Commercial and Government Services.
The Right Way. The First Time.

Why Linux?

Glad you asked! Linux is commonly known as a server operating system or an operating system for advanced users. Can a non-pro use it, and why should he or she do so?

While Linux did begin its life as a server operating system and an
operating system for advanced users, Linux has made significant progress in a most key area: its graphical user interface.

Linux now has a very easy to use interface for both the Windows and Mac crowd. The desktop looks, acts and feels incredibly familiar, as do applications such word processors, spreadsheets and photo editors.

Here are a few reasons to use Linux:
FUNCTIONALITY
Linux comes with many tools you normally must buy separately if you run Windows or Mac, including a full featured office suite (amazingly similar to Microsoft Office) and a complete software development kit that is comparable to Visual C++.
STABILITY
Linux is a very stable operating system. Linux systems don't crash often, and don't need to be rebooted for anything other than upgrading the operating system itself.
(ALMOST) NO VIRUSES
Linux is not prone to viruses. Because of how Linux handles data, a virus cannot overwrite system files or append itself to applications unless you are working as the "root" user. Linux has no registry or DLL files, so Windows viruses have no effect on Linux at all.
PRICE
Linux is available for download for free. You have the option of buying Linux CD sets at a very low price. But the two or three core disks, with thousands of applications and tools, are there for the taking. And these are "crippled" versions. They have the same files as the CDs in the store box.
OPEN SOURCE
Linux is completely Open Source, meaning programmers around the world have access to its "source code", which is code programmers can read and modify. While this may not affect you as an end user directly, it affects you indirectly because this means that Linux and its tools and apps are under continuous, shared development. And updates to the operating system and all the other software is a snap.
INDEPENDENCE
If the maintainers of traditional proprietary software (such as Windows or Microsoft Office) stop working on it, or choose to ignore your problems, you're on your own. Nobody can help you. DOS users remember a great program called Q&A. Once the company that developed Q&A went out of business, another company bought this marvelous app and then let it die. If someone stops maintaining a Linux software application, someone steps in and continues the work. The software is not "company owned" and controlled, and so won't become a Q&A.
SPEED of development
Due to the its open source nature, many programmers from all around the world work on Linux, causing it to develop and mature much faster than other software.
FLEXIBILITY
If you need a feature in an application (or the operating system itself), you don't need to turn to the maker of the application to get it in - any
programmer can do it for you!

Linux News and Notes

After examining the programming code that SCO Group claims was copied from Unix into Linux, Aberdeen Group analyst Bill Claybrook said he cannot conclude whether or not SCO's legal claims of copyright infringement have merit. Claybrook's response is contained in a new Aberdeen report entitled "SCO-IBM Lawsuit: Time for Some Changes?" In it, he discusses his experience of examining the code, as well as the larger ramifications of the pending legal action.

A former Unix-kernel programmer and computer-science professor, Claybrook was one of three analysts invited by SCO to see the code the company alleges was copied from Unix System V into Linux. SCO showed the code to select industry professionals in an effort to bolster support for its lawsuit against IBM. SCO alleges the tech powerhouse misappropriated code from Unix System V -- SCO holds the copyright -- and copied it into Linux. IBM has denied the charges.

Examining the Code

Upon his initial examination, Claybrook did see code and related programming comments that were identical in both the Unix and Linux codes, he told NewsFactor.

As he noted in his report, "The code that I was shown was from a well-known
Unix .c file. It is only one of several instances that SCO alleges that an
IHV [independent hardware vendor] directly copied System V source into
Linux. Based on what SCO showed me, the amount of alleged copied code and comments in the .c function amounted to about 80 lines."

Even though he saw identical code in both the Unix and Linux examples he was shown, Claybrook found the experience to be inconclusive.

"I was sitting in a Marriot in Boston looking at this stuff, and they had the Unix System V code on the left and the Linux code on the right," Claybrook said. But, "just eyeballing the code" did not provide enough information to be conclusive, he said.

"I wasn't able to look at the files on the computer, so, all I can say is, 'I saw this stuff, and I don't know whether it's true or not.'"

More Questions

Claybrook said that he has gotten e-mails from developers he knows
questioning which version of Unix the code in question was copied from. "All
of it could have been copied from BSD Unix," he said, referring to a version
of Unix different from SCO's System V version. "I have no way of knowing all
that -- not without seeing it on the computer," he said.

"And what's weird about it is, it wasn't like they copied the whole function," Claybrook said, referring to the programmers who allegedly copied code. "If you pull pieces of code from one program to another, it means you have to integrate them into your code, and then test with everything else," he said. "It just doesn't make sense -- why not take the whole function?"

However, SCO presented the allegedly copied code as just one of many by a
large IHV, Claybrook said.

Confusion Reigns

"I specifically asked SCO if they had any evidence that IBM directly copied
System V source code into Linux. The reply was no," Claybrook wrote in his
report. "SCO has subsequently changed that reply to, 'We have that code but
we have not presented it at this time.'"

When asked if the confusion about this issue is odd, given that this is the
central tenet of SCO's lawsuit against IBM, Claybrook agreed. "Whenever I
asked the question, Chris Sontag, the VP there, told me no," Claybrook said.
"But then I got an e-mail 8 to 10 hours later from Blake Stowell, director
of PR, that said they had 'misspoken' -- they did have evidence that IBM had
directly copied code."

Claybrook said he finds the claim that IBM copied code "very hard to
believe," adding that he has been told that IBM has a "really good process
for screening anything" included in the company's software products.

To Be Reckoned With

Although Claybrook did not find SCO's presentation conclusive, "I don't this
is an open-and-shut case," he said, adding that he does not think SCO is
deliberately making false claims. "I don't think David Boise would go to all
this trouble if he thought it was just about ripping someone off," said
Claybrook, referring to the attorney who successfully prosecuted the
government's case against Microsoft.

But he noted that regardless of the validity of its claims, SCO has not made
itself popular as it pursues its legal action. As Forrester analyst Ted
Schadler told NewsFactor, "At the end of day, SCO has inserted some sand in
the works in the gears of Linux adoption, and it's annoying."

Future of Linux

"In Aberdeen9s view, if SCO wins its lawsuit against IBM (or settles out of
court), then this is not a knockout punch for Linux," Claybrook wrote. "Instead, the lawsuit is a signal that some changes may need to occur in the way Linux is developed.

"Linux suppliers and ISVs want a more organized way of getting important
features into Linux, and they want road maps," he wrote, noting that some of
these changes are already taking place. For example, organizations like the
Open Source Development Lab (OSDL) are now more involved in determining the feature sets to be implemented in Linux kernels.

As Forrester analyst Stacey Quandt said to NewsFactor, "While the merits of
SCO's case remain to be proven, in the end Linux will continue to be a
viable alternative to Windows and Unix."