Learn about Linux
Download Linux
Get Linux helpSpecial Offers
Feature: Unix
Who is David and who is Goliath?
By on
August 17, 2003 (8:00:00 AM)
Share
Print
Comments
- by David "cdlu" Graham -
The story of SCO versus IBM has been compared to a story of David versus Goliath, except that we all want Goliath to win. I put it to you that IBM is not, in fact, Goliath, but that Linux is. IBM is just Goliath's powerful right arm, and Goliath has been awoken from a peacful slumber.
The story of SCO versus IBM has been compared to a story of David versus Goliath, except that we all want Goliath to win. I put it to you that IBM is not, in fact, Goliath, but that Linux is. IBM is just Goliath's powerful right arm, and Goliath has been awoken from a peacful slumber.
SCO has repeatedly insulted the Linux community and the Free Software and Open Source communities at large with claims that are, in the eloquent words of (fictional) Colonel Sherman Potter of M*A*S*H fame, "horse patooties." Aside from the slander and defamation of a respectable and successful product, and the attack on large businesses the world over, SCO has made a crucial error in judgement.
SCO has insulted the grass roots of a world-wide, increasingly influential movement.
SCO has insulted each and every one of us, personally.
When a company threatens or insults another company, a small handful of people at each company are really the only people who care or take notice, and the two companies can bicker in court, out of the public eye. SCO, however, has slandered a community of thousands of people who have put their hearts and souls into their often free work.
Whether it is by writing a kernel driver, maintaining a package, helping people with their questions on IRC or on mailing lists, or by helping get the word out by working on news sites, everyone in this community is making an effort to build and support this project.
From the people sitting in Goliath's brain to the companies making Goliath's limbs, we are, together, Goliath.
David has pin-pricked us in our right arm, and the mean fighting machine that is Goliath is waking up.
Over the next while, Goliath's other limbs will begin fighting, and this unqualified threat to us will be squished for once and for all.
Comments
on Who is David and who is Goliath?Note: Comments are owned by the poster. We are not responsible for their content.
A hitman is a "by any means necessary" kind of a executive, too...
Ummm.....before we get too carried away with this analogy - I seem to remember David won...
Yes, and that's why SCO and the couple of people in the media who are actually supporting them are drawing on this analogy. SCO thinks (or, is acting like it thinks) it can win this fight. The American media loves to portray fights between big, lumbering corporations and little scrappy entrepreneurs, and they love it even more when, against all odds, they win. That's why people are constantly using this analogy when describing the struggle between Linux and Big, Bad Microsoft.
The point here is that we don't want the "little guy" to win in this case. A better analogy would be a cheap-suited charlatan rolling into town, trying to steal our daughters away, or hoodwinking us out of the profits from the gold mine that was just discovered running under Main Street. They are thieves and hoodlums -- lying, cheating and bullying. There are plenty of stories about these types being run out of town, or worse. We just have to plant these analogies into people's minds, instead of David & Goliath.
The point here is that we don't want the "little guy" to win in this case. A better analogy would be a cheap-suited charlatan rolling into town, trying to steal our daughters away, or hoodwinking us out of the profits from the gold mine that was just discovered running under Main Street. They are thieves and hoodlums -- lying, cheating and bullying. There are plenty of stories about these types being run out of town, or worse. We just have to plant these analogies into people's minds, instead of David & Goliath.
> David got lucky.
Actually, he made good use of an advanced technology (the sling - the ancient equivalent of a high powered rifle), backed by faith in his God, and a true sense of the rightness of his cause.
> And he actually had a strategy.
David picked up five smooth stones from the dry creek bed before he attacked. It is said Goliath had four brothers. You do the math...<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;-)
Actually, he made good use of an advanced technology (the sling - the ancient equivalent of a high powered rifle), backed by faith in his God, and a true sense of the rightness of his cause.
> And he actually had a strategy.
David picked up five smooth stones from the dry creek bed before he attacked. It is said Goliath had four brothers. You do the math...<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;-)
As usual the entire issue is avoided again<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.... and for all you non biblical scholars, Goliath and the Philistines were standing against God and his army. And more specifically against God himself. The "real" issue was not between David and Golith but who was really God. ( And no, Linux, SCO, MS or the whole computing world is not, nor will ever be, any kind of God. As usual the technological geeks miss the real point.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;D
And the biblical geeks read more into it than there is.
> And the biblical geeks read more into it than there is.
Actually, as far as the original story, you should take a little time and read the text itself. It's a very good story, and full of iteresting tidbits. If you pay close attention to what David says, you'll see what he thought the issues were.
Of course, as far as the popular media is concerned, it's just a mythical story about the little guy beating the Big Guy through strength and bravery, but we all know how deep and thoughtful the "popular media" tends to be.
Actually, as far as the original story, you should take a little time and read the text itself. It's a very good story, and full of iteresting tidbits. If you pay close attention to what David says, you'll see what he thought the issues were.
Of course, as far as the popular media is concerned, it's just a mythical story about the little guy beating the Big Guy through strength and bravery, but we all know how deep and thoughtful the "popular media" tends to be.
Right, the real point being that David v Goliath is just a story, a metaphor for the battle of the underdog versus an allegedly unstoppable enemy and the inspiration value inherent to the underdog winning.
For a better, more contemporary, and *gasp* factual example of this, might as well refer to the Anaheim Mighty Ducks versus the New Jersey Devils in the 2003 Stanley Cup final. Guess what? The underdog lost, and got beaten by the Devils. How do ya like them apples?
However, if you insist on there being a "god" parallel for your point to be made, how about Linus Torvalds? He made Linux, and said it was good... and all the geeks wenteth out and installed it.
For a better, more contemporary, and *gasp* factual example of this, might as well refer to the Anaheim Mighty Ducks versus the New Jersey Devils in the 2003 Stanley Cup final. Guess what? The underdog lost, and got beaten by the Devils. How do ya like them apples?
However, if you insist on there being a "god" parallel for your point to be made, how about Linus Torvalds? He made Linux, and said it was good... and all the geeks wenteth out and installed it.
I am a geek. And I am a minister. The useful analogy here has nothing to do with the theocracy but with the possibility that victory might be obtained in the face of visibly superior force.
That's all.
Another point to consider is that David put weapons technology to work by standing well out of Goliath's reach and flinging stones at him until one hit its mark. IIRC the Bible does not state that the very first one hit its mark.
Since the bulk of the Bible deals with the issue of who is and who isn't God, consider that there might also be other lessons here.
BTW, I thought the original author stretched his metaphor past the snapping point<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... but that's another issue altogether.
That's all.
Another point to consider is that David put weapons technology to work by standing well out of Goliath's reach and flinging stones at him until one hit its mark. IIRC the Bible does not state that the very first one hit its mark.
Since the bulk of the Bible deals with the issue of who is and who isn't God, consider that there might also be other lessons here.
BTW, I thought the original author stretched his metaphor past the snapping point<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... but that's another issue altogether.
God is in Hell where he belongs. Don't drag religion into what is essentially a business issue. SCO thinks that it can save its collective ass by tearing down Linux. Instead, SCO is going to be put to the sword. No great loss, there.
Cheerleading article. Full of fact-filled information.
I agree that IBM is just part of Goliath's strong right arm, that has now suffered a pin prick from SCO.
I think that Goliath is now waking up, and soon we'll see more and more signs of activity.
The Free Software Foundation likes to tread softly and carry a big stick. It usually likes to offer a GPL violator an opportunity to volunteer to be the first test case for the GPL. If SCO declines to volunteer, watch for an end to the FUD press releases that SCO is currently issuing multiple times per day, and a flurry of SCO retractions.
My guess is that FSF is collecting more GPL copyright assignments before taking any further action.
Meanwhile, there are calls to prosecute SCO's officers and directors for criminal copyright infringement and other crimes. See my thread: "IBM's claim that SCO breached the GPL" on gnu.misc.discuss, and http://www.goingware.com/notes/prosecute-sco.html
I think that Goliath is now waking up, and soon we'll see more and more signs of activity.
The Free Software Foundation likes to tread softly and carry a big stick. It usually likes to offer a GPL violator an opportunity to volunteer to be the first test case for the GPL. If SCO declines to volunteer, watch for an end to the FUD press releases that SCO is currently issuing multiple times per day, and a flurry of SCO retractions.
My guess is that FSF is collecting more GPL copyright assignments before taking any further action.
Meanwhile, there are calls to prosecute SCO's officers and directors for criminal copyright infringement and other crimes. See my thread: "IBM's claim that SCO breached the GPL" on gnu.misc.discuss, and http://www.goingware.com/notes/prosecute-sco.html
can any of you remeber how to look at a company's track record if you can then look at ibm then you will step down of the soap box and shut up
David and Goliath was a tale where Good triumphed over Evil.
And there is no doubt in my mind that Microsoft represents Evil.
While most companies try to compete through better products, Microsoft is almost alone in the computer industry for having succeeded through a series of acts of destruction. Even in a Free Market, the law should have prevented that, however, though convicted of wrongdoing more than once, Microsoft has never been punished.
One of the best documented cases of Microsoft destruction was their campaign against Java. As Microsoft boasted in their marketing presentation:
> Strategic Objective [is to] kill cross-platform Java by grow[ing] the polluted Java market.
http://java.sun.com/lawsuit/051498.unfair.html
When Microsoft carried through on that threat, by spreading the intentionally-incompatible J++ (as well as "cutting off Netscape's air supply"), Microsoft made it impossible for businesses to rely on Java clients. Thus, this single act of sabotage resulted in a years-long delay in the progress of e-commerce -- an industry that is hundreds of billions of dollars in size.
By sabotaging Java, and delaying e-commerce, Microsoft has reduced the world's wealth by tens of billions of dollars. And do you know what happens when you remove that much wealth from the world? People die, probably in the thousands!
Not that you could ever trace those deaths back to Microsoft. Someone, somewhere, won't have the money for a medical test, someone else won't have the money to fix his brakes, a clinic in Africa won't have the money to buy supplies, and so on.
When you reduce the world's wealth, people die. And when Microsoft polluted Java, they reduced the world's wealth.
But that pales compared to Microsoft's plan to decommoditize the Internet, and turn it into a Microsoft-controlled monopoly.
Right now, the Internet's open protocols allow anyone to join in. This is increasing wealth, and knowledge, around the world. It is a development on par with the telephone, or radio, and it will save millions of lives. But if Microsoft succeeds in destroying the Internet's openness, then many of those lives will be lost.
Note that, as usual, Microsoft is alone in this. Everyone else is trying to compete to provide the best new Internet services and products. Only Microsoft is trying to undermine the very nature of the Internet itself.
But even that is small compared to Microsoft's efforts to affect government. Microsoft is fighting the use of Open Source in government, and is pushing for DRM. Thus, Microsoft is promoting secrecy in government, and increased government control over our lives. The direction of such actions is toward the end of democracy, and a return to slavery. I am not exaggerating.
Microsoft's executives do not care about the consequences of their actions. Microsoft destroys wealth. Microsoft is evil.
And there is no doubt in my mind that Microsoft represents Evil.
While most companies try to compete through better products, Microsoft is almost alone in the computer industry for having succeeded through a series of acts of destruction. Even in a Free Market, the law should have prevented that, however, though convicted of wrongdoing more than once, Microsoft has never been punished.
One of the best documented cases of Microsoft destruction was their campaign against Java. As Microsoft boasted in their marketing presentation:
> Strategic Objective [is to] kill cross-platform Java by grow[ing] the polluted Java market.
http://java.sun.com/lawsuit/051498.unfair.html
When Microsoft carried through on that threat, by spreading the intentionally-incompatible J++ (as well as "cutting off Netscape's air supply"), Microsoft made it impossible for businesses to rely on Java clients. Thus, this single act of sabotage resulted in a years-long delay in the progress of e-commerce -- an industry that is hundreds of billions of dollars in size.
By sabotaging Java, and delaying e-commerce, Microsoft has reduced the world's wealth by tens of billions of dollars. And do you know what happens when you remove that much wealth from the world? People die, probably in the thousands!
Not that you could ever trace those deaths back to Microsoft. Someone, somewhere, won't have the money for a medical test, someone else won't have the money to fix his brakes, a clinic in Africa won't have the money to buy supplies, and so on.
When you reduce the world's wealth, people die. And when Microsoft polluted Java, they reduced the world's wealth.
But that pales compared to Microsoft's plan to decommoditize the Internet, and turn it into a Microsoft-controlled monopoly.
Right now, the Internet's open protocols allow anyone to join in. This is increasing wealth, and knowledge, around the world. It is a development on par with the telephone, or radio, and it will save millions of lives. But if Microsoft succeeds in destroying the Internet's openness, then many of those lives will be lost.
Note that, as usual, Microsoft is alone in this. Everyone else is trying to compete to provide the best new Internet services and products. Only Microsoft is trying to undermine the very nature of the Internet itself.
But even that is small compared to Microsoft's efforts to affect government. Microsoft is fighting the use of Open Source in government, and is pushing for DRM. Thus, Microsoft is promoting secrecy in government, and increased government control over our lives. The direction of such actions is toward the end of democracy, and a return to slavery. I am not exaggerating.
Microsoft's executives do not care about the consequences of their actions. Microsoft destroys wealth. Microsoft is evil.
Not only that, but why would anyone in their right mind want to have such a concentration of wealth in one place? It has been shown that competition helps the market, so I ask why are so many people willing to destroy the free market by supporting Microsoft. Furthmore, Apple is even worse because the've taken a free product (FreeBSD) and slapped their single user proprietary GUI on top and shipped it on proprietary hardware. Supporting any of these companies is bad for the economy. Support the economy, support small business, buy white box machines and slap Linux/BSD on them.
"Furthmore, Apple is even worse because the've taken a free product (FreeBSD) and slapped their single user proprietary GUI on top and shipped it on proprietary hardware. "
Dude - if you want to hate Microsoft, fine. They go out of their way to prevent others from competing in the market. But Apple is a completely different story.
Yes, they built their own GUI and yes, it's on their own hardware. So what? That's their right in a free society. They never tried to stop anyone else from doing the same thing. That's called competition and it's what the global economy is based on. If they don't want to give away OSX that's their choice and if you don't want to buy OSX then that's your choice.
The world may be free but it's not '$free'.
Dude - if you want to hate Microsoft, fine. They go out of their way to prevent others from competing in the market. But Apple is a completely different story.
Yes, they built their own GUI and yes, it's on their own hardware. So what? That's their right in a free society. They never tried to stop anyone else from doing the same thing. That's called competition and it's what the global economy is based on. If they don't want to give away OSX that's their choice and if you don't want to buy OSX then that's your choice.
The world may be free but it's not '$free'.
Yes I do agree that Microsoft is the personification of evil couched in supposed free enterprise. This is what the left (remember them ?) where ranting and raving about back then. That capitalism can produce a globe girdling monopoly that would even surpass governments in power. Microsoft is the evil that abused the free enterprise system to kill all competition and has aquired such power to overturn even goverments actions against it. 50 years after that great war against evil we now have another evil to deal with, Microsoft. Microsoft represents what America has become today. Trampling on the very freedoms that it fought for 50 years ago !
Gee...you're comparing Office XP to a gas chamber?
Should the U.S. consider that a compliment that what passes for evil 50 years after WWII is a computer operating system?
And if you think Microsoft=U.S. then maybe you should come for a visit and look around a little.
Should the U.S. consider that a compliment that what passes for evil 50 years after WWII is a computer operating system?
And if you think Microsoft=U.S. then maybe you should come for a visit and look around a little.
Yes I do agree that Microsoft is the personification of evil couched in supposed free enterprise. This is what the left (remember them ?) where ranting and raving about back then. That capitalism can produce a globe girdling monopoly that would even surpass governments in power. Microsoft is the evil that abused the free enterprise system to kill all competition and has aquired such power to overturn even goverments actions against it. 50 years after that great war against evil we now have another evil to deal with, Microsoft. Microsoft represents what America has become today. Trampling on the very freedoms that it fought for 50 years ago !
While I agree the basic premise that M$ is evil...
You grind our axe quite a bit crooked.
No matter what system, there is always a propensity of certaing individuals of groups to abuse it. M$ does not reach, in the nature and scope, the evil of Stalin, Pol Pot (picking the left of the political spectrum on purpose here) and other dastardly characters and their followers of the 20th century. The advantage of the market based capitalist system is that hand-in-hand with freedom of commerce, individual rights take a precedence over group (collective) rights, and by implication provide a system of checks and ballances. It may be often a tough battle, but it is not like trying to fight nomenclatura and disappear either in psychiatric facility, prison, or entirely.
M$ is a representative of elements that have a basially totalitarian mindset and use the free market system to further their agenda. Their philosophy is in conflict with the basic conceptual framework of the capitalist founation and if I were to point out the communist tendencies in current USA, I would not hesitate to direct my finger at M$.
M$ does not represent USA. It is an anomaly --agreed, there has ben plenty of these, but it needs to be pointed out that the groups that subscribe to similar modus operandi are marginalized, as opposed to leftist ideologies that always seem to endow one big oppresive blob. And do not try to bring in nazis, they were much closer to extreme left than to anything else.
USA, despite the shortcommings, is still represented by their people, and thanks providence for that!
As another poster noted, visit USA, talk to people... then you'd see how your comparison is quite off base. (If you are living in USA, then I feel sorry for you, as you seem to checkout your brain somewhere, at some point).
Linux for me represents a trend to comodize OS' and leveling the field so that an actual competition (a capitalist concept) can take a hold; Linux can potentially create more wealth because of its open character--thus manifesting as the freedom of achievement, not as the freedom of entitlement. Nothing can be more "capitalistic" than that.
No, I am not an American, I am a Canadian. I also lived for my first 30 years under a communist regime, so I may have some degree of insight into these things.
While I agree the basic premise that M$ is evil...
You grind our axe quite a bit crooked.
No matter what system, there is always a propensity of certaing individuals of groups to abuse it. M$ does not reach, in the nature and scope, the evil of Stalin, Pol Pot (picking the left of the political spectrum on purpose here) and other dastardly characters and their followers of the 20th century. The advantage of the market based capitalist system is that hand-in-hand with freedom of commerce, individual rights take a precedence over group (collective) rights, and by implication provide a system of checks and ballances. It may be often a tough battle, but it is not like trying to fight nomenclatura and disappear either in psychiatric facility, prison, or entirely.
M$ is a representative of elements that have a basially totalitarian mindset and use the free market system to further their agenda. Their philosophy is in conflict with the basic conceptual framework of the capitalist founation and if I were to point out the communist tendencies in current USA, I would not hesitate to direct my finger at M$.
M$ does not represent USA. It is an anomaly --agreed, there has ben plenty of these, but it needs to be pointed out that the groups that subscribe to similar modus operandi are marginalized, as opposed to leftist ideologies that always seem to endow one big oppresive blob. And do not try to bring in nazis, they were much closer to extreme left than to anything else.
USA, despite the shortcommings, is still represented by their people, and thanks providence for that!
As another poster noted, visit USA, talk to people... then you'd see how your comparison is quite off base. (If you are living in USA, then I feel sorry for you, as you seem to checkout your brain somewhere, at some point).
Linux for me represents a trend to comodize OS' and leveling the field so that an actual competition (a capitalist concept) can take a hold; Linux can potentially create more wealth because of its open character--thus manifesting as the freedom of achievement, not as the freedom of entitlement. Nothing can be more "capitalistic" than that.
No, I am not an American, I am a Canadian. I also lived for my first 30 years under a communist regime, so I may have some degree of insight into these things.
So the Nazis were leftists, and Microsoft are Commies?
The mental gyrations necessary to support those statements must be awe-inspiring. Do you have to oil your up before making them, so as not to pull a muscle?
Anyhow, congratulations, you're the first dittohead wingnut I've encountered from Canada.
The mental gyrations necessary to support those statements must be awe-inspiring. Do you have to oil your up before making them, so as not to pull a muscle?
Anyhow, congratulations, you're the first dittohead wingnut I've encountered from Canada.
Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei (National Socialist German Workers' Party). Read some history and their manifesto. It's elucidating. Also, Stalin considered Nazis "brothers in arms" against democracies. I wonder why?
That is until they atacked USSR. Because Nazis were also anti-communist, as they deplored internationalism and because of their racial ideology, they seen jews behind the communist movement. Well, they've seen them everywhere, as a power elite, behind all sorts of evil deeds.
As for M$, I spake of tendencies. The monopolization is totalitarian in philosophy and impact. In that, they may be closer to "practical" communism than you think. (That means that some people are more equal than others, and the others have no rights except to do what the more equal tell them to do).
That is until they atacked USSR. Because Nazis were also anti-communist, as they deplored internationalism and because of their racial ideology, they seen jews behind the communist movement. Well, they've seen them everywhere, as a power elite, behind all sorts of evil deeds.
As for M$, I spake of tendencies. The monopolization is totalitarian in philosophy and impact. In that, they may be closer to "practical" communism than you think. (That means that some people are more equal than others, and the others have no rights except to do what the more equal tell them to do).
Although I strongly agree with you in your views, and your worries, about Microsoft, I wanted to point out that, IMHO, Microsoft cannot succeed in decommoditizing internet protocols, and I'll shortly explain why.
The internet is Unix's realm, it was developed and still rests upon Unix's networking model. Microsoft has historically had little to do with it, and until Windoze 95, it barely had any support for the internet at all (and that was the reason some software houses, such as Netscape, made several products to fill in this gap). Later, Microsoft saw the importance and potential of the internet and made a heavy entrance in it.
Although Microsoft holds a near monopoly in the desktop arena, this is not true in the server business, where Microsoft holds a minority share, and most web servers are running Apache and its derivatives. Microsoft then holds the strings in one end, but the other side is, for them, uncharted territory.
The server side of the internet relies heavily upon open source solutions, be it the OS (Linux and BSD derivatives in the first place), or the application platform (Apache and its brethren).
Open Source solutions, by definition, do not implement any proprietary protocols, and therefore a "Microsoft-owned" internet scenario would imply that Microsoft would need to have a near monopoly also in the server side, which is highly improbable since the server solutions provided by Open Source software are very well known and regarded, and offer excellent solution to the tasks at hand. So, M$ cannot offer a better product, or a better price, or better functionality.
It is of concern, however, the fact that M$, as any other predator, when unable, or unwilling, to perform a frontal attack, would probably try to bit at the sides. That is, bundling its proprietary protocols toghether with the open ones, in the hopes that the protocols, once deployed and in use, would stick and gradually affirm themselves.
In such a scenario, the Open Source community's response should be that of defending the free solutions, developing alternatives for whatever added functionality those proprietary protocols could offer. It is probable that the server side, currently in the hands of Open Source, should keep its inertia and stick to the solutions it currently has, avoiding the costly change to M$ server platforms.
On the other hand, M$'s proprietary solutions have proved unreliable and unsecure, and it would be hard for M$ to sell their new fancy protocols to the server people, who should know better. The desktop side represents no problem for M$, they own the field and they can do its bidding. But when it comes to servers, M$ is one of the smaller players, and cannot do any of its monopolistic magic.
Also, some heavyweights are on the side of Open Source. The hardware makers, with IBM in the lead position, in the server side, are pushing Linux and supporting its solutions. No software manufacturer can pretend to impose itself over hardware manufacturers, when it comes to specialized equipment such as servers and business hardware, where the keyword is "reliable solutions", not "top-of-the-line" technology or "ease of use". Those are terms for desktop users.
I work at a very big bank in Europe, and at work we use Unix (not even Linux) everywhere. Microsoft is used in every user's box, but the servers are all Unix's territory, and it will keep that way, since the one that sold this solution (HP) is not only selling a box and a couple CDs of software, it is also bundling a lot of support and know-how with it.
Linux is a very friendly beast, when compared to HP-UX. CDE, the x-windows manager, is the ugliest thing you can put your eyes on. Nothing like KDE or Gnome's convenience and ease. Solutions are far from simple or evident, there are several "bizarre" ways of doing things, but this is of no concern to the bank. They want reliability and security, and they are ready to pay what it costs. People have little to do in this equation, since the bank can afford to retrain them or hire new talent.
Microsoft does not have the infrastructure nor the user-base to start competing in this kind of business, where IBM, HP and Sun are undisputed leaders. And it would only be very silly of Microsoft to put out a protocol which no server would implement, and this keeps the open alternative in the game.
The internet is Unix's realm, it was developed and still rests upon Unix's networking model. Microsoft has historically had little to do with it, and until Windoze 95, it barely had any support for the internet at all (and that was the reason some software houses, such as Netscape, made several products to fill in this gap). Later, Microsoft saw the importance and potential of the internet and made a heavy entrance in it.
Although Microsoft holds a near monopoly in the desktop arena, this is not true in the server business, where Microsoft holds a minority share, and most web servers are running Apache and its derivatives. Microsoft then holds the strings in one end, but the other side is, for them, uncharted territory.
The server side of the internet relies heavily upon open source solutions, be it the OS (Linux and BSD derivatives in the first place), or the application platform (Apache and its brethren).
Open Source solutions, by definition, do not implement any proprietary protocols, and therefore a "Microsoft-owned" internet scenario would imply that Microsoft would need to have a near monopoly also in the server side, which is highly improbable since the server solutions provided by Open Source software are very well known and regarded, and offer excellent solution to the tasks at hand. So, M$ cannot offer a better product, or a better price, or better functionality.
It is of concern, however, the fact that M$, as any other predator, when unable, or unwilling, to perform a frontal attack, would probably try to bit at the sides. That is, bundling its proprietary protocols toghether with the open ones, in the hopes that the protocols, once deployed and in use, would stick and gradually affirm themselves.
In such a scenario, the Open Source community's response should be that of defending the free solutions, developing alternatives for whatever added functionality those proprietary protocols could offer. It is probable that the server side, currently in the hands of Open Source, should keep its inertia and stick to the solutions it currently has, avoiding the costly change to M$ server platforms.
On the other hand, M$'s proprietary solutions have proved unreliable and unsecure, and it would be hard for M$ to sell their new fancy protocols to the server people, who should know better. The desktop side represents no problem for M$, they own the field and they can do its bidding. But when it comes to servers, M$ is one of the smaller players, and cannot do any of its monopolistic magic.
Also, some heavyweights are on the side of Open Source. The hardware makers, with IBM in the lead position, in the server side, are pushing Linux and supporting its solutions. No software manufacturer can pretend to impose itself over hardware manufacturers, when it comes to specialized equipment such as servers and business hardware, where the keyword is "reliable solutions", not "top-of-the-line" technology or "ease of use". Those are terms for desktop users.
I work at a very big bank in Europe, and at work we use Unix (not even Linux) everywhere. Microsoft is used in every user's box, but the servers are all Unix's territory, and it will keep that way, since the one that sold this solution (HP) is not only selling a box and a couple CDs of software, it is also bundling a lot of support and know-how with it.
Linux is a very friendly beast, when compared to HP-UX. CDE, the x-windows manager, is the ugliest thing you can put your eyes on. Nothing like KDE or Gnome's convenience and ease. Solutions are far from simple or evident, there are several "bizarre" ways of doing things, but this is of no concern to the bank. They want reliability and security, and they are ready to pay what it costs. People have little to do in this equation, since the bank can afford to retrain them or hire new talent.
Microsoft does not have the infrastructure nor the user-base to start competing in this kind of business, where IBM, HP and Sun are undisputed leaders. And it would only be very silly of Microsoft to put out a protocol which no server would implement, and this keeps the open alternative in the game.
Nice post!
I agree with you about the reasons to feel optimistic.
However, we must not let our guard down. Microsoft is still dangerous.
Microsoft's next version of Windows is going to have<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.Net, DRM, and Palladium built in. The browser and e-mail will be integrated, and nothing will run on it unless permitted by Microsoft (and any competing products that are allowed to run will be running in Palladium-controlled "flaky" mode, to pressure users into switching).
These clients won't run Java, and the only way to provide a fully interactive Internet service to them will be to use Microsoft software at the server end.
Microsoft will manage to convince some media companies to buy into Microsoft DRM. Those companies won't be worried about the fact that they may be helping to re-enslave humanity -- they will only see the money.
Microsoft will try to buy legislation that makes DRM a legal requirement. The politicians involved won't be worried about the fact that they may be helping to re-enslave humanity -- they will only see the campaign contributions.
In this way, Microsoft will try to enforce the use of Microsoft software on both the client and server ends. Remember that Microsoft is not in the software business -- they don't work by competition. Instead, Microsoft is in the extortion and protection business -- they work by force, they sabotage your alternatives, they lock up your data and communications and prevent what you want to do unless you do it through them. In the past, they managed this through control of the OS and its protocols. This time they'll try to use government legislation, and control of Internet protocols.
I agree with you that we are in fairly good shape at the moment. Despite Microsoft's efforts to pollute the Internet with Windows-only protocols for audio, video, document formats, and so on, they have made little progress. As you say, the Internet is still governed by mostly open standards, and non-Microsoft server and communications software.
I agree that Microsoft faces an uphill battle. Even without the forces of good working against them, it will still take time to produce the next version of Windows, then convince people to use it, and then to convince companies to support it with Microsoft software at the server end. In each step, we have both inertia and Microsoft's basic level of incompetence working in our favor.
Nevertheless, Microsoft will not stop pushing, and they will succeed eventually, unless we can increase the percentage of non-Microsoft client software on the Internet.
That means increasing the use of non-Microsoft browsers, such as Mozilla. It means increasing the use of non-Microsoft platforms, such as Linux, or OS/X. And so on. (It also means watching out for sneak-attack lock-ins, for example, will Flash be tied to Windows?)
Microsoft also knows that, in order for their scheme to succeed, they must prevent the growth of Linux on the desktop. That's why they've turned up their FUD campaign against Linux. It's also why SCO, at Microsoft's bidding, is playing their IP card, despite the fact that their hand is so weak. SCO's lawsuit is not expected to win any money (SCO's executives have already been paid), rather, it is only intended to slow down the growth of Linux to give Microsoft more time.
Do I believe that good is going to win, and the Internet will remain open? Yes I do, but it is going to be a tough battle, and it is too soon for us to relax. Like it or not, Microsoft has declared war on us, and we need to continue to fight their lock-in schemes, and push Linux and other alternatives. We need to do this until Microsoft's near-monopoly on the desktop has been reduced to just one choice among many.
I agree with you about the reasons to feel optimistic.
However, we must not let our guard down. Microsoft is still dangerous.
Microsoft's next version of Windows is going to have<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.Net, DRM, and Palladium built in. The browser and e-mail will be integrated, and nothing will run on it unless permitted by Microsoft (and any competing products that are allowed to run will be running in Palladium-controlled "flaky" mode, to pressure users into switching).
These clients won't run Java, and the only way to provide a fully interactive Internet service to them will be to use Microsoft software at the server end.
Microsoft will manage to convince some media companies to buy into Microsoft DRM. Those companies won't be worried about the fact that they may be helping to re-enslave humanity -- they will only see the money.
Microsoft will try to buy legislation that makes DRM a legal requirement. The politicians involved won't be worried about the fact that they may be helping to re-enslave humanity -- they will only see the campaign contributions.
In this way, Microsoft will try to enforce the use of Microsoft software on both the client and server ends. Remember that Microsoft is not in the software business -- they don't work by competition. Instead, Microsoft is in the extortion and protection business -- they work by force, they sabotage your alternatives, they lock up your data and communications and prevent what you want to do unless you do it through them. In the past, they managed this through control of the OS and its protocols. This time they'll try to use government legislation, and control of Internet protocols.
I agree with you that we are in fairly good shape at the moment. Despite Microsoft's efforts to pollute the Internet with Windows-only protocols for audio, video, document formats, and so on, they have made little progress. As you say, the Internet is still governed by mostly open standards, and non-Microsoft server and communications software.
I agree that Microsoft faces an uphill battle. Even without the forces of good working against them, it will still take time to produce the next version of Windows, then convince people to use it, and then to convince companies to support it with Microsoft software at the server end. In each step, we have both inertia and Microsoft's basic level of incompetence working in our favor.
Nevertheless, Microsoft will not stop pushing, and they will succeed eventually, unless we can increase the percentage of non-Microsoft client software on the Internet.
That means increasing the use of non-Microsoft browsers, such as Mozilla. It means increasing the use of non-Microsoft platforms, such as Linux, or OS/X. And so on. (It also means watching out for sneak-attack lock-ins, for example, will Flash be tied to Windows?)
Microsoft also knows that, in order for their scheme to succeed, they must prevent the growth of Linux on the desktop. That's why they've turned up their FUD campaign against Linux. It's also why SCO, at Microsoft's bidding, is playing their IP card, despite the fact that their hand is so weak. SCO's lawsuit is not expected to win any money (SCO's executives have already been paid), rather, it is only intended to slow down the growth of Linux to give Microsoft more time.
Do I believe that good is going to win, and the Internet will remain open? Yes I do, but it is going to be a tough battle, and it is too soon for us to relax. Like it or not, Microsoft has declared war on us, and we need to continue to fight their lock-in schemes, and push Linux and other alternatives. We need to do this until Microsoft's near-monopoly on the desktop has been reduced to just one choice among many.
If SCO wins, so what? If SCO loses, so what?
Posted by: Anonymous Coward on August 18, 2003 04:00 AM
If SCO wins it's IBM suit, then it is true then that LINUX code will have to be rewritten and someone made a mistake letting in tainted code. So what? Linux will move past that point and forward into the future (without SCO)!
If SCO loses the IBM suit, then LINUX keeps going in the direction is has been heading all along, to wherever it is taken next (albiet without folks liking SCO, or canopy group companies very much)!
If SCO, a principle, tries to charge users of LINUX for what they have already legally acquired and tries to take away the LINUX users perpetual rights to upgrade and support their LINUX... Then, consumer protection laws should also prevail and it will be seen that SCO's agents willingly allowed the LINUX acquisitons, downloads, upgrades, and support to take place in the first place, meaning that SCO cannot go back and charge the users AGAIN (or again and again and again...). If SCO wins it's IBM suit, then SO what (previous acquitions of LINUX should still be able to run and be upgraded just like they did before (because SCO's IP agents never have said anything, during these acquisitions etc, to the contrary)!
Remember that part of a state's attorney general's office job, and one big part of that job, is consumer protection... so, if you feel that SCO is causing you harm as a consumer, then contact them with your questions and maybe file a formal complaint!
Hint: maybe we all had better document our LINUX acquisition dates today - so we can prove that we have been using LINUX for as long as we have been. If, for some reason you wish to file a consumer complaint with your state's attorney general (in person, online or sending by mail) against SCO then don't forget to include the documentation that shows the dates you acquired LINUX and any proofs of purchase receipts that you might have, or send the state a copy of the LINUX that you have downloaded as a proof of acquistion, as it may be important to use as your proof of date of LINUX acquistion in the future!
If SCO loses the IBM suit, then LINUX keeps going in the direction is has been heading all along, to wherever it is taken next (albiet without folks liking SCO, or canopy group companies very much)!
If SCO, a principle, tries to charge users of LINUX for what they have already legally acquired and tries to take away the LINUX users perpetual rights to upgrade and support their LINUX... Then, consumer protection laws should also prevail and it will be seen that SCO's agents willingly allowed the LINUX acquisitons, downloads, upgrades, and support to take place in the first place, meaning that SCO cannot go back and charge the users AGAIN (or again and again and again...). If SCO wins it's IBM suit, then SO what (previous acquitions of LINUX should still be able to run and be upgraded just like they did before (because SCO's IP agents never have said anything, during these acquisitions etc, to the contrary)!
Remember that part of a state's attorney general's office job, and one big part of that job, is consumer protection... so, if you feel that SCO is causing you harm as a consumer, then contact them with your questions and maybe file a formal complaint!
Hint: maybe we all had better document our LINUX acquisition dates today - so we can prove that we have been using LINUX for as long as we have been. If, for some reason you wish to file a consumer complaint with your state's attorney general (in person, online or sending by mail) against SCO then don't forget to include the documentation that shows the dates you acquired LINUX and any proofs of purchase receipts that you might have, or send the state a copy of the LINUX that you have downloaded as a proof of acquistion, as it may be important to use as your proof of date of LINUX acquistion in the future!
It's more like David vs. a Zerg Rush or maybe David vs. The Blob. You're dealing with a system which has no central command structure, except for arguably Linus. If he's taken out of the picture through lawsuit threats, or even (God forbid) a brick to the head or something, the kernel code is still floating around out there and the interest is out there, so the code will evolve around SCO's little hissy fit.
How about this:
SCO lawyer is Shylock, IBM's lawyer is Portia.
Makes things a bit clearer if you use that simile, no?
SCO lawyer is Shylock, IBM's lawyer is Portia.
Makes things a bit clearer if you use that simile, no?
Goliath was a most likely just a guy with giantism, which causes blindess, weak bones, faulty heart and thin skull as pleasent side effects. And back problems.
Frankly, I'd rather be David after a few months of going to the gym. SCO can be a pidgeon.
Anyway, I'm too much of an optimist to be worried about SCO. Tis sillyness. They're outmatch in every way and don't even have a valid case...
Frankly, I'd rather be David after a few months of going to the gym. SCO can be a pidgeon.
Anyway, I'm too much of an optimist to be worried about SCO. Tis sillyness. They're outmatch in every way and don't even have a valid case...
Here's a thought... eventually the legal battle will be over and SCO will be wiped from the face of the earth. At that point, all the current SCO employees are going to be looking for work. How likely would you be to hire someone who was willing to continue to work for this company?
If you're going to draw biblical references at least follow the canon<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)
IBM is not and has nothing to do with Goliath. It is traditionally related with the Leviathan: big and blue.
IBM is not and has nothing to do with Goliath. It is traditionally related with the Leviathan: big and blue.
I like this threads, just the basic of sharing knowledge and ideas is great.
My view is (I am mexican) does linux or open software in general belongs to the americans?, why does a legal suit between two United States Companies have to put at risk the efforts of the world?... , if the code in linux is "contaminated" with proprietary source code identical line by line incluiding the mistakes and jokes of the programmers and the names of the variables etcetera does it give the plagiariazed company the right to charge for all the other software that is in GNU/Linux ???? does it give them the "ownership" of the efforts of thousands of people that worked for free, and mostly aren't even americans (I am quite sure)...
Since when the americans have such rights over the world?, do I as a mexican using open source have to pay Mr. McBride for a linux license someday?...
I mean aren't the americans the same people that fought and rejected to be subjected to foreing rules for crimes of war in a court in Holland, even threating that if some of his fellows falls in the hands of justice for his war crimes they will take La Haya with military force if needed to avoid his fellow being judge (probably for all the right reasons as it is quite obvious for all reasoning and informed human beings in this planet at these hasty days are going by, even the informed american people whom sadly seem to be a minority of them....).
Then what is it that will force us the rest of the world to follow such rules in the remote and improbable case that some judge in the US decides that SCO is right. Other than the control of our sorry asses "democracies" that the gringos so much love and sustain as long as they don't go too much to the left... Yes my president Fox surely took money for his dirty campain from Redmond without a doubt as it is clear, but if we elect the left here then Microsoft be prepare to get your ass kicked out of gobvernment I assure you!..
Have not the US done enough harm already to the world as it is?, has their gobvernment not being involved in pushing windows down the world community throat long enough (they sent 2 representants of the State department to a free software reunion in Asia to change a statement that recommended the adoption of linux in the gobvernment, so I read).....
Is the outcome of the judgment in this particular Sco vs Ibm case reward (even if a remote chance) Sco with what rights?, charge for something that CAN'T logically be theirs?, not disclose their allegations ? (because then everybody will copy again their precious lines of code?), will there be any way in case there is a lot of code of theirs in linux to get it replace for good, and in the process writing better code and bettering linux, because obviously as with any other code is not the same if a 100 people review the same code as if say 10 do the same being conservative....
The worst thing as some people (mostly american "luminaires" of open source, hell I think Mr. Torvalds is "american" now) has said and is true that the damage being done to Linux is in the areas of the FUD that it generates, that prevents new deployments (althought as reports say it doesn't seem to be the case) and retards the adoption of a visible better technology in the UNITED STATES Companies (GOD FORBID US ALL):
Does Linux belongs to the United States?, can a country which ever it is and his companies claim property over something developed by very diverse people living in different countries and contribuiting their work for the benefit of human kind in general?...
Do we need a special court to address these issues, or do we need to step down and let the empire decides on our lives as it pleases them to do?.
My view is (I am mexican) does linux or open software in general belongs to the americans?, why does a legal suit between two United States Companies have to put at risk the efforts of the world?... , if the code in linux is "contaminated" with proprietary source code identical line by line incluiding the mistakes and jokes of the programmers and the names of the variables etcetera does it give the plagiariazed company the right to charge for all the other software that is in GNU/Linux ???? does it give them the "ownership" of the efforts of thousands of people that worked for free, and mostly aren't even americans (I am quite sure)...
Since when the americans have such rights over the world?, do I as a mexican using open source have to pay Mr. McBride for a linux license someday?...
I mean aren't the americans the same people that fought and rejected to be subjected to foreing rules for crimes of war in a court in Holland, even threating that if some of his fellows falls in the hands of justice for his war crimes they will take La Haya with military force if needed to avoid his fellow being judge (probably for all the right reasons as it is quite obvious for all reasoning and informed human beings in this planet at these hasty days are going by, even the informed american people whom sadly seem to be a minority of them....).
Then what is it that will force us the rest of the world to follow such rules in the remote and improbable case that some judge in the US decides that SCO is right. Other than the control of our sorry asses "democracies" that the gringos so much love and sustain as long as they don't go too much to the left... Yes my president Fox surely took money for his dirty campain from Redmond without a doubt as it is clear, but if we elect the left here then Microsoft be prepare to get your ass kicked out of gobvernment I assure you!..
Have not the US done enough harm already to the world as it is?, has their gobvernment not being involved in pushing windows down the world community throat long enough (they sent 2 representants of the State department to a free software reunion in Asia to change a statement that recommended the adoption of linux in the gobvernment, so I read).....
Is the outcome of the judgment in this particular Sco vs Ibm case reward (even if a remote chance) Sco with what rights?, charge for something that CAN'T logically be theirs?, not disclose their allegations ? (because then everybody will copy again their precious lines of code?), will there be any way in case there is a lot of code of theirs in linux to get it replace for good, and in the process writing better code and bettering linux, because obviously as with any other code is not the same if a 100 people review the same code as if say 10 do the same being conservative....
The worst thing as some people (mostly american "luminaires" of open source, hell I think Mr. Torvalds is "american" now) has said and is true that the damage being done to Linux is in the areas of the FUD that it generates, that prevents new deployments (althought as reports say it doesn't seem to be the case) and retards the adoption of a visible better technology in the UNITED STATES Companies (GOD FORBID US ALL):
Does Linux belongs to the United States?, can a country which ever it is and his companies claim property over something developed by very diverse people living in different countries and contribuiting their work for the benefit of human kind in general?...
Do we need a special court to address these issues, or do we need to step down and let the empire decides on our lives as it pleases them to do?.
Actually, I rather like the possibility that SCO might find itself sued in a lot of different jurisdictions for its FUD campaign.
I also like the thought that Linux is a transnational product that no one nation can outlaw or otherwise stop. If MicroSCOft were to somehow convince the US government to outlaw Linux, Linux would continue to thrive beyond our borders<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... just as encryption did while we pretended that our encryption was so precious that others would steal it. Rat farts! Our encryption fell seriously behind the rest of the world while our government played make-believe.
Linux is the next dominant OS<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... and that's why MSFT is working so hard on<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET. SCO is toast. I believe Darl is simply pumping the handle for as much money as he can get out of it<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... all the while keeping a nervous eye on his escape routes.
Those lines of code have to come out publicly eventually. When they do, if they actually are an infringement, they will cease to be in Linux as fast as fingers can fly over keyboards.
Darl doesn't understand the rate of technological change. He claims Linux could not have progressed as rapidly as it did without his code. It took mankind a VERY long time to make the first workable glider and a very short time afterward to make the first heavier than air self-propelled plane. Then, in the wink of an eye, he was taking off from land and flying to the stratosphere and beyond. Things are hard to do until someone actually does them<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... then a dozen ways to accomplish the same objective show up in short order.
I also like the thought that Linux is a transnational product that no one nation can outlaw or otherwise stop. If MicroSCOft were to somehow convince the US government to outlaw Linux, Linux would continue to thrive beyond our borders<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... just as encryption did while we pretended that our encryption was so precious that others would steal it. Rat farts! Our encryption fell seriously behind the rest of the world while our government played make-believe.
Linux is the next dominant OS<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... and that's why MSFT is working so hard on<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET. SCO is toast. I believe Darl is simply pumping the handle for as much money as he can get out of it<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... all the while keeping a nervous eye on his escape routes.
Those lines of code have to come out publicly eventually. When they do, if they actually are an infringement, they will cease to be in Linux as fast as fingers can fly over keyboards.
Darl doesn't understand the rate of technological change. He claims Linux could not have progressed as rapidly as it did without his code. It took mankind a VERY long time to make the first workable glider and a very short time afterward to make the first heavier than air self-propelled plane. Then, in the wink of an eye, he was taking off from land and flying to the stratosphere and beyond. Things are hard to do until someone actually does them<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... then a dozen ways to accomplish the same objective show up in short order.
Business is universal - not just a US invention.
Posted by: Anonymous Coward on August 18, 2003 07:41 PM
The thing that SCO has ignored is this:
Most countries have laws that allow and govern how business is conducted.
One basic understanding of all these laws (if they exist and you have to check out the laws in the country you reside in, or do business in),<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... yep, one most important basic understanding that has to exist with business, in order to do business, is that once there is a meeting of the minds between an agent of a principle and the innocent 3rd party customer over the terms and conditions of a deal, and the deal is consumated (based on these understandings)..., then, unless the deal says otherwise, the principle cannot go back to the innocent 3rd party and change the terms and conditions of the deal or charge them again "any kind of newly invented price", thus altering the deal... , the principle is restriced by laws so that they cannot after the fact go back and try to harm the innocent 3rd party customer. If businesses or principles were able to go back and reinvent the terms of a deal after the deal has been made then the economy would collapse as the innocent 3rd party customer would then fear to buy anything, as if they did buy something, then they could be charged again any newly invented price for the product AND would have to pay! Trade could not exist without the respect for the basic laws of business (and the rule of law).
So, thru the centuries, business laws in most counrtries, who allow business transactions to exist, have matured to state that agents of a principle that negotiate a deal for the principle wth the principle's apparent or ostensible authority,or actual authority (or by acquienscense the principle simply allows the deal to go thru as arranged by the agent), then on a case by case basis the judge has to establish the relationships between the parties (mostly the principle agent relationship facts need to be evident and proved), then the judge rules as to if the agent acted in such a way to at least have the principle's apparent or ostensible authority to make the deal "as seen and understood by the innocent 3rd party customer and the facts"! If the Judge sees that indeed a principle has allowed the principle's agents (as seen by the public) to do business for the principle, then the innocent 3rd party customer goes freely on their way with their product still having been acquired fairly, as it was before, and so the innocent 3rd party cannot be harmed by the principle after a deal has been legally made. If consumer protection laws like this do not exist in a country, then the acts of doing business can not happen, as no customer wants to agree to pay something one day and then have the seller (or principle and/or a principle's agents) come back the next day and say that they now owe 5 times (or whatever amount) for the use of the product that was bought the day before. The most basic rule of business, in order for business to survive as an institution, is that a deal is a deal is a deal...! A business or a business's agents cannot go back and change a deal once it is fairly and legally made.
Most countries have laws that allow and govern how business is conducted.
One basic understanding of all these laws (if they exist and you have to check out the laws in the country you reside in, or do business in),<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... yep, one most important basic understanding that has to exist with business, in order to do business, is that once there is a meeting of the minds between an agent of a principle and the innocent 3rd party customer over the terms and conditions of a deal, and the deal is consumated (based on these understandings)..., then, unless the deal says otherwise, the principle cannot go back to the innocent 3rd party and change the terms and conditions of the deal or charge them again "any kind of newly invented price", thus altering the deal... , the principle is restriced by laws so that they cannot after the fact go back and try to harm the innocent 3rd party customer. If businesses or principles were able to go back and reinvent the terms of a deal after the deal has been made then the economy would collapse as the innocent 3rd party customer would then fear to buy anything, as if they did buy something, then they could be charged again any newly invented price for the product AND would have to pay! Trade could not exist without the respect for the basic laws of business (and the rule of law).
So, thru the centuries, business laws in most counrtries, who allow business transactions to exist, have matured to state that agents of a principle that negotiate a deal for the principle wth the principle's apparent or ostensible authority,or actual authority (or by acquienscense the principle simply allows the deal to go thru as arranged by the agent), then on a case by case basis the judge has to establish the relationships between the parties (mostly the principle agent relationship facts need to be evident and proved), then the judge rules as to if the agent acted in such a way to at least have the principle's apparent or ostensible authority to make the deal "as seen and understood by the innocent 3rd party customer and the facts"! If the Judge sees that indeed a principle has allowed the principle's agents (as seen by the public) to do business for the principle, then the innocent 3rd party customer goes freely on their way with their product still having been acquired fairly, as it was before, and so the innocent 3rd party cannot be harmed by the principle after a deal has been legally made. If consumer protection laws like this do not exist in a country, then the acts of doing business can not happen, as no customer wants to agree to pay something one day and then have the seller (or principle and/or a principle's agents) come back the next day and say that they now owe 5 times (or whatever amount) for the use of the product that was bought the day before. The most basic rule of business, in order for business to survive as an institution, is that a deal is a deal is a deal...! A business or a business's agents cannot go back and change a deal once it is fairly and legally made.
Parent points out some important elements that tend to get lost by the mainly US media (e-week, Slashdot, Newsforge, etc) that are reporting on the SCO story.
But the problem is the US is a past master at leveraging its dominance to force compatible IP laws to be passed in the countries it trades with. If SCO win with their evil methods, and it becomes impossibly chilly for Linux in the US, this will have a major trickledown impact everywhere. Lets hope that the US law is not so broken as to allow such an outrage.
But the problem is the US is a past master at leveraging its dominance to force compatible IP laws to be passed in the countries it trades with. If SCO win with their evil methods, and it becomes impossibly chilly for Linux in the US, this will have a major trickledown impact everywhere. Lets hope that the US law is not so broken as to allow such an outrage.
Given that the U.S. seems at present to be driven by narrow special interests (I *hope* I am wrong), I am gratified by the extent to which Linux, and increasingly other open source projects, remain international in scope.
I am proud to be an American in the long-dead classic sense, being a strong advocate of a diverse, strong and open society. I am disgusted with the new American style, in the sense of being driven by narrow interests who impoverish society by disabling our creativity to advance their own ends.
The irony here is that America used to represent the amazing capacity of FREE people to build real wealth in an open society.
To the world community: Please try to be patient with us, we will keep trying to block the thieves. In the meantime, please try to keep freedom alive in the rest of the world while we try to resurrect it here.
Fortunately, and incomprehensibly for the big companies, Linux (or GNU/Linux if you prefer), was and is an operating system that can't be killed. As long as people want to keep their source code free, there will be an alternative. It might change, it might become something different, but it will continue in some form.
All the legal muscle in the world can't stop people thinking - and whatever the outcome of SCO vs IBM, ideas cannot be made to disappear.
The SCOs of this world don't understand that there are values that transcend the economic.
All the legal muscle in the world can't stop people thinking - and whatever the outcome of SCO vs IBM, ideas cannot be made to disappear.
The SCOs of this world don't understand that there are values that transcend the economic.
What's wrong with you? Why are you apologizing for us on the Linux front?
IBM (an American company) has sunk more time, effort, and money into Linux then just about anyone else out there with the possible exception of Germany. And remind me again where Red Hat is located. Isn't it North Carolina? We have NOTHING to apologize for.
A few guys out there are trying to make an easy buck in our court system and suddenly Americans are anti-Linux? Americans are the bad guys? Screw that!
IBM (an American company) has sunk more time, effort, and money into Linux then just about anyone else out there with the possible exception of Germany. And remind me again where Red Hat is located. Isn't it North Carolina? We have NOTHING to apologize for.
A few guys out there are trying to make an easy buck in our court system and suddenly Americans are anti-Linux? Americans are the bad guys? Screw that!
I don't think the outcome of this will have any effect outside of the U.S. I really don't think SCO has a chance, but if they do succeed, I'm afraid its only us in the U.S. who will be affected by it.
I'm troubled by a lot of the things going on in my country. DMCA, patents, etc. Hopefully things will change. With a little awareness, things can change.
I'm troubled by a lot of the things going on in my country. DMCA, patents, etc. Hopefully things will change. With a little awareness, things can change.
Wasn't William Tell forced to shoot the apple off of his son's head by wicked burghers, whom he later killed? How about that as a better classic analogy?
US Courts being what they are...
Posted by: Anonymous Coward on August 17, 2003 08:29 PM#