Debian 4.0r3 available in the Linux Identity Set magazine

SCO Reorganizes its Reorganization Plan

According to what SCO told us, and has yet to detail to the court because they’re still working on it, it’s a result of the due diligence.

Things are supposedly looking even brighter than before.

Bankruptcy trustee skeptical as SCO punts on reorg plan

Novell insists it’s winning the Linux wars

In the third of a series of interviews by Linux Foundation executive director Jim Zemlin, Novell CEO Ron Hovsepian (right) insisted his company is not being hurt by its association with Microsoft.

“Novell grew 200% in the SUSE Linux marketplace year-over-year from an invoicing perspective,” he said. The overall market is growing at 22% according to IDC,” and “we’re taking some market share from our competitors.

ISO approval: A good process gone bad

You may have read our background article about ODF and OOXML and why Red Hat believes OOXML should not be approved as an ISO standard. This time, we focus on how the standardization process has been compromised at ISO.

ISO’s JTC-1 directives were designed to provide a fair, consensus-based way to design standards that are portable, interoperable, and adaptable to all languages and cultures. The OOXML proposal has suffered from two basic problems: (1) voting irregularities, and (2) the use of a fast-track process for a complex, new, large specification that has not received adequate industry review. The resulting specification was driven almost exclusively by one vendor, has not achieved industry consensus, and has had thousands of issues logged against it, largely due to issues involving implementability, portability, and interoperability. Although resolutions have been proposed for many of the issues that have been raised, there is virtually no time to review these resolutions to determine whether they fix the problems. And the voting irregularities have raised serious issues with the fairness of the process.

Is Microsoft really any more trustworthy?

Microsoft continues to prey upon the overly cautious with patent deals

Apparently Microsoft has a thing for conservative Japan. Just when I thought Microsoft had closed patent cross-licensing deals with every Japanese firm ever to have considered corporate existence, Microsoft surprises me with a deal with Onkyo.

So far Microsoft's list includes the needy (the various second-rate Linux distributions and Novell, which is a first-class Linux distribution with second-class aspirations of how to build on its technical merit) and the overly cautious (Japanese and Korean electronics companies for whom it's easier to just pay rather than try to figure out whether Microsoft's machinations are worthy). Microsoft might consider this a Very Good Start, but to me it looks like a Very Poor End to Microsoft's attempts to afflict the world with its dubious patent-rattling.

Update: McBride ousted at SCO, lawsuits to continue

SCO CEO likely will be forced out of job

Microsoft's latest interoperability pledge: How free is 'open'

No move by Microsoft to share information with its competitors will ever be taken at face value, and certainly yesterday's new Interoperability Principle will come under very close scrutiny. Is this the opening of the floodgates the EC has been demanding?

In incremental, measured, if slow steps, Microsoft has made some efforts to comply with directives from the European Commission to make its software and protocols more interoperable with products from other manufacturers. Yesterday, the company surrendered one more boundary between its interoperability policy and the EC's dream situation, making a huge chunk of the information it published in response to the EC's order available to developers free of charge.

Microsoft To Open Source: Let's Be Friends

Microsoft's new openness and interoperability plan focuses on high volume products such as Windows Vista (including the .NET Framework), Windows Server 2008, SQL Server 2008, Office 2007, Exchange Server 2007, and Office SharePoint Server 2007, as well as future versions of these products.

NASDAQ Gives SCO The Boot

There are only so many times you can cheat the reaper.

In the case of embattled Unix vendor SCO, it appears as though time has run out for its life as a publicly listed company on the NASDAQ stock exchange.

Effective the open of business today, NASDAQ has delisted SCO's publicly traded stock, which had traded under the symbol SCOX. At the close of business yesterday, shares of SCOX traded at a closing price of $0.18. During the last 52 weeks, shares of SCOX had ranged from $0.15 to $2.21. At the close of market yesterday, the stock had nearly 21.5 million shares outstanding.

Microsoft Tight-Lipped On Unix Ownership Question

For months, I've been trying to get Microsoft to answer a few questions about the Unix technologies in its intellectual property portfolio. Microsoft agreed to an interview, then backed out. So the question remains: How much Unix code does Microsoft have its hands on?

Microsoft's Unix roots go back more than 25 years. The company developed a version of Unix called Xenix in the 1980s that was widely used in its day. Separately, Microsoft acquired and distributed a software package called Windows Services for Unix that includes a Unix subsystem, hundreds of Unix utilities, and related tools. That software layer, redubbed the Subsystem for Unix-based Applications, comes included with Windows Vista Enterprise and Ultimate editions and will be bundled into the soon-to-ship Windows Server 2008. It lets you run Unix apps on Windows.

Microsoft FUDwatch: Windows vs. Linux security

t's been at least a week since the last bout of Microsoft FUD hit the wires, so I guess it was time for a new wave. Today's FUD comes from an article Microsoft released on how its security compares with that of Linux. It should come as no surprise that Windows comes off as the Second Coming while Linux is left on the wrong side of Acheron.

Microsoft's pseudo-open source: open trap for open-source developers?

If you believe some of the headlines, Microsoft just open sourced a bunch of software related to its .Net libraries. Don't be fooled. The definition of open source is very clear. This is not open source. Not even a little bit. In fact, this may actually be an insidious trap (more on that below).

Will Hurley captures the move accurately:

Is .NET open source now?...The license indicates that developers can "see" the source code, but Microsoft's not providing any means of copying it. If a developer finds a bug in the code, rather than fixing it themselves and submitting a patch to the community they'll be encouraged to submit feedback via the product feedback center. They're showing us the man behind the curtain, but we're not allowed to speak to him in person just yet. We're still stuck with the giant, disembodied green head. And since community involvement is essential to most open source efforts, well....

In other words, it's not open source. But is it good for developers, anyway?