Why SCO UNIX Is A Bad Idea 312
Ashcrow writes "SCO UNIX has long boasted its 'true UNIX' code base, but is that really the case? A story running at The Jem Report looks into SCO's claims and holds it up to other UNIX variants to try and find validity for SCO's claims." The author has a bit of a chip on his shoulder, but worth reading for the comparison of various *nix's.
What if SCO wins? (Score:5, Insightful)
It's not just the code. Programmer comments embedded in Linux -- English-language descriptions -- are identical to those found in SCO's Unix code, according to SCO. There's even a typo in one of the commentaries in Unix System V that also appears in a Linux commentary. Extracting the controversial code is not really a feasible solution. Because of the way intellectual property (IP) laws work, derivative products that use the allegedly pilfered code are also subject to liability. Anyone who bundles suspect products, or uses them, is also conceivably on the hook.
My college roommate in my sophomore year, an electrical engineering student named Mike Foster, helped me coin that one. He had an answer for everything, and often it involved the death penalty, a flat tax or some other clean, simple solution that would have been absolutely insane to try in real life. Don't get me wrong. I stand in awe of people who can design transistors or even who can put up drywall. But there is arrogance inside the scientific mind, and it rarely knows when to stop.
Put the SCO argument another way: What if you found out something you had a hand in was now the basis of a multibillion-dollar empire? Would you want a slice, or denounce yourself as a fraud? SCO could also be really overplaying some minor copying. But we won't know until the evidence is in.
Why SCO UNIX is a bad idea. (Score:4, Insightful)
And as a server OS, SCO UNIXes are worse since not all of them (yes, they do have all different kinds - even worse) support such things as IPv6 or ACLs which any modern day operating system such as Linux should have. And they're attempting to sue Linux programmers? Who incidentally implemented features they don't have? Hmmm...
Besides, this article has nothing to do with the SCO lawsuit, editors. It's about comparing SCO to other Unices. (Though I presume everyone will make a comment about that anyway.)
One Reason (Score:5, Insightful)
But... (Score:2, Insightful)
At least, that's what I'm conditioned to think, and so far it's worked out.
Why I chose Sun (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:But... (Score:2, Insightful)
Very simple reasons (Score:5, Insightful)
Most people complain about the lack of driver support in Linux and BSD but its positively nonexistent in SCO. USB, SATA, Firewire, Sound, Video, high end nic's, backup devices the support isn't there. VMware and Virtual PC both won't support SCO. BOCHS will but only with an incredible amount of effort. This situation is not going to improve especially after SCO's recent actions. If you develop drivers are you going to develop for a company likely to sue you for porting your code ???
There is the further "I am stupid take advantage of me" effect in dealing with 3rd party vendors. If you are implementing on SCO 3rd party vendors figure you are a mark and should be mercillessly taken advantage of. Their rational is that you are obviously trapped in a legacy system and have no ability to move. The licensing schemes for products on SCO open server can be so draconian as to destroy business.
So yes why would you go with SCO, its not a software company any more. Its a protection racket.
If they're right: (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Why I chose Sun (Score:1, Insightful)
It's also not sufficient.
You're either a liar, or an idiot. See, there's this thing called HIPAA. "Military-grade security" (whatever that means) is insufficient to satisfy the obligations placed on doctors by HIPAA.
So you're either just plain making stuff up, or you're completely out of your depth.
Re:What if SCO wins? (Score:4, Insightful)
Of course, SCO's current business model won't let that happen. Their hype machine alleges copying and then uses that to justify licensing fees which may or may not be legitimate.
Mark my words, SCO has no interest in a speedy trial. They will keep alleging as long and as hard as possible because that's the only way they (a) can bolster their stock price and (b) keep enough cashflow to keep them solvent.
*BSD non-genetic? (Score:3, Insightful)
I had to stop reading after that line. That line and his belief that people think of SCO software when people say Unix entirely undermines the credibility of this article in my opinion.
Re:Nice research! (Score:4, Insightful)
Well yes, but it is far from "nice research". In fact, it's incredibly poorly researched and written. It's inaccurate, misleading and very biased. Sadly, this just serves to undermine the credibility of the valid points in the text.
author doesn't know what scalability is (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:What if SCO wins? (Score:5, Insightful)
One is the direct copying you discuss. However, that is a strict copyright claim applied to small bits of code. If the copied code is removed and replaced, the result will not be a derivative work (the replacement has to be done slightly carefully, but this is not hard). (I think that SCO does want to claim that direct replacement would still be a derivative work, but because we are talking about small pieces of code, this is unlikely to hold up in court.)
SCO's second claim is the basis for their lawsuit against IBM. There SCO claims that the contracts they signed with IBM and Sequent specifies that SCO owns all derivative works, and SCO claims that IBM took that derivative work and contributed it to Linux. This argument relies on an expanded notion of derivative work, basically claiming that any work built on top of Unix is owned by Unix, even if there is no actual code in common. If SCO's claims here are correct, then simply replacing the code won't help, because this is extensive portions of Linux and the new code, being functionally equivalent, would also be derivative of the original work. Or so SCO claims.
All of these claims rely on an expansive notion of derivative copyright which may not hold up in court. That is certainly a big part of the reason why SCO is not hurrying into court. They will do much better selling Unixware licenses to Linux users than they will suing Linux users.
What if you found out something you had a hand in was now the basis of a multibillion-dollar empire?
That's a weird question. SCO didn't have a hand in any of the code in question; they bought it. There is no multibillion-dollar empire anywhere in sight, unless you mean IBM, and Linux is certainly not the basis of IBM's money.
More to the point, even the code which SCO bought is not the basis for Linux in any meaningful fashion. The direct copying which they have alleged is, they admit, small chunks of code, and Linux is comparatively huge. The derivative copying which they allege that IBM has done is not their work at all--IBM and Sequent could have developed their code just as easily using *BSD or even Linux in the first place.
While SCO may possibly win in court--I doubt it, but it's possible--I don't think their claims have any moral standing whatsoever. They are exploiting the legal system in the name of pure greed, not in the name of justice.
Re:Why SCO UNIX is a bad idea. (Score:5, Insightful)
I think SCO is the villain here, but let's not go too far. SCO certainly does have an intellectual property claim to Unix. Thanks to Congress, copyright lasts, for practical purposes, forever, and SCO has purchased the copyright rights to the original Unix code.
If you meant to say that SCO doesn't have an intellectual property claim to the word Unix, or to published standards for Unix-type operating systems (e.g., POSIX or Unix98), then I agree.
Preemptivly replacement? (Score:2, Insightful)
Taking that same tatic, you could easily replace all the code that is possibly infringing, and in the process, refine what portions had to be recoded. Everyone wins? eh?
-Dudds
Re:If they're right: (Score:3, Insightful)
The fundamental problem with all of this is that IMHO recoding wouldn't actually help that much. Sure, it would sort out any simple Copyright issues, but not the generic "IP" bullshit that these guys will be chasing. They will claim that since it is a work-alike, then it is a derivative work. Or that the process being implemented is their "IP" beef rather than the code itself, which as stated previously is covered under copyright.
That's why MS is getting up and making noise about their "IP" being everywhere - they're trying very very hard to take it past copyright and patent issues into the realm of general ideas. I suspect we are reaching a crossroads where we have to decide if we want IP laws at all, or if we want an industry where creativity and competition is allowed.
I keep thinking of code as art. Imagine if back in the day someone said that paintings of fruit in a bowl is their idea and you can't paint that anymore, and then someone else said, pictures of the sea are their idea, and so on. Real soon, creating your own interpretation of a scene (or a problem, to us coders) just isn't possible without getting your ass sued or paying "idea tax". I don't want this to happen to my industry - and with the OSS attacks, it's happening to my hobby as well.
Laughable Research (Score:5, Insightful)
For example, he concludes that Red Hat has poor security not because of its record of security holes and useless, vulnerable services enabled by default, but because he couldn't find a list of security features or a security policy on their website. Impressive.
All he has to say about OpenBSD is that it "takes a cryptographic approach to security" and "is rumored to be the most secure OS on the market". Even though he claims to be "looking at Unix operating systems sold as they are", he doesn't mention how OpenBSD has only a minimal number of services enabled by default, unlike Solaris and Linux where one's first task in securing a system is to disabled the many useless, possibly exploitable daemons the vendor has enabled in the default install. He also doesn't mention the many steps that have been taken of late to make OpenBSD more resistant to stack smashing attacks.
He concludes that "Solaris is one of the most secure choices you can make" apparently only because he was impressed by Sun's website. Although I'm a big fan of Sun and Solaris, I would certainly be inclined to disagree here. In my experience, Solaris is comparable to Linux in terms of security; it's not secure by default like OpenBSD, but it can be made fairly secure with a bit of work (turning off services, enabling the non-executable stack, possibly using roles or auditing, etc).
So, although I'm as eager to slam SCO as the next guy, I'm somewhat skeptical of this article's criticisms, seeing as they seem to be based entirely on SCO's website and product literature. Without any personal experience with any of their systems, I'm not going to take this guy's word for it.
More like Unix IP is not worth it (Score:5, Insightful)
Unless your a government contracter who requires real Unix( not like or just plain possix) then its not worth it.
Linux and the BSD's are examples of great OS's. However the new 2.6 kernel now is comming into pre-release versions so his arguments on scalability are about to become outdated.
FreeBSD supposed to have better stability then the 4.x series but it has not been benchmarked yet. Also its not as scalable as Linux. Certainly more reliable though.
May SCO Unix just die.
Bell Labs Unix was cool in the 80's but has been neglected as soon as the Unix team focused on Plan9/Inferno. Also Sun and SGI improved Unix in their own proprietary versions. Seriously it has been since the mid 80's since any new features have been added( sco unix that is).
Running Unixware today is like running Dos 4, os/2 2.0, or Novell 2.1. Its very gone.
And to top it off McBribe actually believes Linux was the reason that Unixware never took off. Nevermind Novell and Bell labs before them could not get anyone to buy it. Yes, drivers have nothing to do with. He even stated that Linux would not be so hot if Linus cut and pasted code from Unixware in it.lol.
Linux is NOT derivative (Score:5, Insightful)
And what, precisely, does this have to do with the SCO lawsuit?
Are you stating that the Linux kernel is a derivative of UNIX? Bzzt! Wrong. Review your history. Linus Torvalds built the Linux kernel essentially from the ground up. He had no UNIX source code in front of him. Linux does work a lot like UNIX, and you see UNIX-isms in Linux, but this alone does not make it a derivative product, any more than my wife's Honda is a derivative of my Toyota just because the both have automatic transmission.
Now lets talk about the SCO lawsuit. Recall that SCO has finally narrowed its specific claims to RCU, NUMA, SMP, and JFS. Yes, these are big hunks of code. But if SCO is found in the right, these are the only affected pieces. They cannot simply retrofit the law to extend this backwards in time and claim derivative works on all of Linux. Most of this code made it into version 2.4, the specific version that SCO is citing in their complaint.
Now I agree that the SCO lawsuit is something that should be taken seriously, as much as I feel that SCO is serving up a nice load of steaming bullshit. But be careful in your conclusions. You're extending SCO's IP way too far, which is most likely what SCO wants people to do. Get armed with the facts so you can resist SCO FUD.
Re:If they're right: (Score:5, Insightful)
... and will subsequently be laughed out of court.
You cannot claim derivative work simply because product A works like product B. Think about it. If this were true, then anyone who is the very first company to get a product to the market will automatically have all exclusive rights to it and lock out all competitors, since anyone making a competing product that does the same thing will be considered derivative. This is obviously not the case, as any trip to the supermarket will tell you.
What you CAN do is claim exclusive ownership of a specific means of implementation (generally by means of a patent). While SCO is not making a patent claim, it is claiming that Linux has something that belongs to it. Now this can indeed make any work based on the alleged SCO code a derivative work, but it is not retroactive to any code that is NOT SCO's, and the work ceases to be derivative if the code is removed.
For SCO to go further, and claim that the rewritten, original code is infringing, they would have to claim patent violation, and SCO does not have the patents to do this, they have only the copyright.
Re:Missing? (Score:4, Insightful)
Remember most people who buy UNIX boxes from companies other than Apple are buying servers. Most people buying from Apple are buying desktops or laptops. While Apple's total sales are a mere fraction of IBM, Dell, HP/Compaq, etc, each computer company's UNIX portion is only a fraction of the their sales. IBM sales comprise of AIX, Linux, and Windows. Dell has Windows and Linux. HP/Compaq sales are Tru64, Windows, and Linux. And so on.
While Linux is gaining popularity, it suffers from the same issue as other UNIX variants: Most people are using them as servers not desktops so their numbers are significantly smaller.
Do what was done for BIOS (Score:5, Insightful)
Problem solved.
Re:Not so fast... (Score:2, Insightful)
Both the Democrats and the Republicans are bought and corrupt, so vote Democrat? This is insightful?
Re:What if SCO wins? (Score:2, Insightful)
Until they file and show the code, there is nothing to worry over.
Vip
PS. This is why you haven't heard much from IBM. How can you argue or defend against something that isn't being used against you, nor have you been shown the allegations?
Re:If they're right: (Score:3, Insightful)
Step 1.5) After the allegedly copied code is revealed, a massive undertaking is done to determine the true source of the code and who owns the copyright over it. There were Caldera/SCO personnel contributing code to Linux. Could it be one of them? If so, I think they would have a decidedly tough time convincing anyone that there was a copyright violation even if it was their code.
There would also be the question of why did they continue to distribute the code under the GPL after they determined the code was copied from them?
And, of course, the big question over why did it take them so long to file a lawsuit?
So far, every indication is that the code in question was IBM's own code (and SGI's and maybe some others), not SCO's, and the entire thing is not a copyright issue, but a contract issue.
In that case, it is hard to even see that the code would have to be excised from Linux. It would not be that SCO had any rights to it except for a contract issue over whether they could forbid IBM from distributing it. But if they won, IBM would presumably be ordered to recompense them for their loss, not everyone running Linux.
Except, that is, if they have a contract with SCO that forbids them from releasing the code. That is one reason why I think SCO is trying to push everyone into purchasing a license. The other is to get money to survive through the lawsuit.
I call astroturf. (Score:3, Insightful)
We don't have to wait for the evidence because we would be waiting forever. There IS no evidence because there was no copying. The features SCO claims were copied do not exist in the old UNIX codebase SCO may or may not own so they could not have been copied from that source. Further, were SCO to actually have a case they would have sent cease and desist orders by now. They have not.
This is a pump & dump stock swindle mixed with a little FUD for hire on the behalf of Sun and Microsoft to raise the money to retain Boises & Co and keep SCO's doors open long enough to dump the stock.
SCO Unix has been dead a long time (Score:3, Insightful)
SCO Unix as a product has almost zero relevance to today's world, and to SCO's actions. Remember that this is a company that bought the SCO baggage and then used it to launch lawsuits.
Would you buy an operating system from a firm of lawyers? Nope, me neither.
Re:Missing? (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:If they're right: (Score:3, Insightful)
And considering that SCO may well have been the guilty party here, back in the short lifetime of Caldera's OpenLinux -- SCO could well be put in a position of suing itself. Tho my guess is at that point SCO would go after the coders who worked for SCO/Caldera during that timeframe, alleging that they had no permission to contribute code to linux. Hopefully that will get laughed out of court, but these days you never know. :(
Re:Do what was done for BIOS (Score:2, Insightful)
What if SCO doesn't care about being right? (Score:3, Insightful)
While SCO may possibly win in court--I doubt it, but it's possible--I don't think their claims have any moral standing whatsoever. They are exploiting the legal system in the name of pure greed, not in the name of justice.
This is exactly the point. While there has already been far too much debate here on Ye Olde Slashdot about whether SCO's claim of copyright infringement has technical merit, the management of SCO surely couldn't care one wit about the truth of their claims. I'd be surprised if the people at SCO responsible for launching this legal attack could distinguish between Linux box and a SCO Unix box. This action isn't based on technical merit. Here's what it is based on:
Inflating their stock price. [yahoo.com]
What SCO is doing is a management hack and it's working. It's a way of creating temporary value in the company so that one of these scenarios can happen:
There is no way that SCO's actions represent a long-term business plan. Instead, this looks like the last gasp of a dying company. I don't believe SCO will be an independent entity three years from now.
The most damaging effect of this lawsuit is the chilling effect it has on businesses adopting Open Source projects. It's infuriating that the half truths, lies and innuendo told by SCO in its last days are scaring other companies away from Linux. This could not have worked out better for Microsoft.