Weekly Edition
Return to the Announcements page
| |||||||||||||
Darl sends a letter
Admit it: you've been wondering what happened to Darl McBride. Well, he's back; the SCO group has sent out an extended Darlgram (an "open letter") as a press release. "Conversely, when Linux customers run into problems and need
professional technical support they really have only two choices.
First, they can turn to the Linux distributor who played a big role in
packaging the product but had nothing to do with its core development.
Or second, they can turn to the Linux volunteer community. These
volunteers were not paid to develop the product; and they received
nothing from the Linux distributor, there's no obligation for that
volunteer to support the product. Would you really want to trust the
backbone of your business to the likely unpredictable response times
of this Linux 'volunteer fire department' support model?" Somebody evidently forgot to tell Darl that the "no support" FUD line died out in the late 1990's.
(Log in to post comments)
Darl sends a letter Posted Aug 8, 2005 18:23 UTC (Mon) by eyal (subscriber, #949) [Link] This is the ultimate proof of the parallel universes theory. Darl must be in another universe if he really believes what he writes, and maybe even several universes away if he thinks anyone else believes him.
EZ.
Darl sends a letter Posted Aug 8, 2005 19:32 UTC (Mon) by hans (subscriber, #148) [Link] Just remember the proverb, "Free is the most expensive price." Huh. I'd never heard that proverb before, so I did a Google search and got two hits. One appeared to be a reference to what McBride had said. The other is a story under the heading "The Erotic Mind-Control Story Archive". So maybe this provides more insight into where McBride gets his inspiration. Just a thought...
Darl sends a letter Posted Aug 8, 2005 21:30 UTC (Mon) by euske (subscriber, #9300) [Link] In Japan, people often say "nothing is more expensive than free." Because in the traditional Japanese society, when you get something free (price), you are expected to pay for it in other ways, with a sense of duty, which might be more expensive than the stuff you get.
Darl sends a letter Posted Aug 8, 2005 21:39 UTC (Mon) by madscientist (subscriber, #16861) [Link] I actually think this is quite accurate for F/OSS. In Japan they definitely get it!Of course, if you would rather pay with cash you can do it that way too.
Darl sends a letter Posted Aug 9, 2005 0:50 UTC (Tue) by error27 (subscriber, #8346) [Link] I believe Darl does speak Japanese so that's probably where he got the proverb.
Darl sends a letter Posted Aug 9, 2005 18:35 UTC (Tue) by chel (guest, #11544) [Link] I think Darl ment something like "no such thing as a free lunch". That gives about 120,000 hits.
Especially for Darl an expanation: "You can't charge license fees for software created by others".
Linux users luckily can buy all the support they want and where they want to buy it. When they buy it, they pay for the support, not for the lawyers, at least if they buy it from a software company and not from a company that has litigation as its core business.
Darl sends a letter Posted Aug 8, 2005 19:47 UTC (Mon) by mmarq (guest, #2332) [Link] Belive 'Darl' is not really disconnected from reallity... or suffers from some psychic disorder!... he is on the same old transcendent mind state where he is told of the same old oggwash agenda!
Is there some venture capital coming in to take SCO or Darl from the hook ?
Where is the infringing code Darl ?
Are you(SCO) really the owner of Unix ?
Why can't SCO just *pass away* in a dignifying manner, quitly and nicely, since it was their management that killed it ?.
PS:You shouldn't smoke so much Darl, because *smoke* can really be bad for your health,... and even kill you!
Darl sends a letter Posted Aug 8, 2005 20:28 UTC (Mon) by bojan (subscriber, #14302) [Link] > I would challenge any kernel out there to match us head-to-head.
Bwahahaha! If I didn't work with OpenServer 5 for years, I may even fall for that one :-)
> OpenServer Has Better Security
Absolutely! Especially when you disconnect the system from the Internet. But then again, all these web sites running on OpenServer would go down and Internet would grind to a halt :-)
Parallel universe? You bet!
Kernel Posted Aug 9, 2005 8:33 UTC (Tue) by ringerc (subscriber, #3071) [Link] It sounds a lot like they've integrated the UnixWare kernel, then ported over a few bits of OpenServer's. I wouldn't be surprised to see a move to a mostly UnixWare userspace either. I just don't see how they could've so dramatically transformed the OpenServer kernel - and UnixWare's was already much closer to the mark they're claiming.
I share your views on OpenServer. Relink and reboot to change the IP address? On a server? It's insane.
That said, the OpenServer kernel _is_ dead reliable. Amazingly so. Much more than Linux in my experience, though I don't know how it stands up to Solaris and the *BSDs. I also suspect that it achieves much of that reliability by being very simple, dumb, and very very slow.
I find it highly amusing that most of McBride's comments apply rather better to Sun's Solaris than to OpenServer. The kernel challenge - OpenServer won't have a chance.
Kernel Posted Aug 9, 2005 20:37 UTC (Tue) by bojan (subscriber, #14302) [Link] > That said, the OpenServer kernel _is_ dead reliable.
Yeah, unless you're running Samba on the box and you run out of NSTREAMS (increasing that and related parameters when tuning the kernel may or may not help, depending on what your Samba does). Then the box goes poof.
But, it is quite reliable. Because it's so simple (as compared to modern kernels), very little can go wrong with it.
Darl sends a letter Posted Aug 8, 2005 21:20 UTC (Mon) by dmarti (subscriber, #11625) [Link] According to the management page on their site, SCOX has the following executive titles:
President and Chief Executive Officer; Senior Vice President and General Manager, SCOsource Division; Chief Financial Officer; General Counsel; Senior Vice President and General Manager, UNIX Division; Vice President, Americas Sales.
Who's missing? How about a VP of Engineering or a CTO?
VP of Engineering, Opinder Bawa, left in 2003.
CTO, Scott Lemon, left in 2004.
Come on, Darl, if you want people to believe you're really still in the software business, you're going to have to blow the $24 at Kinko's and get "VP of Engineering" or "CTO" business cards for someone. Or won't the lawyers let you spend the $24?
SCO's CTO Posted Aug 8, 2005 21:41 UTC (Mon) by corbet (editor, #1) [Link] Actually, SCO did appoint a CTO this very day. It's Sandeep "Sandy" Gupta, former VP of engineering. He's the author of the famous Gupta declaration which was so thoroughly trashed by Brian Kernighan.
A Vastly Different Tone Posted Aug 9, 2005 0:52 UTC (Tue) by clump (subscriber, #27801) [Link] The article is, of course, about as substantial as a horse-and-buggy argument against cars. Darl's passionate defensiveness of SCO UNIX shows just how threatened the company feels, but more importantly it shows vulnerability.
Very significantly, this article is just about *respectful* of Linux. Previously any accomplishment of Linux was credited by SCO and their media outlets as theft. Linux was a "bicycle" that had to steal from SCO to become a luxury car. This assertion, despite the fact that only in 2005 can SCO offer an OS competitive with Windows 98, was the only party line these people had. Now we have a press release that shows how SCO is trying to live up to expectations Linux set many years ago, and not a mention of any supposed wrongdoing.
Factually the article takes a beating. Sadly those of us who watch this drama read yet another letter from a man ceaslessly trying to ruin the honest work of countless volunteers. I suppose the true intent of the piece was to take light off of the unfolding of the lawsuits. Ultimately I find this to be another scene in a tragedy about human greed.
Darl sends a letter Posted Aug 9, 2005 3:24 UTC (Tue) by rloomans (guest, #759) [Link] I know Darl has no credibility here, so I will leave commenting on the obvious FUD to others.....
What I will, however, comment on is his attitude towards volunteer fire departments.....
I don't know about elsewhere, but down here in Oz, a large number of people owe their lives and
If someone with credibility were to say Linux support is anything like the volunteer firefighters, it
Darl sends a letter Posted Aug 9, 2005 16:06 UTC (Tue) by mormop (guest, #13775) [Link] Funnily enough many (if not all) of Britains lifeboatmen are volunteers.Darl and Co. just seem so incapable of grasping the concept that there are people around who are willing to do a professional job with little or no financial reward because they believe it's worth it. I think it's something to do with being a greedy dick who'd sell your own granny for a quick buck. When you're that self centered you just can't understand why everyone else isn't as well.
Darl sends a letter Posted Aug 12, 2005 11:23 UTC (Fri) by dhj (guest, #4655) [Link] I live on the Isle of Wight, a small island off the south coast ofEngland, and we have a long tradition of volunteer lifeboats. Many ordinary local people have died while trying to save the lives of complete strangers - even people like Darl, no doubt.
Darl sends a letter Posted Aug 9, 2005 6:01 UTC (Tue) by laidlaws (guest, #26237) [Link] Someone whose mother called him "Darl" has a permanent excuse.Doug.
Darl sends a letter Posted Aug 9, 2005 7:16 UTC (Tue) by mgalgoci (subscriber, #24168) [Link] > SCO Has a Superior Kernel - SCO OpenServer 6 includes the UNIX System> V Release 5 (SVR5) kernel, the result of more than 25 years of > high-end development work that has created a proven track record of > stability and reliability.
Are they still using a kernel that requires you to relink the kernel and reboot just to change the ip address?
Open Server 6 is a pretty bold move Posted Aug 9, 2005 8:35 UTC (Tue) by error27 (subscriber, #8346) [Link] Open Server 6 is UnixWare with an OpenServer compatability layer. They used to have a Linux compatability layer. Now they have an OpenServer layer.
Of course that's such a completely pointless move because if people wanted to make bold transitions they'd move to Linux or Windows or something. A lot of people doubt that SCO is going to survive the lawsuits so it's pretty stupid to make painful transitions to new SCO platforms.
(Also, no you don't have to relink the kernel to change the IP address, that was an exageration).
Still have to relink to change network cards or whatever Posted Aug 10, 2005 0:36 UTC (Wed) by leonbrooks (guest, #1494) [Link] No "ifdown; rmmod; modprobe; ifup" here to switch cards, nosirree, it's relink and reboot or nothin'!
Still have to relink to change network cards or whatever Posted Aug 11, 2005 20:02 UTC (Thu) by allesfresser (subscriber, #216) [Link] How about "ifconfig eth0 xx.xx.xx.xx"? That's always worked pretty good for me...
False Dilemma Posted Aug 9, 2005 10:35 UTC (Tue) by AnswerGuy (guest, #1256) [Link] Whenever anyone starts and argument with the "either you have to ... or you must ..." paradigm you should scrutinize it for the false dilemma. This is a logical fallacy in which only two (or a limited number of) possibilities are presented and each is purported to be eliminated by following the rest of the argument. (Technically dilemma implies only two, according to it's greek roots. However the term can be more generally applied to any "false quandary" ).
Whenever you're presented with a dilemma you're best strategy is to ask if the options really are limited to those presented. The arguer has already focused on the two (or few) presented options so any being ignored are most likely to be fruitful for refuting the whole argument.
So, we can either contact the distribution developers or we can rely on a community of volunteers.
Bzzzt!
We can also consult with any competent consultant and/or contract to any any contractors or avail ourselves of any professionals in the field. The implicit premise here is that no one but the original developers can use the source code to competently resolve problems or perform enhancements with it.
We see this premise stately more baldly in the argument that the distibutor didn't "develop" the code and has acted only as a (in Darl's view "dumb") middleman to package it.
This, of course, is the petard upon which his own argument is hoist.
The key benefit of open source is that all users are GIVEN THE SOURCES AND THE RIGHTS TO USE THEM to make any changes or enhancements they require and to fix any problems they encounter. This is the bedrock upon which all open source is founded --- that one can be empowered to build upon the prior work and free from vendor lock-in and the vissitudes of a vendor's viability in the market.
Understanding that simple fact then shatters both of the horns of Darl's proposed dilemma while simultaneously driving a stake through the center of the skull between them.
The major Linux distributors are not mere mute and dumb middlemen; they perform their own quality control and enhancements as part of their packaging (albeit to widely varying degrees). They also marshal their improvements back towards the "upstream" maintainers (developers) (also with some variance). So their support *can* be every bit as effective as that of any proprietary vendor. (Whether any particular company's support *is* as effective as any others, proprietary or otherwise is a different issue which would have to be argued on its own merits).
Meanwhile we can characterize ourselves as being at the "mercy" of the volunteer community's other priorities and commitment level.
However, that very characterization is built on the premise that a company will be commited to our business and make our particular concerns a priority. Any of us who have experienced front line technical support for any software product, from either side of the exchange, will understand the fallacy of that premise. A vendor's commitment to resolving that issue generally goes about as far as the possible risk of lost sales that it poses in their perception. Their priorities are set roughly by the context of their other commitments. This is a perfectly rational way to run one's support business: we have this bag of bugs and enhancement requests; let's rank them in order of which will flaw will lose us the most business and which enhancements will offer the greatest gain --- then tackle them basically in that order (handling any dependencies along the way to accrue any collateral benefits thereby). (Of course that's an oversimplification as the priority list is usually also modified by the perceived difficulties and expense that each entails --- with occasional opportunities based on the people involved. Sometimes some individual developer has an "Aha!" moment and fixes something thorny which was considered "hard" and/or "low priority")
So what sets the priorities and commitment levels of open source volunteers?
That depends on the volunteer. Some of them are amateurs (in the original sense of the term, from the Latin root: amo, to love; an "amateur" is one who loves a particular activity). Some are professionals who have been directed by their employers to collaborate with others in the community as part of their efforts to fulfill their own support needs. Some are professionals who treat this as a promotional expense, akin to taking prospective colleagues or customers out to lunch. Some are students serving their "virtual internship" to gain experience and enhance their reputations. Most are some combination of all these.
There are myriad reasons why people devote time to open source projects. Empirical evidence suggests that the responsiveness that open source users get from these volunteers exceeds their expectations. (Any survey of pro and con reports is likely to show a far greater number of positive support experiences than negative comments on this. Of course some of this is undoubtedly skewed by the expectations of those involved --- we don't expect volunteers to put much effort into helping us, so any help we get is a pleasant surprise which exceeds those expectations).
So, Darl's comments propose a false dilemma and hide a set of premises which are transparently unfounded. Business users can avail themselves of distributors, volunteers, professional consultants, their own in-house expertise (which may contain some of the hidden talent: admins, techs and programmers who are already volunteers on some of these projects) and other resources. Even if we were to accept Darl's purported dilemma the two options that he does acknowlege are not frought with the problems he implicitly attributes to them.
In other words, his thesis is so weak it doesn't withstand even the simplest critical analysis.
JimD
A new line of attack by Microsoft and company. Posted Aug 9, 2005 17:38 UTC (Tue) by hozelda (guest, #19341) [Link] Tinfoil and all, I'd declare that SCO is breaking the ice on a new attack vector against FOSS: major corporations need to go with a service/support vendor that actually codes the stuff. Dump the Red Hats of the world and go for the Microsofts (or so goes the FUD). [this making sense for Microsoft as it is moving in this direction]
At the same time it would be nice to see to what extent Microsoft actually codes all of its stuff (or will do so in the future) and not rely on prepackaging others' goods. I would like to believe Microsoft would code all of its stuff as this would be the surest way to extinction quickly. But I don't believe they do so, yet they will continue to sell their brand as such.
In any case, I like it when SCO spends its own money to make people aware of FOSS options. I like it when they bring out to the front doubts that execs out there may be having about FOSS but are not expressing or are not conscience about.
If the competition could not answer back quickly with a good answer because they lacked resources or awareness or a proper response or credibility to do so, for example, then all might be lost. But the FOSS community sort of sees all, knows all. It can respond quickly, accurately, with authority, sufficiently, etc, or at least more so than could a Netscape or a Red Hat by itself.
Whew! That's a relief. Bring it on, sucka. [I feel so big right now swinging away at the air, safely behind my dial-up line]
Foil packed away, I'd like to note that on a postitive side (yes, SCO is a significant contributor to FOSS.. ever since it left on its crusade), this argument favors the biggest contributors to a platform (eg, IBM, Red Hat, Sun, Microsoft.. in their respective platforms). For FOSS solutions, this bodes well for those that give the most back to the community.. but then this should have been obvious. What SCO is providing is just a little more marketing to quicken the pace of things for others.
False Dilemma Posted Aug 10, 2005 0:52 UTC (Wed) by bignose (subscriber, #40) [Link] > (Technically dilemma implies only two, according to it's greek roots.> However the term can be more generally applied to any "false quandary" ).
The general term I've seen (which avoids the "dilemma" two-state problem you describe) is "Fallacy of the Excluded Middle". It follows from the "Law of Excluded Middle":
<URL:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_excluded_middle>>
Darl sends a letter: SCO Support Posted Aug 9, 2005 18:35 UTC (Tue) by dokhebi (guest, #14023) [Link] I've always found SCO's support to be too expensive for the amount of help. This is true for all software companies.
With a few exceptions, I've been able to find the answers I need on the free support sites (usualy Usenet) without calling up official tech support. The exceptions that I find are companies that are to much of a niche, like Point-of-Sale.
Darl sends a letter: SCO Support Posted Aug 11, 2005 23:49 UTC (Thu) by dokhebi (guest, #14023) [Link] I know SCO has it's issues, but I am currently trying to bring up a Point of Sale system (the older version runs on SCO OSR5) on Windows Server 2003. I'm having loads of issues trying to get this POS working for my employers.
If I had to choose between SCO and Windows, I would choose SCO every time.
Just my $0.02 worth.
Darl sends a letter Posted Aug 11, 2005 14:50 UTC (Thu) by dwheeler (guest, #1216) [Link] Darl says: "Would you really want to trust the backbone of your business to the likely unpredictable response times of this Linux "volunteer fire department" support model?"This statement is an affront to all those brave men and women who are volunteer fire fighters. People all over the world trust their lives, their friends' and family's lives, their homes, and their businesses to volunteer fire departments. Some places use exclusively volunteers, and many other locations use a mix. Is there anyone who is a volunteer fire fighter, or who knows one, who can refute this implication that volunteer fire fighters are untrustworthy or unpredictable? I'd like to hear a volunteer fire fighter taking McBride's assertions to task. If McBride's home or business actually uses volunteer firefighters, I'd _ESPECIALLY_ like to hear from one of them...!
Darl sends a letter Posted Aug 11, 2005 14:59 UTC (Thu) by dwheeler (guest, #1216) [Link] Sorry to self-reply, but it turns out that a volunteer firefighter has already responded to McBride's implication that volunteer firefighters are untrustworthy and unpredictable. Here's what that volunteer firefighter said:"Just when I thought SCOG couldn't say or do anything to get my blood boiling.... I was a member of a volunteer fire organization for many years and worked my way up the ranks to Lieutenant, gave up many holiday dinners, time with my family, etc, etc and didn't recieve one penny because I firmly believe that everyone should volunteer in their community. I really wish that the dope who wrote this saw how effective a "volunteer fire department" could be when called. He'd probably think twice before opening his mouth if he spent some time doing buckets with me at Ground Zero. I hope I was not the only one to find that statement inflammatory." That was truly a reprensible statement. It's bad enough that McBride appears to have been repeatedly lying for money, and trying to steal hard work by many software developers. But insulting people who risk their lives, for no pay, is truly beyond the pale. Perhaps that's not what he meant; I hope so. But the implication sure seems to be there, and that is unacceptable.
More direct link to volunteer's statement Posted Aug 12, 2005 15:54 UTC (Fri) by Max.Hyre (subscriber, #1054) [Link] The parent included all the text, but for the curious, here's a direct link to the comment.
|
|||||||||||||