FyRE, in my time on this newsgroup, I've read many of your posts (and
replied to at least some of them). Just as I asked Brian a little over a
month ago (see the thread, "Brian, I'm Just Curious...", I'm asking you;
what's your beef? What's your angle on all this? This is not an attack; I
really want to know where you're coming from.

When I asked this of Brian, he told me about his background and his
personal investment in his actions on the newsgroup. I interpret his
answers (and his other actions in the group) roughly thus;

1) He is involved in Linux networking, and apparently has never used SCO
products himself (at least he didn't say so).

2) He is morally outraged at the actions of SCO (as I think any
well-informed person in IT would be). In addition, his anger arises from
his own allegiance to Linux and the open-source community.

3) SCO's actions potentially threaten his livelihood.

4) He is in this group to get the word out about SCO's FUD, speak up for
Linux, OSS and the GPL; and, if possible, to undermine the credibility of
SCO among its resellers--also getting the word out that their company may
not be around that much longer and to have alternative plans in the works.

So how did you become one of the anti-SCO partisans on this group? You
seem to claim a lot of knowledge of how bad SCO's OS's are. Have you
actually used SCO products, either on your own or in a role as a sysadmin
or consultant? When you rattled off Solaris, Linux and the BSDs as
superior, was that opinion from personal experience?

Do SCO's actions potentially threaten you personally (as in your
livelihood) or does this just happen to be a cause you've aligned yourself
with?

How do you see yourself in relation to Brian's motivations? Do they all
apply to you, do some of them apply to you (and if so, which ones?) or
none of them?

I'd appreciate a thoughtful response to this--just for my perspective.
Thanks, FyRE.

P.S. If anyone else replies to this, please speak for yourself only. I
want to read what FyRE has to say himself. Joe, if you read this, feel
free to make a reply about yourself along these lines. I'm curious about
where you're coming from, too! Thanks.


--
I'm Mike--James' Dad, hence "JamesDad". I use this nym in memory of my
son James Webb (1992-2000) who died fighting leukemia. He was a greater
man at 8 than some ever become. May his life, battle and story never be
forgotten! More info at <http://www.themiraclekids.com/mem-james.htm>.
*** Remove ARROGANCE Before Replying ***

JamesDad <mewnewsARROGANCE@mailandnews.com> wrote:

>4) He is in this group to get the word out about SCO's FUD, speak up for
>Linux, OSS and the GPL; and, if possible, to undermine the credibility of
>SCO among its resellers--also getting the word out that their company may
>not be around that much longer and to have alternative plans in the works.

Which would be preaching to the choir. I doubt there is a single
SCO reseller/consultant who hasn't been at the very least investigating
alternatives like Linux. Most have us have probably been ACTIVE
in the Linux world for some time.


--
tony@aplawrence.com Unix/Linux/Mac OS X resources: http://aplawrence.com
Get paid for writing about tech: http://aplawrence.com/publish.html

On Sat, 20 Dec 2003 19:10:08 GMT, JamesDad
<mewnewsARROGANCE@mailandnews.com> wrote:

[cue canned audience applause. JD skips onto the stage, mimes a golf
shot to hearty laughter (canned), then takes his seat behind a huge
desk. After a witty 2 minute monologue, his first guest is wheeled on
to hysterical applause (real), an avalanche of knickers, bras and
false teeth pelt the stage as FyRE swaggers on, flashing a sparkly
smile, and cheeky wink for the ladies. Waiting for the applause to be
switched off, JD reads from the auto cue...]

>FyRE, in my time on this newsgroup, I've read many of your posts (and
>replied to at least some of them). Just as I asked Brian a little over a
>month ago (see the thread, "Brian, I'm Just Curious...", I'm asking you;
>what's your beef? What's your angle on all this? This is not an attack; I
>really want to know where you're coming from.

Well JD, I'm glad you asked; here's a little background for you. I
work as a software developer, who also happens to administer a farm of
Linux machines, with a couple of HPUX servers thrown in for good
measure. In recent years I've also worked with Solaris (SPARC and
x86), FreeBSD, BeOS and BeIA (internet appliances). I'm an RHCE,
although most of our servers don't run Redhat, and do have experience
of SCO's OpenServer product (albeit limited to backing up necessary
files, then erasing the OS to install Linux).

My opinion of SCO's software is based mostly upon its lamentable
feature set and poor hardware support. Coupled with its ludicrous
price tag, I find it difficult to believe anyone would actually still
pay for such a poor product. However, even if SCO produced the best OS
on Earth, I'd still advise anyone against using it. In fact, apart
from desktop use, I'd advise against going with any proprietary OS.

A few years ago the company I worked for was put out of business by a
combination of Microsoft arm-twisting and our reliance on a single
vendor's proprietary OS. We were developing software to run on Compaq
internet appliances running BeIA. These machines were available
running both BeIA and WinCE; by default they booted from flash RAM,
and allowed internet access only. We were developing B2B software for
the devices. Anyway, although BeIA was far superior, technically,
(required 16MB flash, instead of WinCE's 32MB, also BeIA supported
Macromedia Flash, sound and Java, plus a full desktop, telnet, ftp
server etc under the browser, whereas WinCE... well... didn't) Compaq
were "persuaded" to go with WinCE by MS, thus killing off our
platform. Apparently MS went after Be's other internet appliance
partners in the same aggressive manner. Be subsequently went bust, and
we were stuck with no way to fix the bugs in the existing BeIA
software, and our own half-finished software.

That experience polarized my opinion of proprietary OS' so much that I
decided to make every effort to encourage the use of open source when
it could fit the requirements of a project (unlike some of the
closed-minded/greedy "experts" here who push SCO to make a quick buck,
leaving the clients to hang). I've been pretty successful at this,
helping Linux in particular make inroads into businesses that were
unaware of its existence (or if they were aware, they were not aware
of its capabilities). I write GPL'ed software, I've written articles
for online magazines, I help people in forums, and one of my code
libraries has been used as the focus of a book to help people learn
Javascript and DHTML programming, (the lib is also used as part of a
university course syllabus). I give this code, help and advice away,
since I'm aware of the value of the code *I* can access and use as a
result of the open-source movement. I enjoy the fact that software,
artwork and other media are all given pretty much selflessly for the
most part, by people who enjoy the challenge, love what they're doing,
and are giving their free time to offer people a choice away from
licenses, patents and other fetters of proprietary software.

Now enter SCO, a company who're driven by selfish, (proven) lying
scum. The very antithesis of everything I stand for. They are the
embodiment of pure, shameless greed. The management have no interest
in software; they've demonstrated an absolute ignorance of the
subject. They are not even interested in making SCO, a viable company,
with any sort of future. No, the people steering the old junk are
themselves selfish, corporate, soulless creatures. Fixated on making
easy money by manipulating the stock price of a dying company. I
honestly consider Darl and co as sociopaths. These people have
absolutely no interest in the damage they are causing. Their only
motive is money, everything else is secondary to this. They're not
interested in making a better future for their offspring, advancing
knowledge or even saving their own company. Nope, just selling their
shares is the goal here.

Now, the management may be evil, filthy scum, but at least they're up
front about it, and making money. Within this group there are STILL
misguided/greedy fools who are actually promoting the ancient software
that SCO used to produce, and tricking their (one time) clients into
paying out for an inferior product for no other reason than to make a
quick buck. These people are the parasites still leeching from the
rotting corpse of SCO - sucking the last trickle of blood before they
have to move on (presumably most here; Boyd for example; will become
MS resellers once SCO are gone).

The reason I post here, is not necessarily so that people will
respond. I don't care really; however, I am aware that my comments are
archived by Google. So searches for SCO by anyone looking into buying
shares will have a chance of seeing my comments and maybe seeing
another side to the FUD that Darl and co are paying for the media to
type up. This whole disgusting charade has brought home to me just how
ignorant the media actually are, BTW. If you were an investor, looking
to throw some cash at a company, then the headlines for SCOX on (for
example) finance.yahoo.com would seem very tempting. Almost criminally
so.

Anyway, from the "evidence" SCO produced yesterday, it's looking like
being a very good January next year; I did actually giggle when I saw
the list of files. If this is all they really have; a handful of
header files which have already been confirmed as original work by
Linus Torvalds himself... back in 1991... then IBM may as well put
most of their lawyers on paid leave. I'm actually astonished that even
SCO, they of the crap software, and megalomaniac management, have been
so utterly incompetent as to show "evidence" that can be disproven
within minutes. Are they really THAT desperate? Surely the money Sun
and Microsoft are paying them for *ahem* "licenses" )wink( could have
funded at least some research?!
--
FyRE < "War: The way Americans learn geography" >

On Tue, 23 Dec 2003, FyRE wrote:
> On Sat, 20 Dec 2003 19:10:08 GMT, JamesDad
> <mewnewsARROGANCE@mailandnews.com> wrote:
> <cut>
> rotting corpse of SCO - sucking the last trickle of blood before they
> have to move on (presumably most here; Boyd for example; will become
> MS resellers once SCO are gone).

You sure did not read what I said!!! I do a lot of linux and always have.
I started with the very earliest. Just because I let customer decided
what is best for them. I have done a lot of porting of OpenSource code
for free just for the love of it. Just because I disagree with you that
linux is always the best solution! I use what is best for my customers
(Wheter that be Linux, Solaris, FreeBSD or some other BSD variant, AIX,
HUPX, SCO, some other UNIX or even Windows) Even though I hate all MS
products. I believe the customer is king and they know what is best for
their business.

I agree with Tony and other on this newsgroup. I just hope MS does not
buy the Goverment to force us all to their evil empire.

I am just not a linux zealot! I believe all OS's may have a place(Even
the evil MS empire which I despize most). I do agree the SCO Group sure
do not seem to know what they are doing and have been driving the
reputation of SCO down for many years, but even before it was sold to
Caldera they were not doing a good job, but I will not go into it here.
I will give SCO a chance to come through on what they have promised
because it is best for some of my customers. I have some customers still
using Xenix. Just because they do not wish to upgrade or use linux does
not make them evil. They are starting to have problems finding old
Hardware to keep them going but like I said. I will support them how they
want.

Boyd Gerber
gerberb@zenez.com

On Mon, 22 Dec 2003 14:28:59 +0000, Boyd Gerber <gerberb@xenau.zenez.com> wrote:

>
>You sure did not read what I said!!! I do a lot of linux and always have.
>I started with the very earliest. Just because I let customer decided
>what is best for them. I have done a lot of porting of OpenSource code
>for free just for the love of it. Just because I disagree with you that
>linux is always the best solution! I use what is best for my customers
>(Wheter that be Linux, Solaris, FreeBSD or some other BSD variant, AIX,
>HUPX, SCO, some other UNIX or even Windows) Even though I hate all MS
>products. I believe the customer is king and they know what is best for
>their business.

Somehow that does not seem to agree with your comment that "SCO is easy
to work and make money with" -- that looks like a bias towards selling
SCO solutions.


> I do agree the SCO Group sure
>do not seem to know what they are doing and have been driving the
>reputation of SCO down for many years, but even before it was sold to
>Caldera they were not doing a good job, but I will not go into it here.
>I will give SCO a chance to come through on what they have promised
>because it is best for some of my customers.

The lawsuit benefits your customers? Let's face it, the management has
gambled the company on the lawsuit. When SCO loses, that's not going to
be good for them, is it? On the other hand, there will likely be
business for consultants converting customers to supported platforms.

FyRE <FyRE@toktik.demon.ku.oc.x> wrote:
>Now, the management may be evil, filthy scum, but at least they're up
>front about it, and making money. Within this group there are STILL
>misguided/greedy fools who are actually promoting the ancient software
>that SCO used to produce, and tricking their (one time) clients into
>paying out for an inferior product for no other reason than to make a
>quick buck. These people are the parasites still leeching from the
>rotting corpse of SCO - sucking the last trickle of blood before they
>have to move on (presumably most here; Boyd for example; will become
>MS resellers once SCO are gone).

Once again, that's nonsense. http://aplawrence.com/Opinion/potluck.html

>Anyway, from the "evidence" SCO produced yesterday, it's looking like
>being a very good January next year; I did actually giggle when I saw
>the list of files. If this is all they really have; a handful of
>header files which have already been confirmed as original work by
>Linus Torvalds himself... back in 1991...

Well, I've said all along that this stuff is complicated, and that
there are going to be arguments about the code, but I agree, this
is incredible - incredible in the real, original sense of the word.

I'd love to be a fly on the wall in Darl's office right now. If
he isn't a complete idiot, or (as you insist) just trying a
scam, he should be ear-smoking mad right now at whoever picked
these "examples".

--
tony@aplawrence.com Unix/Linux/Mac OS X resources: http://aplawrence.com
Get paid for writing about tech: http://aplawrence.com/publish.html

FyRE <FyRE@toktik.demon.ku.oc.x> wrote:
>That experience polarized my opinion of proprietary OS' so much that I
>decided to make every effort to encourage the use of open source when

In other words, you have a political opinion that open source is
better for the world than closed source. I don't necessarily
disagree, but that is an OPINION, and one that can be argued
against on a number of points.

You certainly have a right to your opinion, just as we have rights to
ours. MY opinion is that I do what the customer wants. If they
want to dump SCO, I'll help them. If they want to keep it, I'll
help with that. I do offer my own advice and opinion if asked,
or even unasked if it seems appropriate given the situation, but
I don't get up on a high horse and insist that it is my way or no way.

--
tony@aplawrence.com Unix/Linux/Mac OS X resources: http://aplawrence.com
Get paid for writing about tech: http://aplawrence.com/publish.html

Tony Lawrence wrote:
> FyRE <FyRE@toktik.demon.ku.oc.x> wrote:
>
>>That experience polarized my opinion of proprietary OS' so much that I
>>decided to make every effort to encourage the use of open source when
>

And I highly hope that you make the same effort in favour of the human
rights, against starvation in poor countries, against pollution, against
the death punishment (sp?), against religious wars and every topic you like.

Honest.

>
> In other words, you have a political opinion that open source is
> better for the world than closed source. I don't necessarily
> disagree, but that is an OPINION, and one that can be argued
> against on a number of points.

100% agreed. I respect Brian's opinion and I welcome him to post his
opinions on the group (hey, this is a *.misc group after all) but I
would __PERSONALLY__ (again, an opinion/wish) like to see more technical
oriented issues discussed here (like it was many moons ago ...)

>
> You certainly have a right to your opinion, just as we have rights to
> ours. MY opinion is that I do what the customer wants. If they
> want to dump SCO, I'll help them. If they want to keep it, I'll
> help with that. I do offer my own advice and opinion if asked,
> or even unasked if it seems appropriate given the situation, but
> I don't get up on a high horse and insist that it is my way or no way.
>

200% agreed.

I wish you (Brian and the whole group) luck with your efforts and I hope
you'll have a great Xmas season.

Best,
Roberto
--
Roberto Zini - Technical Support Manager - email:r.zini<AT>strhold.it
Technical Support Manager -- Strhold Evolution Division R.E. (ITALY)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
"Has anybody around here seen an aircraft carrier?"
(Pete "Maverick" Mitchell - Top Gun)

From: "Tony Lawrence":
> If they want to dump SCO, I'll help them. If they want to keep it, I'll
> help with that. I do offer my own advice and opinion if asked,
> or even unasked if it seems appropriate given the situation, but
> I don't get up on a high horse and insist that it is my way or no way.

Okay, my 2 cents...

I have sympathy for SCO. I installed many servers with SCO - before the
popularity of Linux. In fact, my beginnings in Unix were because of SCO so
I thank them for their hard work.

Unfortunately, I learned that SCO is very limiting and I've outgrown it. I
can't implement a raid solution, dhcp, virtual email domains and countless
other things in SCO like I can in Linux. Linux has a tidalwave of software
that SCO simply didn't not choose to implement (some they did in 5.0.7).

So if a customer wants SCO, they'll have to get someone else to do it. I
can no longer fragment my time and capabilities between SCO and Linux - I
had to decide.

I just have some serious questions for SCO, and I'll try to not sound
biased:
1. Why borrow so much GPL software (apache, php, openssl, samba, gzip, etc)
and proudly incorporate it in your product, yet Linux can not borrow 1 line
of header define code from System V? (not that they have, I'm just making a
point). Seems hypocritical to me as Andrew Tridgell (author of rsync &
samba) also once said. Whoops, there goes my bias.
2. Let your core OS developers speak their mind on this list. What do they
think? Have they been silenced? Wouldn't your developers know about where
the code came from rather than the lawyers?

-Eric Wood

On Tue, 23 Dec 2003, Eric Wood wrote:

<snippage for brevity throughout>

> Unfortunately, I learned that SCO is very limiting and I've outgrown it. I
> can't implement a raid solution,

Nonsense - there are both hardware and software RAID solutions
available for SCO.

> dhcp,

Client or server? Both are available...

> virtual email domains

Nonsense for a third time. I have no idea what feature sets SCO's
bundled sendmail supports, but you can (and should) build your own
sendmail on ANY UN*X system. Sendmail builds quite easily under
SCO. I personally wouldn't dream of running a bundled sendmail binary
under SCO, Solaris, FreeBSD, any of the Linux distributions, etc.

> and countless
> other things in SCO like I can in Linux.

You haven't actually named one thing yet.

<snip>

> I just have some serious questions for SCO, and I'll try to not sound
> biased:
> 1. Why borrow so much GPL software (apache, php, openssl, samba, gzip, etc)
> and proudly incorporate it in your product, yet Linux can not borrow 1 line
> of header define code from System V? (not that they have, I'm just making a
> point).

Copyright law. I have no idea about the truth behind any of SCO's
allegations, but if they are true, SCO has every right to protect
their copyrighted material.

> 2. Let your core OS developers speak their mind on this list. What do they
> think? Have they been silenced? Wouldn't your developers know about where
> the code came from rather than the lawyers?

1) OS developers shouldn't presume to speak about company policy.
I know I don't speak for my employer's legal decisions.

2) OS developers probably don't have the background to make
anything other than wild-ass guesses about the *legalities*
surrounding the current mess. It's not about right and wrong,
it's about the _law_. Unfortunately, they aren't synonymous.

I don't particularly care for SCO's operating systems - the twisty
little maze of symlinks is enough itself to make my head hurt, and
OSR5 isn't nearly as graceful under extremely high load as I'd like.

I personally disagree with a lot of things that SCO as a corporation
is doing. But if you're going to slam them, do it with a bit more
accuracy.

JS