Slashdot Mirror

Curious, how many of you are complaining, but still think it's OK to give them your money? Vote with your (virtual) feet if the issue is that important to you.

Darl can't even eat his own dogfood ...
http://www.sco.com/ was running Apache on Linux when last queried at 9-Mar-2006 20:57:45 GMT

Don't you get it, Darl owns Linux - IBM stole his code and put it in Linux therefore Darl owns Linux. So of course it's OK for SCO to run Linux because they own it all.

If that bit of reasoning makes sense to you then I've got a nice bridge in Brooklyn that's for sale.

Microsoft Windows 2000 Server with all vendor patches installed and all vendor workarounds applied, is currently affected by 21 Secunia advisories some of which are rated Highly critical.

You should find SCAMP amusing. Enjoy!

... A way to force companies to just pack it in... Add the number of customers a company has to the number of people a company employes... and if you can get that many signartures plus one.. the company has to sell off all its assets, split the proceeds up among the shareholders, and have its name added to a "Never Allow" list with the Trademark office.

So a company like SCO... with no real customers... and "As of February 1, 2005 190 employees." (http://ir.sco.com/faq.cfm) We'd just need everyone who's posted in this tread so far to vote to shut them down!

They jumped the shark years ago... now they've crossed the Archeron and are trying to figure out how to pay the ferryman.

Please click here for more info (LOLZ, I aint a spam bot)

Products and services, of course. :)

Products and services, of course. :)

BTW, the $699 for a server is an introductory offer, valid till December 31, 2003. no word on the SCO site as to what the prices are in 2004, 2005 or 2006.

Lest we forget, because the SCO case(s) have taken so long to be resolved, SCO was once a major distributor of the Linux OS. Hence, the Slashdot symbol being a "C" for Caldera,not the pure, fresh pine logo of the SCO Group.

This is the same kind of hipocrasy that we have in the White House, too. Bush now demands to find the "leaker" of his secret spying program, when the Plame leaker is his chief advisor.

Are there really that many people, even on Slashdot, that think stealing intellectual property is not wrong?

Stealing intellectual property is when you claim you own a copyright, trademark, or patent that you do not own. Recording studios do it all the time, as do software companies, and you're right that most people on Slashdot think it's wrong.

What you're talking about is infringement, but if you insist on using physical metaphors, it would be more accurate to call it 'trespassing'. Do many people on Slashdot think trespassing on intellectual property is sometimes ok? Sure they do. Trespassing is usually harmless -- I bet you've done it yourself, in real life.

I don't suppose that the probe could have picked up some anti-matter along the way? (Then again, that would be too quick for them.)

A history of suing one's employer does not generally bode well for future employment opportunities.

Yeah, just ask Darl McBride - who sued former employer IKON Office Solutions for breach of contract before moving on to PointServe (where I worked briefly as Chief Architect before leaving over disagreements with the management direction of the company), Franlin Covey (where I used to buy planners before I went electronic), and SCO (where I never bought anything, especially their lawsuit against IBM). Nonetheless, it's probably best to not ask "what's your insurance coverage for employee lawsuits?" early in the interview process.

I don't know what internal tech McDonalds uses, and don't care. McDonalds knows that I don't care, and therefore doesn't waste time bothering to make irrelevant declarations to the world regarding their internal tech.

I know what internal tech McDonalds uses, and I do care about it - to the extend of not going to the McDonalds next door to my office, instead choosing to walk three minutes more to the Burger King down the street.

The reason? McDonalds' choice of operating system.

What I loved about SETI@Home compared to other distributed computing networks like http://www.ud.com/ was that there was loads of clients out there for Operating Systems and hardware dating back to the 80's. Hell you could even get a client for Satan itself, http://www.sco.com/ OpenServer

Now, you basically have to run Windows, MAC or Linux, if not you can feck off

I've got 2 old AlphaServers in work that have been running SETI@HOME since 2000, one running NT4 and one OpenVMS 7.1, never any downtime with either of them, time to call it a day on 15th December, it's a shame

Jonathan
~~~~~~~~
Oscar The Grouch Does California, Nevada, Arizona - http://www.mccormackj.fsnet.co.uk/oscarthegrouch/

That link for AIX points to IBM's website.

Try here instead.

I hate it when you long-haired smellies pass off false information for truth.

Sincerely,
Anonymous

Umm, this all started when MS bought a license from SCO.

According to SCO's press release on the deal with MySQL, the finances and assistance SCO is providing to MySQL should only benefit the commercial version of the product.

http://ir.sco.com/ReleaseDetail.cfm?ReleaseID=1720 37

Wonder if they are betting MySQL gets super popular, more than it is currenltly, so they can do a similar lawsuit. That is, claim SCO's knowledge etc. was used to improve he GPL version. With MySQL refusing to protect users from liabilities arising from the SCO deal (specifically a lawsuit from SCO resulting DIRECTLY from this deal .. nobody would expect them to protect users from other frivolous lawsuits obviously).

Hopefully, yes.

I am choosing Oracle over MySQL. Why? Because SCO is still refusing to sheild MySQL users from lawsuits that directly result from this deal with SCO. Note: I am not asking to be protected from whacko frivolous lawsuits, I am asking that MySQL protect us from a lawsuit by SCO that results from SCO making the allegation that MySQL placed commercial SCO code in MySQL in violation of _this_ agreement.

If MySQL is super confident that this deal cannot possibly result in any lawsuit to us, they can easily indemnify us from SCO lawsuits.

According to SCO's press release ( http://ir.sco.com/ReleaseDetail.cfm?ReleaseID=1720 37 ):

"The SCO Group, Inc. ("SCO") (Nasdaq: SCOX), a leading provider of UNIX(R) software technology for distributed, embedded and network-based systems, today announced that it has entered into an agreement with MySQL AB to jointly deliver a certified, COMMERCIAL version of the popular MySQL database for SCO OpenServer 6"

Clearly there is wiggle room for them to file a delusional lawsuit styled after the IBM lawsuit claiming that MySQL used SCO resources and knowledge to "improve the GPL version". Stop laughing, this is what they are saying about linux. And when that goes down in flames, they'll need another whacko lawsuit to pump their stock up one last desperate time so the execs can completely sell off their remaining shares.

Once more, if MySQL is super confident that this deal cannot possibly result in any lawsuit to us, they can should have no problem sheilding us from SCO lawsuits.

ftp://mirrors.sco.com/mysql/sold/out/like/cheap/wh ore/stable
ftp://www.scox.com/we/got/another/sucker/stable
ftp://mysql.scox.com/bruce/perens/go/home/stable

The following was posted to slashdot before http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=166073&cid=138 54173 .. I am copying &pasting it:

How do we know SCO won't turn around and claim that the code in MySQL is tainted??? This is EXACTLY what they did to IBM.

It's in the SCO press release that the money is to be used to produce a COMMERCIAL version of the database.

That's right looks like they duped the MySQL CEO who didnt read the contract before signing.

http://ir.sco.com/ReleaseDetail.cfm?ReleaseID=1720 37

From the SCO press release:

"The SCO Group, Inc. ("SCO") (Nasdaq: SCOX), a leading provider of UNIX(R) software technology for distributed, embedded and network-based systems, today announced that it has entered into an agreement with MySQL AB to jointly deliver a certified, commercial version of the popular MySQL database"

------

I would want MySQL to state that they will protect us from any liability arising from any court awards that would arise from this deal. That is, I'd understand any other lawsuits .. but if we MySQL users are sued by SCO as a _direct result_ of this deal, I'd want protection. Else I am switching to postgresql.

How do we know SCO won't turn around and claim that the code in MySQL is tainted??? This is EXACTLY what they did to IBM.

It's in the SCO press release that the money is to be used to produce a COMMERCIAL version of the database.

That's right looks like they duped the MySQL CEO who didnt read the contract before signing.

http://ir.sco.com/ReleaseDetail.cfm?ReleaseID=1720 37 [sco.com]

From the SCO press release:

"The SCO Group, Inc. ("SCO") (Nasdaq: SCOX), a leading provider of UNIX(R) software technology for distributed, embedded and network-based systems, today announced that it has entered into an agreement with MySQL AB to jointly deliver a certified, commercial version of the popular MySQL database"

How do we know SCO won't turn around and claim that the code in MySQL is tainted??? This is EXACTLY what they did to IBM.

It's in the SCO press release that the money is to be used to produce a COMMERCIAL version of the database.

That's right looks like they duped the MySQL CEO who didnt read the contract before signing.

http://ir.sco.com/ReleaseDetail.cfm?ReleaseID=1720 37 [sco.com]

From the SCO press release:

"The SCO Group, Inc. ("SCO") (Nasdaq: SCOX), a leading provider of UNIX(R) software technology for distributed, embedded and network-based systems, today announced that it has entered into an agreement with MySQL AB to jointly deliver a certified, commercial version of the popular MySQL database"

How do we know SCO won't turn around and claim that the code in MySQL is tainted??? This is EXACTLY what they did to IBM.

It's in the SCO press release that the money is to be used to produce a COMMERCIAL version of the database.

That's right looks like they duped the MySQL CEO who didnt read the contract before signing.

http://ir.sco.com/ReleaseDetail.cfm?ReleaseID=1720 37

From the SCO press release:

"The SCO Group, Inc. ("SCO") (Nasdaq: SCOX), a leading provider of UNIX(R) software technology for distributed, embedded and network-based systems, today announced that it has entered into an agreement with MySQL AB to jointly deliver a certified, commercial version of the popular MySQL database"

The only reason it's an issue is because web sites like this one are heavily infiltrated by astro-turfers that will try to make it an issue so their masters can then squeal about 'linux zealots.'

MySQL made a deal, they got paid money to support a platform. That the client, in this case, happens to be the litigiousbastards was sure to raise a few eyebrows, and did, but not much more than that. Business is business. I hope Mårten made sure their check cleared before he let anyone put in any hours on that project... *shrug*

What is it with these pseudo companies that are formed just to hold supposed IP? We have companies like SCO group, Forgent Networks and NTP who do not really have any products, but whose business model is to go out and purchase any and all "patents" they can get their hands on. They then do nothing with those patents until one day in the future, they identify some product or company that has a product that has come about through parallel evolution or innovation and then try and sue the pants off of them. Most of these companies employees are not doing anything productive as they are a bunch of lawyers on staff who are parasites on technology and innovation doing nothing but sucking the life out innovation and progress.

It has got to be apparent that this business model has nothing to do with innovation and everything to do with piracy and racketeering.

Can we trust mysql to be nice folks when they're in cahoots with SCO?

http://ir.sco.com/ReleaseDetail.cfm?ReleaseID=1720 37

Several of the new versions of XP are just that: they're new. So within the consumer branch, there was initially only Windows XP Home and Windows XP Professional. It is only recently that we've gotten Windows XP Home Edition N, and so forth.

It's somewhat more reasonable for the server line to have numerous different versions. The Windows Server 200x releases are not meant for home users, but rather those who are somewhat technically inclined.

SCO has six editions of their UnixWare operating system, for instance. They each have very clearly supported amount of of users, CPU and RAM.
http://www.sco.com/products/unixware714/

Now, the problem with the consumer releases of Windows is that the differences are not as clear-cut, but rather based on far more general and random features.

The jokes on SCO, they paid to use something in a product very few companies will buy.
 
More precisely:
The joke's on SCO, they paid for something that very few companies have to pay for, to use in a product that very few companies will buy. Additionally, for those companies already own UnixWare or OpenUNIX, MySQL AB already provides installation instructions and patches for them. Finally, for the exceptionally lazy, SCO themselves provide a GPL'd version for you to download for free!
 
More on-topic, isn't this story a dupe? Granted I wouldn't expect these editors to search back 6 years to find it, but I would at least expect them not to be 6 releases behind on the PostgreSQL version number! Oh wait...

Actually, PostgreSQL is not partnering with SCO. Rather SCO has done a deal with EnterpriseDB who produce their own DB which is a modified version of PostgreSQL. So, while EnterpriseDB has done deals with both SCO and the PostgreSQL group, that one step removal is quite important.

From http://www.mysql.com/news-and-events/news/article_ 948.html
(emphasis added)

"About SCO

The SCO Group (Nasdaq: SCOX) is a leading provider of software technology for distributed, embedded and network-based systems, offering SCO OpenServer for small to medium business and UnixWare for enterprise applications and digital network services. SCO's highly innovative and reliable solutions help millions of customers grow their businesses everyday, from SCO OpenServer on main street to UnixWare on Wall Street, and beyond. SCO owns the core UNIX operating system, originally developed by AT&T/Bell Labs and is the exclusive licensor to Unix-based system software providers.

Headquartered in Lindon, Utah, SCO has a worldwide network of thousands of resellers and developers. SCO Global Services provides reliable localized support and services to partners and customers. For more information on SCO products and services, visit http://www.sco.com./ "

That's some heavy shit right there.

The Litigious Bastards partner with The Abomination that Shall Not Be Named. Sounds like a win-win for everybody else.

If briggster took actions which were intended to damage Fuddruckers' image, and they can show damages, the fact that Fudd's actions were also illegal probably won't save Briggster.

Imagine if, every night after you went to bed, I stole your car to go joyriding. There are lots of legal responses, from calling the police to putting a boot on your car to hiding your car so that I can't find it. But if, instead, you respond by cutting your own brakes before I steal it again, you would very likely be brought up on murder charges.

It's true that nobody is required to guarantee that a piece of information will always be hosted in the same place. But if this incident ever goes to court, Briggster can't use it. It's clear that what happened wasn't just a wacky coincidence that resulted from incidental site maintenance. His actions specifically targeted Fuddruckers, as evidenced by the fact that only people coming from the Fuddruckers home page saw the images.

Now, if the Fuddrucker's management is wise, they'll severely discipline the webmaster (I wouldn't go so far as firing him) and slink away, cursing the day they heard the name Briggster.com. But if they're litigious bastards, this may not be the end of things, especially once their lawyers explain that Briggster's actions have really hurt his ability to wage an effective countersuit.

See, this is exactly why people have been using this incident to question this guy's employability. You mishandle a situation like this, and soon your company is up to its eyeballs in litigation.

First, for this to mean anything at all, they need to get participation from the companies with the biggest patent portfolios. This includes companies such as Microsoft. It's not going to happen. Without their participation it's meaningless.

Second, even if they do get every single Fortune 500 company to join in the fun it won't help because there will always be small companies that make a play for some cash with a patent attack. We all know about a small I'm-not-dead-yet company coming from nowhere with a lame copyright suit. There are also some tiny companies with no products that come out with pure-play patent shakedown business models. Are these guys going to join in the pool? That's where the real threat is.

No, the real answer is this:

• Sourcecode can't infringe on patents. Only distributed products can possibly infringe on a patent. Therefore those who are involved only in sourcecode (ODSL) don't need to worry about patents. That's a question for distributors like RedHat, etc, who do have the resources to fight patent fights or license the patents.
• Software patents don't exist in Europe. Why worry about a problem that doesn't exist?
• We would be better served by a League of Patent Justice to defend the Earth than by some kind of pool. This League of Justice would do things like fight against frivolous patent shakedown claims, and also put out bounties on finding prior art. There almost always is prior art for all these claims.

----------------
mobile search - try it on your phone

Please don't download any of the somewhat large files from here, and most definitely don't go and find any 500+ MB files anywhere on sco.com to download (and if you do, be sure not to sure them with us). I seem to recall a large video file maybe, or perhaps there were some iso's...

You are repeatedly ignoring my point.

The LKP intercepts various calls, and passes them up to the 'host' kernel.

...

I see a big distinction between a discrete module execution (autonomous and distinct as a NIC driver, and equally as loadable and dischargeable) and grafting Linux source code into their kernel or gcc library source, or even header files, etc into a singularity.;

A kernel module is not 'discrete'. It runs in the same address space as the kernel itself. Think of it in the same way that you would think of a .so or a .dll file. LKP is definitely implemented as either a loadable kernel module or as part of the kernel itself, as it implements a trap for the int0x80 call gate (which linux and others use to jump from user to supervisor mode upon the commencement of a system call.)

Reference: http://uw714doc.sco.com/en/LX_uw/LKP_system_call_i nterface.html

What you have repeatedly ignored is the GPL's policy re: linking. From gnu.org:

This General Public License does not permit incorporating your program into proprietary programs. If your program is a subroutine library, you may consider it more useful to permit linking proprietary applications with the library. If this is what you want to do, use the GNU Lesser General Public License instead of this License.

Ergo, linking a proprietary piece of code to a piece of GPL'd code is not permitted (exceptions from the author(s) of the GPL'd code notwithstanding.)

The sco server I maintain doesn't even have tunefs, but online I found:
http://docsrv.sco.com/cgi-bin/man/man?tunefs+1M
http://ou800doc.caldera.com/en/man/html.1M/tunefs. 1M.html

I think sco doesn't use the filesystem in question anymore. (They use vxfs now.)

You have a lot more important things to worry about, sir. I'm investigating you under suspicions of Communism.

Everyone knows that the GNU movement is just a front for brainwashing good, old fashioned, God-fearing Americans into overthrowing this government by the people and for the people in favor of a Communist regime.

How do you know you're a Communist? There are a few tell-tale symptoms:

1. Destroying your perfectly configured Windows XP desktop in favor of a less powerful and less useful Linux machine;
2. Not taking showers often enough;
3. Improper usage of the English language (including difficulties with appropriate usage of the apostrophe, including substituting the contraction "it's" for the possessive "its");
4. Continually persecuting others for their non-belief in or disagreement with the writings and ethics of raving lunatics.

I, on behalf of your government, will be contacting you soon about possible appearance before a Senate committee on your Communist crimes. Until then, I suggest you install a real operating system.

Apropos of nothing... On a whim I checked out their "careers" page and discovered that they've been looking for an India-based Senior Software Engineer... ...since 13 January 2004. That's over a year and a half!

It probably doesn't mean anything, but I can't help but smirk. Must see a doctor about that someday.

They're done, done, done, stick a fork in 'em, they're DONE! (sfx: gavel BANG!)

It would be so cool if the final moments of the Smoking Crack Organization could happen on The People's Court. So we could actually hear Darl McBribe whimper and see him pee himself. In public. On camera.

Gotcha, you litigious bastard!

This has the potential of finishing off SCO for good. The way things have been going with this case, I don't have so much hope that will be the end, but if it could be, what a grand finale that would be! Not only will we have the satisfaction to see the litigious bastards go down, but more importantly, beautiful irony, the money Microsoft and Sun had invested in hurting Linux will end up in the pockets of a Linux champion! Talk about karma...

Do these confrences ever end in failure?

This one might well do given the current climate.

Get your linux license framed and mounted on the wall so potential customers can see you're not a thief.

"One of the questions which remains to be answered is what is the history of the identical code. It is possible that some of the code came from Berkeley or other third party. It is also possible that the code is exempted by the BSDI/Berkeley settlement. Additionally there are a number of other legal issues. I am awaiting an analysis from Mike Davidson on some of these issues, since he has a better feel for the history of much of this code."

Apparently, over the course of the next three years, it became obvious that there was *nothing* identifiable as copying from code that SCO owned into Linux...which is why SCO is now changing its tune and digging for contributions from AIX, which they have no obvious right to object to that they've been able to prove.

What bugs me about this is that Groklaw lets people know "there's an email that says SCO dug before and found no evidence of copying at all" (which is what the e-mail does, actually say).

Next, SCO issues a release of a memo from 3 years prior to that, which they had never mentioned before (for obvious reasons...they hadn't unsealed the e-mail before now, so they didn't need to show their flimsy counter-evidence), that says "well, way back before he came to a final conclusion, he said there was obvious copying".

Good thing Darl doesn't have a time machine...

• http://www.sco.com/scoip/swartz_memo.pdf

According to this article, OpenBSD 2.6 has been released, despite still being dead. Linus Torvalds has publicly accused Microsoft of resorting to bully tactics, but Richard Stallman has built a beowulf cluster of supercomputers in Soviet Russia, which promises to defend all our base.

Crosses fingers and eagerly waits for "story accepted" confirmation...

Jun 22, 2005 SCO Releases Major Upgrade With SCO OpenServer 6

Found here.

The scary thing is that most anyone can spin bad news just like SCO would. If you read enough BS coming out of Utah, eventually you know the pattern.

More like a virtual crack pot.

lol.. NEW Nardware certification. I want my nardware certified... lol (referring to a typo on their page)
http://www.sco.com/