SCO chief testifies: 'Linux is a copy of Unix'
Summary
Topics
In the hearing, which concludes on Friday, SCO chief executive Darl McBride made claims--including that "Linux is a copy of Unix"--which are directly contradicted by the open-source community and apparently run counter to other SCO testimony, according to trial watchers, including Ars Technica.
SCO sued IBM in 2003, claiming that the IT giant had used copyright code from the Unix operating system which SCO sold, and later extended this suit to other Linux vendors. However, last August, Judge Dale Kimball ruled that Novell, not SCO, owns Unix. A four-day court case is now determining Novell's claim for up to $20 million in royalties from SCO, which declared Chapter 11 bankruptcy last year.
This court case could be the end of the line for SCO, though some online commentators have suggested the company will find yet another legal avenue of appeal. More interestingly, some observers have predicted that victory for Novell would open the door for it to sue other vendors, including Sun: "I am still going through the Novell financial filings but they could have a claim to a lot more than the value of the SCOsource licenses from Sun alone," said one commentator on Groklaw.
SCOsource is a SCO business division that manages its intellectual property around the Unix operating system.
Just In
http://www.freesoftwaremagazine.com/columns/bizarre_cathedral_3
SCO is like a bad case of herpes. Nobody wants anything to do with them, but they just won't go away.
The above post was supposed to be a reply to Linux User
*A preview feature. You know, the thing that EVEN THE MOST RUDIMENTARY F***KING FORUMS GIVE YOU!!!!!!
We want Preview!
Who designed this stupid interface, anyway - Steve Ballmer?
As for the rest of you, why don't you respectfully try flat view?
Then when you want to reply to a particular message, you just click on the reply button at the extreme right of the message. It's big enough, you can't miss it. And if you want to reply to the story, you have to go all the way back up to the top.
As for spell checking, reread what you typed, then send it! It's what I do, most of the time, even do it twice, on occasion.
But I do agree, moderators, we want a preview function!
What I don't understand is how they continue to get funding
for this crap. There must be a lot of VC groups out there
looking to guarantee losses - "Hey Bill, we made far too
much on that last venture. Quick how can we dump a few
million?"
LINUS TORVALDS is given credit for inititating the development of Linux...
To try and put it more clearly, Novell bought the rights to Sys V outright, they sold on the right to sell Sys V bases UNIX systems (including AIX). The basis of the court case is that SCO sold others the right to use Sys V code which only Novell has the right to do.
The grads at Berkeley just did a hell of a lot better job of coming up with a great Unix variant than any of us did.
Since the Berkeley variant was well before any AT*T/Novell deal, presumably, there are no problems with BSD variants. But you never know, there has been a lot of cross fertilization between the BSD variant(s) and Sys V, both ways, by many vendors.
So SCO bought the distribution rights only, second hand, and then claimed they owned it completely ....
do you homework..
remember linux IS NOT an OS
linux is the kernel theat torvalds built to overcome the shortcomings of minix...
During the discovery phase of the IBM trial, we learned that so much of the source code for UNIX had already been disclosed through textbooks, that SCO dropped their trade secrets claims.
We also learned that much of the code was unprotectable through the settlement of the ATT v. BSD case.
And...ta da!...when discovery was done, they had found 231 lines of code from UNIX in Linux. Aren't there millions of lines of code in Linux?
If copyright infringement were a problem, it would have been found and prosecuted long ago.
On the other hand, companies that paid for licenses to make their own UNIX might have some homework to do.
Linux uses Unix practices not Unix code. The GNU foundation created a Unix like system but does not use any of the code that came from any Unix vendor. This freed Linux from the Unix vendors and Linux is not Unix. The problem for the Unix vendors is that Linux works but how many of the old school Unix systems work on any kind of hardware? Most work on specific hardware and are compiled down to the metal on specific hardware, like Sun servers, for speed and efficiency gains.
Linux is much more like NT core from Microsoft because just like NT core it is totally hardware agnostic now but Microsoft can't sue them because Linux core is not Windows or a Windows work a like. The Unix world could not move to the desktop because of vendor hardware lock down and could not move to the desktop because even if they moved to generic hardware like NT core the development costs would have been prohibitive.
Microsoft took over the low end server world because Windows NT was a fraction of the cost the big Unix boys and IBM were charging for the same services. The fact that NT core was able to run on cheap commodity hardware was its biggest selling feature. Microsoft has had no competition in the hardware agnostic world until modern Linux came on the scene.
Today, Linux is taking the same path that NT core took and will become, over time here, the only alternative to Microsoft's products. The fact that modern Linux is free means it does cost less by far. But, the movement to the desktop for the majority of people is waiting on a desktop software stack that is common among all Unix variants. The same desktop for all would be a huge plus. If the effort put into the different desktops was streamlined and placed into just one desktop then Linux would take over the desktop.
The Linux world at this time is about choice but the one thing that most desktop users need is just a tiny set of choices that runs on all Linux machines. The Gnome and Xfce desktops are all pretty cool but KDE is what they should all be focusing on or something new and different but they have to move to one desktop and one set of choices for the end user sake.
In order to compete with Vista Linux has to move to a common desktop that is backed up by their own dot.net practices. Separate the model view and controller like Microsoft does in Vista and they will win in the long run. Linux is already a server based system and can easily move in the same direction of dot.net and replace the down to the metal coding with servers running in the background instead of monolithic applications. These two changes will propel Linux into the competitive zone with Microsoft. Until then, Linux is just an alternative to Unix on high and low end machines. To take over the desktop there has to be just one that is improved over time.
It's not very mature, but it's come a long way already.
I wouldn't call it a "copy" of windows because it's a clean room implementation. It's compatible with windows at the API level, and similarily structured (I think). But then all cars have 4 wheels and you wouldn't really say a porsche is a copy of a ford mustang.
If I cna find a NON-Windows OS that runs programs designmed for windows, I'll BUY it.
If not, I'll keep using my WGA bypass gimmicks on Windows
Give it 1-2 years, and I think this is going to start stomping around in the marketplace.
After all, after NT4 all I really wanted was NT4 + USB, not that stupid Windows 2000.
XP is OK, but it's just got too much weight.
NT4 was really lean. Put that on a AMD64X2 and it would really fly!
I think Reactos will reach NT4 level before very long. Then all you need is a free VB clone, and ......
Any Linux user can do that with any flavor he uses and get a screamingly fast machine out of even a very modest configuration. Which is something you just can't do with Windoze, because you just do not get the source code, period. They'll never let you have it; you could see too many things done wrong, and that wouldn't do!
From reactos.org
Linux provides a free solution, which is readily available to anyone who chooses to pursue it. Why should they now cater to Microsoft's victims?
It's something Apple picked up on with Intel Macs and Boot Camp - offering Windows users (of which I was one) the chance to run familiar old Windows on a Mac so we'd feel comfortable using a Mac. The funny thing is - I've had a Macbook Pro for over a year now, and I haven't booted into Windows on it in at least six months....
One Windows user complains that Linux proponents are trying to push them into using Linux, the next one complains that they don't. Which one y'gonna listen to? I say let them lie in the bed they have made for themselves until they are ready to get out of it, then give them a hand if you can. Otherwise, just ignore their FUD.
Linux is JUST the kernel, Linux is NOT the OS.
And I don't like your Desktop. I'll use my own, thank you very much. (I can do whatever I want to do... and THAT is the power of using the Linux kernel)
NT4 ran on one of four processors Alpha, MIPS or PowerPC and x86
Vista runs on x86 and x86-64
Linux runs on x86, x86-64,PS2/PS3,Mobiles,routers etc
BSD Runs on practically everything ....
"Separate the model view and controller" that Vista copied from Linux and MacOSX, badly
"...replace the down to the metal coding with servers running in the background instead of monolithic applications" servers running in the background are what Linux/Unix is all about there are very few monolithic applications? Unlike Windows where monolithic apps are the norm, on Linux/Unix monolithic apps are the exception ....?
.NET is a way of running apps in a sandboxed environment one step away from the real machine (Just like Java) but unlike Java it is propriatory and encumbered with patents, and Microsoft can and have radically changed the environment several times, and could shut down any system using it anytime they like (with patents)
Linux can already run Win32 apps (WINE) and .NET apps, but this is NOT the way to go ...
Darl's blather is completely irrelevant and, therefore, ultimately not helpful.
This merits a class action suite. Interested parties please notify Peter Judge at ZDNet.co.uk
Regurgitating long-disproven lies and spinning FUD with no substance (even cotton candy has SOME substance) is worse than no article at all. What little could be considered news is worse than old news; it's ancient history.
FACT ONE: There is NOTHING shared between Linux and UNIX System V that could be a legitimate basis for serious legal action. That has been known for years.
FACT TWO: Novell stated a long time ago that even if something were to come up, they would not be pursuing any kind of SCOG-like strategy.
If you really want to publish this kind of stuff, go work for Maureen O'Gara. ZDNet isn't known for great journalism, but this is even below ZDNet "quality".
It's not like you folks can't find enough **** to write about Microsoft?
Join the conversation!
The best of ZDNet, delivered
ZDNet Newsletters
Get the best of ZDNet delivered straight to your inbox




