder and the source, and continue to be asshats and try to sue everyone who uses Linux. Saddly, the third option is looking more and more likely.
Re:GPL (Score:2)
Re:GPL (Score:2)
GPL: FSF not EFF (Score:5, Informative)
Re:GPL (Score:2, Interesting)
Forward Looking Statements .... unenforceability of the GNU general public license; ......
The statements set forth above include forward-looking statements that involve risks and uncertainties. The Company wishes to advise readers that a number of important factors could cause actual results to differ materially from those in the forward-looking statements.
As I read it, they are saying they are going to be the only legitimate linux distro if and only if the GNU is unenforcable.
Is tha
Re:old kernel version? (Score:2)