HP Sets Record With $2.5B in Linux-Based Revenue (and other BREAKING TECHNOLOGY NEWS)

eWEEK ^ | January 15, 2004 | Peter Galli

[fight_truth_decay]

Hewlett-Packard Co. on Thursday will announce that it earned a record-breaking $2.5 billion Linux-based revenue in fiscal 2003, with its Linux services and solutions business posting a 40 percent rise over fiscal 2002.

While the revenue was derived from the sale of Linux-related products and services, the Palo Alto, Calif., company did not specify exactly what was included and counted as Linux-based revenue.

[Nick Danger]

Surrrrrrre, comrade.

Up to now, you have avoided displaying the embarrassing high level of ignorance about simple things that has long been the trademark of the Feathered Flunkie. By comparison, you actually seemed to have a wit or two about you. My conscience therefore requires that I warn you that you are venturing into an area where you do not know what you don't know, with the consequence that you are making a fool of yourself.

[oceanview]

what are all those Dell employees doing? they are assembling PCs from what I can tell. And if we could stop sending semiconductor fabs to china, maybe we could keep that industry.

[N3WBI3]

And what does Linux have to do with either? Dell could offer Linux on their PC's. Dont get me wrong I think we should set up trade barriers but all these things are being sent off with or without Linux (heck Free BSD has been mature for almost a decade and nothing moved).

MS, HP, IBM, and Intel are all outsourcing work..

[Dimensio]

Read up on SCO v IBM. SCO claims that IBM was not entitled to contribute derivative IP to Linux.

No, no, no. I asked you to show how Linux has ripped off IP, not to show where a group of jackasses are claiming that Linux has ripped off IP but have yet to put forth any evidence whatsoever save a few dishonestly out-of-context quotes. You know, citations from sources that don't seem to be smoking crack?

Citing "SCO" as evidence that Linux has stolen IP is like asking why anyone would support our current president despite his cocaine usage.

[Bush2000]

No, no, no. I asked you to show how Linux has ripped off IP, not to show where a group of jackasses are claiming that Linux has ripped off IP but have yet to put forth any evidence whatsoever save a few dishonestly out-of-context quotes.

I see no reason to sidestep "the" definitive illustration of IP misappropriation outlined by the SCO case. You may disagree with SCO's charges -- but who really cares? You're not trying this case. You're not on the jury. In fact, you have a conflict of interest on the issue: A finding against IBM threatens you and the rest of the Linux community. There is very little doubt (among those with a clue, that is) that, without IBM's investment in Linux, it would not have evolved to its current state of maturity. The SCO case highlights how IP may have been misappropriated.

[Dimensio]

I see no reason to sidestep "the" definitive illustration of IP misappropriation outlined by the SCO case.

You asserted that Linux has stolen IP as though it were established truth. Thus far, SCO has not even provided evidence to support their claims, and they've certainly not been vindicated in court.

In fact, you have a conflict of interest on the issue: A finding against IBM threatens you and the rest of the Linux community.

And a finding of white powder on George W. Bush's desk threatens you and the rest of the Bush supporting community.

The SCO case highlights how IP may have been misappropriated.

The Bush-cocaine-usage case highlights how Bush may have used illegal drugs. Hypothetical speculation on situations where no positive evidence exists is easy, but it doesn't accomplish anything.

Rant all you like, but you claimed that Linux has stolen IP as though it were established truth, yet when asked for evidence, you present the crackpot claims of a bunch of crack smokers. Thus far, no IP in Linux has been found to be stolen. As such, your claim is a demonstratable lie. You are therefore a liar. But then, we already knew that.

[Dimensio]

Before anyone reacts, and I know that there are FReepers who lack the intelligence and reading comprehension skills to make this a possibility, I am not asserting that President George W. Bush has ever used cocaine. Please do not attack me for making such a claim. If anyone honestly feels that, through my comments in this discussion, I have asserted that President George W. Bush has ever used any illegal drugs, I implore them to please shut down their computer and donate it to charity, as they are clearly too stupid to be using it themself.

[Bush2000]

You asserted that Linux has stolen IP as though it were established truth. Thus far, SCO has not even provided evidence to support their claims, and they've certainly not been vindicated in court.

I've read the contract between AT&T and IBM. It allowed IBM to use the AT&T Unix sources in conjuction with AIX -- but it expressly forbids "derivative works" from being distributed without the permission of AT&T. SCO owns the rights to exercise the terms of that contract. SCO doesn't assert ownership of those "derivative works" but, rather, says that IBM had no right to include them in Linux without a contractual release. The reason for such a contract condition is obvious: AT&T didn't want IBM to devalue Unix by making it public domain or redistributing the derivative technology in some scumbag manner (as they allegedly did with Linux).

http://www.internetnews.com/dev-news/article.php/576091
"At the LinuxWorld Conference & Expo New York 2001 Wednesday, Big Blue committed to spending $300 million on Linux services over the next three years. IBM has already committed to investing $1 billion in Linux over the next 12 months".

Another article discussing this investment:

http://news.com.com/2100-1001-825723.html
"I think they're including investments they made in other operating systems as well as software," said Kusnetzky, noting that IBM unified the groups that work on Linux, IBM's AIX operating system and Caldera International's UnixWare product. "They were setting the situation up so they could claim they were investing a very large amount of money. They don't have to break out what portion of the investment went to each operating system they are supporting."

It's reasonable to conclude that IBM took code from AIX and its derivative technologies and applied them to Linux; if so, that's in violation of contract and SCO deserves not only to be compensated but the offending code must be removed.

[Bush2000]

Incidentally, the gamesmanship being played out between SCO and IBM is only beginning. IBM was successful in forcing SCO to detail what code it believes is in violation of contract terms. However, that minor skirmish won't matter that much. I believe that SCO has been able to show some offending code was included in Linux. That opens up IBM to broader discovery by SCO attorneys. SCO will have a right to demand to know what other code was included with the offending code, and so on ... and so on ... Wait. And watch. This should be a lot of fun.

[Dimensio]

IBM was successful in forcing SCO to detail what code it believes is in violation of contract terms.

It would be nice if SCO would actually comply with those demands, then. Thus far, they've not been forthcoming.

I believe that SCO has been able to show some offending code was included in Linux.

Funny, SCO hasn't bothered showing any. They have no excuse, given that the source code is available to anyone who wants to download it.

SCO will have a right to demand to know what other code was included with the offending code, and so on ... and so on ..

Just as soon as they present some evidence of offending code which, as I've been saying, they've yet to do despite months of their baseless accusations. You, of course, don't seem to care about evidence in this case. You are, as Nick Danger said, a Microsoft butt-boy, and anything that can be used to disparage Linux -- even mindless claims of wrongdoing that are backed by nothing but hot air and lies -- will work for you.

Neither of your citations provided evidence that IBM has violated any contracts or that offending code has slipped into Linux. Yet again, you've failed to offer up any support for your claim that Linux steals IP.

[Bush2000]

It would be nice if SCO would actually comply with those demands, then. Thus far, they've not been forthcoming.

There's a reason for this -- and it has mostly to do with lawyering. SCO's lawyers want to establish the broadest possible discovery of what IBM contributed to Linux. IBM says "first, show us what you think is offending". SCO wants to widen the net. IBM wants to close it as much as possible. But ultimately, I believe it will be shown that IBM contributed vast amounts of code that it had previously added to AIX.

Funny, SCO hasn't bothered showing any. They have no excuse, given that the source code is available to anyone who wants to download it.I predict that the source code logs will eventually be entered into evidence by SCO. The credibility of the logs will have to be tested, as you will probably recall recent exploits on Linux source code servers. There is a legal principle where litigants have to provide "best evidence"; that is, they have to make their best attempt to provide first-generation evidence (not copies). The best source of information for what IBM contributed to Linux isn't the source code servers. It's IBM. And that is what SCO is arguing. They do have a point, whether you agree or not.

, of course, don't seem to care about evidence in this case.

Yeah, see, I have this funny thing going for me called common sense, which is sorely lacking in a lot of people. I can see the high probability that IBM wanted to rapidly advance Linux, since it made public statements that it would build its business on Linux. Further, I can see the high probability that the best way to mature a product (Linux) is to take code from another mature product (AIX). Even further, I can see the high probability that the decision by IBM to merge the groups working on Linux, AIX, etc clearly telegraphed its intention to do exactly this: move code from AIX to Linux and violate the SCO contract.

You are, as Nick Danger said, a Microsoft butt-boy, and anything that can be used to disparage Linux -- even mindless claims of wrongdoing that are backed by nothing but hot air and lies -- will work for you.

And you, sir, are IBM's waterboy.

Neither of your citations provided evidence that IBM has violated any contracts or that offending code has slipped into Linux. Yet again, you've failed to offer up any support for your claim that Linux steals IP.

Right, IBM didn't have sexual relations with that woman. I've heard that one before. Lawsuits are filed every day. There are winners and there are losers. I understand that you're reticent to pay license fees to SCO for your use of Linux -- and consequently, you have an axe to grind. But don't delude yourself into thinking that anybody who thinks that maybe, possibly, probably SCO has a case against IBM -- based on a contract that IBM willingly signed and by a relationship between IBM and the OSS community which has never been subjected to anything more than a handshake -- is bad for the industry. Point of fact, we will all be better off seeing these issues tested in a court of law. If IBM loses, fine: It can reimburse SCO and remove the code from Linux. If IBM wins, great. SCO fades into the long list of forgotten companies, never to be heard from again. And I won't lose sleep in either case.

[Dimensio]

I predict that the source code logs will eventually be entered into evidence by SCO.

Bully for you. When your predictions actually become reality, we (the Linux lovers) will all eat a lot of crow. Until then, you don't have jack or squat, and neither does SCO. The best you have is your hatred of Linux fueling your irrational cheerleading for the losing team.

Fact is, SCO has provided "documentation" that has turned out to be code to which they never had any connection and quotes that were very clearly taken out of context so as to lie about the original intended meaning. That does not speak well for their claims.

[Bush2000]

Bully for you. When your predictions actually become reality, we (the Linux lovers) will all eat a lot of crow. Until then, you don't have jack or squat, and neither does SCO. The best you have is your hatred of Linux fueling your irrational cheerleading for the losing team.

Now, now, Dimensio. This trial has only just begun. It's a bit premature for you to be calling winners and losers at this stage.

[Dimensio]

It's a bit premature for you to be calling winners and losers at this stage.

Pot. Kettle. Black.

[Bush2000]

Pot. Kettle. Black.

Who's calling a winner? I'm not. I think it's highly likely that SCO will be able to prove that IBM added AIX-derivative code to Linux; however, that doesn't mean that the court will agree with IBM violated the contract. That's really what this case hinges on: Whether a court agrees with SCO's theory regarding derivative product code.

[Dimensio]

In other words, you've already decided what the "truth" is, and whatever the court decides is irrelevant.

[Bush2000]

In other words, you've already decided what the "truth" is, and whatever the court decides is irrelevant.

Yes, I have an opinion about the facts of the case. That's quite different from calling a winner. And regardless of which way this case goes, I'll live with the judgement of the court.

[Golden Eagle]

If you weren't such a Microsoft butt-boy you would be able to see...

There you go, calling people names again. Danger you surely are one miserable old man, LMAO. The rest of your comment, yet another tirade against Microsoft, I've never seen anyone so bitter in my life, about anything. You really need to seek some help, and get a grip on your paranioa, if it's not too late already.