|FROM ||From: "Rene Ferrer"
|SUBJECT ||Subject: [hangout] SCO is good for Linux
|From owner-hangout-desteny-at-mrbrklyn.com Fri Jun 13 20:44:44 2003
Received: from www2.mrbrklyn.com (LOCALHOST [127.0.0.1]) by mrbrklyn.com (8.12.3/8.11.2/SuSE Linux 8.11.1-0.5) with ESMTP id h5E0iinT009644 for ; Fri, 13 Jun 2003 20:44:44 -0400
Received: (from mdom-at-localhost) by www2.mrbrklyn.com (8.12.3/8.12.3/Submit) id h5E0iiMI009643 for hangout-desteny; Fri, 13 Jun 2003 20:44:44 -0400
X-Authentication-Warning: www2.mrbrklyn.com: mdom set sender to owner-hangout-at-www2.mrbrklyn.com using -f
Received: from hotmail.com (bay2-f61.bay2.hotmail.com [18.104.22.168]) by mrbrklyn.com (8.12.3/8.11.2/SuSE Linux 8.11.1-0.5) with ESMTP id h5E0ihnT009638 for ; Fri, 13 Jun 2003 20:44:43 -0400
Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Fri, 13 Jun 2003 17:47:39 -0700
Received: from 22.214.171.124 by by2fd.bay2.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Sat, 14 Jun 2003 00:47:39 GMT
From: "Rene Ferrer"
Subject: [hangout] SCO is good for Linux
Date: Sat, 14 Jun 2003 00:47:39 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 14 Jun 2003 00:47:39.0487 (UTC) FILETIME=[8E4D56F0:01C3320E]
Reply-To: "Rene Ferrer"
List: New Yorker GNU Linux Scene
Admin: To unsubscribe send unsubscribe name-at-domian.com in the body to hangout-request-at-www2.mrbrklyn.com
>From the Missing Monkey Head page at: http://neurobashing.com/monkey/
[Systems Admin.] SCO is Good for Linux
Firstly, SCO's absurd litigation against IBM and, really, Linux as a whole,
is one of the most underhanded attempts to strongarm cash out of a fat
wallet in recent memory. But, I was thinking about it on the way home.
There's an excellent article on Salon about it; without forcing you to
register, I include an excerpt relevant to my thought process:
Don Marti, the editor of the magazine Linux Journal, says, "I frankly don't
think that people are going to make that big of a deal of it -- as soon as
the actual evidence of what SCO claims to have been copied is out there,
then those sections of Linux are going to be replaced with unambiguous
original code effectively immediately." This is, in fact, the beauty of
open-source software -- if there are problems with it you can fix them.
Okay, so let's assume that x-number of lines of code within Linux are
actually in violation of whatever it is that SCO is claiming, then we can
assume that said lines will be stripped out and reimplemented.
Running a system in violation? Apply the patch. That's the easy part,
Running a system that's too old to simply patch? Drop US$40 to US$150 for a
new distro (or download a free one) and rebuild from the ground up. Sure,
it'll cost something, even if the price is just administrative effort.
But the ideal upshot is that, seemingly all at once, the Linux world comes
to a standard and current baseline. Under the guise of avoiding some sort of
contractual or copyright violation automatically makes everyone close all
those security holes that have been found, up to that specific point...
maybe without realizing they're doing it. Everyone is safer. Thanks, SCO!
Someone with a better understanding of "corporate spending", or better
resources should analyze the annual cost-impact of this scenario versus,
say, building and administering the same capabilities offered in Linux using
only Micro$oft products.
Help STOP SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE*
NYLXS: New Yorker Free Software Users Scene
Fair Use -
because it's either fair use or useless....
NYLXS is a trademark of NYLXS, Inc