Everything strikes me funny today. I am definitely enjoying IBM's latest documents, and by the way, I have all the cases now and I'll try to explain it, after my poor brain takes a laugh break.
SCO is always good for a laugh. Today, the most normal, I thought, of the SCOFolk announced that SCO is not the anti-Christ and that Linux doesn't exist.
There is no way to top that.
Kieran O'Shaughnessy says that IBM is the bad guy. Oh:
"It took us 25 years to build our business and it took [IBM] four years simply by stealing code and then giving it away free."
Then they should tell the court exactly what code was stolen and then given away free, dontcha think? IBM keeps asking. Psst. IBM was founded in 1896.
He says they aren't actually going after SCOSource licenses any more. It's not urgent. They're all about products now. But you can get one if you reeeeally want one. But litigation? Don't be silly. They're a Unix company now, and their business is growing. The licenses haven't been selling like hotcakes, but SCO has "broken their duck." Hmmm. The lawsuits are a drain, of course, but they'll "win big" in the end, so it's really just an investment. That's what BayStar thought.
He says it's impossible to win a PR war against IBM. I beg to differ. We haven't heard a peep out of IBM since this all started. If SCO can't win the PR war when it is the only one doing all the talking, maybe these SCOFolk need to learn how to look inward.
But none of that introspection or self-doubt today, that's for sure. SCO will prevail in the end, and "the true story will unfold as court filings continue."
Promises, promises. Could they start the unveling, already, please? This slow strip is frustrating the audience. Oh, and SCO won't be satisfied with mere financial compensation. They will insist on removal of the "stolen code". Oooh, scary. "Linux doesn't exist. Everyone knows Linux is an unlicensed version of Unix," he added.
Think that will show up as an exhibit in a SCO filing someday "proving" that Linux is an unlicensed version of Unix and everyone knows it? Me, too. I just am in awe how SCO plants stories, then quotes them in the court filings as proof. But never fear, when it happens, those IBM knights will come galloping onto the field, lances at the ready, with banners fluttering in the wind, that say, "You need some facts to win in a court of law, thou doofus." And "Where's the beef?"
Here is some evidence of Linux's existence:
Microsoft tried hard to be funny today too. Or maybe they're just funny without really trying. Or maybe there's something about Australia, because today Microsoft Australia's platform strategy manager, Paul Roworth, spoke out about Linux too. I deduce Linux does exist after all, according to Microsoft, but it is a "sensationalized misconception." Hold on. Could you guys synchronize your watches? We're having trouble keeping the story straight.
On the very same day, Microsoft says that
Say, what? Want to try saying that again? And then we read:
Here is the actual ruling. Here's the conclusion:
"Because the comparison included the hardware, as well as the operating system and therefore did not show that running a Linux operating system was ten times more expensive than running a Windows operating system, the Authority concluded that the advertisement was misleading. It advised the advertisers to amend the advertisement and advised them to seek help from the CAP Copy Advice team."
That's it. Yes, that's the problem, all right. Microsoft doesn't know how to write accurate ads, and I'm sure the Copy Advice team can give them a hand. And Meta Group doesn't know where up is and didn't realize main frames are, um, costly items. I'm sure that's all it is.
Would you like to see a real study of open source TCO that *wasn't* funded by Microsoft? OK. Here. Guess what they found? Soreon Research under the title, "Saving Cash: A Comparison of Open Source and Proprietary Software," reports that when you take Microsoft's thumb off the scale, Linux not only exists, it's cheaper, and the larger your company, the more you can save (because you likely already have Linux gurus on the payroll):
"The case studies show that cost savings of up to nearly 30% are realizable using Open Source. These savings come from reduced license fees and operating costs."
Finally, here's a very funny picture for you, a snapshot taken at HPWorld, where SCO and IBM booths were inexplicably placed right next to each other. It says it all. Incidentally, no need to explain to me that SCO meant that Linux is really Unix in obfuscated disguise. I get it. It's just that to me, it's a joke.