Did the SCO ruin Linux's start?

[j814wong]

Long ago, the SCO sued Linux for violating patents. The lawsuits are on going. They kept losing but kept at it. Microsoft is said to be giving is indirect support and indirect funding, using the opportunity to grow while Linux was held back by the lawsuits. Many companies and universities decided not to adopted Linux based on fears of its future security. Microsoft took the chance and put itself out as stable and secure in the market. We know how it goes now. Microsoft controls the desktop, Linux the servers.

SCO recently lost yet they are continuing to sue. I suspect Microsoft really wants this and is secretly supporting them somehow.

Don't forget that the SCO is the most hated tech companies in 2004.

[zekopeko]

Long ago, the SCO sued Linux for violating patents.

You appear to have very little actual knowledge on the matter. I'm not overly familiar with the case but know the general gist of it. SCO wasn't suing over patents but UNIX copyrights.

I think that the potential and actual impact of the case was exaggerated. It never really slowed Linux adoption down.

[angryfirelord]

When looking at SCO, it's important to note that it didn't exist in its current form. Initially, it was known as the Santa Cruz Operation and was known for its development first as a Unix porter and then as its own Unix distribution called SCO Unix. At this time, SCO did not engage in any large-scale lawsuits, so no, it did not interfere at all with Linux.

However, a company called Caldera bought the rights to SCO Unix in 2001 and changed their name to the SCO group. This is the company that began basically suing everybody. At this point though, it's basically dead and even if Microsoft was involved, there's no weight behind it.

Microsoft took the chance and put itself out as stable and secure in the market. We know how it goes now. Microsoft controls the desktop, Linux the servers.

No, lawsuits had little to do with the impact of Linux's marketshare. If anything, it was the AT&T lawsuit against BSD that gave Linux an advantage in the early 90s. Microsoft was able to secure the desktop market primarily because of tons of IBM-compatible PCs that came onto the market and it was their MS-DOS operating system that went to the top. Therefore, the growth of the PC market allowed Microsoft to grow.

http://jeremyreimer.com/postman/node/329

[handy]

As a side note: If Apple had of licensed their hardware/OS back in the early days the world of Desktops would have been dominated by Apple instead of MS.

[KiwiNZ]

As a side note: If Apple had of licensed their hardware/OS back in the early days the world of Desktops would have been dominated by Apple instead of MS.

They did license their products for a period, it was a failure and one of the first things Steve Jobs did away with upon his return to Apple.

[cariboo]

Old news is old news. Moved to recurring.

[handy]

They did license their products for a period, it was a failure and one of the first things Steve Jobs did away with upon his return to Apple.

I know, but they did it far too late, MS was already entrenched.

If they had of done it in the very early days of the Mac (after they had got Adobe to happen - producing the postscript driver for home sized laser printers & providing WYSIWYG, all of which gave the expensive Mac's a reason to be) & if Apple had of made the licenses cheap enough, the IT world would have been a very different place I think.

Though it would have been very interesting to see just how Apple the hardware company would have played that one.

They certainly nearly went under more than once (Bill saving them at one stage), but now they are posting record profits & aren't far from becoming the most valuable corporation share price wise, they were over $400-/share last I looked.