| |||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||
SCO announces quarterly results, first user targetSCO announces quarterly results, first user targetPosted Mar 3, 2004 14:09 UTC (Wed) by pjs (guest, #10927)Parent article: SCO announces quarterly results, first user target SCO's would like the dupe the media into believing they're suing AutoZone over their use of Linux. But in truth, the case really revolves around SCO's belief that AutoZone copied SCO's shared libraries to their new linux systems. That is what SCO is really suing over, despite the dishonest spin. Too bad for SCO it's simply not true. Here is a comment from the former Sr. Technical Advisor at AutoZone who directed the porting and personally ported much of the code. There's a first hand account that AutoZone did NOT actually copy SCO's shared libraries as part of the porting process. SCO's only "evidence" that AutoZone copied their shared libraries is: The basis for SCO's belief is the precision and efficiency with which the migration to Linux occurred, which suggests the use of shared libraries to run legacy applications on Linux. Among other things, this was a breach of the Autozone OpenServer License Agreement for use of SCO software beyond the scope of the license.
(Log in to post comments)
SCO announces quarterly results, first user target Posted Mar 3, 2004 14:39 UTC (Wed) by QuisUtDeus (guest, #14854) [Link] They are back to their "It's too good to be honest" logic.
SCO announces quarterly results, first user target Posted Mar 3, 2004 15:13 UTC (Wed) by vblum (guest, #1151) [Link] I worked the first time. It will work now.In a wider perception, this must do material damage to Linux adoption, and if that was the ultimate goal, they win. There is an AP article on the subject, and if you read that as a user who doesn't know much about OS's, the conclusion must be that this Linux thing is pretty dodgy. Unfortunately, this is the news that will get carried by our local newspapers.
It worked with reporters, not the courts Posted Mar 3, 2004 18:45 UTC (Wed) by Ross (subscriber, #4065) [Link] Sure, it convinced reporters but the judge has been less than impressed sofar. She told SCO that they needed to provide more proof (otherwise they would have had no ground for filing the complaint in the first place). But instead of giving more specific information SCO just dropped the claims and replaced them with the copyright claims against AIX people mentioned above. The funny thing about those claims is that the license cancellation depended on the original complaint being valid. So SCO hasn't really fixed their problem, just delayed it.
SCO announces quarterly results, first user target Posted Mar 3, 2004 14:44 UTC (Wed) by ccchips (subscriber, #3222) [Link] They already are. Go take a look at news.com.Too busy to provide a link. I'm dealing with the incredible onslaught of Microsoft-based viruses hitting my network. Which is probably part of the reason for this yapping-dog crap from SCO--to disctract people from the fact that their biggest backer can't code its way out of a paper bag. My favorite quote from a Microsoft rep: "In the 1970's, we used to be able to leave our keys in the car, but now we have to be careful about that...." ...doesn't it seem like an odd co-incidence that the press is spending so much time on SCO, and not nearly enough time on Microsoft?
SCO announces quarterly results, first user target Posted Mar 3, 2004 14:59 UTC (Wed) by bajw (guest, #11712) [Link] Wow. The 1970's they remember were *nothing* like the 1970's I lived through.
SCO announces quarterly results, first user target Posted Mar 3, 2004 15:21 UTC (Wed) by clugstj (subscriber, #4020) [Link] They are probably quoting a Microsoft rep. who wasn't even born yet in the 1970's. I agree, we didn't let our keys in the car even then!
SCO announces quarterly results, first user target Posted Mar 3, 2004 16:07 UTC (Wed) by hconnellan (subscriber, #231) [Link] Good summary.What I find amazing is that newSCO don't realise that Linux's SCO binary interface is only required for using SCO compiled binaries where you don't have the original source code. If you do have the source then a port should be relatively simple.
|
|
||||||||||||