Slashdot Mirror

Second: profile, profile, profile

Third: well, almost anybody that has used a J2SDK (or JRE) on Solaris knows about its problems. Try to run Volano's benchmark to know more about this. But like any banchmark, please don't believe your software will perform the same way the benchmark does. It is just an indicative.

There is a memo about this problem, supposedly from Sun. If the problem realy exists (I know it does, but you should find it by yourself), you'll know your Solaris servers will not deliver as much transactions as other power processing equivalent servers.

If your concearns are all about costs, you should make tests with x86 solutions. Some big players like IBM and HP will let you make some tests on a test machine (specially if your transition is successful and you let them put your case in an add ;-)

Penguin Moves to Disney

Disney, along with two other motion picture animation studios ... decided to jointly fund the development of a Windows-to- Linux porting solution ... using the Wine emulator to run Adobe Photoshop on Linux.

Privacy issues have surfaced because any reader can read the numbers on any tag. This means a reader in a department store, for example, could not only see what items a shopper has in her cart but could also see what other items she has purchased at competing stores, as well as how much money is in her wallet and what credit cards she's carrying.
The technology that RSA Labs is proposing would make it simple for corporations and consumers to decide which tags could be read by which readers and when. The solution uses what's known as a blocker tag to simulate all possible tag serial numbers. In doing so, it prevents the reader from discovering whether a specific tag is present.

Found this at security focus. "Dave Aucsmith, Microsoft's Security Business Unit CTO said back on April 18, 2003 if Windows 2003 was as vulnerable as previous versions of Windows, it meant that the company's security improvements approach "was wrong." Well, guess what, Microsoft was wrong. Dead wrong in the case of network administrators who've seen Server 2003 go down from one security exploit after another." - Eweek

A fresh if not frustrating view into the SCO Vs. IBM case
Ransom love interview
http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,4149,1300359,00.as p

As always, Groklaw has some excellent commentary on this, including a link to a fascinating Interview iwith Ransom Love inteview about the whole SCO fiasco.

eWeek has an interview with Ransome Love, the former CEO of Caldera/SCO where he comments on SCO's current lawsuit and what Caldera's intentions were when they purchased the Unix source from the original SCO.

Some interesting bits of information are that Caldera originally wanted to open source the Unix code they had purchased and that Ransom Love sold all of his shares in SCO when they announced the lawsuit with IBM.

Here's a nice quote from Love: "I don't believe that the suit is good for the company or Linux."

The difference is that Sun did not admit to paying SCO money until the deals started coming out in SCO's 10-Q filings. Sun didn't step up and say "why, yes, we bought some drivers, no big deal". Sun acted as if they had finished their business with SCO a long time ago.

See, for instance:

McNealy weighs in on Linux, Unix, Sun

I don't know what I would buy there [SCO]. Why buy what you already own? I thought I already paid for that sucker.

That's Scott McNealy failing to see your distinction between a Unix source license and a license for new drivers. That's Scott McNealy hiding the SCO relationship until he's forced to admit it.

Project UDI? Come on. They haven't updated their reference implementation since September 2001. You think Sun paid $7.5 million (and counting) for that crap? You think you can convince anyone else that Sun paid $7.5 million for that crap?

Speaking of going down the tubes, Red Hat has increasing revenues and is profitable; Sun has declining revenues and isn't profitable. That's gotta hurt. :)

Linux is eating away at Sun's market from below. Sun is going the way of Cray, where fewer and fewer and customers need the high-end machines which Sun has and Linux doesn't. It's not just the end of the dot-com bubble. It's the permanent shrinkage of Sun's core market.

Sun's customers know this. Sun knows this. That's why Sun supports SCO, and that's why SUN is taking the reputational hit for supporting SCO.

Why would anyone want to use that OS when the company's own people admit it's so flawed?

FYI: for what its worth Sun is not indemnifying all of their customers, only the ones who run their linux desktop. they will not be covering server side linux users.

information obtained from: here

Has Eric Raymond found incriminating similarities between Linux and the System V r4 source trees???

1) August 20th: In his "Smoking Gun Fizzles", Raymond agressively attacks SCO's claims. He even reveals that he has access to proprietary System V R4 sources.

2) Sept 3rd: Eric Raymond publishes "Comparator", a program for the comparison of things like large source trees, with the obvious intention of using it in the context of the SCO case. Eric says "I am grinning a grin that should frighten the thieves and liars at SCO out of a week's sleep." (see eweek)

3) Sept 9th - Eric writes his response to Darl McBride's Open Letter. He defends himself against Darl's personal attacks and misrepresentations. However, it is notable that he makes no claims that he believes SCO has no evidence, and he ends with:

"We will swiftly meet our responsibilities under law, either removing the allegedly infringing code or establishing that it entered Linux by routes which foreclose proprietary claims."

His comments today refer very strictly to the indemnity issue.

Surely Raymond has run comparator on the System V R4 source tree. What are the results? In his Smoking Gun Fizzles piece he had no hesitation to release a diff of Linux and his SVr4 sources, flouting it in the face of SCO lawyers. Yet now he is unwilling to compile an analysis of his Comparator results??

Does Eric Raymond's gaurded comments since releasing Comparator indicate that the results were not favorable????

braddock gaskill

Interesting that it supports Win98SE, since Microsoft itself doesn't support that OS anymore.

> We do not believe that Linux plays a role on the server. Period.

That's totally out of touch with what the analysts are saying. Here is one of many examples:

"The [Forrester] report says that three powerful forces will cause Linux to tip in 2003 and sweep new Unix installs out of the datacenter on all but the data tier by 2007. These forces are Unix reliability at Intel prices, falling technology barriers, and commercial support from high-tech giants. "Proprietary Unix on RISC will all but disappear by 2007," the report predicts."

Source

For the year, IBM calculated Linux sales of $1 billion, inducing HP's Carly Fiorina to make a more extravagant claim of $2 billion in Linux revenue at HP.

Quote: "Also, let me really clear about our Linux strategy. We don't have one. We don't at all. We do not believe that Linux plays a role on the server. Period. If you want to buy it, we will sell it to you, but we believe that Solaris is a better alternative, that is safer, more robust, higher quality and dramatically less expensive in purchase price."

Sun: "We Don't Believe Linux Plays a Role on the Server"

So, let me put it this way: FUCK SUN and their Java Desktop!

Fuck Sun.

They suck.

• "Also, let me really clear about our Linux strategy. We don't have one. We don't at all. We do not believe that Linux plays a role on the server. Period. If you want to buy it, we will sell it to you, but we believe that Solaris is a better alternative, that is safer, more robust, higher quality and dramatically less expensive in purchase price."
• "If you use Linux on the server, even if we sold the distribution to you, you are on your own. If you buy our Java desktop solution you are completely indemnified as long as you run it as a desktop solution. And by the way, don't take our desktop product and put it on the server. We are indemnifying them for our products. If we incorporate someone else's component we will make sure that we can indemnify it. I have licenses to all those issues that SCO is suing IBM for. If I didn't have them, I certainly wouldn't indemnify them."
• "eWEEK: So, does the uncertainty around Linux benefit Sun and Solaris?
  Schwartz: We have an interesting migration opportunity now because we can go back with Unix that is familiar, we can deliver the Java Enterprise System pricing at $100 per employee, which allows them to run Solaris at infinite scale.

Sun seems to be intent on deriving the benfits of Linux, while trying to see that the reach of Linux does not extend to its Solaris servers. This article at eweek gives more details.

Schwartz: We took a license from AT&T initially for $100 million as we didn't own the IP. The license we took also made clear that we had rights equivalent to ownership. When we did the deal with SCO earlier this year we bou

ght a bunch of drivers and when we give money to a company oftentimes we get warrants, which is part of the negotiations. I have warrants in 100 different companies, we have a huge venture portfolio. I can't do anything about the perception that's out there and to be blunt, I don't care as those people aren't going to drive our future?customers are.

I came to this article after reading what Sun think of Linux in this story. Really puts this marketing bullshit into perspective for me.

From an article:

Also, let me really clear about our Linux strategy. We don't have one. We don't at all. We do not believe that Linux plays a role on the server. Period. If you want to buy it, we will sell it to you, but we believe that Solaris is a better alternative, that is safer, more robust, higher quality and dramatically less expensive in purchase price.

Obviously Sun is not "committed", but all in all, this bodes well for Linux: more desktop apps will be tested and developed specifically on Linux.

However, you can expect Sun to push the Linux solution for a while, utilizing the momentun Linux has (and Solaris doesn't), and as sudden "problems" with Linux appears, the don't really have motivation to fix the problems; rather, they suggest that the customers of their "Java Desktop" switch to Solaris-x86.

Also from the article, regarding the perception that Sun is being unethical in supporting SCO:

I can't do anything about the perception that's out there and to be blunt, I don't care as those people aren't going to drive our future--customers are.

So we don't matter, eh? The Open Source community are not your "customers"? Schwarz misses part of the point, in that techies are their customers, and quite a lot of techies are very Linux-sympathetic these days. Arrogance doesn't help anyone, either.

I dunno, but Schwarz comes out as quite an asshole in that article, and I can't really tell whether I wish Sun a great success with Mad Hatter. It is good for Linux and Open Standards and all, but Sun has the wrong attitude about the whole thing. They would do well to play a "nice guy" for a while (like they do/did with Open Office), it might occasionally pay off.

Before we all start well-wishing Sun too much, recall that they've got blood on their hands as well. Schwartz really elucidates sun's position clearly here.

They might be a microsoft competitor, but they've got no love for the penguin either. Outright hostility, I'd say.

That should be easily fixed someime soon since Sun has chosen Berkeley DB as their DB of choice for use by their apps.

How much exactly did they contribute? AFAIK, RH does not have much more than a dozen full-time people working on GPLed Linux stuff. And this company generates $25m per quarter. This is insignificant.

You don't get it. With OSS individual entities need to expend less effort to get things done because of reuse.

Assuming you are right they employ 12 fulltime developers writing code that's contributed to the pool of publically available software.
That's roughly 1 developer per $8M in yearly revenues.
Let's assume the total yearly revenue is $5B for OSS related businesses/activities (I'm pulling this number out of my ass, but according to this IBM alone raked in a billion last year.) and extrapolate the 1 developer/ $8M in yearly revenues.
That's 625 full-time developers working on Linux/OSS, 625 man years worth of code that is out there for anyone. Standing on the shoulders of giants and all that, although OSS is more like standing on the shoulders of millions of midgets, now that I think about it.

Insignificant indeed...

This bug came from China, and Microsoft has sent the source code to China ..

So, was it perjury or treason? You decide.

Either way it's not a set of ethics that would induce me to resume business with them ... ever.

Your searching sucks.
Supports Windows, Unix, Linux and NetWare; - eWeek

1. Don't pay Microsoft to be aggressive toward you.
2. Use Linux and don't worry about changes in the license agreement as part of a bug fix, after you have paid for the product.
3. No forced upgrades: Microsoft Bars Office 11 From Windows 9X
4. Using Linux and Open Office means never having a software funeral.

Something you seem to have missed is that Linux is open source, making it much easier to find exploitable holes. Imagine how many exploits would be uncovered in Windows if we could read the source code.

In fact, you don't need to imagine it. Microsoft are on the record as stating that it's one of the reasons why they can't possibly reveal Windows source mode widely.

No. SCO must pass along most (I believe) of the money to Novell. They're like a debt-collecting agency, collecting for Novell.

Yes, on each sale 5% goes to SCO and 95% goes to Novell.
Quoting an e-week article here:

Under that agency agreement, SCO collects all customer payments and remits 95 percent of the collected funds to Novell and retains 5 percent as an administrative fee. SCO records the 5 percent administrative fee as revenue in its consolidated statements of operations.

If they really had a case, Eric Raymond wouldn't be "grinning a grin that should frighten the thieves and liars at SCO out of a week's sleep." See this

Supposedly should be out by now.

Use this link to the article instead:
Database Server Clash Revisited
http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,4149,1238712,00.as p

• CLUSTERING IN TUNE WITH APACHE AND MYSQL (Free registration might be required. Also see Emic Application Cluster for MySQL
• InnoDB Hot Backup (with point in time backup)

MySQL/InnoDB-4.0.1 and Oracle 9i win the database server benchmark of PC Magazine and eWEEK. February 27, 2002 - In the benchmark eWEEK measured the performance of an e-commerce application on leading commercial databases IBM DB2, Oracle, MS SQL Server, Sybase ASE, and MySQL/InnoDB. The application server in the test was BEA WebLogic. The operating system was Windows 2000 Advanced Server running on a 4-way Hewlett-Packard Xeon server with 2 GB RAM and 24 Ultra3 SCSI hard drives.

eWEEK writes: "Of the five databases we tested, only Oracle9i and MySQL were able to run our Nile application as originally written for 8 hours without problems."

The whole story. The throughput chart.

• CLUSTERING IN TUNE WITH APACHE AND MYSQL (Free registration might be required. Also see Emic Application Cluster for MySQL
• InnoDB Hot Backup (with point in time backup)

MySQL/InnoDB-4.0.1 and Oracle 9i win the database server benchmark of PC Magazine and eWEEK. February 27, 2002 - In the benchmark eWEEK measured the performance of an e-commerce application on leading commercial databases IBM DB2, Oracle, MS SQL Server, Sybase ASE, and MySQL/InnoDB. The application server in the test was BEA WebLogic. The operating system was Windows 2000 Advanced Server running on a 4-way Hewlett-Packard Xeon server with 2 GB RAM and 24 Ultra3 SCSI hard drives.

eWEEK writes: "Of the five databases we tested, only Oracle9i and MySQL were able to run our Nile application as originally written for 8 hours without problems."

The whole story. The throughput chart.

My latest column deals with this too. I got a lot of e-mail in response from ISPs talking about how it would be difficult/expensive to implement and that it would violate customer privacy. One said it would be a HIPAA violation. My own ISP (Speakeasy.net) virus-scans all e-mail that goes through their servers; is that a HIPAA violation? A lot of them are also scared of losing customers after offending them by blocking their outbound port 25 access, but does an ISP really want business from someone infected with Sobig?

It is true that since Sobig uses its own SMTP server the ISP would have to do the monitoring via a port 25 monitor. I'm not completely sure how difficult/expensive this would be to implement on a large scale, but there's an opportunity for someone who comes up with a cheap solution. I suppose it could be part of a general IDS, but it needs to be something price-accessible to an ISP.

Larry Seltzer
Security Editor, eWEEK.com
http://security.eweek.com/

Check out this article on eWeek about an interesting utility that Eric Raymond, the president of the Open Source Initiative, recently developed. It uses a method similar to DNA sequencing to analyze the history of a collection of source code trees. Mr. Raymond is quoted in the article as saying "I am grinning a grin that should frighten the thieves and liars at SCO out of a week's sleep."

Something I came across that may be of interest in this discussion. I considered submitting a story on this, but rather than risk it getting rejected, I'll just mention it here.

ESR may have something up his sleeve. Check out this article on eWeek. ESR has apparantly come up with some program that can compare source trees at a phenominal rate. He's keeping mum on what he exactly intends to do with it, but he's wearing a mighty big grin.

Will Linux Luminary 'Shred' SCO's Unix Claims?

Linux is free, marigins on cellphones are low. MS licensing ..... you want this rope where?

The next version of Windows NT, code-named Cairo and targeted for release sometime in 1995, will be built around the concepts of objects and component software. It will have a native OFS (Object File System) and distributed system support.

1995 Signs to Cairo

Cairo, Microsoft's object-oriented successor to Windows NT, will begin beta testing in early 1996 for release in 1997. Although Microsoft is not revealing the full details of Cairo yet, there are enough clues within current Microsoft OSes to yield a good idea of how it might work.

1996 Unearthing Cairo

At the first NT developers conference in 1992, Bill Gates announced that Cairo would arrive in three years and would incorporate object-oriented technologies, especially an object file system. Since then, we've seen Windows NT 3.1, NT 3.5, NT 3.51, and most recently NT 4.0. None is object oriented, none has an object file system, none is Cairo. It seems that Cairo is Microsoft's sly way of promising the world. "Will we see Plug and Play in NT?" "Oh yes, of course, in Cairo." "Will NT ever produce world peace and cheap antigravity?" "You bet -- in Cairo."

September 1, 2003 Eweek 'Longhorn' Rollout Slips

Microsoft Corp. has once again shifted the schedule for the release of "Longhorn," the company's next major version of Windows, leaving some users up in the air about an upgrade path.

Microsoft executives from Chairman and Chief Software Architect Bill Gates on down have long described Longhorn as the Redmond, Wash., company's most revolutionary operating system to date. The product was originally expected to ship next year. Then in May of this year, officials pushed back the release date to 2005. But now executives are declining to say when they expect the software to ship.

"We do not yet know the time frame for Longhorn, but it will involve a lot of innovative and exciting work," said Gates at a company financial analyst meeting this summer. Since then, other Microsoft officials have neither retracted nor clarified Gates' statement.

Loss of Control and Backdoors

Read Microsoft Aims for Protection--From Users

What Microsoft people really mean when they talk about security is security for Microsoft from you. NGSCB's main purpose is to make sure users such as yourself aren't pirating Microsoft's or partners' software or any other copyrighted content--even if that means taking over your system remotely and removing or disabling the offending untrusted software. ...

... It boils down to this: In a traditional security scenario, you as a user have control over your system to protect it from outside attackers who are enemies of your system. With Microsoft's vision of the trusted operating system, some system control is handed over to vendors and copyright holders who see you, the system's owner, as the enemy.

NGSCB + RIAA = NSA + KGB + CIA. ( R -> K )

From the Transcript of Internet Caucus Panel Discussion. Re: Administration's new encryption policy. Rep. Curt Weldon's statement

But the point is that when John Hamre briefed me, and gave me the three key points of this change, there are a lot of unanswered questions. He assured me that in discussions that he had had with people like Bill Gates and Gerstner from IBM that there would be, kind of a, I don't know whether it's a, unstated ability to get access to systems if we needed it. Now, I want to know if that is part of the policy, or is that just something that we are being assured of, that needs to be spoke. Because, if there is some kind of a tacit understanding, I would like to know what it is.

Read all of Curt Weldon's statement.Consider that as of 26 August 2003:, There are currently 22 unpatched vulnerabilities in Microsoft's Internet Explorer - many of the serous vulnerabilities Microsoft has not provide a fix to patch the hole in years!

Attestation Monopoly

Microsoft's NGSCB model for DRM content management grants Microsoft effective root digital certificate control over both software and content. It would be a monopoly even stronger than Microsoft's existing desktop dominance. Just as with Microsoft's proprietary file formats and protocols, the network effect would result in any non-dominate player or vendor facing too great a barrier to provide effective monopoly negating free-market competition.

Loss of Fair Use Rights and doctrine of First Sale

Microsoft's NGSCB DRM model also grants content providers far too much restrictive power. For example, in the USA and in most of the world, you are legally allowed to tape broadcast content for later replay ( timeshifting ), gathering evidence for making a complaint, or legitmate research. The DRM model can be used by content providers to circumvent these legal rights. Also if Microsoft or the Codec developer drops support for a format or even a particular digital key, all that content "protected" by that methord or key becomes unreadable.

The DRM model circumvents the Doctrine of First Sale, by side shifting content from being "goods" into a so-called service. When I purchase a DVD, I own that particular physical instance of that DVD and the right to view the content on it. I expect to be able to play that DVD in any DVD player I choose to, including the DVD drive in my Linux system. Also when I have finished viewing that DVD, I expect to be able to pass or even resell that DVD to any party I choose. I might even give that DVD to my local library, and I am legally entitled to do so. As DMCA protected CSS DVDs already limits what you can do with a DVD, Microsoft's plans f

Therefor, we have three options I see.

First - we opt to double die size...

Second - we use optical based chipsets...

Third - we opt for more efficient systems, Hyperthreading is a good example of this...

This kind of thinking is deeply (but poorly) rooted in the details of Moore's Law. Moore made an observation about specific manufacturing processes of the kind mentioned here. (Except Moore had a better understanding of the technical details - for example "doubling die size" would quadruple the functional area... ALSO quadrupling the likliehood that there will be a flaw in the functional area.)

However, if you want to talk about the sort of "the future will kick ass" utopianism that people frequently associate with Moore's law then you should probably change the name to Kurzweil's Law and generalize the thinking from a specific industrial process to a trend in technology in general. Ray Kurzweil's claim is that good technology, begets better technology, begets better technology... etc. Moore's claim is expected to give out when silicon lithography gives out while Kurzweil's claim gives out when we have the best tools it is possible to have given the laws of physics.

Consider (from http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,3959,9928,00.asp):

"Moore's Law was not the first but the fifth paradigm to provide exponential growth to computing," said Kurzweil, in Cambridge, Mass., who has calculated the rise in computing power since 1900 for his forthcoming book titled "The Singularity Is Near." The first four paradigms, he said, were electromagnetic, punch-card-based calculators used in the 1890 census; relay-based computers, most notably Alan Turing's machine for cracking the Nazi Enigma code; vacuum-tube computers commercialized in the early 1950s; and discrete transistor-based machines such as the computers used in the first NASA launches.

The resulting curve, Kurzweil said, suggests an exponential continuum along which Moore's Law accounts for a relatively small stretch of intellectual real estate. This larger continuum, which is coming to be known in some futurist circles as Kurzweil's Law of Accelerating Intelligence, or simply Kurzweil's Law, foresees faster growth in computational power over the next several decades than Moore's Law predicts.

"The next paradigm, the sixth, will be three-dimensional molecular computing," Kurzweil said. "In the past year, there have been major strides, for example, in creating three-dimensional carbon nanotube-based electronic circuits."

eweek articles

The exploit was known and used in the black hat community for nearly half a year before it was patched. It was such an easy one to exploit, too... Oh well. There are plenty more where that came from, and it's often months to a year before the white hats learn of and report them like good little lapdogs.

>> Hit them in the pocketbook, as that is all they understand.

What is with SCO's last really big costumer McDonalds?

Write your McDonalds representative to change their systems to Linux. :-)

The fallout of such a step from McDonalds should go through every business paper
in the world and should be something the guys from IBM may know how to handle.

Than let's have a look on the SCOX again.

--
'They are smoking crack.' --Linus Torvalds about SCO

To our knowledge, this is the first time a computer publication has published database benchmark results tested on the same hardware since PC Magazine did so in October 1993.

Two other MySQL products I found interesting (neither of which is open source at this time):

• CLUSTERING IN TUNE WITH APACHE AND MYSQL (Free registration might be required. Also see Emic Application Cluster for MySQL)
• InnoDB Hot Backup (with point in time backup)

MySQL/InnoDB-4.0.1 and Oracle 9i win the database server benchmark of PC Magazine and eWEEK. February 27, 2002 - In the benchmark eWEEK measured the performance of an e-commerce application on leading commercial databases IBM DB2, Oracle, MS SQL Server, Sybase ASE, and MySQL/InnoDB. The application server in the test was BEA WebLogic. The operating system was Windows 2000 Advanced Server running on a 4-way Hewlett-Packard Xeon server with 2 GB RAM and 24 Ultra3 SCSI hard drives.

eWEEK writes: "Of the five databases we tested, only Oracle9i and MySQL were able to run our Nile application as originally written for 8 hours without problems."

The whole story. The throughput chart.

To our knowledge, this is the first time a computer publication has published database benchmark results tested on the same hardware since PC Magazine did so in October 1993.

Two other MySQL products I found interesting (neither of which is open source at this time):

• CLUSTERING IN TUNE WITH APACHE AND MYSQL (Free registration might be required. Also see Emic Application Cluster for MySQL)
• InnoDB Hot Backup (with point in time backup)

MySQL/InnoDB-4.0.1 and Oracle 9i win the database server benchmark of PC Magazine and eWEEK. February 27, 2002 - In the benchmark eWEEK measured the performance of an e-commerce application on leading commercial databases IBM DB2, Oracle, MS SQL Server, Sybase ASE, and MySQL/InnoDB. The application server in the test was BEA WebLogic. The operating system was Windows 2000 Advanced Server running on a 4-way Hewlett-Packard Xeon server with 2 GB RAM and 24 Ultra3 SCSI hard drives.

eWEEK writes: "Of the five databases we tested, only Oracle9i and MySQL were able to run our Nile application as originally written for 8 hours without problems."

The whole story. The throughput chart.

According to an article in the Sydney Morning Herald "The SCO Group said today it had never planned to sue any Linux companies, had no concrete plans to sue anyone and also no current plans to take a commercial Linux customer to court."

At GROKLAW there is speculation that this is the start of an attempted defense to the Red Hat suit.

It's certainly an odd move, as only days ago, SCO said "We are in the process of contacting them about coming into compliance and taking a UnixWare license from us. If they refuse to do so, we will sue them directly and see them in court", and apparently claimed to have three groups working on identifying and approaching Linux users, plus were preparing to take a Linux user to court.

As this really does seem like the beginning of an attempted defense to Red Hat's law suit. It would seem like a good idea for the community to collect as many examples of SCO's legal threats as possible - especially to Linux companies and Red Hat in particular - and post them - as well as make Red Hat aware of SCO's latest PR spin, and all the contradictory evidence in their prior actions.

I didn't get the blaster worm, but I did get the Nachi worm, which installs the security patch that would have kept it (and blaster) out. Of course, I uninstalled it.

..and in case you think we're kidding, I present evidence:

Is Linus right that SCO is "smoking crack"?

Looks like the court of public opinion is speaking loud and clear.

Soko

I find this quote from the "barely coherent" interview:

If this case were just about 80 lines of code--first of all, there wouldn't be a lawsuit--people could sit down and try to fix it.

Compare with This article:

SCO, of Lindon, Utah, has found 80 lines of contributed code in the Linux kernel that it said directly infringe the System V copyright.