Practical Technology

for practical people.

December 22, 2003
by sjvn01
0 comments

Linus Torvalds Refutes SCO Copyright Claims

In a letter sent last week to Linux companies, The SCO Group Inc made a number of specific claims about programs within Linux it contends were stolen from its Unix intellectual property. However, several Linux experts, including Linux founder Linus Torvalds, on Monday countered SCOs assessment, wondering if the programs cited by SCO are Linux through and through.

Eric Raymond, president of the Open Source Initiative, told eWEEK.com there was a good reason why some of the code looked similar. “Do you know that there is not one bit of executable code in those files? They’re pretty much all macros and declarations forced by POSIX and other technical standards.”

Meanwhile, Bruce Perens, an open-source leader, told eWEEK.com that some parts of the code seemed to show gaps in Lindon, Utah-based SCOs interpretation of evolutionary history. “There are mistakes in the Linux versions that don’t exist in the Unix ones, and i386 Linux doesnt even use the same numbers as in Unix, Perens said.

Torvalds went into far deeper detail. “I’m pretty sure the same is true of the errno.h file too (which is then duplicated several times for each architecture),” Torvalds told eWEEK.com.

“In fact, I’m pretty sure the error numbers aren’t even the same on Linux/x86 as they are on traditional Unix, exactly because the Linux header file was written independently,” he said.

“But [the errno.h files] obviously have the same error names. That’s not because they were copied; it’s because that’s specified by several standards, not Unix per se—you’ll find those error names in any operating system that has a C compiler,” Torvalds said.

Torvalds said he picked two of the 71 files SCO listed as examples of intellectual-property theft; ones that he had written himself.

“This is just a quick analysis, but it boils down to the fact that SCO is [yet again] claiming copyright on something that they did not write, and that I can prove that they did not write,” Torvalds said.

Torvalds moved his discussion into the code itself.

“SCO lists the files include/linux/ctype.h and lib/ctype.h, and some trivial digging show that those files are actually there in the original 0.01 distribution of Linux [of September, 1991]. I can state I wrote them. Looking at the original ones, I’m a bit ashamed—the toupper() and tolower() macros are so horribly ugly that I wouldn’t admit to writing them if it wasn’t because somebody else claimed to have done so!”

He continued that “the details in them aren’t even the same as in the BSD/Unix files. The approach is the same, but if you look at actual implementation details you will notice that its not just that my original tolower/toupper were embarrassingly ugly; a number of other details differ, too.”

“In short: for the files where I personally checked the history, I can definitely say that those files are trivially written by me personally, with no copying from any Unix code, ever. So its definitely not a question of all derivative branches, [rather] its a question of the fact that I can show—and SCO should have been able to see—that [SCOs] list clearly shows original work, not copied work,” Torvalds asserted.

In addition, Torvalds claimed that some similarities (and differences) between Linux and traditional Unix can be attributed to the limited number of ways available to efficiently implement programming functions and other features.

“Both Linux and traditional Unix use a naming scheme of underscore and a capital letter for the flag names. There are flags for is upper case (_U) and is lower case (_L), and surprise, surprise, both Unix and Linux use the same name. But think about it: If you wanted to use a short flag name, and you were limited by the C standard naming, what names would you use? Maybe youd select U for Upper case and L for Lower case?”

“Looking at the other flags, Linux uses _D for Digit, while traditional Unix instead uses _N for Number. Both make sense, but they are different.”

“I personally think that the Linux naming makes more sense (the function that tests for a digit is called isdigit(), not isnumber()), but on the other hand I can certainly understand why Unix uses _N—the function that checks for whether a character is alphanumeric is called isalnum(), and that checks whether the character is an upper-case letter, a lower-case letter or a digit (a k a number),” Torvalds said.

“In short, there aren’t that many ways you can choose the names, and there is lots of overlap, but its clearly not 100 percent,” he said.

A version of this story first appeared in eWEEK.

December 22, 2003
by sjvn01
0 comments

The Little SCO That Cried Wolf

Once upon a time, there was a little company named SCO that lived in the town of Unix. Now, SCO often ventured out in the woods. One day, it ran back shouting that that nasty bully IBM had attacked it.

And, what do you know? People paid attention! They came from all around and said, “You poor little company with your Project Monterey hopes all dashed! Poor little company—you may have a point!

SCO was happy. It hadnt received so much attention in years. And hey: Its stock price wasnt doing so badly, either.

So SCO went back into the woods and found that maybe, just maybe, some of its Unix intellectual property had been swiped by that nasty old penguin Linux.

Now, this was kind of funny since SCO was once Linuxs best buddy. They used to play together; they used to work together; why, SCOs programmers even contributed code to it in exchange for the promise of open-source money.

But, SCO said, “Oh, were not a Linux company now. Pay no attention to what we said and did before. Today, were telling you, cross our heart and hope to die, that Linux stole source from us and thats no lie!”

Well, once again there was much shouting and attention. There was even more than before! But some of the penguins friends became quite sore.

“We didnt steal a thing!” they said. And they came out to proclaim this by the score. “Prove it!” they said, but little SCO said, “No. Ill not show you a thing unless you sign a nondisclosure agreement and not one moment before.”

Well, the penguins friends didnt like this at all and so none of them came by to call.

Then, things grew quiet, they grew quite calm, and then SCO started again with another great call.

“People who own penguins owe us money now, too! And, you over there who use Unix and Linux, you owe us even more! If ever you were a friend of the penguin, pay us money now or youll go to the pen and well make you quite sore.”

And so the weeks went by, and SCO shouted yet more. “The penguins license that wasnt fair! Why, yes, we use it too when we dance the Samba, but thats neither here nor there.”

Then a funny thing happened. Where once people crowded around, now fewer came by whenever SCO made a cry.

“Its just SCO being SCO,” theyd say, and walk on by.

Then one day, SCOs Web site was hit! It was DoSed and the site had a fit. But, no one paid attention, they just said, “Oh SCOs faking it,” and they didnt care a fig that SCOs site had been bit.

And, today, SCO still cries that this is wrong, and that is wrong, and that it will be rich soon and all those Linux fans will be sorry. But, SCO has shouted so long that when businesses and analysts alike hear them, they say, “Oh, that SCO… Theyre just crying wolf, and well pay no more attention to them from here on.”

Excuse my fractured fairy tale, but I think thats exactly what is happening to SCO. Many people assumed that the DoS attack had been faked. It wasnt. So now, SCO can be completely in the right and still not taken seriously.

Personally, I dont think SCO has a leg to stand on in its copyright cases, but I do know one thing: By constantly playing up its threats, SCO has become a company that has cried wolf too often. The latest threat was that anyone who uses Unix legally cant use Linux.

Even people I know who used to take SCO seriously, have gotten weary of SCOs ever expanding claims. They want real proof. If SCO has another intellectual property customer besides Microsoft and Sun, they want to know who it is. In short, they want SCO to stop crying wolf and show some fur, some teeth, something more than an eternal cry of the grievances and victimization.

If not, well, companies that cry wolf too often eventually run into real wolves–perhaps Novells counterclaims on SCOs Unix copyrights?–and thats the end of them.

A version of this story first appeared in eWEEK.

December 18, 2003
by sjvn01
0 comments

Linux 2.6 Arrives

The long-awaited Linux 2.6, with significant improvements across the board, has finally arrived. However, it won’t be adopted by major Linux distributors until the summer of 2004.

Linus Torvalds released the long-awaited Linux 2.6 on Wednesday night, although it wont be adopted by major Linux distributors any time soon.

The release, which Torvalds announced to the Linux-kernel mailing list, comes almost three years after the last Linux release, 2.4, in January 2001. (Late beta versions of the 2.6 kernel have been available since July.) The source code is now available at The Linux Kernel Archive.

In his announcement note, Torvalds wrote, “This should not be a big surprise to anybody … since weve been building up to it for a long time now, and for the last few weeks I havent accepted any patches except for what amounts to fairly obvious one-liners.”

Linux 2.6 isnt flawless. “Some known issues were not considered to be release-critical, and a number of them have pending fixes,” Torvalds said. “Generally, they just didnt have the kind of verification yet where I was willing to take them in order to make sure a fair 2.6.0 release.”

Torvalds will continue to track the Linux 2.6 tree, but now that Linux 2.6 is a stable release, he will begin to turn his attention to the next version of Linux, 2.7, and Andrew Morton will take over as the maintainer of Linux 2.6.

Commercial releases of the 2.6 kernel by major Linux distributors still remain months away. Red Hat Inc. wont be adding 2.6 until the Red Hat Enterprise Linux 4 product line comes out in 2005. SuSE Linux AG will include 2.6 sooner with its summer 2004 release of SuSE Linux Enterprise Server 9.

This new version of Linux brings several improvements for enterprise users. It now supports up to 32 processors, 64GB of memory with 32-bit processors, and new file systems such as IBMs Journaling File System (JFS) and Silicon Graphics Inc.s XFS. Version 2.6 also supports Non-Uniform Memory Access (NUMA), which will aid it on advanced multiprocessing systems.

Linux 2.6 also includes fundamental improvements in how it deals with devices, which should make it easier for OEMs to deploy Linux on their computers. In addition, this Linux has improvements to almost every element of the operating system, from system processing to networking to expanded support for embedded devices. For more technical details on Linux 2.6s changes, see IBM’s “Towards Linux 2.6” white paper and Joseph Pranevich’s “The Wonderful World of Linux 2.6.”

A version of this story first appeared in eWEEK.

November 4, 2003
by sjvn01
0 comments

Novell to Buy SuSE Linux for $210 Million

From the company that turned away early Linux pioneers Bryan Sparks and Ransom Love, Novell Inc. is completing its reinvention by buying SuSE Linux AG for $210 million.

The transaction is subject to regulatory approval and the resolution of shareholder agreements. It all goes well; Novell expects the transaction to close by the end of its first fiscal quarter, in January 2004.

Novells move follows on the heels of its acquisition of open-source developer Ximian Inc. in August. These two acquisitions will make Novell, according to Novell representatives, the first billion dollar Linux software company.

In a Tuesday press conference from Germany, Novell CEO and chairman Jack Messman said that the deal will be good for both companies and their customers. He declared that SuSE was “the missing piece [for Novells recent embrace of Linux], the foundation itself, the platform.”

“Today, we plugged that. With SuSE we get one of the top two commercial Linuxes. Together, we can significantly accelerate Linuxs enterprise acceptance.”

Messman said SuSE was a strategic fit for Novell given its technical Linux distribution, staff, and number two position in the marketplace. Together, Lowry declared, “we can soon become the number one Linux company.”

The move was not just about Linux, the officials said. Throughout the press conference, Messman and Novell Vice Chairman Chris Stone, emphasized Novells complete support for open-source software and the continued work of SuSE employees on open source projects.

Richard Seibt, CEO of Nuremberg, Germany-based SuSE, said “our goal and vision was to see SuSE running everywhere in the world, to become the de facto standard for Linux. To get to that goal, weve teamed with Novell with its twenty years of experience. Our customers will get great value from Novells worldwide support and business partners that can support them locally.”

Seibt assured SuSEs customers that “Novells global reach, marketing expertise, and reputation for security, reliability and global enterprise-level support are exactly what weve been seeking to take SuSE Linux to the next level.”

In contrast to Linux vendor Red Hats recent decision to focus exclusively on the enterprise space, Novell will deliver both desktop and server distributions of the open-source OS drawing on Ximian Inc.s and SuSEs product lines.

Novell will also turn its worldwide technical support staff and resellers to support Linux. In particular, Stone pointed out that Novells approximately 25,000 worldwide reseller channel partners will be “great for Linux and that Linux will be great for them.”

At the same time, however, he admitted that while there is much crossover between SuSE and Novell resellers, few Novell resellers are currently trained in Linux. That said, SuSEs Seibt pointed out that supporting Linux could be as big a moneymaker for resellers.

In addition, Novell is negotiating with IBM Corp. to continue SuSEs eServer commercial agreements. IBM and Novell will apparently continue to follow SuSEs path as a major IBM Linux partner; Novell also announced that IBM intends to make a $50 million investment in Novell convertible preferred stock as soon as Novell officially acquires SuSE.

Officials from third-party vendors also praised the deal. Stone predicted that with Novells long history of working with original equipment manufacturers (OEM)s and independent software vendors (ISV)s, many such companies will now embrace Linux.
The move was “excellent for the industry,” according to Sam Greenblatt, Senior Vice President and Chief Architect of Computer Associates International Inc.s Linux Technology Group. “The excellent global support that Novell brings to the open source community will help continue market adoption of Linux from the desktop to the server.”

Analysts were mostly upbeat about the acquisition.

Gary Barnett, Research Director with London-based Ovum Ltd. said the announcement was extremely important for Linux and Linux adopters. “It propels SuSE into the big league in terms of its ability to deliver product innovation and customer support. SuSE now represents a serious and credible threat to Red Hat for market leadership – and as a result users of both distributions are set to benefit,” Barnett said.

Novell may have an uphill climb according to Bill Claybrook, the Boston-based Aberdeen Groups Research Director for Linux and Open Source.

“My feeling is that this is good for Novell and its Linux business.” Claybrook said. However, “if I were a company deciding between Red Hat and SuSE after Novell buys SuSE, I would be wondering what will happen to SuSE Linux longer-term. I think that SuSE Linux will have a very difficult time, even with the acquisition, overcoming the brand recognition of Red Hat.”

Dan Kusnetzky, IDC vice president for system software research, considered that a Linux distribution was just what Novell needed. “Novell has a very strong services offerings based on a declining platform. They needed to focus on a growing market and Linux is their chance.”

“This is a win for Novell if they can move at Internet speed and manage the corporate culture adjustments,” Kusnetzky continued. “With this move, Novell has put itself on Microsofts front burner and they need to move quickly to integrate Linux with their offerings.”

As for SuSE, Kusnetzky said, “SuSE needed capital. They were doing well for a Linux distribution but it still wasnt that much money. Now, SuSE will be another business line with a worldwide software and services company and this really expands SuSEs opportunities.”

A version of this story was published in eWEEK.

October 21, 2003
by sjvn01
0 comments

Who’s really behind SCO?

Is Microsoft behind SCO? Well, of course it is. Do you really think Microsoft needed a new SCO Unix license? Please!

But you can forget about Bill Gates and Steve Ballmer meeting by some high-tech Redmond cauldron at midnight to plot about how theyll get Linus Torvalds and his little operating system, too. Thats not how I see it happening. Microsoft loves SCOs actions, but it didnt start them.

So who did? To find the answer, Id like to recount a brief history of SCO and Caldera. Trust me: It explains a lot of whats happening now.

In 2001, Caldera bought SCO. Calderas leadership hoped that with this move the company could take as much of Unix and open sourcing as possible into Linux. It soon found that it wasnt easy to do. It also had high hopes of taking SCOs decayed, but fundamentally strong, reseller channel to sell Linux as well as Project Monterey, SCOs joint operating system project with IBM.

But almost immediately after Caldera bought SCOs operating systems division, IBM decided that it didnt want to release Monterey (now named AIX 5L) on the Intel platform. IBM wanted to release Monterey only on its own power-based pSeries computers. With this one move, IBM took out what Caldera had thought of as its future operating system. Caldera had planned on taking the best of what it could legally use from Unix, the AIX variant and Linux and develop a Linux system with the functionality that only Linux 2.6 is now delivering.

It was this IBM move that would eventually lead to SCOs first legal actions.

Then in the spring of 2002, the Canopy Group, SCOs majority owners, apparently decided they wanted a change in direction and maneuvered Calderas pro-Linux executives out of the company.

Canopy did this, I think, because it had grown tired of waiting for the Linux business to grow, even though Caldera had just helped create the enterprise business UnitedLinux consortium. I also think that the groups resentment toward IBM had never cooled.

It made that change by hiring Darl McBride and renaming Caldera The SCO Group in the summer of 2002.

McBride was an interesting choice. Although he had high-tech executive experience, he had never worked with Linux or open source. What he did have, though, was a good track record at getting investment capital; familiarity with Canopys executives; and a successful law suit against a former employer, IKON Office Systems.

Could Canopys executives have been thinking from that summer of taking legal action? In McBride, the group had someone who knew how to obtain funding and had no fears of marching into court.

No one (except the players) knows exactly what happened next. But the long and short of it is that IBM didnt settle.

Still, launching a major legal action entails major money, and SCO didnt have it. But in February 2003, Sun quietly bought a Unix license from SCO. In early March, SCO launched its IBM lawsuit. Coincidence? I dont think so.

Why would Sun do this? First, IBMs AIX and pSeries servers are major competitors to Suns Solaris and SPARC systems. Remember: At the start, this was SCO vs. IBM, not SCO vs. Linux. Secondly, Linux on Intel has eroded Suns vital Solaris/SPARC market far more than Windows has. The more trouble SCO can cause IBM and Linux, the better it is for Sun.

Since then the suit has grown bigger and broader. At the same time, though, Sun and Microsoft have continued to support SCO with further licensing deals, and SCOs legal bills have grown bigger.

So to continue its funding, SCO has had to go to BayStar Capital for $50 million of additional cash via a Private Investment in Public Entity (PIPE) deal. (Historically, PIPEs are very risky and used only by companies who cant get cash in any other way.)

And, as it happens, sources report that BayStar also invests in PIPEs on behalf of Microsoft. (BayStar spokesman Bob McGrath has disputed that claim.)

While Im no financial expert, Ive read SCOs public documents on the deal and Ive done some research on PIPEs. Because of that, it seems to me that SCOs PIPE deal is more favorable than most PIPE deals.

Is there a connection? Theres nothing I can prove, but out of the dozens of companies that offer PIPEs, I find it hard to believe that mere chance led SCO to such a comparatively good deal with Microsoft-connected BayStar.

So whos really behind SCOs actions?

First and foremost, its Canopy and SCOs current management. What really kicked it into gear though was Suns early financial support.

In short, SCO started the fire, Sun supplied the lighter fluid and Microsoft and Sun together are adding the firewood. There is no smoking gun, but there is a fire and smoke. That may not be enough for some people, but its enough for me.

A version of this story first appeared in eWEEK.

October 16, 2003
by sjvn01
0 comments

Survey: Windows Developers Say Linux More Secure

Is Linux built more securely than Windows? According to a new survey, Windows and Linux developers both say yes—and for the first time, ranked it ahead of Windows XP.

The September 2003 study from market-research firm Evans Data Corp. surveyed more than 500 North American participants, including VARs, ISVs, OEMs and corporate developers, according to Esther Schindler, senior analyst with Santa Cruz, Calif.-based Evans.

Linux scored high for innate security among respondents, more than two-thirds of whom “use or target Windows with their code.” Indeed, only 23 percent of the developers were primarily Linux developers (an increase of 4 percent from a similar survey six months ago).

“Its not all that surprising that Linux is viewed as more secure by software developers,” Schindler said. “Windows has had nearly weekly critical security updates from Microsoft, and three of four developers target Windows. Development experience talks.”

Windows XP, the winner the last time around as the most secure operating system, dropped from 14 percent to 8 percent in the new study. Indeed, Schindler said, 22 percent of XP developers picked Linux for security, compared with only 12 percent of that groups votes.

Server 2003 now takes second place to Linux with an overall vote of 12 percent, even though “it’s only being used by a handful of developers,” Schindler said.

That handful, however, believes strongly in the relatively new Server OS, she said. “Linux is considered the most secure by all developer segments, except one. Among enterprise developers, 17 percent say that Windows 2003 is the most innately secure OS, and only 13 percent choose Linux.”

Overall, confidence in Linux is growing. In a fall 1999 survey, only 34 percent of developers felt the OS was ready for mission-critical applications, compared with 64 percent today.

It’s not just Linux, though. Open source is also gaining ground in business development circles. In the spring of 2001, only 38 percent of developers used any open-source software modules. Today, Evans has found that 62 percent of developers are incorporating open-source code in their applications.

A version of this story first appeared in eWEEK.