Slashdot Mirror

Caldera International bought DR-DOS.

Then Caldera International sued Microsoft for $1.6 billion.

Microsoft settled.

The terms of the settlement for confidential, but estimated at $150 million.

Reference:

Microsoft, Caldera settle long-standing lawsuit

Actually, it's no different than that at all. For all our current love of IBM, don't forget that they were the inspiration for companies like Microsoft. IBM has been involved in what could be called anti-competitive practices for a very long time. For examples, check here, here, and especially here.

Remember, IBM exists to serve its own needs, not to be the torchbearer for OSS. In spite of the fact that OSS is affording them the chance to challenge Microsoft's dominance, if they see an opportunity to gain that market share without it, for example producing superior CPU's and compilers, you bet your ass that they'll do it.

SoundExchange is an entity created within RIAA.... Remember?

that 10,000 Opteron Cray supercomputer comes online...although I guess that system may not be unclassified.

Please refer to this story.

Google will also pop-up a plethora of related type stories, though most are written by the zealots and are about conspiracies.

When installing Mandrake, you can carve off a piece of an existing NTFS partition to use.

Link

From news.com.com

Linkage

Looks like they have ACPI support!

Read this article about the shcool system in shanghai. MS did an audit and then try to bully them into buying more office licences. The school system instead chose to actually remove office from it's systems and go with a competing product locally made in china. Here is a quote.

The move to snub Microsoft comes after the software giant asked the Shanghai Education Commission to buy licenses for the office suite on every school computer. Antipiracy officials earlier raided several schools in the city for using pirated versions of the software, according to the report.

In this case they did not go with open source but the competing product cost half as much.

People all over the world are getting a clue except the American PHBs who are not only sticking with MS but some are actually paying licencing fees to SCO.

Makes you wonder.

Really? Is this truly disturbing? Personally, I have yet to experience an IDE that is as helpful as that of Visual Studio. Combining intellisense functionality with MSDN makes it for a powerful resource and development tool. I have not done a great deal of c++ coding in the unix world, but I have done my share of shell scripting and PERL. If you can give me an example of an IDE that is AS useful as Visual Studio, I will be willing to check it out. But until then, vi, vim and emacs are not tools for coding. They're merely scratch paper! Comparing Visual Studio to these environments is not fair- They're not IDE's- But what IDE's exist in the unix world that compete? I'm ignorant of them. Enlighten me.

The .NET framework has been nothing but helpful to me. I don't understand why so many are so opposed to Microsoft even when the solutions they're sharing are getting better and better. No more dll hell, a kick ass interface to the OS (.net framework) and an object library that by default handles much of the database/xml interaction I'm interested in. Why reinvent the wheel? Do you not see that using these standard interfaces not only makes your job easier, but makes coding with dev teams better by minimizing the opportunity for multiple devs to implement their own custom interfaces for these kinds of things?

Plus, MS does occasionally provide truly innovative solutions to very difficult problems. Are you telling me that help from MS is a ride on the short bus for academia? This is not Elitism. It is Ignorance. All operating systems, business solutions and programming languages have their advantages and disadvantages. This decision of Microsoft's is not brainwashing- it's an investment in it's future. Why shouldn't MS try to get more academics involved with it's software? Is submitter honestly suggesting that MS products will simply retard all future growth in the Computer Science field? Are you even reading what you are posting? Do you know what the definition of Disturbing is? Personally, I find the methodical killing of the Holocaust disturbing. As in, holy shit, I-crapped-my-pants-because-that-is-so-evil disturbing. Water that churns uncomfortably in it's cup disturbing. Seriously... Has the english language lost it's capacity for meaningful expression? Or have you forgotten where you put your dictionary?

MS's investments in academia are natural and helpful. It's easier to get a job in the real world using MS products- College graduates will be far better off with a higher awareness of MS solutions than they will with none at all. Unix/Macintosh/Windows can all coexist. Each have strengths and weaknesses. College students who are less exposed to the dominant tools will not be as successful as their competitors.

Plus, I'd rather see them giving away software there than squeezing the universities out of every penny they can like they did in the Ernie Ball case.

Well, it did happen. And now the world can see what kind of childish and immature mentality they are dealing with when it comes to the open sores script kiddies of the world. It surely seems to backup SCO's claims: After all, these kids probably do think stealing code is "ok", just like stealing music is "ok".

See, the very premise you're starting from is far from a given. You can't compile a piece of code and expect it to simply run on any Linux machine. It may run on many but nowhere near the 100% you can reach with Windows.

That, and most other counter-arguments you give, are security through obscurity. Claiming that systems are resistant to exploitation because they're nonstandardized is a weak, shortsighted defense. (And carries a pessimistic assumption that Linux will not become a dominant computing platform and acquire 'monoculture' characteristics)

(1) once you get code executed on a system you can do bad stuff (but don't think getting that code executed is such a trivial task); (2) a good security model is useless in the hands of ignorant users.

It's not a good security model. Allowing a system to contain privilege-escalation exploits is a design flaw, even if those exploits rely on watching a normal user until he says the magic word to update his priviledges. A good multiuser OS will allow only a small number of tightly-controlled and un-spoofable paths to reaching root access. One should never be allowed to "su" from an insecure environment (one that potentially has been tainted by untrusted code).

It should be possible to train users that there is just one way to change to a higher priviledge mode, so they can be certain any other prompt requesting the root password is an attack. The approved way to escalate priviledges should be protected by the OS so that no user-application is able to emulate or intercept it. Unix does not meet this criteria. The "su" command certainly isn't safe, nor are remote-root logins. Only Ctrl-Alt-F1 comes close, but even that has weaknesses.

This is what is alluded to by section 3.2.2.1.1 of the DoD Trusted Computer Criteria, which is the requirement that lead to Microsoft's use of Ctrl-Alt-Delete for a login box. (A feature they haven't always implemented correctly or even completely, but at least someone was trying. They seem to be backing away from this approach in XP, but have other, funny ideas to face this problem.)

Well, it did happen. And now the world can see what kind of childish and immature mentality they are dealing with when it comes to the open sores script kiddies of the world. It surely seems to backup SCO's claims: After all, these kids probably do think stealing code is "ok", just like stealing music is "ok".

... it is illegal to publish such instructions with the intent that readers commit "a federal crime of violence."

I implore the readers of these instructions not to commit a federal crime of violence with the information on this page.

yeah, and Sprint PCS is coming out with their version of PTT

You've been using Longhorn? That's awesome. How'd you get it so early?

*chuckle*

Please. While you try to come off as being even-handed, it's clear that you suffer from the same zealotry-induced ignorance that so many others on /. do. And "That means each server needs some monkey to sit there an point and click." ??? Clearly, you're either misrepresenting your experiences, or you're just plain incompetent. Either way, you're wrong, and given that your views are biased to the point of irrelevance, I'm finding it difficult to care enough about your under-informed opinions to write this reply.

But, I'll try my best: While I can understand your point about Palladium (really "trusted computing" as a concept, both within MS and otherwise), I'm not sure what idea you're trying to sell me on with the rest of your post. But I know I see the same old tired, ill-informed, poorly constructed arguments that everybody has made before, with little (read: no) effect. And, I see your true colors with this: "To me the are nothing more than a nasty monopoly..." blah blah blah, which to me translates to: "To me they are nothing more than a nasty monopoly, so while I'm too impassioned to bother to understand what I'm talking about, I'll pretend/lie to make it seem that I do when criticizing the very products I, for the political reasons just mentioned, will likely refuse to use.".

Oh, and if you could, I'd like to check out Longhorn too. Can you send me some examples of your work? I'd really like to see what you're doing with it... you know... since it hasn't even had a developers preview released yet, your work must be cutting-edge.

The Symantic W32.Blaster.Worm Removal Tool has been downloaded about 131,000 times through Download.com, which is probably a fair measure of the scale of the infection.

---but, in comparison, Kazaa was downloaded 2,678,000 times last week alone.

To break into Download.com's top fifty lists, a Windows program must approach 30,000 downloads a week, to make the Mac list, a bare---some would say pathetic--- eight hundred.

The simplest conclusion to be drawn from such numbers is that it is difficult for even the most aggressive worm or virus to bring down more than the tiniest fraction of the installed Windows base.

---not because Windows systems are "inherently secure," but because the Windows user base is so immense an infection can be contained before it becomes unmanageable, or even visible to users, for anyone who auto-magically installed the RPC patch on July 16th, the hoo-rah after must have come as quite a surprise.

Gotta love that!

Red Hat 9 Pro (at $93) is described as "a boon for those who already use it, but it's too expensive to warrant a switch from Windows."

Either they're admitting that you've already been suxored into paying the microsoft tax, or they're trying to explain how $93 is expensive compared to $130 for Windows XP Pro. Interestingly, they rate Mandrake just as good as windows!

Gotta love that!

Red Hat 9 Pro (at $93) is described as "a boon for those who already use it, but it's too expensive to warrant a switch from Windows."

Either they're admitting that you've already been suxored into paying the microsoft tax, or they're trying to explain how $93 is expensive compared to $130 for Windows XP Pro. Interestingly, they rate Mandrake just as good as windows!

Gotta love that!

Red Hat 9 Pro (at $93) is described as "a boon for those who already use it, but it's too expensive to warrant a switch from Windows."

Either they're admitting that you've already been suxored into paying the microsoft tax, or they're trying to explain how $93 is expensive compared to $130 for Windows XP Pro. Interestingly, they rate Mandrake just as good as windows!

Sun confirms this here.

Sun received an option to buy SCOX stock at $1.83 per share, too.

No, this is not speculative. This is fact.

I got your tinfoil hat right here.

Sun is one of the two "SCO Source" licensees who are financing SCO's lawsuits.

Sun expands Unix deal with SCO

One might argue that Sun is simply making sure it doesn't get sued, rather than actively supporting SCO. I don't believe that, because in addition to whatever license got, Sun also got the rights to buy 210,000 shares of SCOX stock at $1.83 per share.

I wouldn't want to support someone so wishy washy.

There are two effects here. First, as other posters have pointed out, Sun is a large organization with different people controlling different activities. It's quite possible that the Sun executives who decided to finance SCO are different from the Sun executives who decided to invest in Mad Hatter.

Second, Sun is neither for nor against open source, per se. Sun has their own goals. Sun is in favor of making money for Sun. Sun's decided that Mad Hatter will help them make money for Sun, so they will keep developing and marketing it as long as they continue to believe that.

I wouldn't want to support someone so wishy washy.

You don't have to support them, but you do have to think about what kinds of alliances to have with people whose goals are different from you. Because most of the people in the world are like that.

The SCO connection really bothers me, though. It's not like Sun is competing with Linux -- they are funding a legal attack to kill Linux. Why is Sun doing that? I wish the press would, well, press them about that.

Sun expands Unix deal with SCO

And for gritty deals on the warrant agreement (search for 'warrant agreement')

SCO 10-Q quarter ended 2003-04-30

And if I use XPde as my window manager and some version of WINE on Linux, I must be using windows, because I can run windows programs, and I see the ugly start menu? Yeah?

No, Mr. Proud Mac User. MacOSX is NOT unix. It's MacOSX with a unix-like shell. It uses a non-standard kernel, non-standard file system layout, a non-standard API, and a non-standard windowing system. There's a reason why the Open Group said Apple can't use the term 'UNIX' to describe OS X.

Oh and about OS X isn't UNIX...

From this article
The Open Group wants Apple to have Mac OS X undergo testing to certify that it complies with its standards for software bearing the Unix name; it also wants Apple to pay a fee. The Open Group says the costs to license the name are reasonable, based on the size of the company and the rough number of copies of the software Apple sells. In any case, no company is required to pay more than $110,000, said Graham Bird, vice president of marketing for The Open Group.

The only reason the Open Group won't give them their seal of approval is they want apple to pay.

Run properly, WinXP is just as secure as any of the OS's you mentioned.

HahhahahaHAHAHAHahhaahAHHAHAHAHAHA. Oh sorry.. let me catch my breath... AHhaahhhaahahahahaAHAHAHA.

Oh wait.. by "Run properly" you mean disconnected from the Internet with no interaction at all with others via e-mail, web pages, etc. right?

I've NEVER had a virus or worm on any system I've controlled, going back to 1979.

I guess you were lucky enough to never use the wrong site or e-mail exploiting an ActiveX hole in IE or in Outlook before it was patched patched. If you are using MS-Office, you must have either never received documents with one of their macro viri or just got lucky.

Don't get me wrong.. I applaud that you've obviously practiced safe computing diligently to keep your windows system clear for 23 years... which version of Windows were you running back then??? lol I'm just saying that with MS software and OS luck plays a big part in staying uninfected. Or did you run Windows but use non MS software for browser, e-mail, office suite, etc. all these years?

MontaVista swats back at SCO.

Gah feel free to mod the previous version of this comment into oblivion, I hit submit accidentally.

The numbers you're looking at are marketing numbers first off, and overly generous. Second you don't scale for free - you never get anything like 100 times the performance of a single box when you wire 100 together, for the same reason that you don't get twice the horsepower out of an engine twice the size.

The previous price/performance champ was in fact a PS/2 cluster, mentioned here, but this AMD cluster is roughly three times the performance for the dollar. You can check the stats with different assumptions on their FAQ page, particularly the section labeled 'Is KASY0 really the first supercomputer under $100/GFLOPS?'

The article does address this if you read it.

"...An even cuter comparison is with this, a $50,000+ system built using 70 PlayStation2 units. Not only does KASY0 have a vastly superior network and significantly higher floating point performance per node (8 GFLOPS vs. 6.5 GFLOPS for the PS2), but we get LOTS more nodes!..."

Dell agrees to pay, subject to the Court's approval, and not to oppose any application for or award by the Court to Class Counsel of attorneys' fees, together with costs and expenses up to $1,750,000 (One Million Seven Hundred and Fifty Thousand Dollars) ("Attorneys' Fees and Expenses"). The Parties agree that no award greater than that amount shall be requested or made. This amount is in addition to and separate from all other consideration and remedies paid to and available to the Settlement Class.

There's this idea that Windows has more security vulnerabilities than other OSes. I think the Slashdot crowd belives this primarily due to the fact that every single one is made a big deal of on Slashdot, but Linux (and other operating system) vulnerabilities aren't treated the same way. Why wasn't the Sun cachefs vulnerability posted here? Or the RedHat unzip arbitrary file overwrite vulnerability? Or the RealPlayer vulnerability? And Debian has a buffer overflow that may potentially be exploited remotely (and this is a component of qmail, supposedly the super-safe mailer).

So your "Volvo" isn't as safe as you'd like to think it is. I'm not saying Microsoft hasn't made it's share of security blunders. IIS used to run with full privledges; that's was just a bad idea. And I'm sure you can point out others. But for every Microsoft security nightmare, there are open source security nightmares as well: Bind and SendMail come immeditely to mind.

In contrast, one of the few OSes that can claim to be pretty secure is OpenBSD. That's their goal, and they've features for that goal. And even still they have the occasional vulnerability. And that article, in case you choose not to follow it, is dated August 18th 2003 - 4 days ago! And interestingly enough, it looks like Apple's Mac OS X suffered from the same vulnerability.

I've just found vulnerabilities in just about every major operating system within the past week (err, 8 days). Every vendor patched it, and moved on. Certainly that isn't always ideal, and unfortunately very few people take steps to remove large design problems. For example, buffer overflows just shouldn't exist and there's many languages where they don't. Why does everyone still suffer from them? Because we all suck. Get off your high horse and walk around in the real world for while.

I don't disagree with most of what you say there.

My point was that Seibt was talking about large IT vendors supporting server OS in the arena of OS competition in the corporate server market... and the quote taken out of context from that interview. It seems we now both agree to this.

Now, I don't agree completely with Seibt's opinion, and, it's clear, neither do you. I believe other GNU/Linux distributions have a fair chance of grabbing a share of corporate server market, and getting reasonable support from large IT vendors. You bring a good example of Oracle. In the beginning Oracle only "supported" their software on SuSE, then RedHat (if I am not mistaken). But now, they are more distro-agnostic, and rightly so. If Yahoo can use FreeBSD, then it's only reasonable to think that some large corporation may predominantly use Debian on their servers, for example. Obviously, Seibt thinks otherwise (what does "pull a SCO" have to do with this, anyway?).

As far as distrowatch links, they seem to take the quote out of the context as well, just like the /. story submission. And then they go bragging about Mandrake, Gentoo, and other distributions including desktop installations, and browser statistics, supported by "no reliable" polls by their own admission. In fact the quote from the other ZDNet article that distrowatch references is as follows:

Q: But if they're getting rid of Unix, that would suggest there's room for more Linux distributions. It's all open source. It's all transparent.
A: If you ask them, they will tell you they want to support two distributions.

The question, again, is about replacing Unix in corporate environment, not a Pentium II box in someone's parents' basement. In that sense, and in many others, none of these polls are accurate, make sense, or even relevant to Seibt's specific answer, and taking /. or any other polls to prove such a point is... well... I don't have a comment on that one.

The difference between SCO and other companies that have put their copyrighted material into the GPL is SCO didn't do it.

Heise, a SCO lawyer, claimed that GPL was "pre-empted by federal copyright law", to which Eben Moglen, FSF General Counsel, replied. Heise repeats his argument in the CNET interview.

But in the same CNET interview Heise also says:

[Question:] What if, during the course of discovery or another time, you find that the code was originally under the GPL?

[Heise:] Using that hypothetical, if Caldera (International) put something into the GPL, with copyright attribution, the whole nine yards, they can't make the claim about what that thing is that they put in there. - -

So - according to Heise - GPL is valid after all!

The only way to make any sense of this is that Heise's real argument - at least today - is that "GPL is pre-empted by federal copyright law" if something is released under GPL without right owners consent... This is of course trivial: if you release someone else's program under GPL without her permission then the GPL is obviously not valid (in that particular instance). But if you release your own or somebody else's code with her permission under GPL then GPL is valid and enforceable.

I'm going to get modded to hell and back with this.

That "barely coherent interview" was anything but.
I'm tired of this hear-no-evil see-no-evil attitude, especially from the editors here.

For those of you who could care less about the article and want your daily SCO bashing, here's the thing:
It was a pretty good angle that the lawyer was making, and the interviewer was asking tough questions, the same ones
we all have. The main thrust is that he's betting on the fact that Copyright law trumps whatever provisions are in the
GPL, so IBM's GPL defense doesn't hold water; and also that just because Caldera released kernel source under that license does
not mean that the whole codebase (not just what was republished) should also be GPL'd.

These are important things to think about, and you have to worry about how they can muddle a jury, and whether IBM (Linux users)
have a clear defense against these new angles.

Of course, he hasn't addressed (and the interviewer didn't mention) that a lot of that code in question seems to derive from earlier
public domain sources.

He also tries to put some spin on the case later, but I think we all expected that, especially the parallels to Napster.
Whatever. The interviewer was still concerned about SCO's litigous stance, which is a good sign that McBride's "silent majority"
are just a figment of his imagination (otherwise the interviewer could have tried to address these thoughts for the readership).
The funny part is towards the end, the lawyer defends that by saying the RIAA is worse, and that maybe they need to change,
as he makes SCO out to be, like innovative.
(SCO doesn't want to sue you, they just want your money, like settling without serving you papers). ^_^

Please people, read the articles and THINK before you open your mouth. Things are not as rosy as they seem, and we should be prepared for a rough time,
which we can all laugh about later. Now is not the time to be smart-assed or smug, because we could eat our words if we are not careful.

Are you listening to me slashdot? Editors? Bruuuuce? Back me up here...

It is really amusing how Sun goes on to spread FUD about Linux in enterprise in light of the SCO lawsuit, yet they go on to employ Linux related solutions whenever it cuts the operating costs and overhead. Mad Hatter is a good example of this. Sun is stabbing Linux in a back when releasing press releases by pushing their queer Solaris/Unix in news reports how Linux might be dangerious in terms of IP infringment, yet you see them deploy Gnome and praise it for own gain.

and lets not forget, Linux is Unix, by Sun.

Or is it? Search this article for "Oracle."

plus maybe 30 automated msgs saying _I'd_ sent out such nastiness/bloat.

Yeah, I've seen this too. And I *know* I'm not infected. I'm trying to figure out if the worm is making emails it sends look like bounced messages, or if it is spoofing my email address. Actually, I'd like to see some better research (or reporting) done on this. Initial reports I read made it sound like it would only spoof 'well-known' domain names such as ibm.com or microsoft.com. I have seen it coming from friends of mine (who may or may not have been infected), as well as places like halliburton.com. I've seen the 'Wicked Screensaver' variation more than anything else.

This morning I heard a report on NPR about the Air Canada reservation system being brought down by the Nachi (MSBlast varient) worm. NPR's web site only has audio links, but there's an article at News.com about it. After all of the fuss over this vulnerability, how could a major corporation still have unpatched machines on its network? Why aren't they blocking port 135? I can see how there would still be PCs on broadband links propagating the worms, but corporate IT deptartments should have dealt with this weeks ago.

BTW, I live 35 miles downwind from Davis-Besse. Gives me a warm fuzzy feeling...

You can't break a rule that is no longer valid. Complain to the FCC.

There's a clear trend of online communites, especially MMORPGs, beginning to mimick regular society more and more closely. I see missionary work in virtual communities as a natural progression of this.

Hands up who is surprised. It's standard business practice for MS.

Hands up who is surprised. It's standard business practice for MS.

1. Someone develops a valuable application of an open standard
2. Make a poor copy the functionality and bundle it
3. Gain wide acceptance
4. Bastardise the standard
5. Lock out competition
6. Discover security flaws introduced by poor implementation
7. Discontinue free/standalone version
8. Issue fix in upgraded version of Windows

Gates calls on FCC to examine AIM (ZDnet)18 Dec 2000 - Microsoft chairman Bill Gates telephoned the chairman of the Federal Communications Commission last week to urge a close examination of America Online's dominance in instant messaging, a Microsoft representative confirmed.

Leading Technology and Instant Messaging Companies Form IMUnified (The Devil Himself) - One of the things that makes this coalition so exciting is the opportunity to work together and learn from each other so that we can create a system that is even more private and more secure than what is available today, said Yusuf Mehdi, vice president of MSN at Microsoft Corp.

AT this stage, I think we are only at stage 6 of the product lifecycle. Although the IETF announced Extensible Messaging and Presence Protocol (XMPP) almost a year ago, IBM and Microsoft have promoted a separate standard known as SIMPLE (SIP for Instant Messaging and Presence Leveraging Extensions). As IM becomes more important in the corporate sector the issue really starts to revolve around this proposed standard and the conditions under which it will be available or licenced.

Remember back in 1999? It was MSN who was complaining that AOL wouldn't play nicely with them. Now MS throws their IM-bot in with windows, and makes it frustrating to remove if installing Outlook, and then closes the door.

But don't think AOL is now held irresponsible in this battle. A few months ago, AOL asked the FCC if it could break the rules. It seems yesterday, AOL announced it would go ahead and break the rules.

It sounds like there needs to be a group "time-out". Everybody goes to their corner and sits for 5 minutes.

Remember back in 1999? It was MSN who was complaining that AOL wouldn't play nicely with them. Now MS throws their IM-bot in with windows, and makes it frustrating to remove if installing Outlook, and then closes the door.

But don't think AOL is now held irresponsible in this battle. A few months ago, AOL asked the FCC if it could break the rules. It seems yesterday, AOL announced it would go ahead and break the rules.

It sounds like there needs to be a group "time-out". Everybody goes to their corner and sits for 5 minutes.

With facts of course.

Rockin' on without Microsoft

" You see, I'm not in this just to get free software. No. 1, I don't think there's any such thing as free software. I think there's a cost in implementing all of it. How much of a cost depends on whom you talk to. Microsoft and some analysts will tell you about all the support calls and service problems. That's hysterical. Have they worked in my office? I can find out how many calls my guys have made to Red Hat, but I'm pretty sure the answer is none or close to it...It just doesn't crash as much as Windows. And I don't have to buy new computers every time they come out with a new release and abandon the old one."

This SOC FUD/ cum Extortion is just an extention of the trade markded Microsoft varitey

(Just kidding, Theo.)

I mean, it would take 3 seconds to check the validity of this! I can't believe crap like this gets through, and stories that are actually worth reading are rejected over and over again. I know its horribly off topic, but I only wish everyone would make their PHB's read the link.

It's easy to remove adware. Ever heard of ad-aware? So who really cares if they bundle ad-ware with it as long as you can just as easily remove said ad-ware? Stop whining and get over it already.

According to this article on ZDNet News, SCO pointed out some of the allegedly copied code in Linux in a presentation at SCO forum.

I think when you start getting quotes like "The DNA of Linux is coming from Unix.", it starts sounding more and more like a bad soap opera or worse "Voyager".

Summarizing yesterday's events that put SCO's demands of payments into perspective (for references read analysis by Bruce Perens):

On Monday at their trade show in Las Vegas, SCO showed code that they claimed was copied illegally into Linux. Many who saw the slides in Vegas were convinced of SCO's case.

However, probably unknown to and unauthorized by SCO, the German publisher Heise obtained photographs of two slides in SCO's presentation and published them yesterday.

It turned out that the code SCO showed in Vegas originated from 1973. The code has appeared in programming text books already in 70s and it has been released under BSD license several times by many parties, including SCO (then Caldera) itself last year. The code SCO showed, allegedly violating their rights, was therefore in Linux legally.

If this really was a sample of their "best evidence" then SCO and their executives are in deep trouble - considering all unsubstantiated allegations they have made, legal threats, demands of payments and stock pumping and insiders dumping.

specific to airport delays, with pictures and one here