Slashdot Mirror

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.

I have a suggestion that's not in the Knowledge Base: don't use IE!

Yeah, and I have a solution to prevent malicious programs like IE from running that's not in the Knowledge Base...

Install Linux.

I hear you can buy a copy of it for around $600 somewhere.

SCO/litigous bastards

SCO is offering a $250,000 reward for information leading to the arrest and conviction of the creator(s) of the mydoom virus.

Here's my test page: SCO

I tend to just hold the CMD key and see how long I see "Loading..." with a spinning circle. At the moment it is simply coming back as "Error". :)

I think a better way to DDOS (and more legal) would be to make sure to include the SCO web site in every news story, and all Slashdoters should know to follow it everytime.

Yeah, I never did figure out how to do URLs on /.. Let's see, how about litigious bastards

Or the article I'm laughing about.

(preview...) Yeah, that seems to work ok. Now I know.

Hey! Did you hear that some stupid woman sued McDonalds because she fell down at Walmart and spilt hot goatse all over some litigious bastards?

Interesting, unrelated side note prompted by your sig - Although www.sco.com is not at the top of the search results for litigious bastards, it's interesting to note that Caldera is!

A intermediate-grade script kiddie finds the source to a virus that does three things: (a) spread, (b), DoS a particular web site, and (c), set up the victim as a zombie. He's interested in (a) and (b), but too lazy or too unskilled to cut out (c). So he changes the DoS URL to litigious bastards, makes a couple of social engineering twiddles (changing the body text, putting the cargo in an attached .zip file), and sends it on its merry way, not caring at all what holes it opens on targeted machines, so long as it DoSes SCO.

Of course, the bottom-feeding spammers don't mind that there are newly-vulnerable machines out there...

Just a theory. Occam's Razor suggests you are more likely right than I.

I just checked it, sco.com is up! I even hit refresh a couple of times to make sure (and to increase the load of course..). There's nothing illegal about us all visiting that site repeatedly, is there? It's called civil inobedience, IIRC.

"...today confirmed that it is experiencing a distributed Denial-of-Service (DDOS) attack" ???

Funny, www.sco.com comes up just fine for me. How are they "under a DDoS attack" that isn't supposed to happen until Feb 1st?

The whole press release was nothing but more PR crap with wonderful quotes like

"the SCO Group, Inc. (NASDAQ: SCOX), the owner of the UNIX(R) operating system" and "We do not know the origins or reasons for this attack, although we have our suspicions."

It must be Linus. :) He wrote the virus and released it via the 2.6 Linux kernel. ;) Actually, the way this virus works... via fast spreading and a timebomb makes you wonder if they were reading this article

OT, but I just submitted the story below. Since this is an SCO thread, and -Taco probably isn't going to post 2 SCO stories in a row, here it is:

Thank you to all /. readers! The SCO "litigious bastards" linking campaign has succeeded! SCO is now the first link on a Google search for litigious bastards. (If you try a "I'm Feeling Lucky" search, it'll still go to SCO, but it looks like the SCO site is down.)

Congratulations, everybody!

On a side note, simply searching for "bastards" brings up SCO). If Google happens to notice and block it (as in the past), a screenshot is here. Please be kind to my server :-(, and mirror!

awww, cummon....

if caino59 saw it go down, then maybe it just got /.ed. why not keep /.ing SCO?

Which one is worse, the fool or the fool that follows him?
I find the attention/flames that everybody is giving to SCO highly surprising, as a result it is hard for bystanders to differentiate between the opponents. It would be much more mature of Linus and Co to either ignore the whole matter or respond professionally, instead of playing the same game.

Remember the old saying - "Put up or shut up"? To an outsider, our silence would be interpreted as backing down because we are somehow in the wrong.

Eventually, you just have to punch a bully in the nose if you want some peace.

Darl and Co have made a lot of baseless allegations. Our silence would be spun by them as giving credence to their claims. We've already seen this with the "indemnify/don't indemnify" bullshit they pulled.

It's not unprofessional to identify SCO as a bunch of litigious bastards when they've admitted that's the core of their business.

perhaps, but not this time.

robots.txt does not exist at sco.com.

Did notice how the interview tried to pin down McBribe on discussion with Google and he was very evasive.

Q: Have you talked with Google?
A: Some discussions have been initiated there.

Q: Which would mean?
A: We don't know where that goes yet. It's very premature to say what's going to happen there.

Q: So your lawyers are talking to their lawyers?
A: We've got a team that's engaged in going back and forth. We do have legal counsel on our side. We have marketplace experts that we've kind of trained.... We're not targeting just Google per se. But anybody who is using 10,000 boxes, that's an elephant on a table. There's a lot of reasons you wouldn't [go after Google]. But to say we're going to ignore them doesn't make any sense either. I think it's going to be a function of what happens over the next few weeks.

[A Google spokesman says the search giant has not discussed with SCO its demands.]

ah slippery bastard he is! So they probably sent Google a letter requesting a meeting to discuss IP issues and Google's legal team advised upper manegement to not go near them they are "cornered rats and probably have rabies too" and promptly ignored them.

So after Google's IPO could they sue SCO for making false public statements? If SCO cannot produce a single e-mail, letter, or correspondence with SCO and Google could easily show harm seems like a slam dunk case.

Even searching for SCO returns only one actual hit to www.sco.com (not counting the www.caldera.com alias).

A search for site:www.sco.com returns a single entry: the main SCO page.

Compare this with a search for site:www.linux.com. Looks like Google is quietly boycotting SCO.

-Mark

tubgirl

You did the link wrong. Its litigious bastards. This keeps the ball rolling.

THOSE LITIGIOUS BASTARDS

I wonder why?^)

Aren't we supposed to Google-bomb that link by making it litigious bastards?

offtopic but fun:

That litigious bastards linking seems to work prety well =)

First in the list :)

be sure to license it first!.

dont want a lawsuit on your hands, now do you?

One better solution is ALL (since some already have) ISPs have FREE email virus scan.

1. doc.zip 22877 bytes
2. body.zip 22790 bytes
3. nbbq.zip 22640 bytes
4. text.scr 22528 bytes

...so I thought I'd try the imaginary URL and see the response, and that certainly surprised me (using the above link):

Document Not Found

To find the document you're looking for, please see our company sitemap

or use the following search:

If you're having problems with a broken link, send us your e-mail and we'll find the page for you. If the page is on the Linux Documentation Project site (http://www.sco.com/LDP/), email feedback@linuxdocs.org

How long have they been 'battling' Linux?!

9:49 EST - no it's not

Very rarely is spelling important in my book, but, in this case it is.

Litigious Bastards

This is not the slashdot effect, it's called a google bomb.

The slashdot effect is when the "Pygmys with 3 thumbs" support group gets 100k hits/minute because of a post on slashdot and the 486 web server on dial-up is unable to keep up with the load.

As a side note it worked Im not sure why google is returning caldara.com instead of sco.com, but, thumbs up (however many you have)

The funny thing is that the virus isn't even supposed to start the DDoS until February 1st... STOP CLICKING HERE PEOPLE!

In fact, you can sign up for SCO's Expulsion and Termination Intiative at Home program simply by clicking here. Remember, the more times you click it, the higher your score will be!

I hope someone comes up with a better acronym ;p

Certainly a story about a DDOS of SCO deserves a link.

If you really wanted to DoS SCO, why not just use the Slashdot Effect, like this: litigous bastards

Better yet, go here and keep clicking refresh - maybe you'll be the first to see the DDoS taking place!

Finally, a worthwhile virus!!

Indeed! I just don't get why the /. editors didn't chip in by placing a real link to www.sco.com in the story. In a small, meaningful way, that slashdotting would have chipped in for the greater good.

I'd guess we could call this the Litigious Bastards virus.

That's right! DDosing SCO is just plain wrong! And don't think about linking SCO here or the Slashdot effect will be mistaken for a virus DDOSing SCO.That would be a rotten way to treat a fine company like SCO.I wish Darl all the best of luck with all his endeavers at SCO. (After all - he'll need all the luck he can get with no viable product.)

That's right! DDosing SCO is just plain wrong! And don't think about linking SCO here or the Slashdot effect will be mistaken for a virus DDOSing SCO.That would be a rotten way to treat a fine company like SCO.I wish Darl all the best of luck with all his endeavers at SCO. (After all - he'll need all the luck he can get with no viable product.)

That's right! DDosing SCO is just plain wrong! And don't think about linking SCO here or the Slashdot effect will be mistaken for a virus DDOSing SCO.That would be a rotten way to treat a fine company like SCO.I wish Darl all the best of luck with all his endeavers at SCO. (After all - he'll need all the luck he can get with no viable product.)

That's right! DDosing SCO is just plain wrong! And don't think about linking SCO here or the Slashdot effect will be mistaken for a virus DDOSing SCO.That would be a rotten way to treat a fine company like SCO.I wish Darl all the best of luck with all his endeavers at SCO. (After all - he'll need all the luck he can get with no viable product.)

That's right! DDosing SCO is just plain wrong! And don't think about linking SCO here or the Slashdot effect will be mistaken for a virus DDOSing SCO.That would be a rotten way to treat a fine company like SCO.I wish Darl all the best of luck with all his endeavers at SCO. (After all - he'll need all the luck he can get with no viable product.)

if someone wanted to make SCO's webservers unusable, couldn't they just have put a link to them on /. ??

I'm really surprised that /. isn't serving up the virus just for us- those that can spread it would be more then happy too.

they didn't even link to sco in the article- that would have helped a little...

i was just checking to see if sco.com was down and it dawned on me that whenever an 'evil' company such as sco goes down it is reported on /.. I wonder how much the slashdot effect plays into the consumption of bandwidth of the sites? this may provide to be intresting if someone looks into it...

The only thing I could say in his defense is that, if someone claimed that he was unfit to sleeo with a pig, in which case I would say "That's not true!"

When someone makes a point of lying over and over again, if we DON'T say what's on our minds, and act unduly civil, then we are aiding and abetting a fraud.

So let's keep on insulting those litigious bastards :-)

But I think that building an arsenal of patents for ammunition is like stockpiling nukes for National Defense. During peacetime everything will be fine, but if litigation starts (i.e. as in now), then all hell breaks loose.

You want a pissing contest? IBM's game. And so is SCO, Amazon, Microsoft, Google, and all of the big players. All you'll need to do is put your lawyers to work and pay some processing feed.

Sure IBM (i.e. "America" in this analogy) is the major superpower with zillions of patents that might be able to sink all these other companies with all of the patents they've accumulated, but these other companies do have patents also and might be able to call IBM out on some of them also.

So, if IBM starts a shopping spree of patents, even if the goal is merely to have them so others cannot, it could lead to an arms race of IP where companies focus more on locking up patents than actual innovation or business (and become one of the patent-litigation firms that has become notorious on slashdot).

Call me a pessimist, but we could very possibly see other companies rush to patent everything under the sun, just to gain some power. Then every company will have its hands tied by all of the patents they don't own, and it'll be a nuclear winter of technology.

And even with IBM's good intentions, whose to say that IBM's strategy won't incite some Hussein in some rogue company to make some ridiculous claims about their IP and assert that they've got some sort of clout or power when they actually don't? And then IBM would have to try to step in and break it up, but not before damage has been done to our community. Oh, wait ... we've already got a Hussein at our rogue company.

IBM will win whatever comes to them, don't doubt this, but winning might not be the best thing for technology.

the title of the SCO website is SCO grows your business. unless of course you rearrange the word unix, put an 'L' in front, and give it away for free.

also found this link - SCO says "Linux hurts US". is this company into sadomasochism?

Q: How does this action affect SCO's involvement with UnitedLinux?
A: SCO is a founding member of the UnitedLinux consortium. With that said, SCO
Linux Server 4.0, Powered by UnitedLinux sales will be suspended with this
announcement. SCO will continue to fulfill its obligations to the UnitedLinux consortium.

I was starting to go through SCO withdrawl. What with the hearing being delayed until February 6th, I thought there might be an entire day without SCO on Slashdot.

Why wouldn't someone get a binary copy of the Unix V code that was supposedly lifted from SCO if they signed up for a license or at least a detailed description of the property they were buying? Otherwise they are requiring a license, but not providing a product they are licensing.

For example: Eolas goes to end users demanding a license fee for a specific product found in a Internet Explorer version distributed by Microsoft under an existing license. Eolas doesn't have the right to change the existing EULA between Microsoft and the end user, they can only tell the end user to stop using the product. But if Eolas were to send out a CD or piece of paper describing the patent they owned and a piece of paper saying they could use that patent under blah blah terms, then the end user would not need to be re-negotiating the Internet Explorer agreement, he would be buying the rights to use a patent directly from Eolas.

Now enter SCO, they would have to say EXACTLY what rights they were selling. For example, they would have to say "we are selling you the rights to use this portion of Unix V which performs 'blank' function, this is our patent/copyright we are letting you use". They can't sell you the 'right not to be sued'. They can't sell you the right to use SMP or any other IBM developed code because they don't have a copyright or patent to it.

We need to change the question. It should be changed from 'why should we buy your license?' to 'what are you selling and is the procuct you are selling going to give us the right to use the Linux code you dispute?'. I would wager that a careful examination of the license would indicate that they are not selling a product which would solve any legal issues for anyone, that it is merely an assurance that SCO will not sue them over unspecified violations. Conveniently, the license is not available on the SCO web site that I could find. I cannot read the text of the license.

SCO source license page