Slashdot Mirror

I'm a big Galeon fan, have been since early days, but am currently running 1.2.5, so I haven't seen the 1.3 problems. I also keep a fairly popular Nix Browser Reviews page.

I'm not much of a GNOME fan, and note the extensive GNOME deps as a misfeature of Galeon -- recently rediscovered as it turns out that some user.js prefs are ignored and need to be set through gconf instead (user-agent). Though I can see some benefits in principle, the results of GNOME in terms of the actual desktop are not to my personal liking. Fortunately, this doesn't get in the way of running WindowMaker instead.

There's a lot of assumed knowledge about the 1.3 issues in the interview. Could someone point to where this has been discussed?

Pitching my own $0.02: I've got lightweight browsers. I'm not looking for that in the niche Galeon currently fills. I'm also not looking for the fscking kitchen sink (browser, mail, news, composer...). A browser, but a solid browser, with user-friendly preferences, giving solid user control over presentation, privacy, security, with stability and decent performance. But wait, I already covered that rant....

If Galeon's seriously fscked up (and its slavish devotion to GNOME has always been more a detraction than a benefit), I'll be happy to move on. Pity losing a few years of accomodation, configuration, and utility.

Strongly recommend the core team listen to its users.

Read about The Trillian project and Ransom Love's LW 2000 Keynote speech.

It's well understood that the SCO FUD machine is trying to reach as much publicity as it possibly can. This is why it is important to let the other side of the force to get some publicity as well. One way is to make links to sites that deal with the SCO FUD from Linux users' viewpoint in order to get better rank in search engines. One of the best sites is at sco.iwethey.org.

Please consider linking.

My-my-my-my (U can't touch us)
SCO tries to bill me so hard
Makes me say, "Oh my Lord, thank you for blessing me
With a mind to think about the O from SC"
It feels good
When you know you're right
A superdope winner in a court fight
And SCO knows as much
And they'd just get beat-uh!
U can't touch us

I told you homeboys
U can't touch us
Yeah, that's how we livin' and you know
U can't touch us
Look in the GPL, man
U can't touch us
Yo, let me bust the funky code
U can't touch us

Stop! RICO time!

(With some apologies to MC Hammer, but mostly to the people who read this.)

The SCO group, and both Old SCO and Caldera before it, directly acknowledged and assisted IBM with the scalablity of Linux

In August 2000, just days after Caldera purchased the Old SCO server division, the then CEO of Caldera, Ransom Love, made a keynote speech at LinuxWorld 2000. A RealPlayer video stream of the event can be found at DrDobbs Journal's Technetcast

In the question and answer session at the end of the keynote, Love was asked about the possible conflict over Monterey and Linux IA-64

A mp3 capture of the following transcribed portion

Q: What happens about Project Monterey, because that conflicts with the AI-64 Linux, 64-bit Linux?

Love: OK. I don't -- if we do our job right in making Linux scale over like UnixWare to the degree that everybody, that we know we can... May I ask, some people have said, "Well, people have tried this in the past, but they haven't been that successful," may I suggest: we don't have any ulterior motives for not making it successful. Technologically has not been the reason why it hasn't done it before. There's always some other motive, right? And so to talk about Monterey, clearly we want to make sure we have the same level of Linux integration on Monterey that we would have in our Unixware product. Now, we don't control, I mean, we have a great relationship... it's a joint development relationship with IBM which we intend to preserve ... but they have similar interests and so this is really a very synergistic, uh, this transaction is great for all of the major partners as they have already wanted to embrace Linux moving forward.

Now, let me address one other aspect of your question, which is that the Monterey Project is in conflict with the IA-64 Linux Project. I don't believe it's in conflict at all. Now, clearly, we have tremendous vested interest in the IA-64 Linux Project and with the acquisition of SCO, they've been doing a lot, so you combine those, and we've got one of the more comprehensive offerings, I believe, on the IA-64 Linux. So that's clearly an area that we're very committed to. But like Unixware, there's elements of the Monterey kernel that are more scalable, OK? Now, on the IA-64 platform, I don't know how long of window that is, but today, it's a little bit more robust and more scalable than the IA-64 Linux is today. Now, I'm not saying that over time that won't change.

But, and let me address one other thing. Sorry, (laughs) you're getting all of it through one question. But clearly we are going to add components back to the Linux kernel on both IA-32 and IA-64 platforms. We'll work with Linus and everyone in order to make that available. That will take some time. And as I mentioned earlier, I don't know that over time you can have a single kernel -- in fact I know you can't -- that will scale, you know, the breadth of IT technology needs. So I think we're looking, in the Linux community, at having multiple kernels, so...

Q: Multiple Linux kernels? Or multiple UNIX kernels?

Love: Multiple Linux kernels as well, over time.

Q: Thank you.

Love: You bet.

It's about time to reexamine the recent claims of The SCO group and call in the lawyers and maybe the authorities

The SCO group, and both Old SCO and Caldera before it, directly acknowledged and assisted IBM with the scalablity of Linux

In August 2000, just days after Caldera purchased the Old SCO server division, the then CEO of Caldera, Ransom Love, made a keynote speech at LinuxWorld 2000. A RealPlayer video stream of the event can be found at DrDobbs Journal's Technetcast

In the question and answer session at the end of the keynote, Love was asked about the possible conflict over Monterey and Linux IA-64

A mp3 capture of the following transcribed portion

Q: What happens about Project Monterey, because that conflicts with the AI-64 Linux, 64-bit Linux?

Love: OK. I don't -- if we do our job right in making Linux scale over like UnixWare to the degree that everybody, that we know we can... May I ask, some people have said, "Well, people have tried this in the past, but they haven't been that successful," may I suggest: we don't have any ulterior motives for not making it successful. Technologically has not been the reason why it hasn't done it before. There's always some other motive, right? And so to talk about Monterey, clearly we want to make sure we have the same level of Linux integration on Monterey that we would have in our Unixware product. Now, we don't control, I mean, we have a great relationship... it's a joint development relationship with IBM which we intend to preserve ... but they have similar interests and so this is really a very synergistic, uh, this transaction is great for all of the major partners as they have already wanted to embrace Linux moving forward.

Now, let me address one other aspect of your question, which is that the Monterey Project is in conflict with the IA-64 Linux Project. I don't believe it's in conflict at all. Now, clearly, we have tremendous vested interest in the IA-64 Linux Project and with the acquisition of SCO, they've been doing a lot, so you combine those, and we've got one of the more comprehensive offerings, I believe, on the IA-64 Linux. So that's clearly an area that we're very committed to. But like Unixware, there's elements of the Monterey kernel that are more scalable, OK? Now, on the IA-64 platform, I don't know how long of window that is, but today, it's a little bit more robust and more scalable than the IA-64 Linux is today. Now, I'm not saying that over time that won't change.

But, and let me address one other thing. Sorry, (laughs) you're getting all of it through one question. But clearly we are going to add components back to the Linux kernel on both IA-32 and IA-64 platforms. We'll work with Linus and everyone in order to make that available. That will take some time. And as I mentioned earlier, I don't know that over time you can have a single kernel -- in fact I know you can't -- that will scale, you know, the breadth of IT technology needs. So I think we're looking, in the Linux community, at having multiple kernels, so...

Q: Multiple Linux kernels? Or multiple UNIX kernels?

Love: Multiple Linux kernels as well, over time.

Q: Thank you.

Love: You bet.

It's about time to reexamine the recent claims of The SCO group and call in the lawyers and maybe the authorities

In August 2000, just days after Caldera purchased the Old SCO server division, the then CEO of Caldera, Ransom Love, made a keynote speech at LinuxWorld 2000. A RealPlayer video stream of the event can be found at DrDobbs Journal's Technetcast

In the question and answer session at the end of the keynote, Love was asked about the possible conflict over Monterey and Linux AI-64

A mp3 capture of the following transcribed portion

Q: What happens about Project Monterey, because that conflicts with the IA-64 Linux, 64-bit Linux?

Love: OK. I don't -- if we do our job right in making Linux scale over like UnixWare to the degree that everybody, that we know we can... May I ask, some people have said, "Well, people have tried this in the past, but they haven't been that successful," may I suggest: we don't have any ulterior motives for not making it successful. Technologically has not been the reason why it hasn't done it before. There's always some other motive, right? And so to talk about Monterey, clearly we want to make sure we have the same level of Linux integration on Monterey that we would have in our Unixware product. Now, we don't control, I mean, we have a great relationship... it's a joint development relationship with IBM which we intend to preserve ... but they have similar interests and so this is really a very synergistic, uh, this transaction is great for all of the major partners as they have already wanted to embrace Linux moving forward.

Now, let me address one other aspect of your question, which is that the Monterey Project is in conflict with the IA-64 Linux Project. I don't believe it's in conflict at all. Now, clearly, we have tremendous vested interest in the IA-64 Linux Project and with the acquisition of SCO, they've been doing a lot, so you combine those, and we've got one of the more comprehensive offerings, I believe, on the IA-64 Linux. So that's clearly an area that we're very committed to. But like Unixware, there's elements of the Monterey kernel that are more scalable, OK? Now, on the IA-64 platform, I don't know how long of window that is, but today, it's a little bit more robust and more scalable than the IA-64 Linux is today. Now, I'm not saying that over time that won't change.

But, and let me address one other thing. Sorry, (laughs) you're getting all of it through one question. But clearly we are going to add components back to the Linux kernel on both IA-32 and IA-64 platforms. We'll work with Linus and everyone in order to make that available. That will take some time. And as I mentioned earlier, I don't know that over time you can have a single kernel -- in fact I know you can't -- that will scale, you know, the breadth of IT technology needs. So I think we're looking, in the Linux community, at having multiple kernels, so...

Q: Multiple Linux kernels? Or multiple UNIX kernels?

Love: Multiple Linux kernels as well, over time.

Q: Thank you.

Love: You bet.

SCO has NO effective case against either IBM, HP or anyone else.

In August 2000, just days after Caldera purchased the Old SCO server division, the then CEO of Caldera, Ransom Love, made a keynote speech at LinuxWorld 2000. A RealPlayer video stream of the event can be found at DrDobbs Journal's Technetcast

In the question and answer session at the end of the keynote, Love was asked about the possible conflict over Monterey and Linux AI-64

A mp3 capture of the following transcribed portion

Q: What happens about Project Monterey, because that conflicts with the IA-64 Linux, 64-bit Linux?

Love: OK. I don't -- if we do our job right in making Linux scale over like UnixWare to the degree that everybody, that we know we can... May I ask, some people have said, "Well, people have tried this in the past, but they haven't been that successful," may I suggest: we don't have any ulterior motives for not making it successful. Technologically has not been the reason why it hasn't done it before. There's always some other motive, right? And so to talk about Monterey, clearly we want to make sure we have the same level of Linux integration on Monterey that we would have in our Unixware product. Now, we don't control, I mean, we have a great relationship... it's a joint development relationship with IBM which we intend to preserve ... but they have similar interests and so this is really a very synergistic, uh, this transaction is great for all of the major partners as they have already wanted to embrace Linux moving forward.

Now, let me address one other aspect of your question, which is that the Monterey Project is in conflict with the IA-64 Linux Project. I don't believe it's in conflict at all. Now, clearly, we have tremendous vested interest in the IA-64 Linux Project and with the acquisition of SCO, they've been doing a lot, so you combine those, and we've got one of the more comprehensive offerings, I believe, on the IA-64 Linux. So that's clearly an area that we're very committed to. But like Unixware, there's elements of the Monterey kernel that are more scalable, OK? Now, on the IA-64 platform, I don't know how long of window that is, but today, it's a little bit more robust and more scalable than the IA-64 Linux is today. Now, I'm not saying that over time that won't change.

But, and let me address one other thing. Sorry, (laughs) you're getting all of it through one question. But clearly we are going to add components back to the Linux kernel on both IA-32 and IA-64 platforms. We'll work with Linus and everyone in order to make that available. That will take some time. And as I mentioned earlier, I don't know that over time you can have a single kernel -- in fact I know you can't -- that will scale, you know, the breadth of IT technology needs. So I think we're looking, in the Linux community, at having multiple kernels, so...

Q: Multiple Linux kernels? Or multiple UNIX kernels?

Love: Multiple Linux kernels as well, over time.

Q: Thank you.

Love: You bet.

SCO has NO effective case against either IBM, HP or anyone else.

I would very much like to see one of these 1500 letters and this very compelling information.

I can't help you with the compelling information, but SCO posted a copy of the letter on their web site for a while. I think they've taken it down since, but you can still see it here.

And WTF's so great about gratuitous animated content?

I've got all that crap disabled -- Java, Javascript, Flash, animated gifs. If I need to use it on a page, I'll selectively enable it. And when in a blue moon I have to use the 95% solution, I'm stunned at what a pile of sh*t MSIE is.

There's some good Flash art out there. Macromedia needs to provide a cross-platform standalone player for it.

Otherwise. Yes, in many ways, commercialization and exploitation of the Web's been a huge waste. The amateur and informational uses have been pretty slick though.

SCO

I've been tracking email spam trends for a while, my personal accounts are going from 3-6 spams daily in 2001 to about 30 spams daily at present. I filter this with SpamAssassin?, so the inbox impact is pretty slight, but the traffic is becoming significant, and the trend (doubling in four months) is downright troubling.

...given that the question comes up periodically, the folks at IWeThey have created a TWiki page on Why Debian Rocks, answering most command (and many uncommon) questions and myths.

...given that the question comes up periodically, the folks at IWeThey have created a TWiki page on Why Debian Rocks, answering most command (and many uncommon) questions and myths.

Dimensions are about the same -- the Mocha's slightly taller, but shorter in depth and width, 2.4 lb. Max RAM is 1GB, and current CPUs run to 2.4 GHz. It's loud unless placed behind other HW. Tons of ports (serial, parallel, 4x USB, firewire, audio in & out, S/video, 2xPS2, PCMCIA).

And it runs Debian GNU/Linux. Well.

Why, you ask? Portable desktop, fewer parts to break than a laptop. Fits in my book bag. $1300 as configured (1.7GHz, 512MB, 20 GB).

Nothing like a userContent.css local stylesheet to override broken preferences imposed by other sites. I see everything at the font point, face, and color of my choosing.

On the web, the reader vetos all display options.

The message of that article is that sometimes unscrupulous people can abuse the court system to make a lot of money when they don't really have a moral case. OK, I knew that. I suppose it's worth being reminded every so often. It's hardly unique to Linux or even IT.

What is that meant to make me do? Sit around being depressed? Withdraw from society to a mountain fortress? Cave in to every troll with a lawyer?

What's with the title, What SCO Wants SCO Gets? Does this Daniel Lyons wanker seriously believe that IBM will just hand over $3,000,000,000 because SCO's management have stood over other companies in the past?


In other words, like many religious folk, the Linux-loving crunchies in the open-source movement are a) convinced of their own righteousness, and b) sure the whole world, including judges, will agree.

My observation (as an atheist, fwiw) is that practically everybody adopts that position ahead of a court case. I don't see IBM wondering out loud whether they might lose, and they know a thing or two about the law.

Anyhow, Linux people have been busy researching SCO and building extensive documentation about the case. I can't think of much more that could usefully be done at this stage. Can you?

This essay describes my visit to SCO on June 17, 2003, to discuss SCO's claim that Linux infringes on its intellectual property rights. I visited the SCO office in Lindon, Utah, for about one hour. I spoke with Chris Sontag, Senior Vice President, Operating Systems Division, and with Blake Stowell, Director of Public Relations. In order to speak with them, I signed a non-disclosure agreement.

The short version of this essay is SCO's claims are unproven, as I expected would be the case before I went. The amount of information SCO was willing to show me was extremely limited, and it did not by itself prove that SCO's claims were true nor that its claims were false.

Background

I won't give the full background here, as it is well covered elsewhere, such as on Karsten Self's page. The short version, as of June 17, 2003, is SCO has sued IBM, alleging that IBM took work that was the intellectual property of SCO and incorporated it into Linux (when I say "Linux" in this essay, I mean specifically the Linux kernel, not a complete distribution). SCO is the current owner of Unix, which originally was developed by AT&T. SCO, which used to be named Caldera, purchased the rights to Unix from a different company named SCO, which has since changed its name to Tarantella. Along with Unix, SCO purchased a number of contractual agreements, including one with IBM. SCO is alleging that IBM has violated that contract.

SCO also sent a letter to some 1,500 commercial users of Linux distributions, warning them that Linux may be an unauthorized derivative of code owned by SCO. That is, SCO alleges that Linux actually to some extent is owned by SCO and may not be distributed under the GPL. The letter further claims that users of Linux may have legal liability because of this.

SCO said it would provide evidence that Linux is a derivative of Unix to independent analysts. With the help of Don Marti, Editor in Chief of Linux Journal, I contacted SCO and offered to be one of those analysts. SCO agreed, subject to my signing the NDA and traveling to its headquarters in Lindon, Utah.

SCO's legal case is complicated by the fact that when SCO was named Caldera it was itself a Linux distributor, and it may have distributed, under the GPL, the code which it now claims to own. It also complicated by allegations that SCO has incorporated Linux code under the GPL into UnixWare. These issues may indeed cause SCO's legal case to flounder, but not in the way I would prefer it to flounder.

Why Did I Go?

I took the trouble to visit SCO because I care about what happens to free software in general and Linux in particular. The SCO claims have put a cloud over Linux. I have heard speculation from business acquaintances that the free versions of Linux will be shunned by corporate IT users, who will be unwilling to take the legal risk of using it. I don't think that would be good for Linux or for free software.

I remember the AT&T case against BSDI and the University of California, which arguably stalled BSD development for a few years. Indeed, it arguably was the root cause of Linux's popularity, because Linux development was not s

Here's a PoP-based song that I found earlier today; maybe you haven't seen it yet.

I do not think I have seen this posted on Slashdot yet, but then I might have just missed it:

Pirate of Penguinance

Just a bit more humor on the situation.

That's still not quite the full picture.

Caldera was (is?) funded by The Canopy Group, which was founded by Ray Noorda, preferences former Novell CEO. Caldera purchased the Santa Cruz Operation, owners of some UNIX (exactly which bits is a matter of some debate). FWIW, Caldera has now officially changed its name to The SCO Group.

The Canopy Group is the majority stockholder in Caldera Corp, dba (that's "doing business as") "The SCO Group".

What Caldera bought was not "SCO" (the company formerly known as The Santa Cruz Operation), but that company's "Unix Business". While I haven't seen the documents, there's basically a bundle of rights, contracts, and licenses (the 30,000 contracts, though most are quite historical, we've heard so much about). The original SCO continues as a going concern under the name Tarentella. Rather quietly, I might add.

Though Caldera voted at its stockholder's meeting this past May to officially change its name to "The SCO Group", the name change has not yet taken legal effect.

Oh, and Caldera is the company which co-developed the RPM packaging format with Red Hat, distributed GNU/Linux (under the GNU GPL) for nine years, and which, for the past three years, has distributed the very 2.4 Linux Kernel (downloaded my own copy last week). Um. Under the GPL, last I checked.

I'd recommend The OSI's Position Paper and a compilation site I've had some involvment with, SCOvsIBM.

That's still not quite the full picture.

Caldera was (is?) funded by The Canopy Group, which was founded by Ray Noorda, preferences former Novell CEO. Caldera purchased the Santa Cruz Operation, owners of some UNIX (exactly which bits is a matter of some debate). FWIW, Caldera has now officially changed its name to The SCO Group.

The Canopy Group is the majority stockholder in Caldera Corp, dba (that's "doing business as") "The SCO Group".

What Caldera bought was not "SCO" (the company formerly known as The Santa Cruz Operation), but that company's "Unix Business". While I haven't seen the documents, there's basically a bundle of rights, contracts, and licenses (the 30,000 contracts, though most are quite historical, we've heard so much about). The original SCO continues as a going concern under the name Tarentella. Rather quietly, I might add.

Though Caldera voted at its stockholder's meeting this past May to officially change its name to "The SCO Group", the name change has not yet taken legal effect.

Oh, and Caldera is the company which co-developed the RPM packaging format with Red Hat, distributed GNU/Linux (under the GNU GPL) for nine years, and which, for the past three years, has distributed the very 2.4 Linux Kernel (downloaded my own copy last week). Um. Under the GPL, last I checked.

I'd recommend The OSI's Position Paper and a compilation site I've had some involvment with, SCOvsIBM.

In the spirit of parody (and some shameless Self promotion, but then, that's my name), I offer a little Guilbert and SCOllivan.

There's also a somewhat more seriously minded SCO vs. IBM page.

In the spirit of parody (and some shameless Self promotion, but then, that's my name), I offer a little Guilbert and SCOllivan.

There's also a somewhat more seriously minded SCO vs. IBM page.

"The only insight this quote reveals is that the author uses Internet Explorer."

Reading that, you get one very good idea of incompetence: specifically, Microsoft's inept performance; ineptness that refers to Microsoft's lawyers, the performance of the "expert witnesses" they brought to the stand (who's going to forget Richard Schmalensee slamming down his old student in an economic analysis), or the "IE Removal Tool"... or even Gates's own performance.

The main challenge Microsoft has faced in trying to mount a defense is that they are massively, demonstrably guilty.

From a source I can share, spam receipts (daily, flagged by SpamAssassin) are flat since May 1. At work, with a larger sample, I'm actually seeing about an 8% decline over the same interval -- ~55 intercepts daily to 40. Compare this to 2001, where receipts more than doubled over the course of the year. In both cases, I'm using well-known, or catch-all, addresses.

Related news indicates spammers are feeling the pinch of filtering, reporting, and retaliatory efforts. Spam's an economic activity, with low margins. If it can be made unprofitable, prevalence will drop markedly.

...and virus mail's quite another story -- daily intercepts have climbed from ~12/day (Jan - Apr, 2002) to 220+. Thank Klez, though SirCam's putting up a good showing.

Sample here.

Please see The SSSCA, Microsoft's Answer to the DoJ?. It walks through the terms of the SSSCA and analyzes exactly how it gives Microsoft a complete lock on the market, and a complete exemption from anti-trust law.

I attended the Device Driver session at Warpstock, presented by Oliver Stein of IBM Germany. Firewire support for hard drives is coming soon. Also an OS/2 port of ALSA - think SDD for Audio.

My short Warpstock Report is available in the OS/2 forum at IWETHEY, where later down in the thread is information on a wireless NIC with OS/2 drivers :-)

A friend of mine, Ben Tilly, has made the following annotated anlysis of the SSSCA, working on notes of mine. The original analyses were done before the recent announcement that Microsoft plans to "open" the .NET / Passport. It would seem that this drive for standards status plays straight into the company's long-term goals.

We believe that the SSSCA is Microsoft's game plan. This is how they intend to achieve World (or at least US) Domination. If others read and agree with our analysis, then I think our natural allies are companies like Sun, IBM, AOL, and Sony. They just need to have the true implications explained in clear terms to them to realize what is going on.

The analysis is long (it's an annotation of the full text of the draft bill). Some key points:

The SSSCA, as drafted:

• Hits all software: Linux, StarOffice, vim, Perl, cat, ... It outlaws Linux as we know it.
• Hits all hardware with any digital component. Computers. Calculators. Watches. Digital thermometers.
• It has to be incorporated in every component.
• It kills interoperability.
• It fits .NET and no other current system.
• Antitrust protections are exempted: This law would specifically exempt the parties involved in a standard that covers all software on all hardware. With its most likely beneficiary being a convicted monopolist.
• Strict schedule leaves little time for development and implementation: this is aimed at an existing standard, not one to be developed.

The SSSCA could not be better designed to take the Microsoft monopoly into the new millenium if it were written by Bill Gates. And we can't rule out that it was written by Bill Gates. The SSSCA is completely incompatible with Unix. It makes continued development on all software competing with the standard illegal.

An interesting theory, the SSSCA is Microsoft's ticket to being a legal evil empire.

If so it makes the existing antitrust case pretty much irrelevant.