SEO

Here is an interesting, short viewpoint on the lawsuit.

http://www.linuxinsider.com/perl/story/31932.html

Mike

--
Michael Brown

The Kingsway Group

On Wed, 12 Nov 2003 02:06:05 GMT, Mike Brown <mike@tkg.ca> wrote:
>Here is an interesting, short viewpoint on the lawsuit.
>http://www.linuxinsider.com/perl/story/31932.html
>Mike

I just finished reading the article and the responses, and I'd suggest
that you go back and read the responses. As I read Murphy's article, I
could tell *something* didn't seem right about what he was saying based on
what else I've been reading on the subject for some time, and when I read
the responses, I was even more convinced of it.

Mr. Murphy may have 20 years in the IT consulting business with extensive
Unix experience per the footer, but IMHO his thoughts on the lawsuit, SCO,
and IBM don't even qualify as HALF-baked.

I won't reiterate what was said in the responses (with a few exceptions,
it was said very well by the posters). I'll just say I agree with the
posters' general conclusions that Mr. Murphy's article was quite poorly
researched and even more poorly thought out.

I think I'll stay with eWeek for my news on this subject. I've found them
to have a good track record of knowing what they're talking about, and
Steven Vaughan-Nichols is THE MAN as far as I'm concerned about the news
on all this.

That's my 2c, FWIW.

================================================== =====================
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>.

On Wed, 12 Nov 2003 04:38:47 GMT, JamesDad
<mewnewsARROGANCE@mailandnews.com> wrote:

>On Wed, 12 Nov 2003 02:06:05 GMT, Mike Brown <mike@tkg.ca> wrote:
>>Here is an interesting, short viewpoint on the lawsuit.
>>http://www.linuxinsider.com/perl/story/31932.html
>>Mike
>
>I just finished reading the article and the responses, and I'd suggest
>that you go back and read the responses. As I read Murphy's article, I
>could tell *something* didn't seem right about what he was saying based on
>what else I've been reading on the subject for some time, and when I read
>the responses, I was even more convinced of it.
>
>Mr. Murphy may have 20 years in the IT consulting business with extensive
>Unix experience per the footer, but IMHO his thoughts on the lawsuit, SCO,
>and IBM don't even qualify as HALF-baked.

Even his comment about IBM denying that AT&T developed Unix is wrong.
The current definition of Unix is whatever the Open Group say it is. If
the Open Group say that both Win NT and IBM's System/390 are "Unix" then
clearly AT&T did not develop Unix: they developed one flavor of Unix.

"Joe Dunning" <joe@blahblah.invalid> wrote in message
news:6sjsb.125793$mZ5.866660@attbi_s54...
> On Wed, 12 Nov 2003 04:38:47 GMT, JamesDad
> <mewnewsARROGANCE@mailandnews.com> wrote:
>
> >On Wed, 12 Nov 2003 02:06:05 GMT, Mike Brown <mike@tkg.ca> wrote:
> >>Here is an interesting, short viewpoint on the lawsuit.
> >>http://www.linuxinsider.com/perl/story/31932.html
> >>Mike
> >
> >I just finished reading the article and the responses, and I'd suggest
> >that you go back and read the responses. As I read Murphy's article, I
> >could tell *something* didn't seem right about what he was saying based
on
> >what else I've been reading on the subject for some time, and when I read
> >the responses, I was even more convinced of it.
> >
> >Mr. Murphy may have 20 years in the IT consulting business with extensive
> >Unix experience per the footer, but IMHO his thoughts on the lawsuit,
SCO,
> >and IBM don't even qualify as HALF-baked.
>
> Even his comment about IBM denying that AT&T developed Unix is wrong.
> The current definition of Unix is whatever the Open Group say it is. If
> the Open Group say that both Win NT and IBM's System/390 are "Unix" then
> clearly AT&T did not develop Unix: they developed one flavor of Unix.
>
Interesting, I have always believed that AT&T developed Unix as well as C.
They may hsve given the name to Open Group but that doesn't mean they didn't
develop it and design telephone switching computers running Unix. Remember
their 3B series of Unix Boxes?

On Wed, 12 Nov 2003 02:06:05 GMT, Mike Brown <mike@tkg.ca> wrote:

>Here is an interesting, short viewpoint on the lawsuit.
>http://www.linuxinsider.com/perl/story/31932.html
>Mike

Manure. The reader comments at the bottom covered most of the
inaccuracies. What I found most creative was reversing the order and
sequence of when SCO initiated the suit and when it attempted to
invalidate IBM's Unix source license. The author claimed that SCO
noticed that Unix source code was appearing in Linux and attempted to
invalidate IBM's Unix source license on that basis. When this failed
in negotiations, SCO sued. I don't quite recall it happening in that
order. SCO sued first and about a month later, announced that it was
invalidating IBM's Unix license. The case was filed in late March
while the attempted termination of the license was on June 16. Same
with Novell's, Sun, and Microsoft renewing their licenses. That
happened well after the initial filing. See the section titles "The
Story So Far" which mangles the cronology.

--
Jeff Liebermann 150 Felker St #D Santa Cruz CA 95060
(831)421-6491 pgr (831)336-2558 home
http://www.LearnByDestroying.com AE6KS
jeffl@comix.santa-cruz.ca.us jeffl@cruzio.com

On Wed, 12 Nov 2003 09:54:48 GMT, Don Williams <dwilli10@san.rr.com> wrote:
>
>"Joe Dunning" <joe@blahblah.invalid> wrote in message
>news:6sjsb.125793$mZ5.866660@attbi_s54...
>> On Wed, 12 Nov 2003 04:38:47 GMT, JamesDad
>> <mewnewsARROGANCE@mailandnews.com> wrote:
>>
>> >On Wed, 12 Nov 2003 02:06:05 GMT, Mike Brown <mike@tkg.ca> wrote:
>> >>Here is an interesting, short viewpoint on the lawsuit.
>> >>http://www.linuxinsider.com/perl/story/31932.html
>> >>Mike
>> >
>> >I just finished reading the article and the responses, and I'd suggest
>> >that you go back and read the responses. As I read Murphy's article, I
>> >could tell *something* didn't seem right about what he was saying based
>on
>> >what else I've been reading on the subject for some time, and when I read
>> >the responses, I was even more convinced of it.
>> >
>> >Mr. Murphy may have 20 years in the IT consulting business with extensive
>> >Unix experience per the footer, but IMHO his thoughts on the lawsuit,
>SCO,
>> >and IBM don't even qualify as HALF-baked.
>>
>> Even his comment about IBM denying that AT&T developed Unix is wrong.
>> The current definition of Unix is whatever the Open Group say it is. If
>> the Open Group say that both Win NT and IBM's System/390 are "Unix" then
>> clearly AT&T did not develop Unix: they developed one flavor of Unix.
>>
>Interesting, I have always believed that AT&T developed Unix as well as C.
>They may hsve given the name to Open Group but that doesn't mean they didn't
>develop it and design telephone switching computers running Unix. Remember
>their 3B series of Unix Boxes?


It depends what you mean by "Unix". Originally, yes, AT&T did develop
what was then called "Unix", but the definition of "Unix" has changed
and under the present definition, "Unix" includes other operating
systems that were not developed by AT&T.

"Unix" is no longer a single operating system: it is the set of
operating systems that meet the Open Group's specification.


>
>

A chronologic list of events can be found at
http://www.linux.org/news/sco/timeline.html

Joe Dunning wrote:

> On Wed, 12 Nov 2003 04:38:47 GMT, JamesDad
> <mewnewsARROGANCE@mailandnews.com> wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 12 Nov 2003 02:06:05 GMT, Mike Brown <mike@tkg.ca> wrote:
>>>Here is an interesting, short viewpoint on the lawsuit.
>>>http://www.linuxinsider.com/perl/story/31932.html
>>>Mike
>>
>>I just finished reading the article and the responses, and I'd suggest
>>that you go back and read the responses. As I read Murphy's article, I
>>could tell *something* didn't seem right about what he was saying based on
>>what else I've been reading on the subject for some time, and when I read
>>the responses, I was even more convinced of it.
>>
>>Mr. Murphy may have 20 years in the IT consulting business with extensive
>>Unix experience per the footer, but IMHO his thoughts on the lawsuit, SCO,
>>and IBM don't even qualify as HALF-baked.
>
> Even his comment about IBM denying that AT&T developed Unix is wrong.
> The current definition of Unix is whatever the Open Group say it is. If
> the Open Group say that both Win NT and IBM's System/390 are "Unix" then
> clearly AT&T did not develop Unix: they developed one flavor of Unix.

He seems to forget that SCO brought the suit so telling IBM to settle is
going to the wrong person. They've been falsely accused. Why should they
plead guilty?

Even more bizarre:

"...the lawsuit isn't about code used in Linux. It's about how that code got
there."

How can those two statements be reconciled?

--
John Collins Xi Software Ltd www.xisl.com

On Wed, 12 Nov 2003 09:16:54 -0800, Jeff Liebermann
<jeffl@comix.santa-cruz.ca.us> wrote:

>On Wed, 12 Nov 2003 02:06:05 GMT, Mike Brown <mike@tkg.ca> wrote:
>
>>Here is an interesting, short viewpoint on the lawsuit.
>>http://www.linuxinsider.com/perl/story/31932.html
>>Mike
>
>Manure. The reader comments at the bottom covered most of the
>inaccuracies.

<elaboration of the inaccuracies snipped>

Having had a friend who was a freelance writer and has written for some
technology sites, IMHO Mr. Murphy was given an assignment with an
unrealistic deadline on a subject that he was not fully familiar with. I
don't suspect collaboration (even unintentional) with SCO FUD so much as
he didn't have a good previous understanding of the subject so that his
result was half-baked.

I think the same thing about Tom Yager's sidebar in InfoWorld a few weeks
ago in the issue "What If SCO Wins?" Inadequate knowledge coupled with
time pressure and inaccurate facts. Yager's sidebar wasn't as bad as
Murphy's article, but it was still kinda raw around the edges, IMHO.


================================================== =====================
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>.

"John Collins" <jmc@nospam.xisl.com> wrote in message
news:3fb25bb8_1@nnrp1.news.uk.psi.net...
> Joe Dunning wrote:
>
> > Even his comment about IBM denying that AT&T developed Unix is wrong.
> > The current definition of Unix is whatever the Open Group say it is. If
> > the Open Group say that both Win NT and IBM's System/390 are "Unix" then
> > clearly AT&T did not develop Unix: they developed one flavor of Unix.

Well, until Novell gave away the trademark, there was only one UNIX and it
came from the AT&T source code. To say that AT&T didn't develop UNIX is to
insult the developers at AT&T who spent 25 years developing UNIX.

> Even more bizarre:
>
> "...the lawsuit isn't about code used in Linux. It's about how that code
got
> there."
>
> How can those two statements be reconciled?

It is about how the code got there. AT&T/USL/Univel/Novell/SCO/Caldera all
licensed the UNIX source code to IBM under certain contractual arrangements.
One of those arrangements was that IBM would keep the source code a secret.
SCO is claiming that IBM has broken that contractual agreement and made the
source code public. It actually doesn't matter what the code is or where it
is. IF, in some way, IBM (or a representative of IBM, like a software
developer) released to the public SCO's IP, then IBM's violated the contract
that exists between the two parties. That's what the lawsuit is about.

The threat to require software licenses from SCO for users of the Linux
kernel is about the code. But that's not the lawsuit.

Now, before all the zealots start screaming that I've got it wrong, read
what I've said and what the lawsuit says. I don't necessarily think that
the current incarnation of SCO (and they're not the SCO I worked for) have
done the right things. I also think, based on what I know, that IBM
probably released code to Linux that they believe was not covered under
their UNIX contractual license (and that SCO now believes is covered). It
may have been intentional, it may have been accidental, but if it happened,
then IBM has to face the consequences.

flames >/dev/null

--
Jim Sullivan
Don't plant your bad days, they turn into bad weeks,
then bad months and before you know it, you've had a bad year.
>
> --
> John Collins Xi Software Ltd www.xisl.com