Slashdot Mirror

<defense style=chewbaca>
Hey! Look over here!

Browse to sco.com and mouse over the Company nav menu at the top and select the bottom entry for "Open Letter on Copyrights" and note that it doesn't exist.

Therefore you must acquit!!
</defense>

Perhaps one interesting side effect of this could be new viruses that vote! Instead of DDoS the litigious bastards, it could vote from your machine!

Then the elections would be decided by the Virus Wars.

Final count for 2008:

Cheney: 233,346,152,856,123,253 votes
Kerry: 233,346,152,856,123,254 votes
CowboyNeal: 999,999,999,999,999,999 votes (buffer underflow!)

Its litigious bastards

strongly recommend treating this case with more objectivity instead of cracking anti-SCO comments.


As pointed out elsewhere:

Slashdot is not a news reporting center. It is, for all intents and purposes, a weblog. When someone says on slashdot that sco are a bunch of rotten cock smokers, it's just a comment made by an independant, anonymous, netzien.

~wx

I just wanted to point out that a campain to get http://sco.com to be linked from google when you search for Rotten cock-smokers is a great idea.

I also wanted to point out that not only is http://sco.com listed as the top search for Litigious Bastards, but it also seems that they're the top list for bastards on google.

Googlebombing is fun! Sco are a bunch of rotten cock smokers".

~Wx

I just wanted to point out that a campain to get http://sco.com to be linked from google when you search for Rotten cock-smokers is a great idea.

I also wanted to point out that not only is http://sco.com listed as the top search for Litigious Bastards, but it also seems that they're the top list for bastards on google.

Googlebombing is fun! Sco are a bunch of rotten cock smokers".

~Wx

I just wanted to point out that a campain to get http://sco.com to be linked from google when you search for Rotten cock-smokers is a great idea.

I also wanted to point out that not only is http://sco.com listed as the top search for Litigious Bastards, but it also seems that they're the top list for bastards on google.

Googlebombing is fun! Sco are a bunch of rotten cock smokers".

~Wx

I just wanted to point out that a campain to get http://sco.com to be linked from google when you search for Rotten cock-smokers is a great idea.

I also wanted to point out that not only is http://sco.com listed as the top search for Litigious Bastards, but it also seems that they're the top list for bastards on google.

Googlebombing is fun! Sco are a bunch of rotten cock smokers".

~Wx

I just wanted to point out that a campain to get http://sco.com to be linked from google when you search for Rotten cock-smokers is a great idea.

I also wanted to point out that not only is http://sco.com listed as the top search for Litigious Bastards, but it also seems that they're the top list for bastards on google.

Googlebombing is fun! Sco are a bunch of rotten cock smokers".

~Wx

Stephen Evans has made some significant factual errors in his story "Linux cyber-battle turns nasty" and may be exposing the BBC by his consequent assertions.

"There seems little doubt that SCO was targeted" as a distraction to the virus, apparently written by and for commercial spammers. Its primary intent is to act as a relay for spreading more of those intrusive offers of larger penises and mortgage solutions.

The virus is indeed about malice, and it was not written by the creative, constructive Open Source community. It has been traced back to Russian spammers.

It does not appear that www.sco.com was attacked in anger. The name had been taken out of circulation before the due date, and the site http://sco.com/ was reachable throughout, as were the sco.com email servers, hosted nearby. It seems that The SCO Group (TSG) are crying "wolf" yet again.

TSG have been accusing the authors of Linux of stealing their ideas, and their code. IBM is being accused of giving TSG's code away (despite IBM's licence agreement plainly stating that they can sell or give away derivatives), and being asked for over $3 billion in "damages", yet TSG won't tell anyone exactly what was "stolen".

Their story keeps changing, and whenever more exact information has been leaked, the code has consistently turned out to be either written by somebody else, or public domain.

Darl MacBride wants to sell Linux as others sell bottled water, which is fine because Red Hat, Mandrake and other companies do just that. He wants to do it not by bottling better water, but by making the harvesting of rain and spring water heavily taxable.

Undertandably, the people who've built the software equivalent of dams and rainwater tanks are outraged at his barratry, false claims and blackmail. TSG is not "raising the possibility of internet blackmail", TSG is carrying it out!

The Open Source community's response has been to provide evidence of TSG's insanity, not to write viruses. None of the computers bearing the virus run Linux. Zero. Nada. Not one.

It is impossible to read Stephen's story without interpreting it as "Linux community members attacked a helpless corporation", which as a member of the Linux community I find insulting and hurtful.

I require a retraction from the BBC and a public apology from Stephen. I also want his word that he'll not carelessly abuse a news service to pillory the champions of freedom and fair play ever again.

Of course we all take pleasure out of SCO's misery. Why should we hide it? They're a bunch of rotten cock-smokers (the litigious bastards campaign was a success, it's time to expand it), and we all hate the bastards. I think it's time the English-speaking world get a concept of what Germans call Schadenfreude, because you, like everyone else, are perfectly capable of having this emotion.

The lack of a word for it seems to make some of you incapable of recognizing this. Asking everyone to hide their "malicious satisfaction of SCO's misfortunes" is about the same as asking people to pretend they didn't do it, even if they didn't do it anyway.

I say this about the SCO website situation: It serves them right, but I'm not going to take the blame for it. Hell, I haven't even had the virus sent to me yet.

It was HTTP GET requests.

Could they have withstood the attack transparently by 302-redirecting www.sco.com to sco.com? Maybe yes, maybe no; we'll never know. Not that it matters either way -- with no products and no customers, they have little need for a reliable web site anyway.

My Yugo example might not. But 90% of automobile advertisements rely on precisely the same tactic.

"Voted best car in its class". "Car of the year in its class". "Safest car in its class". "Most protection against side impact in its class".

These classes have some meaning - in that I'd expect a car in the "SUV" class to be safer in side impact (and more hazardous in rollover) than the "Sport" class. But a lot of the "class" division in the auto world exists so that there are a lot of #1 awards that affiliated organizations can hand out to their advertisers and sponsors.

"SCO! #1 UNIX in its class!" (The class of operating systems from companies that are litigious bastards)

I quite agree. When I hear this type of confused smokescreen argument I think of everyone's favorite litigious bastards, the SCO Group. No such thing as a free lunch, so pay me right now.

The argument is weak, and not very well thought out. The assertion he's making is that my e-mail can't be free because there's no such thing as a free lunch. But my e-mail is already non-free. I see ads when I check it. I pay something like $17 a year for POP3 access. In short, his crap e-mail doesn't justify my mailbox's existence. There is already an economic model behind it before a single spam lands in it.

There is a special place in hell for people like Scott Richter, and we owe a lot of thanks to to the folks from Redmond and New York who are helping to escort him there.

The MyDoom virus launched a denial-of-service attack early Sunday that crippled SCO Group's Web site with hundreds of thousands of requests, an SCO spokesman said.

Strange then that sco.com is working fine, as are their DNS servers. All they've done is pulled A records for their various www hosts and according to netcraft www.sco.com seemed ok too until they pulled the DNS record.

Surely SCO arent hyping this up? Would be very atypical of them..

The WWW is no longer valid, so we need a new google bomb campaign with just http://sco.com.

litigious bastards

I found a folding website@! Here

I have to agree. After so many people got burned by the dot bomb companies of the late 90's, my guess is that Google wants to wait for this whole mess with the litigious bastards to blow over.

If I were in Googles shoes, I would wait for the litigious bastards to be reduced to smoldering crater by the likes of Red Hat, IBM et al.

I have to agree. After so many people got burned by the dot bomb companies of the late 90's, my guess is that Google wants to wait for this whole mess with the litigious bastards to blow over.

If I were in Googles shoes, I would wait for the litigious bastards to be reduced to smoldering crater by the likes of Red Hat, IBM et al.

As at 2004/02/02 22:59 KST, both return the same page...

L

Oh, you mean this one, the one that says http://www.sco.com/? I'm pretty sure you mean http://www.sco.com/, but I just want to make sure we're talking about http://www.sco.com/ and not some other URL.

Oh, you mean this one, the one that says http://www.sco.com/? I'm pretty sure you mean http://www.sco.com/, but I just want to make sure we're talking about http://www.sco.com/ and not some other URL.

Oh, you mean this one, the one that says http://www.sco.com/? I'm pretty sure you mean http://www.sco.com/, but I just want to make sure we're talking about http://www.sco.com/ and not some other URL.

Oh, you mean this one, the one that says http://www.sco.com/? I'm pretty sure you mean http://www.sco.com/, but I just want to make sure we're talking about http://www.sco.com/ and not some other URL.

SCO has now set the A record for its domain to 127.0.0.1, possibly taking advice from the Netcraft article posted here earlier ;^)

http://www2.sco.com/ : Welcome ... May 7, 2001.

open4free

http://www2.sco.com/ : Welcome ... May 7, 2001.

open4free

Just google for Litigious Bastards and view the cached page.

what about this and that?

what about this and that?

SCO can't afford to pay their power bill, their supplier refused to accept stock for payment so their power has been disconnected

Analysis shows that all other sites on that router ring are working properly, that the net is no slower than usual and that You can still download SCO Linux from their site.

SCO Linux includes all the SCO disputed IP under the GPL, so download it now and burn to CD - keep it on a shelf and if anyone tries to claim money show that SCO have given you a license to use the code under the GPL.

It's Feb. 1st everyone... and all of you who have been reading Slashdot know that today MyDoom.A begins it's attack... according to Reuters, SCO has already been hit hard.

Yeah, but we all know about the lying liberal media -- they actually claimed that Iraq didn't give yellowcake to Al Queda while Saddam was harboring Osama -- so rather than trust Reuters, you'd better go to www.sco.com and see for yourself.

Just to double-check. Of course.

I could not get to their site, is it the virus or have they been slashdotted?

http://www.sco.com/mydoom/

This URL in itself is sort of prophetic, isn't it?

Binand

I think I first noticed it on the Yahoo SCOX trading board and the original poster may have used different terms. Anyway, assuming SCO look at their search logs, it's one way of expressing yourself.

Send a message to SCO through their search logs:

Liars

Thieves

Criminals

extortionists

fraudsters

I think I first noticed it on the Yahoo SCOX trading board and the original poster may have used different terms. Anyway, assuming SCO look at their search logs, it's one way of expressing yourself.

Send a message to SCO through their search logs:

Liars

Thieves

Criminals

extortionists

fraudsters

I think I first noticed it on the Yahoo SCOX trading board and the original poster may have used different terms. Anyway, assuming SCO look at their search logs, it's one way of expressing yourself.

Send a message to SCO through their search logs:

Liars

Thieves

Criminals

extortionists

fraudsters

I think I first noticed it on the Yahoo SCOX trading board and the original poster may have used different terms. Anyway, assuming SCO look at their search logs, it's one way of expressing yourself.

Send a message to SCO through their search logs:

Liars

Thieves

Criminals

extortionists

fraudsters

I think I first noticed it on the Yahoo SCOX trading board and the original poster may have used different terms. Anyway, assuming SCO look at their search logs, it's one way of expressing yourself.

Send a message to SCO through their search logs:

Liars

Thieves

Criminals

extortionists

fraudsters

I think I first noticed it on the Yahoo SCOX trading board and the original poster may have used different terms. Anyway, assuming SCO look at their search logs, it's one way of expressing yourself.

Send a message to SCO through their search logs:

Liars

Thieves

Criminals

extortionists

fraudsters

I don't get it. The image on their front page has an Apple iBook with a picture of two guys on it. Neither homosexuals nor Apple computers are affected by the MyDoom virus...

Take a look at SCO's Mydoom page. It shows a photo of some guy watching a movie on a PowerBook in a big empty room. What does that have to do with viruses or their product? How pathetic.

We are now publishing the article and welcome Groklaw readers' further contributions, corrections, improvements, and comments. This is an ongoing project. This article is the first in a series where we'll discuss the System V UNIX ABI, or Application Binary Interface. We approached the research as, What if Linus Torvalds had not already claimed paternity of most of the header files? Then what?

The article will first explain what the ABI is and what it does, then discuss whether the code was released under the GPL and if so whether management at SCO knew and approved, and finally show how the Linux files that pertain to this do not appear to be infringing files that SCO can claim.

For those who are not programmers, such as myself, there is a footnoted section to explain in greater detail and in plain English what ABIs and APIs and shared libraries are and how they work. If you read it first, it will clarify the terminology for you and you will be able to follow the thread in the article more easily. At least, it helped me tremendously.

I think you will see from this article alone that if SCO is planning to sue anyone over the ABI files, unless there are facts we haven't unearthed, they seem to be leaning on a rickety bamboo reed.

GROKLAW TAKES A CLOSER LOOK AT THE ABI FILES
~by Frank Sorenson et al

Back in January 2003, word leaked out that SCO was planning to charge Linux users for "System V Intellectual Property" in Linux. SCO created a new business division called SCOSource to come up with new ways to make money from this "intellectual property". The original SCOSource Presentation (PowerPoint version) talks of licensing SCO's shared UNIX Libraries from OpenServer and UnixWare for use in Linux.

A Little Background: What Are ABI Files? [1]

As background information, shared libraries are files containing information to be loaded when an application is run. They usually implement common routines, and their inclusion simplifies programming, reduces file size, and standardizes interfaces. A simple example of this would be the "copy file" and "move file" commands: both commands check file permissions and manipulate the file system. When applications have a great deal of functionality in common, this functionality is often placed into shared libraries.

Shared libraries are architecture, operating-system, and version specific. Executables for different systems follow various standard formats, such as a.out, ELF, and COFF. To load an application, the system must do several things: the system interprets the format of the executable (or binary), loads any shared libraries referenced, and begins executing the code found in the binary.

If the executable is in a different format from those the system supports, or if the library files are for the wrong architecture or operating system version, the binary normally will not run. In 1991, Intel announced the availability of the iBCS-2 (Intel Binary Compatibility

open letter to SCO

===BEGIN OF OPEN LETTER TO SCO===
open letter to sco

your brain is sexy after i rip it out mash it and mix it with yoru feces feed it to ya

sincerely,
hemor r. hoids (im not hemos)

I RIGHT DA VIRUS!

PS. i havent read the article but my $2c anyways
anyone know why the article loading anyways? a mirror

===END OF OPEN LETTER TO SCO===

winner of saint, retreiver of fortune, the day

Thinking along these lines, how long before someone sues slashdot for causing a DOS attack on their site (ie. posting a link). For example this website.

Posted anonymously so I don't get sued.

Here's a good, non-harmful example using everyone's least favorite software company as an example:

SCO has education providers in "states of denial"

Read the title of that page carefully, and compare the URL to the title, note how they just plop it in there. Don't worry, though, it doesn't seem to be a serious hole; it just allows you to display silly messages on the page you look at, whereas other XSS holes might be more serious.

...whether certain recent high-profile disputes over code ownership might have changed a few people's attitudes to the importance of attribution?

That is, if every file has a mandatory 75-line list of copyrights, would it be harder to accuse it of being stolen?

Now in reality, the Linux kernel source code has a fair bit of copyright information plastered all over the headers, so in practice the litigious bastards such as those I alluded to above wouldn't pay any attention to details like that. But different people think differently.

Unlikely, but, you know.

"Microsoft is using lawsuits as a battering ram to smash Linux, to prevent it from reaching retail stores".

I've never heard of any other companies trying this.

I see others have recommended Mozilla Firebird. It's a great browser indeed, and open source.

However, I recommend Opera. It's small, fast, very standards-compliant, and has lots of nice features that make browsing the web just a little more comfortable. Examples:

Don't want to wait for those graphics to load? Press G to stop loading them. You can selectively view some images if you need to.

Can't read the fonts? Color scheme ticking you off? Press Ctl+G to use the default stylesheet. Black text on white background, couldn't be more legible. Don't like the default stylesheet? Don't worry, you can change it.

Type g litigious bastards in the address bar to search for litigious bastards on Google.

Bookmark pages and assign aliases to them to surf there quickly. For example, I used sd for Slashdot and osn for OSNews.

I don't like mouse gestures, but some people love them. Opera does, too.

Etc, etc.

It's a pity Opera on Linux keeps crashing. On Windows, it's great, though.