The truth about the SCOX/EV1 SCOsource deal

October 19, 2006 Leave a comment

For the first time in a long time, we have multiple SCO stories in the same month. Groklaw now has the gory details on how the SCOsource deal with EV1 went down. Here's the full (PDF) declaration from EV1 CEO Robert Marsh. It's clear that he was duped by SCO, that he really did have the best intentions for his customers in mind and that he very quickly regretted the decision. Disclosure: At the time this happened, I was in negotiations with EV1 to potentially enter into a trade agreement where they would provide a server or two to LQ in exchange for advertising. When the SCOsource deal was announced I immediately terminated the negotiations. I made that decision with the information I had at the time. In the end I chose not to enter into an agreement with anyone (a decision I do not regret). Here are a few tidbits from the linked document:
Although Mr. Langer had stated in his January 13, 2004, letter that we would discuss the alternatives and solutions available to EV1, Mr. Langer made it clear from the beginning of our discussions that there was only one course that would satisfy SCO: EV1's agreement to purchase a Linux license from SCO called SCOsource. There was not any discussion of any alternative other than a SCOsource license or litigation.
In describing the infringement in Linux as pervasive, Mr. Langer and the others never expressed any doubt as to the strength or certainty of their claims. The impression I received was that it was only a matter of time before SCO would prevail in its lawsuits against various Linux companies and users. They also told me that many other companies would be sued in the immediate future.
Mr. Langer or others representing SCO told me that a lawsuit against EV1 or our customers could result in a temporary restraining order or an injunction mandating an immediate shut-down of EV1Server.net's Linux servers. I take great pride in the consistency and reliability of our hosting infrastructure, qualities for which EV1Servers.net are well-known in the industry. A shut-down, or even the possibility of one, would have been severely damaging to our hosting business. I felt pressure and urgency to avoid that outcome.
I was given a brief opportunity to review the joint press release before it was issued, but did not fully consider Mr. McBride's statement before giving my approval. Mr. McBride's statement was a mischaracterization of our decision. During negotiations, I told Mr. Langer that my decision was based solely on business considerations. There was never any understanding on my part that EV1 was endorsing the validity of SCO's copyright claims.
Within an hour of the issuance of the March 1, 2004, press release, I began to receive criticism from my customers over my decision to purchase a license from SCO. Many of my customers considered EV1's payment for the license tantamount to funding SCO's litigation efforts and its attack on Linux. The criticism intensified over the ensuing weeks. We received hate-mail from people interpreting our agreement as validating or endorsing SCO. We were accused of betraying our customers and aligning ourselves with a company considered to be the enemy of the open source community. Some of our customers threatened to, and did, leave EV1Servers.net. I did not anticipate the overwhelmingly negative response from our customer base. In agreeing to purchase the SCOsource license, I believed that I was serving the interests of our customers by shielding them from SCO's threats of litigation. Ironically, although my intention was to take EV1 and our customers out of the fray, my decision resulted in EV1 being placed at the center of it. As reported in a March 25, 2004, article in InfoWorld, a true and correct copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit 8, I stated, “All of a sudden we went from being reasonably good guys to being, in some people's eyes, akin to the devil.”
On March 25, 2004, I stated publicly that I regretted my decision to purchase a SCOsource license. As reported in various publications, I stated, “Would I do it again? No. I'll go on the record as saying that. I certainly know a lot more today than I knew a month ago, in a lot of respects.”
As I said, it's clear that he was mislead by SCO and that he 100% regretted the decision almost immediately. We also learn that the actual amount paid by EV1 was $800,000. I don't know how some people from SCO sleep at night, but I hope Robert Marsh has a clear conscious. While he clearly made an expensive mistake, it was a well intentioned business minded decision. It's very hard to fault him for that, and I for one don't. EV1 (now merged) remains one of the largest Linux hosting facilities on the planet. Good for them.
–jeremy
, , , , , ,

Filed under Linux, Main Page, Open Source

Flash 9 Linux Beta Is Live II

October 19, 2006 1 Comment

A follow up to this post. I have installed Flash 9.0 d55 (Firefox 1.5.0.7 for those keeping score) and tested it for a little while. I tried both sites that worked fine for me using Flash 7, and some sites that did not work for me using Flash 7 (Vanguard, Digg and a couple others). I am happy to report that every single site I've tried so far has worked flawlessly. The startup is definitely quicker, I haven't had a single flash induced “hang” yet nor has Firefox crashed. All things told, I'd say this beta is more stable than the “stable” Flash 7 plugin for Linux was. I look forward to the final release, but I'm going to leave the beta installed until that comes out. Once again, kudos to the Flash 9 Linux team.
–jeremy
, , , , ,

Filed under Linux, Main Page, Open Source

IE7 Final Released

October 19, 2006 1 Comment

About 18 months after it was announced, IE7 is now available for download. It looks like it will be rolled out via automatic update “real soon now”. I wasn't going to blog about this, but changed my mind for a couple reasons. First, it impacts LQ. While for October 58% of all LQ visitors are using Firefox, there are still 28% using IE (on a somewhat surprising note, almost 10% of IE users are already at 7 as of yesterday). That means I have to test the site in IE7. Second, I think this is a shining example of why the Microsoft monopoly is bad. The last real release of IE was in 2001. If it weren't for the spectacular success of Firefox, I have no doubt that IE7 would still be years off. Think of how much the web has changed since 2001 and it's nothing short of astonishing that no real updates have been released in that time frame. If you do any kind of design for a high traffic site, you're well aware that the lack of a release isn't because everything works perfectly. To be honest, we gave up on IE-only fixes a while ago at LQ. We do make sure everything *works*, but some things look odd in IE (and only IE).
So far, the anecdotal reports I'm seeing don't instill a whole lot of confidence. I decided to fire up VMWare and install IE7, both to test LQ and to just check it out in general. The install is a bit odd. The first thing it did was download “updates” (how many updates can there be for a product released less than 24 hours ago). Then, it just sort of hung. No real progress bar or status indicator. Since I don't use Windows for actual work I just let it sit there. It did eventually indicate the install was successful about 15 minutes later, but if that was my main workstation I don't know if I would have waited that long. One reboot later, the install was done. I have to admit I only tested things for about 15 minutes, but the biggest two letdowns are that the oddities in the rendering of LQ are still there and the interface is absolutely horrific. It's possibly the hardest to use app I've seen out of Redmond. It may be that I just need to get used to the UI and then it will be great, but luckily for me I don't need to find out. On the up side, the rendering engine is definitely faster than IE 6 and the handling of RSS feeds is much improved. It should be interesting to watch as IE7 gets rolled out en masse over the next few weeks. Will it be a smooth transition or will the Internet be filled with complaints over broken and semi-functional web sites. As the web becomes more and more critical to peoples lives and businesses, this kind of things matters more and more. On that note, Firefox 2 is in late release candidate shape and should be ready for release very soon.
–jeremy
, , , , , ,

Filed under Linux, Main Page, Microsoft, Open Source

Flash 9 Linux Beta Is Live

October 18, 2006 2 Comments

I haven't had a chance to try it out yet, but a publicly available beta of Flash 9 for Linux is now available. Kudos to the Adobe Linux Flash team for the hard work. From the linked blog post:
While we are still working out exactly how to distribute the final Player version to be as easy as possible for the typical end user, this beta includes 2 gzip'd tarball packages: one is for the Mozilla plugin and the other is for a GTK-based Standalone Flash Player. Either will need to be downloaded manually via the Adobe Labs website and unpacked. The standalone Player (gflashplayer) can be run in place (after you set its executable permission). The plugin is dropped into your local plugin directory (for a local user) or the system-wide plugin directory.
This release has been anticipated for a while now. Before you install it I'd recommend reading the Beta Release Notes. That being said, go get it! Quality bug reports are key, so if you run across something make sure to report it.
–jeremy
, , ,

Filed under Linux, Main Page, Open Source

McAfee, Symantec Think Vista Unfair: Update

October 17, 2006 Leave a comment

A follow up to this post. It looks like Microsoft has done an about-face, and will allow kernel level access in Vista. From the article:
Microsoft Now Decides to Accept Outside Security for Vista
Until now, Microsoft had planned to block those companies from installing their products in the deepest levels of the new operating system, which is scheduled for release early next year.
Microsoft's shift means that users would continue to have a choice in the programs they use to protect their computers and not be tied to something that Microsoft offers.
I'd guess that Microsoft was just testing the water here, seeing what they could get away with. While the advertisement of their security and anti-virus products at system boot seems way over the top, denying kernel level access is much more reasonable (once again, as long as all of their products also play by those same rules). What is Symantec and McAfee going to do if Microsoft is ever able to create an OS that is reasonably secure? Why is it that some anti-virus vendors had absolutely no problem with this? In the end, Microsoft probably lost two close allies and business partners here, but in the short term neither McAfee or Symantec can do much damage to Microsoft. In the long run though, the gradual erosion of application vendors will be a devastating loss for Microsoft. One of the real and legitimate knocks on Linux is the lack of application support. As Microsoft slowly assails on nearly every business parter (and even channel partner) it has, more and more vendors will be looking to move to an alternative stack. Linux is ready and waiting.
–jeremy
, , , , ,

Filed under Linux, Main Page, Microsoft, Open Source

The Microsoft Exec Exodus Continues

October 17, 2006 Leave a comment

A continuation of the trend I've covered before, the Microsoft exec exodus just keeps rolling on. The latest two casualties are Rick Devenuti, chief of Microsoft's fledgling managed services operation and Jurgen Gallmann, CEO of Microsoft Deutschland. Once again the hits are fairly severe. Microsoft Deutschland is one of the companies largest subsidiaries. A couple quotes from the articles:
Devenuti, senior vieep of services and IT, leaves at the end of year after 19 years at the company. He will spend more time with his family and “consider his next challenge,” Microsoft said. A successor will be announced during the next month.
Devenuti joins a growing list of executives headed for the exit door at Redmond. Among them are 16-year Microsoft veteran and Windows chief Jim Allchin, due to leave in 2007 once Windows Vista finally ships; and Brian Valentine, vice president for Microsoft's core operating system division. He has already left for Amazon having been reshuffled out of his post after 19 years with Microsoft.
and
The head of Microsoft's German subsidiary has quit over differences with the US headquarters.
Jurgen Gallmann, CEO of Microsoft Deutschland – one of the software giant's largest subsidiaries – resigned on Friday. In an email he sent to employees, the executive complained of Redmond imposing increasing restrictions on the German operations and showing little interest in local requirements.
Microsoft has said only that Gallmann had asked to be released from his contract due to differences in views about the future strategy of Microsoft Germany.
The managed services move by Microsoft was one that was met with a lot of resistance for obvious reasons. It's one of the more disparate moves Microsoft has made recently IMHO (previously blogged about here. Competing with its channel, especially for the coveted huge projects, is a move that will inevitably drive consultants and VARs to offer non-Microsoft products. While that department is quite new, notice that Devenuti had been with Microsoft for almost 20 years. That's a trend you see with many of the recent departures. While Gallmann was only a five year Microsoftie, he held a fairly high position. For him to leave in such a public way and in the way he did surely points to trouble in the EU markets. The changing of the guard continues at Microsoft and I think it will go on for a good time longer. I'd say we'll know it's coming to an end when Ballmer steps down. What Microsoft will look like at that point is anyones guess.
–jeremy
, , ,

Filed under Main Page, Microsoft, Open Source

LQ Job Marketplace Update

October 16, 2006 Leave a comment

A couple months ago, we announced the LQ Job Marketplace. We knew a huge talent pool existed in the LQ membership, and we wanted to connect those talented members with people with quality Linux, Open Source and Programming jobs. So far it's been a success. Here's a recent post:
I just wanted to post a quick update that I hope people thinking about posting a job advert will appreciate.
I've had about 6 responses to this advert all from top quality people who know a lot about Linux. I am now in a position where the server I need administering is up-to-date and am waiting for the rest of the business to catch up. It is totally worth posting to this forum, even if it costs a few quid. The quality of the people you will make contact with is second to none … also that few quid is going to a very good website. I'll certainly be posting back here if I have any Linux related jobs come up again.
It's great to see the employers are getting the results they're looking for. This is a real win/win/win situation, which is rare. Employers get an inexpensive way to get their job posting out there, we're able to connect members to potential gainful employment in the FOSS world, and LQ makes a few nickels in the process. One great thing is that real discussion is taking place in many of the postings. If you haven't seen it yet, head over to the LQ Job Marketplace.
–jeremy
, , , ,

Filed under Linux, Main Page, Open Source

Libya Purchases 1.2M OLPC Laptops

October 12, 2006 Leave a comment

A quick follow up to recent OLPC post, it appears that the initiative has secured its first purchaser. Libya has agreed to provide each and every one of its school children with a laptop. From the article:
The government of Libya is reported to have agreed to provide its 1.2m school children with a cheap durable laptop computer by June 2008.
The laptops offer internet access and are powered by a wind-up crank. They cost $100 and manufacturing begins next year, says One Laptop per Child.
The non-profit association's chairman, Nicholas Negroponte, said the deal was reached on Tuesday in Libya.
It's great to see a country finally commit to this. Tentative purchase agreements with Brazil, Argentina, Nigeria and Thailand have been announced in the past. There is even talk of the possibility of Libya’s financing the purchase of laptops for a group of poorer African nations like Chad, Niger and Rwanda. Libya has come a long way in the last 10 years or so. While they're still remembered by many as a terrorist state from yesteryear, the reality is that these days they have one of the highest standard of living in Africa, the highest Human Development Index in Africa and one of the highest GDPs in Africa. A commitment to this initiative shows that Qaddafi is serious about a more open Libya. It's especially surprising to me that a a dictatorship was the first to move forward with the OLPC effort. Education can be a tenuous line for a dictatorship, for fear that a more educated population will rise up. The OLPC has the chance to really make an education difference. An old proverb says “Give a man a fish and he will eat for a day. Teach him how to fish and he will eat for a lifetime.” In effect, the OLPC has the potential to teach people how to learn anything, and give them the means to actually do so. That's powerful.
–jeremy
, , ,

Filed under Linux, Main Page, Open Source

Microsoft Shown Involved with Baystar and SCO

October 11, 2006 Leave a comment

Amazing how long we go between SCO stories these days, isn't it? From the Groklaw article:
On page 21 in IBM's Amended Redacted Memorandum in Support of its Motion for Summary Judgment on SCO's Interference Claims (SCO's Seventh, Eighth and Ninth Causes of Action [PDF], IBM reveals that SCO alleged that it was IBM that got BayStar to threaten litigation against SCO and to terminate its business relationship. BayStar denies it, as does IBM. If you noticed a Declaration by Larry Goldfarb on the list of exhibits [PDF], this is what it's about. He provided a declaration for IBM stating that SCO's allegations aren't true. A lot of folks have done so too, and so IBM is now asking the court to toss out these three SCO claims.
BayStar, Goldfarb testifies, dumped SCO because its stock price, financial performance and the viability of its UNIX products all appeared to be in decline, and he “was also very concerned about SCO's high cash burn rate.” Pure financial animals get nervous when that happens. But the kicker was he began to realize that Microsoft, whose senior VP of corporate development and strategy had promised that Microsoft would in some way guarantee the SCO investment, started showing signs it might not do that after all:
“Mr. Emerson and I discussed a variety of investment structures wherein Microsoft would 'backstop,' or guarantee in some way, BayStar's investment…. Microsoft assured me that it would in some way guarantee BayStar's investment in SCO.” After the investment was made, Goldfarb says, “Microsoft stopped returning my phone calls and emails, and to the best of my knowledge, Mr. Emerson was fired from Microsoft.”
While various previous leaks implicated Microsoft in the funding of the SCO charade, nothing as concrete as this had been released to my knowledge. The ironic part here, is that in the end, it appears this case may have helped both Linux and Open Source. It has given credence to the GPL, spread the word about Linux in places it may not have gotten exposure and it's made IBM and Linux a well-known, well-regarded combo. Even worse for Microsoft, I'd guess that IBM (and potentially Novell) will probably go after them now. As a monopoly who has already gone through litigation with the DOJ, this would be bad for them. Potentially very bad. In a year that is likely going to see Vista delayed one last time, this is certainly a headache they don't need. This may get more interesting than I'd have thought.
–jeremy
, , , , , ,

Filed under Linux, Main Page, Microsoft, Open Source

Making sense of the One Laptop Per Child proprietary software row

October 11, 2006 Leave a comment

There is currently a debate going between Theo de Raadt and a Red Hat employee about the OLPC choice to use a network driver that does not have open specs available. From the article:
Theo de Raadt, the leader of the OpenBSD project and a vociferous crusader for hardware (especially networking) documentation, recently went public with his concerns about the One Laptop Per Child project's choice to use a wireless networking chip from Marvell, a company with an unusually poor record of supporting free software operating systems, in the 2B1 laptop computer that it is developing. Marvell is unwilling to freely supply hardware documentation so that programmers can create device drivers that properly interface with its wireless chips
Part of the response from Jim Gettys follows:

* OLPC is dedicated to open source
* Our mission — from the beginning — is to make the process as open and transparent as possible. That anyone can air their concerns, misinformed as they may be, long before our system is shipping reflects this. Our systems won’t be produced in volume until late next spring.
* We are part of the free and open source community ourselves.
* and we are a non-profit organization; our number one priority is to provide laptops to children in developing nations: this brings unique requirements on many aspects of our hardware choices.
The Marvell wireless chip is in fact unique in the market at the moment.
Many or most children in the world do not have electric power, nor do they have computer networking. Without power being available, even if access points cost nothing, you have no network. So we are deploying mesh networking, to allow a child’s laptop to forward packets for their friend or neighbor’s laptop; each laptop becomes, in effect, a battery powered access point for the others.
Even as low power as the AMD Geode is, if it is turned on, it will consume 5-10 times the power that the Marvell wireless chip will consume. So for it to be feasible to have a human-powered laptop, essential since a good fraction of the world’s children lack electricity, is use a mesh network to connect the kids machines to each other and often to the Internet, so that those children can learn from each other, their teachers and the world as a whole.
If you're interested in the entire progression, Open Letter, Response, Retort. Jim also points out that the OLPC system is the first mass production system designed in which the BIOS firmware and loader is open (LinuxBIOS), that OLPC has gotten AMD to release the code for VSA (Virtual System Architecture) and that Marvell did actually redesign some things to be more standards compliant.
I've been meaning to take a closer look at the OLPC project for a while now. The general principle is very good from what I've seen, my main question is what the actual numbers look like and whether it is a sustainable project that has a realistic chance of making a tangible difference. I'll be digging more into that over the next couple of days. In the mean time, their assertion that “The basic assumption is that education is at the root of any solution” is very in line with my general doctrine. That alone really makes me like what they are trying to do. The fact that, by it's very nature, Open Source creates a level playing field makes it a natural fit for a project like this. But what if no hardware for a specific piece of the project is available with open specs. Leaning on the vendor seems like the right thing to do to me, but can you realistically delay the entire project until that lobbying bares fruit? What if it never comes to fruition, do you then hope an open spec device exists soon enough? In the end, you need to do what's best to meet the end goals of your project. For OLPC, the children are first and being 100% open is not. It seems being as open as possible, however, is. In that context, this decision makes sense. Theo seems to think there may be other cards out there that fit the bill, but I don't know enough about that to comment.
One side note that I found interesting is that Theo is not a proponent of pushing for open firmware. His quote:
Some people (mostly just RMS) insist on firmware source code. We do not feel that we need or even want firmware source code — just the missing binary component that allows the device to operate. Our #1 goal is that our users be able to use the devices they purchased. We feel that when RMS insists on things which vendors will never give, he confuses the vendors, and the vendors back off and end up giving us nothing at all. As a result, everyone loses — RMS, the vendors, the operating system suppliers, and the users. This is not (yet) the time or place to make such strict statements.
That seems like an extremely realistic and even headed statement, which to me is real progress and a sign that the Open Source community is maturing. Keep in mind that OpenBSD has had multiple wins in getting specs to write Open Source drivers, especially in the network space. In the end, OLPC is working on an open driver/firmware so this may all be moot. The good news here is that both sides have good intentions, while having differing goals. Vigilance on both sides is a good thing, IMHO.
–jeremy
, , , , ,

Filed under Linux, Main Page, Open Source

← Older posts

Newer posts →