Very Computer

http://tinyurl.com/covn
UNIX CONCERN HOPES TO BENEFIT FROM MICROSOFT DEAL **
LAURIE J. FLYNN  --  May 26 2003

Just when it seemed like nothing was going the company's way, the SCO
Group received a piece of good news last week ***. Microsoft announced
it would license a Unix patent from SCO along with the source code. To
SCO which recently changed its name from Caldera Systems this would
mean the Linux software industry could see that SCO's Unix intellectual
property claims were legitimate and enforceable
-------

** talk about spin. This is equivilent to saying that Adolf helped the
Israelites get into the soap business.

** good news. Good for who. Since when is some fcuked company trying to
sabatage the OSS movement a good thing ?

Obviously the reporter has been getting her facts from MICRO~1. For
instance take this quote:

".. the company might be able to at least slow the momentum of Linux,
which has been engulfing the computer server market at Unix's expense  .."

notice the negative signifiers: 'engulfing' , 'expense'. Just who has
she been receiving her msFacts from ??

< a brief quiz >

Who would benefit from a slowdown in Linux adoption ?

Who would see this as a positive thing ?

Who has being making the unsubstanted claim that Linux is only gaining
at the expence of other *nixes ?

Who has being making the unsubstanted claim that Linux is not affecting
their plans to take over the low end of the server market ?

< if you answered Microsoft to all questions then congratulate yourself
on still being able to distinguish marketing BumFluff from real
reporting. Very weak effort, NewYorkTimes.

-------
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/05/26/technology/26XNECO.html?ex=10546128...
-------

Well, it certainly begins to point to who's behind the court case.

I frown upon companies using the courts as a big-stick for their personal
business interests.  It's called "abuse of process" and this case has that
written ALL over it.

Is this the same NewYorkTimes that's appeared on most editions of Leno for
the past 3 weeks for making up news stories?

http://www.nationalreview.com/kurtz/kurtz.asp
http://www2.observer.com/observer/pages/offtherec.asp
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/Armstrongwilliams/aw20030522.shtml
http://slate.msn.com/id/2082741/

--
begin  sig
Not the moderator of Comp.Os.Linux.Advocacy
It's unmoderated and anyone who claims otherwise is a clueless moron.

<snippage>

Quote:> Obviously the reporter has been getting her facts from MICRO~1.

More obvious than the things you mention is the one question that I have
yet to hear a satisfactory answer to. Microsoft was never fingered by SCO
for violating their IP in the manner that IBM and various Linux vendors
have been; therefore, on what basis do observers claim that the licensing
of UNIX by Microsoft help (most particularly, in a legal sense) validate
or support SCO's claim to *led IP rights? Without proof of violations
by Microsoft or a prior threat from SCO akin to the one they levered
against IBM, the licensing action has no direct bearing on the IBM/SCO
lawsuit in my mind.

Instead, I see two businesses who both feel hurt by the Open Source
movement trying to instill some FUD into IT management. Given Microsoft's
past press releases reguarding the nature of Linux and the GPL in relation
to IP, and also given SCO's current reluctance to point out the offending
code (and confusion amongst their officials as to which portions are in
violation) I see this licensing as nothing more than a smokescreen for
Microsoft to give SCO their 30 pieces of silver for acting Judas to the
Open Source community.

Quote:> http://tinyurl.com/covn
> < a brief quiz >

> Who would benefit from a slowdown in Linux adoption ?

Sun Microsystems would be my first choice.

Quote:> Who would see this as a positive thing ?

Sun Microsystems, of course.

Quote:> Who has being making the unsubstanted claim that Linux is only gaining
> at the expence of other *nixes ?

Well the claim was substantiated with statistics, but it was IDC and Gartner
who have been publishing the most about it.

Quote:> Who has being making the unsubstanted claim that Linux is not affecting
> their plans to take over the low end of the server market ?

I don't know.  Can you point to anything?

Quote:> < if you answered Microsoft to all questions then congratulate yourself
> on still being able to distinguish marketing BumFluff from real
> reporting. Very weak effort, NewYorkTimes.

I think you linux advocates are blinding yourselves to the facts.  Microsoft
already has a business and it is growing.  IBM has adopted linux to help
them hammer Sun, plus they get free help.  SCO believes in suing people for
money just as they did with Microsoft in 1999.

No one has contested that SCO bought what remained of the UNIX
stuff that Caldera bought with Novell (or however that chain of
transactions went).  

What is not yet believed is that Linux has ANY of SCO's
proprietary UNIX code in it.  

Tsu

--
To doubt everything or to believe everything
are two equally convenient solutions; both
dispense with the necessity of reflection.
- Jules Henri Poincar

Only if the lawsuit is without merit.  I beleive a great improvement to
any legal system would be fines for any party found to bring a frivolous
or meritless lawsuit in bad faith.  Based on my own examination of the SCO
case *so far* I agree that SCO appears to be maliciously abusing the
public trust *and* wasting the time of the court of jurisdiction.  

But if a business has "personal" interests that are covered under the law
and are reasonable in scope then they should feel just as entitled to turn
to the legal system as any private citizen.  

 >
 >> http://tinyurl.com/covn < a brief quiz >
 >>
 >> Who would benefit from a slowdown in Linux adoption ?
 > Sun Microsystems would be my first choice.

Only one problem.  Sun is using Linux to build new business.
Nearly 2/3 of the Linux systems deployed are displacing
Windows servers or preventing the upgrade/adoption of Windows.

Sun of course can sell to Linux customers who wish to
upgrade from Linux to Solaris, because they have worked very
hard to be compatible with Linux.

Microsoft on the other hand has felt the sting of Linux in
the form of customer refusal to upgrade Windows NT 4.0
systems (many of which have been quietly converted to Linux)
to newer Windows 2000 or Windows 2003 systems.

Microsoft is not compatible with Linux.  When applications
are written to the Linux APIs, it is possible to very
quickly and easily support nearly all versions of UNIX as well.

While it is possible to implement Linux API's on Windows
using Cygwin, there are limitations.  For example, if the
host system is Windows 95, 98, or ME, or the system is
installed on the FAT file system, then there are huge
security risks.

Microsoft has to convince ISVs and Corporate Customers to
devote huge amounts of resources, time, labor, and capital
to writing code exclusively for Windows.  This has been made
a bit more difficult since Microsoft has a notorious track
record for excluding successful ISVs by bundling their own
implementations (often cheap imitations, or even knock-offs
of questionable origin) into Windows as "Operating System
Enhancements".  Bottom line, Microsoft can no longer be trusted.

 >> Who would see this as a positive thing ?
 >>
 > Sun Microsystems, of course.

 >> Who has being making the unsubstanted claim that Linux
 >> is only gaining at the expence of other *nixes ?

According to a report from Forrester Research (available
only on Pay-Per-View basis) Linux has been taking a huge
chunk of market share from Microsoft.  Linux has often
displaced Linux systems.

According to surveys from Dataquest Customers are extremely
satisfied with Linux.

According to surveys from IDC, Linux is growing nearly 3
times faster than Windows in the server market.

According to surveys from ComputerWorld, most IT managers
are looking at ways to convert more of their systems from
Windows to Linux.  Only 17% have no such plan (which could
be a risky career move these days).

 > Well the claim was substantiated with statistics, but it
 > was IDC and Gartner who have been publishing the most
 > about it.

And most of what they are saying is that while Linux has
been a very small percentage of the market by revenue, it is
still growing and gaining market share at remarkable rates.

IDC switched from counting "units deployed" to a focus on
revenue, because their counts showed that Linux had gained
the bulk of the market share, surpassing Linux.

 >> Who has being making the unsubstanted claim that Linux
 >> is not affecting their plans to take over the low end
 >> of the server market ?
 >>
 > I don't know.  Can you point to anything?

I agree with Mr Gates on this (hate to blow your anonymity :-D )

Microsoft's top executives have openly defied the courts,
declaring "win against Linux at all costs".  Linux IS
affecting their revenues in both the Server and Client
markets (more so in Server market) since NT machines
upgraded to Linux do not get upgraded to Windows 2000,
Windows XP, or Windows 2003.

 >> < if you answered Microsoft to all questions then
 >> congratulate yourself on still being able to
 >> distinguish marketing BumFluff from real reporting.
 >> Very weak effort, NewYorkTimes.
 >
 > I think you linux advocates are blinding yourselves to
 > the facts.  Microsoft already has a business and it is
 > growing.  IBM has adopted linux to help them hammer Sun,
 > plus they get free help.  SCO believes in suing people
 > for money just as they did with Microsoft in 1999.
 >
IBM and Sun have been cooperating for years, and have
encouraged the implementation of J2EE, Java 2, and
UNIX/Linux with full POSIX compatibility.

Microsoft has fought including full POSIX compatibility as a
standard feature of Windows.  Even the NT Resource kits only
supported a minimalist implementation of POSIX compliance,
and even this was incompatible with most implementations.

Steve Ballmer expressed Microsoft's attitude toward industry
standards many years ago; "Microsoft has millions of
desktops, they ARE the standard.".   Furthermore, Microsoft
seems to have no problems changing these standards as often
as they like, and even considers it part of their revenue
strategy to change the standards.  There are even court
records describing deliberate alteration of interfaces and
implementations of standards to disable or cripple
competitor products.

Put simply, Microsoft has far more to lose if Linux thrives
and succeeds.

On the other hand, we still don't know what Microsoft
licensed from SCO.  It's hard to imagine that the SCO board
originally controlling SCO would have allowed it, but it is
possible that Microsoft managed to get a complete
nonexclusive license to the entire SCO UNIX kernel.  This
would be a huge coup for Microsoft, since it would put
Microsoft in direct competition with UNIX and Linux, and at
the same time, give them the ability to provide their GUI,
especially their outstanding user assistance features
(hopefully they'll lose the dancing paper clip :-D )

--
Rex Ballard
Leading Open Source Advocate
http://www.open4success.org/bio