I recently contacted the author of the open source pdf viewer xpdf about
an issue I'm having. I am posting his response here with his
permission:

> I'm using xpdf 3.00 on SCO OpenServer 5.0.7 (this issue was present in
> 2.03 as well).

I regret to inform you that I am no longer providing any technical
support to companies or individuals who use SCO products.

As you undoubtedly know, Xpdf is an open source project. In addition,
my company, Glyph & Cog, makes heavy use of open source licensing in
its business model.

SCO appears to be determined to destroy the entire open source
licensing model -- suing Linux users, and even going so far as to make
the (ludicrous) claim that "the GPL ... violates the United States
Constitution". [http://www.ut.sco.com/5reasons/#5]

In light of this ongoing attack by SCO, I have concluded that my only
option is to refuse to do business with any of their customers.

- Derek
--
Roger Cornelius racpop@tenzing.org

On Wed, 28 Jul 2004 00:40:42 GMT, Roger Cornelius <racpop@tenzing.org>
wrote:

>I recently contacted the author of the open source pdf viewer xpdf about
>an issue I'm having. I am posting his response here with his
>permission:
>
>> I'm using xpdf 3.00 on SCO OpenServer 5.0.7 (this issue was present in
>> 2.03 as well).
>
>I regret to inform you that I am no longer providing any technical
>support to companies or individuals who use SCO products.
>
>As you undoubtedly know, Xpdf is an open source project. In addition,
>my company, Glyph & Cog, makes heavy use of open source licensing in
>its business model.
>
>SCO appears to be determined to destroy the entire open source
>licensing model -- suing Linux users, and even going so far as to make
>the (ludicrous) claim that "the GPL ... violates the United States
>Constitution". [http://www.ut.sco.com/5reasons/#5]
>
>In light of this ongoing attack by SCO, I have concluded that my only
>option is to refuse to do business with any of their customers.

Let's hope others follow this guy's lead. Let's face it, a SCO user
asking a developer of an opensource project to fix a bug for them is
no different from a Nazi asking a Jewish engineering company to help
them build a more efficient gas chamber...

I'd go further than the Xpdf guy, I'd add code to randomly write trash
to various files on the hard disk of a SCO system in the background
;-) (although since I contribute to a couple of OS projects, I know
I'd never get away with it...)

--
FyRE < "War: The way Americans learn geography" >

FyRE wrote:

>Let's hope others follow this guy's lead. Let's face it, a SCO user
>asking a developer of an opensource project to fix a bug for them is
>no different from a Nazi asking a Jewish engineering company to help
>them build a more efficient gas chamber...
>
>
>
Two years ago more than 90% of the sites I work with had at least one
SCO machine. Tommorow I'm replacing two SCO machines which brings the
tally down to just 67%. By this time next year we should be well under
40%. Since the start of TSG's litigation we have upgraded one machine
to 5.0.7 - an upgrade in place, and under way as the IBM lawsuit was
launched. We looked at upgrading another machine to 5.0.7 with a free
licence but eventually decided against it. Of the machines being
replaced tomorrow, one is a Pentium I, and the other is a 486. I
suspect some companies will keep their P3s around, so we'll be
supporting SCO until that hardware dies in four or five years.

Just what, in your opinion, have we done wrong?

>I'd go further than the Xpdf guy, I'd add code to randomly write trash
>to various files on the hard disk of a SCO system in the background
>;-) (although since I contribute to a couple of OS projects, I know
>I'd never get away with it...)
>
>
>
This attitude has got me stumped. Do you, FyRE, have total faith that
TSG are going to lose completely, have no leg to stand on, and IBM will
prevail, with 100% certainty, in court? If so, just what would this
sort of thing achieve? It's pissing off people who you want to migrate
to Linux, not get scared by the petty open source revenge and go running
to MS.

And just who is your target here? Almost everyone bought into SCO when
they were The Santa Cruz Operation. You are saying that if I buy a
Ford, and then years later Ford gets bought by, say, China's government,
that I must support China's repressive regime.

I like the Samba attitude, which seems to me to be "You are a dead
company. In a year or two you will be a footnote. We're not going to
waste our time on you." A open source supplier, even one working for
free, who drops support with no warning is not going to help the open
source community in the long run.

--
Scott Burns
Mirrabooka Systems

Tel +61 7 3857 7899
Fax +61 7 3857 1368

On Wed, 28 Jul 2004 23:10:18 GMT, Scott Burns <scott@mirrabooka.com>
wrote:

[...]

>Two years ago more than 90% of the sites I work with had at least one
>SCO machine. Tommorow I'm replacing two SCO machines which brings the
>tally down to just 67%. By this time next year we should be well under
>40%. Since the start of TSG's litigation we have upgraded one machine
>to 5.0.7 - an upgrade in place, and under way as the IBM lawsuit was
>launched. We looked at upgrading another machine to 5.0.7 with a free
>licence but eventually decided against it. Of the machines being
>replaced tomorrow, one is a Pentium I, and the other is a 486. I
>suspect some companies will keep their P3s around, so we'll be
>supporting SCO until that hardware dies in four or five years.
>
>Just what, in your opinion, have we done wrong?

Here's another analogy; you're playing the part of a drug dealer who's
claiming the high-ground because he's selling 60% less smack outside
the school gates. Personally I don't care if you're running 1% or 99%
SCO software on your servers (although if it were over 50% I'd
question your sanity). Run what you like, but don't gripe when you
can't get stuff for free, when you're paying another company to
litigate against everything they stand for.

>>I'd go further than the Xpdf guy, I'd add code to randomly write trash
>>to various files on the hard disk of a SCO system in the background
>>;-) (although since I contribute to a couple of OS projects, I know
>>I'd never get away with it...)

>This attitude has got me stumped. Do you, FyRE, have total faith that
>TSG are going to lose completely, have no leg to stand on, and IBM will
>prevail, with 100% certainty, in court?

Yes, and anyone in any doubt about this should look at the SCOX share
price history...

>If so, just what would this
>sort of thing achieve? It's pissing off people who you want to migrate
>to Linux, not get scared by the petty open source revenge and go running
>to MS.

I don't "want them to migrate". I couldn't care less if they ran
Microsoft until their ears bled cash. Working on an OS project, with
people you respect and admire, is not some crusade to gain market
share. I'm not out to overthrow the government (though I'd not care if
it happened), I'm not trying to put anyone out of business or attract
chicks. What a lot of the "old thinkers" here seem to believe; that
it's impossible for anyone to actually be interested in technology, or
altruistic enough to produce software for zero reward; is blinkering
them to the fact their feeble excuses of "I'm just doing what I need
to earn a buck" doesn't wash with a great many people. I'm sure a lot
of the SCO resellers are now "studying" for their MSCEs already - yet
another good route for someone with no interest in tech, content to
"get by", bumbling through life with the least effort possible.

>And just who is your target here? Almost everyone bought into SCO when
>they were The Santa Cruz Operation. You are saying that if I buy a
>Ford, and then years later Ford gets bought by, say, China's government,
>that I must support China's repressive regime.

Let's say you find that Ford are funding the KKK, Israeli military
operations and Martha Stewart. Would you still be proud driving that
Pinto down the street?

>I like the Samba attitude, which seems to me to be "You are a dead
>company. In a year or two you will be a footnote. We're not going to
>waste our time on you." A open source supplier, even one working for
>free, who drops support with no warning is not going to help the open
>source community in the long run.

A while back I developed some browser plugins and toolkits people
could use on their websites; for free. I was contacted by a guy who
wanted me to help him enhance some parts - I was appauled at the site;
it had pretty graphic depictions of violence against women - basically
a "shock" site by some adolescent who's probably ashamed of it by now.
I told the guy I wasn't interested, and I didn't want him using my
stuff - though I could do nothing to prevent him from doing so. You
see, sometimes it's better to just walk away from someone, even if
it'll lose you some "market share"...

--
FyRE < "War: The way Americans learn geography" >

On 29 Jul 2004 14:18:36 -0700, "Tony Lawrence" <pcunix@gmail.com>
wrote:

[...]

>> >Just what, in your opinion, have we done wrong?
>>
>> Here's another analogy; you're playing the part of a drug dealer
>who's
>> claiming the high-ground because he's selling 60% less smack outside
>
>Drug dealer?
>
>Are you nuts?
>
>The rest of your post is reasonable, but this is insane.

Let's see:

1. Supplying an overpriced product that's very likely to cause serious
problems for users in the future (AutoZone, DC, IBM etc): Check

2. Product sourced from a supplier with (at best) questionable
business ethics: Check

3. Product encourages a dependency problem: Check

4. Dependency problem causes users to use other, overpriced products,
which cause a circular dependency: Check

5. Original product makes it as difficult as possible to migrate away
to something healthier: Check

6. Suppliers of product attempted to run an illegal protection racket
("Linux License"): Check

Ticks all my boxes...


>> the school gates. Personally I don't care if you're running 1% or 99%
>> SCO software on your servers (although if it were over 50% I'd
>> question your sanity). Run what you like, but don't gripe when you
>> can't get stuff for free, when you're paying another company to
>> litigate against everything they stand for.
>>
>> >>I'd go further than the Xpdf guy, I'd add code to randomly write
>trash
>> >>to various files on the hard disk of a SCO system in the background
>> >>;-) (although since I contribute to a couple of OS projects, I know
>> >>I'd never get away with it...)
>
>You'd get arrested, too. And deserve it.

I'd make sure the added functionality was mentioned in 1px high text
in the EULA (on page 1,448,303). The user would have to agree to these
terms before running the software. Of course, it could also simply be
an entirely unintentional "bug", and since the GPL (and every other
EULA that I've seen on software) specifies the user is responsible for
any problems (bit of a godsend for Microsoft, that one), I don't think
I'd be in any danger of sharing with Bubba...

>> >This attitude has got me stumped. Do you, FyRE, have total faith
>that
>> >TSG are going to lose completely, have no leg to stand on, and IBM
>will
>> >prevail, with 100% certainty, in court?
>>
>> Yes, and anyone in any doubt about this should look at the SCOX share
>> price history...
>
>SCO's share price was moving downward long before this. Your certainty
>indicates nothing but overstated desire. A lot of us WANT SCO to lose;
>it's patently stupid to say that you are certain they will.

All their arguments have been shot down/ridiculed. They're proven
liars, their backers have deserted them; and are actually threatening
to sue them. The SEC is investigating the blatant stock price
manipulation. The CEO has a history of attempting to litigate his way
to personal profit (he's certainly not interested in the company). The
board has just gained another "executive" with a criminal past. Each
one of their concurrent court cases is based on conflicting views and
seemingly identical lack of evidence. They were pretty much thrown out
of court in their case against DC. They now have IBM counter-suing for
patent infringement on virtually all of the products they used to
develop.

I could go on, but you get the picture, and it's about as attractive
as something you'd find in Dorain Gray's attic. Sure it's a
possibility they're telling the truth and they'll win every court case
- it's also possible that I'll wake up tomorrow to find monkeys flying
out of my ass. I won't be stocking up on bananas though...

>> >If so, just what would this
>> >sort of thing achieve? It's pissing off people who you want to
>migrate
>> >to Linux, not get scared by the petty open source revenge and go
>running
>> >to MS.
>>
>> I don't "want them to migrate". I couldn't care less if they ran
>> Microsoft until their ears bled cash. Working on an OS project, with
>> people you respect and admire, is not some crusade to gain market
>> share.

>I do care about people running Microsoft. There's the real danger to
>Linux and Open Source, and they aren't going away when this lawsuit
>does. Market share is important because without enough, Microsoft just
>steamrolls over all of us and we are left with no choice whatsoever.
>Wake up and look around.

It's obvious that anyone still running their business on an SCO
platform is either a cretin or completely uninterested in that side of
their business - and probably doomed to spend a lot of money switching
over before long. Once SCO is gone, it's very likely that MS will buy
up their "IP" and spend a good deal of dev time creating tools to
allow former SCO victimsH^H^H^H^H^H^H^clients to migrate to their
platform. These people are sheep, they don't care about alternatives
and wouldn't switch to Linux anyway. They're not worth bothering
about; pitied maybe as they plow along in the ruts toward their
inevitable fate: chained to MS CALs. Serves them right.

>> I'm not out to overthrow the government (though I'd not care if
>> it happened), I'm not trying to put anyone out of business or attract
>> chicks. What a lot of the "old thinkers" here seem to believe; that
>> it's impossible for anyone to actually be interested in technology,
>or
>> altruistic enough to produce software for zero reward;
>
>There is always reward. It may not be monetary, but the reward is
>always there. Even people who do things they hate have their martyrdom
>to contemplate.

The reward is personal of course. Virtually every SCO reseller is
completely oblivious to this concept though. They're just pushing a
product to make some cash, no matter how dirty the money is. They
wouldn't care if 50% of the cash they paid/earned SCO went to fund
some extremist terrorist group in [take your pick]; in fact the
destination of their funding doesn't even enter their greedy little
heads as they sit there counting the cash and laughing at the latest
sucker left stuck with an SCO OS that's barely evolved since 1971.

>> is blinkering
>> them to the fact their feeble excuses of "I'm just doing what I need
>> to earn a buck" doesn't wash with a great many people.
>
>That's a political opinion. Part of my reward system involves making
>enough money that I can afford to take lots of time off and do whatever
>the hell I please. You feel that involving SCO in that equation is
>evil; I don't agree. As I've said many times, the decision of my
>clients to run any OS at all is THEIR decision.

And there you were screaming that you're nothing like a drug dealer...
"Hey, I'm just supplying these kids with a fix; they'd find it
elsewhere anyway, so why shouldn't I profit?"

>I don't like it when
>they choose Microsoft, but it's not up to me to educate them on the
>dangers of losing all competition. I can TRY, but if they don't care,
>that's just the cway it is. As to using SCO, again, none do unless
>they have to.

I turn down offers to write software for, or administer/support
Microsoft shops. In fact, I did exactly that just over 2 weeks ago; it
was a pretty simple and lucrative job, but I told them I had no
intention of developing for MS products and running on IIS+SQL Server.
I then explained why, and gave them the alternatives. Then I left them
to make a decision. I know they've not given the work to anyone else,
and expect to receive another call ;-) It's a matter of self respect.

>> I'm sure a lot
>> of the SCO resellers are now "studying" for their MSCEs already - yet
>> another good route for someone with no interest in tech, content to
>> "get by", bumbling through life with the least effort possible.
>
>Hmm.. actually I did the MCSE thing in 1995 or 1996.. but not for
>those reasons. I also certified in Solaris and SCO, but only because
>certification seemed important back then..
>
>As much as I dislike Microsoft, I think your implication that people
>who do that crap for a living are bumbling dolts is ridiculous.

Every MSCE I've worked with - without exception - has been a bumbler.
The lack of the most basic problem solving skills, or general IT
knowledge has been almost frightening at times. I'd be very surprised
if the MSCE course consisted of anything beyond "Read 1st Dialog box
then press button. Read 2nd Dialog box, then press button etc etc".

Here are a few of my experiences (I have a hundred of them)

One I've worked with took almost 2 months to get an Exchagne server
running correctly (managed to infect it with Virii 3 times during
patching - lost countless mailboxes moving them from one server to
another, misconfigured the virus filter and stripped every single
attachment etc).

I watched another MSCE in slack jawed horror as he took a week (on and
off) to configure a simple wireless router - phoning the company
countless times to complain about it being "broken" along the way (I
realized after about 2 minutes that his main problem was caused by the
fact his web browser was set to use a proxy on another subnet which
couldn't see the wireless router - and he has it setup to not
broadcast its SSID, but I thought it funnier not to say anything,
until half way through his (last) support call ;-)

I've seen Outlook set up on a corporate network to "disconnect" after
uploading/downloading mail (with an Exchange server!) which resulted
in ridiculously slow performance - about 10 seconds to open each email
(they probably still run like that - I was running Linux, and after I
privately confirmed that changing the settings on one of the clients
fixed the problem completely, I changed it back and kept quiet as
listening to people swear about MS is music to my ears! Everyone was
amazed at how fast my Email client was with the same server ;-)

Another stunned me by complaining about the security protection of
files in a Samba share. I was ordered to chmod all files to 777 on the
corporate HPUX server and adding symlinks so that the config files
could be administered by Samba, and the MSCE wouldn't have problems
adding software and backing up users etc. The same guy (in fact all
the MSCEs) would only ever use the root account when using telnet for
the same reason, even if he just wanted to run "top" or something. As
you may have guessed, that server had stability problems aplenty
caused by their handiwork (moving the wrong directories around,
editing config files with Word, truncating files, filling the root
partition with zip files, deleting home directories,
deleting/corrupting print queues, killing the wrong processes etc,
although they'd not admit to them of course - and claim the server
needed a reboot.

I've watched MSCE's deliberately crash a server to confirm the way it
crashed the previous night - while it was in use by hundreds of people
who then lost work. Another just set up AT jobs to reboot a very
unreliable server every few hours instead of investigating the
problem.

I used to help out, although I'm not an MSCE, and fix a lot of the
problems (even the most obvious solutions seem beyond most MSCE's I've
worked with), I no longer bother. It seems the one thing an MCSE does
learn is arrogance, so it's better to watch them bumble and feign
ignorance...

The more I think about it, the more I think that the MSCE actually
PREFERS MS' products to be unreliable trash. It's a nice scape-goat
for their own inadequacies.

>> Let's say you find that Ford are funding the KKK, Israeli military
>> operations and Martha Stewart. Would you still be proud driving that
>> Pinto down the street?
>
>I might not buy a new one, but if I already own it, I'm not going to
>give it up because of that.

Huh, well look into what happened to Ratners jewelers in the UK to see
how normal people react...

[BTW, I'm not going to sink to the level of spelling flames, Tony]

--
FyRE < "War: The way Americans learn geography" >