Linked by Eugenia Loli on Thu 12th Feb 2004 19:17 UTC, submitted by William Bolk
SCO, Caldera, Unixware SCO is giving us their ten cents why customers should use Unixware instead of Linux.
Order by: Score:
v Yea, uhh...
by Beavis on Thu 12th Feb 2004 19:23 UTC
v Sco woth out any proof claim:
by Rll on Thu 12th Feb 2004 19:25 UTC
v RE: Sco woth out any proof claim:
by Eugenia on Thu 12th Feb 2004 19:26 UTC
Re: Yea, uhh...
by Futoque on Thu 12th Feb 2004 19:35 UTC

This was posted on /. a little while ago. That is about the same thing.

...
by Anonymous on Thu 12th Feb 2004 19:37 UTC

I don't know how they can expect to run a legitimate business anymore. It's hard to imagine how anyone would want to be associated with them.

Some still use it
by Buck on Thu 12th Feb 2004 19:45 UTC

I went to a local bank the other day and apparently the monitor that was turned towards the customers read: SCO OpenServer. So funny. Some still use it.

It's a PR move, nobody considers SCO serious anymore I guess.

Reason Number 6
by MattPie on Thu 12th Feb 2004 19:45 UTC

6. You like the adventure and mystery that partnering with SCO brings. Thrill at the questions, "Will SCO be around in two years?" and "If SCO is laying off lots of engineers, who's maintinaing the code?"

SCO: The most exciting gamble you can make with you Infrastructure.

Copied verbatim.....
by Software on Thu 12th Feb 2004 19:46 UTC

« Certain copyrighted application binary interfaces ("ABI Code") have been copied verbatim from SCO's copyrighted UNIX® code base and contributed to Linux® for distribution under the General Public License ("GPL") without proper authorization and without copyright attribution. »

Have they finaly shown the copied code? As IBM receive something from SCO? Who are they trying to convince here with those 5 reasons?

Is Microsoft funding SCO in this Linux battle?

How can they win?

I laughed so hard
by None on Thu 12th Feb 2004 19:56 UTC

I think I wet myself!!!

As Rodney Dangerfield would say " I get no respect ".

Cheers SCO

Where's the proof?
by Daren on Thu 12th Feb 2004 19:58 UTC

I can't help but comment on their 5 points.

1. SCO UNIX® is a Proven, Stable and Reliable Platform
They don't mention how this compares with Linux.

2. SCO UNIX® is backed by a single, experienced vendor
This would be vendor lock-in. A disadvantage really.

3. SCO UNIX® has a Committed, Well-Defined Roadmap
Can somebody point me to this roadmap?

4. SCO UNIX® is Secure
Are they implying Linux is not? They don't mention it.
5. SCO UNIX® is Legally Unencumbered
SCO Unix may not be but the company SCO sure is.

Am I missing anything?

Backed, it said backed
by Chris on Thu 12th Feb 2004 20:10 UTC

Um there seems to be an error. Companies in financial straits should not be considered to "back" anything. Once their stock deflates they will unfortunately die, and possibly take proprietary Unix with them. Which is kind of sad, as much as I love Linux I like the idea of a closed alternative (Windows isn't an alternative).

1) If you like UNIX, just goes Solaris.

2) If you like x86-platform, Linux, Windows 2003, *BSD, are just there, even Solaris. (and the last two are both UNIX).

why SCO UNIX?


1. SCO UNIX® is a Proven, Stable and Reliable Platform
Everybody does. More.

2. SCO UNIX® is backed by a single, experienced vendor
What about AIX, HP/UX, Solaris, etc etc big UNIX vendors?

3. SCO UNIX® has a Committed, Well-Defined Roadmap
Can they beat Solaris on this?

4. SCO UNIX® is Secure
Solaris has a military-grade version.
OpenBSD is famouse on this.
Even Windows is better now.

5. SCO UNIX® is Legally Unencumbered
Just because other companies are not mad like SCO ;)

5 Reasons
by Adam S. on Thu 12th Feb 2004 20:30 UTC

1. SCO UNIX® is a Proven, Stable and Reliable Platform

This is true, there are hardly any kernel vulnerabilities for UNIX and there are no viruses. Some people have had UNIX servers running for years and have not experienced any problems with them.

2. SCO UNIX® is backed by a single, experienced vendor

This is beneficial as well because companies want stability and not go down the lines on mailing lists trying to find help. One of the reasons why my employer switched from Red Hat to Windows Server 2003 was because support from Red Hat is almost non-existant and when you do get a hold of a technician they are not very helpful at all. When you decide to distribute a product you should be able to support that product which no one in the Linux world can do properly.

3. SCO UNIX® has a Committed, Well-Defined Roadmap

Im not that familiar with SCO or their products but from what I read this afternoon on their site it seems they are really committed to UNIX and enhancing UNIX. This is a good thing because SCO and other proprietary software makers have the ability since they are the proprietors to be able to enhance their product and their development cycles are more structured. Those companies dont have to wait for someone to catch up and catch on. They do it themselves.

4. SCO UNIX® is Secure

Im coming from an IRIX world, that was the last flavor of UNIX that I used and UNIX is very secure. Linux was okay, it has alot of Kernel vulnerabilities but it is still a young OS. Windows also has made a lot of strides in security, but I have to agree that UNIX is a lot more secure than either one of them.

5. SCO UNIX® is Legally Unencumbered

I dont know how true their claims are and I dont care, one of your regular posters that i have witnessed on this site has said this and I agree with him. That being as thos Linux has so many developers and contributors there is no way that everyone that participates is 100% honest. So I do believe Linux has violated Copyright laws but to what degree I dont know and I could care less. I wouldnt buy into Linux too much because its like having a pitt bull as a pet, one of these days you know there is a chance it will turn and maul and kill someone so why invite that kind of trouble. When and if Linux does have IP infringements these consumers will have invited that trouble into their own lives.

Another poster asked this question:

" I don't know how they can expect to run a legitimate business anymore. It's hard to imagine how anyone would want to be associated with them "

I would do business with them. If their product offers an edge over the competition and there is a value to it then yes. As I stated, from their roadmap and from a PPT that I saw on their OpenServer site I think SCO may have an advantage over at least some of the competition. It looks well defined and now we just have to see if they go there. Either way I would consider OpenServer and I probably will make contact with SCO on our future UNIX endeavors it just depends on where my employer wishes to go.

Novell
by peragrin on Thu 12th Feb 2004 20:30 UTC

I guess most of you aren't paying attention, or just reading slashdot. SCO is in deep $hit. Novell has revocked SCO's ablitiy to sell unix. When all the aper woek is done, cause you know they are going to try and fight, so it doesn't seem like they are just stock fraud men. SCO is going down nice and slow, with nobody coming to help them, it is almost disturbing, yet fun to watch.

Re: Where's the proof?
by Adam S. on Thu 12th Feb 2004 20:36 UTC

http://www.thescogroup.com/2003forum/breakouts/hurford_forum2003_fi...

That is one of the many documents they have up in regards to their roadmap.

Re: I laughed so hard
by LAsuit on Thu 12th Feb 2004 20:39 UTC

I'm still laughing 10 minutes later! This is pathetic. But, knowing SCO, I'm surprised they didn't charge us a fee for the laugh.

Translation
by Uno Engborg on Thu 12th Feb 2004 20:42 UTC

1)SCO UNIX® is a proven, stable and reliable platform
Means: SCO will not supply drivers for modern hardware, or develop the system further.

2)SCO UNIX® is backed by a single experienced vendor
Means: We have two years experience,since we bought it from Novell. Ah well, I mean almost bought it from Novell. Never mind that, if sombody claims we are not AT&T, we will sue them and we have lots of experience in litegatiion.

3)SCO UNIX® has a Committed, Well-Defined Roadmap
Means: As soon as all our investors money are transfered to Darl McBride and his gang, we will go out of business.

4)SCO UNIX® is Secure
Means: This old stuff can't be hooked up to any modern systems so the risk of attacks are small.

5)SCO UNIX® is Legally Unencumbered
Means: We will sue our Linux customers first. So far we have not managed to come up with something that sounds vaugely plausible to sue SOO unix only custorers over. But don't worry,if nothing else works, we could always make their licence agreement unconstitutional. It sort of worked with our former Linux customers.

Re: Novell
by Adam S. on Thu 12th Feb 2004 20:45 UTC

Actually Novell did not do that and they cannot according to the Asset Purchase Agreement. The only thing the APA states in regards to SCO is that:

"(b) Buyer shall not, and shall not have the authority to, amend, modify or waive any right under or assign any SVRX License without the prior written consent of Seller. In addition, at Seller's sole discretion and direction, Buyer shall amend, supplement, modify or waive any rights under, or shall assign any rights to, any SVRX License to the extent so directed in any manner or respect by Seller. In the event that Buyer shall fail to take any such action concerning the SVRX Licenses as required herein, Seller shall be authorized, and hereby is granted, the rights to take any action on Buyer's own behalf. Buyer shall not, and shall have no right to, enter into future licenses or amendments of the SVRX Licenses, except as may be incidentally involved through its rights to sell and license the Assets or the Merged Product (as such term is defined in the proposed Operating Agreement, attached hereto as Exhibit 5.1(c)) or future versions thereof of the Merged Product."

But, when Novell struck the deal with AT&T the same language was involved. So technically Novell has no right to it either and only AT&T does, so I guess it will be up to AT&T to make the decision.

SCO: The "Titanic" is setting sail
by John Marranca, Jr on Thu 12th Feb 2004 20:45 UTC

What this looks like to me is yet another attempt by Darl McBride to re-inflate his toilet-paper-like stock. Gee...checking the Market Ticker from about 2 months ago...hasn't SCO stock fallen again????

Seems that way to me.


Once IBM's "attack lawyers" get done with SCO, maybe McBride will be able to start his new career at the local car wash. If he does, however, he'll soon sue his employer...claiming HE invented the car wash....and has the fake documents to prove it.

One more comment:

3. SCO UNIX® has a Committed, Well-Defined Roadmap

-are they on crack??? The road has LOTS of potholes in it, Darl!! Sure...they're committed. They need to BE committed.

OK...I'm done bitching.

jm

Re: 5 Reasons
by Traumtanzer on Thu 12th Feb 2004 20:50 UTC

"Im not that familiar with SCO or their products but from what I read this afternoon on their site it seems they are really committed to UNIX and enhancing UNIX."

You know this is a curious statement coming from you after that arduous sales pitch for them, especially considering you also seem to be rather familiar with their forums. No, I think you've come here for damage control.

RE: 5 Reasons
by The Thunderbird on Thu 12th Feb 2004 20:54 UTC

This is complete bull, People are migrating from Windows to Redhat/ other GNU/Linux distros because they offer better support and better security. SCO that their OS scales to 32 processors reliably, what about AIX or Solaris? Infact what about Linux, they fail to mention that Linux can scale above 32 processors, as far as I know Linux 2.6 can scale up to 64CPU's.

In terms of stability: Linux is far superiour to SCO Unix, I had a redhat server up for 3 years, while the proprietry SCO Unixware and Openserver systems we used, crashed and burned!

Sorry I may be a linux Advocate, but I do know a thing or two about UNIX, I was brought up on it, and my comparison of SCO Unix vs Linux is such that: SCO Unix is CRAP!

BTW there is nothing wrong with system V it is however 30 years old, SCO UNIX is crap and doesn't even conform to UNIX98 standards! Its still stuck on UNIX95/93

Re: 5 reasons
by Adam S. on Thu 12th Feb 2004 20:54 UTC

" You know this is a curious statement coming from you after that arduous sales pitch for them, especially considering you also seem to be rather familiar with their forums. No, I think you've come here for damage control. "

What sales pitch are you refering too? I didnt post any sales pitch for anyone I just said that yes I would do business with them with regards to the value of the product. I became familiar with their forums after visiting the link provided here and on Slashdot and i got curious. And I like to read.

@Adam S.
by Mediocre Sarcasm Man on Thu 12th Feb 2004 21:05 UTC

"Linux has so many developers and contributors there is no way that everyone that participates is 100% honest. So I do believe Linux has violated Copyright laws"

That's logical

@AdamS.
by HagerR15 on Thu 12th Feb 2004 21:16 UTC

So you've been to the SCO website and believed everything you read? You need help. You probably believe the vitamin ads when they say "Contains no chemicals!!"

Hint: Air is a chemical. Water is a chemical. Sugar is a chemical. Caffeine is a chemical.

You can put a cool sounding phrase on anything, SCO Unix included, but that doesn't make it true. Never believe anything you read.

They can keep their 10 cents.
by Ressev on Thu 12th Feb 2004 21:37 UTC

I was about to do a list as well, but it appears others have already done it. SCO sure has a lot of pluck, but thinking people will see past their shallow hubris.

@AdamS
by dweazle on Thu 12th Feb 2004 21:40 UTC

I'm not familiar with SCO products, so I don't have any opinion on OpenServer. It probably is stable and secure. But there are a lot of other UNIX vendors out there who create wonderful and probably better products as well. If you don't trust opensource software, buy Solaris/HPUX/AIX/whatever. At least they embrace Linux/OSS and realize they can't stop it with lawsuits or FUD. They realize UNIX is actually dying and that "The future is open" ;) I do however respect companies that don't recognize this and stick with their UNIX products, as long as they don't spread FUD and start lawsuits to scare of potential customers from their competition. That's not wat doing business is about.

SCO is imo an untrustworthy company. All they care about is money and they'll do anything to get it. Not so long ago Linux was their main business (Caldera). There are still a lot of companies out there running Caldera Linux and they are now forced by SCO to "upgrade" to OpenServer or pay for a Linux license. Who knows what they're up to next (if they still exist by then)? I wouldn't want to be their customer even if it was my last and only option. I dislike Microsoft for the same reason.

Re: 5 reasons By Adam S.
by Michael Wassil on Thu 12th Feb 2004 21:42 UTC

>What sales pitch are you refering too? I didnt post any sales pitch for anyone I just said that yes I would do business with them with regards to the value of the product.

Your original posting (Posted on 2004-02-12 20:30:06) was a VERY creditable sales pitch. And I find it hard to accept that you are totally unaware of events of the past 12 months and just looked at SCOGroup's website and spontaneously decided their "product" looked pretty good.

>>1. SCO UNIX® is a Proven, Stable and Reliable Platform: This is true, there are hardly any kernel vulnerabilities...

Well, it was true, but it's getting long in the tooth. I've been using OpenServer since 1996 with few problems.

>>2. SCO UNIX® is backed by a single, experienced vendor: This is beneficial as well because...

SCOGroup is NOT the SCO who developed the OS. How much they actually know about it is an open question.

>>3. SCO UNIX® has a Committed, Well-Defined Roadmap: Im not that familiar with SCO or their products...

Obviously not, Canopy and SCOGroup have only a litigation roadmap. They've pretty much killed themselves as a credible IT company.

>>4. SCO UNIX® is Secure: Im coming from an IRIX world...

No argument, although, again it's getting long in the tooth.

>>5. SCO UNIX® is Legally Unencumbered: I dont know how true their claims are and I dont care...

The code may be unencumbered, but SCOGroup is sinking in deep poo poo. You ought to care because their actions confirm that they have no viable product or support to offer and are betting the farm on laughably transparent litigation.

v This not exactly an SCO friendly forum
by Sam on Thu 12th Feb 2004 21:57 UTC
re: SCO friendly forum
by Daren on Thu 12th Feb 2004 22:16 UTC

Where could a person find a SCO friendly forum?

...
by Wrawrat on Thu 12th Feb 2004 22:17 UTC

That being as thos Linux has so many developers and contributors there is no way that everyone that participates is 100% honest. So I do believe Linux has violated Copyright laws[...]

It's like saying that the Italian district in your favorite town is criminal because one of them must work in the mafia...

The irony is that you could use your comment against SCO or any UNIX vendor: there are so many programmers that worked on the original codebase that a part of it has violated copyright laws. And it happened at once: ask AT&T, Novell and the UoC at Berkeley.

I wouldnt buy into Linux too much because its like having a pitt bull as a pet, one of these days you know there is a chance it will turn and maul and kill someone so why invite that kind of trouble.

Don't venture outside. You never know when a meteor can fall on your head...

RE:MattPie
by another2 on Thu 12th Feb 2004 22:51 UTC

okay, that was funny, i'm giving you props on that comment

Case Studies
by Richard on Thu 12th Feb 2004 22:55 UTC

Funny they didn't mention Auto Zone in their case studys.
Auto Zone went from SCO Open Server to Red Hat Linux
in over 3000 stores.

RE: 5 Reasons
by Adam S. on Thu 12th Feb 2004 22:58 UTC

" This is complete bull, People are migrating from Windows to Redhat/ other GNU/Linux distros because they offer better support and better security. "

Not in my case

" In terms of stability: Linux is far superiour to SCO Unix, I had a redhat server up for 3 years, while the proprietry SCO Unixware and Openserver systems we used, crashed and burned! "

Coming from a Linux advocate I think I will wait for an unbiased opinion regarding their products.

Re: 5 Reasons
by Adam S. on Thu 12th Feb 2004 23:10 UTC

" Your original posting (Posted on 2004-02-12 20:30:06) was a VERY creditable sales pitch. And I find it hard to accept that you are totally unaware of events of the past 12 months and just looked at SCOGroup's website and spontaneously decided their "product" looked pretty good. "

No, Im very aware of SCO's position now and I never bothered to look at their products page before because I didnt need any help. We went from Red Hat on the servers to Windows Server 2003 and we are set. I decided to look at their site because hey I had some time to kill. Personally I dont have any response or reason to hate them for their position because it doesnt affect me if they win or lose. I dont use Linux and because of the many flaws I found with it when we used it and was a major factor in our switch I never will. Also, the 23 e-mails I have recieved thus far calling a SCO employee and talking trash to me just reassures one fact that I had already determined from Red Hat and other posts and these zealots sites, the Linux community is childish and If you are trying to tell me where I am mistaken or to clarify a fact i got wrong then do it reasonably. I dont respond to trash talk and Im not going to get into an e-fistfight. I dont engage in legal and political discussion over the SCO issue because one side you have the Linux advocates who are going to promote Linux and they are going to say that SCO is lying, while in the other corner you have SCO, analysts and others saying SCO is right. You cant get a decent answer from anybody so why bother, it just turns heated.

" SCOGroup is NOT the SCO who developed the OS. How much they actually know about it is an open question."

Tarantella is the original SCO, but that makes no difference. SCO is SCO is SCO. Im sure they retained some of Tarantellas talent.


" The code may be unencumbered, but SCOGroup is sinking in deep poo poo. You ought to care because their actions confirm that they have no viable product or support to offer and are betting the farm on laughably transparent litigation. "

I think they have a viable product left and i think that if they lose a couple of linux advocates Im sure they wont care. Your opinion on the case has no bearing because despite what you believe or you think we dont make a decision in this case. It is up to 12 men and women on a jury to decide and if they decide SCO is wrong so be it. Im not going to give personal sight into this case as I said i dont want to get into a debate and have my mailbox cluttered with e-mail from people telling me what a jerk i am.

@Adam S.
by A nun, he moos on Fri 13th Feb 2004 00:10 UTC

I dont engage in legal and political discussion over the SCO issue because one side you have the Linux advocates who are going to promote Linux and they are going to say that SCO is lying, while in the other corner you have SCO, analysts and others saying SCO is right.

A slight correction - in the sentence above, you seem to indicate that only Linux advocates believe that SCO is wrong, while a variety of analysts, experts, etc. support SCO. In fact, most analysts (except perhapsfor Laura Didio) now believe SCO's case to be shaky at best. SCO's lawyer have publicly admitted that they have little chance on winning on breach of contract and have sought to change the subject of the trial to a copyright violation (which the case wasn't about up until now).

While changing strategy once you've already started legal proceedings is not unheard of, it's not a particularly strong position to put yourself into - especially since Judge Wells is beginning to lose her patience with SCO as they have failed to provide IBM with the documents they sought during discovery. SCO claims that it needs to have the AIX code before it can prove wrongdoing - despite their repeated declarations in the media that they knew of "milllions of lines of code" that were improperly put into Linux. Trouble is, the Judge has granted IBM's motion, and will wait until SCO has complied before ruling on their own motion to compel. It seems as if they still want to debate this - not a good way to get on the judge's good side, if you ask me.

Also, Novell is now challenging SCO's assertion that they own "all of UNIX" by claiming that they retained certain rights. According to lawyers who have followed this new development, SCO made a mistake by slapping Novell with a Slander of Title lawsuit - it would have had a much better chance to win by going with Breach of Contract this time...the irony is that, should Novell own some of the copyrights to Unix still, then SCO could be found guilty of Slander of Title.

http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=2004021116125699

SCO's legal future is troubled indeed. I'd be surprised if the company still exists same time next year.

For more info, as always:

http://www.groklaw.net/

@Adam S.
by Daren on Fri 13th Feb 2004 00:24 UTC

Adam, I have a hard time believing that you are neutral in this. If you have been following what SCO has been doing then surely you see that they are not being very forthcoming about their claims. In fact, it would seem from the start that their only purpose is to steal other people's property and to slander linux and the linux community.

I don't need a jury to decide for me what is right and what is wrong. I am able to make decisions for myself based on the conduct of the SCO representatives. I have decided that SCO cannot be trusted. Would I buy a product from a company I don't trust? Would I recommend a product from a company I don't trust? Absolutely not Adam. Do you trust them?

A point by point refutation
by Christopher X on Fri 13th Feb 2004 00:45 UTC

1) SCO UNIX® is a proven, stable, and reliable platform

I don't think anyone will argue against SCO Unix's stability, I've been around some deployments and have never experienced an issue in any of them. However, the same goes for Linux. In in the wild Linux servers appear to be as stable as the Solaris and UnixWare machines I've encountered. By listing this as a reason against Linux implies that Linux isn't stable, when it most certainly is. Although Linux, as well as other platforms, has had bugs introduced or discovered that made it less then reliable, in the case of Linux they are often discovered and squashed in astonishing speed. In the case of the distributions theres through testing before their kernels are ever released to customers. Linux is over ten years old now, and has been in deployed use along side its competition for at least half as long in many circles. I knew of places that had Red Hat Linux widely deployed around here when I was in High School, around 1998. Let alone now, where even in Oklahoma you can find deployments of Linux just about everywhere.

Linux scales better then any SCO product in every sense of the word. Unlike most Unixes it can scale both up and down beautifully. Its shipped in both the embedded market on devices like the TiVo to cell phones, ATMs, PDAs, and even digital photo frames! While not a true hard real-time operating system, Linux is quickly gaining ground in both the high end and embedded market as it grows in /both/ directions at once. On the high end SGI is shipping up to 256 CPU Linux NUMA machines and thanks to Linux 2.6 it can now handle far more resources then ever before, with near linear scalability. Linux, from the tiniest embedded box to the highest end multi-CPU monster - one kernel, one platform. Yes, we outscale SCO (and Solaris, if you include downward scalability).

2) SCO UNIX® is Backed by a Single, Experienced Vendor

Who's future is not certain. I'd challenge the "experienced" bit since this is not the Santa Clara Organization of old, but the /Linux/ distributor Caldera renamed. Insofar as Unix sells and support, this new SCO is quite new. They've proven themselves inept in the Linux market (which is why their pushing Unix so hard now, isn't it? including that lawsuit) and so they decided to reinvent themselves and try again. Their bleeding money and loosing customers, which is why depending on a single vendor is an inherently bad idea. SCO dies tomorrow, lets say, who supports you? Linux is owned by no single company, if Red Hat were to die tomorrow your not screwed, you still have choices. When Red Hat decided to cease support for their classic line of Red Hat products several other sources decided to pick up where they left off, updates continue even if Red Hat no longer is involved. Tech support can now be provided by Progeny. If Red Hat as a whole died, your still not screwed. Choice is beautiful. This advantage is also extended to the BSDs, being owned by no one group they cannot "die" in the sense of a business closing up shop would spell the end for any of them. FreeBSD has survived several setbacks when commercial backing was being juggled around, and their still here and stronger then ever.

3) SCO UNIX® has a Committed, Well-Defined Roadmap

Commit to it all you want, your future is not certain. You can commit to a six-year roadmap and go bankrupt tomorrow, commitment means sh*t if you can't make money. If you must use a commercial Unix, Sun's Solaris is so much better in so many ways. Plus, Sun - despite recent troubles - isn't going to up and die tomorrow.

4) SCO UNIX® is Secure

Admittedly I don't recall many recent exploits in their products, but listing this as a bullet point would imply that Linux is not secure. Despite recent kernel exploits, the Linux community always responds to security issues with breakneck speed. Same goes for the BSD, there is no commercial equivilant. We close our holes fast, and patches are usually out within 24 hours. No sitting on a known exploit for six months like Microsoft. Also, the vast majority of Linux exploits are not Linux specific at all, a recent OpenSSL exploit would also be relevant to any BSD (if not all) that uses it, or possibly Solaris. These are apps that run on Linux, and are not a part of Linux - the kernel - itself.

5) SCO UNIX® is Legally Unencumbered

SCO has yet to prove their case or even provide freaking evidence. I, along with lots of theres, have strong doubts there is any Unix code "taining" Linux. Linux, by being open source, is a transparent box - you can't very well expect to rob a place and toss it into a transparent box and not expect people to notice. The source code is published extremely widely, if Linux was ripping off Unix then who in their right mind would expect to "get away" with it? The evidence of your deed is on FTP servers the world over! The opposite, when the source code is not available, is far more likely.

wow, my spelling sucks
by Christopher X on Fri 13th Feb 2004 00:56 UTC

lots of mistakes, but I wrote that in a sort of hurry since I'm about to leave here. Sorry folks, hope its readable. :-)

@Adam S.
by Jan_post on Fri 13th Feb 2004 01:00 UTC

I wonder why no one pointed you to a review of Unixware here on OSNews:

http://www.osnews.com/story.php?news_id=5416

I think this ought qualify as an independent review.

Re: Wrawrat
by Roberto J. Dohnert on Fri 13th Feb 2004 03:55 UTC

<<< It's like saying that the Italian district in your favorite town is criminal because one of them must work in the mafia... >>>

Actually Wrawrat he is quoting me. I have said that in numerous forums and you wanna know what its true. Not everyone that contributes code is not 100% honest. I think you are being unrealistic by not acknowledging the fact that yes, there are some nefarious people in the Linux community. He did not say all of them just that there could be some.

<<< The irony is that you could use your comment against SCO or any UNIX vendor: there are so many programmers that worked on the original codebase that a part of it has violated copyright laws. And it happened at once: ask AT&T, Novell and the UoC at Berkeley. <<<

See now you made a point and reinforced mine. This world is not full of totally honest people.


<<< I wouldnt buy into Linux too much because its like having a pitt bull as a pet, one of these days you know there is a chance it will turn and maul and kill someone so why invite that kind of trouble.

Don't venture outside. You never know when a meteor can fall on your head... >>>

Actually the pitt bull comment is a pretty good analogy, Im going to recycle that one and he made a very good point, none of us can be totally sure that every line of Linux code is legal,and yes without indemnification the end users are playing russian roulette because after this case is done there will be another, and groklaw has this thing going on where it wants to document every copyright in Linux which is a pointless endeavor because copyright is only good when its been challenged and proved to belong to the original author whomever that may be. The guy made a good point and Adam S. dont worry, I get on average a total of 70 - 85 e-mails a day calling me a traitor and a jerk, its nothing unusual from Linux zealots.

Re: @Adam S.
by Roberto J. Dohnert on Fri 13th Feb 2004 04:00 UTC

<<< I wonder why no one pointed you to a review of Unixware here on OSNews:

http://www.osnews.com/story.php?news_id=5416

I think this ought qualify as an independent review. >>>

I actually did a review of UnixWare myself a while back and the review you posted comes from a Linux zealot and that review doesnt hold any weight in my eyes because it is not objective. I actually found it quite good on a Dell PowerEdge, in fact the only thing I did find lacking was application support.

@Roberto Dohnert
by rodney on Fri 13th Feb 2004 04:19 UTC

The point I think your missing wrt your 'inate dishonesty of programmers' arguement is that the code that is proported to be leaked into Linux comes through AIX, and hence the reason SCO is suing IBM and not indiviudals (as we know who supplies patches to the kernel). These hordes of nefarious EMACS/VI denizens, after pouring over the AIX code base by day, put on their Big Blue cape and distribute SVR5 code by night.

Come on. This is a smoke screen put up by SCO to make up for the fact that they are only now implementing (source SCO ppt presentation):
- USB Printer Support
- CUPS
- HBA
- SATA
- Support for >2 IDE Controllers
- ACPI
- DVD/CDFS

@Roberto
by A nun, he moos on Fri 13th Feb 2004 05:44 UTC

Come on Roberto, no need for such inflammatory comments. The fact that there are some dishonest people is irrelevant to this. I'm sure there are dishonest Open Source coders like there are dishonest coders and managers working for proprietary software company as well - but that too is irrelevant to the SCO case.

It's pretty simple: open and closed source can contain copyright violations. There may be copyright violations in the leaked MS Win2K code, who knows. The fact of the matter is that, when this happens, there are mechanisms to deal with it. SCO was offered many times to identify the offending code so that it could be removed - this is the civilized way to do it. For example, this is how the FSF seeks to solve most disputes involving misappropriated or "mis-licensed" code. However, it's clear that SCO's allegations in the media and in court have varied dramatically, from "millions of lines of codes" to a few BSD files and such.

You say that none of such can say for sure that every line of code in Linux is legit, but one can say the same thing about commercial code as well - except that someone stealing code to put in Linux is in fact exposing itself to legal action, since it's available for all to parse and analyze. This is a powerful incentive, in fact, for not stealing code at all, since there is a non-negligent risk that you'll be caught - and incentive that's not present in proprietary development.

Is there stolen code in Linux? Probably not any that belong to SCO's, that much we're all beginning to realize. Is there other stolen code in Linux? It's a possibility, though the probability for that is but a matter of conjecture.

But even if there were, that would matter little: the offending code would be taken out and the copyright infringer (i.e. the person who actually stole the code) might face legal action, but end users wouldn't be affected. People might have to update some files or an app, or install a new kernel, depending on where the code was. I'd be interested to hear arguments on how end users and even distro makers could be held liable. If you buy a book that contains a plagiarized passage, are you guilty of copyright infringement? Is the bookstore where you bought it liable?

I'm sorry to hear that some people send you hate mail, personally I respect your opinions. But it's time to realize that the writing's on the wall for SCO, who has basically admitted that they sued IBM on a hunch that they must have somehow contributed code that was theirs to begin with in a totally open fashion to Linux, and that this code was supposedly derived from their own - but that they can't tell what it is because they don't have access to IBM's code! In other words, they went fishing...and the boat's about to capsize. So that's that for SCO.

But even if one day some other code was found to have been improperly put into Linux, despite the open source-related incentives for programmers to keep it clean, it would be nowhere near the apocalyptic vision peddled by McBride and company. At most, it would be a small nuisance to users who might have to upgrade some software. Therefore references to Linux representing some kind of legal liability in this regards are misleading at best.

Bla bla bla bla from SCO
by Tudy on Fri 13th Feb 2004 10:04 UTC

Does someone know when exactly do they decide who owns the Unix copyrights in the Sco-Novell case? What about the Sco-IBM case? What's the status right now? I read that Redhat sued Sco also, and some other companies, but I hear nothing recent of that in the news.

<<Proud to live in the birthland of Linux>>

RE: 5 Reasons
by Anonymous on Fri 13th Feb 2004 10:17 UTC

At work we have had SCO Unix ware database servers - fill the partition and guaranteed crash and burn with kernel panic...

Linux delete whatever has grown, and restart affected daemons and it keeps on trucking.

This is funny
by Smartpatrol on Fri 13th Feb 2004 12:23 UTC

If i have any decision making power in an implementation i am less likely to suggest an x86 Unix solution. For arguments sake if i were to, SCO Unix wouldn't even be on the list! Solaris x86 first, BSD second.
I think most of the arguments here about SCO and their creditablity are right on. I haven't had the oppourtunity to work with SCO so i will reserve total judgement. I do know that most serious Unix SA's that i have had dealing with scoff at the mention of SCO.

@Tudy (IP: ---.dial.inet.fi)
by A nun, he moos on Fri 13th Feb 2004 13:55 UTC

If you haven't heard much about the RedHat case, it's because nothing much is happening in it yet. However, to pick up on up-to-date developments (and plenty of court documents), head on to www.groklaw.net - if you didn't already know about it...

Adding to somebody's comments
by dukeinlondon on Fri 13th Feb 2004 19:11 UTC


2. SCO UNIX® is backed by a single, experienced vendor
This would be vendor lock-in. A disadvantage really.

+ Linux is backed by a large number of very experienced vendors.... which one is better backed ?

3. SCO UNIX® has a Committed, Well-Defined Roadmap
Can somebody point me to this roadmap?

+ there never better defined than completely open


@Roberto
by Wrawrat on Fri 13th Feb 2004 19:12 UTC

Actually Wrawrat he is quoting me. I have said that in numerous forums and you wanna know what its true. Not everyone that contributes code is not 100% honest. I think you are being unrealistic by not acknowledging the fact that yes, there are some nefarious people in the Linux community. He did not say all of them just that there could be some.

Well, I don't remember saying that all contributers are 100% honest. Did I? My point is simply that you shouldn't discredit Linux and promote SCO UNIX over it because there might be some code of the latter in the former as the opposite is probably also true... Dishonest programmers are everywhere.

Actually the pitt bull comment is a pretty good analogy, Im going to recycle that one and he made a very good point, none of us can be totally sure that every line of Linux code is legal[...]

...and you can't be sure that every line in SCO UNIX is. Or in Microsoft Windows. Or in FreeBSD. That's my point. ;)

[...]and yes without indemnification the end users are playing russian roulette because after this case is done there will be another, and groklaw has this thing going on where it wants to document every copyright in Linux which is a pointless endeavor because copyright is only good when its been challenged and proved to belong to the original author whomever that may be.

And you think SCO would protect you if the opposite ever happens? Let's say they have commited AIX code illegally... Do you think they would be in a good position to indemnify their users from the wrath of the Big Blue? I don't think so.

Note that I'm not questionning his choice of using SCO OpenServer over Linux. It's his choice and I respect it. I'm just questionning that argument as it seems pretty weak to me.

The guy made a good point and Adam S. dont worry, I get on average a total of 70 - 85 e-mails a day calling me a traitor and a jerk, its nothing unusual from Linux zealots.Well don't worry, I'm just a Linux user... and I'm not only using Linux. ;)

5Reasons: did SCO steal the picture from Novell?
by Ken on Fri 13th Feb 2004 20:24 UTC

Did anybody else notice that the picture at http://www.thescogroup.com is virtually the same as the one at http://support.novell.com ? Other than the visual treatment, the image is identical. What's going on here?

5Reasons: did SCO steal the picture from Novell?
by Ken on Fri 13th Feb 2004 20:28 UTC

To clarify the URL: http://www.thescogroup.com/5reasons .
Look at the two sites with a tabbed browser like Mozilla and you'll find it rather odd...

Yep, I rushed over to read this article.......
by Anonymous on Sat 14th Feb 2004 01:10 UTC

but on the way I had this sudden urge to visit the bathroom. I decided taking a dump was more interesting than anything SCO has to say. You know what? I was right!