Tag: Linux

Posted on
by

This morning I upgraded the mail servers at work. They were down for maybe two seconds each. I doubt anyone even noticed.

If you’re used to installing software on Windows, you probably think I’m kidding. Didn’t I have to shut the service down before installing the upgrade? Didn’t I have to reboot when it was done? Nope!

The reason you have to go through all that trouble when you install something on Windows is that it won’t let you change files that are in use. So you can’t install the new Exchange without closing down the old one. And some files aren’t completely closed until you shut down Windows.

On Linux (and possibly all Unix-like systems), if you delete or replace an open file, the system hangs onto it until the program using it is done. So if you need to upgrade Sendmail, you can go through the entire process while the old Sendmail is still running, then tell it to restart the service once it’s ready.

It’s not quite zero, but it’s close!

Posted on
by

Groklaw has posted an affidavit in the SCO vs. Daimler Chrysler case.

Essentially, SCO sent DC a letter saying “as per your license terms, send us a list of all the computers you’re using UNIX on.”

DC wrote back saying, “We haven’t used UNIX in seven years, so there is no list.”

And SCO sued them for not providing the list.

I’m not making this up, folks – this comes out of SCO’s own deposition!

Posted on
by

OK, I haven’t written much on the SCO vs. Linux debacle in a while, mainly because others have done so much better and in much more detail than I possibly could, so here’s a summary of the situation as I see it.

SCO: Linux stole from us!
Linux: Uh, no. What did we steal?
SCO: Linux stole from us!
Linux: No, we didn’t. What are we supposed to have stolen!
SCO: Linux stole from us! They’re un-American commie terrorists!
Linux: Dude, what the heck? Tell us what we stole or stop accusing us!
SCO: Linux stole XYZ from us.
Linux: No, we got that legally from so-and-so.
SCO: Uh, never mind. We meant to say Linux stole ABC.
Linux: No, we got that legally from such-and-such.
SCO: No, we mean JFS and NUMA!
IBM: Hey, we invented those ourselves.
SCO: We have proof! We have millions of lines that Linux stole!
Linux: Such as?
* crickets *
SCO: We have millions of lines! Millions of them!
Linux: Shyeah, right.
SCO: But don’t worry, for a mere $699, you can assure yourself that we won’t sue you for this chunk of Linux that we haven’t actually proved we own yet!
Linux: $699? For a small piece of something you won’t even prove you own? What’s next, charging Windows users an extra $700 for Notepad because they can write code with it? [Looks up definition of “protection racket”]
SCO: Did I mention we own BSD, MacOS, and Windows too? They’re next! (Well, except Windows, ’cause Microsoft gave us money. For something else, I mean.)
BSD: You’re kidding, right? We went through this in court a decade ago.
SCO: Wait, we never said anything about BSD.
BSD: But in this interview right here —
SCO: Linux is evil! The GPL is unconstitutional! If you let people use software for free, then the terrorists have won!
Linux: What are you people smoking?

Then there are the lawsuits:
Continue reading →

Posted on
by

Cliches aside, it appears that as a result of the trademark suit by Microsoft, Lindows is now going by the name Lin—s (LinDash) in parts of Europe.

Lindows — or Lin—s if you prefer — is a company that has been selling an ultra-user-friendly version of Linux. Criticized by many for lax security (they’ve chosen many of the same convenience vs. security trade-offs that have made Microsoft products so vulnerable) and for odd business practices [archive.org], they’ve nonetheless managed to get Linux into new places — like on cheap Internet-ready computers sold in Wal-mart, or pre-installed on Seagate hard drives. For all their baiting (face it, picking a name like Lindows is just asking for trouble, like opening a burger restaurant called McDowells), dumbing-down the software to the point of making it dangerous, and (in some people’s views) “tainting” the Linux philosophy with — gasp! — money — they’ve at least come up with new distribution models and gotten some form of Linux out there where “consumers” — the average Joe who just wants a computer and doesn’t care what the OS is, as long as it lets him use the web, email, and a word processor — can see it.

All that said, I’d never actually buy, use, or recommend their product. If I wanted a very-user-friendly Linux, I’d probably end up with Lycoris, or maybe Xandros.

For myself, I’m happy with Fedora Core — though I may take a serious look at the upcoming double-digit Mandrake release and the latest version of SuSE. I’ve tried out earlier versions (mostly of Mandrake), but I just kept coming back to Red Hat.

Posted on
by

Several months ago, Scummy Computer Operations sued IBM claiming that IBM had copied code from UNIX into Linux. They refused to say what code had been copied. Already this sounds fishy. In their initial filing, they insulted the ethics and competence of the entire Open Source community. Eventually they started making wilder and wilder claims. They called into question the entire open source development model. They started threatening Linux users, and made noise about how they were going to start issuing license terms for Linux, without having proven that they actually own anything in Linux. The only specifics anyone’s managed to get out of them involve code IBM wrote itself and contributed to both OSes.

All they had to do was say “This code here is in violation of our copyright.” At which point the Linux kernel developers could look at it, say, “Hmm, that was contributed by so-and-so on such-and-such a date.” (The entire development process is open to the public – SCO could do this themselves.) An investigation could then be made, and the code could be either shown to be not in violation or removed and replaced with something else. Instead, they’ve remained (deliberately?) vague, such that over the course of four months, with the entire source code for Linux available to the entire world, no one has managed to find anything and say, “this must be what they’re complaining about.”

Yesterday Red Hat got fed up and sued SCO, saying the accusations were a load of bull and accusing them of anti-competetive practices.

Now, not only is SCO claiming that Red Hat’s suit proves that SCO is right (they deny it, therefore it must be true!), their licensing terms for Linux would make it more expensive than Windows.

And you know what really makes me sick? SCO’s stock price just went up. These people are deceptive scumbags. They’re making claims that they refuse to back up. They’re setting prices and threatening to go after people for money, but they refuse to prove that they own what they’re selling. Even in the unlikely event that they’re telling the truth and there is UNIX code in Linux, they’ve acted unethically by not giving anyone a chance to correct the issue.

See also: TWikiWeThey: SCO vs. IBM [archive.org] and OSI Position Paper on the SCO-vs.-IBM Complaint