The MAIN "SCO" (rant) thread (Please post in here)

**Citadel** · 07-11-2003, 05:02 PM

I'll make you a deal. I'll get my head examined and you can go have a beverage.

<Post edited by Alex Cavnar, aka alc6379. WATCH THE LANGUAGE!!!

>

**redhat81** · 07-11-2003, 10:50 PM

Citadel, he's right. It doesn't matter if the libs are open source or not, the bottom line is if they are old, they won't be used on ANY platform. You can still use old Windows libs on an old Windows distrobution and old open source libs on an old Linux distrobution, but I don't see why you'd want to run software that is obsolete on both (Like running a 2 year old Kernel, you're not forced to upgrade, but wouldn't you like to?).

You're not giving any arguments at all.

The argument I'm giving is that they both become obsolete. Don't tell me you've never upgraded your Linux system, because if you didn't, you wouldn't be able to do half the stuff out there.

**El_Cu_Guy** · 07-11-2003, 11:59 PM

Citadel doesn't have anything useful to post. Instead he's chosen to create an account and use this forum solely for the purpose of spouting off FUD and dish out insults.

I've noticed that he chooses to preach about IBM. Obviously he's quite unaware about IBM's future plans for GNU/Linux which they have made clear time and time again. I also find it rather odd that he fails to even mention the numerous other vendors or more specifically HP whose Linux business is not that dissimilar from IBM's. All these claims that Sun is out to own Linux yet no explanation of how. I remember this time of banter. It ran wild at Adequacy.org. Watch for something simlar to "I think you know how".

Come on and get preachy.

He has obviously chosen to utilize his misinformation to spread FUD. Amazngly enough the artcile which supposedly sparked all this has yet to be covered by other news sites.

Where's the support?

SCO and Sun are good friends

Based on what? An innacurate story at C|Net!?!

[i}POSIX blah blah blah[/i]

That was funny.

more POSIX blah blah blah

It was funny the first time. Now it's just dumb. POSIX doesn't mean Unix. Hell NT was POSIX (1.0) compliant at one time dammit!

Note: Microsoft chose to include a POSIX sublayer as to gain a military contract (some dumbass concluded that POSIX=UNIX).

POSIX
Acronym for Portable Operating System Interface for UNIX, a set of IEEE and ISO standards that define an interface between programs and operating systems. By designing their programs to conform to POSIX, developers have some assurance that their software can be easily ported to POSIX-compliant operating systems. This includes most varieties of UNIX.

The POSIX standards are now maintained by an arm of the IEEE called the Portable Applications Standards Committee (PASC).

Sun and Microsoft are financially backing the SCO lawsuit.

210,000 share at $1.83/share = $384,300. Holy crap they're really bankrolling SCO. Nah really they are, duh.

Maybe Sun's angle is to destroy IBM,

IBM is a very strong contender. Sun's wants IBM's customers. It's using the lawsuit to gain customer who are worried about whether or not IBM will idemnify them should they lose. Sure you could say it's spreading a little FUD. It's not enough to want to torch their corporate offices though. The Unix market is dwindling and HP, Sun and IBM all want to kepp as many clients as possible and even win some of their competitors' clients.

I think that IBM could build it's own libraries to replace Java, virtual machine and framework.

Have you checked out IBM's Java offering? Oh, you didn't know, oops sorry. Your idea isn't going to happen overnight. You did know that right?

What type of organizational structure would work with the GPL, probably heavily service based, like IBM. I think that Microsoft and Sun would not be able to support Linux very well because they want control.

Oh man. This really isn't funny. The only way to make a buck with GPL'd software is through service(s)? Did you learn nothing from the dot-bomb? Maybe you should do some checking into IBM's plans for GNU/Linux. HAHA!

I believe that Sun has controlling interests and it is not structured as a service organization.

Controlling interests in what? What part of GNU/Linux does Sun control? Do a little research into Java before you run off and answer that one (by the way it's not like Java is essential to the survival of Linux anyway).

Third, IBM focuses on middleware. It has an organic service based organizational structure, so if it provides some resources for software development as well as financing, it should not retain controlling interests in the platform but instead should profit through services. IBM is moving toward Linux with the right organizational model that will support it without controlling interst,

Ah the beauty of OSS. Oh how no one can hold a controlling interest. Oh no they control program X. Oh well, I guess we could always use programs A-V, Y and Z. I'm still waiting how you believe that Sun or anyone else could hold control over an open source platform. And please try to offer something intelligent rather than wishy washy.

Microsoft has total control over their platform and it is controlled from the top, so if the upper management wants to change something, than all Microsoft users are forced to accept it.

The everyone finally gave in and upgraded huh? Guess I'm the only ones still using Win98. That's the beauty of Windows. There's not that much need for many to upgrade because the newer version bring nothing new to the table.

Microsoft will force you to adopt new libraries that they repackage every few years because old libraries are discontinued and nobody can prevent that from happening because the libraries are not open source.

And other platforms don't!?! I believe this was already shot down. When you install Mozilla on Linux aren't you required to update certain libraries?

<remainder of this post edited to remove Citadel's ugly comment by Alex Cavnar, aka alc6379>

**Sepero** · 07-12-2003, 01:12 AM

Citadel, I don't think you are an incoherant idiot and I'm not going to disrespect you like some of the other members on this board(at least not when I'm being serious

). Whoever brought up Microsoft really threw this whole thread into a worthless frenzy of garbage. Microsoft hates the GPL because it disallows a company from creating a monopoly. For that same reason, I find it hard to believe that RH could ever be what MS has become. Now that I've said my piece on that ...

The article is on linux.org right now. Sun financially backed the SCO by purchasing Licenses and so did Microsoft. They also backed the SCO by supporting it. Maybe Sun's angle is to destroy IBM, however I don't see how Sun's business model is much different than Microsoft.

True, I think that every businesses number one goal is to have as close to a monopoly as possible, but Sun has released the source to Java. I don't know for sure, but is Solaris open source? In what (negative)ways is their business model similar to MS?

I think that IBM could build it's own libraries to replace Java, virtual machine and framework. It could also be a stronger language than Java, the langauge definition itself, that is, could support broader functionality from the beginning such as operator overloading and templates, therfore supporting more than one paradigm.

Knowing Java, I think that leaving out operator overloading and templates probably helped them more than anything. Anyway, if someone wanted to make a really successful new language, I think they are going to need to introduce some dramatically revolutional ideas, instead of just re-using the same old stuff(*cough* C# *cough*). If IBM does decide to do such a thing, it will probably take at least 5 years before we could see wide-spread use of such a language.

I don't trust Sun because of their business model, they are not organic enough, they are not as service based as IBM.

Yes, I don't think Sun is as service oriented as IBM, but I think they are kinda serving different fields. Can you define what you mean by "organic" for us?

The GPL does make a difference, very good point, however Linux is volnerable to any corporation that pushes their own non-GPL platform because those corporations are vying for centralized control, it is going to affect Linux's organic control model in a negative way. IBM would be a much better organization than Sun or Microsoft to support and nurture Linux because IBM's business model is organic, it's based on service.

I had to read that about 4-5 times to completely grasp your concept of it, but I pretty much agree. In freedom software, the real money isn't made in selling the software itself, but in selling support for it.

I think that a new middleware framework is possible, just look at how Mono is comming along, so if Ximian can do it, certainly IBM could because they have more resources. One way to have standards would be to have a secure user base. Than users of Linux could not be targets of conversion to Microsoft, and Microsoft would have to accept standards in order to communicate with the secure Linux world.

Perhaps instead of creating a sort of 'rival' to Mono, they could further Mono's apparently good efforts.

To everyone else:
A lot of you have had a nice long rant. Now can we at least give this guy a chance, or at least the rope to hang himself with. Thanks.

**redhat81** · 07-12-2003, 01:27 AM

I wouldn't say that Microsoft hates GPL because it prevents a monopoly, but rather, because it prevents ownership of intellectual property. Programs like Adobe Photoshop could not exist without being able to keep this property for itself.

**TOTALLYn00b** · 07-12-2003, 03:36 AM

k..thanks

**Alex Cavnar, aka alc6379** · 07-13-2003, 02:54 AM

I think this one's going sour...

Don't feed the trolls... mmmkay?

**slapNUT** · 07-13-2003, 06:29 AM

Read this:
SCO vs IBM
Then read this:
OSI position paper on the SCO-vs.-IBM Complaint.

**slapNUT** · 07-13-2003, 06:41 AM

Linux relies on an organic model in order to avoid vendor lock-in. It distributes control of libraries to the users through the GPL. The libraries will not become obsolete unless the users agree to them becomming deprecated. There is no overall strategy for Linux to force users to upgrade because there is no one single entity with controlling interests.

I agree there is no strategy to force users to upgrade, however Linux will not even run on an AT (286) style computer, however MS-Dos will.

Just look through the kernel changelogs to see all the technologies which are now "deprecated" i.e. no longer supported.

Many linux distros now require a minumum 586 to work.

You are not "forced" to upgrade, however neither is the 286 user if they can get by with DOS.

Also I have read both the SCO vs IBM complaint and the OSI position paper on the SCO vs IBM complaint and I can't see where any of this makes SUN an enemy of Linux?

**redhat81** · 07-13-2003, 07:14 AM

If anyone can give me an example of a forced upgrade, I'd like to hear it. I was forced to upgrade my VCR to a DVD player, I hope that doesn't count. I was also forced to upgrade my CD-RW to a DVD-RW because I wanted to burn DVD's. These hardware manufacturers!

**slapNUT** · 07-13-2003, 08:54 AM

I was forced to buy a CD player to replace my phonograph. Before that I was forced to buy cassette player to replace all my 8-track. Before that I was forced to buy a color TV because my black and white set wouldn't show me the "Wonderful World of Color" in anything but shades of grey. Before that I was forced to buy an AM/FM "Transistor Radio" because the AM radio I had would fade in an out while listening to a ball game. Before that I was forced to upgrade all my candles to electric lightbulbs. Before that I was forced to upgrade my cave to a log cabin.

But really I wasn't forced.

I could still be in my cave listening to my 8-tracks and AM radio while watching my black and white TV in the candle light.

**sharth** · 07-13-2003, 01:27 PM

hey, i hear that those caves had really nice ambience!

**Citadel** · 07-14-2003, 01:09 PM

I didn't think I'd have to let you in on this secret, but I guess I have to. Don't tell anyone but Microsoft is kissing my ***! Yes, it's true, because I don't buy any Microsoft products at all, and I don't need them, infact they are garbage. As far as I'm concerned the whole company is going to be garbage :+)

**sharth** · 07-14-2003, 04:34 PM

I've forgetten this thread, so Citdael, its called being competitive.

**mage492** · 07-14-2003, 07:09 PM

Linux actually can run on a 286. There's one distro, at least, that can even run on the pre x86. (I don't remember what it was called, but I could look it up, again, if people are interested.) There aren't many of these for REALLY old hardware, but they are out there.

True, more and more versions of Linux are being made for newer hardware, but... Hey, I collect and USE old hardware, but people who have the latest and greatest need cool stuff, too! If what you've already got works for you, though, why upgrade? (Yes, the caves DO have a nice ambience!

)

I admit that I don't know many of the details of the legal stuff happening, right now, but I believe in helping where I can, so here's my reply!

Thread: The MAIN "SCO" (rant) thread (Please post in here)

Thread Tools

Display

Posting Permissions