You gotta love this quote:

"So basically SCO's arguments are just too wrong to even discuss rationally. SCO doesn't own the copyright on the files they are talking about -- the University of California at Berkeley does. But even if they did, the Linux files weren't even copied in the first place. And even if they had been copied, no copyright notices would have been removed, since they didn't exist in the original. There are literally several levels of SCO being wrong. And even if we were to live in that alternate universe where SCO would be right, they'd still be wrong."

http://businessweek.com/magazine/content/04_05/b3868110_mz063.htm

LOL ... That was great ...

He's hillarious.

I can't wait until SCO folds and is acquired by IBM and RedHat.

Linus has no problem telling people exactly how he feels about SCO.

Linus is da Man!
I'd really love to see if there is any proof behind the rumor that M$ is behind SCO and their shenanigans..

Then with them blindly barking up trees without any evidence to stand behind I sort of doubt it. I'd like to think M$ is a bit smarter than that.

Just gotta love how they claim to have copyrights to software, yet they don't even have copies of the software they claim to own the rights for.

Even though Linux may very well be a threat to M$ in the near future I doubt they'd waste their time funding these idiots.

didn't he once say about SCO "their smoking pot!" :D

Originally posted by websterworld
didn't he once say about SCO "their smoking pot!" :D

They're smoking crack.

Originally posted by JTY
They're smoking crack.

Yep, that was it... :D

Originally posted by Davros
Linus is da Man!
I'd really love to see if there is any proof behind the rumor that M$ is behind SCO and their shenanigans..

Then with them blindly barking up trees without any evidence to stand behind I sort of doubt it. I'd like to think M$ is a bit smarter than that.

Just gotta love how they claim to have copyrights to software, yet they don't even have copies of the software they claim to own the rights for.

Even though Linux may very well be a threat to M$ in the near future I doubt they'd waste their time funding these idiots.


I won't feel completely comfortable with Linux until Mr. Torvalds, and IBM and Novell and everyone else involved with designing, coding and using it indicate that SCO has no case and the rest of the world can continue using the OS with 100% CERTAINTY that SCO has no ground to stand on and will lose their case.

People can continue to love Linux and hate Microsoft, but until the case is resolved, the doubts will continue.

Lets all go intentionally get that virus, that DDOS'es SCO!!

LOL!

Originally posted by adorno
I won't feel completely comfortable with Linux until Mr. Torvalds, and IBM and Novell and everyone else involved with designing, coding and using it indicate that SCO has no case...


Part II

... and the rest of the world can continue using the OS with 100% CERTAINTY that SCO has no ground to stand on and will lose their case.
Your dreams of Part I seem to have been realized, however SCO (IMHO) isn't helping with Part II and will make this issue go on for as long as they can.

Originally posted by adorno
I won't feel completely comfortable with Linux until Mr. Torvalds, and IBM and Novell and everyone else involved with designing, coding and using it indicate that SCO has no case and the rest of the world can continue using the OS with 100% CERTAINTY that SCO has no ground to stand on and will lose their case.

People can continue to love Linux and hate Microsoft, but until the case is resolved, the doubts will continue.

SCO has no case! Read the history.. They are claiming copyrights to software they don't even posess. When asked exactly what copyrights are being broken they wont answer. When asked to provide proof they cant..

I need no further evidence..
Linus is correct.. SCO has been smoking crack!

Originally posted by Chicken
Your dreams of Part I seem to have been realized, however SCO (IMHO) isn't helping with Part II and will make this issue go on for as long as they can.

Chicken:

Part 1 and Part 2 are still unresolved. The case lingers There are no guarantees from the anti-SCO crowd and the case is still in the courts. The doubts will continue.

Originally posted by Davros
SCO has no case! Read the history.. They are claiming copyrights to software they don't even posess. When asked exactly what copyrights are being broken they wont answer. When asked to provide proof they cant..

I need no further evidence..
Linus is correct.. SCO has been smoking crack!

Davros:

Whether SCO has a case or not is not known with complete certainty. SCO will not reveal their hand or argue their case in public until the case is heard in court. Don't get me wrong, I hope it's true that they have no case, but until the case is resolved or the case is thrown out, the Linux community is not 100% free to go about their business.

Originally posted by adorno
I hope it's true that they have no case, but until the case is resolved or the case is thrown out, the Linux community is not 100% free to go about their business.


The Linux community most definitely can continue to go about their business. When Microsoft was (and is still) getting sued by multiple governments agencies both domestic and abroad, did you stop using Windows for fear of the legality of the software? I seriously doubt you stopped using it, so why would you think it should be any different for Linux users? People need to put things into perspective here and maybe then you will see that no matter the outcome of the court case, Linux will continue to grow, will continue to get more widely used, and will still be actively developed for many years to come.

Originally posted by jsjohnst
The Linux community most definitely can continue to go about their business. When Microsoft was (and is still) getting sued by multiple governments agencies both domestic and abroad, did you stop using Windows for fear of the legality of the software? I seriously doubt you stopped using it, so why would you think it should be any different for Linux users? People need to put things into perspective here and maybe then you will see that no matter the outcome of the court case, Linux will continue to grow, will continue to get more widely used, and will still be actively developed for many years to come.

jsjohnst:

It is not a question of whether the Linux community can go about their business of using the OS. I'm sure that's going to happen and rightfully so.

It is a question of what happens, if by any chance, SCO does have a case and they win even one of their points against the Linux distributors.

Microsoft has mostly been sued for monopolistic reasons, not for illegally distributing software that's the property of others. When they've distributed software without the rightful owner's permission, they've been caught. There is a case like that still not completely resolved in the courts and Microsoft has apparently lost it.

The SCO case is still in court, and I do hope SCO loses. When will all the Linux distributors make their guarantees to the Linux community at large?

Distributors have been offering Linux buyers indemnification against the possible outcome. I wouldn't hesitate for a moment to continue to deploy servers with Linux as the OS.

SCO's case gets weaker and weaker as more bits and bits are revealed. Their most recent excuse for not complying with the court's demands (I call it "the dog ate our homework") is flimsy to the point of being ridiculous.

Microsoft's funding of SCO in order to keep it viable so that it could pursue lawsuits is, IMO, a thinly-veiled attempt to first drive a wedge into the community that backs the biggest threat that MS has seen since IBM's OS2 and second to scare off (or at least delay) corporate migration.

Originally posted by hostpath.com
Distributors have been offering Linux buyers indemnification against the possible outcome. I wouldn't hesitate for a moment to continue to deploy servers with Linux as the OS.

SCO's case gets weaker and weaker as more bits and bits are revealed. Their most recent excuse for not complying with the court's demands (I call it "the dog ate our homework") is flimsy to the point of being ridiculous.

Microsoft's funding of SCO in order to keep it viable so that it could pursue lawsuits is, IMO, a thinly-veiled attempt to first drive a wedge into the community that backs the biggest threat that MS has seen since IBM's OS2 and second to scare off (or at least delay) corporate migration.

If you're right the Linux community has no worries at all. Hopefully you're right.

I do hope that Linux is more successful than IBM's OS2. Who uses OS2 anyway?

Meanwhile, SCO continues their 'hopeless' case in court, according to you. There's no doubt that Microsoft has a lot to gain if SCO wins the case, but how much? If Linux is that much better, then it will continue to gain users, even if there is a fee for buying or using it. So, why fear? Whatever the cost for using Linux, it should still end up being a lot cheaper than Windows.

When I last checked in CompUSA and Best Buy, Linux was not free. It seems open source is not without cost. I know there are free downloadable versions of Linux, but you need more than the OS. When other products intended for use in Linux are bundled with the OS, the total price is not free. One of those bundled packages in CompUSA was more than $100. Open source and freeware are not always free.

So if SCO were to win their case, I wouldn't mind paying a small fee for its usage as long as I know I'm getting a better product. My preference is still for the free product.

Originally posted by adorno
I do hope that Linux is more successful than IBM's OS2. Who uses OS2 anyway?

Speaking very carefully here after experiencing first-hand the chilling effects of what are, IMO, MS's strong-armed business tactics, MS killed OS2 (IMO).

The packages you buy in the store include fancy packaging and technical support. There is virtually no other difference between the downloadable versions and the store bought versions. Of course sometimes they include apps which aren't in the downloable ISO's, but of course you can go directly to the author's site and download the same application only usually more up to date. Retail packaged Linux distro's are simply for people who need the warm fuzzy feeling of a box, or people who are new to Linux and need the technical support (which is usually very good support compared to what you can get for Windows).

Originally posted by jsjohnst
The packages you buy in the store include fancy packaging and technical support. There is virtually no other difference between the downloadable versions and the store bought versions. Of course sometimes they include apps which aren't in the downloable ISO's, but of course you can go directly to the author's site and download the same application only usually more up to date. Retail packaged Linux distro's are simply for people who need the warm fuzzy feeling of a box, or people who are new to Linux and need the technical support (which is usually very good support compared to what you can get for Windows).

jsjohnst:

This thread has taken a slight turn off the topic. But, I'll bite.

If Linux is intended for high-end techie types, then you are right. If you're a developer, or a host or any other high-end user, then Linux is for you.

It was my belief that Linux was trying to woo the everyday Windows user as well as the super-techies. Millions of people need the 'warm fuzzy feeling of a box' as you put it. Until Linux is easy to get, easy to install, easy to use and easy to develop for, then Linux will continue to come in second.

Most of those questions were there when I first picked up my first copy of Linux back in 1994. Many of those questions are still there today for the everyday user. Remember that I'm talking about the everyday home user, not the types that frequent WHT type forums.

Originally posted by adorno
jsjohnst:

This thread has taken a slight turn off the topic. But, I'll bite.

If Linux is intended for high-end techie types, then you are right. If you're a developer, or a host or any other high-end user, then Linux is for you.

It was my belief that Linux was trying to woo the everyday Windows user as well as the super-techies. Millions of people need the 'warm fuzzy feeling of a box' as you put it. Until Linux is easy to get, easy to install, easy to use and easy to develop for, then Linux will continue to come in second.

Most of those questions were there when I first picked up my first copy of Linux back in 1994. Many of those questions are still there today for the everyday user. Remember that I'm talking about the everyday home user, not the types that frequent WHT type forums.

I'm probably a bit better off than the average user, and so far the only times I've been able to get Linux and XWindows running was in RedHat which broke it and DamnSmallLinux. I doubt ANYONE who doesn't know much about Linux could get much past booting up DamnSmallLinux, since it's so easy.

Originally posted by adorno
It was my belief that Linux was trying to woo the everyday Windows user as well as the super-techies.

Linux as a community isn't ready to do that. It will be some time before they are. The major players have to start playing together for their to be a unified product that can be marketed to Joe Average User. They're working on it, getting closer all the time (see Sun's JDS for example) but still have a ways to go.

Momentum for Linux on the average desktop is building, however, and that's a threat.

But in fact, MS doesn't fear that at all as yet. Rather, IMO it fears the migration of business users from Windows to Linux. Business/government users usually have the funding necessary to invest in the education of their employees in order to fill in the gaps between Windows and Linux.

With Novell and IBM (two names well-established in the business sector but really not significant in the average household) playing in Linux, it becomes even more attractive.

A good comparison was my choice to go with MySQL as the standard backend database for all of the custom applications we produce. I could have spent nearly $8,000 on a single web license for MS SQL. Instead I spent a few hundred on licenses for MySQL and spent a few grand per employee to send them to a full week's worth of MySQL training.

A better investment for us, IMO.

Originally posted by adorno
jsjohnst:

This thread has taken a slight turn off the topic. But, I'll bite.

If Linux is intended for high-end techie types, then you are right. If you're a developer, or a host or any other high-end user, then Linux is for you.

It was my belief that Linux was trying to woo the everyday Windows user as well as the super-techies. Millions of people need the 'warm fuzzy feeling of a box' as you put it. Until Linux is easy to get, easy to install, easy to use and easy to develop for, then Linux will continue to come in second.

Most of those questions were there when I first picked up my first copy of Linux back in 1994. Many of those questions are still there today for the everyday user. Remember that I'm talking about the everyday home user, not the types that frequent WHT type forums.

http://www.webhostingtalk.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=228160

It is easy.
Lindows, SuSE and others are even MORE user friendly then windows is.

read my how-to. ;)

Like I said:

'Until Linux is easy to get, easy to install, easy to use and easy to develop for, then Linux will continue to come in second."

Your how-to is fairly simple for the techies or semi-techies Most home users would be intimidated by your steps.

Simple is:
>>insert a disk into a drive,
>>answer yes or no to questions,
>>click here or there,
>>answer some simple questions by entering into these boxes,
>>select from a list,
>>etc.

Distros with a long set of instructions is not for the everyday PC users at home.

This is not meant to question how great Linux is. Linux is a great OS but it needs to become as user friendly as Windows or Macs every step of the way.

I know Lindows is a good step in that direction, but until it supports as many standard applications as Windows or MACs it will not be a good replacement.

Did you really read my how-to? do you use linux?

My how-to in a nutshell:

Explains about linux and distros.
Suggests to choose suse or lindows.

Explains how to get it, by downloading it or simply buying it.

hard so far?
go to a store and buy it... very complicated. :rolleyes:

Explains how to start the easy install... its the same as a windows install.

Your basicly done.

Gives a tip: install apt-get.
If you just read the how-to I don't see where you can go wrong with that.

And with Synaptic downloading and installing app's is more EASY then in windows.

You have a list, you pick it from a list.


VERY hard.


I don't think you used linux, at least not as a home user...

I guess you haven't put a fairly recent Mandrake or SuSE disk in your drive then. It honestly is just that simple!

Next time you get a chance put in any of the 9.xx series of Mandrake or SuSE 9.0 disks in your drive. Their install is point and click easy. If you have trouble with that, then go with Lindows.com. I know someone who had his 6 year old son install Lindows.com completely unassisted as a proof for an article he was writing. If a 6 year old boy (albeit very good computer user) can install Linux (Lindows.com) then I would hope most other computer users could as well.

The last time I went to Lindows you could NOT download their distro. You had to buy it. They had no links to download the ISOs or a boot loader so you could dl from FTP.
Unless they have it hidden somewhere out of site.

SuSE you can download but you have to run the boot loader and download from FTP.

But in either case I just installed Mandrake on one of my machines and it was easier than installing windows. I practically hit go and walked away. The only thing I had to do was change disks and click OK. No big deal.

Anyone who claims Linus is so hard has never used the linux of today. Or if they have tried it and still insist they're too stuborn and not worth arguing with. Linux is not just for geeks anymore.

Davros, not all disto's provide ISO's. (read my how-to already! :))

You can FTP install SuSE 9, or you can download it via bittorent. not sure if that's legal. (see how-to)

Lindows, I never used.
But they don't have to provide ISO's either.

The easy thing to do is to pick up a distro from ebay for 5$. :)

The windows installer and SuSE's Yast2 installer are both easy.

Re-read what I said above before You go correcting me. Your corrections of my suposed errors are exactly what I said in the first place!

I know you can d/l SuSE but you CANNOT download Lindows.. ISO, FTP, Or any other way.. You have to BUY it unless you get a pirate copy, or unless they have a free d/l section hidden somewhere.

Originally posted by Vox Hosting
I can't wait until SCO folds and is acquired by IBM and RedHat.

I'm in total agreement --- but have you seen the value of their stock as of late? $18 from what?! $1.5?

Cripes.

Cheers
Jeff

True Lindows.com is not free. But neither is Windows and thankfully Lindows.com is 6 times cheaper than Windows XP and includes "thousands of dollars of additional software in the purchase price".

I am not advocate everybody go to Lindows.com because it is a horrible installation for someone who already knows Linux, but it is good for the complete Linux newbie.

Originally posted by adorno
Like I said:

'Until Linux is easy to get, easy to install, easy to use and easy to develop for, then Linux will continue to come in second."


I guess you could argue this is relative to some standard of intelligence ....

Currently Linux isn't easy to install, or get, or use if one's a trained monkey.

If on the other hand one's a thinking adult human being with a touch of patience, it isn't that hard.

(BTW I'm not directing this comment at you adorno, I'm reflecting on the the "community" standard of "easy" - M$ has everyone convinced that a monkey can use a computer - this just is not the case.)

Cheers
Jeff

Originally posted by idologicJeff
....- M$ has everyone convinced that a monkey can use a computer - this just is not the case.)

Cheers
Jeff

Me knows many monkeys thinking they can use computer.

idologicJeff:

You wrote:

"(BTW I'm not directing this comment at you adorno, I'm reflecting on the the "community" standard of "easy" - M$ has everyone convinced that a monkey can use a computer - this just is not the case.)"

(Don't take this as a retort to your post. This is simply my way of looking at things after many years of experience.)

If you can get the same task done the simple way or the hard way, which way would you choose? As techies, you and I don't care; however, I would choose the simple way.

For a long time VCRs went flashing 12:00 because people didn't understand instructions or the instructions were to lengthy. VCRs then went to a menu system where people were prompted to select from choices or press up/down/left/right. Lessons were learned and the system became more user friendly.

People like thngs easy and intuitive. While a monkey would not use a computer because he would not know how to interact or do some of the more complicated things, such as form entries, why not design with a monkey in mind as far as the most basic use of a gadget or computer? Not everybody who uses a computer will be designing the next killer application or trying to break sales records with their on-line store.

When the end result can be achieved in a simple or complicated method:

>simple = more users, happier users
>complicated = find something simple

Originally posted by Davros
Linus is da Man!
I'd really love to see if there is any proof behind the rumor that M$ is behind SCO and their shenanigans..

Then with them blindly barking up trees without any evidence to stand behind I sort of doubt it. I'd like to think M$ is a bit smarter than that.

Just gotta love how they claim to have copyrights to software, yet they don't even have copies of the software they claim to own the rights for.

Even though Linux may very well be a threat to M$ in the near future I doubt they'd waste their time funding these idiots.
I don't think MS is near that stupid. MS and Linux, IMHO, have two totally different shares of the market and I don't think one would do well controlling the other's share.

Well Microsoft bought 10 milion worth of licences from SCO, and I think there might be more reason for this then microsoft's uncontrolable urge to comply with non-proven copyright claims.

Microsoft bought because the Windows kernel has lots of BSDish and System V code in it. Anyone who thinks Windows was written entirely from the ground up by Microsoft without any "borrowed" code is completely wrong.

Originally posted by jsjohnst
Microsoft bought because the Windows kernel has lots of BSDish and System V code in it.

Do you actually believe that?

Originally posted by sasha
Well Microsoft bought 10 milion worth of licences from SCO, and I think there might be more reason for this then microsoft's uncontrolable urge to comply with non-proven copyright claims.

At the time Microsoft bought those licenses SCO Group as a whole had a total value of about $40 million as a company.

Was it proper licensing of a product they'd been selling with "unlicensed" code for years and year --OR-- the opportunity it saw in SCO's lawsuit, filed just two months earlier, that prompted Microsoft to infuse a tiny (relative to MS) company with roughly $10 million?

MS could have just moved to buy the company outright and those "licensing" issues go away. Instead, by providing SCO the much-needed cash to finance their suits, theoretically MS has provided themselves a sacrificial lamb in the battle to keep Linux down.

If SCO wins, all the better for MS. If they lose, then it was SCO that went down in flames, not MS, and the desire to damage the business migration to Linux is still accomplished. Sounds investing in SCO rather than controlling it is clearly in the best interest of a company that wants to have a foot soldier out there on the front line of the battle for them, shielding them from the negative.

Originally posted by hostpath.com
Do you actually believe that?


No I don't believe that's the "real" reason they bought the license. Microsoft has never cared about stealing code from others. What was SCO going to do, sue Microsoft? I would love to see that one. The reason I believe they honestly paid the licensing fee was described by the person who posted immediately above this post.

Originally posted by jsjohnst
No I don't believe that's the "real" reason they bought the license. Microsoft has never cared about stealing code from others. What was SCO going to do, sue Microsoft? I would love to see that one. The reason I believe they honestly paid the licensing fee was described by the person who posted immediately above this post.

Do you have any evidence to back that up though?

Originally posted by interactive
Do you have any evidence to back that up though?

Evidence of what?

Originally posted by jsjohnst
Evidence of what?


Microsoft bought because the Windows kernel has lots of BSDish and System V code in it. Anyone who thinks Windows was written entirely from the ground up by Microsoft without any "borrowed" code is completely wrong.


Surely they took techniques, but have you actually seen the code or anything?

No I haven't personally. But I also haven't personally seen the code (except for a few MS Powerpoint slides) which alledgely Linux stole from SCO. Sometimes you have to take technical writers for their word.

I don't think he asking about Linux proof.. We've all seen the documents that SCO produced but they thought they could get away with encrypting the code souce. Then compareing it to the Linux code source that was later found out does not exist.

He's talking about your claims tha MS has used SCO's suposed code. Being as Windows is structured in an entirly different maner I seriously doubt they've taken any code directly from Unix.

So far SCO has yet to provide any credible evidence against anyone. They only seem to be raising a fuss to scare those who are willing enough to pad their pockets.

Show me some evidence that SCO has a leg to stand on and I'll change my tune.

If I understand correctly, SCO initially claimed that "millions" of lines of code. However, the document they're supposedly providing to IBM with the suspect code on it takes up only about 20 pages. I don't think you can fit that much code on that few pages.

I find it humorous that SCO is now claiming that they can't provide a real accounting of the copied code until IBM provides them all source code from all versions ever released.

Yeah. Right.