Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Linux Business Caldera Software Linux

An Open Letter from Darl McBride 393

Posted by timothy from the hi-darl dept.
canfirman writes "Well, it seems Darl is changing tactics as he's now published an open letter proclaiming the benefits of UNIX over any other operating system. However, most of his letter involves comparing SCO Unix to Linux from not only a business acceptance point of view, but from a technical point of view, too. Darl throws in a bunch of stats in there, too: 'In a study conducted only seven months ago they found that overall, the most vulnerable operating system for manual hacker attacks was Linux, accounting for 65.64% of all hacker breaches reported.' I'd love for somebody who has more technical knowledge than me to look at his points and see if what he says is true or not -- assuming anything coming out of Darl's mouth is true."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

An Open Letter from Darl McBride More

An Open Letter from Darl McBride

Comments Filter:

  • I can believe of the stats here... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by beh ( 4759 ) * on Monday August 08, 2005 @01:44PM (#13271192)
    I can believe part of his claims in that more Linux systems get hacked, compared to commercial Unices. Though I don't think this is a general problem with security on Linux, but with the fact that most home installations of Unix based systems will be on Linux boxes - and therefore in the hands of people with less security expertise than large companies have at their disposal.

    Also, companies have dedicated sysadmins or even IT security people which will (hopefully) constantly check for new vulnerabilities and immediately patch their systems.

    Private "Home" Unix installations that aren't Linux based will in comparison be more likely to be in the hands of the more knowledgable folks, and hence also in the hands of people that will likely be more security aware than the average home Windows/Mac/Linux user.

    How many private users with their linux box on broadband seriously do that (except for those that hold IT security / admin type positions)?

    I'm a developer - and I'm not in the habit of daily (or even weekly) patching of systems. I'm occasionally checking the system and I do react (i.e. patch) when I hear about some (widely publicised) security hole... ...but outside of that most security fixes will probably come in when it's time to update the system as a whole...

    Another factor in "less" security of systems in people's homes, is that most people just stay ignorant of the situation, because they think "my box doesn't contain anything important that would make it worth hacking"; but they're often with that ignoring the danger that someone might just break into their computer just to use the computer in further attacks on more "rewarding" targets.

    • Re:I can believe of the stats here... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by shotfeel ( 235240 ) on Monday August 08, 2005 @01:51PM (#13271288)
      One should also note the weasel word being used, "manual hacker attatcks". Apparently for some OS's (which shall remain nameless), hacker attacks are automatic.

      • Re:I can believe of the stats here... (Score:4, Interesting)

        by Henry V .009 ( 518000 ) on Monday August 08, 2005 @02:11PM (#13271496) Journal
        That's a fairly interesting. After all, I'd rather have my system owned by a script kiddie who's trying to shut down the internet than someone going after my identity and personal information. Does the huge sea of viruses and attacks out there grant Microsoft some sort of fitness benefit? Maybe natural selection has winnowed the weaker systems, leaving fully updated Windows systems as a harder target for manual attacks. Linux, having existed in a kinder environment, is like the boy-in-the-bubble stepping out into the world for the first time.
        • Does the huge sea of viruses and attacks out there grant Microsoft some sort of fitness benefit?

          No, just the opposite [slashdot.org].

          There are four potential categories of machines here. Unmaintained Windows, Maintained Windows, Unmaintained Linux, Maintained Linux. Of these, UW is so easy to target that it can be done automatically. UL is hackable, too, but there's enough variation that it generally needs to be done manually. I would further say that ML is more secure than MW.

          Linux, having existed in a kinder environment, is like the boy-in-the-bubble stepping out into the world for the first time.

          Unix (which Linux inherits much from, and in software aquired traits can be inherited :-> ) has been in a much nastier environment than Windows for much longer. Recall that the Morris Worm targeted Unix and Vax systems...

          • Re:I can believe of the stats here... (Score:4, Interesting)

            by Henry V .009 ( 518000 ) on Monday August 08, 2005 @02:42PM (#13271791) Journal
            One place where natural selection has helped is Windows Update. It's hard to turn off and hard to break. Similar tools in various Linux distros are getting better, but are not as good.

            On the other hand, where Linux updating bests Windows by miles is that you can often update all the software on your computer at once—if you're using all free software packaged by your distro provider, that is.

            • Windows update (Score:3, Insightful)

              by falconwolf ( 725481 )

              One place where natural selection has helped is Windows Update.

              I've had to reinstall Windows a number of tymes and one thing I found out quickly was to turn off automatic updates in Windows. This happened after I ran update after doing a compleat install and then running update only to have it break something. I went through this three tymes within a week. Install then run update, something gets broken so rerun install then update. Broke again so reinstall and this tyme not run update. No problems

        • Re:I can believe of the stats here... (Score:5, Interesting)

          by Darth Daver ( 193621 ) on Monday August 08, 2005 @03:16PM (#13272244)
          "After all, I'd rather have my system owned by a script kiddie who's trying to shut down the internet than someone going after my identity and personal information. "

              I'd rather not have my system "owned". The Windows user attitude of, "I don't care if someone breaks into my system because it contains nothing important, and I already rebuild it every few months" is not encouraging.

              What do you think the statistical likelihood of an overt attack is compared to an automated worm? Those weasels at mi2g who came up with this "study" of dubious merit, are simply looking for some way to get a dig in on Linux. Would you rather be on an OS that gets 52% of .1% of all attacks or one that gets 99% of 99.9% of all attacks?

              Getting into a Linux box should require some overt effort. Breaking Windows boxes automatically using worms has been all too easy, as proven by numerous, catastrophic examples such as Code Red, Nimda, Sasser, Slammer, Loveletter, Melissa, etc. Please refresh my memory of all the high-profile, impactful, overt Linux attacks.
      • > One should also note the weasel word being used, "manual hacker attatcks". Apparently for some OS's (which shall remain nameless), hacker attacks are automatic.

        Yeah, don't fuck with the people who wrote nroff source for your manual pages.

        Anyone got a SCO box handy?

        $ man tunefs

        If it doesn't say "You can tune a filesystem but you can't tune a fish" [freebsd.org], Darl deserves whatever he gets. Don't believe me? Use the nroff source, Luke.

        $ cat /usr/share/man/man8/tunefs.8.gz | gzip -d

        .\" Take this out a

    • Re:I can believe of the stats here... (Score:5, Informative)

      by beacher ( 82033 ) on Monday August 08, 2005 @01:57PM (#13271356) Homepage
      Slashdot discussed this last Novemberish about the mi2g study (link here [slashdot.org].) It was bullshit then, it's bullshit now.

    • Re:I can believe of the stats here... (Score:4, Interesting)

      by Mournblade ( 72705 ) on Monday August 08, 2005 @01:57PM (#13271357) Homepage
      Wouldn't the majority of home installations of UNIX based systems be Macs running OS X? I have no specific stats, just asking if anyone does.
    • Comparing shear numbers is not accurate. It needs to be percentage based. Even with that, I agree that most likely more linux will be cracked due to amateur playing while somebody who is running SCO at home is a professional who is probably providing support services on the side.


      • It will always get better.

        I have a feeling Darl will be as prolific AD (after death) as L. Ron Hubbard has been. I think he (the latter) has written|published more since he died than when he was alive.

        I fully expect Darl to publish missives from the grave about Unix & Linux for a long, long time.

        (for all we know, he's writing this stuff from a casket)


    • I'm a developer - and I'm not in the habit of daily (or even weekly) patching of systems.

      Why not?

      For my server (Debian):

      apt-get update
      apt-get upgrade

      For my desktop (Gentoo):

      emerge --sync
      emerge --update world

      Much of it can even be automated. I belive other distros have similar methods. (And the update and sync are actually done by cron.)
    • Though many may reply "SCO 5ux0rz and Linux 0wnz" there is a lot of crap in this article. To back up his security claim he cits " In CNET's, May 27, 2005 article entitled "OS Makers Slow to Fix Flaw ". As any bugzilla will show Linux is patched [kernel.org] frequently and quickly. Check google news [google.com] if you don't think Linux is secure Darl. Point one for Darl, 1770 for Linux. Darl references (though gives no link) a study done by the MI2G group. This group is famous [theregister.co.uk] for FUD and being special interest lackeys. [vmyths.com] Great sources.

      Next Darl takes Linux to task for disorganization.
      Linux will likely continue to face challenges about its development methodologies and roadmaps as long as it continues to be a loosely organized set of volunteers who develop what they want, when they want.. Has he not heard of Novell, RedHat, Mandriva, or Ubuntu? What about the OSTG?!? Are these "loosely organized volunteers?" NO! These are firms, supporting and developing Linux, firms that are pounding SCO into non-existence. [slashdot.org]

      He claims The grand promise of Linux was that it wouldn't fork or fragment into multiple Linux operating systems. . Never have I heard that. The grand promise of Linux is that it is open. Free as in freedom. Unlike the "Open Server" SCO sells, which is neither open nor free.

      Next he asks the following.
      Who is checking for compatibility across thousands of applications, drivers, hardware and peripherals? Who is verifying backward compatibility? Well if you are using Debian, it is the Debian team. If you are using SuSE it is Novell. Et cetera et cetera. Darl betrays extraordinary ingorance in thinking that all operating systems built on GNU/Linux are the same. Gentoo != Mandriva != Slackware != Knoppix. Ye the media (and Darl, who shouldn't be able to plea ignoracne) continue to ignorantly blanket statement all Linux distros as "Linux".

      Frankly this is crap. He admits to being biased, but doesn't have the balls to point out where his bias is. That is because it is everywhere, throughout this ridiculous article.

      And who the heck has ever heard of "Steve the Linux Super Villain Guy?" And why would a "popular internet cartoon" lend credence to a serious business claim??

      Though I am going to burn Karma for this, the holy Slashdot would be a lot more interesting if it didn't post Media/FUD as news.

    • I'm a developer - and I'm not in the habit of daily (or even weekly) patching of systems.
      Oh, right! Thanks for reminding me.

      apt-get update && apt-get upgrade

      Whew, that was rough... back to work now!

    • Also linux (&BSD) boxes are way more at the forefront of operations, while most unixes are far away in datacenters behind firewalls if they are even in a public available part of the internet.

  • Stop the lies, Linux is free. (Score:4, Informative)

    by bigwavejas ( 678602 ) * on Monday August 08, 2005 @01:44PM (#13271197) Journal
    Is Linux really free? Of course not.

    Yes it is. http://www.linux.org/dist/ [linux.org]

    • Is Linux really free? Of course not.

      Yes it is. http://www.linux.org/dist/ [linux.org]

      More importantly, Yes, it is. [gnu.org]

    • 1. Intelligently running a server is never really free, it requires admin time, power, hardware and software. Even if you can get some of these things pseudo-free you generally could apply the resources to something else instead.

      2. It is likely that the lowest Total Cost of Ownership for your systems in the medium term is WHATEVER YOU HAVE NOW. Switching is expensive, and retraining your admins to know another system can be even more expensive. At first noone will be experienced with the new system, an

  • They want to decry the GPL and OSS in general as communist, bad for business and so on. Then they want to turn around and benefit from it.

    Are we surprised by this?

  • An Open Letter Back to Darl (Score:5, Funny)

    by ChipMonk ( 711367 ) on Monday August 08, 2005 @01:47PM (#13271236) Journal
    Dear Darl:

    Too little, too late. Kiss our asses.

    ChipMonk
  • After basically ignoring the SCO UNIX market and worse -- attacking some of his best customers, Darl is doing a volte-face. The key question is: WHY?

    Is this a concession that attacking Linux (via IBM) has failed? Or a merely a feint? Is he trying to window-dress SCO for some other buyer? Time will tell

    • Re:Odd turnabout (Score:5, Informative)

      by canfirman ( 697952 ) <pdavi25&yahoo,ca> on Monday August 08, 2005 @01:57PM (#13271358)
      After basically ignoring the SCO UNIX market and worse -- attacking some of his best customers, Darl is doing a volte-face. The key question is: WHY?

      My guess is that he's trying to remove focus away from his unsuccessful lawsuits and trying to re-promote the business, something he should have done while CEO of The SCO Group. Let's face it, SCO's financial situation is precarious at best, downright dangerous at worse. It looks like his "golden egg" of Linux lawsuits has turned up a rotten egg, so he's trying to change direction. I'm wondering if the shareholders and/or the board is putting pressure on him to promote the business instead of the lawsuits?

      Either that, or he needs more cash for his lawsuits.

  • mi2g (Score:5, Informative)

    by harlows_monkeys ( 106428 ) on Monday August 08, 2005 @01:49PM (#13271257) Homepage
    His security stats come from MI2G. Google will tell you all you need to know about them.

  • Groklaw Fisks McBride (Score:5, Informative)

    by cutecub ( 136606 ) on Monday August 08, 2005 @01:49PM (#13271260)
    Groklaw is in fine form today...
    Darl's Open Letter, "Long Live UNIX," and other PR Blizzardry from SCOForum [groklaw.net]

  • The horse died a couple months ago (Score:5, Insightful)

    by bgfay ( 5362 ) on Monday August 08, 2005 @01:49PM (#13271264) Homepage
    He says that when he came to the company they decided to focus on the area that was most profitable. He then goes on to say that this focus was not on litigation. It would seem that history will not bear him out on this.

    When it comes down to it, is it productive anymore to even worry about this guy? At one time, I think it was, but now, I'm not sure. If he's still a danger to the idea of OSS, then I'm all for taking him apart bit by bit until he cries. But if he's just a harmless troll now, I'm ready to move on.

    Has anyone started a betting pool for the final day of SCO's existence? It can't really be that far away, can it?

    Finally, one more serious question: He says that they are proud of and focused on their own for-sale version of UNIX. What advantages are there to going with a closed, expensive version of UNIX over either an open, expensive version of Linux or an open, free version of Linux? I really don't know and am very curious.

  • Stewardship Responsibility... (Score:5, Informative)

    by calebb ( 685461 ) on Monday August 08, 2005 @01:49PM (#13271267) Homepage Journal
    From Article
    However, as the stewards of the UNIX operating system, SCO is committed to providing technology leadership and delivering on the promise of UNIX-based solutions for many years to come.

    Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't Novell [novell.com] the stewards of UNIX?
    • That really caught my eye, too. Aren't we into some Sarbanes-Oxley or Lanham Act problems here? I mean, based on my admittedly biased reading of the recent Novell reply, it appears that Darl "knew or should have known" (to use the lawyer-speak) that SCOX didn't and doesn't own UNIX, so technically, he's making "false public statements designed to mislead investors as to the true value of the stock" etc. etc.

      Of course, I'm sure the way he looks at it is that even though Novell refused to transfer the cop

      • A few things that bother me: 1. Novell didn't come out MUCH earlier to claim their 95% of royalties

        If you read Novell's filing, you will see that they have, in fact, been doing this for the past two years. As litigation and public aggrandizement weren't their goals, they've been doing it privately (ie., the way business professionals work.) It's only when they're sure that they have 100% legal proof that SCOX wouldn't hold up their end of the contract that they brought it to court.

        2. Darl et al probably w
    • Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't Novell the stewards of UNIX?

      You are correct insomuch as Novell has publically stated they are.

      SCO, in their usual manner, denies that [wikipedia.org] and the courts are involved.
    • Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't Novell the stewards of UNIX?

      If they are not now, they sure will be after Novell forces the SCO/Microsoft UNIX license fee issue. SCO still owes Novell on that, and does not have enough cash or assets to pony up Novell's 95% cut.

    • Yes, but don't worry. (Score:5, Funny)

      by deathcow ( 455995 ) * on Monday August 08, 2005 @03:12PM (#13272190)
      This is similiar to the situation with Denethor, the Steward of Gondor. His failure was to recognize Aragorn as the rightful ruler of Gondor.

      I expect it will end similiarly, with Darl coating himself in some type of oil, igniting himself and then running and jumping from the highest precipice as a plummeting human fireball.
      • Uhm, it's a bad comparison. It doesn't take a lot of reading between the lines to see that Aragorn became the "rightful ruler" by murdering all opposition. I wouldn't trust a pretender who most likely murdered the heir to the throne (Boromir), then cruelly faked a suicide of the ruler itself. The only "witnesses" were his goons, together with an officer of the guard who was reported to be shocked and behaving weirdly -- the officer was also rewarded but sent to the most remote place available just after

  • Out of the mouths of Darls? (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward
    assuming anything coming out of Darl's mouth is true

    That ain't the body part he talks with...

  • Of course Linux has a higher instance of breach. There's only like 15 Unix customers any more...

    Seriously, you keep your linux system patched and you probably won't get hacked.

    That being said, the two hacks I've seen on my boxen - one was from a vulnerable version of Ikonboard - and the IRCBot was running with "NOBODY" permissions... The other one someone found a way to drop a fake paypal site on (a different) box and I have the box sitting on by tech bench to figure out how they got in. Though, I'm guess

  • MY open Letter to SCO (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward
    In the late 1970's Microsoft licensed UNIX source code from AT&T which at the time was not licensing the name UNIX. Therefore Microsoft created the name Xenix. Microsoft did not sell Xenix to end-users but instead licensed the software to software OEMs such as Intel, Tandy, Altos and SCO who then provided a finished version of their own Xenix to the end-users or other customers. SCO introduced its first version of Xenix named SCO Xenix System V for the Intel 8086 and 8088 in 1983. Today SCO Xenix is one

  • What? (Score:2)

    by Rahga ( 13479 )
    Sorry, Darl... I'm still busy reading the arguments your lawyers submitted to the IBM case [wikipedia.org]. I'll get to it later.
  • involves comparing SCO Unix to Linux ... the most vulnerable operating system for manual hacker attacks was Linux, accounting for 65.64% of all hacker breaches reported

    Of course there are more attacks against linux than against SCO Unix. I'd imagine there are somewhere around, 300 to 400 trillion more instances of linux running than instances of SCO Unix. So it's not strange that there are more attacks against them. This is just an instance of failing to take into account the base rate [wikipedia.org].

    Of course, I'm

  • Religion Politics Operating Systems

  • Current rankings from -- ZoneH (Score:3, Informative)

    by KingBahamut ( 615285 ) on Monday August 08, 2005 @01:56PM (#13271345)

    99 single IP
    910 mass defacements
    Linux (56.6%)
    Win 2003 (28.9%)
    Win 2000 (8.7%)
    Win NT9x (2.9%)
    FreeBSD (1.7%)
    NetBSD (0.7%)
    SolarisSunOS (0.1%)
    Win XP (0.1%)

    • Re:Current rankings from -- ZoneH (Score:5, Insightful)

      by digidave ( 259925 ) on Monday August 08, 2005 @02:36PM (#13271722)
      99.99% of web site defacements have nothing to do with the OS. It's the web app that is compromised by a SQL injection attack or password workaround.

      One of the problems is that there are a ton of badly written PHP apps that get installed on Linux mass hosting servers so some script kiddie just googles a string to find the vulnerable sites and uses their script to deface them.

      • PHP is ruining Linux's reputation. (Score:5, Insightful)

        by CyricZ ( 887944 ) on Monday August 08, 2005 @03:09PM (#13272166)
        Indeed, PHP is severely damaging the reputation of Linux. While the developers of PHP are well-intentioned, that is for sure, their creation has suffered from far too many security problems as of late. Of course, they cannot be blamed for the flaws of hastily written PHP scripts.

        Nevertheless, the numerous insecurities found in PHP and scripts written in PHP are tarnishing the image of Linux. Hopefully the PHP developers put more effort into creating a web development platform that isn't as susceptible to scripts written by non-professionals. Just as Intel and AMD have moved to prevent stack overflow exploits via hardware improvements, it is time for PHP to do the same. They must make it so that insecure scripts do not run at all.

  • I thank the F/OSS community's policy of full disclosure of vulnerabilities so they can be fixed sooner/faster. This is as opposed to other OS manufacturers' policy of concealment and FUD so said vulnerabilities and breaches DON'T get reported and a "patch" is released in their own sweet time.

  • Manual hacker attacks? (Score:4, Funny)

    by dlefavor ( 725930 ) on Monday August 08, 2005 @02:01PM (#13271391)
    What the hell is a "manual" attack, one carried out with bare hands?

    Or does he mean manual as in "the manual". I'd say my Assembler Language manuals have suffered from more attacks than average. They've all been manual, too, now that I think about it.

    I guess they'd be manual manual attacks.

    I've rarely been more tempted to just respond with "whatever".

  • There should be an addition to that rule about when somebody mentions Hitler on the Internet, the argument is over.

    My corollary would stipulate that if somebody writes an "Open Letter," it constitutes proof that nobody wants to listen to them.

  • Quotes (Score:2)

    by 3770 ( 560838 )
    Darl says:

    Of course you, the reader, probably think this byline is biased. Of course it is. But what are the press saying about OpenServer 6? Here is a quick sampling of recent sound bites

    The quotes that he presents aren't attributed to any sources though. So my question is, how many of those quotes are from their own internal news letter? Or (more seriously) some organization that already has a vested interest in SCO?

  • what's sco running again? (Score:3, Funny)

    by zr-rifle ( 677585 ) <zedr@@@zedr...com> on Monday August 08, 2005 @02:05PM (#13271440) Homepage
    Looks like *he's* the customer [netcraft.com] he's trying to convince.
  • Darl "Master of Linear Thought" McBride sez:

    8. SCO is Unifying its Code Base - Yogi Berra once said, "If you come to a fork in the road, take it." Forking is exactly what is happening to Linux.
    Whoa, dude... heavy. *puff puff... give*

  • "SCO Has a Superior Kernel" (Score:5, Informative)

    by Ken Hall ( 40554 ) on Monday August 08, 2005 @02:07PM (#13271461)
    I used to be an SCO reseller. I qualified by answering a 50 question multiple choice test on their web site.

    Does anyone know if they ever changed the Open Server kernel so you don't have to recompile to change the domain name? Or add a disk drive? Or a tape drive?

    How about RAID support? Is that still an "extra cost" item?

    I once built a linux based dial-up router that connected to an OpenServer box on the other end. I tested it using Linux on both ends, but it didn't work connecting to OpenServer. The serial port handler was just too frellin' slow, running on a box that was twice as fast as the router.

    I always give a snort when I read the PR about how much better SCO UNIX is. None of my customers run it anymore. It's just too much trouble, even compared to Windows.

    • Re:"SCO Has a Superior Kernel" (Score:5, Informative)

      by hackstraw ( 262471 ) * on Monday August 08, 2005 @03:31PM (#13272406)
      I always give a snort when I read the PR about how much better SCO UNIX is. None of my customers run it anymore. It's just too much trouble, even compared to Windows.

      Thats funny, almost as funny as this piece from Darl's letter:

      But since SCO owns the UNIX operating system and it made up 95 percent of our company's revenue, and we were getting strong demand from customers for a next generation version of UNIX, that's where we concentrated our efforts.

      I didn't really know SCO had any customers. I've heard that some people are simply stuck with SCO for now because they made some decision to go with it at some time, and its difficult to migrate off of the platform right now, but real customers? Who in their right mind would use SCO?

      Even funnier is:

      In June, we released SCO OpenServer 6, which was a multi-year, multi-million dollar development effort that resulted in a product that goes beyond simply leveling the playing field with Linux.

      So, they are just now beyond a level playing field with a clearly inferior product. OK.

      He continues with an ordered list (Every one mentions Linux, so Linux must be a threat here somewhere):

      1) SCO is cheaper than Linux. I've paid for Linux support from RedHat. I will no longer do this. Its a waste of money. When I was trying to figure out why their "enterprise" OS could not handle a block device over 1TB, and there was no solution, I figured out that paying for support was worthless. I've never needed support for linux over the past 10 years, I don't see where I would need it in the future. Linux works, and works well for servers on a slew of platforms. SCO and many other OSes simply don't work on many, if any platforms besides the x86 platform.

      2) SCO has a superior kernel. Maybe. Aside from silly issues like hardcoded numbers for things like the number of open files by a process and the block device limit I've hit, I've never had a problem with a Linux kernel ever. Its as good as it needs to be. When I ran out of file descripters, I used a beta kernel until 2.2 was released with the fix in it (2.1.125 I believe. There was one stable kernel around that point of the 2.1 series. It worked well in production. The block device thing was fixed by other distro's, including RH9 at the time, but not RedHat's "enterprise" release.

      3) OpenServer has better security. Maybe, maybe not. I've had no issues with Linux security over the years, but SCO could be more secure. If security is such a big issue for you, you probably will not run Linux or SCO.

      4) SCO has a customer driven roadmap. Again, what customers? Linux is made by its customers.

      5) SCO is more backwards compatible. I thought Microsoft had that job (Can't you still run DOS applications?) No real comment. I've never had issues, but then again if it ain't broke... don't "upgrade" and break it...

      6) Its hard to sum this up, but it sounds like there is less administration on a SCO box than a Linux box. Its possible. I get pissed off at dependancy hell, but I think administrating a slew of Linux boxes is not that tough. From what I've learned today, maybe this has changed, but SCO used to require a recompile of the kernel to change its hostname. Provided this was recently fixed, it doesn't sound like SCO has come from a plug-n-play mentality.

      7) SCO has a warrantee, Linux does not. OK. Score one for SCO _today_. Once SCO is out of business, I guess you can frame your warrantee, and stare at it when not trying to find people to port your apps to something else (probably Linux).

      8) SCO won't fork and they have a unified code that is really UNIX.

      OK. If that is a real benefit, then good for SCO. Other computer companies can change architectures, and stay in business. They can break stuff with the gentle application of a service pack and stay in business. This could be a niche market for somebody.

      9) SCO is _the_ known reliable UNIX. Solaris is reliable. Linux is reliabl
      • 5) SCO is more backwards compatible.

        "SCO puts the backwards into backwards compatible."

        This used to be a real advantage... we used to run Xenix-286 software from 1984 on SCO Unixware, and if you had a real need to run some program from the '80s it was the bomb. But this isn't something that's going to get you a lot of new customers... it's something that locks your existing customers in to you.

        But they've dropped x286emul, so that's really not a good point for him to be bringing up any more. I'm still smart
  • Backward compatibility is almost non-existent for Linux customers.

    I love this guy! he's great!

    And his soundbytes at the end:
    "OpenServer 6's features form a very powerful server."

    "The price, for what you get, offers a significant return on

  • An open letter (Score:3, Funny)

    by inode_buddha ( 576844 ) on Monday August 08, 2005 @02:09PM (#13271480) Journal
    An open letter deserves an open response. So I unzipped.
  • Darl knows lawsuits,
    but does Darl know Unix?

    I think not.

  • In June, we released SCO OpenServer 6, which was a multi-year, multi-million dollar development effort that resulted in a product that goes beyond simply leveling the playing field with Linux. Based on the feedback from our strategic partners, customers, resellers, engineers, and many others, I believe SCO OpenServer 6 outshines Linux on a number of fronts:

    Sorry, Darl. Things like large file support, additional processor support, and many other "advances" in OpenSewer 6 are things that Linux has had for a
  • "Of course we are innovating and we absolutely want to defeat Linux, just as we want to defeat any other competitor. We work and live in a competitive environment, as do most companies. The competitive battle between Pepsi and Coke is legendary, as is the battle between GM and Ford, Boeing and Airbus, and the Red Sox and Yankees."

    Notice the word 'defeat'. Any business wants to better their competitor, but defeat is a word, that I feel is better left on the battlefield.

    Take all of his above rivalries, and
  • Now I know that you'll be sitting in a poorly lit office with your technical staff, of one, at an old WWII vintage desk and bemoaning your fate, ending up in a strip mall without even a MacDonald's.

    You won't be the first OS maker, (Remember Keronics? How about Data General?) to do so and you won't be the last either.

    Hurry up and get to your fate.
  • I only read the beginning part of his open letter and couldn't continue because it was so full of unsupported claims. It kind of reminds me of the beloved Iraq Information Officer Mohammed Saeed al-Sahaf, who in the last days of Sadam's regime said things like:

    "They are lying every day. They are lying always, and mainly they are lying to their public opinion."

    "They are achieving nothing; they are suffering from casualties. Those casualties are increasing, not decreasing."

    "We are determined to defeat them an

  • lets see (Score:2, Insightful)

    by hurfy ( 735314 )
    web site defacement, active entry = manual hacker attack

    viruses,scripts,malware,browser exploits,etc != manual hacker attack

    i imagine linux has the most sites hosted?
    Linux sites probably have less security minded ppl than someone that paid big $$ for thier system.

    Could be true, not that it means anything. They probably hacked some poor linux server with 100 sites that nobody has been to. That could generate said statistic since i hear so little about 'manual hacker attack' lately, hehe.
    Those without securit
  • "manual hacker attacks". Those are usually mounted against more interesting targets than just some random kiddyDSL. Try to guess dominating OS used on high profile targets.

    As for the rest - fuck it. Pure bullshit. And a bit more of shit, than bull. (Especially I like the part about SCO kernel and support teams)
  • Is running Open Server 6 right now. We had a power glitch Saturday and again this morning. With each glitch Open Server never recovered even though the box powered back up. If it wasn't bad enough that our IT guys connected this abomination to a UPS with bad batteries, it's taking them over an hour to get the thing up and running again. Now I have had linux and Solaris boxes with no UPS recover just fine from all kinds of power glitches, so this makes me wonder.

    Brought to you by SCO, "Downtime" IS our middl

  • A rebuttal (Score:5, Interesting)

    by ZosX ( 517789 ) <zosxavius@nOSpAm.gmail.com> on Monday August 08, 2005 @02:37PM (#13271733) Homepage
    "But since SCO owns the UNIX operating system...."

    Quoth the wikipedia:

    The present owner of the UNIX trademark is The Open Group, while the present claimants on the rights to the UNIX source code are The SCO Group and Novell. Only systems fully compliant with and certified to the Single UNIX Specification qualify as "UNIX" (others are called "UNIX system-like" or Unix-like).

    Novell also has source code rights. Also, Darl, you should be careful to use the UNIX trademark so freely as it is clearly a registered trademark of the Open Group. From their website [unix.org].

    "Customers can identify UNIX certified products by the Open Brand logo and the mandatory attribution declaring to which version of the specification the product complies:"

    So no Darl, you do not own UNIX. Get a clue.

    "The competitive battle between Pepsi and Coke is legendary, as is the battle between GM and Ford, Boeing and Airbus, and the Red Sox and Yankees."

    Your analogy between Pepsi and Coke (where did you learn to write anyways? 4th grade?) is so inherently flawed that the term "apples to oranges" doesn't even begin to describe how distorted this viewpoint is, as both are still fruit. My guess is that you were trying to provide some humour. I certainly got a good laugh.

    " 1. OpenServer 6 Costs Less - OpenServer 6 offers very aggressive pricing.
                    The purchase price for SCO OpenServer 6 is priced from $599 to $1399
                    which includes the license to the product, software fixes, and access
                    to SCO's online knowledge base. Customers pay once for the product
                    and run it for as long as they like."

    I don't really know what kind of math you are using Darl, because in my world, $599 is a whole lot more than $0. Also, I don't really see how asking for a support contract is a "bait and switch" tactic as you claim. If you don't need support, there are more than enough FREE, as in beer and speech, alternatives out there in the Linux universe.

    " "Free" is one of the most searched words on the Web today. When you
                    type in "Free" in Yahoo search, it brings up more than 3 billion hits.
                    "Free" is a very powerful marketing concept. We all love free. Linux
                    lures you in with the promise of its being "free." But before you get
                    out of the "store," you are surprised to find out that it was anything
                    but free. Just remember the proverb, 'Free is the most expensive
                    price.'"

    Darl. All I gotta ask is, can I have some of what you are smoking. It has GOTTA be good!

    "OpenServer 6's features form a very powerful server."

    Yeah. Especially now that you included a bunch of, get this, FREE software. How much did apache cost you? How much did you spend on developing the open source tools that you now use? Are we, as a collective, supposed to just swallow this pill, that you attack free, open source software, and then include it in your own operating system. If that is not sheer hypocricy that I have no idea what is. Go to hell Darl. We all know what UNIX is and was and it surely is not SCO anymore, or probably ever was for what it matters. Personally I hope your lawyers bleed what little liquidity you have left, if they are smart that is. You are a joke. Nobody respects your company anymore. I hope that you go to bed everynight worrying that your illegal insider trading activities may one day land you in court. Crooks like you, and the ones that fund your pitiful crusade, deserve to sit in a 4'x4' cell with your new wife, Bubba.

    Have a wonderful day!

    Sincerely,

    Zos/Xavius.23

  • According to mi2g, eh? (Score:4, Informative)

    by Spazmania ( 174582 ) on Monday August 08, 2005 @04:07PM (#13272774) Homepage
    Unfortunately for Linux, mi2g also confirmed that the Linux operating system has become somewhat of a hacker's paradise. In a study conducted only seven months ago they found that overall, the most vulnerable operating system for manual hacker attacks was Linux, accounting for 65.64% of all hacker breaches reported.

    Search for "mi2g" on Google. The second result is a Register article titled, "Why is mi2g so unpopular?" According to the article, "The chief charge against mi2g is its regular predictions of withering cyber-assaults which, critics say, rarely seem to materialise." It goes on to say, "most of its staff appear to be without significant operational IT security experience".

    http://www.theregister.co.uk/2002/11/21/why_is_mi2 g_so_unpopular/ [theregister.co.uk]

    Most of the rest of the google links are news storys about experts debunking the a mi2g "study" from about 9 months ago which reports Darl's numbers. Here's a choice quote from an article at http://nwc.serverpipeline.com/52500233 [serverpipeline.com] :

    Mi2g appeared to anticipate criticism of its study. "We would urge caution when reading negative commentary against mi2g, which may have been clandestinely funded, aided or abetted by a vendor or a special interest group," it said in a press release publicizing the study.

    Wow. Darl's been cloned.

  • Anyone want some free crack? (Score:3, Funny)

    by emtboy9 ( 99534 ) <jeff AT jefflane DOT org> on Monday August 08, 2005 @04:13PM (#13272814) Homepage
    I'd love for somebody who has more technical knowledge than me to look at his points and see if what he says is true or not -- assuming anything coming out of Darl's mouth is true."

    Come on now... a statment like that is like showing up at DefCon and handing out cards to with your IP addresses and telling everyone how you dont see the need to secure windows servers....

    thats probably the best line from the whole post!

Slashdot Top Deals

He has not acquired a fortune; the fortune has acquired him. -- Bion

Close