|
Darl's Open Letter, "Long Live UNIX," and other PR Blizzardry from SCOForum |
|
Monday, August 08 2005 @ 12:32 PM EDT
|
SCO CEO Darl McBride has sent the world another open letter, "Long Live UNIX: An Open Letter from Darl McBride, President and CEO, The SCO Group". He trash talks Linux again, which will not surprise you, and uses Microsoft's "Get the Facts" technique of quoting only positive and selective statements, some from controversial entities (like mi2g), that don't stand up under closer examination. He tries to present Linux as a "paradise for hackers". That is ironic coming from a company whose website was attacked and completely shut down for days by those we now know were Windows "hackers" (they were really crackers, professional gangs spreading spam, but since Darl used the word hacker, I did too). Then there is their record of patching flaws. Not so good. It also flies in the face of dominant thought among security experts. Look at the most recent SANS report, and you'll see Red Hat Linux barely shows up at all (the two issues were already patched by the time of the report), as Red Hat highlights on its website under the Latest News banner, "Linux Network Security Higher than Other Platforms", and properly so: The report identified the top twenty Internet security vulnerabilities. Of the twenty, only two affected Red Hat Enterprise Linux subscribers, for which Red Hat has already issued patches via Red Hat Network.
"There are many research reports that try to compare the number of vulnerabilities between Linux and other operating systems but none take into account the severity of the issues." said Mark Cox head of the Red Hat security response team, "This report shows there are relatively few critical issues affecting users of Linux based operating systems." . . .
Established in 1989, SANS (SysAdmin, Audit, Network, Security) is a leading source for information security training and certification. SANS also develops, maintains, and makes available at no cost, the largest collection of research documents about various aspects of information security, and operates the Internet's early warning system - Internet Storm Center. Its programs now reach more than 165,000 security professionals, auditors, system administrators, network administrators, chief information security officers, and CIOs who share the lessons they are learning and jointly find solutions to the challenges they face. Here's a list of the SANS experts, and as you can see, it includes Jerry Dixon: Deputy Director National Cyber Security Division for the United States Computer Emergency Readiness Team (US-CERT), as well as experts from the British National Infrastructure Security Co-Ordination Center. (NISCC) and the Canadian Cyber Incident Response Centre. So, there you have it, folks. Do a Google search for mi2g, by all means, and then decide who you wish to believe, them or the SANS Institute.
eWeek mentions the SANS report as well: A recent report by The SANS Institute, of Bethesda, Md., found that RHEL subscribers are less susceptible to network security holes than users of other platforms. Of the top 20 Internet security vulnerabilities identified in the report, just two affected RHEL subscribers, and patches for those have already been issued. Red Hat and HP are announcing security initiatives at LinuxWorld, but it's really mainly for antiFUD purposes. You can buy an antivirus product for Linux, but for which viruses? Go ahead, if it makes you feel better, of course. But the oddest quotation is from a headline from eWeek. The headline reads,"OpenServer 6 is a Winner." But did you see the article itself? It's by Steven Vaughan-Nichols, and he writes that in his opinion, he can't recommend OpenServer 6. The article begins like this: Opinion: Now if only SCO wasn't such a loser. There are two real reasons that OpenServer can't win a recommendation. . . .
I've also long recommended SCO OpenServer as the best x86 Unix bar none.
Then, Linux came along. By January 2001, when Linux 2.4 came along, the handwriting was on the wall.
Unix on Intel had long been a niche product, but Linux was bigger and better. . . .
Ironically enough, though, right after its improved scalability, OpenServer's best feature is its strong collection of open-source software. Legend, the code name for OpenServer 6, comes with Apache 1.3, Mozilla 1.7, Samba 3.0.13, MySQL (the community version), OpenSSL, and the PostgreSQL database. It also uses KDE for its graphical interface.
Amazing isn't it?
It's all quite legal, by the way. Open source means open to everyone—even its enemies.
There are two real reasons that while I really like OpenServer technically, I can't recommend it.
The first is, irregardless of my personal opinions on the lack of merits to SCO's courtroom shenanigans, it's hard to see how SCO can survive the sheer volume of its law suits.
If IBM doesn't get them, then Novell—who's really going after them now with hammer and tongs—will.
To make it out of its legal morass, SCO has to win them all. Its enemies only need to win once.
And, the other is simply that, as good as OpenServer is, the business Linuxes from Novell and Red Hat are simply better and cheaper.
Even SCO's strong reseller channel, its ace in the hole for many years, is matched by Novell's channel partners.
No, much as I may like OpenServer the product; SCO, the company, just has too much trouble on its hands for me to recommend its operating systems.
Amazing indeed. No wonder they call their product "Project Fusion" in a second PR release. They also announced Tim Negris as their new VP for marketing and announce a partnership with Cymphonix. Perhaps this is all his handiwork? Now, you tell me. How did the headline from that eWeek article become that OpenServer 6 is a winner? And why did no one fix such a blooper, if it wasn't intentionally and cynically done? The article was published on August 1. Another odd thing. That headline was listed on Yahoo! SCOX message board until today. Now you can't find it even in the old headlines, or at least I couldn't. You can't find it on Google either, searching by the title. I had to go to eWeek itself and search for it. Of course, McBride doesn't tell you the headline comes from eWeek, so you can't look it up and see how the headline distorted the content, but surely he knows that Groklaw would notice and would point it out. Don't they ever get tired of being shown to be less than straightforward, shall we say? This isn't quite as bad as movie studios quoting nonexistent reviewers, but it's in the ball park. If SCO's not getting tired of being shown up, fine and dandy. We're not tired over here either. And it's fine with me if people want to buy OpenServer 6. I would say this: if you trust Darl McBride, soldier on and buy his products, by all means.
Update: Darl has also posted this letter on his site darlmcbride.com. Eventually, they tried to use robots.txt to block Wayback, but they were only partially successful, which is kind of par for the course.
****************************
Long Live UNIX: An Open Letter from Darl McBride, President and CEO, The SCO Group
LINDON, Utah, Aug. 8 /PRNewswire-FirstCall/ --
Three years ago, when I first joined The SCO Group, we focused the company
on the area that was most profitable and provided the most benefit to
customers, investors, resellers, developers and employees: UNIX. People
thought we were crazy. But since SCO owns the UNIX operating system and it
made up 95 percent of our company's revenue, and we were getting strong demand
from customers for a next generation version of UNIX, that's where we
concentrated our efforts.
Since then, people have often asked me, "Is SCO a company that is really
focused on innovating products and technology or are you just hoping to win a
lawsuit against IBM and then ride off into the sunset?" "Isn't SCO just all
about defeating Linux?" Of course we are innovating and we absolutely want to
defeat Linux, just as we want to defeat any other competitor. We work and
live in a competitive environment, as do most companies. The competitive
battle between Pepsi and Coke is legendary, as is the battle between GM and
Ford, Boeing and Airbus, and the Red Sox and Yankees.
If you had a chance to walk the halls of SCO's offices, you would clearly
know that we are a company focused on furthering SCO UNIX and innovating in
new product areas. Some of these developments we've been public about and
others will be introduced in the coming months. One thing is certain: while
our lawyers are protecting UNIX in the courtroom, SCO is clearly focused on
winning in the marketplace with superior technology and better value for our
customers.
In June, we released SCO OpenServer 6, which was a multi-year,
multi-million dollar development effort that resulted in a product that goes
beyond simply leveling the playing field with Linux. Based on the feedback
from our strategic partners, customers, resellers, engineers, and many others,
I believe SCO OpenServer 6 outshines Linux on a number of fronts:
1. OpenServer 6 Costs Less - OpenServer 6 offers very aggressive pricing.
The purchase price for SCO OpenServer 6 is priced from $599 to $1399
which includes the license to the product, software fixes, and access
to SCO's online knowledge base. Customers pay once for the product
and run it for as long as they like.
Linux vendors, on the other hand, seem to have a "bait and switch"
pricing model. The initial attraction to Linux was a price tag of
zero cost. Yet, they typically charge customers from $349 to $2,499
every single year. Calculating the cost of running Linux over a five
year period of time, that same customer pays from $1,745 to $12,495.
Since the Linux license itself is "free," are you really happy to be
paying annual subscription fees that are, in effect, higher than SCO's
price for both licenses and software fixes?
Is Linux really free? Of course not.
"Free" is one of the most searched words on the Web today. When you
type in "Free" in Yahoo search, it brings up more than 3 billion hits.
"Free" is a very powerful marketing concept. We all love free. Linux
lures you in with the promise of its being "free." But before you get
out of the "store," you are surprised to find out that it was anything
but free. Just remember the proverb, "Free is the most expensive
price."
2. SCO Has a Superior Kernel - SCO OpenServer 6 includes the UNIX System
V Release 5 (SVR5) kernel, the result of more than 25 years of
high-end development work that has created a proven track record of
stability and reliability. With our latest release, OpenServer
provides support for up to 32 processors, 64 GB of memory, terabyte
file sizes, and full support for multi-threaded applications. Linux
is still young from an operating system perspective. I would
challenge any kernel out there to match us head-to-head. While Linux
may appeal to some as the sleek, new "racer" on the track, the
experienced IT professional will truly see the real power under the
hood when they test the UNIX kernel and the tried and true power of
UNIX combined with the new capabilities of SCO OpenServer 6.
3. OpenServer Has Better Security - IT managers rank security today as
one of the most important decision factors in selecting an operating
system. According to technology risk management firm mi2g, SCO
OpenServer is one of the most secure operating systems in the world.
A study confirmed that SCO UNIX platforms had the lowest number of
vulnerabilities of any operating system they had studied. SCO
OpenServer 6 has all the latest security protocols and encryption
systems.
We also believe in quickly responding to the latest security threats.
In CNET's, May 27, 2005 article entitled "OS Makers Slow to Fix Flaw,"
a vulnerability was discovered affecting Intel's hyperthreading and
allows a local hacker to steal sensitive information. A notification
was given to all operating system vendors in March. "FreeBSD security
team member Percival has received formal responses to the issue from
the makers of the BSD family of open-source operating systems, as well
as SCO and Ubuntu Linux. However, Linux vendors Red Hat, Novell and
Mandriva have been slow to act, as has Microsoft," he said. SCO was
first to respond to the security threat.
Unfortunately for Linux, mi2g also confirmed that the Linux operating
system has become somewhat of a hacker's paradise. In a study
conducted only seven months ago they found that overall, the most
vulnerable operating system for manual hacker attacks was Linux,
accounting for 65.64% of all hacker breaches reported.
Regarding Linux vulnerabilities, mi2g stated, "For how long can the
truth remain hidden that the great emperors of the software industry
are wearing no clothes fit for the fluid environment in which
computing takes place, where new threats manifest every hour of every
day."
4. SCO Has a Customer-Driven Roadmap - Customers expect to see a
published roadmap of product development. Linux development plans and
schedules are generally as unknown as they are unpredictable.
Contrary to that approach, SCO believes in a solid, public, and
planned roadmap based on the tried and true methodology of listening
to customers, evaluating technology and bringing it to market in a
timely manner. SCO is committed to deliver on its roadmap promises --
on time and on target.
Linux will likely continue to face challenges about its development
methodologies and roadmaps as long as it continues to be a loosely
organized set of volunteers who develop what they want, when they
want.
5. OpenServer 6 is Backward Compatible - In listening to our customers,
we've received the strong message that backward compatibility is
essential. Backward compatibility is almost non-existent for Linux
customers. Linux has a "community" of contributing volunteers, and
while some would say this is a boon for Linux, I would characterize it
as a bane because channeling all of these contributions into another
point release for Linux inevitably causes problems. Who is checking
for compatibility across thousands of applications, drivers, hardware
and peripherals? Who is verifying backward compatibility? When a new
upgrade of Linux is required, software vendors and end users most
likely have to upgrade their application as well.
SCO OpenServer 6 customers get a stable operating system with full
compatibility for applications back to the earliest versions of SCO
OpenServer and Xenix. SCO customers don't worry that their
application won't run with the new version of their SCO operating
system because backward compatibility is built into each new release.
It's part of the product release criteria, and SCO's focused
engineering team makes it happen every time. As is the case with
OpenServer 6, older applications written on this operating system work
seamlessly with the new features and capabilities built into the
product.
6. SCO Allows You to Focus on Your Core Competency - A popular animation
on the Internet features a guy named Steve, the Linux Super Villain.
During the course of the 60 second animation, he describes his work
with Linux stating, "First you have to config it, then write some
shell scripts, update your RPMs, partition your drives, patch your
kernel, compile your binaries and check your version dependencies..."
While the animation is designed to be humorous, it's not far from the
truth. If you're adopting Linux, get prepared to go into the
operating system business because that's exactly the path you will be
taking.
One of the primary reasons customers choose SCO is that they don't
want to be an operating system vendor. They want to be free to manage
their businesses, and leave the operating system details to SCO and
our army of resellers, support engineers, and product development
personnel.
7. SCO Owns and Warrantees its Products - SCO owns the OpenServer 6
operating system that it licenses to its customers. SCO also owns the
UNIX operating system technology that has been licensed to thousands
of firms over the years. Alternatively, Linux distributors ship an
operating system for which they have little control and no ownership.
In fact, the General Public License, which governs the use and
distribution of the Linux operating system, makes it clear that Linux
conveys no warranty to end users. From the standpoint of intellectual
property rights, SCO OpenServer 6 is backed by a company that
warrantees its products.
8. SCO is Unifying its Code Base - Yogi Berra once said, "If you come to
a fork in the road, take it." Forking is exactly what is happening to
Linux. The grand promise of Linux was that it wouldn't fork or
fragment into multiple Linux operating systems. A noble sentiment, to
be sure; but Linux distributors have ensured exactly the opposite.
They are attempting to get ISVs locked into a specific flavor of
Linux, thereby forking Linux with every new version of the product.
By not certifying any of the "free" versions of their operating system
(like Fedora), they instead concentrate their efforts on only
certified, "paid for" versions. They have caused the very problem
that they promised they would never create. The problem is compounded
when software and hardware partners are forced to certify to multiple
Linux distributions.
While UNIX has had its own history of forking, SCO is committed to a
policy of converging and unifying its code base as is evident with the
release of OpenServer 6. To simplify the vender certification
process, OpenServer 6 has actually reduced the number of
certifications required of our software and hardware partners by
providing a single-certification for applications that now run on both
UnixWare and OpenServer. These partners welcome the opportunity for
the industry to create fewer certifications rather than more.
9. SCO UNIX: Legendary Reliability - Customers value and trust a vendor
whose products provide reliability and stability year after year. A
good operating system is like a strong building foundation, you may
not think about it everyday, but you're glad it's there.
Some of the world's largest and most well-known companies trust SCO to
run their business. One large SCO customer has chosen OpenServer as
its operating system of choice in thousands of locations due to this
legendary reliability. Their method of deployment was recently
described to me this way: "We put the server in a closet, lock the
door, and hide the key. We never have to touch it again." I believe
this is a key competitive advantage for OpenServer.
10. SCO Has an Award-Winning Support Team - Customers of OpenServer 6 have
access to a support team that knows the product inside and out. They
have decades of experience with our product line and are available
around the world and around the clock. In addition, the SCO support
team has access to the very development engineers who created the
product. This cannot be said of Linux distributions. For most
customers who have an immediate need, SCO can respond much faster than
Linux because our support staff is in-house and has direct access to
the developers to answer all customer questions.
Conversely, when Linux customers run into problems and need
professional technical support they really have only two choices.
First, they can turn to the Linux distributor who played a big role in
packaging the product but had nothing to do with its core development.
Or second, they can turn to the Linux volunteer community. These
volunteers were not paid to develop the product; and they received
nothing from the Linux distributor, there's no obligation for that
volunteer to support the product. Would you really want to trust the
backbone of your business to the likely unpredictable response times
of this Linux "volunteer fire department" support model?
So that's my "Top 10 List" of reasons you should consider SCO UNIX as an
alternative to Linux. Of course you, the reader, probably think this byline
is biased. Of course it is. But what are the press saying about OpenServer
6? Here is a quick sampling of recent sound bites:
"OpenServer 6's features form a very powerful server."
"The price, for what you get, offers a significant return on
investment that cannot be overlooked."
"This makes a powerful and reliable server combination that
should meet the needs of most organizations."
"Sporting an updated kernel, The SCO Group Inc.'s OpenServer 6
offers significant scalability upgrades, along with new UnixWare
application and driver compatibility. These improvements, along
with a set of new and updated open-source software components,
make OpenServer 6 a compelling upgrade for sites already running
this venerable operating system."
"SCO OpenServer 6 is a Winner"
I'm very proud of the work our SCO team has put into OpenServer 6. We
recognize that we're not perfect and there is much work to be done. However,
as the stewards of the UNIX operating system, SCO is committed to providing
technology leadership and delivering on the promise of UNIX-based solutions
for many years to come.
SOURCE The SCO Group
Web Site: http://www.SCO.com
|
|
Authored by: Groklaw Lurker on Monday, August 08 2005 @ 01:20 PM EDT |
Post off topic posts here...
---
(GL) Groklaw Lurker
End the tyranny, abolish software patents.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Anderer's Realm raises a fresh $9 million - Authored by: stats_for_all on Monday, August 08 2005 @ 01:34 PM EDT
- Linux Trademark rights being asserted - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, August 08 2005 @ 02:18 PM EDT
- Is Linux realy free!! - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, August 08 2005 @ 02:46 PM EDT
- Where to go......... - Authored by: emtieswall on Monday, August 08 2005 @ 04:20 PM EDT
- Thought - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, August 08 2005 @ 05:07 PM EDT
- Thought - Authored by: tiger99 on Monday, August 08 2005 @ 07:02 PM EDT
- Thought - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, August 08 2005 @ 11:10 PM EDT
- Me vs. EpicRealm - Authored by: Matt C on Monday, August 08 2005 @ 06:16 PM EDT
- SCO CEO: Even if court bids fail, we will survive - Authored by: tgnb on Monday, August 08 2005 @ 07:30 PM EDT
- SUSE Linux (Open SUSE) site is up - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 09 2005 @ 01:53 AM EDT
- SCO hires ex-IBM executive - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 09 2005 @ 03:22 AM EDT
- IBM keeps on giving. - Authored by: kinrite on Tuesday, August 09 2005 @ 03:56 AM EDT
- OT!!! OPEN SUSE Available Now - Authored by: KW on Tuesday, August 09 2005 @ 05:56 AM EDT
|
Authored by: entre on Monday, August 08 2005 @ 01:25 PM EDT |
Amazing
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Darl's Open Letter, "Long Live UNIX," and other PR Blizzardry from SCOForum - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, August 08 2005 @ 01:28 PM EDT
- Microsoft is not out to exterminate Linux - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, August 08 2005 @ 01:36 PM EDT
- Dear Darl, - Authored by: meshuggeneh on Monday, August 08 2005 @ 05:28 PM EDT
- Darl's Open Letter, "Long Live UNIX," and other PR Blizzardry from SCOForum - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, August 08 2005 @ 06:52 PM EDT
- Darl's marketing philosophy... - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, August 08 2005 @ 07:15 PM EDT
- "Long Live UNIX" But not on SCO's servers they run Linux - Authored by: pronerd on Tuesday, August 09 2005 @ 12:42 AM EDT
- My two penn'orth - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 09 2005 @ 10:16 AM EDT
|
Authored by: emperor on Monday, August 08 2005 @ 01:26 PM EDT |
So PJ can find 'em.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Corrections here... - Authored by: seanlynch on Monday, August 08 2005 @ 01:36 PM EDT
- Company ... shut down - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, August 08 2005 @ 01:45 PM EDT
- Corrections here... - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, August 08 2005 @ 02:01 PM EDT
- "SCO OpenServer 6 is a winner" story - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, August 08 2005 @ 03:23 PM EDT
- Corrections here... - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, August 08 2005 @ 03:46 PM EDT
- Irregardless - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, August 08 2005 @ 03:59 PM EDT
- Irregardless - Authored by: stend on Monday, August 08 2005 @ 05:05 PM EDT
- Irregardless - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, August 08 2005 @ 06:23 PM EDT
- Irregardless - Authored by: Chani on Monday, August 08 2005 @ 06:26 PM EDT
- Irregardless - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, August 08 2005 @ 10:19 PM EDT
- Double Negative - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, August 08 2005 @ 10:37 PM EDT
|
Authored by: jlp on Monday, August 08 2005 @ 01:30 PM EDT |
I noticed that he is still claiming that scog own the unix operating system.
I quess novell loves that.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Groklaw Lurker on Monday, August 08 2005 @ 01:33 PM EDT |
"...You can buy an antivirus product for Linux, but for which viruses? Go
ahead, if it makes you feel better, of course..."
Well, I've been using Linux on the Internet since late 1994 or early 1995 and
none of my Linux machines have ever been infected with a virus. Come to think of
it, I don't think I've ever encountered a Linux virus, though I have heard
through the security grapevine that they exist.
Why on earth would anyone bother to write a virus for Linux? What a colossal
waste of time and effort that would be. *Shrug*
Regards:
---
(GL) Groklaw Lurker
End the tyranny, abolish software patents.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: moonbroth on Monday, August 08 2005 @ 01:36 PM EDT |
Context for another of Darl's quotes. Here's the bit he copied for his press
release:
"Sporting an updated kernel, The SCO Group Inc.'s
OpenServer 6 offers significant scalability upgrades, along with new UnixWare
application and driver compatibility. These improvements, along with a set of
new and updated open-source software components, make OpenServer 6 a compelling
upgrade for sites already running this venerable operating
system."
And here's the next paragraph of that eWEEK Labs
Review, with my emphasis:
For new installations, however,
OpenServer 6 will have a tough time competing with Linux, Windows and Solaris,
each of which runs on the same x86 hardware for which OpenServer is designed.
These rivals match or beat OpenServer in terms of cost and capability, and each
enjoys more momentum in the market than does OpenServer.
This is
fun!
Cheers, Nick [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, August 08 2005 @ 01:36 PM EDT |
If Darl & co. would be as willing to post the entire text (not just
carefully selected portions) from any of PJ's many articles or letters. Since
PJ was so kind as to do that here.
...
Naahhh.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- I wonder... - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 09 2005 @ 08:18 AM EDT
- I wonder... - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 09 2005 @ 09:00 AM EDT
- I wonder if ... - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, August 14 2005 @ 01:55 AM EDT
|
Authored by: Nivuahc on Monday, August 08 2005 @ 01:37 PM EDT |
However, as the stewards of the UNIX operating system, SCO is
committed to providing technology leadership and delivering on the promise of
UNIX-based solutions for many years to come.
steward:
(stew·ard) n One who manages another's property, finances, or other
affairs.
--- My Doctor says I have A.D.D... He just doesn't understand.
It's not like... Hey! Look at that chicken! [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, August 08 2005 @ 01:38 PM EDT |
It continues to amaze me that the pump and dump community hasn't figured out
that the rules have changed and ready information about anyone's background is
easily available.
Darl supports his security claims on statements from mi2g.
A quick google reveals quite a bit of controversy, usually from making
unsubstantiated claims. Further familiarity with the firm shows that they're not
very different from the Alexis de Tocqueville Institution (sic) in that they're
a struggling small firm that has had multiple identities and keeps the doors
open by making paid representations via hit pieces. They're the online
equivelent of an expert witness willing to say anything for a few
dollars.
Here's a good background
on mi2g, including detail on many of their various schemes and failed
business attempts. Many will recognize further parallels to Ken Brown, including
mi2g's chief expert's academic credentials (or the probable lack of).
If
SCOG has hitched its wagon to the credibility of experts like mi2g, that speaks
volumes in the viability of their product offerings (not to mention cash
position - if this is all they can afford to buy, things must not be good). My
WAG is we'll see a chapter 11 filing by December...
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Groklaw Lurker on Monday, August 08 2005 @ 01:40 PM EDT |
"...I would say this: if you trust Darl McBride, soldier on and buy his
products, by all means..."
Hahahaha!!! Yeah, we trust our buddy Darl, don't we guys...?
Good one PJ!
---
(GL) Groklaw Lurker
End the tyranny, abolish software patents.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: tiger99 on Monday, August 08 2005 @ 01:42 PM EDT |
That explains why they were demonstrating a Cymphonix appliance in the UK a few
weeks back. And I must say that it did look fairly useful. However they did
not say what was inside it, so I guess it was not a SCO kernel. Perhaps like a
lot of net appliances, it uses Linux or xBSD? Now that would be interesting! [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, August 08 2005 @ 01:45 PM EDT |
Red Hat and HP are announcing security initiatives at LinuxWorld, but it's
really mainly for antiFUD purposes. You can buy an antivirus product for Linux,
but for which viruses? Go ahead, if it makes you feel better, of
course.
Here, PJ, I think that you are grossly mistaken. No, not because
Linux is not immune to viruses. Well, it is not, but there are so few real-world
viruses that it doesn't count; and the percentage of Linux machines on the
internet would probably be too low to let such a beast spread fast enough
anyway.
You are mistaken because many Linux machines are used in relation to
(or as) email servers. And it is a very good things that these (otherwise mostly
idling) machines can be used to scan emails for spam and (MS Windows) viruses.
So antivirus server programs are very useful things. And they've been around for
a while, too.
You should not forget either that very many Linux machines (such
as the one I am writing from) are on heterogenous networks. So what happens if
you somehow manage to put a contaminated file on the intranet and this intranet
is considered "trusted" by the Windows boxes ? It's very easy to save an MS
Office document or a zip file that contains something it shouldn't, because you
trust the source. And if you cannot garantee that some sources are virus-free
(which you could in an MS Windows + antivirus intranet), then added you non-MS
box on the network is a no-no.
Antivirus client software for Linux have also
existed for some time. They have been of limited use so far, in my experience,
because they could only scan my hard drive in the background (or at a predefined
time, as a cron job). I believe there are some real-time antivirus clients for
Linux, nowdays, that will scan on the fly the files you open or save on your
(local/network) drives. And this is a good thing.
But you are right that it
also is an antiFUD tool as many IT policy require the presence of an
antivirus.
Of course, all this comes as a cost: slower computer reactions due
to intempestive scannings, memory pressure, higher costs, more administration
(check that the automatic virus definition updates arrive flawlessly ...) and
more. And the root of the problem is still the presence of MS Windows boxes in
the IT infrastructure.
Regards,
Stephane [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, August 08 2005 @ 01:53 PM EDT |
okay have to chime in on this one.
"SCO Has a Superior Kernel - SCO OpenServer 6 includes the UNIX System V
Release 5 (SVR5) kernel, the result of more than 25 years of high-end
development work that has created a proven track record of stability and
reliability. With our latest release, OpenServer provides support for up to 32
processors, 64 GB of memory, terabyte file sizes, and full support for
multi-threaded applications. Linux is still young from an operating system
perspective. I would challenge any kernel out there to match us head-to-head.
While Linux may appeal to some as the sleek, new "racer" on the track,
the experienced IT professional will truly see the real power under the hood
when they test the UNIX kernel and the tried and true power of UNIX combined
with the new capabilities of SCO OpenServer 6."
riiight! - ya they finally got separate kernel loadable modules with this
version. good one darl
so is he saying that there is no infringement in the linux kernel from SRV
whatever version. I thought there Millions of lines of code in the linux kernel
from SRV whatever version.
ya - I would really sign a contract with sco that would put me and my business
at risk of being sued. Good one Darl you do have a sense of humor. Aren't
contracts - let see how you put it something you use against someone.
I guess he has to put out an open letter because no one else will listen to him.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: tiger99 on Monday, August 08 2005 @ 01:54 PM EDT |
If you run a Linux or BSD antivirus product such as F-prot or AVG it will protect you from the very few (so
far) Linux viruses. But more importantly it will prevent the retransmission of
Windoze viruses via your email system. In some countries, there is the
possibility of legal action if you are negligent in that regard, for instance if
you forward an email containing a virus, it may well be up to you to be able to
prove your innocence. Also, as Linux rises in popularity, it will be
increasingly targeted by the vile scum who currently attack Windoze. Even the
excellent OpenBSD is not fully secure, the bare OS is very good indeed, but once
you add various services that changes. So it really is best to use a good, up to
date antivirus product even on a *nix platform. But the good news is that at
least one, F-Prot, appears to be free for home use. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Nick_UK on Monday, August 08 2005 @ 01:56 PM EDT |
All it needs is to start with...
"Once upon a time..."
Trouble is, the press read and publish this; ala MS 'Get
the facts' rubbish, which was written by the same fairy
tale story author, by the look.
Nick [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: TheBlueSkyRanger on Monday, August 08 2005 @ 02:01 PM EDT |
Hey, everybody!
Darl gets one particular fact right but the underlying reasoning wrong. Linux
is a haven for hackers. However, he is clearly mistaking crackers for hackers.
Sorry, incorrect. Thank you for playing, and we have some lovely parting gifts.
How can this guy be in the tech industry and not know this while a simple end
user like myself does?!?
Dobre utka,
The Blue Sky Ranger
"Yay! My heart fills with hideous despair! Ooo! And behavior controlling
drugs!"
--Fillerbunny[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: AllanKim on Monday, August 08 2005 @ 02:16 PM EDT |
What a joke ... Here's how SCO addressed the hyperthreading issue, culled
directly from the SCO security advisory dated May 13, 2005:
3. Solution
The proper solution is to disable Hyper-Threading, unless you are certain that
(1) no authorized users of your system have the ability to run a malicious
program, and (2) it is not possible for any unauthorized users to access the
system.
(Gee, I can do that in Linux too. Linus said pretty much the same thing.)[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: tiger99 on Monday, August 08 2005 @ 02:20 PM EDT |
Hah-hah! No IPX or NetBIOS for a start. Some people need these things
for backward compatability. No UPS support yet. No in-place upgrade. But
what is backward is Apache 1.3.33, Java 1.4, lack of proper Nvidia
driver, NSS but no PAM.......... Oh, but it will run ancient Xenix binaries (as
will most Linux or xBSD kernels, an option that is probably rarely used, or
installed!). Yes, a truly backward-looking but not backward-compatible
product, of little use to anyone. And half finished, like a typical product from
their Puppetmaster. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, August 08 2005 @ 02:20 PM EDT |
"Their method of deployment was recently described to me this way: "We
put the server in a closet, lock the door, and hide the key. We never have to
touch it again.""
Sounds like a good method, but don't waste electricity by plugging it in.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, August 08 2005 @ 02:22 PM EDT |
Unlike most of his prior statements, this one is at least coherent despite being
misleading.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: nevinpratt on Monday, August 08 2005 @ 02:22 PM EDT |
Now, you tell me. How did the headline from that eWeek article become that
OpenServer 6 is a winner? And why did no one fix such a blooper, if it wasn't
intentionally and cynically done?
PJ, I don't know about eWeek, but
more than one reporter has told me that the reporters for the Salt Lake Tribune
do not write their own headlines. Somebody else at the paper reads the article,
and creates the headline. And, often that "somebody else" just speed-reads the
article, without necessarily even understanding what the article is
about.
So, based solely on the headline, I would not jump to
conclusions that it is "intentionally" misleading.
Nevin[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: ray08 on Monday, August 08 2005 @ 02:24 PM EDT |
SJV-N is about the most pro-Linux jounalist out there. I read his article the
day it came out. All he's saying is that the OS itself (independent of SCO) is
really a pretty good OS. It is *not* as good as Linux, and he makes that clear.
He is also explicit in stating that it is SCO (the management, IE, Darl et al)
that totally ruins OpenServer.
As far as the title, I immediately saw it as cynical from the start, mainly
because I know SJV-N's writing style.
---
Caldera is toast! And Groklaw is the toaster! (with toast level set to BURN)[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, August 08 2005 @ 02:38 PM EDT |
1) If you later switch to Linux, you'll face a lawsuit from SCO.
Post your replies below to add to the list![ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, August 08 2005 @ 02:47 PM EDT |
Here is an interesting quote that seems to sum up our dear Darl McBride:
"It is hard to believe that a man is telling the truth when you know that
you would lie if you were in his place." - H.L. Mencken[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, August 08 2005 @ 02:49 PM EDT |
Is Linux really free? Of course not.
"Free" is one of the most
searched words on the Web today. When you type in "Free" in Yahoo search, it
brings up more than 3 billion hits. "Free" is a very powerful marketing concept.
We all love free. Linux lures you in with the promise of its being "free." But
before you get out of the "store," you are surprised to find out that it was
anything but free. Just remember the proverb, "Free is the most expensive
price."
Once again the man proves his own ignorance... Is Linux
"Free" ? Well, it's a whole lot more free then a closed source OS! We need to
have more of a focus on "Linux = Freedom" as oppossed to "Linux =
$FREE$"
Too many people think we are speaking about a cost issue when
we are speaking about a freedom issue.
If you went to a store and saw two
brands of eggs. One brand looked to have a lower cost but they were
"pre-scrambled" in the shell so you could only make scrambled eggs, which is the
better value?
If you only like scrammbled eggs or ommlettes you might think
the pre-scrambled were... but if you were "Free" to cook eggs any way you
liked... Hmm...
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Free Eggs? - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, August 08 2005 @ 03:36 PM EDT
- Free Eggs? - Authored by: noli on Monday, August 08 2005 @ 04:13 PM EDT
- Free Eggs? - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, August 08 2005 @ 04:53 PM EDT
- Free Eggs? - Authored by: eerde on Monday, August 08 2005 @ 07:53 PM EDT
- Free Eggs? - Authored by: jog on Monday, August 08 2005 @ 08:16 PM EDT
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, August 08 2005 @ 02:55 PM EDT |
An very interes
ting article from The Register about MI2G.
Excerpt: Richard
Forno, author of The Art of Information Warfare and security consultant to the
US Department of Defense, has launched a broadside against mi2g, accusing the
UK-based security consultancy of spreading fear, uncertainty and doubt about
cyberterrorism risks.
It was written almost three years
ago...ah...how some people never change.
Honestly they sound about as
looney a group as the TSG legal team ;-)
Cheers!
AKomie[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: kawabago on Monday, August 08 2005 @ 02:57 PM EDT |
That is the kind of argument you are making against Linux and it won't work. It
just makes you look even more like a bumbling fool running a once promising
company into the ground for your own profit.
---
TTFN[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, August 08 2005 @ 03:06 PM EDT |
Hi, some people reading this might not speak Darl. The open letter is written in
a dialect of Darl that even some who have previously spoken Darl may find
difficult to translate. We need help translating sections of the letter.
I'll kick off with this bit:
Darl speak:
OpenServer 6 has actually reduced the number of certifications required of our
software and hardware partners by providing a single-certification for
applications that now run on both UnixWare and OpenServer. These partners
welcome the opportunity for the industry to create fewer certifications rather
than more.
Translation:
Even the hardware vendors have turned against us. Many of them couldnt be
bothered to certify their products for OpenSewer6, so, we just took the old
Unixware certifications and used those.
That gives you the idea, I'm sure well have the entire document translated with
a little help. perhaps then we can publish the updated version?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, August 08 2005 @ 03:12 PM EDT |
Thoughts of Deathrace 2000 inexplicably entered my mind on reading that!
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, August 08 2005 @ 03:18 PM EDT |
If IBM, Novell, or another company victimized by SCO's legal team bought out its
assets for $1 and the remaining husk of SCO liquidated and all lawsuits dropped
or settled, would that be A Good Thing?
Sure, guilty executives and lawyers would probably get off mostly scott-free,
other than losses on now-worthless SCO stock. But think of the money that could
be saved on lawyers.
The only major downside I can see is that important legal decisions would remain
undecided.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Jaywalk on Monday, August 08 2005 @ 03:20 PM EDT |
It would be irresponsible if the media didn't a software product credit where it
is due, even when the company producing it is doomed. Businesses buy software
for a variety of reasons and some companies might even decide to upgrade -- even
if they plan to switch later -- because they determine that it's worth the cost,
regardless of SCO's eventual fate. I think if you read the entire articles,
from which Darl is cherry-picking sound bites, you'll find that they all
includes caveats because of the nature of the company. Even with the
cherry-picking, note that the third quote restricts it's recommendation to
existing customers considering an upgrade. Darl, of course, is just a liar.
Anyone following the case for any length of time should have reached the
conclusion that he cannot possibly be simply mistaken or misled. Presenting the
whole unvarnished truth should not be expected from him. That he was able to
find five statements that, taken out of context, supported his latest
fabrication is not surprising. Nor, IMHO, does it reflect negatively on the
reporters that he was able to make the necessary distortion. They gave an
balanced and accurate picture, it's only the distortion which is a
lie. --- ===== Murphy's Law is recursive. ===== [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, August 08 2005 @ 03:28 PM EDT |
``Calculating the cost of running Linux over a five year
period of time, that same customer pays from $1,745 to $12,495. Since
the Linux license itself is "free," are you really happy to be paying annual
subscription fees that are, in effect, higher than SCO's price for both licenses
and software fixes?''
Hmm... Why is it I've paid my retail
price for a prepackaged Linux distribution and never paid a single red cent
after that? I've never had a problem downloading fixes following a retail
purchase. Darl's not being truthful here. (Surprise, surprise!) Unless,
that is, you only concern yourself with the so-called ``Enterprise'' versions of
Linux. But Darl wouldn't be the first person to cherry pick facts to support his
point of view.
``SCO OpenServer is one of the most secure
operating systems in the world. A study confirmed that SCO UNIX platforms had
the lowest number of vulnerabilities of any operating system they had
studied.''
Well, while I'm not so sure there's much
correlation between number of copies running and the number of reported
vulnerabilities, I'd guess that there aren't too many reported exploits aimed at
SCO UNIX because nobody's interesting in breaking into one of their sites. (Q:
When will the first cracker bust into a McDonald's computer system and make
Big Macs get rung up when a fish sandwich was ordered?)
As for quoting
mi2g: I doubt that there is another ``security'' group that has as bad a
reputation as mi2g. Quoting them is rather like going to Al Gore for an unbiased
view of Republican political strategy. (And let's make that the end of the
political references, okay?)
``OpenServer 6 is Backward
Compatible''
I agree with the first 80 percent of that
statement. :-D
``Backward compatibility is almost
non-existent for Linux customers.''
This is some
first-class horse manure. I have had no trouble running older peripherals with
Linux. Of course, I could try and get my old Logitech bus mouse working
on Linux and, when it won't work, raise a big ruckus over it. Am I really so
cheap that I wouldn't spring for a new $10 mouse? I have a copy of Applix
that's got to be five years old and yet still runs on a new Linux distribution.
My guess, Darl, is that if someone's got a peripheral that won't work with a
newer version of the operating system, they won't upgrade or they'll pay
for the alterations to make it work. I can't see anyone making a stink over
something like this if it involved a piece of commodity hardware. But feel free
to make a mountain out of this molehill.
``Who is checking
for compatibility across thousands of applications, drivers, hardware
and
peripherals? Who is verifying backward
compatibility?''
Really now, Darl. Does SCO really
perform all this testing? My personal experience with commercial UNIX software
is that the application and hardware vendor does this testing. Are you
seriously saying that this is something that Linux kernel developers should be
doing? I'd bet a month's pay that you are not doing this for all of the
applications supported on SCO UNIX.
``SCO Allows You to Focus
on Your Core Competency''
Oh, that old red herring. Let me
tell you Darl: My core competency is operating systems. That's why my employer
hired me to administer their systems. Not because I had extensive product
development experience in the business segment (healthcare equipment) that they
concentrate in. The folks that don't want to become proficient in the operating
system that runs their business don't have to. That's true whether they are
running UNIX or Linux. If they don't have the staff to have a ``core
competency'' in Linux, then they don't have the staff to do that with SCO UNIX
either. That's the bailiwick of the horde of consulting firms out there that
make a nice living providing the expertise in operating systems so that the
small businessperson doesn't have to or need to.
``Forking is
exactly what is happening to Linux. The grand promise of Linux was that it
wouldn't fork or fragment into multiple Linux operating
systems.''
First of all, distributions are not ``forks''. They
are a different flavor of surrounding tools that address the needs of a specific
set of Linux users. I've yet to find an application that runs on one Linux
distribution and doesn't run on another. Granted, one might have to alter
a few settings in the event that one distribution places userland libraries in a
different directory than some other distribution (something that I'm finding is
increasingly rare). So what. I encounter Solaris systems that have the same
application installed in more locations than you can shake a stick at. But they
still work. And just who was this that promised that Linux wouldn't
fork?
``SCO UNIX: Legendary Reliability - Customers value and
trust a vendor whose products provide reliability and stability year after year.
... you may not think about it everyday, but you're glad it's
there''
Well, SCO UNIX's legendary all right. For being a
pain to work with. For being non-standard. Want more? And, speaking of legends,
with Linux I don't have to worry about the chance of bankruptcy of my OS vendor
hanging over my head like the sword of Damoclese.
``Customers
of OpenServer 6 have access to a support team that knows the product inside and
out. They have decades of experience with our product line and are available
around the world and around the clock. In addition, the SCO support team has
access to the very development engineers who created the product. This cannot
be said of Linux distributions.''
Not true. I have
downloaded patches from the personal directory of kernel maintainers employed by
one of the major distributions. While it wasn't the Linux kernel, I've exchanged
emails regarding a support problem with one of the primary developers of one of
the popular OSS databases. So, don't keep telling people that using OSS means
you won't get access to the developers. You just look foolish. Besides, IMNSHO,
the structure of the support group at most commercial software vendors is
designed to prevent you from actually reaching an honest-to-goodness
developer who really understands the product. (I've gotten folks in trouble by
cajoling them into passing my call onto the development team. Sort of funny.
But mostly sad.)
``So that's my "Top 10 List" of
reasons...''
David Letterman ought to
sue.
``These improvements, along with a set of new and
updated open-source software components, make OpenServer 6 a compelling upgrade
for sites already running this venerable operating
system.''
ROTFLOL! Openserver 6 would be nothing if it
weren't for the open-source add-ons that are bundled with it. And, of course,
it's a compelling upgrade for sites already running this venerable
operating system: They have application software that cannot be moved to
another operating system, even another version of UNIX.
(Sorry for my
long-windedness.)
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Who is REALLY doing the bait and switch? - Authored by: rocky on Monday, August 08 2005 @ 04:43 PM EDT
- Oh, Darl. Darl, Darl... - Authored by: Observer on Monday, August 08 2005 @ 06:07 PM EDT
- Oh, Darl. Darl, Darl... - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, August 08 2005 @ 10:22 PM EDT
- Oh, Darl. Darl, Darl... - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 09 2005 @ 05:43 AM EDT
|
Authored by: _Arthur on Monday, August 08 2005 @ 03:53 PM EDT |
How many Servers are running OpenServer Legend, so far ? 200 ?
So 200 computers have been running OpenServer 6 for 30 days, and none of the
numerous crashes were attributed to viruses, so that makes it "Secure"
?
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: cmc on Monday, August 08 2005 @ 03:58 PM EDT |
"The grand promise of Linux was that it wouldn't fork or fragment into
multiple Linux operating systems."
I have never heard that. Can someone tell me who (and where and when) it was
ever claimed that Linux wouldn't fork? The usage of the GPL actually seems to
*encourage* forking, if you ask me.
cmc
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, August 08 2005 @ 04:01 PM EDT |
This is evidence that Darl & co. are reading the writing on the wall and
slowly coming back to reality.
Sure, we all know how bogus this whole thing is, but...
The appearance that SCOX is trying to be a real business, not just a litigation
engine, is central to their current primary corporate goal --
prison-avoidance.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: blacklight on Monday, August 08 2005 @ 04:18 PM EDT |
"``SCO Allows You to Focus on Your Core Competency''"
And our core competency as SCOG customers would be ... Defending against SCOG's
lawsuits?
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, August 08 2005 @ 04:31 PM EDT |
Well, the immaturity of Linux and its lack of enterprise-ready features must be
why it powers the majority of top supercomputers now (See this Forbes article). [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, August 08 2005 @ 04:43 PM EDT |
I'm glad to finally hear SCO talk about UNIX rather than lawsuits. For the
longest time, it appeared as if the company's core focus was suing everyone.
And it was doing a pretty lousy job at that. I thought UNIX doomed.
But here we are, finding SCO with renewed interest in UNIX. I think it's a
little too late though. Our company lost faith some time ago and replaced every
single copy of SCO UNIX we were operating with (of all things) Windows Server
2003.
We were concerned SCO was operating their business into the ground. It's sad
really. SCO says Linux is destroying UNIX, when it appears to us at least, SCO
is behind the destruction.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, August 08 2005 @ 04:44 PM EDT |
Bigger for SCO users, that is.
Those of us who use Linux (or Mac OS X, or
whatever) typically don't think
much about backward compatibility. We upgrade
to a new OS version, and
things keep working. We upgrade to a new application
version, and things
keep working. Occasionally a new application version may
require features
introduced in a new OS version, but this isn't always the
case.
But it doesn't really matter to us.
Why?
Simple. The
operating systems we use, and the applications we use, are
being actively
developed and maintained. And we can easily get new versions
if we need
them.
The SCO world (and I say this as someone who was root on an OpenSewer
box for years) is far different.
Most SCO users are not running what we
would think of as an "actively
developed and maintained" operating system.
OpenServer 6.0 came out
roughly nine years after OpenServer
5.0.
Most SCO users are also not running what we would think of as "actively
developed and maintained" applications. If you've got a 1996-vintage
OpenServer box, it's probably running some 1996-vintage custom app from a
vendor who thought, 10 years ago, that hey, SCO was the way to go. (And 10
years ago, Linux wasn't the gorilla it is today, so forgive them.)
Odds are
good the application, OS and machine have been sitting there
together for 10
years.
Odds are good the application has been end-of-lifed already.
Odds are very good that the "upgrade path" isn't SCO-only... if SCO
is even an option.
And the odds that an ISV or VAR that supports multiple
OSes will give
anything from SCO "top billing" on their site?
"Ha ha, very
funny. Ho ho, it is to laugh." -- Daffy Duck
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, August 08 2005 @ 04:51 PM EDT |
And here I'd been thinking that SCO's legal team had finally been able
to get 'ol Darl to shut his pie hole. My guess is that he knows they're done for
so what the heck. Why not start mouthing off again. He's got little to
lose.
I doubt that Novell's missed the part where he claims that SCO
``owns'' the UNIX operating system. They're going to have so much fun
with this guy. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, August 08 2005 @ 04:51 PM EDT |
Odd, I seem to remember a general shock a year or so ago when SCO posted about
OpenServer to Bugtraq. Partially because we weren't sure they were actually
still maintaining that, and mostly because they were a couple years or so late
in addressing the subject of a CERT advisory (which themselves are known for
being well behind the times).
So if OpenServer isn't being hacked, I'd have to conclude that:
1) No one can even *find* OpenServer boxes (well, maybe need to scan *.sco.com,
but I'm not sure that even they use that many of them...)
2) No one can believe they're vulnerable to holes that old.
3) No one has time to waste on such an insignifcant program.
Maybe I should just read up on really old security holes and see how many of
them OpenServer is vulnerable to? Of course, I'd need to find a copy of that
wretched thing first *hrmm*[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, August 08 2005 @ 04:53 PM EDT |
The basic license is values at $599..
Wasn't the linux license $699 per CPU?
Does that mean that linux is ALL THE Opentoy 6 code + more ?
Or does it mean that linux is stolen from... another unix ??
( okee, linux IS much much much better ! )
But what a stupid concept, SCO charges more for a OS that they don't own AT ALL
and constantly bash on all front for being so inferiour then there OWN OS.
Now I would not have found this little gem noteworthy were it not that Darl
keeps ranting about value-value-value.
Retep Vosnul.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, August 08 2005 @ 04:58 PM EDT |
Unix isn't bad for people, SCO is bad for Unix. Period. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Nice Kitty on Monday, August 08 2005 @ 05:34 PM EDT |
Despite the fact that the trial is scheduled for some time in 2007, and that we
all have seen these "SCO follies" go on *FAR* longer than reasonable
people would ever expect, with the above statement/subject-line, I give Darl
(& the company who's reputation he and friends have driven to lower than
whale crap) 6 months, at most 1 year.
Darl & folks should be panhandling around this time, next year. Then again
(as so many times in the past), we can only hope.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, August 08 2005 @ 05:46 PM EDT |
10 Reasons To Stick With SCOG
10. SCO OpenServer 6
9. 2 lawsuits. Count 'em. Two. Were gonna kick butt!
8. Nobody spins a better yarn than SCOG!
7. All your O/S are belong to us.
6. We promise not to sue own customers.
5. More Microsoft money coming in real soon now.
4. There really is a mountain of code. We are waiting for the
"right time" to show it!
3. Expect SCOG stock to rise dramatically when we win.
2. We really do own UNIX and LINUX and maybe Windows.
1. Trust me, I'm Darl!
anon46
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Observer on Monday, August 08 2005 @ 05:51 PM EDT |
SCO claims that they have a faster kernel than Linux. I wonder if anyone has
actually tried running any real benchmark tests. Of course, as we've seen in
countless match-ups between Linux and The Other Monolythic OS Company, there are
always things you can tweak to make the benchmark turn out the way you want it
to, but are we even talking about being close here? Does SCO have any
facts (fabricated or otherwise) to back up their claim? --- The Observer [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: AH1 on Monday, August 08 2005 @ 06:03 PM EDT |
I'm amazed that Daryl could actually release this one with a straight face. I
found most of his points humorous at best. Here were some of my favorites.
1. "OpenServer 6 costs less- ... they typically charge customers from $349
to $2,499 every single year. ...."
OK should we ask what estimated annual cost of retaining a staff of Lawyers to
"properly" handle all correspondence with SCO to avoid a lawsuit would
be?
3."OpenServer Has Better Security"
And who is providing the security updates for all those "open source"
applications that are required to make your product viable. By the way Security
through obscurity does not count as security. Finally, can anyone tell me how
"secure" OpenServer 6 is when it comes out of the box?
4. "SCO Has a Customer-Driven Roadmap"
Does that roadmap include filing lawsuits when your customers switch to superior
products? Does it include a migration path to another product when you FINALLY
declare bankrupcy?
6. “SCO Allows You to Focus on Your Core Competency”
Is your core competency defending yourself against lawsuits, planning for
migration paths, and figuring out how to “customize” obscure proprietary
software without being sued? If so OpenServer is the product for you.
7. “SCO Owns and Warrantees its Products”
Define ownership. Somehow I think that Novell will define “ownership” of SCO's
products a little differently.
10. “SCO Has an Award-Winning Support Team”
And would somebody tell me what award they won? and when they won it? Given the
press releases announcing staffing cuts, I would not be surprised to find that
most of the members of the “award-winning support team” in the unemployment
line.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: YMHEE_BCEX on Monday, August 08 2005 @ 06:10 PM EDT |
I looked at the "other" press release - about the
milestones...
"Project Fusion should prove to be another fantastic product
from The SCO Group. Its ability to support both 32 and 64-bit processing power
will provide customers with the ability to take advantage of the new and
emerging 64-bit hardware technologies when it is released," said Bob Ungraetti,
president, Garett Group Inc.
If it sounds like a marketing guy talking about
technology that he has know clue - it's maybe because he is [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: sjvn on Monday, August 08 2005 @ 06:18 PM EDT |
>And why did no one fix such a blooper, if it wasn't intentionally and
cynically done? <
It was intentional, but it wasn't meant cynically per se.
No, the title was meant to be read in context with the deck:
Therefore, a reader coming across the story would read it as:
HEADLINE: SCO OpenServer Is a Winner
DECK: Now if only SCO wasn't such a loser.
Which, I might add, kind of sums up my opinion right there in two lines.
As to why it was such a pain to find... I don't know. Google, and Google News in
particular, seem to have a lot of trouble picking up Any eWEEK.com stories. I,
and a lot of other writers here in eWEEK land find that more than a little
annoying.
Steven
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, August 08 2005 @ 06:19 PM EDT |
There's something interesting in Darl's statement that makes me somewhat
suspicious. He talks about this new release, version 6, as having support for up
to 32 processors and 64Gb of RAM.
Interesting...
I know that the 2.6 kernel was heavily re-engineered by Linus and his team of
core developers to scale up to really large multi-processor systems. Sorry,
can't recall the exact numbers.
I wonder if the new [rewritten] SCO kernel bears even a passing resemblance to
Linux2.6.x ??? After all, as we have come to learn from SCO, even if the program
code looks completely different, they can prove that a chunk of logic was stolen
from one of their OS versions...
Joking aside, I wonder if IBM, during the discovery of their counter-suit, could
ask for expert witness access to thise SCO kernel and try and determine if it
uses any code contributed to Linux and copyright by IBM.
I suppose the odds are slim. SCO wouldn't be that stupid, would they?
Then again...[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, August 08 2005 @ 06:30 PM EDT |
Does Darl:
a) Really believe what he's writing, and that he has a chance of getting out of
this with his shirt still on his back? (scary divorce from reality); or
b) Know that he's doomed but is going down fighting/with the ship anyway
(pathetic but almost admirable)?
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Nick Bridge on Monday, August 08 2005 @ 06:36 PM EDT |
"SCO is Unifying its Code Base"
With what? AIX? HP-UX? SOLARIS?
What absolute nonsense![ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: rm6990 on Monday, August 08 2005 @ 06:47 PM EDT |
8. SCO is Unifying its Code Base - Yogi Berra once said, "If you come to a
fork in the road, take it." Forking is exactly what is happening to Linux. The
grand promise of Linux was that it wouldn't fork or fragment into multiple Linux
operating systems. A noble sentiment, to be sure; but Linux distributors have
ensured exactly the opposite. They are attempting to get ISVs locked into a
specific flavor of Linux, thereby forking Linux with every new version of the
product.
Wow, SCO is unifying its own products! Bravo! *claps*. Red
Hat did this with its own products long ago. Products compiled on RHEL AS 2.1
should run on AS 4. So, your comparing SCO unifying its own products with
Linux Distributors unifying each others products.
So now let's
play fair. How is binary compatability between OpenServer and Solaris x86? Will
a binary compiled on Solaris run on OpenServer? Or is it expected that Linux
Distributors should unify each others products but SCO shouldn't have to? Pot,
kettle, black Darl. Now how about compatability with FreeBSD, OpenBSD or NetBSD?
Although they cannot call themselves Unix, in all reality they are Unix. How
much effort is SCO putting into unifying its products with those
competitors?
10. SCO Has an Award-Winning Support Team - Customers
of OpenServer 6 have access to a support team that knows the product inside and
out. They have decades of experience with our product line and are available
around the world and around the clock. In addition, the SCO support team has
access to the very development engineers who created the product. This cannot be
said of Linux distributions. For most customers who have an immediate need, SCO
can respond much faster than Linux because our support staff is in-house and has
direct access to the developers to answer all customer
questions.
Conversely, when Linux customers run into problems and need
professional technical support they really have only two choices. First, they
can turn to the Linux distributor who played a big role in packaging the product
but had nothing to do with its core development. Or second, they can turn to the
Linux volunteer community. These volunteers were not paid to develop the
product; and they received nothing from the Linux distributor, there's no
obligation for that volunteer to support the product. Would you really want to
trust the backbone of your business to the likely unpredictable response times
of this Linux "volunteer fire department" support model?
But I
thought one of OpenServer's biggest strengths was its inclusion of *gasp* Open
Source Software. Software such as KDE, Samba, Apache, OpenSSL and numerous
others. Surely anyone deploying OpenServer would use some of these tools. Is
Darl trying to tell me that 100% of the developers for these products work at
SCO? Puh-lease!
So, if something goes wrong with these products which
are part of OpenServer, whom does a customer turn to? Well, they can turn to the
Unix distributor who played a big role in packaging the product but nothing to
do with its core development. Also, does SCO really have access to all of these
developers like they so claim? If I was a volunteer, I would be much more
willing to give Novell or Red Hat a hand than I would SCO.
It's also
funny how SCO and its 200 employees think they can compare with Novell's 6000
employees worldwide. How about Red Hat's 1000? I know where I'd want to turn for
support? [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, August 08 2005 @ 07:11 PM EDT |
Darl McBride appears to be an anagram of Mohammed Saeed al-Sahaf. Okay, so you
need to add a few letters and take a few others away, but it's as identical as
the Unix and Linux kernels in that respect. And both the kernels and the above
mentioned gentlemen share similar functions. For those of you who may have
forgotten Mohammed Saeed al-Sahaf was the coalition morale boosting Iraqi
Information Minister. Check out http://www.welovetheira
qiinformationminister.com/ and see the similarities.
"We can prove
there is code in Linux."
Darren[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, August 08 2005 @ 08:22 PM EDT |
Rough draft for your amusement.
An open response to SCO.
Dear Darl, It has become apparent that your connection to reality is becoming
more tenuous.
So in an attempt to re-attach you to the world I submit these rebut alls to
your delusional
statements
1. OpenServer 6 Costs Less - OpenServer 6 offers very aggressive pricing.
The purchase price for SCO OpenServer 6 is priced from $599 to $1399
which includes the license to the product, software fixes, and access
to SCO's online knowledge base. Customers pay once for the product
and run it for as long as they like.
Linux vendors, on the other hand, seem to have a "bait and
switch"
pricing model. The initial attraction to Linux was a price tag of
zero cost. Yet, they typically charge customers from $349 to $2,499
every single year. Calculating the cost of running Linux over a five
year period of time, that same customer pays from $1,745 to $12,495.
Since the Linux license itself is "free," are you really happy
to be
paying annual subscription fees that are, in effect, higher than SCO's
price for both licenses and software fixes?
Is Linux really free? Of course not.
"Free" is one of the most searched words on the Web today.
When you
type in "Free" in Yahoo search, it brings up more than 3
billion hits.
"Free" is a very powerful marketing concept. We all love
free. Linux
lures you in with the promise of its being "free." But before
you get
out of the "store," you are surprised to find out that it was
anything
but free. Just remember the proverb, "Free is the most expensive
price."
REBUTALL 1
You forgot to include the cost of litigation, (do you have any clients
you are not suing?)
Your pricing is per seat while other companies go per site. you also
seem to miss that as open
source payment is for services and tech support and is often
optional.
So you yet again demonstrate either a profound misunderstanding of
linux and/or yet another
attempt to obfuscate and malign the competition. (your past behavior
demonstrates that you
can be both stupid and malignant so I give you both)
2. SCO Has a Superior Kernel - SCO OpenServer 6 includes the UNIX System
V Release 5 (SVR5) kernel, the result of more than 25 years of
high-end development work that has created a proven track record of
stability and reliability. With our latest release, OpenServer
provides support for up to 32 processors, 64 GB of memory, terabyte
file sizes, and full support for multi-threaded applications. Linux
is still young from an operating system perspective. I would
challenge any kernel out there to match us head-to-head. While Linux
may appeal to some as the sleek, new "racer" on the track,
the
experienced IT professional will truly see the real power under the
hood when they test the UNIX kernel and the tried and true power of
UNIX combined with the new capabilities of SCO OpenServer 6
REBUTALL 2
(please excuse the author, He's having a hard time with the rolling around and
laughing)
You have a strange standard of superior. 20+ years of
development by another company and they threw in the towel and sold the problem
to the only hacks dumb enough to buy a pig in a poke. As for 32 processors don't
you charge by the cpu? and have you looked at the linux variant Open Mosix?
We can do over 100 cpu's (frankly I don't know what our upper limit is) and
its still free.
As for seeing the “real power” I see an outdated unix kernel with a bunch of
open source apps.
wasn't open source communist?,unconstitutional,double plus ungood? Why is this
obvious anti-business software in your product?
3. OpenServer Has Better Security - IT managers rank security today as
one of the most important decision factors in selecting an operating
system. According to technology risk management firm mi2g, SCO
OpenServer is one of the most secure operating systems in the world.
A study confirmed that SCO UNIX platforms had the lowest number of
vulnerabilities of any operating system they had studied. SCO
OpenServer 6 has all the latest security protocols and encryption
systems.
We also believe in quickly responding to the latest security threats.
In CNET's, May 27, 2005 article entitled "OS Makers Slow to Fix
Flaw,"
a vulnerability was discovered affecting Intel's hyperthreading and
allows a local hacker to steal sensitive information. A notification
was given to all operating system vendors in March. "FreeBSD
security
team member Percival has received formal responses to the issue from
the makers of the BSD family of open-source operating systems, as well
as SCO and Ubuntu Linux. However, Linux vendors Red Hat, Novell and
Mandriva have been slow to act, as has Microsoft," he said. SCO
was
first to respond to the security threat.
Unfortunately for Linux, mi2g also confirmed that the Linux operating
system has become somewhat of a hacker's paradise. In a study
conducted only seven months ago they found that overall, the most
vulnerable operating system for manual hacker attacks was Linux,
accounting for 65.64% of all hacker breaches reported.
Regarding Linux vulnerabilities, mi2g stated, "For how long can
the
truth remain hidden that the great emperors of the software industry
are wearing no clothes fit for the fluid environment in which
computing takes place, where new threats manifest every hour of every
day."
REBUTTALL 3
“Open server has better security” (giggle) People only hack POPULAR operating
systems Your security is through obscurity and therefore pointless. of those
security measures that are applicable how many are open source?
As for mi2g. When we need a pre-determined survey we now know where
to go. (whats a
manual hack? and how do they relate in proportion to all hacker
attacks? From here it looks
like darl has found a bright shiny new buzzword to inflate a small
problem) I also know that
you had to look far and wide to find a group of security
consultants who match you in your
quest for truth. (a quick look under google show that you chose
“The firm that cried wolf” as
your security consultants)
4. SCO Has a Customer-Driven Roadmap - Customers expect to see a
published roadmap of product development. Linux development plans and
schedules are generally as unknown as they are unpredictable.
Contrary to that approach, SCO believes in a solid, public, and
planned roadmap based on the tried and true methodology of listening
to customers, evaluating technology and bringing it to market in a
timely manner. SCO is committed to deliver on its roadmap promises --
on time and on target.
Linux will likely continue to face challenges about its development
methodologies and roadmaps as long as it continues to be a loosely
organized set of volunteers who develop what they want, when they
want.
REBUTTALL 4
So after ignoring software and customers for your entire term in office
you now decide to be
customer driven? How do your customers feel about your lawsuits? Your
Roadmap leads off a
cliff.
As “for loosely organized set of volunteers ” As their legal team
demonstrates neither IBM or
Novell could be called “loosely organized” about anything. As IBM and
Novell have both
dedicated more money and staff to linux development than your company is
worth I have to ask.
Is SCO's os development therefore underfunded and understaffed?
5. OpenServer 6 is Backward Compatible - In listening to our customers,
we've received the strong message that backward compatibility is
essential. Backward compatibility is almost non-existent for Linux
customers. Linux has a "community" of contributing
volunteers, and
while some would say this is a boon for Linux, I would characterize it
as a bane because channeling all of these contributions into another
point release for Linux inevitably causes problems. Who is checking
for compatibility across thousands of applications, drivers, hardware
and peripherals? Who is verifying backward compatibility? When a new
upgrade of Linux is required, software vendors and end users most
likely have to upgrade their application as well.
SCO OpenServer 6 customers get a stable operating system with full
compatibility for applications back to the earliest versions of SCO
OpenServer and Xenix. SCO customers don't worry that their
application won't run with the new version of their SCO operating
system because backward compatibility is built into each new release.
It's part of the product release criteria, and SCO's focused
engineering team makes it happen every time. As is the case with
OpenServer 6, older applications written on this operating system work
seamlessly with the new features and capabilities built into the
product.
REBUTTALL 5
“Backward compatibility is almost non-existent for linux”
As the director of an organization dedicated to refurbishing older
hardware for re-use, I can safely
Call this Bullpuckey. Linux backward compatibility is exemplary. Your
promotion of this
obvious falsehood is a sign of desperation.
6. SCO Allows You to Focus on Your Core Competency - A popular animation
on the Internet features a guy named Steve, the Linux Super Villain.
During the course of the 60 second animation, he describes his work
with Linux stating, "First you have to config it, then write some
shell scripts, update your RPMs, partition your drives, patch your
kernel, compile your binaries and check your version
dependencies..."
While the animation is designed to be humorous, it's not far from the
truth. If you're adopting Linux, get prepared to go into the
operating system business because that's exactly the path you will be
taking.
One of the primary reasons customers choose SCO is that they don't
want to be an operating system vendor. They want to be free to manage
their businesses, and leave the operating system details to SCO and
our army of resellers, support engineers, and product development
personnel.
REBUTALL 6
If you want your companies core competency to become defensive
litigation.
And if we are looking for humorous critical spins we need go no farther than
this
http://www.natterjackpr.com/stories/2003/08/15/nigerian419ScoSpoof.html for
amusement and I
submit its much closer to reality.
7. SCO Owns and Warrantees its Products - SCO owns the OpenServer 6
operating system that it licenses to its customers. SCO also owns the
UNIX operating system technology that has been licensed to thousands
of firms over the years. Alternatively, Linux distributors ship an
operating system for which they have little control and no ownership.
In fact, the General Public License, which governs the use and
distribution of the Linux operating system, makes it clear that Linux
conveys no warranty to end users. From the standpoint of intellectual
property rights, SCO OpenServer 6 is backed by a company that
warrantees its products.
REBUTTALL 7
What you own is subject to debate and I submit that the person least
likely to know who owns what is you. Or why did you just get your butt handed to
you by Novells lawyers? I understand that they are now after your bank account
and that you just might dry up and blow away in short order.
So what is a warranty from a company on the edge of bankruptcy worth?
8. SCO is Unifying its Code Base - Yogi Berra once said, "If you come
to
a fork in the road, take it." Forking is exactly what is happening
to
Linux. The grand promise of Linux was that it wouldn't fork or
fragment into multiple Linux operating systems. A noble sentiment, to
be sure; but Linux distributors have ensured exactly the opposite.
They are attempting to get ISVs locked into a specific flavor of
Linux, thereby forking Linux with every new version of the product.
By not certifying any of the "free" versions of their
operating system
(like Fedora), they instead concentrate their efforts on only
certified, "paid for" versions. They have caused the very
problem
that they promised they would never create. The problem is compounded
when software and hardware partners are forced to certify to multiple
Linux distributions.
While UNIX has had its own history of forking, SCO is committed to a
policy of converging and unifying its code base as is evident with the
release of OpenServer 6. To simplify the vender certification
process, OpenServer 6 has actually reduced the number of
certifications required of our software and hardware partners by
providing a single-certification for applications that now run on both
UnixWare and OpenServer. These partners welcome the opportunity for
the industry to create fewer certifications rather than more.
REBUTT: 8
So one demonstrably underfunded R&D department can outdo the rest
of the world?
The Commercial distributions have all of your advantages and more. The
dual distro is brilliant
in that the world gets to try out all the harebrained ideas that might
make it big without having to
pay an arm and a leg for development while the company can provide cost
effective service to
corporate clients. It also gives IT directors a chance to see whats
coming up in the future by
looking at the open distro's development.
9. SCO UNIX: Legendary Reliability - Customers value and trust a vendor
whose products provide reliability and stability year after year. A
good operating system is like a strong building foundation, you may
not think about it everyday, but you're glad it's there.
Some of the world's largest and most well-known companies trust SCO to
run their business. One large SCO customer has chosen OpenServer as
its operating system of choice in thousands of locations due to this
legendary reliability. Their method of deployment was recently
described to me this way: "We put the server in a closet, lock the
door, and hide the key. We never have to touch it again." I
believe
this is a key competitive advantage for OpenServer.
REBUTT. 9
Sorry I have linux boxes with multi-year uptimes. This does not seem
to be that impressive and
in addition any employee who “put the server in a closet, locked the
door and hid the key”
would be better served in a profession with a dress code and a set
script. “do you want fries with
that?” comes to mind.
10. SCO Has an Award-Winning Support Team - Customers of OpenServer 6 have
access to a support team that knows the product inside and out. They
have decades of experience with our product line and are available
around the world and around the clock. In addition, the SCO support
team has access to the very development engineers who created the
product. This cannot be said of Linux distributions. For most
customers who have an immediate need, SCO can respond much faster than
Linux because our support staff is in-house and has direct access to
the developers to answer all customer questions.
Conversely, when Linux customers run into problems and need
professional technical support they really have only two choices.
First, they can turn to the Linux distributor who played a big role in
packaging the product but had nothing to do with its core development.
Or second, they can turn to the Linux volunteer community. These
volunteers were not paid to develop the product; and they received
nothing from the Linux distributor, there's no obligation for that
volunteer to support the product. Would you really want to trust the
backbone of your business to the likely unpredictable response times
of this Linux "volunteer fire department" support model?
REBUTT: 10
What award? The we will sue rather than innovate award? The our
software is years behind
award? Do any of these awards come from after you became ceo? Are they
credible?Or are you yet
again trying to confuse you as SCO (litigant numbnut) with the Santa Cruz
Operation. (respectable
company that got out of a bad business?)
Didn't you just hire a new CTO? how many old SCO employees are left?
As for a volunteer fire department approach: It beats the hell out of a
fire department that sues you
for using some other manufacturers fire extinguisher. Your analogy only
insults both parties and
makes you look even more desperate
But if I were to use your analogy I would of course chose to go with a
person who volunteers to
risk life and limb for love of mankind. I was a volunteer and a paid
firefighter. I submit that there
is no one on a volunteer fire crew that is not there from dedication.
While with some paid
firefighters (not many)its just a job.
I submit that with your staff. Its just a job.
I have enjoyed blowing holes in your rant again but I suspect that this
amusement is but short lived and soon to be outshone by your rapidly approaching
corporate death. (I plan on attending the bankruptcy auction, the mementos
should keep me amused for years.)
Sincerely:
James Burgett Exec Director.
CATRC/ACCRC/MCRC.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: sacs on Monday, August 08 2005 @ 09:25 PM EDT |
Does anyone else find it ironic that Darl bags Linux, yet according to Netcraft www.sco.com runs Apache on linux!
Doh!
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: LarryVance on Monday, August 08 2005 @ 09:47 PM EDT |
10. Darl found his cattle (no longer just all hat)
9. Darl saw the brand on the cattle (Novell)
8. Boies is getting scared
7. Hatch is not that much help anymore
6. The cat is out of the bag
5. There is another sheriff in town
6. We got some more discovery (another chance)
5. This discovery is no good either
4. They took Darl's words out of context
3. Those coutersuits are getting really close
2. Darl's passport has expired
1. Don't take your eye off the wookie!
---
ours is a sick profession marked by incompetence, lack of training, misconduct
and bad manners. -- Chief Justice Warren Burger[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: RealProgrammer on Monday, August 08 2005 @ 10:07 PM EDT |
I run several mixed Unix, Linux and Windows networks.
The Windows systems require an individual license for each computer. The time
spent acquiring and managing the license is on a par with the actual install
time, and it is often a bottleneck since I won't support a system unless I know
it's properly licensed. I would imagine SCO Openserver works about the same way
WRT licensing.
For the Unix (Solaris) systems, the OS is free as in beer. I can pay $2500/year
for support if I want, but I don't want. I can install the OS on as many Sun
and non-Sun machines as I want. I just use it on the Suns, though.
For the Linux systems, I use a mix of Redhat Enterprise and Fedora. I have to
have Redhat Enterprise on some systems for application vendor support. I have
one $~400 Redhat Network membership per network, and leverage the support that
buys me for the other machines.
But here is the key: for the Solaris and Linux systems, when I need to install
the OS on a new computer, that's what I do. I choose the version I want, start
the Jumpstart/Kickstart process, and walk away (or even just click back to
Groklaw :). I don't have to delay the process while I make sure I have the
license. There's no hassle. Neither Sun nor Redhat care one bit how many
copies of their software I'm running, except to brag about it.
Solaris and Linux are free as in "worry-free".
---
(I'm not a lawyer, but I know right from wrong)[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, August 08 2005 @ 10:28 PM EDT |
SCO has filed a current report with the SEC announcing some personnel
moves.
Tim Negris has been appointed senior vice president of marketing.
Sandeep
Gupta has been promoted to chief technology officer. Sandeep Gupta's
titles
are now vice president of engineering and chief technology
officer.
SEC 8-K
Which brings up the question that I first asked in
April, 2005. Where is
Jeff
Hunsaker?
--------------------
Steve Stites
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, August 08 2005 @ 10:32 PM EDT |
I dunno.... does anyone else smell the desperation from
this letter? [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: omz on Monday, August 08 2005 @ 10:50 PM EDT |
one single word about darl's "open letter" and this marketing move:
pathetic [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: BrianW on Monday, August 08 2005 @ 11:37 PM EDT |
I must make a confession. To the extent and for the reasons that I, personally,
am involved with Linux, Darl is absolutely right.
I’m evil. I’m evil, and I use Linux. In fact, the reason I use Linux is
precisely because I’m evil. I plan to leverage the power of Linux to achieve
world domination. Failing that, I plan to destroy the universe, employing my
Plan B (Scorched Earth – what else?) policy. I use DarkForce Linux, the distro
that comes with a black, other-worldly military uniform (the one with the eye
patch and menacing shoulder pads), and a genuine, glowing Loch Narr. I picked
this distro not only for the cool, evil-looking uniform, but because it seemed
to be the best distro to adapt for embedded use in my bomb-laden femme-bots.
Also, use of this distro makes me a chick magnet like you wouldn’t believe.
I’m building my evil lair somewhere in mid-western Antarctica using my fleet of
heavy-lift hover-jets, far away from the ever-probing eyes of civilization. But
my eyes and ears are everywhere. My femme-bots are in attendance at SCO Forum
right now, recording every detail that goes on. My Linux spies are everywhere.
Because I’m evil. And because I use Linux. That’s why they’re LINUX spies.
Otherwise, they’d just be EVIL spies, and what’s the fun in that?
Many of you have joined my army of technological warlords and can back up my
claims. Our combined ability to set and reset bits inspires fear in our
enemies. Our power over electrons is unmatched in the world (except for
CitiBank, and maybe Sprint) and commands respect and admiration from all who
would oppose us (except for CitiBank, and maybe Sprint).
Poor Darl thinks IBM is behind the push for Linux world domination. IBM is but
a pawn in my overall, evil scheme, destined for cataclysmic destruction when my
plan finally comes to fruition. (Actually, it’s not that I don’t like IBM, or
anything. It’s just that I’m evil, and using Linux to destroy things is what I
do. You understand, right?)
So when Darl speaks of Linux terrorists, Linux spies, Linux assassins, Linux
hackers, and evil Linux warlords seeking to dominate or destroy the world by
using Linux to undermine global capitalism and to render the NSA powerless,
don’t dismiss his rants as those of a paranoid sociopath. Every word is true.
I’m living proof. Just look at this eye patch I’m wearing. Would someone not
bent on world domination wear an eye patch like this?
I thought not.
Oh, and did I mention that using Linux makes me a chick magnet like you wouldn’t
believe? Of course, having a fresh set of AA’s in your Loch Narr doesn’t hurt,
either. It vibrates, you know.
Oops… gotta go. I think I hear my Mom calling…
---
//Brian
#define IANAL[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: JR on Tuesday, August 09 2005 @ 12:08 AM EDT |
Looks like Mr. Darl is yelling "I'm right" one last time before
folding back. SCO is gone, probably selling its "assets" and its sad
liabilities to another company.
He sounds like saying "I'm right and the evil IBM and Novel have played
dirty"...
JR[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Bill The Cat on Tuesday, August 09 2005 @ 01:06 AM EDT |
McBride said his company is operating profitably and has been
generating cash for the last five fiscal quarters, with core Unix profitability
expected by the end of the fiscal year. "We're not just focusing on litigation;
we're focusing on innovation as well," he said. This is an
interesting statement to make prior to any comments from the court regarding
Novell's recent demands. Should the court hear that SCO is "profitable", then
why would they not grant Novell's request for the trust of cash? How is SCO
going to get out of this one?
More Darl Double Digit talk
--- Bill Catz [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: muswell100 on Tuesday, August 09 2005 @ 03:49 AM EDT |
As ever, Mr McBride rubbishes the very things that make up the best part of the
product he's trying to hawk - namely FOSS. The acknowledged 'best bits' of SCO's
server product are the open-source ones (Apache, Samba, etc.), yet he
consistently chooses to openly bite the hand that feeds him. Surely no-one can
be such a bare-faced hypocrite and expect to be taken seriously?
On the positive side, at least he's not subtle about it, hence it's easier to
see him for what he is.
As for exactly what he is, I think everyone can probably fill in the blank with
their own favourite euphamism. Mine's probably too "Anglo-Saxon" for
publication.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: The Cornishman on Tuesday, August 09 2005 @ 05:17 AM EDT |
Project Fusion? That's interesting. It's also the name of the
Oracle project for applications development after the Peoplesoft purchase.
I wonder if either SCO or Oracle trademarked the name? --- (c) assigned to
PJ [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 09 2005 @ 06:16 AM EDT |
Would you really want to trust the backbone of your business to the
likely unpredictable response times of this Linux "volunteer fire department"
support model?
Clearly, other people have taken issue with Mr.
McBride's other comments, but this one struck me as strangely self-defeating. I
grew up in towns where everyone trusted their homes and families to volunteer
fire departments, and comparing a support model to them makes me feel _more_
confident in it, not less.
I suppose Mr. McBride's target audience might be
businesses in metropolitan areas with professional fire departments, but I would
be surprised (and saddened) if the people in those businesses were all so poorly
informed that they assumed that the volunteer fire department model couldn't or
doesn't work.
Bob Wieman [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Sunny Penguin on Tuesday, August 09 2005 @ 06:21 AM EDT |
8:00 am Set up planned stock sales for the next few days.
9:00 am Write "open letter" to get Caldera widely mis-quoted as SCO.
10:00am check stock price.
12:00pm Book flight to non-extradition country.
---
"Numerical superiority is of no consequence. In battle, victory will go to the
best tactician."
~ George Custer (1839-1876)
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: DaveJakeman on Tuesday, August 09 2005 @ 07:05 AM EDT |
I found it extremely difficult to read this press release, as my infallible,
patent-applied-for, Linux-based, "Pork-o-Beep" untruth detector was
switched on at the time and it bleeped incessantly whilst I was reading. It was
very distracting.
I'd love to take this press release* apart, line by line, but I think it just
set a new bleep density record. My Pork-o-Beep overheated and now looks like it
needs some attention. Is that smoke I see? I must uprate its cooling system for
heavy-duty tasks like this. Poor thing. Anyway, I don't think I have the time
nor the energy to do a full dissection.
The final tally was 61, but I only skimmed the article, so my Pork-o-Beep might
have missed some.
* It seems fitting that the abbreviation of "Press Release" is
"PR".
---
Should one hear an accusation, first look to see how it might be levelled at the
accuser.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 09 2005 @ 07:18 AM EDT |
unlike SCO... [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: dgonzo on Tuesday, August 09 2005 @ 09:34 AM EDT |
Would you really want to trust the backbone of your business to the
likely unpredictable response times of this Linux "volunteer fire
department" support model?
Just when I thought SCOG couldn't
say or do anything to get my blood boiling....
I was a member of a volunteer
fire organization for many years and worked my way up the ranks to Lieutenant,
gave up many holiday dinners, time with my family, etc, etc and didn't recieve
one penny because I firmly believe that everyone should volunteer in their
community. I really wish that the dope who wrote this saw how effective a
"volunteer fire department" could be when called. He'd probably think twice
before opening his mouth if he spent some time doing buckets with me at Ground
Zero. I hope I was not the only one to find that statement
inflammatory. ---
"Radio Shack -- You've got questions, we've got blank stares." -blatantly
stolen sig [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: akempo on Tuesday, August 09 2005 @ 10:06 AM EDT |
I can tell when Darl is lying. His lips are moving or he's writing something.
In all seriousness though, I think it's a little late for him to try and restore
his credibility... especially when he does it in such a dishonest way.
akempo
---
Great minds talk about ideas, average minds talk about events, small minds talk
about each other. Eleanor Roosevelt
2b | !2b = question[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: emperor on Tuesday, August 09 2005 @ 01:38 PM EDT |
I just wanted to note that the list of expects in that link is not inclusive of
other SANS faculty.
Please take a look at:
SANS Faculty Photos & Bios
for Articles
-roman
--- He who fights with monsters might
take care lest he thereby become a monster. And if you gaze for long into an
abyss, the abyss gazes also into you. - Nietzsche [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 10 2005 @ 09:07 AM EDT |
Shouldn't he have included SCO's $1399 Linux usage fee in his cost comparison,
against Linux? We have all payed it, havn't we?
Seems therefore to be understating his case! Or has he given up on that front?
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: greyhat on Wednesday, August 10 2005 @ 12:43 PM EDT |
Well he's not wrong there... I've never been happier with anything else, so I
suppose "paradise" is a fair word for it. Score one truth for
McBride, even if it was an accident...
---
Give me the knowledge to change the code I do not accept, the wisdom not to
accept the code I cannot change, and the freedom to choose my preference.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
|
|