I suppose that it's just human nature to rubberneck at a traffic accident. The real problem is when the rubberneckers are holding up traffic behind them. If it bleeds, it leads.I suppose that it’s just human nature to rubberneck at a traffic accident. The real problem is when the rubberneckers are holding up traffic behind them.Enter the SCO debacle, once again. This whole charade has the makings of a really bad dream. It’s silly, ridiculous, completely laughable until it’s official. Gartner has decided to issue a warning regarding Linux adoption in mission-critical systems. A choice quote Determine whether Unix or Windows will provide functions equivalent to those of Linux deployments.The users of Unix — taken as a specific, since Unix is now more or less like Band-Aid, and has escaped the specific implementation, we’ll think of UnixWare, which is the SCO-branded AT&T SysV Unix — use it due to the fact that a custom application, probably orphaned or in limited development, requires that OS. Windows shops do so because they’ve been using Windows since a snappy salesman sold them on it over Novell 6 years ago. The folks that would use Linux generally wouldn’t consider anything other than *BSD to replace their Linux systems. With Linux compat layers in FreeBSD, et al, they could even run most ELF binaries… what is Gartner thinking? The quote reads like an ad for SCO/Microsoft.And another: Don’t ignore the problem by hoping IBM will win or settle its lawsuit (that could take a year or more). An IBM win would not prevent SCO from pursuing individual claims, which, if successful, could cost far more in penalties than buying a SCO license would. If you find SCO’s case compelling and you use few instances of v.2.4, pay the license fees.So…. just give in. Who writes this stuff? I completely understand the concept of corporate liability, but this is obviously a recommendation to just pay the extortion fee and be done with it. Why in the world would anyone heed this advice? What would Microsoft and SCO tell you to do?While the actions by SCO are pending, take a go-slow approach to Linux in high-value or mission-critical production systems. Instead, keep pursuing your Unix and Windows strategies.An example of what’s happening: If I paint a picture, and someone says that I used a similar brushstroke in the painting, do they immediately get royalites to reproductions? What if they’re completely wrong? Nothing has been decided, and it is blindingly obvious that this is just a weak attempt at gaining mindshare and possibly some cash. So that everyone understands, SCO is already hammering out Linux licensing terms. The audacity! Users and contributors of Linux — folks who have collectively donated hundreds of thousands of hours to Linux — paying for their own software? What about the code I wrote 10 minutes ago? Do I owe SCO something for that? SCO goes even further, saying that anyone who worked on the 2.4 code is now “tainted” by their exposure to the original Unix source, and therefore cannot contribute to further Linux kernel development. Houston, we’ve gone plaid. The whole of Linux and Open Source isn’t threatened by SCO. The threat comes with what the industry thinks. Fear is the weapon of the terrorist, and SCO is trying their hardest to instill fear into the industry, hoping that some money will fall their way. In the process, they’re boosting their own enemies, causing damage to a flourishing development environment and cementing their position in the minds of the next generation of IT decision makers. No, we can’t just ignore this, but even more, we cannot afford to give an inch to the thieves in Linden, UT. I’ve disliked SCO for a long time, mostly due to the general crappiness of their products and backwards notions of a server OS, but now I can say that I truly despise the company. Their actions are simply shameful.