This is a read-only archive. Find the latest Linux articles, documentation, and answers at the new Linux.com!

Linux.com

Feature: Open Source

SCO/Microsoft's attack on Linux is backfiring

By on August 30, 2003 (8:00:00 AM)

Share    Print    Comments   

- by Rick Smith -
If you keep up with technology news at all, you know all about SCO's fight with IBM, and now, with the Open Source community that developed Linux. But what you may not see is the forest through the trees. There are some fundemental things going on in this turf war that the big boys are missing, and if you look at the headlines over the past 6 months, or even the past year, you'll see them loud and clear.

Microsoft has been in the news just as much as the SCO/IBM/Linux battle, and Microsoft has indeed funded SCO to prolong its IBM/Linux fight. But if you step back for a moment, you'll notice that the content of all the Microsoft headlines is due to their software being pathetically poor (according to the press). News about Microsoft security patches here, there and everywhere. Worms, viruses, more worms. News about how even in the face of 4 new operating systems in the past 3 years , Microsoft is unable to fix bugs that date back to the very first release of Windows 95. How out of control do you have to be for that to happen?

How bad is it really for Microsoft? Let's face it, my own father, who uses his computer like a toaster, got hit with the last worm. He's a smart consumer, he doesn't stick forks in the toaster when it's plugged in, and he doesn't download software off the web or open emails he doesn't recognize -- but he got infected anyway. He told me, "The computer said it was going to shut itself down, but I thought that was normal for Windows anyways!" And he didn't say it in that happy-go-lucky tone the actors in the Microsoft commercials take!

My father is part of the new wave of people being affected by Microsoft's OS problems -- the average consumer. In the past, if you minded your P's and Q's, you would live with the daily Windows annoyances, and only *read* about the major problems others had with Microsofts OSs. That era is over. Now the average Joe is being hit in the face. Microsoft is out of touch, with a major problem on its hands -- its OS. It's gotten so bad for Microsoft that it seems they've given up on the rhetoric, propaganda, and vaporware-type press releases they relied on so heavily in the past to woo their worried customers.

On the other hand, what's going on with the Linux press? SCO (don't forget - funded by Microsoft) and IBM are fighting tooth and nail OVER Linux software. That's right, SCO is fighting to claim an operating system! I will say it again - they are fighting OVER Linux as in: Something is so GOOD you are willing to fight *for* it! So in the big picture you have mountains of press about how bad Microsoft is, and mountains of press about how good Linux is, and how the biggest companies of the modern era are fighting tooth and nail to possess it.

Do you think the world population won't be affected by this kind of press in this way? You can guess Microsoft's answer to this question, and they are dead wrong. The general public hears these sound bytes every day and it distills down to this: Microsoft -- unsecure, dangerous software; Linux -- some copyright fight going on, must be damn good software for these big companies to be battling over it. Microsoft's strategy here is the best thing that has ever happened to Linux.

All the Linux community needs to do now is to standardize an idiot-proof, non-technical method of installing/uninstalling all Linux apps and Linux will sweep the desktop. The Linux community should send a bottle of champagne to Bill Gates thanking him for his assistance in promoting Linux as the best operating system on the planet in the eyes of the press, and therefore in the eyes of the general public.

The opinions presented in this article are the author's, and may or may not be shared by OSDN editors or management. -----

- Write for us! -

Share    Print    Comments   

Comments

on SCO/Microsoft's attack on Linux is backfiring

Note: Comments are owned by the poster. We are not responsible for their content.

Press is press is press

Posted by: Peter Robertson on August 30, 2003 04:57 PM
Now I talk to people and ask the usual question "Well, have you heard of Linux?"

The answer used to be either "No", or, "Yeah, but I heard it was really hard to use and you had to do everything throught the command line"

Now its "Yeah, it looks pretty good, I've been meaning to try, but it takes a while to download", mostly because they want to try it first, which is an excellent moment to tell them to try Knoppix before chosing a "proper" Linux distro. (I know it is and can be installed on a hrad drive, but most people want the big three.)

#

Re:Press is press is press

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on August 30, 2003 05:16 PM
Now its "Yeah, it looks pretty good, I've been meaning to try, but it takes a while to download",

WTF? I know you don't mean this as FUD and it has a grain of truth, but it cannot be compared with proprietary OS which come pre-installed. Maybe the answer is to distribute knoppix CDs in PC mags?

#

Re:Press is press is press

Posted by: Peter Robertson on August 30, 2003 06:09 PM
That's one of the things I suggest to them, go get a version that comes with a magazine, there are plenty out there, sometimes even full versions on bootable DVD's, they aren't willing to just go straight out and buy a boxed set and they don't know anyone who will copy them the CD's so they just figure they'll download it until they find out its a couple of CD's worth to get. Knoppix is one CD so they are willing to do that. Remember to the average Windows user (who is used to Win98, the most popular Windows version) more than one CD seems too much, so downloading the Knoppix CD makes more sense to them before they buy a full boxed set. I've tried explaining that Linux Distributions have a lot of software that comes with them in the beginning, like an Office Suite and things like that which you can choose to install or not, but they simply aren't used to it.

Admittedly its a compromise, but if I can get people to ditch Windows for something that will make them happier, then I'm happy!

#

Re:Press is press is press

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on August 30, 2003 08:49 PM
Maybe the answer is to distribute knoppix CDs in PC mags?

This is a great idea! How do we get PC-Mags to be aware that this is a good idea?

#

Re:Press is press is press

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on August 31, 2003 06:53 AM
It is already done in Brittain and in Brazil (where I live). That's how I got "Kurumin", which is based on Knoppix, and is fantastically well configured for a one-CD distro (don't know if it supports English, tho').

BTW, Kurumin (actually, curumim) means "boy" in the tupi-guarani indigenous language.

That's how I got RedHat 9, Mandrake 9.1 and Conectiva 9, too. Pretty cheap ($4.5 US, average, per two or three CDs).

#

Go to your user group!

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on August 30, 2003 10:23 PM
The following public service message is brought to you buy your local Linux User Group:

Friend: "I would try Linux but I don't want to pay for it or can't find it in the store and it takes to long to download."

Me: "Come to my user group meeting and get a copy."

Friend: "I don't want to come to a geek meeting! I'll feel stupid."

Me: "I'll get you a copy then"

Me at home posts to the user goup email list: "Can someone burn me a set of SuperDuper Linux 4.5 CDs and bring them to the next meeting?"

Group Member replies: "I'll do it but I can't make the meeting. Meet me after work in the local electronic store parking lot."

Me and Group Member meet the next day

Me: "Thanks for the distro. Here are replacement blank media."

Group Member: "No problem."

A couple of days later Me encounters Friend

Me: "Here is your copy of SuperDuper Linux. It is really easy to install but I can help you if you would like."

Friend: "Thanks! I'll give it a try. I didn't even have to download it! Wow!"

This message brought to you by your local Linux User Group. "Better support than you can buy for better software than you can buy!"

#

Re:Press is press is press

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on August 30, 2003 10:32 PM
Knoppix in a PC mag? Not if you mean a Windows orientated PC mag. This would be a terrible idea. A bunch of people with few skills filling a disk up with software that would, if successful, lose them market share with perhaps a four page article "introducing" Linux! Hardly a recipe for a successful trial of an unfamiliar OS.

One of the established Linux oriented mags should look to do a dedicated beginner level mag based on a CD based distro (pref. Knoppix, I agree) at cost. They should look at it as investment to increase market share. And it should have up-to-date tutorials showing how to do the common home-based tasks. i.e. Web-browsing, e-mail, instant messaging, office suite, photo manipulation, printing, scanning etc, that are targeted at the software on the disk. I've seen mags that claim to introduce people to linux, but they often:
  • Don't include a CD-based distro

  • Start talking about command lines!!!

  • Are collections of articles from the past year which may not even relate to the software versions on the disk

  • Have a whistle stop tour that barely gets past opening files

A beginners introduction to Linux should be, to quote that guy in Matrix Reloaded, "like wiping your @rse with silk!"

#

IBM-Red Hat-SuSE-OSDL, could fund knoppix cds in..

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on August 30, 2003 11:54 PM
The big money players who have an interest in the future of GNU GPL LINUX could fund the sending out of knoppix cds in every magazine with ad copy as a free give away to all the commercial and non-commercial subscribers (and they could also include an open source cd with open source software for windows in the promotion package too)!

IBM could send these copies of knoppix out to every Wall St. Journal subscriber, AND every other business magazine subscriber, or other magazines that go to commercial users of software... as part of their normal every day strategy related ad campaign budget! Red Hat, SuSE, OSDL, and every other big company interested in LINUX could join them and co-op with IBM on the cost of the advertisement/free CD giveaway!

A knoppix cd being sent out in this way would also serve as proof of acquisition documentation that all these commercial and non-commercial subscribers have acquired a legal copy of perpetual use GNU GPL LINUX. Then send the list of those that received the knoppix LINUX to every state's attorney general's office!

#

Re:IBM-Red Hat-SuSE-OSDL, could fund knoppix cds i

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on August 31, 2003 12:29 AM
I completely agree! IBM is putting everything they've got behind the Lunux push and something like this would go miles! If AOL OVER produces CDs, why can't IBM send out a few well targeted ones?

I'll get in touch with my contact at IBM and send him a copy with some basic documentation and see where it takes us..

Thanks for the suggestion!

#

OR - could use Eagle LINUX to build bootable CDs !

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on September 01, 2003 03:19 AM
Eagle LINUX also has how-to regarding building bootable LINUX cds...

http://eaglelinux.w32.net/

#

Re:Press is press is press

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on September 01, 2003 06:02 AM
I will give you all an example: I am from Portugal and as an example to other countries the most selled pc magazine here, which is only orinented for Windows, has distributed a completly bootable cd of knoppix 3.2. I think like this a lot more people can give it a try with Linux.

Nuno, Linux user since Red Hat 5.3

#

Re:Press is press is press

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on September 04, 2003 12:33 AM
Well it was distributed in the most important german computer magazine, C't<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)

#

A bit simplistic conclusion.

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on August 30, 2003 05:07 PM
All the Linux community needs to do now is to standardize an idiot-proof, non-technical method of installing/uninstalling all Linux apps and Linux will sweep the desktop.

I think the desktop will be conquered mostly by marketing techniques i.s.o. product quality. Microsoft proved this in the past.

#

MS proved the marketing part but i.s.o. quality???

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on August 31, 2003 02:35 AM
I agree that marketing and quality will be key to having linux pulled into the market, however, I disagree that MS included i.s.o. quality in their products. MS has proven the effectiveness of marketing, but not the value i.s.o. quality.

Perhaps that is not what you meant to say, but that is how it came across.

The funny thing is, as this article has already pointed out, linux is getting free marketing via all levels of the media. And although the mass media is not mentioning the level of quality in linux they are mentioning the lack of quality in Windows.

burnin

#

Re:A bit simplistic conclusion.

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on September 03, 2003 12:08 AM
You're correct on the marketing.. but ISO quality?? Ha ha ha

Why do you think Windows ships with so many security holes?

Hackers [Crackers...] are *not* "breaking" Windows... this is not like a thief picking locks or smashing a padlock with a sledgehammer... this is like someone's cell phone frequency opening your garage door!

Lets face it, testing is EXPENSIVE and in most shops testing doesn't begin in earnest until AFTER the software is considered "complete"... exactly when there is the most pressure to ship.

"You can always fix it in the next release..."

Don't like that attitude? TOUGH. Obviously mom and dad continue to use Windows, so they don't mind the problem enough to switch OS's. Besides... it's THEIR FAULT for not enabling "auto update".

That, my friend, is the power of monopoly.

#

how it goes

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on August 30, 2003 05:44 PM
Last week i read somewhere:

First they ignore
Then they laugh at you
Then they fight you...<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...and you win

#

Re:how it goes

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on August 30, 2003 09:12 PM
I think it's from Ghandhi (spelling ?).

#

Re:how it goes

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on August 30, 2003 10:06 PM
Every fanatic who thinks his wild ideas will conquer the world quotes this one. Pop in a new CD, this one's getting old...

#

Re:how it goes

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on August 31, 2003 06:57 AM
That's the good thing about quotes, they get very old. I have some from Lao Tse, can you believe it?

#

Re:how it goes

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on September 01, 2003 09:15 AM
Right. I see. So Gandhi was a fanatic with wild ideas? That's what the British liked to say about the guy, before a whole nation of many millions got behind his ideas of non-violence and civil disobedience. I guess he meant something a little different from your interpretation of the quotation, hmm?

#

Re:how it goes

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on September 02, 2003 09:19 PM
Gandhi was a fanatic. He didn't fought for a cause even though it did not gain him. Being a fanatic is only "bad" when you don't agree with someones cause or methods.


But regardless of whether or not Gandhi was a fanatic, the point of the poster you replied to was that anyone who have found a "cause" can spew out that Gandhi quote to explain why people laughing or fighting them mean they "must" be winning.


Most of them are wrong.


The Gandhi quote is in the context of a liberation fight, where opposition to the liberation movement could in the long term serve no other purpose than to strengthen the movement. That is hardly true for most "causes" people are fighting for.


Anyone starting a company based on a "revolutionary" new idea would probably feel the quote justified their struggle. Otherwise they wouldn't start their company, right? Yet about 9 out of 10 of every startup will end up bankrupt within the first 3 years of operations. Many of them never get past the laughing stage. Many more fall prey to larger competitor that do start fighting them, and end up crushing them like flies.

#

Re:how it goes

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on August 31, 2003 07:54 AM
ive read it too, and i agree

#

Re:how it goes

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on September 01, 2003 02:58 PM

The problem with this is that there is no necessary connection between "then they fight you" and "then you win". It could just as easily go:

...
Then they fight you
And then you get crushed by their superior strength and resources.

#

Re:how it goes

Posted by: cornstalk on September 03, 2003 07:46 AM
That statement is attributed to Ghandi in "Linux and Unix Philosophy," by Michael Gancarz. It's an excellent read, by the way.

#

Re:how it goes

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on September 04, 2003 04:36 PM
It's Gandhi and not Ghandhi

#

Could it be an attempt at palusible denial?

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on August 30, 2003 05:57 PM
Perhaps Microsoft will let SCO fight this one by proxy. If SCO wins, Microsoft then buys SCO outright and then "owns" whatever it is that SCO won in the lawsuit. If SCO loses, then Microsoft will have not damaged its' position and the $6M + they invested in SCO's lawsuit will have been money well spent because others were forced to expend assets to defend their point instead of furthering their own offerings.

I hope this is not the case, but it is curious that Microsoft is playing this game this way, and also using Akamai's Linux servers to host some of their internet presence.

#

Re:Could it be an attempt at palusible denial?

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on August 30, 2003 09:14 PM
IF.. and I do say IF SCO wins MS may not be able to afford to buy SCO! because everyone will be after the shares.

#

GROKLAW show's Microsoft could play hidden role?

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on August 31, 2003 03:10 AM
Microsoft would never get approval to buy or own SCO. Due to anti-trust rules the government would never allow them to control their code, Unix code and/or any other code in such a monopolistic way.

However, if you read this site http://radio.weblogs.com/0120124/ and read the FRIDAY post where it has a section titled "Small World Dept.--
SCO and MS Have a Mutual Friend"

It is here where we can start to smell the stench of Microsoft's possible presense as a proxy owner of SCO stock and maybe a hidden player in more ways that we actually know about!

Best read of the day - I recommend it to everyone!

#

Wow!

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on August 31, 2003 07:12 AM
No, I mean it, really: Wow!

The guys are not putting all eggs in one basket, are they?

#

Re:Wow! - or everyone's eggs from all baskets into

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on September 01, 2003 07:27 AM
And when you combine this site's stuff, with the Mrs Gates and Microsoft data:

http://radio.weblogs.com/0120124/2003/08/29.html<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...with this data on SCO and it's recent patent

http://radio.weblogs.com/0120124/2003/08/31.html

It's so scary that... it leaves me speechless!

#

Re:Could it be an attempt at palusible denial?

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on September 02, 2003 10:53 PM
You have exactly, totally, perfectly stated my thoughts.

#

No change

Posted by: OwlWhacker on August 30, 2003 05:58 PM
Microsoft hasn't changed at all. Windows is still insecure, even though Microsoft has done its utmost to convince everybody that it's more secure than Linux.

Microsoft is just an inventor of buzzwords, and a FUD spreader.

I'll bet that Microsoft will make a nice statement soon, telling everybody how it's going to change (and how Microsoft has learned from what's happened and is constantly, constantly improving Windows). And I also bet that everybody will remain as gullible as ever, paying piles of cash out for multi-year Windows contracts.

Some people are gluttons for punnishment.

#

$250 or $25

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on August 30, 2003 08:53 PM
I've been pitching Linux to my friends for years now. They seem entusiastic at first, but then interest seems to drop off. Finaly, I got around to asking them all why.

          The two reasons they gave most often were; Takes to long to download; Poor availability of distributionn software on disk in stores. The few that did try it, loved it and use it exclusivly to this day.

            The price is right, its finaly user friendly enouph for people who only use computers for the internet, if it was just more available without the trouble of downloading huge iso files.

              For those of you who want to try linux, but dont want to spend days downloading it. Try ordering a cd over the internet. Most distro's do it and its ususualy available for roughly the cost of the plastic that goes into makeing the medium. Also Linuxworld magazine for this month comes with a free DVD with Madrake 9.1 on it. Its easy to install, easy to use and has a very atractive set of GUI's. Give it a try

#

Re:$250 or $25

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on August 30, 2003 09:11 PM
there's one thing that all the (or almost all the) Linux programers seem to miss: no matter how good the system is and its interface, as long as there are no applications matching in every detail the stuff that runs on Windows (I mean CAD, vector graphics, DTP, even gimp or openoffice is a far cry from Photoshop or MSOFFICe), LInux is not goona sweep anybody's desktop. What's the use of having the best car on earth if you got no fuel for it?
So stop working on the kernels and stuff for a while and make the applications!

#

Re:$250 or $25

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on August 31, 2003 07:29 AM
hmmmmmmmmmmm m$ photo editor is OK ? Personally, I think it's a pile of poo. How many people actually NEED all the features of m$ orifice ?

Lastly, let me cite an example of where Staroffice 5.2, or Openoffice beats excel : tried to plot a series of x-y data to see how good a correlation I had. excel refused to do it and just presented me with usual bullshit plot of one variable. Staroffice did it, but it did insist on sorting the x-axis variables first. At least Staroffice told me what the problem was !

BUT, good old Lotus 123 beats the lot in this case as it would have done this without question. Why on earth does X-axis data have to be sorted prior to the request to plot ? Shouldn't the software just do it ?

#

Re:$250 or $25

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on August 30, 2003 09:15 PM
my wife complains about the" you can't buy it at the stores" thing. last year for my birthday she wanted to get me some games. but could never figure out where to buy them. you're right. that needs to change.

#

Re:$250 or $25

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on August 30, 2003 09:28 PM
Well most apps (we're talking Windows apps)get downloaded from the net, or bought online now. Even big ones like Photoshop, etc, are available for download. Linux OS is available in stores Redhat, Mandrake, and Suse are all available at Best Buy, and even Staples (Redhat anyways), and most apps are included in the distribution. It's hard to sell 'free' software in a store, maybe someone could make some money by packaging office apps, etc. up in nice boxes, anddistributing it through Best Buy etc. That might help Linux's case, who knows.

#

Re:$250 or $25

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on September 02, 2003 10:24 AM
Hastings Entertainment (at least the one here) carries Redhat, Mandrake, SuSE, & FreeBSD

#

Re:$250 or $25 - Free Mandrake - what about SCO?

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on August 30, 2003 09:20 PM
These users of the Free Mandrake, will they, as innocent 3rd party users, find themselves owing money to SCO in order to use this Mandrake at their business or in their home? NOT A CHANCE per this below:

One point always left out by those focused on intellectual property law IS, that the innocent 3rd party consumer, when told by agents that a GNU GPL product is ok to buy or download (or get for free or for the price of a copy of a magazine), and that by the nature of the GNU GPL that these innocent 3rd party users are then able to enjoy the perpetual right to freely use and upgrade this product,<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...THAT these users are protected by the laws of agency that state that a principle has to live by the deals that their actual, apparent or ostensible agents make on behalf of the principle. SCO is a self declared IP principle that now cannot go to innocent 3rd party users of LINUX (who legally obtained their LINUX from LINUX IP agents) and cause them harm.

Groklaw, http://radio.weblogs.com/0120124/ , had a lawyer quoted on Tuesday post under SCO Sending Invoices that said that a state's attorney general would protect them. The section reads like this:

"I also asked if it is possible to ask your state's Attorney General for protection, and his opinion is yes:

"The state AG's would tell SCO that the end users have acted in good faith. Leave them alone. SCO should only go after the vendors who are presumed to warrant the safety, license, validity etc of their product. The state can protect their consumers."

State law varies, so what is possible in one place isn't in another, but the state's attorney general will know. Whether RICO enters the picture is a complex question, one best left to your attorney or your attorney general. My understanding is that SCO has refused to tell callers that they need a license, referring that issue to the caller's attorney. If you rely on your attorney's advice and not SCO, they may be thinking this would shield them from accusations of fraud, etc. Obviously, I can't address that, but I can point it out as an issue. You might find the case I posted the other day where a RICO claim was brought of interest".

#

Re:$250 or $25 - Free Mandrake - what about SCO?

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on August 30, 2003 09:31 PM
Wonderful tactic! As all who get their subscription of LINUXWORLD by mail have documentation that they have own a copy of LINUX.

And this is the documentation that they would need if SUED by SCO for using LINUX. Otherwise, those who buy it off the newstand could get a recipt for their purchase and keep it attached to the CD that they get with the magazine.

Why? AND why should I contact my state AG and document my LINUX acquisition?

THIS IS A DO or DIE period of time for SCO UNIX and for SCO/Canopy group! Any bet that they will not sue users?

Here is one point that most are not considering when planning their LINUX roadmap into the future!

1. In order for SCO to prevent the state AGs from protecting users (via the laws of agency), SCO first has to go thru a legal proceedure where they notify absolutly everyone in the world that, the current LINUX agents are not acting with SCO's IP authority - and that these agents can not sell LINUX under the terms of the perpetual use GNU GPL anymore (this perpetual use understanding overflows to mean that all future upgrades are perpetual as well)! SCO has not made moves to make this notification legal yet!
They will make this notification - they have to (if they don't they will not be able to collect any money from any LINUX user = their goal)! So, after SCO does make legal notification to the public, then after that date, then any LINUX acquistion or download that happens after that date could be seen by the courts as being after the fact (after SCO has made the notification to users legal, as seen by the court). Being seen as getting your LINUX after this SCO notification date may put you in the way of SCO's harm.

The attorney general's office can document your complaint about SCO and also document a date(s) when, previous to SCO legal notification to stop actions of agents, YOU had legal possession of the LINUX IP product (where then you are then protected as the terms and conditions of your acquistion of LINUX then predates any SCO action..., So, your rights are truely perpetual... and however the IBM suit, the Red Hat suit or any SCO vs LINUX user suits go... the laws of agency and your attorney general should protect you)!

Contacting your AG, and documenting your LINUX acquisiton date (if gotten freely, then this is important) at the AG's office is not rabid dog crazy, but maybe crazy like a fox (a simple prudent move that one can make to cover the proof of ownership bases now rather than later).

Remember, the last anyone has said... a jury will be hearing the IP related IBM case in UTAH and a certain someone is living freely in Florida!

Business Law will trump IP Law in order to protect innocent 3rd party commercial and non-commercial LINUX users from harm intended upon them by SCO... no matter what the ruling is in the IBM, the Red Hat or any other IP case!

#

The long story - Business Law trumps IP Law?

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on August 30, 2003 11:17 PM
Part A:

SCO is doing nothing but making non-enforceable threats - can be countered by Business Law! If the LINUX user can show LINUX IP possession prior to SCO notifying the public about all agents who are proven to be illegally distributing LINUX, and thus stopping all LINUX agents from distributing LINUX to innocent 3rd party consumers/users, then the LINUX users proof of possession may trump SCO's actions against them!

It seems logical that until a court rules on SCO's IP claims (AND MAYBE AFTER A COURT RULES) that apparent authority, also known as ostensible authority kicks in to protect the innocent 3rd parties from a principle who has acted like SCO!

If, SCO (if looked at as being a principle) were actually found to own a few tid-bits of IP in LINUX (an idea that is totally rejected in the position paper for OSI on the SCO vs. IBM suit –
see http://www.opensource.org/sco-vs-ibm.html )
and a position paper, which casts doubt on SCO's position, that was authored by one of the world's leading legal experts on copyright law as applied to software, Professor Eben Moglen of Columbia University. See http://www.osdl.org/docs/osdl_eben_moglen_positio<nobr>n<wbr></nobr> _paper.pdf

…then, just by the fact that they let other "agents" distribute said IP (in downloads or distro form) to innocent 3rd parties... means that said agreements by these "agents" are final and SCO is wrong thinking that they can now go to the 3rd party customers and cause them harm.

Remember that no "agent" ever told the innocent 3rd parties that any potential IP principle (called SCO) was disapproving of them freely using LINUX - and in fact, in all the years that SCO was contributing to LINUX and distributing LINUX, SCO never did disapprove of any distribution of LINUX, using LINUX, upgrading LINUX, or anything with LINUX period.

If SCO wins the suit (hardly likely, dubious-at-best-OS), it is then and only then that they can make claims on ONLY future distribution of LINUX. In fact, SCO could make no claims on LINUX because the GNU GPL forbids any IP that is non-GNU GPL and thus SCO could have no claim because any SCO IP must be cleared out of it in order for LINUX, governed by the GNU GPL, to be LINUX. Any SCO IP in LINUX would have short term affect, as the LINUX code writers would replace this IP very quickly.

Also any kind of SCO IP found in LINUX would NOT affect current LINUX use and/or past downloads or distributions… This reasoning is due to apparent authority, also known as ostensible authority, SCO's obvious LINUX history, and SCO’s obvious exposure to the GNU GPL!

It would seem that the burden of proof is on SCO to prove that their claim that SCO IP that they claim is part of LINUX is- a) really SCO's IP, b) is IP that is free from the GNU GPL. It would seem that any current use of LINUX should be as before and that this would only change if the courts rule in favor of SCO! It would seem only logical that such a ruling would only affect LINUX users of any download or acquired distribution after, not before, the court rules (and only if the court rules in favor of SCO).

Fact: SCO is on record as stating that they are not going after LINUX (only IBM at this time) AND so by saying this SCO is saying that they still do not disapprove of LINUX being distributed or used by anyone. It does appear that SCO is saying that the case against IBM does NOT affect any new LINUX installs (even TODAY). SCO seems to be endorsing the continued distribution of LINUX…! And by allowing the continued existence of any agents with apparent authority they are allowing the use in LINUX, of any SCO IP they have contributed via the GNU GPL, and/or have continued to allow via unopposed download or distribution of, from any source (any LINUX/SCO IP agent with SCO's apparent authority)!

REMEMBER THAT SCO OFFICERS HAVE STATED (not too long ago), IN PUBLIC INTERVIEWS, THAT SCO HAS NO IP CLAIM AGAINST LINUX! There has been no legal attempt by SCO to stop LINUX distribution! The licensing tax that SCO has in mind does not apply to holders of current versions of LINUX!

Any and all future upgrades to current LINUX installations would be affected by this apparent authority agency law (also known as ostensible authority), as SCO’s IP "agents, with apparent authority" (LINUX distributors and their web sites) also seemed to have the authority to advise the innocent 3rd party users that LINUX support is/was available, without interruption and that it would continue to be available without interruption -meaning any and all future support, patches, upgrades, etc would be available without interruption ( SCO has never ever made mention at any time that these "agents with apparent or ostensible authority" are or were wrong in conveying this message to all LINUX users)! So this means that LINUX users and distributors, if deemed innocent 3rd parties, still can use LINUX, and any SCO IP in LINUX, the same as they always have! Today, LINUX business (downloads, distributions, upgrades, any renewable LINUX service contracts, etc… can appear to continue as usual with the apparent blessings of SCO. SCO has filed no claims against LINUX and has not proved that any LINUX code contains their non-GNU GPL’d IP. So – it appears that all the letters that SCO sent out warning some companies about their LINUX use AND this new license idea that they have now… are non-enforceable threats!

From: http://dictionary.law.com
agency
n. the relationship of a person (called the agent) who acts on behalf of another person, company, or government, known as the principal. "Agency" may arise when an employer (principal) and employee (agent) ask someone to make a delivery or name someone as an agent in a contract. The basic rule is that the principal becomes responsible for the acts of the agent, and the agent's acts are like those of the principal (Latin: respondeat superior). Factual questions arise such as: was the agent in the scope of employment when he/she ran down the little child, got drunk and punched someone, or sold impure wheat? There is also the problem of whether the principal acted in such a way as to make others believe someone was his agent-this is known as "apparent" or "ostensible" authority. When someone who is or is not an employee uses company business cards, finance documents, or a truck with the company logo, such use gives apparent authority as an agent.
See also: agent authority respondeat superior scope of employment

From: http://dictionary.law.com
apparent authority
n. the appearance of being the agent of another (employer or principal) with the power to act for the principal. Since under the law of agency the employer (the principal) is liable for the acts of his employee (agent), if a person who is not an agent appears to an outsider (a customer) to have been given authority by the principal, then the principal is stuck for the acts of anyone he allows to appear to have authority. This "apparent authority" can be given by providing Joe Slobovia (who has no authority to contract) with materials, stationery, forms, a truck with a company logo, or letting him work out of the company office, so that a reasonable person would think Joe had authority to act for the company. Then the contract or the price quote given by Joe and accepted by a third party is binding on the company. Apparent authority may also arise when Joe works for the company, has no authority to contract, but appears to have been given that authority. Beware of the salesman who exceeds his authority or the hanger-on who claims to work for the boss.
See also: agency ostensible authority

from: http://dictionary.law.com
ostensible authority
n. apparent authority to do something or represent another person or entity.
See also: ostensible agent apparent authority

from: http://dictionary.law.com
ostensible agent
n. a person who has been given the appearance of being an employee or acting (an agent) for another (principal), which would make anyone dealing with the ostensible agent reasonably believe he/she was an employee or agent. This could include giving the ostensible agent stationery or forms of the company, letting him/her use the company truck, telephone or desk in the company office. Businesses should be careful not to allow such situations in which an ostensible agent could bind the business on a contract or make the apparent employer responsible for damages for an accident, libel or assault by the "agent."
See also: ostensible authority apparent authority

It has been explained recently in a seminar, given by an expert who was advising the audience all about legal issues, that a principle is responsible for the actions of others that are their employees or others that represent themselves, or appear to one as being allowed by the principle to act on behalf of the principle.

The example given during the lecture was as follows (having to do with the laws of agency):

A shop owner goes into the back room and leaves the shop unattended. A customer (A) comes in and looks around. A second customer (B) comes in and looks around. Customer A then goes behind the counter and acts like an employee. Customer B then picks up an item, goes to the counter to buy this item, and asks the price. Customer A tells Customer B that the price is 90% off and sells the item for 90% off of the retail listed price.
Q: Is the sale to customer B final at the 90% off price? YES, according to the laws of agency there was an apparent or ostensible authority situation and the innocent 3rd party is not to be harmed (or told to pay the full price after the fact)!

SO - if this holds true for any product (as it will, as a product is not any different than any other product)... then, any and all IP owners that allow the IP to be sold or distributed can not AFTER the FACT (where the IP has been sold to or distributed to an innocent 3rd party customer)... they can not then, after a firm deal has been made final by any apparent or ostensible agent, go after the customer and cause them harm (by asking for payment of any kind as the terms and understandings of the original deal as made by the agent with apparent or ostensible authority are final and this WILL STAND up in court!

As it relates to the example above: SCO is a shop owner of their "claimed, but not proven to be theirs" IP. SCO has been in the back room for years while SCO's agents donated code to the LINUX and the GNU GPL. AND for years while SCO was in the front of the store... SCO watched, knew, and approved of other agents that were selling, distributing, and giving away LINUX. SCO also knew that distributors and various LINUX web sites were allowing downloads and use of LINUX and many of these sites were stating that support and upgrades would be always available (for fee or free, depending) for all LINUX users forever... As far a LINUX is concerned, since SCO can indeed be seen in this case as being a potential IP principle (or shop owner), and we LINUX users this case are the innocent 3rd party customers... the deal we acquired LINUX under has terms and conditions (either with a price tag attached, or not) that are binding AND still apply today AND will still apply tomorrow when SCO comes knocking and looking for money!

Why have you maybe seen this posted so many times?

Linux users need to know about this!
Many past, present, or future Linux users (who are threatened by SCO related FUD materials) may miss this information about apparent authority...as not one person in the LINUX press, the "regular press" or anyone from OSI, FSF, IBM, Red Hat, SuSE, etc... are advising individuals or business users of this seemingly overlooked area of the law!

AND SO -
This is posted repeatedly here and on other sites to give the folks who only visit such sites on occasion a notice that they should be knowledgeable about the fact that apparent authority may offer them the ability to continue to use LINUX without fear.

LINUX use should be considered a use not unlike using any product (erase any discussion about any IP). One does not buy a CD player in a store and think of buying the whole list of IP that is licensed for it... a customer is buying a complete product with warrantees that are guaranteed by the manufacturer. When we download, contract for, and/or buy anything to do with LINUX it is the same! Everyone is so focused on this IP issue that they are not seeing the forest thru the trees!

A copy of a similar post about apparent authority has been sent by regular snail mail to IBM's legal team and to Eben Moglen, the FSF general counsel ( http://emoglen.law.columbia.edu/ )

It would be nice if some court somewhere would uphold this apparent authority fact so that it would be a matter of court record. If this happened then all SCO material that is FUD related would vanish! SCO would then have only one option and that would be to get to court quickly to attempt to prove their IP claims. When SCO's IP claims are a matter of court record (and a judge states that it is public record)... then any (if any) code in conflict can and will be corrected!

The sooner, the better!
For now, be advised that agency laws relating to apparent authority exist to protect innocent 3rd party buyers/users of products!

If you want to help spread the word about this then please send e-mails or letters to any or all that you think should be advised. Be sure to let them know that a legal opinion regarding this apparent authority law, and SCO's legally made licensing statements, against ALL of LINUX... is needed in this case!

Part B:

Additional information can be obtained by searching google for the legal terms listed (many extended educational URLs are discovered by this search)!

1- apparent authority
2- ostensible authority
3- ostensible agent
4- ACQUIESCENCE (new word not discussed in Part A )

For example: A search on the term "apparent authority" gives us a very interesting Power Point Presentation file at the below URL to view (can also use OpenOffice to view the presentation):


  http://facstaff.law.wisc.edu/gsmith/docs/Agency.A<nobr>u<wbr></nobr> thority.ppt

Note: From a slide found in the above PowerPoint presentation we run into a word called acquiescence. It seems that this word may also play in the description of SCO’s actions, or lack of, as well!

acquiescence is not in the first law dictionary I used (so I used a search of google brings up some cases that refer to he use of the word).

However, another law dictionary here
http://www.lectlaw.com/def/a150.htm
said this:

"ACQUIESCENCE - The consent which is impliedly given by one or both parties, to a proposition, a clause, a condition, a judgment, or to any act whatever.

When a party is bound to elect between a paramount right and a testamentary disposition, his acquiescence in a state of things which indicates an election, when he was aware of his rights will be prima facie evidence of such election.

The acts of acquiescence which constitute an implied election, must be decided rather by the circumstances of each case than by any general principle.

Acquiescence in the acts of an agent, or one who has assumed that character, will, be equivalent to an express authority."

So when we go back to http://dictionary.law.com/
For what is "express authority" we find this:

authority
n. permission, a right coupled with the power to do an act or order others to act. Often one person gives another authority to act, as an employer to an employee, a principal to an agent, a corporation to its officers, or governmental empowerment to perform certain functions. There are different types of authority, including "apparent authority" when a principal gives an agent various signs of authority to make others believe he or she has authority; "express authority" or "limited authority," which spells out exactly what authority is granted (usually a written set of instructions) "implied authority," which flows from the position one holds and "general authority," which is the broad power to act for another.
See also: ostensible authority principal agency agent apparent authority authorize

From other readings from our google searches… we also learn that:
The laws that concern agency, also create a method by which a principle can notify the public, and the customers, that an employee of theirs is out of their control (or agent with apparent or ostensible authority) and thereby notify the public and any customers that this agent is not able to represent the company or principle anymore.

SCO, it appears, is now caught in this area of law's bind. AS SCO allowed this area of LAW to bite them, by the actions, and lack of actions, caused by SCO's own hand!

So, again please understand this:

1- An employer, or principle, must keep control of employee’s actions.
Example:

From a previous Newsforge NewsVac post...

Anonymous Reader writes: Part of SCO's complaint against IBM is that IBM should not have helped Linux by adding JFS. Looking at the history of JFS on Linux is therefore interesting.

First read Steve Best of IBM announces JFS 1.0.13. Read the post, and you'll notice 5 contributions by a "Christoph Hellwig".

So who is this Christoph Hellwig? He appears to have been a Caldera (former name of The SCO Group) employee posting from a @caldera.de address.

Did he and SCO/Caldera know what IBM were doing with JFS? Well I can't say for sure... but he does appear on the kernel mailing list fairly frequently. It also appears this gentleman might have been working on Linux JFS while at Caldera/SCO in March 2002.

Also on the mailing list, you'll also find more recent posts by presumably the same Christoph Hellwig, who now says he is a former employee of SCO/Caldera."
------------------------

Folks, Christoph Hellwig had at least the apparent authority to do add code and make suggestions, etc.
As the employee was working for SCO then there is not doubt that this employee had authority to put code into, AND HELP in with, the LINUX project as an agent that represented SCO. AND if SCO employees did not have approval by management then they, he or she… still had the apparent authority to add code to the LINUX GNU GPL body of work (and thus involved SCO directly in the whole LINUX kernel development process).
---------------------

2- A principle, must be aware of those that are acting with either apparent or ostensible authority... and there is a LEGAL path that must be followed to take away that authority. SCO’s mangagement, employees and agents over the years, were aware of SMP, etc… in LINUX code as they were working on this code themselves. SCO watched (hereby maybe the word ACQUIESCENCE comes into play with apparent or ostensible agent/authority words) as everyone started using this LINUX code, they even exposed themselves to the LINUX GNU GPL, and all the while they appeared to everyone else as approving of all use of any code in LINUX and SCO made no legal action to stop ANY LINUX AGENT or user from distributing, downloading, buying, contracting for or simply using it for personal or commercial use (thereby approving of the price of the terms of use for all the innocent 3rd party customers)!

YES, there are areas of the LAW designed to protect the customers!
SCO is bound by the terms and conditions of use as laid out in the LAW! SCO also has to respect these terms and conditions as defined by the terms of the deals that each individual innocent 3rd party customer entered into when they acquired their copy(s) of LINUX. AND SCO is also bound the LINUX license (GNU GPL) as they were both contributors, users, and distributors of the LINUX code in question!

One way for a business to commit suicide is to not control the actions of employees and/or control the actions of those with apparent or ostensible authority... to the point where it gets out of hand!

SCO, as far as their interest is concerned (and their interest is only a seemingly simple claim on IP that they may or may not own, as a product)..., well lets just say that SCO let things get out WAY out of hand. A lack of previous action by SCO is the reason why any 3rd party innocent customers, that obviously had 100% LINUX use approval previously from SCO – due to actions that took on the appearance of acquiescence and by the very existence and actions of SCO’s apparent or ostensible authority enabled agents, in the LINUX area that SCO and all of SCO’s agents, were 100% involved in…, covering all the aspects of LINUX (acquire, use, and upgrade), for a long time before any LINUX user started any kind of SCO claimed IP (and during), …anyway, these innocent 3rd party users/customers, CAN NOT now BE HARMED by SCO while SCO scrambles and attempts to try to correct their own "lack of control of ALL their IP related mistake(s)". THE LAW SAYS SO!

If anything, SCO is guilty of not having a working system of checks and balances in place FOR YEARS AND YEARS! This problem was evident from top management down to programmers who where contributing code to LINUX... and SCO can not now make any innocent 3rd party PAY for SCO’s own mistakes!

Important things to remember:

1 - SCO's evidence of code ownership and their ownership of UNIX is shown to be false at this site:
http://www.opensource.org/sco-vs-ibm.html
2. - Today, SCO can not harm any current LINUX (or AIX ) customer as ALL products contain IP and software is not unique to be different legally than any other product that a consumer would acquire- it is apparent that the LAW says so! SCO's involvement in all aspects of developing and selling LINUX and where the words ACQUIESCENCE, Agents, Authority, apparent or ostensible authority/agents, etc... become important to this case means that ANY innocent 3rd party can not be harmed by SCO today (or maybe for anytime in the future as well)!
3 - The LINUX GNU GPL forbids any entity from making claims, or taking actions, like the one(s) that SCO is planning!

#

Per GrokLaw comments- Users are NOT infringers!

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on September 01, 2003 08:40 PM
If users are not infringers then SCO can no have any claim against users at all... interesting stuff! So who can SCO sue (if they can prove their IP claims are real and are free of the GNU GPL)?

Here are some interesting reader comments found in this section of GrokLaw:
Sunday, August 31, 2003
SCO's Servers Keeping Banker's Hours
-----------------------------------

pj, Maybe off topic, but front and center regarding your posting of a lawyers comments last tuesday.

On another site - there was a comment regarding the laws of agency defense and a reference to your lawyer's comment of last Tuesday, this posters comments in response to a post regarding a point of view that an AG would have with regards to protecting consumers (LINUX users in this case from SCO). Well, this Jon Schwartz posted a comment with regards to your lawyer's comment as follows:

"I think I've posted this before, but there is absolutely no legal foundation for an argument that third parties such as users of Linux are protected from liability for copyright or patent infringement by an implied warranty, or any other "good faith" argument. The GPL explicitly disclaims any warranty on GPL'd software--read it.

Assuming, for the sake of argument, that a court concludes that SCO's code was copied into Linux, then users and installers of Linux would be liable for copyright infringment, assuming they make a copy of Linux at some point in time.

As a practical matter, individual users won't get sued because the transaction costs are too high. But corporate users definitely could be targets".

pj - do you, or this lawyer you mentioned last tuesday, or anyone else, have a comment about his comment?
annon • 8/31/03; 12:56:35 PM
---------------------
annon,

Yes, I've often thought of this myself. The analogy "if it turns out that a book has been plagiarised, are all the readers liable for copyright infringement" is not valid, because in the eyes of the law you are making a copy when you install software and also when you "copy" it into RAM in order to execute code. Whereas, of course, you can read a book without copying it.

In my non-legal opinion, it's a valid argument. Of course it sits outside of the two other major arguments (is there actually any such code, and what about SCO's GPL release of it).

I wonder, though, if the good faith argument might also be helpful - if you couldn't possibly have known that the act of installing the software was infringing, and you act prompty to remedy the action (i.e. use a cleaned up kernel as soon as one is released) then the courts wouldn't be likely to make a substantial award against you. This might be total tosh of course.
Dr Drake • 8/31/03; 1:15:40 PM
-------------------------
DR DRAKE:

TITLE 17 - COPYRIGHTS CHAPTER 1 - SUBJECT MATTER AND SCOPE OF COPYRIGHT -HEAD- Sec. 117. Limitations on exclusive rights: Computer programs -STATUTE- (a) Making of Additional Copy or Adaptation by Owner of Copy. - Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106, it is not an infringement for the owner of a copy of a computer program to make or authorize the making of another copy or adaptation of that computer program provided: (1) that such a new copy or adaptation is created as an essential step in the utilization of the computer program in conjunction with a machine and that it is used in no other manner, or (2) that such new copy or adaptation is for archival purposes only and that all archival copies are destroyed in the event that continued possession of the computer program should cease to be rightful.
gumout • 8/31/03; 2:09:24 PM
Annon - Your source said: "there is absolutely no legal foundation for an argument that third parties such as users of Linux are protected from liability for copyright or patent infringement by an implied warranty, or any other "good faith" argument. The GPL explicitly disclaims any warranty on GPL'd software--read it."

That is a non sequiteur - the GPL has nothing to do wiht it. Copyright law doesn't allow pressing claims against end users, only infringers. When Alex Haley was sued for infringing (Roots had some work in it that he had misappropriated), the author of the infringed work didn't go after the readers, or the publisher<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... Haley was the infringer. If I buy a boxed Linux from RH, or download Gentoo, I have not infringed, because thye are doing the code writing and compilation.

Section 102(b) of the Copyright Act provides: In no case does copyright protection for an original work of authorship extend to any idea, procedure, process, system, method of operation, concept, principle, or discovery, regardless of the form in which it is described, explained, illustrated, or embodied in such work.

In Baker v. Selden, 101 U.S. 99, 25 L.Ed. 841 (1879) the Court concluded that those aspects of a work, which "must necessarily be used as incident to" the idea, system or process that the work describes, are also not copyrightable. 101 U.S. at 104. Selden's ledger sheets, therefore, enjoyed no copyright protection because they were "necessary incidents to" the system of accounting that he described. From this reasoning, we conclude that those elements of a computer program that are necessarily incidental to its function are similarly unprotectable.

There is also the "doctrine of mreger"<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... The doctrine's underlying principle is that "[w]hen there is essentially only one way to express an idea, the idea and its expression are inseparable and copyright is no bar to copying that expression." Under these circumstances, the expression is said to have "merged" with the idea itself. In order not to confer a monopoly of the idea upon the copyright owner, such expression should not be protected.

CONTU recognized the applicability of the merger doctrine to computer programs. In its report to Congress it stated that: copyrighted language may be copied without infringing when there is but a limited number of ways to express a given idea<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... In the computer context, this means that when specific instructions, even though previously copyrighted, are the only and essential means of accomplishing a given task, their later use by another will not amount to infringement.

Feist Publications, Inc. v. Rural Tel. Serv. Co., (1991) teaches that substantial effort alone cannot confer copyright status on an otherwise uncopyrightable work.
Tsu Dho Nimh • 8/31/03; 2:16:13 PM
--------------------------
gumout - ah okay, I was thinking of UK law (in which there is lots of precedent that executing code does involve making a copy).

In any case, there's still going to be plenty of copying going on whenever linux is deployed internally in a company (anyone who makes up some sort of internal distribution is obviosuly going to be copying, and most companies will not buy one redhat CD per seat)
Dr Drake • 8/31/03; 2:17:24 PM
-----------------------
Dr Drake and annon,

IANAL but, From the Copyright Act:

§ 117. Limitations on exclusive rights: Computer programs

(a) Making of Additional Copy or Adaptation by Owner of Copy. — Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106, it is not an infringement for the owner of a copy of a computer program to make or authorize the making of another copy or adaptation of that computer program provided:

(1) that such a new copy or adaptation is created as an essential step in the utilization of the computer program in conjunction with a machine and that it is used in no other manner, or

(2) that such new copy or adaptation is for archival purposes only and that all archival copies are destroyed in the event that continued possession of the computer program should cease to be rightful.

The first limitation allows you to copy the program from the distribution medium to permanent medium (eg., CD to disk drive) and from the disk to memory (to run it); both are "essential steps" in the use of the program.

Sounds to me like "using a program" is exactly like "reading a book"; and the statute clearly says "it is not an infringement".
Dick Gingras - SCO caro mortuum erit • 8/31/03; 2:20:26 PM

#

IF you really want to get SCO's attention, then...

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on August 31, 2003 10:37 PM
Then, file a complaint against SCO with your attorney general's office of the state where you elect your attorney general. The attorney general's office is there for you to use! In some states, once you file an official complaint, then the company that you are complaining about will receive a copy of that complaint. As a commercial or non-commercial LINUX user (or an embedded LINUX device user), if you want to fire a shot direct into SCO's legal department then this is one sure way to do it.

You can also contact your attorney general's office and notify them of SCO's actions...! AND if you do this to avoid having your complaint sent directly to SCO, then make sure that you let the attorney general's representative(s) know that it is your desire to notify th AG about SCO's threats at this time... but, for legal reasons, that you want to keep a low SCO related profile for now, at least until SCO becomes more aggressive toward commercial and/or non-commercial LINUX users - aka proof that they are sending invoices).

Some of the attorney general's offices have on-line complaint filing process where you can use the internet to access their comsumer protection or fraud division (or anti-trust division) and follow their online help instructions from there!

#

Download or payment not needed!

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on August 30, 2003 10:11 PM
I have been using Linux for over 3 years now. I have never downloaded an ISO or had to pay for a boxed distro (I have purchased boxed distros to support the companies and stores that carry them, but I already had the distro installed before I made the purchase.) Why? I participate in my local Linux user group. My history:

-SuSE 6.4 - first distro won as a door prize at my first user group meeting.
-Red Hat 6.2 - copied for me at a user group meeting when I asked for it
-Red Hat 7.1 - asked on the user group mailing list and exchanged burned CDs for blank ones.
-Red Hat 7.3 - won as a door prize at an install fest put on by the user group.
-Red Hat 8.0 - again, exchanged with a user group member for blanks.
-Red Hat 9 - simply given to me, no blanks required, but another group member.

I have also recieved and handed out various other Linux distros including Slackware, Knoppix and K12LTSP. If someone I know wants Linux, I make or get them a copy from the group.

If you use your user group, downloads are not necessary! Don't you have a user group?

#

Good documentation! Now take it to state AG and..

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on August 30, 2003 11:30 PM
Good documentation!
Now if you and your user group all file a history of your LINUX GNU GPL software product posession with your state's attorney general office, along with a request that the state make SCO back off from their threats toward commercial and non-commercial LINUX users... then, the AG office would take your complaint and they could then also document your proof of ownership of legally obtained copies of GNU GPL LINUX (because a proof of acquisition is part of the facts of the complaint). Then, get everyone else that you know to do the same! Just a suggestion!

The only problem with filing a complaint with the state is that sometimes the state will have to notify the company that you are complaining about that you are complaining. SO, if SCO gets mad at you for filing a complaint against then and then if SCO sues you on the basis of IP LAW - there are estimates that to defend yourself against an IP suit that it could cost lots of money (I heard one figure of at least 1 million dollars)! Make sure you have a conversation with the attorney generals office about that possibility and ask if they can also protect you from such a suit.

#

Linux needs games

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on September 04, 2003 02:56 AM

So we have adults in a couple of years that got used to Linux.

#

The tidal wave?

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on August 30, 2003 10:20 PM
All the Linux community needs to do now is to standardize an idiot-proof, non-technical method of installing/uninstalling all Linux apps and Linux will sweep the desktop.

Most fast food restaurants seem to implement some pretty <A HREF="http://games.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=03/06/28/0611200&mode=thread&tid=127&tid=186&tid=207" TITLE="slashdot.org">spiffy toys</a slashdot.org> in their kids meals. They do this because they know that if kids want it, most parents give it to them. I'm 16 and do a computing class at school that is full of the usual geeks. I'm the only one that is using linux full time. Two others have installed it, only to give up after some confusion. The rest wont touch it mostly for one simple reason: games.

Following the fast food philosophy, if you move the future geeks - that have grown up with drag & drop (and no command line), you may start getting their familys, and others, to follow.

If linux-loaded pcs make it to more shops they are still not looking to be on great ground if this force of game-playing drag-n-drop geeks are not on linux's side. They are the most influential people in their familys', (and sometimes relatives) purchasing of a computer, if they know linux has no games, they are going to tell their family to buy a windows pc.

For this reason, I don't really believe the desktop will be flushed out by linux pcs quite so easily. It may take a fair while.

#

Game Geeks

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on August 31, 2003 12:43 AM
This is just from my experience, so I cannot garuntee extrapolation to the rest of the world, but most game geeks that I know are not really computer geeks. They do learn some very good tricks to make their systems perform better, and in the process some even learn they "why", which is the best thing to know in any situation. But many of them just read the buttons to click and lines to change online, and follow instructions... They do not understand what it does, just what it results in. I do know of one game geek in my group of friends that is starting to learn more, and even the other day started getting an interest in linux, yes one reason is to run game servers, but his favourite game right now does not run a linux game server... We will see.

#

Re:The tidal wave?

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on August 31, 2003 02:43 AM
And when you go for a job interview at someplace with umpteem Linux servers, you are going to say, "Well, I know how to play games really, really well on Windows computers..." I wish you luck in the future!

#

Re:The tidal wave?

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on August 31, 2003 02:55 AM
The situation is getting better slowly. Four to five years ago, aside from the pack-in games, the only commercial game you could really get was Quake. Today, there's still the old ID software offerings, plus Bioware's Neverwinter Nights, and Epic's Unreal Tournament 2003 off the top of my head. We have a mature OpenGL implementation (glx), and Simple DirectMedia Layer (SDL) APIs. Alsa has been integrated into the latest 2.5/2.6 kernels, so many of the audio woes will be resolved. Extensive scheduling tuning is happening on those same kernels, to ensure that interactive tasks remain usable. The things that are missing is mostly game ports at this point. Infrastructure is pretty much done, and some companies have even proven it works.

#

Re:The tidal wave?

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on August 31, 2003 11:13 PM
"drag-n-drop geeks" is an oxymoron. _Real_ geeks aren't scared of the command line.

#

Re:The tidal wave?

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on September 02, 2003 11:32 PM
Kids these days...

I don't believe that you can CALL yourself a _true_ computer geek and not at least know how to use GNU/Linux, BSD, or at least one of the Unices.

Drag and drop...Feh. The games in the old days, we had these magazines that would give us some BASIC code we'd have to type into our computer that would turn out to be some cheesy game. Oh, if the computer was turned off, we'd have to enter that AGAIN. There was no good way to save it. Ok, there were those cassette tape drives!

Anyway, my point is, if you want to learn computers for real, you need to get in the guts of it. And there is no better way than open-source operating systems. I'm not worried about trying to win over the Geeks. The true geeks won't be satisfied with any closed-source operating system. At least, not the closed-source alone.

I want to win over the consumers that want it to use it like a toaster. That's the challenge.

#

I agree..

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on September 03, 2003 01:12 AM
I see this as well, Game geeks "use" computers alot, they "talk" like they know computers but when it comes down to it they actualy "know" very little.

#

the author is correct

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on August 30, 2003 10:30 PM
I am seeing this also. I have had several people express more interest in Linux lately. I have given out several Knoppix disks and gotten very positive responses to them. One person I know was hit by the MSBlast worm and expressed total frustration with the problems he kept having with Windows. (which no longer was functional as a result of MSBlast BTW) I gave him a Knoppix disk and he took the disk home. It worked perfectly for him and allowed him to connect through his DSL and check his online mail etc. He came back and asked me what I thought would be a Linux he could load on his system. With him being new to Linux I suggested he do some looking at distrowatch.com and research the various choices. He narrowed it down to Lindows and Xandros and eventually chose Lindows. He bought a copy just prior to going on his vacation. I am looking forward to hearing how it went when he gets back from vacation.
Microsoft is so incompetent and their products are so bad that they are creating opportunities for Linux companies. All the Linux companies have to do is make sure their products deliver in a better manner than Microsoft. Build a btter mousetrap and the customers will come. We current users of the better mousetraps can help those trapped by Microsofts nasty mousetrap with simple friendly tips. Word of mouth is a great way to help the spread of Linux and requires no huge advertising budget, just a few disks and pointers.

#

Re:the author is correct

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on September 01, 2003 01:45 AM
Uhmmm<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.. why didnt you tell him to run Knoppix's hard drive install program? I mean if he liked knoppix why not keep using it? Its based on debian so its definitely solid... Lindows<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.. bad choice in my opinion

#

Re:the author is correct

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on September 01, 2003 10:45 AM
Why do you think Lindows is bad? I think it's wonderful. Yeah, you have to pay for the Click-N-Run so no big deal, I pay for all my os anyways. I have had no problems with it which I couldn't say for M$.

#

Re:the author is correct

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on September 04, 2003 12:51 AM
The big issue with Lindows is that it sets up the PC as a single user box running as root. All the headaches that Windows gives you with security exploits are now possible. This is absolutely the wrong way to set up a Linux box.

#

SCO, M$ vs. Linux

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on August 31, 2003 12:05 AM
Dop you forget that M$ was one of the original developers of SCO UNix?

SCO does see its OS being supplanted by Linux and M$ sees more and more opportunities for the end user to find an alternate OS. The US Army, so I have heard, has switched to MACs due to the virus problem. What fallout will this have?

NSA created SELinux and where will this go? If the US Government begins to look to Linux M$ will hear a great sucking sound.

Remember what Hitler said:
"Tell a lie loud enough and long enough and people will believe it."

There is not much differene between any monopolistsand despots.

Linux gets better and better, even given the uphill battle it faces. TCO is becoming more important. If you doubt that ask yourself why so many IT jobs are going to India and China. (Just wait until all those workers start landing in the USA.)

#

Re:SCO, M$ vs. Linux

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on August 31, 2003 11:30 AM
I thought MS had the NSA drop SELinux because it is against the law for government to go in competition with a private enterprise.

#

Re:SCO, M$ vs. Linux

Posted by: Tandyn Cutler on September 02, 2003 07:56 AM
Doesnt look like it!
http://www.nsa.gov/selinux/index.html

#

Knoppix for the Masses..

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on August 31, 2003 12:45 AM
Every payday I go down to WalMart and get a pack of 20 - 50 CDs and spend the weekend burning them at my convinience. I use a simple Sharpie marker to label the CD "Knoppix 3.2" and hand these out with a one page sample page about "How Linux can help you." These stuffed in plain CD envelopes that I pick up at the same place and we're set to roll!

Its Cheap, It's Fast and It Works!
If you would like to get the one page into in OpenOffice or M$ format please pop by:
CHAOS706.ORG and drop us a line!

#

Re:Knoppix for the Masses..

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on August 31, 2003 01:13 PM
Why don't you just PDF it and put it up on the site somewhere? (Preferably with a link somewhere on the front page)

#

Writer uses MSN Hotmail anyways

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on August 31, 2003 02:50 PM
Despite his pent up anger, Rick uses hotmail. Wonder why?

#

Re:Writer uses MSN Hotmail anyways

Posted by: OwlWhacker on August 31, 2003 05:13 PM
I have a Hotmail account too (although not for my main account), it's convenient, wastes Microsoft's bandwidth, and gets spam on Microsoft's servers. If I sign up to something, I use the Hotmail address.

Why not exploit the beast?

#

Re:Writer uses MSN Hotmail anyways

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on August 31, 2003 11:07 PM
Because the small amount of load you put on MS servers with your Hotmail account is not worth the publicity you give them by dropping your Hotmail address all over the Internet. "Oh another Hotmail user. I'll just use that too!"

#

Re:Writer uses MSN Hotmail anyways

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on September 01, 2003 12:15 AM
If you don't want your regular e-mail swamped (as with his e-mail posted here the web-crawlers will pick it up and start spamming very quickly to that address), then you set up a quick and dirty e-mail to do the trick - one that you can abandon as quick as it was set up. Can you imagine if everyone set up 30 hotmail accounts and just left them sitting there (and then did the same thing the next day OR the next week, whatever)? It really should not be done... but, just imagine!

#

Re:Writer uses MSN Hotmail anyways

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on September 01, 2003 04:55 PM
Strange...

I was thinking the exact same thing.

#

There is no ......

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on August 31, 2003 11:27 PM
As a computer repair technician, I can tell you one thing. What you guys think is easy, or idiot proof. It's extremely hard or unfathomable to the average user.

I actually had a woman call me once to ask me that her computer was set to check mail every 10 minutes, but wanted to know if it would check her mail with it turned off.

I have people that come in and say, "I just pushed the picture and the modem stopped working." Come to find out the picture was virus, and their whole computer won't boot.

You see, the average computer user literally shuts down their brain when they sit down infront of a computer. So to make a system "idiot" proof it needs to be equipt with AI and the ability to read minds.

#

Re:There is no ......

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on September 01, 2003 03:55 PM
I work in a computer store in the ghetto! Preach it brother beavis! You don't know an idiot until you talk with some ghetto-fabulous idiot. ghetto computer slang: CPU = "modem" I asked one lady what version of windows she was using and her EXACT words were "Windows? I don't know what that is. What? Do I need more windows or something? I don't know what that is."

#

Re:There is no ......

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on September 02, 2003 01:48 AM
Computers where never ment for the brain dead. - I feel your pain.

#

gates and mcbride

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on September 01, 2003 02:02 AM
has anyone actually seen gates and mcbride at the same time?
i theorize that they are in fact one and the same person.
just peel off the mask and you'll find the head of a penis with the horns of satan.

#

Idiot Proof Apps

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on September 01, 2003 02:27 AM
All the Linux community needs to do now is to standardize an idiot-proof, non-technical method of installing/uninstalling all Linux apps and Linux will sweep the desktop

I totally agree with this point and mainly there are 2 things that need to be added to included with install linux to make it more widely accepted.

Yesterday I helped my freind Install Linux and have come to the conclusion that it is great the only thing that I have against it is that there are a couple of things that should be incoluded at install.

First there should be some media player included with red hat that plays videos Im talking about mpg's and avi's. After searching the internet for numerous hours i got a couple of media players including real realone and a couple of others real's install screwed up and real one i cant get to open the movies the others installed but I couldnt figure out where it went for the life of me. None of the preinstalled media players could play any of the videos opening the videos just gave an error that no viewer was installed. Red Hat 10 should include all the codecs and a media player that plays them built into the audio/video section.

The second thing you need to make linux really fly is some really good 3d games i.e. counter strike. This coupled with an easy install process and linux will be 30x better than it is right now.

#

Re:Idiot Proof Apps

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on September 01, 2003 03:25 AM
The reason some distros don't include them, I think, is because there's a potential for a lawsuit. (patent issues?!)

There are plenty of media players for linux, like <A HREF="http://www.mplayerhq.hu/" TITLE="mplayerhq.hu">mplayer</a mplayerhq.hu> and <A HREF="http://xinehq.de/" TITLE="xinehq.de">xine</a xinehq.de>. Xine seems to have a more decent GUI, but I personally prefer mplayer.

#

Re:Idiot Proof Apps

Posted by: Peter Robertson on September 01, 2003 05:44 AM
Totem is a fine little player that uses xine libs, you can get it from freshrpms.net I quite like it myself.

#

Re:Idiot Proof Apps

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on September 01, 2003 10:58 AM
Actually if install software in Lindows Click-N-Run you can also uninstall it, easily. Red Hat doesn't include MP3 players like XMMS because of the patents. So try Lindows, Suse or Mandrake. Their all good.

#

Re:Idiot Proof Apps

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on September 04, 2003 12:54 AM

The second thing you need to make linux really fly is some really good 3d games i.e. counter strike. This coupled with an easy install process and linux will be 30x better than it is right now.


UT 2003
Neverwinter Nights
America's Army

That's three off the top of my head. Anyone else?

#

A way to install software that works

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on September 01, 2003 05:02 AM
emerge [package]
emerge update world

Courtesy of Gentoo GNU/Linux

#

Re:A way to install software that works

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on September 01, 2003 08:29 AM
Gentoo GNU/Linux install isn't exactly the most user-friendly I ever heard...<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;)

#

Re:A way to install software that works

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on September 03, 2003 05:24 AM
You don't expect the average user to install an OS for themselves either do you?

#

Re:A way to install software that works

Posted by: noshellswill on September 03, 2003 12:15 PM
Do it all the time, padre. While they automagically keep the kernel fresh, updating RedHat MM is damned near impossible for a non-weenier-dude.

#

Re:A way to install software that works

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on September 05, 2003 01:48 AM
If you have several days of online time to waste downloading over a dialup connection or you are lucky enough to have broadband in your area.

#

Linux user since 1996

Posted by: Mandrake Magician on September 01, 2003 10:14 AM
A) While I do have a stack of burned CD's, the copies of Linux I actually use were boxed. Some were bought at bricks retail stores others were bought at clicks retail stores. Free doesn't fund legal defenses<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... so I make certain I channel some money back into the fray. I certainly hope others give this some deeper thought, too. No bucks, no yucks.

B) My wife and I use Linux exclusively. She boots to my copy of Mandrake 9.0 via LTSP. There is nothing we need to use that did not either come with the distro or arrive via DSL. Nuttin'. She surfs and does e-mail<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... a typical casual user. I host my own web site, smtp server, ftp server, ntp server and samba server (I know I'm leaving something off) and also create the web site & contents. A typical 'power user'.

C) We don't need no stinkin' Windows. For us, Windows is an irrelevancy and fading in the rearview mirror.

#

If MS's so bad...

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on September 01, 2003 10:32 AM
If MS's so bad, why am I seeing their ads plastered all over this site. Hypocrits. You'll bash their company, you'll bash their products, and you'll sell out and take their money in return for promoting their products.

That's no different than the government advertising cocaine on government websites because kingpins paid them to do it and they can't say no to money. "Say no to drugs! : Buy Jane's Cocaine" "Say No to MS : Buy Windows SBS 2003."

Linux.com. Sheesh. Take your own advice, and tell MS to kiss off. Isn't that what you tell all your readers to do?

#

Re:If MS's so bad...

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on September 01, 2003 10:37 AM
I know I said Linux.com instead of OSDN or Newsforge, but the message is still the same (so is the company).

#

Re:If MS's so bad...

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on September 01, 2003 01:45 PM
Well, we can let their money fund our cause, do you actually look at banners?? I simply only show cached images (I use Opera) and then I don't see their stupid banner but newsforge gets their money to do what they need, so what is the point of going off topic anyway?

leonpmu

#

Re:If MS's so bad...

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on September 02, 2003 03:13 AM
"Well, we can let their money fund our cause, do you actually look at banners?"

Obviously I did, or I wouldn't have made the post. It doesn't matter than you use Opera or cache a site, that's not the issue. The issue is we have an online publication who's telling us how bad MS is whenever they feel like it, but then go and show that they have no ethics by doing business with the company they're telling everyone else to avoid.

I don't see why this is so hard to understand, and it's not off topic in the sense that this article was another "MS is evil" post and the entire article was decorated in MS ads. Even as I type this reply, I have Visual Studio.net ads on the site.

The whole double standard of "it's ok to do business with MS when it helps our cause, but you shouldn't do business with them" is sickening. How can you expect anyone to take you seriously when you're saying one thing and doing another?

I find it even more ironic that MS is the only company keeping OSDN / Newsforge afloat. Why else would an organization so hell bent on seeing the fall of MS do business with them. Perhaps they need a new business model.

#

Re:If MS's so bad...

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on September 02, 2003 10:58 PM
...MS advertising on Linux sites a good thing. Click on the banner ad and force MS to send some money to OSDN/linux.com/whoever for the click-through. You don't have to actually buy their crapware, y'know.

#

idiot proof? uh... no

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on September 01, 2003 03:51 PM
It would be nice to have an idiot proof distro. If you can come up with one you'll be a billionare! But there's one problem with that. No matter how idiot proof you think something is, there's always someone stupid enough to prove you wrong. And unfortunately with computers, there is a HUGE gap between those that program like me, those that just surf the net, and those that buy a computer but are so stupid they're aftaid to turn the thing on. I do think there should be an EASIER and more standardized way to install apps from source, which is in my opinion one reason why Linux hasn't caught on more. Idiot proof, not by any means, but it's getting there. It's getting there.

#

Linux is (or will be) an MS product

Posted by: Hyperbunny on September 01, 2003 04:21 PM

M$ is, and always has been, an application shop (if, like me, you consider interpreters to be applications). They've periodically accidentally stumbled into operating systems, usually purchased or (allegedly) ripped-off from some other company (DOS = SCC DOS, Windows = Xerox, NT = OS/2) Why will Linux be any different? It's a virtual territory which they will aim to dominate by overwhelming marketing capability rather than force of arms. With the budgets the M$ marketing division have access to there won't even be a fight. I'm willing to bet that in ten years time the general public will think that Linux is an M$ product anyway.

If M$ adopts Linux as its OS platform the lost revenue on operating systems will be more than compensated by the reduced cost of maintenance and customer support (if M$ have ever heard of such a thing) and they won't have to pay so much in legal fees to defend their anti-trust position. Most of the Windows platforms have been effectively given away with new hardware anyway, so this is hardly a new concept for M$. Alternatively, knowing that the OS platform is likely to become 'free' to the public they may release their own version of Linux (enter SCO stage left) as freeware and gently steer the interface away from the Linux standard over a period of time (seen J#?) until they've achieved critical mass and can start charging people through the ring-piece again.

The most irritating thing about all this is that the (expletive deleted)s will probably get away with it.

#

Re:Linux is (or will be) an MS product

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on September 02, 2003 10:54 PM
...ripped-off from some other company (DOS = SCC DOS, Windows = Xerox, NT = OS/2)


Actually, NT == VMS.

#

Re:Linux is (or will be) an MS product

Posted by: Hyperbunny on September 04, 2003 08:55 PM
Really? I thought it derived from the Dietel & Kogan stuff in terms of the kernel which came out of the IBM OS/2 stable. I know Cutler (Digital) was in charge of the development team but I was under the impression that they continued with the OS/2 kernel platform and then glued the Windows 3.1 GUI on top.
I was working for a bank on OS/2 (too long ago) and a rather sheepish IBM SE called a top-secret meeting to explain that M$ and IBM had fallen out and M$ had decided to go their own way with "a product called NT"
Who cares? it's just another example that they're a maintenance shop not a software house.

#

MicroSoft LP (Linux Powered) Anyone?

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on September 01, 2003 04:46 PM
What if MS is leveraging to incorporate Linux into Windows? What are the strenghs of linux? The comunity. A monoply like MS cannot compete with the community because there are millions who test and contribute code and bug fixes. MS sucks, even they must know this. What are the weaknesses of linux? Properity code. DVD, hardware, printers scanners etc. There are work arounds, but there are legal exposure that prevents a distro from putting a full multimedia suite in their distro. And you must learn a skill set to get your box to work. Games for linux. A big complant and a reason why many young people don't use linux, or use both linux and windo
ws.

  What if MS is trying for a linux kernal that is properity, and one they could defend in court. Microsoft LP, for $200.00. No legal problems, They could screw Linus, and you have a product that does everything including MusicMatch Ogg Vorbis

  And they could use freeware. Screwing the communnity.And you could make money with linux. Linux with a MS GUI. It would look the same as windows, and have drivers for all the propitery stuff. Apt, Rpm? Painless linux for a borg.

  And ensuring an american tax on the international community. A money maker like windows, with the right marketing, and non MS linux users reduced to a group of hobbyests. And communists. I can hear Ballmer now," Innovative Linux product with the polish of Microsort. Not a bunch of amuteurs. And with our brillant Microsoft code, it will work with linux and microsoft stuff seamlesslee. We are not a monopaly, but a provider of cutting edge software,as well as the freedom to use any hardware. that the customer wants."

#

Re:MicroSoft LP (Linux Powered) Anyone?

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on September 01, 2003 07:09 PM
Get real. They're too arrogant to even think of such a thing.

And I don't believe it could be *that* easy. Hmmm, don't know why, but Mac OSX comes to mind now...

And shouldn't the following apply:

1. Unobfuscated code
2. Improvements to the code must be given back

Anyhow, what I am more worried about, is why they put their release date for Longhorn at such a late date (2006/2007). Since I don't believe they intend to (or can) make this such a killer OS (well, maybe if you're into puns), they must count on something else. Question is, what? Do they support the SCO show in part to buy time? I'm just wondering what their strategie is against Linux.

Because if they don't have one, bye bye Billie Gates!

#

Nothings perfect

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on September 01, 2003 06:51 PM
I have to admit that I work in IT (DBA) and use NT4 at work (Not that I have a choice). However on my home built PC I use win98se and Suse8.0. Why? Because for a number of years I have been collecting games none of which can run on Linux yet. I can only hope that this will change. I am glad to see a number of games developers writing for Linux even though this only tends to be for using as servers. I would point out (to counter one other readers comment) that these tend to be RPGs, strategies and flight/space combat sims. So no learning moves.

The rest of the time I use Linux for surfing, paper work etc etc. Why? It's simpler, safer, quicker and easier. I don't do much coding because I am not that good and do enough at work. My parents got hit by the MSBlast virus and complained about it bitterly to their tech support(ME) so as a result I am going to install Linux on their PC and get them to give it a go. If it works and the connectivity and tools are available for scanners, cameras etc I will get rid of WINXP completely.


 

#

watch the ad's in and around...

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on September 01, 2003 09:54 PM
the title is: "Get your FREE 6-month trial now."
MicroSoft Windows Small Bussiness 2003 Server,
unintentionalls supports Linux!...

#

easy as pie!

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on September 02, 2003 12:40 AM
"All the Linux community needs to do now is to standardize an idiot-proof, non-technical method of installing/uninstalling all Linux apps and Linux will sweep the desktop. The Linux community should send a bottle of champagne to Bill Gates thanking him for his assistance in promoting Linux as the best operating system on the planet in the eyes of the press, and therefore in the eyes of the general public."

A community that has holy wars over text editors should have no problem agreeing on something! Heck look at how easy solving the "which desktop to use?" issue went!<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;)

Not trolling but Linux has aways to go before it can effectively go after the desktop and win. In a software community built on creation of code through cooperation you would think cooperating to make some simple decisions for the desktop would easy, but we have seen that it is not so. The closest thing I have seen to a decent desktop setup for the public was redhat's bluecurve, I thought it was fantastic for public consumption, even though I am a debian nut.

When the community is ready to approach making a desktop for joe/jane sixpack who don't want details, or too many choices, then and only then will the desktop truly be won. Until then we will see things like Sendmail being included even in desktop setups, which is something the average user needs as much as RPC holes under windows.

#

Desktop decisions

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on September 02, 2003 02:53 AM
Isn't that what these people are supposed to do?

http://www.desktoplinuxconsortium.org/

#

Linux desktop

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on September 02, 2003 07:16 PM
"A community that has holy wars over text editors should have no problem agreeing on something! Heck look at how easy solving the "which desktop to use?" issue went!<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;)"

Speaking of that, I think that every desktop out there for Linux is too ugly for the average consumer. Operating Systems are all about 3D rendering, transparency (true transparency, not KDE's sad attempt at it), alpha bending, shading. It's all about looks and eye candy.

Average consumers don't want functional, they want good-looking. Substance is irrelevant.

#

Re:Linux desktop

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on September 03, 2003 10:15 AM
i like functionability, others want what looks pretty. Perhaps we should form a GNOME Distro that looks pretty

#

idiot-proof install of apps =

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on September 03, 2003 06:30 PM
idiot-proof install of apps = statically linked apps

The problem with installing apps is the "dependency hell". To avoid-it you can :
1) have a powerfull database of dependencies (like Debian, RedHat, Gentoo,<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...) => doesn't work in real life
2) not care about (Slackware)
3) avoid any dependency in the first place, with applications beeing self-contained (Opera, TextMaker, OpenOffice,<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...)

Wich means the OS has minimal functionality (boot + network protocols + hardware drivers) and ALL apps are statically linked. Developpers should care about libraries, not the users. Mr Smart Guy who speaks fluently C++ has the time and competence to know where the header and include and source files are, Mr Joe Dumb no.

CQFD.

zozo

#

Does Microsoft really need Linux?

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on September 04, 2003 03:52 AM
Is it possible that Microsoft is trying to find a way to assimilate Linux? Hey if Apple can rip out is OS foundation and replace it with FreeBSD, why not the same for Windows?

Image paying through the nose for a Microsoft product running on top of a now proprietary Linux engine licensed by SCO......

Just a thought.

#

Re:Does Microsoft really need Linux?

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on September 04, 2003 08:34 PM
I had thought about, and worried about that myself.

I mean, if SCO gets away with its "All your Linuces are belong to us" extortion scam, and Microsoft has got its Eunuch's license from SCO, then I would expect to find the very next Windows to be largely Linux with a thin layer of Windows compatibility.

#

It's a WHO's WHO of RICH folks vs the GPL!

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on September 04, 2003 07:37 PM
Below is more from GROKLAW - where names like McBride, Bill Gates, Michael Dell, Larry Ellison, and major investment banks, and big institutions such as CalPERS and the World Bank... all seem to mix together with a common motivation! Hmmm, have the rest of these folks been misled by Microsoft?

Question: Is this group of interested individual's McBride's "silent majority"? Do these names sound like the majority of the folks that live in your neighborhood?

4 Parts:

Part 1 - http://radio.weblogs.com/0120124/2003/08/22.html

            Slashdot Translation Snips of the Heise Interviews

Part 2 - http://radio.weblogs.com/0120124/2003/08/29.html

      Small World Dept.-- SCO and MS Have a Mutual Friend

Part 3 - From:
http://www.oreilly.com/catalog/opensources/book/l<nobr>i<wbr></nobr> nus.html
Book: Open Sources: Voices from the Open Source Revolution , Chapter: The Linux Edge, (by) Author of Chapter: Linus Torvalds (note: the whole book is a wonderful read and an education, I proudly have a copy right now in front of me)! Part 3 is a quote from Linus Torvalds showing HOW LINUX is different from other operating systems and showing how it's version of the GPL is different than the mainstream GPL.

Part 4 - Conclusion (after we have an education let us think WHY is it that forces are acting against the GPL)?

---------------
Part 1 - Quote from part 1 url (to support the point)

c't: You are acting fairly belligerent on this forum. You declared war against open source, since it becomes destructive for the software industry. Does the whole movement have to die so that a few software companies can live well?

McBride: Actually, that was more aimed at the GPL, not open source as a whole. There's a lot of very valuable effort in open source. But the extreme interpretation that nobody himself owns anything that he developed himself, that can't remain like this. With this, created value gets destroyed. The GPL must change or it will not survive in the long run. I have discussed with many exponents of the open source side about this already.

c't: And what did they tell you?

McBride: The spectrum of views is very broad. Let's put it this way: With some, I could discuss reasonably about the fact that a software company needs to earn money. But not with all of them, I could find a common denominator.
---------
Part 2 - Quote(s) from Part 2 url (to support the point)

Opening paragraphs of Part 2 url:
"An alert reader noticed that Integral Capital Management companies just filed a 13G with the SEC regarding its shares in SCO. Here's their SEC filing. Here's the SEC Search page for Integral. Here's a list of institutional owners of SCO, and you can see that as of June, Integral was already number one on the list with 4.0%. Now it's presumably 5% or more, hence the 13G.

Who are these people? I thought I'd just check and see who thinks SCO is worth buying right along about now. I was particularly interested because last Friday I noticed a surge in buying, and all week there was a spike of institutional sell messages, and then this Friday, it suddenly stopped. No sell or buy messages, as you can see on this chart. If you switch the chart to the entire month, you can easily see that after this huge and atypical increase, suddenly nothing. So I went digging". [stop]

from further into the Part 2 url:
"Silver Lake Partners, which launched in May 1999, raised $2.3 billion in a matter of months, attracting a who's who of Silicon Valley and Wall Street, including Bill Gates, Michael Dell, Larry Ellison, major investment banks, and big institutions such as CalPERS and the World Bank". [stop]

from end of Part 2 url:
"...and it also ties in with my long-held belief that the plan was to dump the GPL off a cliff, write a new kernel for UNIX, which will also do Windows, and then steal all the open source software applications they can find and let you run them as binaries on top of their kernel. In a word, yuck. Brand X Linux, for which you will pay a pretty penny, my friend. It seems there is a plan, and it looks to me now like Microsoft may really be part of it".

----------
Part 3 - Quote from Part 3 url (showing that GPL as applied to LINUX is different, as user applications are not affected by the GPL and folks can copyright and make money selling user applications with LINUX (making it an even playing field for all that are doing so (vs Microsoft where if you produce an application and Microsoft suddenly decides to do the same thing = you are screwed because it's MS's 50 Billion in the bank against you)!

Linus Quote: "We ended up deciding (or maybe I ended up decreeing) that system calls would not be considered to be linking against the kernel. That is, any program running on top of Linux would not be considered covered by the GPL. This decision was made very early on and I even added a special read-me file (see Appendix B) to make sure everyone knew about it. Because of this commercial vendors can write programs for Linux without having to worry about the GPL".

-----------------
Part 4 - Conclusion
Why are all these RICH folks attacking the GPL?
AND... in the first place, Why is this important for them to even do at all. Their actions are not understandable - because there is always going to be a free bus ride, there is always going to be a inexpensive car, and there is always going to be a very expensive car! AND all these cars... they all do the same thing - they get you from POINT A to POINT B, period. The same will hold true for software applications... the very expensive ones will be expensive for a reason, the cheap ones will cost what they do for a reason, and the free ones (ditto)!

The problem that Microsoft has understanding this is that they want to control and sell all three on their own terms and keep everyone else POOR.

Microsoft has been misleading folks for a long time about the GPL and Microsoft has it's reason for doing this -greed!

(additional summary comment) - I think that many are thinking (or have been misled to believe) that the GPL means every application that touches it becomes GPL'd, they are wrong!

#

This story has been archived. Comments can no longer be posted.



 
Tableless layout Validate XHTML 1.0 Strict Validate CSS Powered by Xaraya