OT: Cutthroat Microsoft Tactic

[Thermodyne]

You are missing the point entirely! Open source does not generate enough income to insure their products, let alone defend them in court. And if SCO wins, they will have the resources to take a very close look at Linux code along with the other Xnix systems out there. There is a lot of pure UNIX code in most Nix operating systems. To have to go back and clean it all up or face long court battles will take cash. Cash that the Open Source community does not generate. To defend them will take cash. Cash that they do not have. This action is a predatory stroke of legal genius. And at its roots are the very fundamentals of capitalism. This is capitalistic big business/wealthy people, against socialistic give it out for free small business/poor people.

Now don�t get me wrong, I don�t want to see you Linux guys loose your OS of choice. But I also do strongly support the basic principals of capitalism as they exist today. For me personally, this will be of great interest to watch unfold. It will set the stage for the software of the next decade. And it is following the trend of past court battles, allowing for some coins to be made in the short term.

Also, I was of the (wrong) opinion that UNIX was old and dieing as the older systems were replaced with new iron. We personally have an old AS300 about to go out the door, which will be the end of UNIX for us. But I was researching the people with claims to things that are UNIX and I found that a place caller the Open Group owns the UNIX trade mark. When I took a look at their site, I found a time line that shows UNIX is continuing to evolve. And show or perhaps imply a close connection to the Linux/BSD communities.

Quote from the Open Group:

1969 The Beginning The history of UNIX starts back in 1969, when Ken Thompson, Dennis Ritchie and others started working on the "little-used PDP-7 in a corner" at Bell Labs and what was to become UNIX.

1971 First Edition It had a assembler for a PDP-11/20, file system, fork(), roff and ed. It was used for text processing of patent documents.

1973 Fourth Edition It was rewritten in C. This made it portable and changed the history of OS's.

1975 Sixth Edition UNIX leaves home. Also widely known as Version 6, this is the first to be widely available out side of Bell Labs. The first BSD Version (1.x) was derived from V6.

1979 Seventh Edition It was a "improvement over all preceding and following Unices" [Bourne]. It had C, UUCP and the Bourne shell. It was ported to the VAX and the kernel was more than 40 Kilobytes (K).

1980 Xenix Microsoft introduces Xenix. 32V and 4BSD introduced.

1982 System III AT&T's UNIX System Group (USG) release System III, the first public release outside Bell Laboratories.

1983 System V Computer Research Group (CRG), UNIX System Group (USG) and a third group merge to become UNIX System Development Lab. AT&T announces UNIX System V, the first supported release.

1984 4.2BSD University of California at Berkeley releases 4.2BSD, includes TCP/IP, new signals and much more.

1984 SVR2 System V Release 2 introduced. At this time there are 100,000 UNIX installations around the world.

1986 4.3BSD 4.3BSD released, including internet name server

1987 SVR3 System V Release 3 including STREAMS, TLI, RFS. At this time there are 750,000 UNIX installations around the world.

1988 POSIX.1 published. Open Software Foundation (OSF) and UNIX International (UI) formed.

1989 AT&T UNIX Software Operation formed in preparation for spinoff of USL.

1989 SVR4 UNIX System V Release 4 ships, unifying System V, BSD and Xenix

1990 XPG3 X/Open launches XPG3 Brand

1991 UNIX System Laboratories (USL) becomes a company - majority-owned by AT&T. Linus Torvalds commences Linux development

1992 SVR4.2 USL releases UNIX System V Release 4.2 (Destiny). October - XPG4 Brand launched by X/Open. December 22nd Novell announces intent to acquire USL.

1993 4.4BSD 4.4BSD the final release from Berkeley. June 16 Novell acquires USL

Late 1993 SVR4.2MP Novell transfers rights to the "UNIX" trademark and the Single UNIX Specification to X/Open. In December Novell ships SVR4.2MP , the final USL OEM release of System V

1994 4.4-Lite BSD 4.4-Lite eliminated all code claimed to infringe on USL/Novell

1995 UNIX 95 X/Open introduces the UNIX 95 branding programme. Novell sells UnixWare business to SCO.

1996 The Open Group forms as a merger of OSF and X/Open.

1997 Single UNIX Specification, Version 2 The Open Group introduces Version 2 of the Single UNIX Specification, including support for realtime, threads and 64-bit and larger processors. The specification is made freely available on the web.

1998 UNIX 98 The Open Group introduces the UNIX 98 family of brands, including Base, Workstation and Server. First UNIX 98 registered products shipped by Sun, IBM and NCR. The Open Source movement starts to take off with announcements from Netscape and IBM

1999 UNIX at 30 The UNIX system reaches its 30th anniversary. Linux 2.2 kernel released. The Open Group and the IEEE commence joint development of a revision to POSIX and the Single UNIX Specification. First LinuxWorld conferences. Several Open Source companies launch successfully on the stock markets.

2001 Version 3 of the Single UNIX Specification Version 3 of the Single UNIX Specification unites IEEE POSIX, The Open Group and the industry efforts. Linux 2.4 kernel released. IT stocks face a hard time at the markets.

2002 ISO/IEC 9945:2002 The core volumes of Version 3 of the Single UNIX Specification are approved as an international standard.

[Baron Munchausen]

Thermodyne writes:

You are missing the point entirely! Open source does not generate enough income to insure their products, let alone defend them in court. And if SCO wins, they will have the resources to take a very close look at Linux code along with the other Xnix systems out there. There is a lot of pure UNIX code in most Nix operating systems. To have to go back and clean it all up or face long court battles will take cash. Cash that the Open Source community does not generate. To defend them will take cash. Cash that they do not have. This action is a predatory stroke of legal genius. And at its roots are the very fundamentals of capitalism. This is capitalistic big business/wealthy people, against socialistic give it out for free small business/poor people.

Erm, um -- Thermodyne...

Does Internation Business Machines, Inc. strike you as a 'small business'? Or a 'socialistic' organization? Or lacking in money? They are probably second only to MS itself in sheer cash reserves, and have a very formidable legal department.

Also, if this 'Open Source' thing can't work, why is this archetypal corporation, the epitome of capitalism which has prided itself on being 'the most profitable corporation in the world' since early in the previous century, supporting it?

Maybe they have recognized that the Operating System is destined to be a 'public domain' resource in the future of computing? If the anti-trust suit against MS had been correctly completed they would concluded that you could not have a 'level playing field' with one of the competitors holding private control of the whole field, and would have ruled that Windows source be released to some sort of public consortium for further development in the public interest.

This is essentially what happened in the breakup of AT&T and in the current movement to break up the power generation monopolies. In both cases the infrastructure previously considered 'private' property -- the phone lines/switches and power lines/switches respectively, have been appropriated by the 'evil socialist state' and made into collective property. Now anyone who wishes to may start a phone company and the others must allow them to connect to the system of phone lines. And also in many states (and soon in many more) anyone can build power generation equipment and they must be allowed to connect to the system of power lines and sell their power.

The analogy to computer software is clear. In order for competition to be fair, the OS must be a public access system that anyone can 'connect to' and use fully. A closed source OS does not allow this, as everyone who has been following Microsoft's API trickery knows quite well. They have always had a 'secret' API just for their own programs, and they have also always changed their OS to deliberately break other companies programs, from DOS 1.0/1.1 and Lotus 123 to Windows 3.10/3.11 and DR-DOS to Windows 95/98 and Netscape Navigator.

IBM has simply recognized the truth of the need for the OS to be a 'public access' system, and is trying to foster a new model of OS management (and the OS that developed with it) that can accomodate these needs. SCO on the other hand is acting as a cat's paw for Bill Gates and literally running their company into the ground (yes, this legal confrontation will destroy them) just to throw mud on the Open Source movement and scare people away from it. It's the corporate equivalent of suicide bombing. They must destroy themselves in order to damage the infidel and will be rewarded in 'heaven' afterwards. I would bet good money that all the major players at SCO will be working for MS or one of its subsidiaries within 6-12 months after they close the doors on SCO.

[ August 10, 2003, 21:41: Message edited by: Baron Munchausen ]

[Mudshark]

From the IBM employee web site;
IBM Launches counter claims against SCO



Earlier this year, The SCO Group filed a lawsuit claiming that IBM improperly contributed SCO intellectual property to Linux. Since the original filing, SCO has amended its complaint. And, on August 6, IBM responded to SCO's amended complaint and filed a counter-suit on a range of issues.

IBM continues to vigorously defend itself against SCO's allegations. The company sees no merit in SCO's claims, and no supporting facts. Simply put, SCO's scheme is an attempt to profit from its limited rights to a very old UNIX operating system by introducing fear, uncertainty and doubt into the marketplace.

IBM counterclaims are detailed in the legal filing, but the key points are: � SCO has violated the GNU General Public License, under which it accepted Linux contributions and distributed Linux.
� SCO has improperly claimed the right to revoke IBM's UNIX license, despite the fact that IBM's contract expressly provides that IBM's rights are irrevocable and that Novell, which is a party to the agreement under which IBM obtained an irrevocable and perpetual UNIX license, agrees that SCO cannot terminate IBM's license and has exercised its right to waive this claim.
� SCO has directly infringed four IBM patents relating to SCO's commercially available UnixWare, Open Server, SCO Manager and Reliant HA clustering software products.

IBM is seeking compensatory and punitive damages, as well as an injunction requiring SCO to refrain from misrepresenting its rights and to cease further infringement of IBM's patents.

As IBM continues to defend itself, the rest of the industry appears to have similar resolve with regard to Linux. There is an informative analysis of the SCO complaint available on the Open Source Development Lab Website entitled, "Questioning SCO: A Hard Look at Nebulous Claims," by Eben Moglen, General counsel of the Free Software Foundation. It puts the SCO claims in the proper perspective for Linux Users. There is also additional information about the lawsuit on IBM's SCO Complaint page.

Linux continues to gain momentum. IBM has never had a LinuxWorld more overflowing with innovation, offerings and news (see SuSE and IBM achieve government certification for Linux). IBM will continue to drive both AIX and Linux. And, IBM is as committed as ever to meeting customers' needs.

[geoschmo]

Originally posted by Baron Munchausen:
Also, if this 'Open Source' thing can't work, why is this archetypal corporation, the epitome of capitalism which has prided itself on being 'the most profitable corporation in the world' since early in the previous century, supporting it?

The cynic might suggest that IBM has no particular passion or belief in the open source model, but is simply using it as a weapon in their never-ending clash of the titans war against MS. Very shewd actually. If IBM is able to sucesfully define their image as a "populist company" they could reap substatial benefits for decades.

Geoschmo

[ August 11, 2003, 14:00: Message edited by: geoschmo ]

[Thermodyne]

This is the public stage of the action, everyone is talking a lot. Would you trust IBM with the future of Linux? I wouldn�t. They have a long track record of entering action with guns blazing, only to settle very early in the fight. They are not much for taking risks, and are in the position of gaining a lucrative position if they settle on terms that favor them. It all still hinges on what SCO actually owns, and we will have to wait to find out what the court ultimately decides.

[Thermodyne]

Originally posted by Baron Munchausen:
Erm, um -- Thermodyne...

Does Internation Business Machines, Inc. strike you as a 'small business'? Or a 'socialistic' organization? Or lacking in money? They are probably second only to MS itself in sheer cash reserves, and have a very formidable legal department.

Large but with a poor track record and very much under the thumb of the board

Also, if this 'Open Source' thing can't work, why is this archetypal corporation, the epitome of capitalism which has prided itself on being 'the most profitable corporation in the world' since early in the previous century, supporting it?

Maybe they have recognized that the Operating System is destined to be a 'public domain' resource in the future of computing? If the anti-trust suit against MS had been correctly completed they would concluded that you could not have a 'level playing field' with one of the competitors holding private control of the whole field, and would have ruled that Windows source be released to some sort of public consortium for further development in the public interest.

Well, now we know your position. OS can work, but there has to be profit somewhere. As to the action against MS, you are entitled to your opinion.

This is essentially what happened in the breakup of AT&T and in the current movement to break up the power generation monopolies. In both cases the infrastructure previously considered 'private' property -- the phone lines/switches and power lines/switches respectively, have been appropriated by the 'evil socialist state' and made into collective property. Now anyone who wishes to may start a phone company and the others must allow them to connect to the system of phone lines. And also in many states (and soon in many more) anyone can build power generation equipment and they must be allowed to connect to the system of power lines and sell their power.

I wouldn�t use telecom or energy as support for your case. Because of what was done with them, both are in crisis right now. And billions have been lost by investors. Down time for all wired service is at levels not seen since the 60�s. And energy no longer is a sure thing if you live in a state that regulates prices.

The analogy to computer software is clear. In order for competition to be fair, the OS must be a public access system that anyone can 'connect to' and use fully. A closed source OS does not allow this, as everyone who has been following Microsoft's API trickery knows quite well. They have always had a 'secret' API just for their own programs, and they have also always changed their OS to deliberately break other companies programs, from DOS 1.0/1.1 and Lotus 123 to Windows 3.10/3.11 and DR-DOS to Windows 95/98 and Netscape Navigator.

Dream on. Not gonna happen. I agree that all should have equal ability to write apps, but the law does not offer this guarantee.

IBM has simply recognized the truth of the need for the OS to be a 'public access' system, and is trying to foster a new model of OS management (and the OS that developed with it) that can accomodate these needs. SCO on the other hand is acting as a cat's paw for Bill Gates and literally running their company into the ground (yes, this legal confrontation will destroy them) just to throw mud on the Open Source movement and scare people away from it. It's the corporate equivalent of suicide bombing. They must destroy themselves in order to damage the infidel and will be rewarded in 'heaven' afterwards. I would bet good money that all the major players at SCO will be working for MS or one of its subsidiaries within 6-12 months after they close the doors on SCO.

IBM recognized the need to compete in the low end server market, and Linux knocks a bunch off the cost of a configured server. IBM has a lot of strain on it bottom line right now, server sales are flat, and the cash cow has gone discount. Their notebook margins have plummeted in the Last year. They are laying out heavily on AMD server products, which are still a long way from even thinking about turning a profit. They do not need a big court fight right now.
Also, I have noticed that while IBM passes out Linux code, they sit on OSx real tight. Why haven�t they published it to OpenS?

Now before this gets out of hand, let me say that I have no stake as to who wins. While I do make my living supporting MS servers and clients, I hold no great love for the company. Nor do I hate them, they actually treat me quite well. I get tons of cheap software from them, and more support than I have the time to use. I respect the fact that they have been an aggressive company in a time of wishy washy take no risk board run businesses. I also respect the efforts and results of the people that have worked on Linux. They have come a long way. But I will give them no special consideration because they are small and basically nonprofit. If they used code that belongs to SCO, then them that can pay will have to do so. If not, then they stand to gain a lot of prestige and exposure. It will be an interesting fight, and there will be many opportunities for the small investor to get a little for himself.

[Nocturnal]

Judge Denies Bias Against "Guilty Microsoft Bastards"

[Magnum357]

Well, I have no idea if Bill Gates/Microsoft is in bed with SCO, but if they are working behind the scences to off Linix and all its accomplishments, then maybe this Judge is right and that Bill Gates really is "the evil prick son of a ***** who runs it [Microsoft]"! I mean, from what I have heard from freinds that Linix and even Lindows is a great system. Maybe Bill Gates should concentrate on making Windows a better OS (ie. less bugs/more compatiability) and not try to cut peopls throats all the time. Heck, isn't that one of the principles of what my country (the United States) was built on... competition?

Jeez, did Bill Gates as a kid in school get picked on or something? I'm no psychologist but it feels like a very similar childhood to how Adolf Hitler's youth was like... always rejected.

[ August 13, 2003, 06:58: Message edited by: Magnum357 ]

[Loser]

SCO says "words, words, words"

Following a brief intermission, we will hear a rebuttal

[ August 26, 2003, 16:29: Message edited by: Loser ]

[Thermodyne]

All of this is just window dressing for the side show. If SCO makes a few bucks along the way, then they go off extra happy. But in the end, a preliminary ruling will be the main event as far as BG is concerned. From what I have seen, SCO has a case if they own the UNIX code in question. There are a lot of details to work out as far as the limits of existing licenses and such, but the Linux community will have a few problems to work out because of the longstanding use of existing code by contributors. But in the end, what UNIX code SCO owns will be more or less set in stone. Then look for them to sell said rights, paving the way for the next incarnation out of the North West. Can you say Windows Server UE? (UNIX Edition)