SCO Scoop.

When you want to know more
about the story
but don't know where to look.

Groklaw has morphed into a website.

IANAL. I am a paralegal, so if you have a legal problem
and want advice, this isn't the place. Hire an attorney
instead. Research is, however, what paras do, so here
I am sharing things I have found in my research.

Subscribe to "GROKLAW" in Radio UserLand.

Click to see the XML version of this web page.

Click here to send an email to the editor of this weblog.

New Site Dictionary

Friday, October 3, 2003

SCO's Blake Stowell is claiming that they haven't made up their minds yet about suing SGI:

". . .Stowell said SCO has not made a decision about whether or not to pull SGI's Unix license.

"'It's not something we would consider until October 14th and not something we would do unless SGI refused to fix the violations of the agreement,' he said, referring to requirements that include removal of contributions related to Unix System V by SGI and the Linux community."

I think the reporter may have gotten that last part wrong. It seems to be saying that SCO will sue SGI unless the Linux community takes certain actions. That's like holding a gun to a man's head and telling a crowd to back off or you'll shoot him. Surely they can only sue SGI if SGI fails to take certain actions.

She's back: the lovely and tireless Ms. DiDio, faithfully doing her part, as always:

"Yankee Group senior analyst Laura DiDio told LinuxInsider that SCO has been aware of 'blatant SGI violations' for a year, and the lack of action thus far indicates SCO may not want to take additional legal action. 'I don't think [SCO] wanted to do this,' she said. 'They wanted to keep it focused on IBM because they didn't want to bite off more than they could chew.'

"By aligning itself with the IBM side of the dispute, SGI might be putting SCO in a bind by forcing it to fight 'a war on all fronts,' according to DiDio."

A war on all fronts? Sounds perfect.

And that's not even mentioning the problem of going to court and explaining not doing anything for a year about "blatant" violations involving what SGI says are garden variety code snippets already in the public domain and no longer in the kernel. SCO has its work cut out for it on that front, indeed.

I can't help but worry about poor Ms. DiDio being sued by SGI herself for stating as a fact that they are guilty of "blatant" violations, when the matter has yet to be adjudicated in court. What happened to the goode olde days, when analysts pretended to be impartial?

On a pleasanter note, Google's chief technology officer Craig Silverstein has a bit to say about SCO and the advantages of using Linux:

"Q: You reportedly have one of the biggest Linux clusters in the world (more than 10,000 servers) -- what's your opinion of the recent SCO lawsuit and what it could mean for Linux users if it's upheld? Has it made Google nervous of basing its systems around open-source?

" A: The actual lawsuit is very narrow in its claims; we're not nervous about it at all. It's prompted lots of discussion, which has been very interesting to watch.

" Q: You have very cost-effective approach to your internal architecture. Could you expand on Google's general approach to its internal systems?

A: "We're cheap. We use commodity computers -- thousands of them, all hooked together, to get the processing power we need -- and because it's off-the-shelf stuff, each computer is very cheap. We've had to design our software to work well in such an environment: it has to be scalable and tolerant of errors, since when you have thousands of computers at least one is always on the blink, but it's been a very worthwhile investment for us."

So what do you think? Does Google sound terrified they might be sued by SCO if it gets out that they use Linux? And is GNU/Linux ready for the enterprise?

On the other side, the proprietary side, it seems there is a lawsuit against Microsoft for selling insecure software. A woman in LA is using two of California's consumer protection laws to file the action, and she is trying to get it certified as a class action:

"Attorney Dana Taschner of Newport Beach, California, filed the lawsuit on behalf of Marcy Levitas Hamilton, a film editor and 'garden variety' PC user who had her social security number and bank details stolen over the Internet.

"'Something fundamental has to change to protect consumers and businesses,' Taschner said."

I have a suggestion. Give Ms. Hamilton a Knoppix CD.

Microsoft says it will fight to prevent it from becoming a class action. But, tell the truth, don't you just wish you would sign on?

"'This complaint misses the point. The problems caused by viruses are the result of criminal acts by people who write viruses,' said Microsoft spokeswoman Stacy Drake, adding that Microsoft was working with authorities to bring malicious code writers to justice."

Misses the point? Ms. Hamilton's point is they can write viruses that work because of the way MS writes its software. Then there is the issue of monocultures not being secure no matter what you do:

"Many of the arguments in the lawsuit and some of its language echoed a report issued by computer security experts in late September, which warned that the ubiquitous reach of Microsoft's software on desktops worldwide had made computer networks a national security risk.

"That report distributed by the Computer and Communications Industry Association, a trade group representing Microsoft's rivals, said the complexity of Microsoft's software made it particularly vulnerable to cyber-attack.


"'Microsoft's eclipsing dominance in desktop software has created a global security risk,' the lawsuit said. 'As a result of Microsoft's concerted effort to strengthen and expand its monopolies by tightly integrating applications with its operating system ... the world's computer networks are now susceptible to massive, cascading failure.'"

Of course a man could get himself fired for saying things like that. In their "Safe and Sound in the Cyber Age" column for Newscan, Stephen and Chey Cobb, author of "Network Security for Dummies" yesterday wrote about the monoculture issue, comparing it to the devastation caused in Ireland in the 19th century from relying on only one strain of potato:

"Reliance by an information system on one application or operating system, to the exclusion of others, reduces the ability of that system to survive a vulnerability in that operating system or application. This is the problem of monoculture, which can threaten different types of systems, not just information systems. . . .The security firm Symantec estimates that this summer's crop of worms may have caused up to $2 billion in damages over just eight days in August. The London-based computer security company, mi2g Ltd., projects global economic damages from malicious software to be in excess of $100 billion this year (the company estimates the total due to SoBig alone to be nearly $30 billion)."

The column isn't online yet, but it'll be here eventually. Do yourself a favor. While they fight it out, just switch to GNU/Linux software, or at least a mix of operating systems, and save yourself a lot of security hassles.

comment [] 4:34:41 AM    

comment []4:31:08 AM    

Linux Continues to Grow in the Enterprise

There is an article on, "Maturity Makes Linux Less of a Gamble for the enterprise" that says that Linux continues to grow in the enterprise and says 2.6 "promises more enterprise features that will drive adoption deeper into the data center as well" :

"More enterprises have been less reticent to gamble on Linux during the last 18 months. Once solely a perimeter infrastructure play, Linux is now finding its way onto mission-critical database transaction servers, high-performance computing clusters and even the desktop. . . .

The article tells an interesting tale about the effect the SCO Group's threats had in Canada. Daniel St. Gelais, a consultant with Quebec City, Canada's InfoTech, tells how he recently delivered a Linux-on-the-desktop presentation to the local government there, but they were afraid to migrate. That was at first. However, there is more to the story:

"Recently, however, things reversed course again for the Quebec government, St. Gelais said, once it saw that IBM and Red Hat Inc. were countersuing. 'They are open and ready to be part of a pilot to use open-source software, especially Linux,' said St. Gelais. 'I advise anyone not to be afraid to make a Linux proposal to their decision makers.'

"Many high-profile enterprises, meanwhile, are grounded in Linux. Online travel agent Orbitz recently moved off of Sun's Unix OS, Solaris, to Red Hat Linux at a 10x cost reduction and a 2x performance boost, said chief Internet architect Leon Chism. Others like Lithonia Lighting, a $1.3 billion lighting manufacturer, and Dallas Airmotive, a Texas-based airplane engine manufacturer, each saved more than $500,000 doing Unix-to-Linux migrations."

Scalability is the selling point, the article points out, in addition to money saved. A Lithonia spokesman is quoted saying he "spent $250,000 on hardware for the production rack, and he estimates he would have spent three times that amount on a Unix environment. 'We got the stability we needed and by buying Intel servers, you can add on the fly. That's the beauty of clustering -- that, and the redundancy,' he said."

Meanwhile, the SCO suit is driving adoption of Linux in Australasia, according to Red Hat in this ZDNET article, because people ask questions and then Red Hat gets to explain, which seems to resolve any worries.

And finally, someone sent me this link to David Stutz' "The Failure of Shrinkwrap Software," which explains to the old-fashioned what is wrong with selling software as if it were a product like shampoo.

Click here to visit the Radio UserLand website. © Copyright 2003 PJ.
Last update: 10/19/03; 9:06:11 AM. Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons License.

October 2003
Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
      1 2 3 4
5 6 7 8 9 10 11
12 13 14 15 16 17 18
19 20 21 22 23 24 25
26 27 28 29 30 31  
Sep   Nov