SCO vs IBM
-
But the original idea is still intact: Redesigning Linux for use by demanding business customers "is not technologically feasible or even possible at the enterprise level without (a) a high degree of design coordination, (b) access to expensive and sophisticated design and testing equipment; (c) access to Unix code and development methods; (d) Unix architectural experience; and (e) a very significant financial investment," the amended suit says. Is it just me, or are they saying that it's not possible to do open source enterprise software and OS's at all unless you rip off Unix?!?!? Full article:http://zdnet.com.com/2100-1104_2-1017965.html[^] "Now I guess I'll sit back and watch people misinterpret what I just said......" Christian Graus At The Soapbox
-
But the original idea is still intact: Redesigning Linux for use by demanding business customers "is not technologically feasible or even possible at the enterprise level without (a) a high degree of design coordination, (b) access to expensive and sophisticated design and testing equipment; (c) access to Unix code and development methods; (d) Unix architectural experience; and (e) a very significant financial investment," the amended suit says. Is it just me, or are they saying that it's not possible to do open source enterprise software and OS's at all unless you rip off Unix?!?!? Full article:http://zdnet.com.com/2100-1104_2-1017965.html[^] "Now I guess I'll sit back and watch people misinterpret what I just said......" Christian Graus At The Soapbox
RichardGrimmer wrote: (c) access to Unix code and development methods; I agree with all points except (c). I wonder what a "Unix development method" is. Surely they dont consider source control, bug tracking, make to be Unix development methods :confused: I think SCO is screwed. Everyone knows Linux is a clone of Unix. Even Linus Torvalds has said that. As a result, the internal kernel data structures and architecture ( demand paging, file system, line disciplines) are similar if not exactly the same in some cases. This hilites a core problem with open source development. If I was a Linux kernel developer working on , say the scheduler. I can (a) close my eyes and redo the scheduler , this would take ages to code,test and tweak for performance (b) just use the Unix code as a reference or (c) just cut and paste the Unix code. Open source developers are looking for new exciting things to do, why waste time on "commodity" items when they can be just borrowed from other places. I dunno whose side I am on on this one ..
-
RichardGrimmer wrote: (c) access to Unix code and development methods; I agree with all points except (c). I wonder what a "Unix development method" is. Surely they dont consider source control, bug tracking, make to be Unix development methods :confused: I think SCO is screwed. Everyone knows Linux is a clone of Unix. Even Linus Torvalds has said that. As a result, the internal kernel data structures and architecture ( demand paging, file system, line disciplines) are similar if not exactly the same in some cases. This hilites a core problem with open source development. If I was a Linux kernel developer working on , say the scheduler. I can (a) close my eyes and redo the scheduler , this would take ages to code,test and tweak for performance (b) just use the Unix code as a reference or (c) just cut and paste the Unix code. Open source developers are looking for new exciting things to do, why waste time on "commodity" items when they can be just borrowed from other places. I dunno whose side I am on on this one ..
This hilites a core problem with open source development. If I was a Linux kernel developer working on , say the scheduler. I can (a) close my eyes and redo the scheduler , this would take ages to code,test and tweak for performance (b) just use the Unix code as a reference or (c) just cut and paste the Unix code. Open source developers are looking for new exciting things to do, why waste time on "commodity" items when they can be just borrowed from other places.
Well that's a bit simplistic to say the least. The scheduler is not a "commodity" item - a linked list may be, or a button-with-a-picture-in-it, but not an OS scheduler. As a matter of fact, there are a number of schedulers available. -
But the original idea is still intact: Redesigning Linux for use by demanding business customers "is not technologically feasible or even possible at the enterprise level without (a) a high degree of design coordination, (b) access to expensive and sophisticated design and testing equipment; (c) access to Unix code and development methods; (d) Unix architectural experience; and (e) a very significant financial investment," the amended suit says. Is it just me, or are they saying that it's not possible to do open source enterprise software and OS's at all unless you rip off Unix?!?!? Full article:http://zdnet.com.com/2100-1104_2-1017965.html[^] "Now I guess I'll sit back and watch people misinterpret what I just said......" Christian Graus At The Soapbox
More fuel for the fire: http://c.moreover.com/click/here.pl?r75985805 [^] Apparently, source code from SCO Unix was found inside the Linux Kernel... The tip off? Code Comments! According to the article, the code comments are the DNA that proves the case... Personally, I think SCO faces two options: 1. Continue on with the lawsuit, perhaps win, and then face the wrath of 1000's (hundreds of 1000's?) developers in the open source community. Read this as continuous DOS, multiple cracks, etc. 2. Get purchased by Big Blue. POOF! The lawsuit (and the company) disappears. Either way, they are not going to be able to continue on as a company. My 2p. Comments? "Those that say a task is impossible shouldn't interrupt the ones who are doing it." - Chinese Proverb
-
More fuel for the fire: http://c.moreover.com/click/here.pl?r75985805 [^] Apparently, source code from SCO Unix was found inside the Linux Kernel... The tip off? Code Comments! According to the article, the code comments are the DNA that proves the case... Personally, I think SCO faces two options: 1. Continue on with the lawsuit, perhaps win, and then face the wrath of 1000's (hundreds of 1000's?) developers in the open source community. Read this as continuous DOS, multiple cracks, etc. 2. Get purchased by Big Blue. POOF! The lawsuit (and the company) disappears. Either way, they are not going to be able to continue on as a company. My 2p. Comments? "Those that say a task is impossible shouldn't interrupt the ones who are doing it." - Chinese Proverb
Another prevailing rumor is, SCO (back when it was Caldera) copied Linux code into System V. Whether this or anything else can be proved either way, i seriously doubt the chances of a SCO win. IBM is not exactly the sort of company to take this sort of thing lightly - if it's come this far, i doubt they see a threat. Remember - SCO is trying to stop IBM from shipping AIX also. Either way, it's gonna be ugly. X|
Shog9
drifting along with the tumbling tumbleweeds...
-
But the original idea is still intact: Redesigning Linux for use by demanding business customers "is not technologically feasible or even possible at the enterprise level without (a) a high degree of design coordination, (b) access to expensive and sophisticated design and testing equipment; (c) access to Unix code and development methods; (d) Unix architectural experience; and (e) a very significant financial investment," the amended suit says. Is it just me, or are they saying that it's not possible to do open source enterprise software and OS's at all unless you rip off Unix?!?!? Full article:http://zdnet.com.com/2100-1104_2-1017965.html[^] "Now I guess I'll sit back and watch people misinterpret what I just said......" Christian Graus At The Soapbox
They keep repeating the same old FUD. See OSI's position paper for the open source community's view of those claims.
-
But the original idea is still intact: Redesigning Linux for use by demanding business customers "is not technologically feasible or even possible at the enterprise level without (a) a high degree of design coordination, (b) access to expensive and sophisticated design and testing equipment; (c) access to Unix code and development methods; (d) Unix architectural experience; and (e) a very significant financial investment," the amended suit says. Is it just me, or are they saying that it's not possible to do open source enterprise software and OS's at all unless you rip off Unix?!?!? Full article:http://zdnet.com.com/2100-1104_2-1017965.html[^] "Now I guess I'll sit back and watch people misinterpret what I just said......" Christian Graus At The Soapbox