Linux optimize

SCO loses major court ruling in UNIX lawsuit


SCO's lawsuit to stake a claim to UNIX and therefore Linux has foundered, as a federal court ruled Friday that open-source-advocate Novell owns the rights to the core programming underlying both UNIX and Linux.

U.S. District Court Judge Dale Kimball ruled SCO must allow Novell to let IBM and Sequent use the UNIX codebase (defending IBM against earlier SCO litigation), and the Groklaw blog details just how great a victory this is. The case will go to trial next month, but now the tables are turned, for not only did the judge deny the heart of SCO's claims, he also allows Novell's counterclaims for slander-of-title to go to trial. Licensing fees to SCO from Microsoft and a few other players are all that's left to SCO, and that will dry up quickly.

The litigation threatening UNIX and Linux, enabled by Microsoft's licensing fees, has held back corporate acceptance of Linux. With this obstacle fading fast, do you think Linux will quickly gain market share?

17 comments
jdclyde
jdclyde

I had JUST finished my MACE, and then Caldera bought and killed this once great OS. We are in the process of converting our last SCO server over to SLES10 right now. What perfect timing! B-)

HAL 9000
HAL 9000

It has been a slow process that hasn't helped a soul except M$. But I still fail to see how SCO's actions against IBM can be interpreted as anything but a simple [b]Breach Of Contract[/b] argument that doesn't overly impede the development of the different Linux Distributions. Col

Northwolf
Northwolf

.. That's why MS started this little FUD about the LINUX/OSS-MS Patent issue!! They (MS) saw that SCOX claim was baseless and rattled the sabre about the patents. NOT that they want to clarify!! They would loose some, if not all of the Patents, if there was a court challenge!

CharlieSpencer
CharlieSpencer

While the legal status of Linux may be causing some delays in corporate implementation, it's low on the list compared to other factors. These include retraining staff and users; software compatibility with customers and vendors; Windows-based proprietary software with no Linux equivalents; existing enterprise software license agreements; and a reluctance to replace existing Windows infrastructure.

Neon Samurai
Neon Samurai

Most indaviduals problems with Linux are purely for desktop use and even then the issues are generally very subjective. One size show doesn't fit everyone though and that's why we have demand for more than one OS (regardless of MS wishes). I'd say that tech needs to start looking at single platform software as a limitation not a justification for choosing the technically poorer solution. This is about the SCO legal outcome though. For that I think what this does is remove or weaken the "If you use Linux you infringe on IP and we will sue you to death" threat. It helps reduce the FUD barrier that keeps Linux based OS from being considered for company servers where it is technically the better choice but limited by legal saber rattling BS. There is still pleanty of blinding by wiz-bang marketing teams and the ever powerful lock-in so it's not like things are going to change over night but it's another BS barrier removed. Eventually all the BS barriers will fall away and we can finally get down to the task of looking clearly at technical limitations in decision making. On the desktop, Linux can easily support 90% of business and home user needs leaving the 10% limited to the OS that supports there specialized need (Yes, I'm looking at you AutoCAD, PalmOS, ATI/nVidia, single platform DirectX developers). Heck, even I have a few OS running only because nothing else currently supports some specific need. (Well, also because they are in the collection and I already have the lincense for them.)

wenton
wenton

Gonna argue (sorta) with you - linux can easily handle 100% of business and home user needs... BUT... the software is yet to be writen for some of those needs. Or maybe more precisely, fully developed, tested, and proven software has yet to be produced. I keep Windoze installed on some of my machines ONLY because the games I play with my son fall under that single platform DirectX category you mentioned. And, some of my video capture/editing software is Windoze based. Yes, there are all these emulators/options, but they still run better in their "native land." And yes, there are many linux-based alternatives to all of these (except my son's games), but so many of these projects are "mostly" working or pet projects that have never been fully tested.... version 0.81 or version 0.9235, as if people are afraid of testing and releasing version 1.0. Inviting people to be beta testers by releasing these "almost" versions is fine, but eventually, cross that da** finish line! I think that if anything is holding linux from grabbing a larger part of the market, it is the failure for released software to reach this public release software instead of bate release software. And if we follow this, the public release software might (just maybe) start showing up in stores to be sold! And pewrsonally, if I see "Mars Rover for Windows" sitting on the shelf next to "Mars Rover for Linux," (and they have the same price) I'm buying the linux version. The SCO lawsuit news should make Linux a more viable solution for companies to work with since they shouldn't have to worry about being sued... Its up to development to complete packages and marketting to make the world (including the suits someone mentioned earlier) more linux-aware.

Dumphrey
Dumphrey

seem to have hit the nail on the head. The Linux OS, as just an OS, no apps, compared to Windows OS, just the OS, no apps....they are both complete. I would say at this point, linux has a small advantage in that it can install on a wider range of platforms, has greater flexibility in desktop appearance, and more hardware support Out of the Box. Windows gets an edge when you start adding in second party responsibility, applications and drivers for new hardware. These are not the fault of the OS, but companies that choose to support Windows (and the restrictive licensing that can mean). Linux can support 3D games quite well. UT, Doom 4, Postal....these games run as good or better under linux, with crap driver support, then they do on Windows, with supposedly "Great" driver support. The linux OS is ready for the Big Boy Seat at the OS Table, but the available applications are not.(Some exceptions). One of the reasons for this is that many linux users are not willing to purchase closed source software for the linux OS, (We miss you Loki Games). Maybe that will start changing as Cdega and CrossOver make more headway. I think we can ignore Maya, as most people who need it, NEED it, and probably a buisness is footing the bill for the prog and a workstation. So, if you want to support linux software, and you want choice, then some large players are going to have to get on board. Purchase a copy of the linux Nero, purchase linDVD, purchase the flumotion Codecs...even if you do not use em, buy em. Stimulate companies into providing software with linux options (I am looking at you Adobe, you non 64-bit yet retards, CS3 in 64 bit would be very nice...to actually be able to use 8 Gb of ram with that suite....)

Jim_MacLachlan
Jim_MacLachlan

Palmetto, you hit all the major points perfectly except perhaps TV. Seriously, if the suits see a TV ad for a product, it convinces them that it is viable. A few years ago, I had one suit tell me, "You never see commercials for Novell or Linux. They're just not real players." The rest agreed. I'm sensitized to it now & it's easy to see. The more commercials, the more acceptable a product is. Since the new MAC ads, I've had quite a few more people come to me asking if we're going to use them in our network.

Dumphrey
Dumphrey

the new Eazy MAC (TM) and cheese ads? Or the Cheezy MAC...well you get the point.

Neon Samurai
Neon Samurai

but it's an old story in our chosen industry; Apple vs Microsoft, Beta vs VHS, Newton 2k vs Palm, HDDVD/Blueray vs each other and the free world. The power of "it has pretty ad space, it must all be true and wonderful" has a long history of killing the better but under marketeered technology.

bowenw
bowenw

There where 3 factors that settled the VHS/BETA war - - When the VHS folks landed RCA and all the other major US brands except Zenith (#1), combined with the total advertising strength of all those marketers (#2)and the rental business (jump started by the porn folks)(#3) the war was all over but the shouting. Even Zenith (and Sony for that matter) finally joined the VHS camp. BTW, I was with RCA in field engineering for the Consumer ELectronics Group when RCA brought out the SelectaVision VHS machines, so let me add some insights about what was happening in those days. First, the 4 hour LP mode in VHS is a real bastard setup: sync pulses between tracks don't align, so track to track crosstalk is a real issue. That's why 6 hour mode looks better than 4 hour mode even though the tape is moving slower. Panasonic/JVC did NOT even want to do 4 hour mode (notice that most non-RCA machines of that era would play 4 hour but would not record it) but where "strong armed" into it by RCA: it was the price RCA demanded to go VHS. They wanted bragging rights on recording time for marketing purposes. At that time (1977) the engineering issues with 6 hour mode had not been resolved). Even previous to the intoduction of Beta RCA had developed an M-load type system using 3/4" tape - this was the original SelectaVision. Cost of manufacturing was too high in 1972 when the system was developed, so it got shelved. I saw a demo of one of the prototype units and the video quality was amazing. One of the engineers that worked on that project became my boss for about a year, and Steve was always bummed out that we had to accept the lower picture quality of VHS vs either Beta or the original SelectaVision. Nearly any product introduction in the CE area is a compromise, and more often than not nearly everyone finds something in that compromise that they can pick apart. Gives those "ink stained wetches" in the media something to do I guess :))

jmgarvin
jmgarvin

Beta was also very limited when it came to the amount of time you could record vs VHS. Also the cost of Beta was about (IIRC) 30% greater than VHS.

david_heath
david_heath

Remember, when you choose to buy the pretty product you saw on TV, the inflated price (required to pay for the advertising) is your reward for failing to do any proper due diligence!

The Scummy One
The Scummy One

Part of it was also that people could get more time out of vhs over beta. This worked out well with early camcorders, which helped to drive the market (quality vs. convenience).

GSG
GSG

ON the Beta vs. VHS, it wasn't advertising. It was the porn industry selection 1 format and vhs won. OK, maybe advertising influenced their decision, so technically you could say advertising did it. On the HD/Blueray it'll be the porn industry deciding that one as well. But you have a point. If it's advertised, why it must be good! ::get it? that was sarcasm::

K7AAY
K7AAY

Do you think Linux will quickly gain market share, or have your IT managers already accepted the litigation as irrelevant?

drmorton
drmorton

Linux, Unix, it still the same old ,xoxoxlkjl! Simply put, no.