Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 30th Mar 2010 22:32 UTC, submitted by aaronb
Legal It's time for bed over here, but before I turn in with a nice cup of tea and a Gilmore Girls episode, we've got some good news for you: SCO has been dealt yet another major blow in its baseless lawsuit against Novell. A jury has ruled that Novell owns the UNIX copyrights - not SCO.
Order by: Score:
and here's where you lost me...
by poundsmack on Tue 30th Mar 2010 23:17 UTC
poundsmack
Member since:
2005-07-13

"It's time for bed over here": Sleep, that sounds good.


"but before I turn in with a nice cup of tea": sounds good, I too enjoy a nice cup of tea before bed. sounds good so far.

"and a Gilmore Girls episode": ya ok... wait what?! If I want to watch the process of maturing through life and getting over life's hurdles I will just subscribe to the official linux mailing list ;) . (i kid,... kind of).

Joking aside, hopefully this is the bullet to the heart or SCO that we have all been waiting for.

R.I.P. SCO: you will not be missed...

Reply Score: 4

WereCatf Member since:
2006-02-15

Joking aside, hopefully this is the bullet to the heart or SCO that we have all been waiting for.

R.I.P. SCO: you will not be missed...


SCO could go down, but even a silver bullet wouldn't keep Darl McBride still, he'd still return as a zombie. On a second though, given how brainless he seems and how hideously ugly he is he could very well even be a zombie already!

Reply Score: 3

foxec208 Member since:
2010-03-31

Darl got Axed he's no longer one of the heads of the hydra

Reply Score: 1

jabbotts Member since:
2007-09-06

Under his new company, he purchased a chunk of Sun/Oracle which removed a business they where not interested in and added to the legal budget of this particular case; I'd say the ghost of Mcbrides past is still lingering in the office halls.

Reply Score: 2

RE: and here's where you lost me...
by flanque on Wed 31st Mar 2010 01:11 UTC in reply to "and here's where you lost me..."
flanque Member since:
2005-12-15

It's OK Thom, I got the box set of Gilmore and love it. Keeps your brain sharp trying to keep up with the verbal pace.

Reply Score: 2

abstraction Member since:
2008-11-27

I just couldn't resist...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KTm1D3JhHzw

Reply Score: 1

John Blink Member since:
2005-10-11

I like Gilmore Girls ;) lol

Reply Score: 2

RE: and here's where you lost me...
by J. M. on Wed 31st Mar 2010 04:28 UTC in reply to "and here's where you lost me..."
J. M. Member since:
2005-07-24

I too enjoy a nice cup of tea before bed. sounds good so far.

I'm not sure it's a good idea. Tea contains caffeine, which does not really help you sleep. :-)

Reply Score: 1

poundsmack Member since:
2005-07-13

not all, I get most of my tea here and love it: http://www.mountainroseherbs.com/tea_bev/tea_bev.html

bet time teas I enjoy:
Chamomile Tea
Dream Tea
Evening Repose Tea

Reply Score: 2

JLF65 Member since:
2005-07-06

not all, I get most of my tea here and love it: http://www.mountainroseherbs.com/tea_bev/tea_bev.html

bet time teas I enjoy:
Chamomile Tea
Dream Tea
Evening Repose Tea


I get my tea from the English Tea Store:
http://www.englishteastore.com/

I really like white tea (it's even "greener" than green tea). It may smell like lawn clippings, but it tastes incredible. ;)

Reply Score: 2

SCO
by ballmerlikesgoogle on Tue 30th Mar 2010 23:51 UTC
ballmerlikesgoogle
Member since:
2009-10-23

SCO's case concerning Linux never had one bit of merit to it. This is just the case of another UNIX company going down the drain simply because it refused to change with the times.

Time to move on, Linux is here to stay.

(Sorry Steve, maybe you could go over to Utah and show Darl how to properly throw furniture in one's office)

Reply Score: 3

RE: SCO
by lucas_maximus on Wed 31st Mar 2010 00:02 UTC in reply to "SCO"
lucas_maximus Member since:
2009-08-18

As much as I dislike SCO ... Linux lacks quality and consistency when compared to Solaris, IRIX and the BSD ... which in the end turned me away form it.

Reply Score: 4

RE[2]: SCO
by Laurence on Wed 31st Mar 2010 09:17 UTC in reply to "RE: SCO"
Laurence Member since:
2007-03-26

As much as I dislike SCO ... Linux lacks quality and consistency when compared to Solaris, IRIX and the BSD ... which in the end turned me away form it.


I guess that very much depends on how you judge Linux.

If you're talking about Linux as in software distributions as whole OSs, then that's a little unfair as, for the most part, the same FOSS that runs on Linux also runs on BSD et al.

If you're talking about Linux as in the kernel, then I'd love to know what is missing from the Linux kernel that is in Solaris, IRIX and BSD/Mach as, from my perspective, I've found the Linux kernel to be very stable, powerful and yet still flexible.

If you're talking about enterprise tools, then have you factored RHEL (and the lark) that specifically target the same enterprise market as (for example) Solaris (thus comparing like for like)?


The problem with Linux is it's such a diverse beast that many comparisons don't seem to be a fair "like for like" comparison.
So while I'm not trying to undermine your experience*, I'd love some elaboration on your point.


footnote:
* I have used FreeBSD and Solaris (+ OpenSolaris and NexentaCP) but not IRIX. However the set ups I've built have been very modest by most servers standards. So I don't boast to be an expert on the subject.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: SCO
by lucas_maximus on Wed 31st Mar 2010 09:26 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: SCO"
lucas_maximus Member since:
2009-08-18

GNU/Linux has the problem of having inconsistent documentation, breaking drivers (that did work) and reinventing the wheel (ALSA, PulseAudio) when there are already good software that could have been built upon. It very much the attitude of one of the software engineers at our place .. completely rewrite something from scratch because you don't like how some else has done it even thought it work.

Most of the BSD base system except for things like GCC are now not GNU.

Edited 2010-03-31 09:27 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: SCO
by righard on Wed 31st Mar 2010 09:38 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: SCO"
righard Member since:
2007-12-26

If they where before, aren't they re-inventing the wheel?

Reply Score: 3

RE[5]: SCO
by phoenix on Wed 31st Mar 2010 17:30 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: SCO"
phoenix Member since:
2005-07-11

If they where before, aren't they re-inventing the wheel?


For some things, they (BSDs) don't have a choice. The GNU project is moving to GPL3, which effectively prevents those bits from being included in the BSDs. For example, GCC will never be upgraded beyond 4.something because they've moved to GPL3. Thus, alternatives have to be developed.

Reply Score: 3

RE[4]: SCO
by Laurence on Wed 31st Mar 2010 14:34 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: SCO"
Laurence Member since:
2007-03-26

GNU/Linux has the problem of having inconsistent documentation,

That depends on the distribution

breaking drivers (that did work)

As opposed to a lack of drivers on other platforms?

and reinventing the wheel (ALSA, PulseAudio) when there are already good software that could have been built upon.

ALSA and PulseAudio are desktop tools and on the whole Linux is a better desktop OS than BSD or Solaris.

Most of the BSD base system except for things like GCC are now not GNU.

If we're talking about desktop systems then the base system should be transparent to users - which, for the most part, it is on desktop distros (eg Ubuntu). In fact, the very reason I dislike Ubuntu is because I wanted to play with the base system.

However, if we're talking about server systems, then why even mention ALSA / Pulseaudio as I'm struggling to think of any enterprise solutions that would require a soundcard let alone a sane sound driver model.

Furthermore, while BSD can make a perfectly adequate desktop OS (I've had FreeBSD as a working desktop as well as dedicated a file server), Solaris (read vanilla Solaris, NOT OpenSolaris) does not.

And finally, you talk about quality in your OS then go on to discuss BSD desktops, well my experience has taught me that a key quality desktop OSs should have is ease to build and maintain. The ports method on FreeBSD (as much as I loved it for the server) wasn't a patch on pacman (Arch) or apt-get (Debian) in terms of ease and speed of delivery. Sure, you might enjoy tinkering, but most desktop users don't.

Reply Score: 5

RE[5]: SCO
by phoenix on Wed 31st Mar 2010 17:32 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: SCO"
phoenix Member since:
2005-07-11

And finally, you talk about quality in your OS then go on to discuss BSD desktops, well my experience has taught me that a key quality desktop OSs should have is ease to build and maintain. The ports method on FreeBSD (as much as I loved it for the server) wasn't a patch on pacman (Arch) or apt-get (Debian) in terms of ease and speed of delivery. Sure, you might enjoy tinkering, but most desktop users don't.


pkg_add has existed on FreeBSD for many, many, many years. There's even a pkg_upgrade that can be used on binary-package-only systems (no ports tree installed). And the major ports managements tools (portmaster, portupgrade, portmanager) all include support for binary package upgrades.

Reply Score: 2

RE[6]: SCO
by Laurence on Thu 1st Apr 2010 10:53 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: SCO"
Laurence Member since:
2007-03-26

pkg_add has existed on FreeBSD for many, many, many years. There's even a pkg_upgrade that can be used on binary-package-only systems (no ports tree installed). And the major ports managements tools (portmaster, portupgrade, portmanager) all include support for binary package upgrades.

Good point. I'd forgotten about the binary package managers.

The other points still stand though. As good as FreeBSD is and as much as I liked it myself, it's not the jack of all trades and as such there are occasions where Linux is the sane solution over FreeBSD.

And I don't mean in an elitist or Linux-fanboy way either as I run a variety of platforms, many of which are non-Linux *nix.

Reply Score: 3

v RE[4]: SCO
by toast88 on Wed 31st Mar 2010 21:32 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: SCO"
RE[5]: SCO
by darknexus on Fri 2nd Apr 2010 05:21 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: SCO"
darknexus Member since:
2008-07-15

While I agree that Pulseaudio is a good thing, it's not fully ready yet. It still has some bugs with certain audio cards, try using it with a Creative SB Audigy2 or other emu10k1-based card (some of the only cards left that actually still have full hardware mixing capabilities) and see what happens. It lags, cuts out, and in general is just not working right with these cards. Otoh though, it actually makes a lot of onboard chips, particularly buggy hda-intel based chips, actually work right without some of the annoying Dmix artifacts when doing a lot of resampling. There are also latency issues in Pulseaudio that make it unsuitable for audio editing and other realtime audio. You don't notice it with regular day-to-day use but try playing a synthesizer or using Audacity with it. For those kinds of things, you still need to set up JACK for best results. At least Pulseaudio can run on top of and use JACK, so you don't have to sacrifice one to get the other. It kind of reminds me of how the Windows situation used to be, you had the typical audio stack but if you wanted low-latency you installed and configured ASIO if your card supported it. At least in Linux the "if" part about being able to actually get low latency working with your card isn't an issue, but it's still some effort to set up.

Oops, got big time off topic didn't we?

Edited 2010-04-02 05:22 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: SCO
by cutterjohn on Wed 31st Mar 2010 15:35 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: SCO"
cutterjohn Member since:
2006-01-28

Actually linux has MUCH better drivers nowadays than ALL of those mention *NIX versions and *SD distros(meaning the 3 major ones: open, net and plain old BSD).

Even for servers if I was going cheap today, I don't know that I'd bother with *SD any longer. Solaris is just about dead, and AFAICT IRIX IS already dead.

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: SCO
by tylerdurden on Wed 31st Mar 2010 18:07 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: SCO"
tylerdurden Member since:
2009-03-17

It obviously depends on the market.

Solaris is pretty alive in the high end spectrum of the data center. But for the bottom segment, indeed Linux has pretty much replaced any other alternative in its space.

Still, if only Linux and GNU settled their f*cking interfaces or at least make them a bit more stable. The fragmentation in their user land is not helping at all. If they want to actually continue growing and not plateau soon, the linux people need to get their act together. It is insane that there are 10 different ways to bring up init and configure a system using the same f*cking kernel and tool chain. Not to mention that there are at least 4 major incompatible packaging infrastructures which offer exactly the same functionality. And on and on...

At some point efforts like Linux stop being an the same high growth system which advanced via concurrent exploration, and start to stagnate when effort and productivity are wasted due to unnecessary replication of resources. The challenge for the Linux folk will be how to make that transition. It will be interesting, and if history is a guide the "better" approach will not necessarily be the winner.

Reply Score: 4

RE: SCO
by lemur2 on Wed 31st Mar 2010 11:40 UTC in reply to "SCO"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

SCO's case concerning Linux never had one bit of merit to it. This is just the case of another UNIX company going down the drain simply because it refused to change with the times.

Time to move on, Linux is here to stay.

(Sorry Steve, maybe you could go over to Utah and show Darl how to properly throw furniture in one's office)



Just in: public reaction to this verdict.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lMGKPajKs08

Reply Score: 2

\m/ YES \m/
by bornagainenguin on Wed 31st Mar 2010 00:08 UTC
bornagainenguin
Member since:
2005-08-07

EVERYONE MUST GET STONED! Hookers and blow all around as we celebrate the end of thi--did that hand just twitch?

Seriously, let's not be too quick to celebrate here until we've removed the head from the body, burn the body and buried ashes separate from the head. Oh and make sure that there aren't any brothers we'd have to worry about. Goliath had four brothers*, and because the biblical King David didn't get them the same time he got Goliath he had to deal with them later when he was an old man. We don't want that to happen here!

--bornagainpenguin

*2 Samuel 21:18-22

Reply Score: 8

RE: \m/ YES \m/
by HappyGod on Wed 31st Mar 2010 08:31 UTC in reply to "\m/ YES \m/"
HappyGod Member since:
2005-10-19

*2 Samuel 21:18-22


Interesting. Out of curiosity, I looked up that Bible passage you listed there.

Not that I would believe anything the Bible had to say, but if I'm reading it correctly that passage asserts that David didn't kill Goliath. Unless he later killed another giant called Goliath.

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2+Samuel+21%3A18-22...

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: \m/ YES \m/
by ricegf on Wed 31st Mar 2010 10:42 UTC in reply to "RE: \m/ YES \m/"
ricegf Member since:
2007-04-25

People changed names all the time in many ancient cultures, often to commemorate a major life event (Abram became Abraham, for example, and Jacob became Israel). It's perfectly reasonable that when Goliath was killed in battle, one of his brothers would assume his name and superhero catchphrase ("the shaft of his spear is like a weaver's beam!") to continue the fight against Philistine's mortal enemies. Which leads to the question... who will now take on the name "Daryl McBride" ("the spark of his intellect is like a boll weevil's!")?

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: \m/ YES \m/
by jgagnon on Wed 31st Mar 2010 19:09 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: \m/ YES \m/"
jgagnon Member since:
2008-06-24

Don't forget about the Dread Pirate Roberts.

Reply Score: 1

A message to Sco
by darknexus on Wed 31st Mar 2010 00:11 UTC
darknexus
Member since:
2008-07-15

Is this finally the silver bullet to end Sco's ridiculous posturing, or will a stake driven through the heart be needed instead? Seriously Sco, you're dead. Accept it and die quietly... I'd say die with dignity, but you lost that a long time ago. Goodbye and good riddens. It's just too bad the original Sco--the one that actually developed an operating system--is basically forgotten because of you jerk-offs.

Reply Score: 3

The DoubleTap...
by apoclypse on Wed 31st Mar 2010 01:10 UTC
apoclypse
Member since:
2007-02-17

Anyone who has seen Zombieland knows that one of the main rules is the doubletap. Someone needs to doubletap the shit out of SCO.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PapZO7NXB3Q

Reply Score: 2

Comment by kaiwai
by kaiwai on Wed 31st Mar 2010 02:55 UTC
kaiwai
Member since:
2005-07-06

This does raise an issue for all those organisations who have paid SCO for IP in the past; Microsoft and Sun are two organisations that I know of who have paid SCO for IP that they believed SCO owns. Could we see Microsoft and Sun (now Oracle) sue SCO for deliberately misleading as so far as selling something that was never owned by them in the first place.

I remember SCO right back when it was Santa Cruz Operations before Caldera bought it; they made great products with the only downside is the lack of reshaping their business model for the new reality - back then they were still charging for things that Microsoft included as standard with the operating system; honestly, who charges for an operating system then turn around and charge for the TCP/IP stack separately? and the backup software separately? It is depressing that a vendor that could have survived independently was managed so badly to the point it needed to be bought out.

Edit: You can look back to just before Windows 2000 was released and the CEO of Santa Cruz Operations was scoffing at the idea of Windows 2000 having 35million lines of code.

Edited 2010-03-31 02:56 UTC

Reply Score: 5

RE: Comment by kaiwai
by Alleister on Wed 31st Mar 2010 07:20 UTC in reply to "Comment by kaiwai"
Alleister Member since:
2006-05-29

They probably could sue to get their money back, but that wouldn't necessary mean they would get it. I think we will see SCO go belly up again really soon and then the question will be how much residual money is there to split up - after a lengthy process in which SCO likely would burn up the remainders.
Not that Microsoft would do that - they got exactly what they paid for, even though maybe not as long as they had hoped.

I hope the SCO nightmare is over, but i still can't believe it.

Reply Score: 5

RE[2]: Comment by kaiwai
by kaiwai on Wed 31st Mar 2010 08:23 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by kaiwai"
kaiwai Member since:
2005-07-06

They probably could sue to get their money back, but that wouldn't necessary mean they would get it. I think we will see SCO go belly up again really soon and then the question will be how much residual money is there to split up - after a lengthy process in which SCO likely would burn up the remainders.
Not that Microsoft would do that - they got exactly what they paid for, even though maybe not as long as they had hoped.

I hope the SCO nightmare is over, but i still can't believe it.


I don't see the SCO nightmare being over given how stupid the bankruptcy system in the US operates - where zombie companies keep coming back in a re-invented form instead of just having a dignified death.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Comment by kaiwai
by lemur2 on Wed 31st Mar 2010 10:03 UTC in reply to "Comment by kaiwai"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

This does raise an issue for all those organisations who have paid SCO for IP in the past; Microsoft and Sun are two organisations that I know of who have paid SCO for IP that they believed SCO owns. Could we see Microsoft and Sun (now Oracle) sue SCO for deliberately misleading as so far as selling something that was never owned by them in the first place.


Microsoft and Oracle would have to wait in line behind Novell, IBM and Red Hat.

Novell: SCO fraudulently kept Novell's money (when it sold Unix licenses to Microsoft and Sun).

IBM: SCO distributed IBM's copyright software (in Linux) without a license (because with its SCOSource initiative, SCO repudiated the GPL).

These counter-claims are almost slam-dunk given the terms of the GPL, given that SCO did distribute a Linux distribution, and given that SCO have no patents and no copyrights covering the code in question.

Red Hat: has a seven-year-old Lanham Act claim against SCO:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lanham_act

Red Hat's case against SCO is a complaint that SCO fraudulently disparaged the good name of Red Hat's product (Linux).

This case, too, is a slam-dunk, given that there is no Unix code in Linux.

SCO are in deep, deep doo-doo.

Edited 2010-03-31 10:05 UTC

Reply Score: 4

RE[2]: Comment by kaiwai
by lemur2 on Wed 31st Mar 2010 10:37 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by kaiwai"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

"This does raise an issue for all those organisations who have paid SCO for IP in the past; Microsoft and Sun are two organisations that I know of who have paid SCO for IP that they believed SCO owns. Could we see Microsoft and Sun (now Oracle) sue SCO for deliberately misleading as so far as selling something that was never owned by them in the first place.


Microsoft and Oracle would have to wait in line behind Novell, IBM and Red Hat.

Novell: SCO fraudulently kept Novell's money (when it sold Unix licenses to Microsoft and Sun).

IBM: SCO distributed IBM's copyright software (in Linux) without a license (because with its SCOSource initiative, SCO repudiated the GPL).

These counter-claims are almost slam-dunk given the terms of the GPL, given that SCO did distribute a Linux distribution, and given that SCO have no patents and no copyrights covering the code in question.

Red Hat: has a seven-year-old Lanham Act claim against SCO:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lanham_act

Red Hat's case against SCO is a complaint that SCO fraudulently disparaged the good name of Red Hat's product (Linux).

This case, too, is a slam-dunk, given that there is no Unix code in Linux.

SCO are in deep, deep doo-doo.
"

Backup:

http://www.itworld.com/open-source/102946/sco-novell-groking-where-...

The key decision, of course, was whether The SCO Group actually owned the copyrights to Unix--a claim they tried to use to their advantage by claiming that anyone who worked on or even used Linux would need to cough up some dough.

First they sued IBM for violating trade agreements, then later copyright violation. Then the Utah-based company, former producers of Caldera Linux and SCO Unix, decided to go into the litigation business, setting up a licensing division called SCOsource to "[introduce] the SCO Intellectual Property License Program to make binary run time licenses for SCO's intellectual property available to end users. The license gives end users the right to use SCO intellectual property contained in Linux, in binary format only. End users who purchase this license will be covered for their use of SCO's intellectual property in binary format in Linux distributions on the licensed system. The license applies to all commercial users of Linux."

In other words, if you use Linux, pay us.

Surprisingly (well, not really), some companies actually purchased licenses from SCOsource. Remember them? Sun Microsystems and Microsoft were two of the more prominent licensees. Glad that worked out so well for them.

When the rest of the planet laughed at SCOsource, they started suing other companies, notably AutoZone and DaimlerChrysler. Red Hat jumped in with a preemptive strike of its own, but all the lawsuits came to a screeching halt when Novell raised its metaphorical hand and said something to SCO along the lines of:

"Er, guys? We never sold you the Unix copyrights."

Today's unanimous jury decision invalidated SCO's claim to the Unix copyrights, so pretty much every one of these other cases will get tossed out, except for the countersuits SCO's targets launched.


Edited 2010-03-31 10:45 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE: Comment by kaiwai
by Cutterman on Wed 31st Mar 2010 19:29 UTC in reply to "Comment by kaiwai"
Cutterman Member since:
2006-04-10

MS' taking a license from SCO was just a way of giving SCO some legitimate cash to encourage them in their anti-Linux activities.

MS' arranging a date for Baystar and SCO was another channel of indirect funding.

Maybe someone not unconnected with MS just casually happened to drop the idea that suing over Unix IP might be a cool idea into Darl's ear and his greed did the rest.

MS knew that SCO would probably crash and burn eventually but they didn't care - they got a full 7 years of Linux FUD out of it and cost IBM, Red Hat and other Linux companies a pretty penny in legal fees and lost sales.

Like I said, slick.

Mac

Reply Score: 1

It's nice when a jury...
by Tuishimi on Wed 31st Mar 2010 07:33 UTC
Tuishimi
Member since:
2005-07-06

...makes the right decision. Restores a little faith in the system.

Reply Score: 4

Comment by CoolGoose
by CoolGoose on Wed 31st Mar 2010 09:19 UTC
CoolGoose
Member since:
2005-07-06

I just have to say:
Hahahaahahahahahahahhahhah ;)

Reply Score: 2

Summary of the verdict
by lemur2 on Thu 1st Apr 2010 10:08 UTC
lemur2
Member since:
2007-02-17