Microsoft is licensing the rights to Unix technology from SCO Group, a move that could dramatically impact the battle between Windows and Linux in the market for computer operating systems, News.com says. Update: Please note that Microsoft simply licenses the rights of Unix (the same way as Sun and SGI have done in the past) and does NOT become the owner of Unix IP. SCO remains the owner.I had to clarify that, because people in the commenting section already jumping into their own conspiracy theory conclusions in peril panic. Microsoft has Unix products (for those who didn’t know), so they are now licensing that right in order to not have trouble with SCO later like IBM has today.
Late Sunday, Microsoft general counsel Brad Smith said acquiring the license from SCO “is representative of Microsoft’s ongoing commitment to respecting intellectual property and the IT community’s healthy exchange of IP through licensing. This helps to ensure IP compliance across Microsoft solutions and supports our efforts around existing products like Services for UNIX that further UNIX interoperability.“
No!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Why!!!!! M$ has enough firepower behind them to sue the pants off us linux users. NOOO!!!!!
Or, maybe they could drop the suit and have some unix technology incorporated into longhorn, and their next server edition (probably like 2008)… so that would be weird… and then we would have a linux – unixcharged windows battle…
But still… O… M… G… !!!
me very,very scared :-(((
I’m sure this is to cover their asses for whatever they have done in the past. And mainly to say, “we licensed it, we’re legit. Why didn’t you?”, to any other Unix vendors they feel are a threat.
Does this mean that Microsoft will have access to all of the System V source code? If so, this could in many ways spell the end of Unix. For example, it would be easy to “embrace and extend” this so as to create a product with the image/legend of Unix and the marketing of Microsoft. I’m scared about the fate of the lawsuit, too; if SCO did not have the resources to pursue it, MS certainly does. This may kill Linux; I hope not.
Please restrain yourself. Microsoft has got UNIX products for many years (something you probably didn’t know, if I am to conclude from your reaction). References:
http://www.osnews.com/story.php?news_id=1442
and the old XENIX.
are they acquiring the technology, or just a license…
Cause, i do remember that ms xenix was a unix system V technology, so they may have illegally placed code from that into windows and then now are trying to protect themselves in fear…
if that’s the case, then forget about my o… m… g… post
hehe, sorry… 🙂
> I’m scared about the fate of the lawsuit, too. if SCO did not have the resources to pursue it, MS certainly does.
WHAT are you talking about? Microsoft is LICENSING the code as Sun, SGI and whoever else does in order to include parts of it in their UNIX Services or other Unix product. They don’t BUY the rights. Microsoft does NOT becoming the owner of Unix. SCO REMAINS the owner. MS simply LICENSES it, as everybody else does! I don’t understand what you are talking about here! It would be great if people stop the speculation around here and comment on the FACTS that we know so far.
In Xenix days, MS did not have any market share (yes, Xenix did become the most widely used Unix, but still). Unix Services was merely some tools to help integrate Windows clients into Unix networks. This, I dare say, is something different.
It’s a licensing thing. They didn’t buy the UNIX rights. Sun does that, so did IBM, HP and Compaq.
Why this thing is on the news, its pretty obvious. SCO wants to get laid and grabbed the opportunity to make a great way to get into the Unix conondrum news..
This article is very lean. No details. How, when, what. The news are in the very first 2 sentences only. The rest is history. But it is not April 1st and it is CNET so it is probably true. It’ll be intersting to read more about. What is MS going to do with it. Work with it. Or against it.
so… microsoft, who is lacking proper support on the server side, licenses good code to make their servers better.
linux, lacking on the desktop side, plainly refuses to take any hints from anyone on how to improve the desktop?
go microsoft:=)
Oh yes. Same with Sun. Sun can sue any Linux company especially IBM because like Microsoft, they licensed SCO’s technology. ANd the same goes to SGI. And HP. Oh gawd, we have a whole horde of anti-IBM companies that have the power to sue IBM… including IBM themselves… NOT! Why? SCO owns the IP, Microsoft licenses the property.
And what’s wrong with Microsoft adding UNIX tech into Windows? I mean, is it forbiden for them to add features into their OS? Cause if that’s the case, someone call Redmond now! Tell them, cause they apparently don’t know about it!
>who is lacking proper support on the server side, licenses good code to make their servers better.
You are highly misinformed Mr. Windows Server 2003 is a very capable server product.
The reason why this license happens now, is because SCO is pushing all the companies that use Unix software and MS probably never paid them for their XENIX and Unix Services products they have for years now. So, they are doing it now, in order to avoid another lawsuit like the one IBM has in its back. That doesn’t mean that they are planning to make Windows a Unix. And don’t forget: Windows NT/2k/XP line *is* Posix compliant. If MS wanted to make Windows a Unix, they already have.
It’s a matter of record that some code from the FreeBSD TCP/IP stack is used in Windows.
I wonder if Microsoft has fears that some of the code it has used may be licensed under a non-free licence and this is their way of preventing themselves getting dragged into a lawsuit the same way Linux vendors have been.
I don’t really see this as a threat….
I know MS should be free to buy whatever it wants, but this is ridiculious! Here’s a case where they have a monopoply on 95% of the market and now buy rights to the other 5% How can this even be legal?
You know, of course, they’ll be paying exorberant “fees” to SCO for the “rights” and SCO will in turn use that money to battle with IBM. Why can’t the feds put these guys down. They’re clearly planning to use their “monopoly money” to influence a legal outcome against a direct competitor!
When will it stop? After the ’04 election when we all vote agaist Bush so he stops messing with the legal system? Is Al Gore still free for another go-round, he’d win hands down this time!
ok, good… i am confident now that it is a licensing thing… sorry about the o…m… g… post. The whole sco thing has me kinda worried. I don’t want no trouble 🙂
So why are they gonna license the unix code anyways… is it to fortify their windows code <and next server edition>. I heard <rumor, from slashdot, i think> that windows already uses freebsd tcp/ip stack… so are they trying to forify that or looking at another portion of windows… or not even windows but unix/windows interoperability… cause, what i got from actually reading the article, :-), is that they are looking to fortify their ip <which i derive from just one line that they wrote>. I have to agree with Clause though… that CNET article was pretty badly written…
Again, sorry about the first post… 🙂
>And what’s wrong with Microsoft adding UNIX tech into Windows?
Exactly! And furthermore, they alredy have. The NT line of OSes have already some POSIX in them and some FreeBSD code.
I stand corrected. Yes, I admit, I was surprised by this and took it to mean more than it did. Allright.
I never said it was wrong for MS to use UNIX code. Perhaps “embrace and extend” does have a negative connotation, but in this case, I think this is what MS will do. It’s not good or bad, just business strategy.
I do, however, prefer that Linux be more successful than MS. And yes, just like I feel bad when, say, my favorite team loses a game, I feel bad about this. I’m not converting anything into ethical issues.
Just thinking… does MS still hold 11% of shares from SCO? The only info I found was some quite some time ago…1997. Didnt MS sell Xenix to SCO?
Why should MS license Unix? Eugenia and others have good arguments. But I fear the consequences… SCO could say “look, even MS licenses out IP…” this is a better way to cause confusion in favor for MS than openly buying SCO.
Nur mein Senf…
AZ
This new development goes to show that Microsoft is behind the SCO lawsuits. By “licensing” some unknown/unspecified parts of UNIX, it is easy for Microsoft to move money to SCO to fund more anti-Linux lawsuits.
Microsoft-style business at its best. Ugh.
Well I am not found of conspiracy theories but this is right for one. Number one enemy off Microsoft is LINUX and we all now that M$ will do anything and that they they like to play dirty if they can. so my point is that really behind this Unix law suite and SCO is really Microsoft trying to kill Linux!!!
Microsoft has no real interest in the SCO Unixware line of products. They can get pretty much the same code from the *BSD community. Or am I wrong? I don’t use *BSD just Linux and XP…
What I think is going on here is that SCO wants to sue the pants off all linux venders… and Microsoft wants to support that. ANYTHING that they can do to say “Look! Use Linux and get sued! Open Source not only kills IP rights, but I can also ruin your business!!!”
If SCO had never decided to sue IBM over Unix IP and then turn their gun towards various Linux venders do you think that MS would have purchased a license to UnixWare? I doubt that this story would even have happened.
That is Linux-troll-style FUD spreading at its best. Ugh.
Come on, I’m not a fan of Microsoft, but what you say does not make sense. SCO is a direct competitor of Microsoft. And what is “unknown/unspecified”? They licensed the code and the patents, originally owned by AT&T. As mentioned before, other companies have done the same thing, many of them supporters.
There are easier ways to move money.
What, like MSK? FLMGDELMFAO!!!!!
Tell them the liscense cost 90bn, USD.
I somehow doubt it, although I would guess that M$ is getting some preverse amusement from the situation.
Just out of interest, has anyone here ever heard of Services for UNIX? http://www.microsoft.com/windows/sfu/default.asp Since it includes some APIs from UNIX land, wouldn’t it make sense to cover one’s ass, especially as the legal case has yet to be decided, and your company keeps banging on about protecting IP?
If Microsft is funding the SCO lawsuit in this manner, then so is Sun, SGI and even IBM itself.
That’s right, worried!
Not because Microsoft can improve their servers by compatibility or could be going to buy the code, it isn’t the most important point here. Anyway, the unix code can be replaced and is well known for many of us.
Also, I don’t believe that SCO can succeed in their legal battles. They have more holes in their case than a swiss cheese.
The whole point here has to do with momentum. I key factor that killed OS/2, BeOS and many others computer softwares.
I still think that it’s a move to spread FUD all over Linux, BSD’s and other free softwares, to stop the rapid growth of them, with Microsoft hands behind.
And now it’s a critical moment and they have good products (Microsoft) and, most important, they are good in marketing, strategy and have a lot, a lot of money.
Here is a short article by The Seattle Times
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/businesstechnology/134766832_…
“Microsoft is buying the license to make sure its products can exchange data with Unix software without violating patents.”
Long live Microsoft, may they continue to be the dominant desktop OS for the next 1000years. =)
viva la Microsoft!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Windows XP and 2003 ARE NOT POSIX COMPLIANT!!!! I have said it again and again and again, stop dragging up something I have correct you on many times.
Yes they are. You have to install the compliancy off the CD as it is not included by default, but it is there.
I can imagine that, behind the scenes SCO pays to M$ for saying this in public. It’s a good image for them and give more push in the Linux case.
This news has got a meaning: “M$ thinks SCO has got right in this case, that’s why they are paying the fee.” It’s good for M$, and for SCO. We can tie them.
The borg have assimilated much over time and are probably just playing it safe by dishing out some Ms spare change.
Interestingly, Microsoft had already licensed the UNIX IP from AT&T when they produced Xenix.
It is just possible that this article actually refers to this contract circa 1983 or thereabouts.
When they made SCO the distributor for Xenix, I believe they entered into a non-competition contract, barring them from shipping their own version of UNIX. Unless this contract has been made null and void by SCO (and it may very well have been), then licensing UNIX code would probably be an issue here.
In 1989 Microsoft acquired 16% of SCO’s stock for $25 million.
The high cost and fragmentation of the commercial UNIX market was one of the main reasons that Microsoft found it so easy to gain such a position in the server room.
If that fragmentation and high cost disappears (and it has) then it will be a much harder fight to justify any advantages Windows might have.
It would not surprise me one bit if Microsoft and SCO were collaborating on these legal shenanigans, as Microsoft has clearly laid out in the ‘Halloween documents’ etc. that it considers legal action and FUD to be the best ways to combat the spread of Linux.
However, this does not change my opinion that SCO’s case is worthless, groundless and cannot affect the Linux community or OS in any significant way.
One way I see it going is this: SCO declare bankruptcy before the case goes to trial, and Microsoft steps in, buys SCO off Caldera, in order to ‘protect the legitimately licensed UNIX IP in their products’, and carries on the suit.
Caldera says ‘it wasn’t us, it was SCO – Look, theyre part of Microsoft now, isn’t that terrible?’, and quietly tries to rebuild it’s reputation based on a UnitedLinux distribution.
Microsoft engages in a lengthy lawsuit with IBM, now that Linux is conveniently out of the picture.
The two parties settle out of court, with IBM getting the UNIX IP, and Microsoft getting an assurance that IBM will continue to support Microsoft server platforms for a number of critical applications
Wasn’t MS going to sue SCO? I seem to recall one of the early stories on the SCO fiasco mentioning that MS had queued up to sue SCO. It came right on the heels of the announcement of SCO going after IBM. I can’t find the blurb any more Can someone else post a URL for it?
SCO should change their licensing strategy and force MS to licence UNIX IP, with a Licensing 6.0 style of model.
Some people are saying that IBM buying SCO and therefore getting the UNIX IP, what about MS do you think they wouldn’t buy SCO if they thought they had anything to gain by it.
“HAHAHAAA, we are the supreme software company in the we have the UNIX and MSWindows, bow before us”, said Microsoft after they bought SCO and got their beloved XENIX back. Bill gates hugs the computer and says “XENIX I will never leave you again” :B
Considering that there is an even smaller *NIX distributions, I really don’t understand why people keep ranting on about fragmentation.
Sure, Linux is fragmented, however, if you look what is happening:
Ultra Sparc/Sparc “Classic”: Solaris
Itanium/PA-RISC: HP-UX
MIPS: IRIX
PowerPC: MacOSX/AIX
and each of these have common elements, Each of the above are 100% UNIX 95 compliant first of all, secondly, soon the market will shrink even more as IRIX is gradually retired but maintained who need support (and will pay a premium), however, with the sudden mini-boom in Power4+ sales, AIX is still going to be around for a while.
True, 20-years ago there was fragmentation in the UNIX market with every man and his dog starting a business selling a UNIX variant, however, fast forward to 2003 and now there is very little reasoning for Windows to exist as the fragmentation no longer exists and pretty much, apart from the architectural issues, the different UNIX’s can inter-connect with each other without too many issues.
Saying “No reason for windows to exist” is ridiculous. It got its foothold because of fragmentation, but now it’s definitely here to stay, more than many Unices.
They want to feed some money to SCO. As it looks like IBM is going to fight SCO all they way to court rather than pay them off or buy them up. It is likely SCO would run out of money before it got there.
By paying a big licence fee to SCO it enables SCO to keep the anti-Linux FUD coming without MS being explicitly involved.
They can therefore stand as a disinterested party – while hoping that SCO’s FUD will deter a few corporations from switching their servers from Win NT4/2000 to Linux rather than win 2003 server. And MS biggest hope is that the SCO legal FUD may give win 2003 server a chance to get some of the market where enterprises are switching from proprietary Unix platforms to commodity architecture – which is now going almost totally to Linux.
I got all excited that this meant they would pop an x86 os X style clone.
Wonder if Microsoft was one of the 1500 spammed by SCO last week? Who know’s they might have some UNIX IP somewhere. Last week there was an article about Microsoft boosting its Linux/Unix development team. This might just be bad timing.
Can’t you see it? Largest software company visits sucky company and says… “Enforce your patents….(and thus eliminating some of OUR competition)…and we’ll buy licenses from you…heck…we might even HELP enforce those patents…”
This, my friends, is Microsoft showing its AntiCompetitive spirit once again…..anyone remember DOS?
This gives credibility to SCO’s suit. I mean, Microsoft has the best lawyers in the world and so if they think that stuff is infringing, it must be. Quite a shrewed move to eliminate the Linux threat.
Microsoft took the perfect advantage of SCO fools.
> and so if they think that stuff is infringing, it must be.
Except that “that stuff” for Microsoft isn’t “that stuff” from linux. Or at least one would hope.
pj
>And don’t forget: Windows NT/2k/XP line *is* Posix compliant. >If MS wanted to make Windows a Unix, they already have.
This is NOT TRUE AT ALL
Windows NT/2k/XP is PARTLY POSIX compliant.
For instance they do not have pthreads.
Here is what you must have to be POSIX 1003.1 compliant.
http://www.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/007904975/basedefs/xbd_chap02.h…
If you’r still naive enough to believe all MS marketing department stories, there is nothing I can do to help you.
L.
Microsoft already licensed UNIX directly from AT&T in 1979. They had no rights to the UNIX trademark and had to call it XENIX. SCO was founded with some venture capital from Microsoft to develop XENIX into a commercial product. Strangely enough a few years later SCO and Microsoft got into a spat, with Microsoft finally selling its remaining shares in SCO.
Why is Microsoft re-licensing the UNIX source code from ex-Caldera-now-SCO-Group? Probably just because it will help ex-Caldera-now-SCO-Group keep going during the lawsuit. It was previously estimated that ex-Caldera-now-SCO-Group would run out of cash in November 2003. I guess now they have enough revenue to keep dragging this case in Court.
I doubt very much that Microsoft is interested in the IP
I just laugh at all those silly stories and the hysteria is has generated here.
1) US governemnet will NEVER allow MS to buy SCO. MS is a monopoly and it wll not be allowed to buy them. Don’t forget MS was topped from buying Intuit just a few years ago in spite of MS Money not being the dominant player in its field.
2) MS is covering their asses just in case SCO go after them too. They might afraid that some BSD code might be tainted (a just in case scenario).
3) MS, buy paying for the nrights to use some SCO Unix code will funneling some additional money to SCO so that they can keep afloat longer in the legal battles. They just made $4 mil this qaurter and that money will be eaten up by their legal battle. THEY NEED MONEY NOW to stay afloat long enough.
4) The longer SCO stays afloat the more trouble the can cause to Linux and IBM
5) MS have realized, like everyone else) that SCO tactics is a way of blackm ailing other companies into buying them. Who will the likely bidder for SCO would be? IBM, Sun, Apple, Red Hat, SUSE? Who knows. But if it happens, what do these companies have in common? They are ALL MS enemies. MS wants to protect its ass because they won’t be able to buy SCO (see point 1) and SCO assets will go to a competitor who in turn sue them for code violations (see point 2).
6) Since point 5 has a great chan ce of happening they want to drive SCO price up so whoever becomes a suitor will have to pay more. Apple, a user of BSD might loose interest, Red Hat and SUSE might find themselves without enough money to purchase it. Who is left? IBM and Sun. IBM will go into a bidding frenzy. Sun, having Solaris so entrenched into their culture will project themselves as a whitehorse who will save SCO. IBM is not going to allowed that to happen so at the end IBM will outbid Sun in a second. Contracts with Sun, MS and others will not allow IBM to open source Unix code. The licencees will not allow IBM do that since it will dilute the licenses for which they have paid lots of money and a perpetuity. .. in other words IBM advantage of merging Unix and linux will be effectively diluted.
What planet do you live on?
The DOJ will let microsoft do everything. First because they have got a lot of campain contributions from them, and second since the bush administration thinks that antitrust laws should not be enforced at all since they are against the free market.
If the bush administration could get away with it, they would revoke the sherman antitrust act. But as of now, they just do not enforce it.
This just shows Ms’ good business instincts. They sold their SCO shares just before it crashed dramatically, and now that SCO has finally hit rock bottom they’re taking the opertunity to get some technology on the cheap.
No big conspiracy there.
They are not buying stock. They are licensing SCO Unix even though the chances of SCO suing microsoft for copyright infringement are exactly zero. Basically they are giving them money to pay good lawyers against IBM, and they give some legitimacy to the outrageous claims of SCO at the same time.
I wish that microsoft would try to compete on technical grounds. Their latest offerings are quite good. But they always have to resort to dirty tactics.
I guess the united states of america will sue itself out of existence in the next 50 years. That will be fun to watch…
Not to be a conspiracy theorist, but if Microsoft licenses code from SCO, they will give SCO a cash influx. I don’t know how large this may be dollar-wise, but… By providing this influx of cash, Microsoft just gave a threat to linux (which is a threat to Microsoft) cash that can be used for further court costs. Kind of a backdoor way to help stop the “virus” that Microsoft fears the most… Not saying it is true, but an interesting way to look at it.
…If you can’t beat em, join em.
Turtle said: “What planet do you live on?”
Don’t be silly. The fact that DOJ did not get a better deal was because the case was going no where. Even most the states decided to accept the settlement and so did the courts. I disagreed with the DOJ decision, but from there to say the US will not enforce a monopoly law is ludicrous. BTW, private companies and citizens can complain and stop a merger by going to court, with or without DOJ action. MS WILL NEVER be allowed to buy SCO the same way they will never be allowed to buy Apple. If they knew that was possible MS would have done that a long time ago. Enough of that silliness.
How many people were on the ledges ready to jump over this news today? I read some post on slashdot, it sounded like the kid wanted to cry. Get outside linux zealot!
Not intended as a flame, just a joke at the extremists out there.
Later
1. MS has nothing to worry about from SCO re the FreeBSD TCP/IP stack. The “ancestral line” of Unix that gave rise to FreeBSD reached an out of court settlement with AT&T long ago, under terms of which AT&T agreed that the FreeBSD “line” uses none of AT&T’s intellectual property. AT&T Unix became System V, which is the Unix “line” out of which arose SCO/MS Xenix.
2. As has already been pointed out, MS sold back to SCO the rights to Xenix, then divested itself of SCO. MS can afford some decent corporate lawyers (though it certainly does keep them busy with antitrust suits, etc.:), so the chances that the agreements between SCO and MS were drafted sloppily enough to leave room for SCO to sue MS over any past “sins” is just about nil, I’d say.
3. So what are we left with? Probably just what MS is saying in its press release, that they don’t want to be bothered by patent violation charges over any measures they take to improve data exchange with Unix. And I suppose they wouldn’t mind if the money went to help sue IBM, but does anyone even know if any money changed hands in this license, and if so how much?
>The fact that DOJ did not get a better deal was because the
> case was going no where.
It did go nowhere precisely because the republican adminstration *wanted* it to go nowhere. Read the pages of any conservative think tank, and you will see that they think that there is no nessecity for antitrust laws to ensure a free market. In fact they think that antitrust laws are harmful for a free market. So they did their best to ensure that the MS case was going nowhere. The states noticed that and there was not much they could do.
> BTW, private companies and citizens can complain and stop a
> merger by going to court, with or without DOJ action.
Yeah, that sound realistic. A private company against a huge company with an army of lawyers that managed to buy off the DOJ. That seems like a good way to ruin yourself without getting anything in return.
Don’t get me wrong. Maybe the republicans are right and there is no need for any antitrust legislation. But then they should have the balls to say so and revoke the antitrust laws instead of just not enforcing them in any effective way.
Don’t get me wrong. Maybe the republicans are right and there is no need for any antitrust legislation. But then they should have the balls to say so and revoke the antitrust laws instead of just not enforcing them in any effective way.
agreed, because in the end, it really boils down to having testicles right? Hear that women of the world?
please stop this pro-microsoft trolling.
No Windows is Possix compliant no matter how much you
want it to be. You are misleading the people on this forum
with your fantasy stories.
Windows 2003 is not even tested and yet you find it a ´very capable server OS´ better use it in a REAL envoirment before you make up your mind.
Off course Microsoft is paying licenses now.
SCO gets some money and can go on with their lawsuits.
Man!, M$ is even more Evil than i thought!
Time to destroy the evil empire…Yoda are you ready?
MS is not very POSIX complaint, e.g. they don’t support getopt.h! (i have to use a BSD Port of this lib)
But thats only a very little example for their POSIX “compilance”.
I find it ironic that they are licensing this now. If they’re worried about a lawsuit, fine whatever. If they think this will give them a leg up on Linux….umm they can already look at all the linux code they want free of charge, so that obviously isn’t a concern. This is probably a legal move for protection. Since they won’t “own” anything from SCO and the basis for WinNT was Unix in the first place (they hired Unix programmers to develope the first NT) this looks pretty much like a legal move to shield them from SCO. Since their code is closed source, SCO wouldn’t have any claims anyway unless SCO licensed Windows. The only reason SCO can make any claims about Linux is because its open, which I think is the real thorn in the side. Unfortunately this openness is being taken advantage of. I just hope IBM has the intestinal fortitude to shove this BS claim down SCO’s throat.
{ 1) US governemnet will NEVER allow MS to buy SCO. MS is a monopoly and it wll not be allowed to buy them. Don’t forget MS was topped from buying Intuit just a few years ago in spite of MS Money not being the dominant player in its field. }
I talked to one of our lawyers here and we have talked about this, the US Government does not have any say in who or what MS buys or what Products it decided to discontinue or supports. The only thing is it doesnt look good for Microsoft to aquire its competition but legally it can. The US Government would however, watch MS’s behavior. But if MS wanted to buy SCO or even the Unix patents and licenses, there is very little if anything the Government could do about it.
{ 4) The longer SCO stays afloat the more trouble the can cause to Linux and IBM }
Very few companies are going to move off Linux, my company got one of the famous SCO letters, it came down the line to me, I told my boss not to worry about SCO, I resealled the envelope, I stamped ” Unsolicited Mail — Do not send further corresponence to comapny name, address ” And yes we still use Linux, support it and develop for it. SCO is not causing any problems in the business world, I know there was talk about halting our Linux development efforts but from what I understand SuSE and our law department talked and nothing else has been said and life has been going on as normal
{ 5) MS have realized, like everyone else) that SCO tactics is a way of blackm ailing other companies into buying them. Who will the likely bidder for SCO would be? IBM, Sun, Apple, Red Hat, SUSE? Who knows. But if it happens, what do these companies have in common? They are ALL MS enemies. MS wants to protect its ass because they won’t be able to buy SCO (see point 1) and SCO assets will go to a competitor who in turn sue them for code violations (see point 2). }
I used to think like that, especially on the who will buy SCO. I think SCO will stick around a while. It will draw its money from its UNIX Licensing, but I do not think that IBMs lawsuit will amount to anything. I do not think that Linux will suffer from this.
down Microsoft Corp MSFT 25.09 -0.48
up Caldera Intl SCOX 6.66 1.91
down Intl Bus. Machines IBM 86.81 -2.18
I thought MS hated unix/linux, & the funnier part is SCO “lets try to sue every linux company out there, for stolen code we won’t tell them about”, but lets license our code to MS.
“I talked to one of our lawyers here and we have talked about this, the US Government does not have any say in who or what MS buys or what Products it decided to discontinue or supports.”
If your lawyer told you that, then my advise to you is to start looking for another one. As a lawyer I can tell you that what your “lawyer” said is FACTUALLY incorrect. There have been quite a few cases where the US DOJ has stopped deals and mergers among companies that compete in the same space. In many instances the DOJ allows for the merger to happen ONLY if the buying company sells significant assets in the area where competitions will be significantly diminished. It will make no sense for MS to buy SCO is they are forced to unload UNIX code. Go and review the MS attempt to merge with Intuit just a few years back.
Read second paragraph of this article; http://www.craigr.com/soapbox/january041999.htm
I think the news is probably evidence of large portions of Linux code in the latest versions of Windows. It’s a C.Y.A. move from Microsoft.
Since it includes some APIs from UNIX land, wouldn’t it make sense to cover one’s ass, especially as the legal case has yet to be decided, and your company keeps banging on about protecting IP?
First, Interix wasn’t originally written by Microsoft. It was a product called OpenNT by Softway, that Microsoft bought, decided to maintain and upgrade, and later integrated into Services For UNIX (before SFU v3, Interix was sold alone at the price of 100$). If there’s been any violation on the SFU side, it has to be either inherited from Softway or somewhere else than Interix
On the other hand, I have to concede that Interix, altough born in a post-BSD and even post-Linux era, looks and feels a lot like a true old school UNIX – very SysV-ish, overall (with the notable difference that Interix is a microkernel) – so it wouldn’t surprise me if it actually contained UNIX code
” If your lawyer told you that, then my advise to you is to start looking for another one. As a lawyer I can tell you that what your “lawyer” said is FACTUALLY incorrect. There have been quite a few cases where the US DOJ has stopped deals and mergers among companies that compete in the same space. In many instances the DOJ allows for the merger to happen ONLY if the buying company sells significant assets in the area where competitions will be significantly diminished. It will make no sense for MS to buy SCO is they are forced to unload UNIX code. Go and review the MS attempt to merge with Intuit just a few years back. ”
Hes actually a good lawyer and i dont take into evidence sites that project personal opinions such as the one you provided. I remember the actual press releases from both companies saying that the companies could not agree upon terms, but who cares. DOJ would not intercede if Microsoft was to buy SCO. Its highly unlikely that they even care about what MS does, its to busy fighting wars and gathering up small time wannabe terrorists. Im sure Dubya is not in the Oval office cursing at his PC saying ” I want anti-trust charges bought up against MS NOW!!!!!”
Windows 2000/XP/2003 does become 100% POSIX.1 compliant after MSFT’s own Services for Unix/Interix 3.0 product is installed on it.
SFU/Interix is a fully certified X/Open UNIX95 compliant “unix” sub-system, not merely just a handful of utilities to make integration in unix environments easier. Many standard Unix apps like the latest versions of sendmail, apache, X11, Gnome, GCC, etc. have been ported to Microsoft Interix (it’s not very difficult).
There is no doubt that there is some SFU/Interix code that they are somewhat concerned about and they just want to keep SCO off their backs. Simple as that.
Eugenia, great comments, not that I can’t read what’s read, but directing people to discuss the facts is a great move. Otherwise it would turn into a bunch of idiots telling us lots of stupid stuff. Thanks
If “Services for Unix/Interix 3.0” makes Win2K+ a “UNIX”, does Cygwin? (I guess that also depends on if Linux is a “UNIX”, etc but…
“How many people were on the ledges ready to jump over this news today? I read some post on slashdot, it sounded like the kid wanted to cry. Get outside linux zealot!”
On the contrary, now the cat is out of the bag: MS is most certainly behind SCO’s FUD suit, a desperate attempt at slowing down’s Linux growth in the server room (notice how the whole thing comes at the same time as Windows Server 2003 is released…). But, reading about all the currently-available facts, SCO’s lawsuit seems irrelevant at best and a basis for a counter-suit at worst – and so this could prove more harmful to MS that they first thought…
Anonymous:
so… microsoft, who is lacking proper support on the server side, licenses good code to make their servers better.
linux, lacking on the desktop side, plainly refuses to take any hints from anyone on how to improve the desktop?
go microsoft:=)
So MS is doing a better job of taking hints than Linux. Interesting. So tell me, how do I sign up for CVS commit access on microsoft.com?
AZ:
Nur mein Senf…
…Only my mustard? *L*
Anonymous:
Don’t get me wrong. Maybe the republicans are right and there is no need for any antitrust legislation. But then they should have the balls to say so and revoke the antitrust laws instead of just not enforcing them in any effective way.
agreed, because in the end, it really boils down to having testicles right? Hear that women of the world?
agreed, because in the end, it really boils down to ignoring the real issue in order to overanalyse and overinterpret everything like a retarded, sexually-frustrated feminazi.
Let’s follow your example and take a closer look at this sentence: agreed, because in the end, it really boils down to having testicles right? Hear that women of the world?
agreed, because in the end,
In what “end”? End of your lifetime? End of the world? The ends of a loaf of Belgian bread? The end of public broadcast television?
it really boils down to having testicles right?
Making some prarie oyster stew, are you? Or do you mean that you can make testicles by boiling down public broadcast television? Or any television, for that matter?
Hear that
Are you only addressing yourself to those surfers using text-to-speech technology? That’s a pretty limited audience.
women of the world?
Only text-to-speech users who are female? That’s even -more- limited an audience. And what about women not of this world, and/or those who have testicles? Or Belgian bread?
“If “Services for Unix/Interix 3.0” makes Win2K+ a “UNIX”, does Cygwin?”
Not likely. I know extremely little about Cygwin but I do not that SFU/Interix is a much more complete (full) Unix implementation and not even Linux itself is officially POSIX or X/Open certified, so Cygwin probably isn’t either.
Wierd…according to The Open Group, Interix is more of an “official Unix” than Linux is.
Thanks, it is a strange thought, Linux less UNIX than Windows
I think the “moderated down” comment is more humorous than my own previous comment, I think it should have been left for the enjoyment of others. Gosh, Eugenia why is wry humor a bad thing?