A few more links to yesterday’s barrage of SCO-related articles:
“SCO CEO says no Linux is legit” (interview with the SCO CEO), “Meet Linux’s New Public Enemy No. 1” (another SCO CEO interview), “Torvalds Sounds Off On SCO Lawsuit“, “Analysis: SCO Takes on Linux“, “Tragedy to farce–the SCO vs IBM lawsuit” (written by ESR).
SCO CEO Says No Version of Linux Passes Legal Muster
About The Author
Eugenia Loli
Ex-programmer, ex-editor in chief at OSNews.com, now a visual artist/filmmaker.
Follow me on Twitter @EugeniaLoli
I felt that it take too long before this thing goes to court. I think SCO is not honest enough since what they are doing now gave very bad image on Linux in the eyes of corporate world. If they intend to reduce the popularity of Linux so that their Unix product will emerge, i think they are wrong.
Or maybe they are thinking of getting money from the job done by others. Can you imagine how much they can make from Linux distributors if the manage to succeed? Well, an easy money since most of the good part are done by others and then later sombody else claim the profit.
Hopefully they will go to court as soon as possible or maybe there are sombody to seek for injunction so that SCO cannot make any press release that will tarnish Linux image until the court give the verdict.
Why does not somebody turn the tabel on SCO and take them to court over this? I sure there is something that can be used to drag SCO in the mud like they are doing to Linux.
Eric Raymond’s commentary is the best I’ve read yet. Just a nice, succinct, and hard-hitting analysis of the idiotic SCO debacle, including a brief snapshot of Unix history. Go Eric – and let’s all hope this worrying nonsense is over soon. Once SCO’s carpetbaggers have skulked off into the woodwork, we can all get on with building the future.
“Seek the opinion of legal counsel, get your own counsel to take a look at the Linux licenses you have and see where the liability resides.”
WTF does this have anything to do with liabilities. The only way anyone could assert their liabilities would be by looking at the code SCO claims was stolen.
They are threatening people bu refusing to tell them why they should feel threatened.
It’s funny how they say “Torvalds, widely considered the father of Linux,” as if there was any question about his paternity…
I think he’s right in comparing SCO to the Raelians. Like them, SCO’s goal seems to be drumming up publicity. The article makes a good point about IBM, too.
Who else but Linus or Cox would know what’s in the kernel?
Also, a question: This may sound silly, but is it legally possible that it is the code used for Unixware filesystem support? I noticed it when configuring my kernel recently. Was that donated code or reverse-engineered?
ESR is a troll. So is Darl McBride. The hyperbole on both sides is sickening. Of course, I agree that IBM has done nothing wrong here, and that SCO’s offerings pale in comparison to what GNU/Linux is today….
But it’s not as cut-and-dried as the trolls make it out to be. Please, nothing personal, just calm down a bit. This will be settled in court, and it will come out the right way. SCO doesn’t have long to live after that.
No wonder the churchs of the world got together to form a set of standards for corporate conduct:
http://www.bench-marks.org/
McBride: We’re not trying to go fight people with this right now; we’re trying to let them know about the problem.
No you’re not, McBride. If you were trying to let people know about the problem, you’d tell us all what the actual problem is and you wouldn’t send threatening sounding letters to Fortune 1000 companies hinting that they could be liable. You’ll only show people what the problem is under NDA. What good is that?
So come off it McBride, you’re playing the shyster. Are you seriously claiming that SCO IP is in Linux 2.0? 1.2? Does it go all the way back to 0.1, McBride? Of course not, but it sounds a whole lot more impressive if you say “all versions of Linux”. You’ve been taking a pointer from the politicions and made sure you’re never too specific, havn’t you?
What is going on here? I have posted this before but check this out:
http://finance.yahoo.com/q?s=scox&d=c&t=1y
Look at those stocks go up and up.
What are investors thinking?
Something is going on here, much bigger then we know. I think they (SCO) are calling foul, and then inflating stocks, and mark my words, they are going to bail. There is no way to explain that a company that has pulled its own product out and is about to enter a lawsuit is going to be a good investment.
Someone explain to me how this can be happening?
who claims this has nothing to do with politics, economics and information warfare has to be kidding: http://207.230.15.115/.
free / open source community stands for the red pill and that’s what it’s all about. people are taking red pills although red should be exterminated by now. and the blue guys just hate it
With Microsoft clout and pirate gold behind SCO, of course the stock price is going up.
The SCO lawsuit is so obviously put together by Microsoft as a move against Linux. Microsoft has probably told the Wall Street insiders that they will buy SCO if SCO loses the lawsuits.
..is that open source is all about giving to everyone, and nobody owning the intellectual property. It’s noble and that’s why I love it. SCO are led by a selfish bunch of morons whose greed angers me greatly, I believe McBride said “We’re only defending our IP, what would you do if you were in our shoes?” Well McBride, I’d give the whole lot to the community so everyone could enjoy the software without fear it could be snatched away by some money-grabbing faceless corporation.
People like that make me sick.
MS seems to be doing whatever possible to get rid of Linux….
http://tv.ksl.com/index.php?nid=5&sid=29450
owns UNIX? Did SCO wright their UNIX from scratch?
“The SCO lawsuit is so obviously put together by Microsoft as a move against Linux. Microsoft has probably told the Wall Street insiders that they will buy SCO if SCO loses the lawsuits.”
I wouldn’t be suprised if your claims are true…..
After being fully unsuccessful in the last few years in every field they entered – Linux, Unix, the workstation, the whole works, they decided upon self-destruct – after trying in vain to squeece out money from Linux. If SCO has any truth in SCO’s claim, by time they are done with IBM, they wouldn’t be strong enough to hit out on anyone else.
Meanwhile, they probably wouldn’t be able to sell more then they did prior to the lawsuit – people may be vary of Linux, but why choose SCO now? Why not Sun? or HP? Why SCO? Precisely.
They are shooting themselves in the foot. Any patented/copyrighted part of Linux can be replaced, but I doubt SCO would last through the decade.
Personally, that’s why you don’t have any software or head any important, if no company at all. Sure, I think what SCO is doing is entirely stupid, but putting everything for public domain with no thought on how to put food on the table? No happening man. Sure, I would release stuff that isn’t useful for getting money for myself, but seriously, after spending *money* on R&D, would you just let the community enjoy it with no sound financial comeback? Hah!
I think there should be some grass root support formed to tell IBM: “Don’t settle!”. Rather spend the money that a settlement would cost on upstart linux companies. In the long run, money spent that way would provide much more back to both IBM and the community than a quick careless settlement.
If you can’t compete in the market, just send in the lawyers and sue somebody. Even if nothing comes out of this, the strategy has worked for SCO. Their stock has surged, so a lot of SCO stockholders have made millions of profit with this disgusting strategy.
I think that US companies will spend more and more time suing each other, and less time competing on the market, until they become completely irrelevant in the world economy.
I really hope that IBM will not settle. Instead they should file thousands of counter suits. I am sure there is some IBM intellectual “property” that SCO has used. And they should also sue for badmouthing IBM and Linux.
It is really sad that the only way to defend against a frivolous lawsuit is to countersue, but apparently that is the way things work in the USA.
This whole thing should make it perfectly clear that the notion of intellectual “property” is hindering progress in a big way.
SCO makes me think of mr. Al Sahaf
“They are sick in their minds. They say there is no SCO code in the Linux kernel. I say to you this talk is not true. This is part of their sick mind.”
Take what SCO has.
Subtract everything in BSD after the settlement of the lawsuit brought by AT&T/Novell. This consists of BSD before the settlement minus three minor files BSD replaced as a result of the settlement.
From what’s left of what SCO had, subtract everything written by others that SCO and its predecessors in interest did not acquire copyright to. Given the history of Unix, this is probably everything that was not written in-house by employees of SCO or its predecessors in interest.
From what’s left of what SCO had after that, subtract everything independently created by people other than SCO and their predecessors in interest. Compelling evidence of independent creation would be a cvs log showing creation prior to the time SCO or its predecessors in interest wrote particular code.
Then take what’s left. Compare it to ‘xyz’ unix, linux, whatever, and see if there was any actual copying.
It seenms to me that there may well be chunks of GNU/Linux code (other than common BSD stuff) in SCO UNIX but the direction of travel was was from Linux to SCO via violation of the GPL.
I think it is time that Eben Moglen should start threatening legal action against SCO by the FSF. They should demand that SCO show that any code SCO claims to be common to SCO and GNU/Linux should be publicly be shown to have been commited to the Unixware code base prior to the codes commitment to the GNU/Linux codebase or else face legal action.
I think it is very probable that there is stolen GPL code in SCO Unixware.
All I am reading these days from SCO is a lot of FUD which I know is inspired by the evil empire M$.
M$ cannot and will not ever be able to beat Linux with technology innovation. We all know how dirty M$ can be to defeat compition.
M$ innovation is either bought or copied from compition.
Prime example is .Not is a copycat of Java.
http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/05/23/1053585678840.html
SCO does not own the UNIX trademark itself or the definition (the Single UNIX Specification) of what the UNIX system is…Statements that SCO ‘owns the UNIX operating system’, has ‘licensed UNIX to XYZ’ are clearly inaccurate and misleading. The simple fact is that throughout all of this both SCO Group and IBM do have certified products, are licensed to and do use the UNIX trademark in association with certified products with the correct attribution.
“The SCO lawsuit is so obviously put together by Microsoft as a move against Linux. Microsoft has probably told the Wall Street insiders that they will buy SCO if SCO loses the lawsuits.”
And MS has even more reasons to buy SCO if it *wins* the case.
All I am reading these days from SCO is a lot of FUD which I know is inspired by the evil empire M$.
Next what? Congolese rebels hunting, killing and easting Pygmies is inspired by the evil empire M$? Or maybe the over million Tutsis dead at Hutu hands in Rwanda – that inspired by the evil empire M$? Or how about the SARS scare in Asia (and Canada) – inspired by the evil empire M$? Oh, oh, for sure, M$ has an office in mainland China, Hong Kong, Taiwan, Toronto, and Singapore, surely it must have been involved. By golly..
M$ cannot and will not ever be able to beat Linux with technology innovation.
Yeap, there are just millions of innovations on the Linux side…
It’s just too much, I couldn’t even mention one.
We all know how dirty M$ can be to defeat compition.
Oh sure we do. They license a browser. Make it slightly better, market it to be better and bundles it with their OS – ALL while their competitor started a 4 years rewrite of their flagship product. I mean, how anti-competitive is that?
Oh wait, I read it wrong, ” defeat compition”. Of course, everyone should just let competition be, live in a nice communistic society where there is little, if not no competition. I mean, just imagine in a race, a athlete decides to run faster than his competitors – how unfair is that?
M$ innovation is either bought or copied from compition.
Oh yeah, for sure. I mean, everything on Linux is original, right?
Prime example is .Not is a copycat of Java.
Exactly. How dare M$ did what Sun did and copied an idea which Sun also copied to make .NET which is in many ways better for desktop development? That is soooooo evil.
/me hopes sarcarsm works here.
Uhmm, the last post was mine, BTW
McBride: “But I would turn the question around to them and ask the question: ‘What would you do if you were in our shoes?’ What would you do if you had turned three independent programming teams loose on the question of ‘Is our UnixWare inside of Linux?’ and all three of those groups came back independently and said yes.”
http://www.itnews.com.au/storycontent.cfm?ID=8&Art_ID=12081
But then you remember just what was considered admissible evidence in some prior statements:
“This is both direct lines of our Unix . . . code copied into Linux as well as code that has been obfuscated for the purpose of hiding where it came from.”
http://www.sltrib.com/2003/May/05162003/business/57292.asp
Obfuscated? So how does that turn into a legal claim? If something has been written for itself, and it merely happens to resemble another piece of work, and both are written around the same specification, how does that translate into a claim that the first must therefore be an obfuscated copy of the second?
They have obviously left themselves wide open to the charge that they are deliberately fabricating evidence. And that, I might point out, is fraud.
Please read this:
http://www.opensource.org/sco-vs-ibm.html
Great and calm article going through SCO claims step by step.
?McBride: I don’t think you are going to have any challenges worldwide with the argument that SCO owns the majority of the Unix operating system intellectual property. The arguments will come in that we don’t all of it. And that is a challenge in this case, versus the online music business, I would agree with that.?
Reading between the lines, it seems that SCO will base a substantial portion of its claim on ownership of the Unix architecture and system call interface, as opposed to direct copying of source code. This is also implied by the opening line of the story, which reports that McBride said no version of Linux (including the early versions developed mostly by Torvalds) were legal. But this ownership is disputed by the Open Group, posted today on newsforge:
?As the owner of the UNIX trademark, The Open Group has separated the UNIX trademark from any actual code stream itself, thus allowing multiple implementations. Since the introduction of the Single UNIX Specification, there has been a single, open, consensus specification that defines the requirements for a conformant UNIX system.?
Aside from The Open Group’s ownership, copyright extends only to a specific implementation.
I?m waiting for an interviewer to press SCO on why they refuse to disclose their infringement findings to the public, which could then be evaluated by the 1500 corporations SCO sent letters to. Again from McBride:
?The Linux community on these message boards will get very vocal, many times without even understanding what the underlying issues are. So it’s a little bit like being Shaquille O’Neil and driving home from the game that night and listening to the call in show. It can drive you crazy if you listen to every fan that calls in or non-fan.?
Shaq? This guy’s ego is somewhat inflated. I think a comparison with Scott Peterson would be better taken.
Sorry about the punctuation, I’m not browser trained yet 🙁
M$ cannot and will not ever be able to beat Linux with technology innovation.
Ummmm. They beat Linux because they innovated enought to build a fast desktop operating system while the Linux camp can still be found arguing over the merits of X11 vs Framebuffers, Gnome vs KDE etc.
M$ innovation is either bought or copied from compition. Prime example is .Not is a copycat of Java.
Ummmm. GNU/Linux itself is a copy of the UNIX operating system (GNU/Linux is NOT UNIX). KDE and Gnome are largely copies of the Windows User Interface. OpenOffice is a copy of Microsoft’s Office package. GNU/Mono is a copy of the Microsoft .NET platform. Evolution is a copy of Microsoft Outlook. And so the list of non-innovative copying goes on…
GNU/Linux has indeed built its whole philosphy on copying from competition and rarely innovates in and of itself. It seems to me that anything Microsoft does is automatically wrong in your eyes and that will not change because you are narrow minded. Linux is more guilty that Microsoft for the claims you make.
We may not know what the hell is going on behind the scene, but we obviously know that M$ has corruptive politics and instead of trying to write good code, they use nasty politics to spread their monoply.
Now that there’s no doubt on the front side of the problem, we have to sign something and boycott M$ totally. We have to throw out Windows out of our PCs.
Microsoft was the evil behind the disappearance of BeOS and is trying to do the same thing once again.
Microsoft was the evil behind the temporary disappearance of Mac and is trying to the same thing once again.
But we only stop and watch and then discuss but don’t act…
We all knew that someone would squeak when they see their products being pushed out by Linux. The only companies that will survive this are the ones who embrace Linux…even Sun and other Unix manufacturers are riding the fence on what do to with their proprietary Unixes…You have to expect that Linux is going to cause problems with competitors, I mean its the first serious contender to Windows in years, and it has MS worried. Practically all serious web/database authoring companies already run their apps under Liunux and MySql. This SCO thing will blow over and Linux will keep moving forward…then SCO will be the one who blows to dust…
Dano.
>Ummmm. They beat Linux because they innovated enought to build a fast desktop operating system while the Linux camp can still be found arguing over the merits of X11 vs Framebuffers, Gnome vs KDE etc.
I think many people will disagree. I find Linux faster, glossier and less crashy on my Celeron 433 than Windows. The reason the Linux camp argues is that it has choice. Jane Windows User has no say in whether the next version of Windows has blue titlebars or Office Assistants or whatever. Joe Linux User can write Havoc Pennington and say “Dood the buttons in GNOME sux0r! make them purple!” and his comment will be at least considered.
>
Ummmm. GNU/Linux itself is a copy of the UNIX operating system (GNU/Linux is NOT UNIX). KDE and Gnome are largely copies of the Windows User Interface. OpenOffice is a copy of Microsoft’s Office package. GNU/Mono is a copy of the Microsoft .NET platform. Evolution is a copy of Microsoft Outlook. And so the list of non-innovative copying goes on…
GNU/Linux has indeed built its whole philosphy on copying from competition and rarely innovates in and of itself. It seems to me that anything Microsoft does is automatically wrong in your eyes and that will not change because you are narrow minded. Linux is more guilty that Microsoft for the claims you make.
>
Well, for one thing, Linux does not take from its competitor s and then kill them (or kill them, then take). It at least admits in many cases that it is a copyoff. And yes, it’s not UNIX. On the FreeBSD website it says that FreeBSD is a “Unix-like” operating system, just like Linux. Does that mean it’s not UNIX? Only in a pedantic sense. Windows still doesn’t have a journaling filesystem, and Linux has 4. (OpenOffice is an exact copy of StarOffice, not MS Office). KDE/GNOME can do things Windows can never do. So what’s your point?
“KDE and Gnome are largely copies of the Windows User Interface. OpenOffice is a copy of Microsoft’s Office package. GNU/Mono is a copy of the Microsoft .NET platform.”
I hope you don’t think that Microsoft is the inventor of the GUI and the Office suites.
Everyone takes over ideas from each other. I don’t think this is bad. But implying that MS is a big innovator and Linux only a copy is BS. MS’ success is largely a combination of taking over ideas from others, a monopoly position and marketing skills.
BTW C# is mostly a copy of Java.
Can SCO, by virtue of having distributed the same code whilst in partnership with SuSE, not be liable and lose their right to the code, or rather, could they have unwittingly GPL’d their code. If they are going to go after RedHat or SuSE, or Mandrake,(Probably not Mandrake), Redhat could say say in their defence they did not know what code was stolen, as it can hardly be expected of them to know what is in SCO’s industrial secret code to compare with. If SCO says that is not an excuse, then they are not excusible for ever distributing the code in the first place. They may, subject to other reasoning as well, might have GPL’d it.
I think the worst thing they can try to do is to attack other distro’s because tht leaves them on shaky ground. If they concede that others might have done it out of ingorance, then they will have a major let off. If they press, I see things becoming interesting too.
That said, do not think there is a single line of their code in Linux. I thought the development styles and coding styles were different so that code might not work too well.
“Jane Windows User has no say in whether the next version of Windows has blue titlebars or Office Assistants or whatever.”
In Windows 2000 (title bars):
a) Right mouse click on the desktop
b) Select “Properties”
c) Click on “Appearance” tab
d) Click on a title bar in the applet
e) Choose from over 16 million colors
Office Install (office assistant):
a) Find check box for “Install Office Assistant”
b) Uncheck it.
Just because you don’t know how to do something, doesn’t mean it can’t be done.
SCO is probably screaming for somone to buy them so they dont go down.
@Greg: Windows does indeed have a journaling FS, in the form of NTFS. It’s the only journaling FS I’ve ever managed to corrupt with an improper shutdown, but it is still a journaling FS.
@Anonymous: I belive Greg’s point was not so much that you can or cannot do a specific thing in Windows, but with OSS software, you have a much closer link to the development team than you do with Microsoft software.
@Anonymous: KDE or GNOME is only a clone of Windows if you don’t actually use KDE or GNOME regularly. I’ll base my arguement on KDE, which I use most often. On a superficial basis, the two are rather similar. The whole WIMP paradigm makes all GUIs like kind of the same, and KDE goes a little further and puts the buttons, menus, and scrollbars in generally the same places. Using the system, however, reveals a very different workflow. For example, the whole window management scheme is different. Windows encourages you to turn to the taskbar for everything, especially now that Office is no longer MDI. KDE, which has virtual desktops built-in, encourages a different window management behavior. It makes more use of tabbed windows and split panes. The major KDE apps (Konq, Kate, Quanta, Konsole) are all heavily tab/pane oriented. KDevelop 3.0 uses a slick IDEAl interface that is much easier to manage than Visual Studio’s MDI interface. It makes less use of modal dialog boxes and non-resizable widgets. It makes less use of the browser-like “navigation” metaphor and more use of tree vies. KDE apps in general use fewer custom widgets and integrate better with each other, both at the interface and programatic level.
Watch those stock prices.
I said before that “something rotten in Denmark” here, and was told that people like me should be knocked in the head for making such statements.
I’d like to see how much bravado such people have when it comes time for them to choose between food and medicine here in America. They gonna tell me that the drug companies are squeaky-clean “business is business” too, then?
Are *you* under the power of gold? I think the people at SCO are, and very afraid they might not be able to scam enough of it for themselves.
I suppose this is too much to ask, but I wonder what a SEC investigation would reveal?
Well, an easy money since most of the good part are done by others and then later sombody else claim the profit.
Its called trickle down economics. You do work, they outsource whatever work you don’t do, like support, then sell it and keept the profits. Then you’re supposed to believe that the profits will eventually trickle down into your hands.
It doesn’t work that way. The corporation and the execs need to keep most of the profits because they need to provide new insight and direction into the organization, etc. For one reason or another they need to keep that cash and when we finally realize they’re just another Enron they’ll run off and hide in their giant vault of gold. Because that’s where they like to swim.
I think it should be a crime against humanity to have more than $1,000,000,000. Throw all the criminals in prison.
This whole thing should make it perfectly clear that the notion of intellectual “property” is hindering progress in a big way.
Not just intellectual property. The very concept of money makes companies react so unintelligently that the effects can be heard half way around the world. The concepts of property and value do far more to hinder progress in science, technology, industry and the arts than anything. Yet most people feel like they need to hold onto those things, those things they will never be able to hold onto forever. While they let their loved ones fight a losing battle in this cold heartless world. Wasting away a 100 years, aging slowly everyday on our way to work. How much of your life will you spend with your kids or your parents? 10%? How much will you spend at work or paying bills? 50%? How much of that goes just to manage your money?
McBride: I understand why people are upset. And I understand why people are asking, ‘Those SCO guys, what are they doing now?’ But I would turn the question around to them and ask the question: ‘What would you do if you were in our shoes?’
Curl my toes and hope the bullet misses.
anywhere, by all means possible!!!!
they had to admit that they had the latest kernel available for download on their own servers for about two month after they sued IBM — since this happened under the GPL, it is free to everyone. They busted themselves big time with this one…
McBride: We own the Unix operating system, which is one of two main operating systems in the world.
So after years of confusion over which Unix is the true Unix we now finally know the one and only Unix, SCO’s OpenServer and UnixWare. All the other technically better *nixes are just wannabes, woohoo. I’m nominating this as best joke ever. SCO sure does have a lot of creative minds twisting around the history to form pure FUD the way they are doing now. Now that’s true IP (formerly known as insanity).
—GNU/Linux itself is a copy
Then you guy judged Linux should be more guilty if the source is guilty?
So, if your father or mother is in prison, you must be worse or worth the death, right?
And it seems like you choose what you like to remember, but you pretend to forget M$ just stole GUI and even the DOS ideas or technologies from others.
Do not tell me you want to die for your M$ father.
“And it seems like you choose what you like to remember, but you pretend to forget M$ just stole GUI and even the DOS ideas or technologies from others.”
Actually, they bought the DOS idea. I don’t remember from who, but I think it was called “Quick ‘n Dirty OS”. They just removed the Quick…
(Assuming there is SCO owned code in the kernel), it seems to me the results will be based on who put it there. If SCO employees released it, then it would have to stay under the GPL. If another company (like IBM, Redhat, etc) released code they had into the kernel (subjecting it to the GPL), the code would probably have to be removed. After all, it wasn’t theirs to give. (IE, if you bought a car that someone had rented, it isn’t a valid sale, since they didn’t own it). However, I don’t think other distros would be liable, since they were acting in good faith (they had no reason to believe any of the code was ‘stolen’).
Also, for those of you sending illogical trolls about innovation. Please keep 2 things in mind. 1) It’s hard to even define the GNU/Linux operating system. Aninstallation of the kernel, with a shell, and glibc and basically libraries is still considered a GNU/Linux OS. So is a bloated up RedHat/KDE hog. Hard to compare with a standard issue of windows. 2) Copying: Yes, after the wheel was invited, some people felt the need to make their own wheel, suited for their purposes. It happens on boths sides, get over it.
This needs to be settled it is getting out of hand very quickly and is becoming a real bore, They need to settle and do so in a way that it protects IBM, Linux and SCO. USL and the BSD guys settled, a similar settlement needs to be reached because all this trolling is just generating alot of FUD.
Cant we all just get along ?
I’ve heard too many people screaming back and forth about which is more innovative, MS/Windows or Linux/GNU.
First off, innovation is not the end-all-be-all. There have been plenty of innovative products killed by poor execution. In fact it is pretty rare that an innovative product actually wins in the market. Usually, some “copy” comes along and exectutes better (either technically, marketting wise, or both).
MS has done very little innovation over the years, which is fine. They are very good at execution (mainly marketing execution, though their technical execution is getting very good). Windows is a Mac copy. IE is a Netscape copy. PocketPC is a Palm copy. Word and Excel were both “copies” of other word processors. I don’t see any REAL innovation here, but it doesn’t matter. Like it or hate it, the MS products “get the job done” (and do it pretty well).
Linux’s true innovation is its business model (which is a significant innovation). The Linux products, so far, are mainly playing catchup with Windows and Mac. Sure, there is a lot of copying, but who really cares. Linux products are quickly reaching the point where they too will “get the job done”. Some would argue that they already do.
Besides, in the computer innovation world, Xerox PARC is the all-time winner, but who really cares about them anymore.
Anonymous — Re: Where is the meat
“All I am reading these days from SCO is a lot of FUD which I know is inspired by the evil empire M$.”
Next what? Congolese rebels hunting, killing and easting Pygmies is inspired by the evil empire M$?
The classic Chewbacca defense. The original poster might be overstating his or her case a bit, but it takes a pretty ignorant and uninformed soul to think that MS isn’t at LEAST enjoying this whole SCO charade immensely.
“M$ cannot and will not ever be able to beat Linux with technology innovation.”
Yeap, there are just millions of innovations on the Linux side…
Umm, what? You need some reading lessons. Your statements have NOTHING to do with the allegation that MS cannot and will not ever be able to beat Linux with technology innovation.
Let’s help you refocus on the subject at hand:
http://www.vcnet.com/bms/departments/innovation.shtml
“We all know how dirty M$ can be to defeat compition.”
Oh sure we do. They license a browser. Make it slightly better
Visit Bugtraq if you want to verify the veracity of your last statement.
market it to be better and bundles it with their OS – [snipped irrelevant crap]. I mean, how anti-competitive is that?
Well, considering the Sherman Anti-Trust Act, bundling the “better browser” in their OS is and was 100% anti-competitive. You’re welcome.
Oh wait, I read it wrong, ” defeat compition”. Of course, everyone should just let competition be, live in a nice communistic society where there is little, if not no competition.
See above re: reading lessons. The complaint is that MS uses dirty tricks to defeat competition.
“M$ innovation is either bought or copied from compition.”
Oh yeah, for sure. I mean, everything on Linux is original, right?
Not everything, just many things. Your point?
“Prime example is .Not is a copycat of Java.”
Exactly. How dare M$ did what Sun did and copied an idea blah blah blah..
I have to agree that .NET isn’t necessarily a prime example here, but it certainly doesn’t break the MS copycat mold.
/me hopes sarcarsm works here.[/i]
Unfortunately, sarcasm only works when inflammatory statements are combined with a good premise.
“M$ cannot and will not ever be able to beat Linux with technology innovation.”
Ummmm. They beat Linux because they innovated enought to build a fast desktop operating system
1) “They beat Linux” implies that Linux was already there and MS came along and knocked them off the throne. MS was using underhanded and/or illegal business tactics long before “Linux” even existed. Hell, they’ve been doing it since nearly before LINUS existed.
“M$ innovation is either bought or copied from compition. Prime example is .Not is a copycat of Java.”
Ummmm. GNU/Linux itself is a copy of the UNIX operating system (GNU/Linux is NOT UNIX). KDE and Gnome are largely copies of the Windows User Interface. OpenOffice is a copy of Microsoft’s Office package. GNU/Mono is a copy of the Microsoft .NET platform. Evolution is a copy of Microsoft Outlook. And so the list of non-innovative copying goes on…
GNU/Linux is actually a clean-room reimplementation of unix, but close enough. KDE is a “copy” of CDE, not Windows; and GNOME is even less similar to Windows than is KDE. OpenOffice is a copy of StarOffice, as someone else mentioned. The only points I can give you are for Mono and Evolution, because those are -supposed- to be copies (ie. replacements) of their MS corrolaries. And, in case you weren’t paying attention, nobody in the Linux camp has ever copied or stolen an idea just to turn around and claim to have innovated it. THAT’S the difference between advancement and deception.
i still think it’s amazing that no matter what an article talks about people will still find someway to bring in MS and bash them or bash Windows.
let’s face facts people, this core argument is between SCO and IBM, unix and linux. THAT’S IT. no matter what conspiracy theories you want to believe nothing’s been proven yet, so we can only go based on what we know, which is SCO sued IBM not MS and they are accusing IBM and eventually Linux of stealing some Unix code and putting it in their operating system NOT MS.
i swear they can write an article saying aliens have landed and it will generate into a linux superior, windows inferior discussion.
” but it takes a pretty ignorant and uninformed soul to think that MS isn’t at LEAST enjoying this whole SCO charade immensely.
I’m enjoying this immensely myself.
And seriously don’t you zealots get tired of the “M$ IS EVIL” rhetoric?
“I’m enjoying this immensely myself.
”
If you really are enjoying this, you are a zealot too. You aren’t any better.
Anonymous:
i still think it’s amazing that no matter what an article talks about people will still find someway to bring in MS and bash them or bash Windows.
I find it disappointing, personally.
Sagres:
And seriously don’t you zealots get tired of the “M$ IS EVIL” rhetoric?
Yes. Almost as tired I get with the “stop picking on poor little downtrodden MS” rhetoric.
“If you really are enjoying this, you are a zealot too. You aren’t any better.”
What’s not to enjoy? it has all the ingredients, the drama of a mexican soap opera mixed with x-files paranoia.
So what the F’ about macroscam, I mean microsoft? gates was a rich little kid with an inheritance- there was no need for him to try and take over the world. And think of all the small, quality, innovative companies that ms has squashed out of business. A hole in our economy, and everyday dissatisfaction is what we are left with when we deal with BSODs, .DLL Hell, and impending DRM.
Well, F’ing sco is trying to cut off our best hope of escape from being assimilated by the billg. If they harm any Linux company, especially American one(s), may they burn in hell. Nothing pisses me off so much as somebody forcing their will on somebody else, esp. when they are Dead Wrong. I wonder what the cost to our economy was when billg got mad at Netscape’s sales and started bundle ie in windows95 v2… Greedy little punk, you can burn in hell to.
I remember when I first got on the internet and started discovering alternative OSes. I ran PC-DOS 7 and Windows 3.1. I soon after downloaded DR-DOS 7, bought OS/2 Warp 3, and then my Linux experience started when I bought Caldera Linux 1.3. Caldera was a friend to a microsoft refugee; my how times have changed.
Caldera was a fine distro…read again: it “WAS”
Now it turned to something else, what a waste…such a beatifull girl…
PocketPC is a Palm copy.
Actually, I would say the first version of Windows CE was a copy of Windows 98 :-). But personally, I see more simarlity between Pocket PC/Windows CE and Symbian than to Palm OS, sorry to say. Same market doesn’t mean same kind of product.
Word and Excel were both “copies” of other word processors. I don’t see any REAL innovation here, but it doesn’t matter.
Word is a copy of WordStar and to an extent a WordStar-copier WordPerfect. Excel was pretty much Lotus 1-2-3 with a friendlier face and a far more lenient price tage back then.
The classic Chewbacca defense. The original poster might be overstating his or her case a bit, but it takes a pretty ignorant and uninformed soul to think that MS isn’t at LEAST enjoying this whole SCO charade immensely.
Kuwait may be enjoying the current Iraq war carade, but are they behind the whole scheme? Nope.
Umm, what? You need some reading lessons. Your statements have NOTHING to do with the allegation that MS cannot and will not ever be able to beat Linux with technology innovation.
How much technology innovation that wasn’t on propreitary UNIX before companies like IBM brought it to Linux?
Visit Bugtraq if you want to verify the veracity of your last statement.
Hah! Please, use IE 4.0 and Netscape 4.0. Compare. And if you use Netscape in the end, you are mentally incapable of making any choices in the future.
Well, considering the Sherman Anti-Trust Act, bundling the “better browser” in their OS is and was 100% anti-competitive. You’re welcome.
The Sherman Anti-Trust Act is so ambigious it really depends on the judge in question. Frankly, under the law, just about every company with a net worth more than 1 billion bucks can be eligible for anti-trust violations.
See above re: reading lessons. The complaint is that MS uses dirty tricks to defeat competition.
Yes, doing what direct competitors copied in the end is a dirty trick to defeat competition. Capitalism is all about defeating your competition in getting your goal, and not getting your goal via the government.
I have to agree that .NET isn’t necessarily a prime example here, but it certainly doesn’t break the MS copycat mold.
Nothing is a prime example. Why? Because guess what? Everyone in the industry copies. Everyone successful that is. Apple copies. Sun copies (maybe not successful, but still copies). IBM copies. HP copies. SGI copies. Palm copies.
Original ideas should never mean automatic success, and lack of thereof means lack of success. Other things like marketing, advertising, technicalities, etc. play a hige role.
Don’t like it? Well, this holds true in every industry. Honda copies. Toyota copies. Merc copies. Ford copies. Chystler copies. Etc. Etc.
There should be a class-action lawsuit against SCO and Microsoft for conspiracy to unlawfully and unfairly snuff out a competitor through slander and libel.
“The classic Chewbacca defense. The original poster might be overstating his or her case a bit, but it takes a pretty ignorant and uninformed soul to think that MS isn’t at LEAST enjoying this whole SCO charade immensely.”
Kuwait may be enjoying the current Iraq war carade, but are they behind the whole scheme? Nope.
The circumstantial evidence linking MS to this SCO adventure is far stronger than your Kuwaiti-Iraqi analogy, though I will admit that it’s still circumstantial so far. But why would MS suddenly purchase a licence for SCO patents pertaining to MS’ SFU (which, according to patent searches by tech journos, do not even exist) when SCO is in a legal battle with its two main opponents, and when they didn’t even get the SCO IP nastygram in the first place? Why is SCO shredding DR-DOS case documents within days of getting a cash infusion from MS? Why did all this start happening right after SCO did a TOTAL 180 on their stance towards Linux? In the end, what benefit(s) does MS get from giving SCO a bunch of cash? MS’ history and Occam’s Razor will give you the easy answer.
How much technology innovation that wasn’t on propreitary UNIX before companies like IBM brought it to Linux?
I’m afraid I don’t understand the grammar of your sentence O:) Not trying to be sarcastic here (for once).
“Visit Bugtraq if you want to verify the veracity of your last statement.”
Hah! Please, use IE 4.0 and Netscape 4.0. Compare. And if you use Netscape in the end, you are mentally incapable of making any choices in the future.
Touche — NS did drop the ball on 4.0. I was thinking modern-day
The Sherman Anti-Trust Act is so ambigious it really depends on the judge in question. Frankly, under the law, just about every company with a net worth more than 1 billion bucks can be eligible for anti-trust violations.
And given the modern corporate climate, I don’t see anything wrong with that. I think MS should have gotten slammed HARD for their actions — but contrary to most ABMers, I’m aware that -most- other large corporations should get slammed every bit as hard for similar actions they’ve taken behind closed doors.
Yes, doing what direct competitors copied in the end is a dirty trick to defeat competition. Capitalism is all about defeating your competition in getting your goal, and not getting your goal via the government.
Again, your meaning escapes me — but it sounds like you’re on to something, I think.
Nothing is a prime example. Why? Because guess what? Everyone in the industry copies. Everyone successful that is.
But none do it as underhandedly and/or illegally as MS, then turn around and claim to have “innovated” it all. The last time this happened on such a scale was at IBM (and, to a lesser extent, Intel), and they (both) got nailed for it eventually. The other vendors you mention aren’t in a position to behave similarly because they aren’t in a monopoly situation — their competitors would call them on it if they MicroSofted their way through life.
Original ideas should never mean automatic success, and lack of thereof means lack of success.
True. But we’re talking specifically about MS in this case (unless your intent is to broaden the scope of this discussion). Committing numerous borderline- and blatantly-illegal acts should never mean the company in question is allowed to escape essentially unscathed, either.
Having fun, GG
mopar: So what the F’ about macroscam, I mean microsoft? gates was a rich little kid with an inheritance
Oh come on. Gates’ family was rich. But the money Billy has right now is far far far far far far bigger than anyone else in his family.
mopar: there was no need for him to try and take over the world.
Do you know how unstatisfiying it is to just live off your parent’s money? But frankly, should there be a maximum amount you can make? Wouldn’t that be like telling a football player “You only get to score this amount of goals in your life”. It sounds stupid, it is stupid.
mopar: And think of all the small, quality, innovative companies that ms has squashed out of business.
How much time can Ms Lorrie, the secretary of a start up company in Australia, can save from having 4 Quicktime movies playing at the same time while gobeProductive being fully responsive? 0 seconds.
Precisely. It is not what you can make. It is what they want, what you want them to think they want and how they get to know about your product as well as to know needs they know they have or don’t know they have. It’s called marketing.
mopar: A hole in our economy
Actually, if Microsoft just dissapears suddenly, that would be a be hole in the economy. But now, Microsoft is a big source of foreign money. It provides tens of thousands of jobs to Americans and foreigners, including those from poor villages in India that did well for English and Maths in school.
mopar: and everyday dissatisfaction is what we are left with when we deal with BSODs
BSODs heh? Never had them since late year 2000, when switch to Windows 2000. Guess I’m not that dissatisfied.
mopar: .DLL Hell
Ohhhhhh, that’s soooooooo much worse than the dependency hell on Linux?
mopar: and impending DRM
DRM is already in Windows. It has been for digital media since Windows XP, and software since (IIRC) Windows 95. May not be the best DRM, but still DRM. Don’t see people jumping off buildings because of that.
mopar: may they burn in hell.
You really that this Linux thing really seriously, don’t you? Linus himself is a whole less zealous than you.
mopar: Nothing pisses me off so much as somebody forcing their will on somebody else
Yeap me too. If Microsoft hired goons to show up at my place just because I’m not using their products, I would share your sentiment. But the fact is that never happen. Sure I’m using MS’s products right now, and I can switch to Linux or Mac anytime I like. It is just that I don’t want to. Why? The bad outweighs the good.
mopar: I wonder what the cost to our economy was when billg got mad at Netscape’s sales and started bundle ie in windows95 v2… Greedy little punk, you can burn in hell to.
Netscape then was tethering to unprofitablity. And is still now unprofitable. And Netscape isn’t all that strawberries and cream. I remember clearly how much I hated it back then.
And the amount of employees hired by Microsoft that year in comparison by those layoffed by Netscape proves my point of the economic “hole”.
mopar: Caldera was a friend to a microsoft refugee; my how times have changed.
Yeap. I’m not a wee bit suprised. Caldera never churned out a profit. They never really have a strong marketing base for the product. No, I don’t mean having a multi-million dollar advertising blitz for their products, but frankly – they say their distro is geared for the desktop, but how many companies can switch without a huge loss of productivity? And then the business model back then – how would they to make money?
Don’t blame Microsoft, blame Caldera.
The circumstantial evidence linking MS to this SCO adventure is far stronger than your Kuwaiti-Iraqi analogy
Yes, Microsoft licenses stuff from SCO and have everything to gain with Linux gone – how does that link Microsoft to the entire case? Then any UNIX company can be fingered too. Ad for Kuwait-Iraq, the circumstantial evidence is just as good. Kuwait recieves military and economic aid from America while America gets oil from Kuwait. And Kuwait now can get rid of a old foe that is hell bent one getting rid of Kuwait.
But why would MS suddenly purchase a licence for SCO patents pertaining to MS’ SFU (which, according to patent searches by tech journos, do not even exist)
Do we even know in detail what Microsoft license in the first place? Well, ever thought that Microsoft is protecting itself from any possible litigation. IBM is a nice big target, but Microsoft is a bigger one. All their opponents – Sun, SGI, HP, etc. all have a license.
Microsoft didn’t, until recently.
when SCO is in a legal battle with its two main opponents, and when they didn’t even get the SCO IP nastygram in the first place?
Perhaps before SCO starting suing and threatening to sue others, it didn’t cross Microsoft mind to pay money to a competitor.
Why is SCO shredding DR-DOS case documents within days of getting a cash infusion from MS?
Do you seriously think that shreading of court documents can be coordinated in such a way as “Microsoft just gave us a big fat check and promised more, turn on the shredder!” If only it was that easy.
Why did all this start happening right after SCO did a TOTAL 180 on their stance towards Linux?
They didn’t go from one day all cuddly with Linux with saying stuff like “linux’s all nice, how cute it is, awwwwww” and then turn the next day and say “theieve!!!!!!”
Ever since SCO/Caldera got new management, they started changing direction.
In the end, what benefit(s) does MS get from giving SCO a bunch of cash?
That they wouldn’t be target #2
I’m afraid I don’t understand the grammar of your sentence O:)
I meant to say how much innovation that Linux brought that couldn’t be found anywhere else prior to it? I can only name a handful.
Touche — NS did drop the ball on 4.0. I was thinking modern-day
Modern day is entirely different. Besides, Netscape did commit themselves to a four year rewrite. After 3 years through it, they said “Oh, the hell with it!” released Netscape 6 and reduce themselves below Netscape 4.
And it is not wise to drop the ball with you are facing the stiffest competition you can get.
blah blah blah but contrary to most ABMers blah blah blah
Wow, first ABMer that admits to be an ABMer while being an ABMer…
Interesting.
Again, your meaning escapes me — but it sounds like you’re on to something, I think.
It could be, but obviously, I needed sleep then. I couldn’t understand myself.
Let me rephrase.
Capitalism is about competition. Competition isn’t about keeping them. It is about defeating it to fulfil your wills and goals. Not keeping them around. Not crying wee wee wee to the courts because you didn’t have what it takes to win.
But none do it as underhandedly and/or illegally as MS
There is a clear line between stealing and copying. If Microsoft stole code – they should pay for it. Antitrust laws wouldn’t remedy it, BTW. But if it is copying general ideas, what’s wrong with that? The Japanese car industry for example rose to power by copying and making it better (as well as cheaper). Is that underhanded or illegal?
The last time this happened on such a scale was at IBM (and, to a lesser extent, Intel), and they (both) got nailed for it eventually.
They pretty much got off with a warning. The biggest victim or “success” if you must of antitrust is Standard Oil.
The other vendors you mention aren’t in a position to behave similarly because they aren’t in a monopoly situation
And they couldn’t reduce Microsoft’s monopoly? Netscape had many chances for example to keep their market share. Real had those chances, and even with overwhelming odds and bad products (until recently), they are still the leader of the pack. Obviously, Microsoft monopoly status didn’t matter to much smaller and poorer Real.
Microsoft in their early days also have to compete against other tough competitors back then. Companies like Apple, and to a lesser extent, IBM.
Committing numerous borderline- and blatantly-illegal acts should never mean the company in question is allowed to escape essentially unscathed, either.
If I had sex with a random girl in northern Nigeria, it would be a crime. Yet, is it wrong? Nope, I didn’t hurt anyone. If anyone got hurt in the process, it is their fault. Same here. If Microsoft didn’t kill Netscape, someone else would. If Microsoft didn’t kill Be, Apple would. If Microsoft didn’t hurt Sun, IBM would (and they are sneakily).
Having fun too, rajan r.
What took SCO so long to come to their conclusion? how long ago did Caldera buy SCO then suddenly after many years of having access to the UnixWare/OpenServer operating system source code, contributing to the Linux Kernel and working with the Linux source code they suddenly come out of the wood works claiming copyright violation?
I find this whole suite very strange when you take in account the fact that they are running on empty in the cash department.
Personally, this whole law suite is centred around a company desperate for cash and seeing IBM as the prime target as it is supporting their ultimate competitior, namely, Linux.
Ultimately I would love to see two things happen, first IBM beating SCO in a court, and secondly, a company once and for all buy out SCO, and simply, BSD all their intellectual property so that these law suites and patent protests no longer happen.
I think SCO shold demand stopping all Linux distribution util this issue is solved. Since Torvalds is the father of Linux kernel, he should be personally held responsible for this mess.
Torvalds should be fined heavily or even better, sen to prison.
Yes, Microsoft licenses stuff from SCO and have everything to gain with Linux gone – how does that link Microsoft to the entire case?
I think you’re mistaking my message (and so am I, as this is going on for quite a little stretch). I’m not claiming that MS is directly responsible for SCO’s suit. It might well be, but my claim is that now that the case is in the open, MS’ only motivation towards SCO is supporting the IBM/Linux suit by every means necessary. It even said as much itself, in that it wants to demonstrate its dedication to the respect of IP.
Then any UNIX company can be fingered too.
Yes, many UNIX companies were nearly as dirty. And AT&T tried to pull a similar trick SCO is today, on BSD in 1992. Except AT&T had somewhat of a leg to stand on.
Well, ever thought that Microsoft is protecting itself from any possible litigation.
No. It has yet to be proven that MS is using any SCO patents in its products. In fact, all evidence to date shows that it’s not even POSSIBLE for MS to infringe on any of SCO’s patents with its current product line.
IBM is a nice big target, but Microsoft is a bigger one. All their opponents – Sun, SGI, HP, etc. all have a license.
Microsoft didn’t, until recently.
There is one important difference between Microsoft and IBM/Sun/SGI/HP/etc:
One hates *nix, and the others ARE *nix.
Perhaps before SCO starting suing and threatening to sue others, it didn’t cross Microsoft mind to pay money to a competitor.
MS handed Xenix off to SCO precisely because it wanted nothing to do with *nix. In this light, it’s doubtful that it would have dedicated resources to infringing on SCO UNIX patents that it wasn’t going to use.
Do you seriously think that shreading of court documents can be coordinated in such a way as “Microsoft just gave us a big fat check and promised more, turn on the shredder!”
Yes.
[SCO] didn’t go from one day all cuddly with Linux with saying stuff like “linux’s all nice, how cute it is, awwwwww” and then turn the next day and say “theieve!!!!!!”
Actually, they were saying “how cute” and “theieve!” simultaneously for a little over a month.
http://linuxtoday.com/infrastructure/2003051402026NWCDLL
Ever since SCO/Caldera got new management, they started changing direction.
Yes — that new direction is “downhill”. Which is why they’re pulling this ridiculous stunt.
“In the end, what benefit(s) does MS get from giving SCO a bunch of cash?”
That they wouldn’t be target #2
The likelihood of them being target #2 is way WAY more remote than the likelihood that MS is masterminding this entire ordeal — let alone the likelihood that MS only wants to support SCO’s FUD.
I meant to say how much innovation that Linux brought that couldn’t be found anywhere else prior to it? I can only name a handful.
This is true. But in the process of mimicking existing computing functions, it has never been accused of doing so illegally until now — and even this accusation looks completely unfounded as yet.
“blah blah blah but contrary to most ABMers blah blah blah”
Wow, first ABMer that admits to be an ABMer while being an ABMer…
I’m not a total ABMer, actually — I’m posting this in Firebird 0.6 under Win2k, because I like gaming. But I do avoid MS wherever I reasonably can, which includes my workplace. This policy has served me well to date.
Capitalism is about competition. Competition isn’t about keeping them. It is about defeating it to fulfil your wills and goals. Not keeping them around. Not crying wee wee wee to the courts because you didn’t have what it takes to win.
I agree that people are too quick to sue these days — but that doesn’t prevent companies from pulling dirty and/or illegal tricks. It sounds like you’re advocating pure capitalism. Pure capitalism cannot work as intended, because of the magnitude of modern barriers to entry.
“But none do it as underhandedly and/or illegally as MS”
There is a clear line between stealing and copying. If Microsoft stole code – they should pay for it.
To my recollection, MS was never convicted of stealing code (even though they did somehow manage to infringe on the ludicrously lenient BSD licence). But they’ve been convicted — or settled out — of numerous other illegal activities.
They pretty much got off with a warning. The biggest victim or “success” if you must of antitrust is Standard Oil.
True. But IBM and Intel got one HELL of a warning compared to MS’ “10 lashes with a wet noodle”.
“The other vendors you mention aren’t in a position to behave similarly because they aren’t in a monopoly situation”
And they couldn’t reduce Microsoft’s monopoly?
They might, if MS wasn’t adding illegal activities to its combat strategies. The only successes against Microsoft have been small ones like Intuit — until Linux came along.
Why would MS have a tougher time competing with Linux than with Novell, for example? Because Linux can’t be stolen or bankrupted or bought off like commercial entities. If Microsoft was a legitimately competitive company, they could take on Linux just as effectively as they took on MacOS, OS/2 and BeOS.
Obviously, Microsoft monopoly status didn’t matter to much smaller and poorer Real.
Again, the only successes against the MS monopoly have been small ones, because the cost of bankrupting or outperforming these small agile outfits is too high. MS has bigger fish to poison.
When the Mini Cooper was kicking Mustang’s ass all over the races in the 60’s, Mustang didn’t build a subcompact — they just stuck in a bigger engine and positioned themselves against other musclecars.
“Committing numerous borderline- and blatantly-illegal acts should never mean the company in question is allowed to escape essentially unscathed, either.”
If I had sex with a random girl in northern Nigeria, it would be a crime. Yet, is it wrong? Nope, I didn’t hurt anyone. If anyone got hurt in the process, it is their fault. Same here. If Microsoft didn’t kill Netscape, someone else would. If Microsoft didn’t kill Be, Apple would. If Microsoft didn’t hurt Sun, IBM would (and they are sneakily).
So your claim here is that MS was justified in its actions because of the spirit of capitalism, despite said actions being against the law? Okay, that’s a legitimate position. But that boils down to opinion. In my opinion, MS’ treatment of Be (for example) was despicable because it contravened the true spirit of capitalistic competition — to be better than one’s competition, thus earning loyalty from the consumer base. Not to undermine the competition so that the consumers never even know an alternative existed.
Having more fun than you! GG
(If I’m duplicating someone previous, I apologize. I went through the previous posts, but there are a lot and I did a little skimming….)
Raymond actually brings up TWO topics, not one. The first is the lawsuit itself, and I think that while he might simplify things, he’s basically right. The second topic, though, is his insinuation that UNIX doesn’t belong to SCO because they didn’t develop it. Please. I didn’t spend all that time building my car, but according to my title, I do own it. They bought it, that’s that. They can do what they want with it…even file stupid, pointless lawsuits.
..is that open source is all about giving to everyone, and nobody owning the intellectual property. It’s noble and that’s why I love it. SCO are led by a selfish bunch of morons whose greed angers me greatly, I believe McBride said “We’re only defending our IP, what would you do if you were in our shoes?” Well McBride, I’d give the whole lot to the community so everyone could enjoy the software without fear it could be snatched away by some money-grabbing faceless corporation.
People like that make me sick.
Would you just turn over everything to the community? Do you go to work forty hours a week and then turn over your paycheck to the local soup kitchen? Or do you live off Mommy and Daddy? Idiotic, unrealistic Marxist rantings….
“The second topic, though, is his insinuation that UNIX doesn’t belong to SCO because they didn’t develop it. Please. I didn’t spend all that time building my car, but according to my title, I do own it. They bought it, that’s that. They can do what they want with it…even file stupid, pointless lawsuits.”
The point though, is that SCO owns only the SysVRx source code. That’s all. As a result of several pointless attempts to standardize Unix without the benefit of a completely free and unencumbered source code exemplar of the standard, the definition of Unix effectively became public domain, common property, etc.
And SCO has with its unbounded stupidity, declared the Linux is an unauthorized clone of Unix. Well, duh!!! After POSIX, the SVID, X/Open CAE, etc, there is finally a completely free and unencumbered source code exemplar of the standard – Linux. And SCO doesn’t like it. They don’t own it. They don’t own the public definitions of Unix. They only own the Unix System V Release x source code – and a fat lot of use that is to them, because the said completely free and unencumbered, etc, etc, is far more popular than a mere version of the same old, same old Unix …
The benefit of Linux is that because it has been turned over to the community, everybody’s got the same chance of getting a working Unix to develop their proprietary stuff on, and no one can stop them with undocumented stuff, because the source code is still the best documentation available.