More trouble for Linux

SCO has already signed its death certificate with this unpopular litigation. SCO's president/CEO Darl McBride must have been thinking to himself: "What is the most expensive and painful way I can scare companies and individuals off from ever doing business with SCO again?"

Seriously, Linux is good on its philosophical aspects alone. I am willing to exchange a little ease of use and technical widgetry for a freer operating system. The idea that one has the right to a program's source code and the right to modify and redistribute that code under the same terms is very satisfying, especially considering Microsoft's evermore draconian license agreements.

So basically software is being used as opensource when its not supposed to BE opensource? I'm a newb so im not sure i followed this correctly.

that is the allegation RoD

The allegation seems to be that Linux has proprietary UNIX code in it's kernel. Specifically the SMP portion of the code. I have yet to see where SCO has proven this allegation though.

Ahh i get it now, they need to lay off. I love linux and im not even done the install yet. Only prob i have had so far was KDE part of the one package but i wanna use GNOME anyway so i dont mind much.

Why are winblows and linsucks the only potential choices for an OS? Havent any of you ever used BSD? FreeBSD has better liscense than linux, none of the legal worries with SCO, and what you change, you can keep. Its just as stable as linux, and anything you can run on linux you can run on FreeBSD. In the last few versions (4.7 and 4.8 ) Linux binary emulation has run perfectly for me. The OS is designed for servers more than workstations, however it makes a powerful desktop as well. FreeBSD can hold way more concurrent connections than linux with the same hardware resources ( Im only talking about default installs, i know you can tweek the kernel too. ) And obviously its FREEbsd. The ports make package management pie, no more crappy RPM's that ruin your perfect installs. If you still need windoze support, you can run an emulator. XFree86 runs fine for me, kde, gnome, icewm, whatever your pleaseure is. If it can do anything that the other 2 can do better, is free, with a better liscense, easier package management, no legal worries, why arent you using FreeBSD yet?

The allegation seems to be that Linux has proprietary UNIX code in it's kernel. Specifically the SMP portion of the code. I have yet to see where SCO has proven this allegation though.

Mr. Torvalds wouldnt let this happen, not in a million years.

Why are winblows and linsucks the only potential choices for an OS?

I'm no expert in any OS, but IMO nope, Linux doesnt suck, neither does Windows...Both have their strong and weak points.

Havent any of you ever used BSD?

Yea, heard of it a few times. Tried FreeBSD 5 but was unstable, it was me tho, CURRENT version 5 is no way stable and you know this well I'd really really like to have 4.8 but the conenction here is too slow

I didnt mean to be so derogatory toward linux. However i have had a terrible experience with it. Package management is just totally terrible in most distro's. How many of you enjoy upgrading wth RPM's? ya exactly. The only package management that i have seen work has been that of debian (apt-get, except when apt-get upgrade tries to upgrade apt-get and manages to crash and corrupt apt-get) and gentoo (who just basically stole bsd ports. bsd on a linux kernel, wtf is the point of this?) I hear good things about slackware because its source based, however its hard to judge. just about any distro has serious package management issues. Lets face it, if package management doesnt work smoothly and easily, sysadmins WONT upgrade their software to patch critical bugs. And there are only 300 different linux distro's Vs 3 main bsd ones, and 4-5 fringe ones. (free, net, open are big, pico, closed, dragonfly, and any others are small.) Yes the 5.0 strain of freebsd was terrible, and shouldnt have been touched with a 50 foot pole. But thats to be expected as it has been labled as such. I dont know anybody who ran it without kernel panics, however when a release is marked stable, except for very very rare exceptions, its rock solid and you dont reboot for months.

Anyone think about just rewriting the kernal to take out the proprietary UNIX code? I bet there are people willing to, it would take some work but could be done. I for one would take advantage of this if I was a company that wrote the code, by maybe making some software for linux and forcing it to be preloaded on linux, or maybe just let them use the code and be happy that code oyu own is part of sometihng so big. Then again, some money would be nice, even if i already had soo much I could buy 1,000 hookers.

well SCO hasnt said which part of the code is theirs yet. They said that they will only reveal that in court.

They already know that as soon as the open source community finds out what part of the code it is that it will be re written.

Its not about their code, its about money and power. 2 things SCO's not going to have a lot of when this is over.

I dont think linux sucks, in fact ive gotten a little used to it in the last few days while my windows pc was getting a new processor...

Anyone think about just rewriting the kernal to take out the proprietary UNIX code?

Theres people dont want linux to be a decent desktop, im sure this a 'feature'(just like making a install just barely easier than writing your own installer is how everything should be, to some).

They code well, but they never change, some of them....

Then again, some money would be nice, even if i already had soo much I could buy 1,000 hookers.

lol, most people just rent!