Practical Technology

for practical people.

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. 

 

October 8, 2003
by sjvn01
0 comments

Lies, Damned Lies and Research Projects: Microsoft & Linux

People love winners. Thats why we love research reports: They give us winners. Moreover, thats why companies will lie, cheat and steal to win in research reports. And when they cant do that, theyll hire someone to write reports in which they win.

Lately, Microsoft Corp. has taken to this last course like a duck to water with a report from Forrester Research that showed that its cheaper to build enterprise applications with Windows and .Net then it is with Linux and J2EE. Who would have thought that a report paid for by Microsoft would say anything else?

Forrester, realizing that this kind of “research” project was hurting its reputation, has decided to drop out of the “paid for, publicized product comparisons” business, according to Forrester CEO George Colony.

That hasnt stopped Microsoft from continuing on its course of publishing sponsored research results. According to its paid researchers, this practice shows that Small Business Server 2003 is easier to deploy than Red Hat Enterprise Linux ES 2.1. I want to know whether thats before or after the 20-plus critical patches I had to install on my SBS 2003 before putting to use? That little point is not mentioned in the Veritest report, Microsoft Windows Small Business Server 2003 vs. Red Hat Enterprise Linux ES 2.1 Deployment.

Most people out there will only read the headlines and think that Windows has been proven better than Linux for enterprise program development or small offices. Anyone who pays closer attention knows better. If you have to pay someone to say that your product is better than the other guys, doesnt that mean something?

Microsoft (and many other companies that sponsor this kind of research) will say they didnt dictate the results or direct the research to reach a given goal. They will say they merely supplied the money to accomplish a study. Nonsense!

This is not to say that all research is crooked. Its not. Most magazine and other independent research is done with a desire to uncover the facts, nothing less and nothing more.

Im also not saying that if Microsoft went in and demanded a study showing that Windows for Pizza 1.0 delivered 12 percent more pepperoni per pie that it would get a report saying it had 12 percent more pepperoni. I am saying that when vendors sponsor a report, they always get to put a thumb on the scales. It may be subtle; it may not. But the thumb is usually there.

Believe it or not, vendors do run competitive benchmarks and allow the results to speak for themselves. They want to be able to know that when they say, “We deliver pizza and CPUs faster than Joes Pizza and PCs,” that theres a reasonable chance that no one will laugh in their faces.

However, when they find out that their server cant deliver the pizzas and Pentiums faster than Joes, you will never see those results. Paid-for-published results are always, always good for the company that bought the research. Now, sometimes the results you see out of sponsored research are fair, but in my experience, the good results usually come from apples and oranges comparisons or tweaked testing.

Lets start at the top: SBS 2003 is designed to be a one-server operation for small businesses with no more than 50 users. Microsoft chose to compare it with the entry-level departmental server RHEL ES. Both come loaded with additional applications, but SBS is set up for fast back-office deployment by novice administrators of small groups. RHEL ES delivers much the same goods, but it is more suitable for experienced administrators and can easily be used to build larger networks.

SBS 2003 does have a better upgrade path than its SBS predecessors, but RHEL ES doesnt need an upgrade path: Its already able to handle bigger loads. Looking at nothing else but these factors, a decisive issue could be whether the buyer thinks the company will grow in the four to five years while theyll be running this server. Microsoft, however, focuses on ease of deployment, not on upgrade paths. Thus, from the start, Microsoft is comparing apples and oranges.

Now lets see if we can find a tweak … Heres a good one: One of the requirements on which operating systems are judged is configuring “an external hardware firewall/router device providing Internet connectivity.” Windows users might think this comparison is fair, since Server 2003 doesnt have a decent internal firewall. Linux users know that Red Hat (and Linux distributions) already have excellent internal firewall functionality. Heres a good example of the report being tweaked in SBS favor. But how many people know both operating systems well enough to understand that? Answer: Not many.

In this report, Microsoft (via Veritest) chooses to focus on the surface. The whole report is about how easy it is to install things. Theres no mention of how well these things actually work—and thats always a serious concern. Moreover, SBS is meant for small shops with little in the way of IT. In addition, SBS 2003 was in beta when these comparisons were made, and major components (including SharePoint and Exchange 2003) were also in beta. By comparison, RHES is tried-and-true, while its comparable components, PHP/Nuke and Sendmail, are battle-tested by years of use.

SBS 2003 may indeed be easier for a new administrator … so long as theres no trouble. If there are problems (and which new programs dont have problems?), theres a lot more support already available for the Linux/open-source products.

Another problem with reports like this: The buyer gets to choose what points get played up. For example, the report praises RHEL: “The Red Hat Enterprise Linux ES 2.1 deployments did have two advantages compared to Windows SBS 2003. First, the Linux operating system and utilities, as well as third-party applications, include source code through the open-source development model. This provides support for customizing and tailoring the operating system to meet specific deployment needs. Windows SBS 2003 does not include source code. Second, even though downloading and installing third-party applications for the Red Hat Enterprise Linux ES 2.1 deployments required additional time and steps, it also provided deployment flexibility not found in Windows SBS 2003.”

Sounds good, doesnt it? But those lines are at the bottom of Page Four of the executive summary. For many administrators, those comments alone make RHEL more compelling than SBS 2003, but theyre not the ones most readers will see.

I could go on, but you get the point. The report is fatally flawed for any kind of objective comparison of the two packages.

This issue isnt specific to Microsoft, though. Many companies do it. A while back, I looked at a J2EE benchmark fight between Microsoft and Oracle. Along the way, I found that BEA and Macromedia had run similar tests. Guess what? All four companies researchers declared that their company was victorious.

Need I say more?

A version of this story was first published in eWEEK. >