SEO

Is SCO really dead? Reading some recent posts and people putting up
licence codes etc I wonder is it the end of the road in terms of
Unixware and openserver?

This group is the primary reason I stuck with Openserver in 2002.
Forums in the linux world are 95% noise whereas it seems to be 5% noise
here. To me thats a ig plus in getting things working is the quality
of the user forums......

We are coming up for another upgrade of hardware/software. What would
people install now if they were a 5.0.6 user before - linux of some
flavour i guess? Whats the problem with Openserver 6? Is it that
people fear the parent company will wither and die? As far as I am
concerned it looks like a reasonable improvement to 5.0.6 that I'm
using now..... Cost is a factor but in the overall scheme is a drop in
the ocean to our business compared to the cost of any instability or
flaky application performance.


regards

James

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

> Is SCO really dead? Reading some recent posts and people putting up
> licence codes etc I wonder is it the end of the road in terms of
> Unixware and openserver?

Personally I think all the gluem and doom is a bit much. As I see things.
The orignal filing was because IBM did not honor the contract. I think
the main emphisis should be on the contract. I think a lot of the stuff
after the orignal fileing is to hide or distract from the real issue. IBM
has always looked out for IBM. The FUD that IBD is pro open source is a
big smoke screen. From what I read/research IBM's donations are really
just for IBM not really for Open Source.. They do not want AIC 5L to be
hurt. IBM protects their revenue streams. Most court cases with IBM take
10-15 years to settle. Most of them IBM has lost. They win mostly
because they out last the people bringing the law suite. I think that in
the end IBM is going to loose because they violated a contract. SCO prior
to the law suite tried to get IBM to free up patents/code so it could be
put into Linux. I think a lost has been lost around who the real "Bad
Gut" is. I think the linux comunity is in for a big surprise in the end.
IBM will do to them what they have done to all others. SCO has the cost
contained to see the case to the end. So IBM will have to prove they did
not violate the contract which they did. So it is just a matter of time,
till the real conclusion hits.

> This group is the primary reason I stuck with Openserver in 2002.
> Forums in the linux world are 95% noise whereas it seems to be 5% noise
> here. To me thats a ig plus in getting things working is the quality
> of the user forums......

That is why I think SCO is not dead. To many businesses still depend on
it.

> We are coming up for another upgrade of hardware/software. What would
> people install now if they were a 5.0.6 user before - linux of some
> flavour i guess? Whats the problem with Openserver 6? Is it that
> people fear the parent company will wither and die? As far as I am
> concerned it looks like a reasonable improvement to 5.0.6 that I'm
> using now..... Cost is a factor but in the overall scheme is a drop in
> the ocean to our business compared to the cost of any instability or
> flaky application performance.

I think you have to look at the needs and choose the best solution for the
needs of your business or clients. I think eventually we will see the LKP
back in both UnixWare and OpenServer 6. When this happens SCO OS's or in
Fussion will be the best way to go. I think a lot of what has happened
since the original filing is/was a distraction to the real meat. So
choose what is best for your needs.


- --
Boyd Gerber <gerberb@zenez.com>
ZENEZ 1042 East Fort Union #135, Midvale Utah 84047
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: For info see http://quantumlab.net/pine_privacy_guard/

iD8DBQFEtaB2VtBjDid73eYRApOkAJ40N5QDX30ooratkIegv6 KJzo78KgCfeB/N
uZzPJJKT68I/YTRtxGml534=
=h9jT
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

On Wed, Jul 12, 2006, James_Szabadics wrote:
>Is SCO really dead? Reading some recent posts and people putting up
>licence codes etc I wonder is it the end of the road in terms of
>Unixware and openserver?
>
>This group is the primary reason I stuck with Openserver in 2002.
>Forums in the linux world are 95% noise whereas it seems to be 5% noise
>here. To me thats a ig plus in getting things working is the quality
>of the user forums......

If you're looking for good Linux mailing lists, I can recommend these:

Linux Step by Step list (many people on this list were on the old caldera-
users mailing list).

http://mail.linux-sxs.org/cgi-bin/ma...fo/linux-users

SSC's Linus list (SSC is publisher of Linux Journal). While many of the
people on this list are in the Seattle/Puget Sound area, the list has quite
a few very knowledgeable and helpful people on it.

http://lists.ssc.com/mailman/listinfo/linux-list

Both these lists are quite friendly as well as helpful with Linux technical
questions.

Bill
--
INTERNET: bill@Celestial.COM Bill Campbell; Celestial Software LLC
URL: http://www.celestial.com/ PO Box 820; 6641 E. Mercer Way
FAX: (206) 232-9186 Mercer Island, WA 98040-0820; (206) 236-1676

``Liberty don't work as good in practice as it does in speeches.''
Will Rogers

On Wed, 12 Jul 2006, Boyd Lynn Gerber wrote:

> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
>> Is SCO really dead? Reading some recent posts and people putting up
>> licence codes etc I wonder is it the end of the road in terms of
>> Unixware and openserver?
>
> Personally I think all the gluem and doom is a bit much. As I see things.
> The orignal filing was because IBM did not honor the contract.

And you know this how? So far, I don't think any information that shows
IBM violated its contract has been made public. Are you thinking of the
Monterey project contracts, which are NOT part of the lawsuit (and won't
ever be) or the original contacts with USL?

Did you look at SCO's proof under NDA?

They do not want AIC 5L to be
> hurt. IBM protects their revenue streams. Most court cases with IBM take
> 10-15 years to settle. Most of them IBM has lost.

Well, I recall one in San Jose in which workers accused IBM of failing to
protect employees' health. Who won? IBM.

> They win mostly
> because they out last the people bringing the law suite.

In the case I mention above, it went to a jury.

> I think that in
> the end IBM is going to loose because they violated a contract.

And you know this how? Because SCO's execs told you this? Let's not forget
the cases where SCO have shown code in fact look more like copyright
violations by SCO than violations by others.


> SCO has the cost
> contained to see the case to the end.

Does SCO? SCO had to put a bunch more money into the escrow account
recently to pay for experts. Let's also not forget that Novell may have a
claim on enough money to bankrupt SCO.


> So IBM will have to prove they did
> not violate the contract which they did.

Again, how do you know this?

Summary: I think you drank the cool-aid and the inevitable will happen!

Boyd Lynn Gerber wrote:
> That is why I think SCO is not dead. To many businesses still depend on
> it.

What businesses (and you) think is irrelevant.

What IS relevant is the fact that Judge Wells has already determined
SCO is full of crap. Perhaps you need to actually read what she wrote?

In particular, pay close attention to the bottom of page 33 through the
top of page 44.

http://www.ip-wars.net/public_docs/sco_v_ibm_718.pdf

I hope SCO isn't a dead product. I still like it, and customers who
use it still like it.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

> On Wed, 12 Jul 2006, Boyd Lynn Gerber wrote:
> > > Is SCO really dead? Reading some recent posts and people putting up
> > > licence codes etc I wonder is it the end of the road in terms of
> > > Unixware and openserver?
> >
> > Personally I think all the gluem and doom is a bit much. As I see things.
> > The orignal filing was because IBM did not honor the contract.
>
> And you know this how? So far, I don't think any information that shows IBM
> violated its contract has been made public. Are you thinking of the Monterey
> project contracts, which are NOT part of the lawsuit (and won't ever be) or
> the original contacts with USL?

The Monterey Contract is at the heart of this dispute. Look at the
timing. I see "misappropriation of Unix code, methods or concepts" and
_not_ direct copyright claims to be what this is all about. Look at the
original filing. SCO was referring to IBM's new Linux product line.
Before that, it didn't run on big iron and other solutions.
IBM was _forbidden_ from doing that in contract.

You see, the _cornerstone_ of SCO's lawsuit is that IBM was violating
several sections of the Monterey contract -- including the Non-Compete --
_before_ Caldera bought them. That's why they said "misappropriation of
Unix code, methods or concepts" and _not_ "copyright infringement."

If you read the final items #50-55, it's the meat.
Everything else is that "IBM helped this, IBM helped that."

SCO _had_ to claim IBM violated their Non-Compete by helping Linux.
But they did _not_ have to prove any actual copyright infringement.

I mean, what did you expect SCO to say? "Oh, IBM violated our
Non-compete by helping Linux, but they didn't do anything"???

Get real! The problem was that other than ESR, Linus and Perens and
other people who have deal with major contract issues with major
corporations who clearly saw this as a contract dispute (until 2003 May)
- -- people got "rabid" about SCO's claims.

SCO _had_ to say IBM helped Linux, which was in violation of many
sections of the Monterey contract. That's why you got the wording you
did -- but *NOT* "copyright infringement."

Remember, IBM and SCO had a _written_contract_ to develop a new 64-bit
UNIX, and that included many "protections" for both IBM and SCO.

IBM has _not_ made many GPL donations! The few they have are IPL (which
isn't even quite MPL), and far less than what HP, Red Hat, Sun and --
even more so -- Caldera-SCO!

In fact, IBM has often caused _major_ IP headaches for the Linux kernel
team. Their finally opening 500 patents wasn't so much of a "donation"
for Linux, but to finally get things added to the kernel they _needed_
for their own product line!

Umm, last time I checked, 100% of IBM's software -- outside of their
limited donations to the Linux kernel (which are often _half-baked_ --
like the JFS filesystem that came from OS/2, not Monterey/AIX 5L), has
_not_ be GPL. Heck, very limited has been IPL. Most _everything_
they've spent $1B on has been _proprietary_ -- including the latest
$100M for Notes.

HP has donated far more enterprise management tools into and build
around GPL, LGPL and other things.

Red Hat continues to be a completely GPL-based company.

Caldera-SCO wanted to GPL much of Monterey, something IBM would and
could not allow -- because it would allow Linux to take away from its
AIX 5L sales. Yes, that seems hypocritical of SCO now, but it's true!

Even Sun has done far more for Linux -- both GPL and open standards --
than IBM any day of the week, and continues to do so.

IBM is announcing money to develop virtually 100% _proprietary_
software, that runs on Linux. Even its Java licenses have so many
strings that I'd rather develop on Mono, which is GPL/LGPL/BSD
(tools/libs/class-lib).

IBM is _not_ about FLOSS. FLOSS is about open source.

IBM does things for their needs, IBM is leeching and not providing much.
I think people keep missing that -- the $1B did _not_ go to open source
development! Caldera was always pro-GPL, even after buying SCO, until the
lawsuit. In fact, I think that's what scared IBM to death in 2000.

SCO's statements in the 2003 March filing had to do with what
"protections" it had from IBM in the Monterey agreement. That's the
_only_ case SCO has.

I don't defend SCO for the 100% BS they've been spewing since 2003 May. In
fact, it was because the IT media and rabid Linux users that _mis-read_
SCO's case and thought they were claiming copyright infringement that SCO
found a "new avenue" to get money to make it to trial.

The IT media and rabid Linux users rolled out the red carpet for SCO.
If everyone in the Linux community would have listened to ESR, Linus,
Perens and people like myself, SCO would have *NEVER* been able to
convince the IT media and investors that it had a case on Linux outside
of the contract with IBM.

> Well, I recall one in San Jose in which workers accused IBM of failing
> to protect employees' health. Who won? IBM.
>
> > They win mostly
> > because they out last the people bringing the law suite.
>
> In the case I mention above, it went to a jury.

I am only talking about other companies sueing IBM for similar actions.

> > I think that in the end IBM is going to loose because they violated a
> > contract.
>
> And you know this how? Because SCO's execs told you this? Let's not forget the
> cases where SCO have shown code in fact look more like copyright violations by
> SCO than violations by others.

I did not say copyright violations. I said contract violations. The two
are different. Much of the copyright stuff is not clear. Although I can
not understand how Caldera would purchase UNIX without them. That is why
the amendment was added. It was to make it clear what was purchased.

> > SCO has the cost contained to see the case to the end.
>
> Does SCO? SCO had to put a bunch more money into the escrow account
> recently to pay for experts. Let's also not forget that Novell may have
> a claim on enough money to bankrupt SCO.

I do not doubt that. Novell made a very good manuver getting SCO to do
what they did. Now the whole issuse comes under UNITED LINUX. We will
have to wait and see what happens there. This is clear about copyright
which I do not claim to hold valid one way or an other. I am talking
purely about the contract.

> > So IBM will have to prove they did not violate the contract which they
> > did.
>
> Again, how do you know this?

Look at the orignal filing.

> Summary: I think you drank the cool-aid and the inevitable will happen!


Agreed.

- --
Boyd Gerber <gerberb@zenez.com>
ZENEZ 1042 East Fort Union #135, Midvale Utah 84047
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: For info see http://quantumlab.net/pine_privacy_guard/

iD8DBQFEtdMVVtBjDid73eYRAsdeAJ0S7zxnJn9VY1obi0gU9x IVPPlaVQCfYBUE
E5ZstohFhP90rsyrANXDpqc=
=iZIk
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

> Boyd Lynn Gerber wrote:
> > That is why I think SCO is not dead. To many businesses still depend on
> > it.
>
> What businesses (and you) think is irrelevant.
>
> What IS relevant is the fact that Judge Wells has already determined SCO
> is full of crap. Perhaps you need to actually read what she wrote?

That is all about the post original filing. Read other response. I do
agree that most of the post original filing has been thrown out as it
should have been. I really think that it was all about getting
Caldera/SCO the cash to survive till trial. I think it served that
purpose. Although totally IMHO a totally bad move because of the lost
good will and alleanation of many.

> In particular, pay close attention to the bottom of page 33 through the
> top of page 44.
>
> http://www.ip-wars.net/public_docs/sco_v_ibm_718.pdf

I agree totally with it. As I said a really bad move on SCO/Caldera's
part. It goes to clear away the smoke screen since the orignal filing.


- --
Boyd Gerber <gerberb@zenez.com>
ZENEZ 1042 East Fort Union #135, Midvale Utah 84047
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: For info see http://quantumlab.net/pine_privacy_guard/

iD8DBQFEtdSfVtBjDid73eYRAlMHAJ9s4oAjZYHF9z+8zeyDrm DdkUgSnACfSV9T
e6OEhpnfsgPErz4+ONDMSlo=
=xgX3
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

> Boyd Lynn Gerber wrote:
> > That is why I think SCO is not dead. To many businesses still depend
> > on it.
>
> What businesses (and you) think is irrelevant.

I still have clients using XENIX. I get a call every January wanting to
know what year to use so dates match for using their applicatioins. They
do not care about the year. They only want the days of the week to match.
Many businesses are using very old SW. They purchased very reliable HW
and SW. Namely SCO OS's. I have clients in almost every industry using
SCO OS's. Getting them to upgrade only happens when HW dies and there is
no other option but a HW upgrade. I sometimes get them to upgrade only
because they cann't run their OS on new HW. They do not want to upgrade
anything but the HW and OS. They do the cost analysis and determine what
is best for them. I give them options for Linux as well as SCO. They are
the only ones that can determine what is most cost effective for them. I
have clients that have moved to Linux. Most use SUSE Linux. Some are
still using Caldera Linux. Like I said many businesses do not want to
change. The problem is making a living when all they need is short quick
answers to keep existing things running. I think part of the Cash problem
for SCO is that they made such good OS's that customers do not want to
upgrade until they can not get HW to run what they are familar with or
have. They only update when they are forced to do it. So OpenServer 6
maybe the most cost efective way to keep running the same old
applications.

Most of these type of people never put their computers on the internet so
they do not need to update anything to provide the security they need.
They have the physical security. After all any computer can be
compromized with physical access. That is why linux now provides
encrypted filesystems to try and prevent some physical access problems.

I really think that the applications determine which OS to use.


- --
Boyd Gerber <gerberb@zenez.com>
ZENEZ 1042 East Fort Union #135, Midvale Utah 84047
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: For info see http://quantumlab.net/pine_privacy_guard/

iD8DBQFEtdu2VtBjDid73eYRAi9vAJwOw8RwLbmFP0IBTU2V/6tyCxZ+NQCdEnaC
+XyynfOEpnOWmcx84EsdtFA=
=XOHi
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

On Wed, 12 Jul 2006, Boyd Lynn Gerber wrote:

> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
>> On Wed, 12 Jul 2006, Boyd Lynn Gerber wrote:
>>>> Is SCO really dead? Reading some recent posts and people putting up
>>>> licence codes etc I wonder is it the end of the road in terms of
>>>> Unixware and openserver?
>>>
>>> Personally I think all the gluem and doom is a bit much. As I see things.
>>> The orignal filing was because IBM did not honor the contract.
>>
>> And you know this how? So far, I don't think any information that shows IBM
>> violated its contract has been made public. Are you thinking of the Monterey
>> project contracts, which are NOT part of the lawsuit (and won't ever be) or
>> the original contacts with USL?
>
> The Monterey Contract is at the heart of this dispute.

No it isn't. SCO attempted to amend its complaint (the proposed 3rd
amended complaint) to include Project Monterey. However, this attempt was
denied. So Project Monterey is irrelevent to the present lawsuit (and
since the contract had time limits for bringing actions) it is unlikely to
every be relevent to any lawsuit.


> Look at the
> timing. I see "misappropriation of Unix code, methods or concepts" and
> _not_ direct copyright claims to be what this is all about. Look at the
> original filing. SCO was referring to IBM's new Linux product line.
> Before that, it didn't run on big iron and other solutions.
> IBM was _forbidden_ from doing that in contract.

No it wasn't. In fact, IBM's agreements had clear statements allowing IBM
to use much of what it learned from Unix. Besides which, what "methods
and concepts"? The ones that were documented in various books? Or the
ones that were in BSD Unix?


>
> You see, the _cornerstone_ of SCO's lawsuit is that IBM was violating
> several sections of the Monterey contract -- including the Non-Compete --

As I pointed out Monterey is explicitly NOT part of the lawsuit, so the
rest of your posting is irrelevent.

> If you read the final items #50-55, it's the meat.
> Everything else is that "IBM helped this, IBM helped that."
>
> SCO _had_ to claim IBM violated their Non-Compete by helping Linux.
> But they did _not_ have to prove any actual copyright infringement.

What non-compete? There is no such requirement.

>
>
> SCO _had_ to say IBM helped Linux, which was in violation of many
> sections of the Monterey contract. That's why you got the wording you
> did -- but *NOT* "copyright infringement."

Yeah, it looks like SCO's only "methods and concepts" were NEGATIVE! ie.
"Don't do x by y"
>
> Remember, IBM and SCO had a _written_contract_ to develop a new 64-bit
> UNIX, and that included many "protections" for both IBM and SCO.

Monterey again. Read up. Monterey is not relevent any more.

>
> IBM has _not_ made many GPL donations! The few they have are IPL (which
> isn't even quite MPL), and far less than what HP, Red Hat, Sun and --
> even more so -- Caldera-SCO!

JFS?

>
>
> Umm, last time I checked, 100% of IBM's software -- outside of their
> limited donations to the Linux kernel (which are often _half-baked_ --
> like the JFS filesystem that came from OS/2, not Monterey/AIX 5L),

Ah, so you deny SCO's asserton that JFS is a derivative of Unix?

>
> SCO's statements in the 2003 March filing had to do with what
> "protections" it had from IBM in the Monterey agreement. That's the
> _only_ case SCO has.

Wrong. Monterey is NOT part of the lawsuit.


>
> I don't defend SCO for the 100% BS they've been spewing since 2003 May. In
> fact, it was because the IT media and rabid Linux users that _mis-read_
> SCO's case and thought they were claiming copyright infringement that SCO
> found a "new avenue" to get money to make it to trial.

They "mis-read" Darl claiming "millions of lines" "dumped into Linux". You
are delusional!


>
>>> I think that in the end IBM is going to loose because they violated a
>>> contract.
>>
>> And you know this how? Because SCO's execs told you this? Let's not forget the
>> cases where SCO have shown code in fact look more like copyright violations by
>> SCO than violations by others.
>
> I did not say copyright violations. I said contract violations. The two
> are different. Much of the copyright stuff is not clear.

So why did SCO trumpet so much "copied" code? Blepp's briefcase full of
copied code?

>> Does SCO? SCO had to put a bunch more money into the escrow account
>> recently to pay for experts. Let's also not forget that Novell may have
>> a claim on enough money to bankrupt SCO.
>
> I do not doubt that. Novell made a very good manuver getting SCO to do
> what they did. Now the whole issuse comes under UNITED LINUX. We will
> have to wait and see what happens there. This is clear about copyright
> which I do not claim to hold valid one way or an other. I am talking
> purely about the contract.

The WRONG contract!

>
>>> So IBM will have to prove they did not violate the contract which they
>>> did.
>>
>> Again, how do you know this?
>
> Look at the orignal filing.

So, you believe SCO's filings? What about IBM's filings? Why do you
believe SCO's instead of IBM? If one only reads SCO's filing, I can
understand that you would conclude that SCO has a strong case -- as always
happens if you only listen to one side.

I hope you are not too invested in SCO (either financially, or
emotionally) because I think that if you are, you are in for a big
disappointment.