Linus Comments on SCO v IBM

Linus says... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-03-10 15:34 · Score: 5, Funny

"Who is SCO again?"

Re:Linus says... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-03-11 00:57 · Score: 1, Informative

SCO used to stand for the "Santa Cruz Operation." They produced a flavor of Unix that ran on Intel machines (IBM PC, AT and compatibles etc). SCO merged with Caldera and for a time the company retained the Caldera name. It has since returned to the SCO name. SCO owns the licensing rights to Unix after they bought it from Novell (who previously had bought it from AT&T Unix System Labs).
Re:Linus says... by rkelly · 2003-03-11 14:28 · Score: 1

Just looked through a bunch of IBM AIX related
material that I have. I don't see anywhere that
they are shipping AIX under any SCO UNIX related
licenses or trademarks.

Re:fp by IIRCAFAIKIANAL · 2003-03-10 15:37 · Score: 0, Funny

Jesus Mary and Joseph i'm a fucking idiot. Feel free to mod my ass into oblivion.

Thanks and goodnight.

--
Robots are everywhere, and they eat old people's medicine for fuel.

The crux of the article by sielwolf · 2003-03-10 15:39 · Score: 5, Informative

For those of you looking for the 5 second MS Word XP autosummary.

[snip]
MozillaQuest Magazine: What sort of impact do you believe this sort of lawsuit filed by SCO-Caldera has on the Linux kernel, GNU/Linux, UNIX, and the Linux and free-software communities?

Linus Torvalds: None, really. The people I work with couldn't care less.
[/snip]

--
What is music when you despise all sound?

Re:The crux of the article by stratjakt · 2003-03-10 15:48 · Score: 2, Insightful

If the people he worked with jumped off a bridge, would he?

Seriously. Did they ask for the 'people he works with's opinion? No.

Think for yourself man! Dont live through others.

Form an independant thought!

Oh wait, patrairch of the Linux community. Nevermind, just copy everyone else then.

--
I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!
Re:The crux of the article by s20451 · 2003-03-10 15:49 · Score: 4, Interesting

Great. Where's his law degree from again?

--
Toronto-area transit rider? Rate your ride.
Re:The crux of the article by josh+crawley · 2003-03-10 15:50 · Score: 1

This is the whole article, hands down.

Everything else is just talking head arguments (like on Fox News, but less important).
Re:The crux of the article by ComputerSlicer23 · 2003-03-10 16:22 · Score: 4, Interesting

Hmmm, I'm going to assume your being sarcastic, but if you aren't, and you truely believe Linus isn't his own person, and doesn't have his own opinions, you've never read Linus in the middle of his own flame wars. If you want a really good one, just look up the one he had with a Professor Tanenbaum, one of the leading authorities on Operating Systems back in 1990 or 1991. Definitely has is own opinions, not afraid to tell you what he really thinks.
Kirby
Re:The crux of the article by silvaran · 2003-03-10 16:38 · Score: 5, Funny

Actually, the MS Word XP autosummary might look a little more like this:

MozillaQuest Magazine: What sort& nb sp;of impact do you believe&nb sp;this sort of lawsuit filed& nbsp;by SCO-Caldera has on the  Linux kernel, GNU/Linux, UNIX , and the Linux and free- software communities? 
 
Linus T orvalds: None, really.  The people I work with co uldn't care less. 
 
©&nbsp ;2003 Microcrap Corporation
Re:The crux of the article by Anonymous Coward · 2003-03-10 19:29 · Score: 0

La la la. Pretend to know what you're talking about. It was written on a billboard that EVERY FUCKING PERSON WHO HAS EVER USED LINUX has read. You're relevant and important. You're more than 16 years old. La la la.
Re:The crux of the article by Textbook+Error · 2003-03-10 19:29 · Score: 1

Wait, Fox News is important?

--

Nae bother
Re:The crux of the article by Anonymous Coward · 2003-03-10 19:44 · Score: 0

Hey, whiny kid... Shut the fuck up.
Re:The crux of the article by Anonymous Coward · 2003-03-10 19:45 · Score: 0

You just read that one recently, didn't you?
Re:The crux of the article by Anonymous Coward · 2003-03-10 21:34 · Score: 0

You woudlnt notice HTML when it stuck its fist up your ass.
the tags are there to support mozilla
Re:The crux of the article by SyFryer · 2003-03-10 21:53 · Score: 5, Interesting

Here is a link to said flaming in case anyone watching hasn't seen it.

http://www.oreilly.com/catalog/opensources/book/ ap pa.html
Re:The crux of the article by erc · 2003-03-10 23:10 · Score: 3, Informative

Andy Tanenbaum was *not* "one of the leading authorities". He was a professor of computer science teaching operating system theory, using Minix as a teaching tool.

--
-- Ed Carp, N7EKG erc@pobox.com PGP KeyID: 0x0BD32C9B What I'm up to: http://intuitives.mine.nu
Re:The crux of the article by jesco · 2003-03-10 23:14 · Score: 1

Yet Mr. Tanenbaum developed the Minix OS on his own, which gives you some 'authority'. And despite being a simple student at the time, Linus got into the argument!
Re:The crux of the article by Anonymous Coward · 2003-03-10 23:39 · Score: 0

Written on a billboard? Did he use spray paint or something?
Re:The crux of the article by stor · 2003-03-11 01:00 · Score: 1

You don't need to look up the Andy T flamewar, just read LKML. Won't be long before you read a Linus post claiming that someone/something is stupid/wrong and that he/it should be destroyed.

It's sometimes quite entertaining.

There's a few things you could call Linus, "sheep" is not one of them.

Cheers
Stor

--
"Yeah well there's a lot of stuff that should be, but isn't"
Re:The crux of the article by Anonymous Coward · 2003-03-11 01:01 · Score: 0

He also happened to be the developer of minix and has written several rather good, if a little dated, books on OS design and implementation.Infact, for your average comp-sci student Tannenbaum is the preferred text, I'd be suprised if its not on the tope of the reading list for every OS course on the planet.
Re:The crux of the article by DrXym · 2003-03-11 01:05 · Score: 4, Funny

How the interview should have gone:

MozillaQuest Magazine: So why are we are such a bad source for news?

Linus Torvalds: Because you're an utterly clueless one man operation that has nothing pleasant, informed or useful to say about anything. Having demonstrated woeful ignorance of your namesake Mozilla and after being shunned by that community you're now expanding your ignorance about other topics too. In fact I am surprised I am even talking to you - perhaps someone should have warned me.
Re:The crux of the article by attobyte · 2003-03-11 01:28 · Score: 1

The link is bad...

--
I didn't use the preview button, so get over it!!!!
Mike
Re:The crux of the article by smillie · 2003-03-11 01:37 · Score: 1

The link is bad...
remove the space in "ap pa"

--
Dyslexics Untie!
Re:The crux of the article by Gleef · 2003-03-11 01:51 · Score: 4, Informative

erc asserts:

Andy Tanenbaum was *not* "one of the leading authorities". He was a professor of computer science teaching operating system theory, using Minix as a teaching tool.

Let's see, he is the the author of the Minix Operating System, and coauthor of the Amoeba and Paramecium operating systems. He is the author of two of the cornerstone books used in computer science classes, Computer Networks, and Operating Systems: Design and Implementation, as well as several other books commonly assigned in computer science courses around the world.

Whether or not you agree with the man, you have to admit he is considered one of the leading authorities, particularly in academic computer science.

--

----
Open mind, insert foot.
Re:The crux of the article by Anonymous Coward · 2003-03-11 01:52 · Score: 0

Isn't it interesting that even though Linus has the tendency to be a complete jackass sometimes, this really isn't held against him? Or, his attitude is just widely accepted. However, if deRaadt or Bernstein express their opinion or flame someone they are labeled psycho/sociopaths, complete assholes, and this is given as reason not to use their software?
Re:The crux of the article by Anonymous Coward · 2003-03-11 02:13 · Score: 0

Or the gcc mailing list. Linus doesn't post often, but when he does, he is usually blaming gcc for not working like he'd want it to.

Or going on about how garbage collection is evil and inevitably leads to inefficiency etc.
Re:The crux of the article by ComputerSlicer23 · 2003-03-11 02:43 · Score: 0, Redundant

I don't know, he was the guy doing all of the coolest research in computer science at the time. He wrote the two books that everyone I know used for Operating Systems (at a variety of Universities), he wrote the Theory one, Design and Implementation one, he also wrote the Distributed OS book was used in senior courses, shit even Linus wanted him to sign a copy of his book. Showed up at his office when he was in Andy Tanenbaum's home country, but alas Andy wasn't there.
In Academic circles at the time, he in fact was one of the leading OS people on the planet. If you'd like to suggest he isn't, besides being just wrong about Micro Kernels (which a lot of people we're wrong about it, however, a lot of very cool, very stable OS's are based on the princepal, including the kind that go in medical equipment like QNX), what else didn't he do that would have made him one? He wrote the books everyone reads to learn about the foundations of OS theory. Okay he might not have been a leading expert, maybe only expert, but he sure as hell was a big name for an undergrad who'd never done shit (at that point) to stand up to, and say your an idiot on Usenet news.
Kirby
Re:The crux of the article by Jon+Abbott · 2003-03-11 02:55 · Score: 2, Informative

How true... I have to work with M$-HTML code day-in, day-out and it just ain't pretty. One day I encountered some bizarre M$-HTML code for a horizontal rule -- it easily took 10 lines, 80-100 characters per line, when a simple tag would have sufficed. Then there's the countless SPAN statements, the empty statements, blank lines with nothing but a on them etc. etc...

--
Slashdot's first reaction to VMware
Re:The crux of the article by You're+All+Wrong · 2003-03-11 03:00 · Score: 1

He was never a Dijkstra, but then again few, if any, are.
Maybe he's just a 'guru', not a 'god'?

YAW.

--
Your head of state is a corrupt weasel, I hope you're happy.
Re:The crux of the article by Anonymous Coward · 2003-03-11 03:12 · Score: 1, Funny

Actually, the MS Word XP autosummary might look a little more like this:

you forgot the obligatory macro virus...
Re:The crux of the article by makapuf · 2003-03-11 04:28 · Score: 1

one fun quote :

And it seems like network support and then X-Windows will be ported to Linux
well before Minix. This is something that would be really useful.
Re:The crux of the article by disappear · 2003-03-11 05:11 · Score: 3, Interesting

Yes, it is interesting. But it can also be explained easily:

First, Linus sometimes reverses himself. That is, he says, "I was wrong about XXXXX, and it's going into the kernel now." This happens a lot.

Second, Linus has a sense of humor about himself. He knows that he's good at what he does, but he never thinks he's the best or only.

Third, just because somebody disagrees with him, that doesn't mean that Linus calles that person an idiot. Or insult them. Or threaten to sue them, as Bernstein in particular does pretty frequently.

Linus didn't go off and found his own project because he made himself too unpleasant to the people with whom he previously worked... he did it because the work was interesting to him, and he didn't know that anybody else was doing it. (Though in fact the *BSDers were at the time.)
Re:The crux of the article by ajs · 2003-03-11 05:29 · Score: 1

This was most certainly not a legal opinion, as Linus is not a lawyer. Linus is the creator, and currently lead developer/maintainer of the Linux operating system. As such, he is among a very small number of people who are qualified enough to judge what if any technical points in the SCO case touch Linux.

The difference between (and importance of) a tecnical and legal opinion on the ramifications of a lawsuit are very important, and you should be aware of when you want to consult which one.
Re:The crux of the article by Bill+Privatus · 2003-03-11 05:36 · Score: 1

I read this book in college.
I think more highly of it than minix, or his position regarding that peculiar OS. I wonder what his minix position is now????
'Hello, this is Linus Torvalds, and I pronounce minix as mee-nucks'

--
Redundancy is good; triple redundancy is twice as good! - Me.
Re:The crux of the article by Anonymous Coward · 2003-03-11 06:01 · Score: 0

At the university I attended, the OS course used the Douglas Comer book and the XINU operating system, not Tannenbaum's books and MINIX.
Re:The crux of the article by martyros · 2003-03-11 07:44 · Score: 1

Not to mention, he still shows up at academic conferences and asks tough questions, not infrequently. I don't know what kind of research he's doing now, but he definitely knows his stuff -- not the kind of guy you want to have to answer on-the-fly in front of 400 other researchers.

--
TCP: Why the Internet is full of SYN.
Re:The crux of the article by Anonymous Coward · 2003-03-11 08:01 · Score: 0

HTML Tidy to the rescue.

http://www.w3.org/People/Raggett/tidy/

Tidy can now perform wonders on HTML saved from Microsoft Word 2000! Word bulks out HTML files with stuff for round-tripping presentation between HTML and Word. If you are more concerned about using HTML on the Web, check out Tidy's "Word-2000" config option! Of course Tidy does a good job on Word'97 files as well!
Re:The crux of the article by Jon+Abbott · 2003-03-11 08:15 · Score: 1

HTML Tidy to the rescue.
I've tried using Tidy before, and it actually refuses to clean some of these M$HTML files... Apparently if there are enough errors in them (which there are), it refuses to continue. :^( Instead, I'm using some perl scripts that I've developed over time that fix a lot of what comes through.

Another thing that helps is to use demoroniser, a perl script that cleans up M$HTML code a little -- it mostly removes things like "smart" quotes and so on.

--
Slashdot's first reaction to VMware
Re:The crux of the article by Anonymous Coward · 2003-03-11 09:41 · Score: 0

"academic computer science"

Enough said.

While there is nothing per se wrong with academic computer science and what research and theories that go on their frequently helps in the wild, the professional academics in this area are nowhere near the leadership caliber that occurs in the hacking, hobby, and industry roles.

In fact, I think most would agree that being in the academic circles can be a distraction, and even the thread cited above with Linux, Andrew attests to those demands. One's authority comes from being in those circles, but really amounts to being squat except to those who like to be talking to professors and degree holders--and in the computer world, most don't give a rat's ass about that, they want to know if it works and if you know what you're yapping about.

Yeah, he wrote some books, yeah, he may know what he is talking about, but I know that most of what he does is the demand of the academic circles e.g. publish or perish, not the practical inclination to better things innately (a standard would be on his own unpaid time).

Yippee, so he knows what's he's talking about. So does Linus. Larry Wall. etc. etc. Big whoop, he's at a University. He's written books. Yadda yadda. If his cruft is still being looked at in 20 years from now, then you have something. If he's the flavor of the times, who cares.
Re:The crux of the article by Anonymous Coward · 2003-03-11 09:44 · Score: 0

Those are flames? Those pale in comparison to nearly anything today that occur on an average day.

(btw, I agree that Linus has his old style and thoughts. Not sure what was up with that other poster. But this is hardly insulting or abusive or dirt-like oh-my-gosh stuff.

Then again, I read Theo de Raadt's stuff, and wonder what people are complaining about--seems just rather straightforward and frankly here's-how-it-is to me.)
Re:The crux of the article by pankajsethi · 2003-03-11 10:42 · Score: 0

erc asserts:

Andy Tanenbaum was *not* "one of the leading authorities". He was a professor of computer science teaching operating system theory, using Minix as a teaching tool.

And assert fails!!!
Re:The crux of the article by HamNRye · 2003-03-11 10:59 · Score: 2, Informative

Especially when he follows that flame with a "OMG, I'm so sorry I flamed you." letter.

In article I wrote:
>Well, with a subject like this, I'm afraid I'll have to reply.

And reply I did, with complete abandon, and no thought for good taste
and netiquette. Apologies to ast, and thanks to John Nall for a friendy
"that's not how it's done"-letter. I over-reacted, and am now composing
a (much less acerbic) personal letter to ast. Hope nobody was turned
away from linux due to it being (a) possibly obsolete (I still think
that's not the case, although some of the criticisms are valid) and (b)
written by a hothead :-)

Linus "my first, and hopefully last flamefest" Torvalds

Umm, just in case you didn't read ast's letter, that was flamebait. Tennenbaum obviously thought he was Torvald's professor when he wrote the first letter. (Which he wasn't) From his "Oh, how quaint, a macrokernel..." assitude, to his "When the GNU Hurd comes out..." smarmy superiority, he was baiting Torvalds. How's this "Subject: LINUX is Obsolete". This would be the equivalent of Matthias publically calling out M. DeIcaza and talking about what an antiquated piece of crap Gnome is.

I'm sure John Nall sent more of a "Don't stoop to his level" letter. Much as the KDE and Gnome teams talk smack about the other's software, they do so with a mutual respect. Tannenbaum, on the other hand, was getting his jollies thinking he was a 40 something professor/genius berating this 21 year old programmer/student. Sorry Tanny, at that point your both just OS designers, and you owe Torvalds some respect, as an equal.

Leading Authority?? If being in the top 100 is leading....

Gems from that page:
"A point which I don't think everyone appreciates is that making something
available by FTP is not necessarily the way to provide the widest distribution."
"I think it is a
gross error to design an OS for any specific architecture, since that is
not going to be around all that long."
"Of course 5 years from now that will be different, but 5 years from now
everyone will be running free GNU on their 200 MIPS, 64M SPARCstation-5."
"A multithreaded file system is only a performance hack."
"My point is that writing a new operating system that is closely tied to any
particular piece of hardware, especially a weird one like the Intel line,
is basically wrong."

~Hammy
Re:The crux of the article by Anonymous Coward · 2003-03-11 13:00 · Score: 0

Actually, he's among a very large (comparatively) number of people who are qualified to judge...etc.

Because Linux is open source and there are literally hundreds of developers with intimite knowledge of the OS core.

But Linus is not qualified to judge what SCO is accusing, because he does not have access to the Unix source code, nor does he know if IBM developers who submitted patches borrowed from it.

In reality though, SCO (Caldera) should be required to state which parts of the kernel IBMers have "borrowed", and then Linus can show them the changelogs. However, they may be competent enough to look through the archives and see which patches were submitted by IBM employees, and target their accusations on that.
Re:The crux of the article by boots@work · 2003-03-11 13:40 · Score: 1

(Unfortunately the site seems to be slashdotted so I can't see what Linus actually said. Roll on Freenet.)

The SCO complaint is written in plain English; you don't need to be a lawyer to understand it.

Their heart of their complaint is in paragraph 85: "It is not possible for Linux to rapidly reach UNIX performance standards for complete enterprise functionality without the misappropriation of UNIX code, methods or concepts to achieve such performance, ..."

SCO consider themselves to have some kind of godlike power to write enterprise operating systems, that could never be matched by anybody else.

This is clearly incredibly silly. Linus is well qualified to demonstrate that the improvements in Linux have come about through independent work or public documentation, and from many contributors only a few of whom are at IBM. It's also clear that performance has been steadily improving over the last 12-odd years. There's no sudden dumping of SCO IP into Linux.

Things that have been borrowed from proprietary Unixes have been taken from public documentation or whitepapers. The slab allocator is a case in point.

In fact, you don't have to be Linus to work this out for yourself: just look at the lkml archives, and observe how many patches have been sent by non-IBM hackers. The development process by which Linux's performance was improved is largely a matter of public record.
Re:The crux of the article by Gleef · 2003-03-12 02:40 · Score: 1
Hmm, a lame troll, but one with lots of hooks to inform people with. You discount Academic Computer Science, yet it is responsible, in whole or in part, for (in no particular order):
- The Internet
- BSD Unix (and variations)
- Linux
- The GNU project
- Object Oriented Programming (and, by extension, anything built using OOP principles, like Microsoft Windows)
- The World Wide Web
Another funny bit in your troll was "If [Tanenbaum's] cruft is still being looked at in 20 years from now, then you have something." Considering the first edition of Computer Networks was written in 1980, and it's still being looked at 23 years later, considering it was probably read by most people who made advances in computer networking over the past 20 years, I think you've made my point for me here.

Sure there's a lot more to computer science than academic computing, but don't discount it as a huge force in the field.
--

----
Open mind, insert foot.
Re:The crux of the article by ajs · 2003-03-12 03:43 · Score: 1

Source code is not the issue in the suit.

That's the key point that a lot of folks are missing. It's not about the source!

This suit primarily centers around the idea (this is a wild paraphrase of a bunch of legalese) that IBM disclosed trade secrets of USL (once part of Bell Labs, then AT&T, then Novell, then SCO, then Caldera, now SCOgroup) through their work on and contributions to AIX and Linux among other projects.

So, in that light, Linus is a vastly qualified individual for expert commentary because a) he knows exactly where many (not all) of the concepts in Linux came from b) he is more aware than the vast majority of people who have touched Linux when certain ideas fist entered the mix, and thus how much influence IBM had on them.

c) is a bit more complex. SCO claims that Linux and other open source projects could not have developed the advanced features that they have as quickly as they have without benefiting from UNIX's trade secrets. This is a nebulous claim at best, but I think you'll see that Linus has a very good basis for destroying any such claim by pointing out the large number of innovations that happened before IBM got involved and the large number of innovations that happened after IBM got involved that they did not contribute to.

Linus is probably one of the 3 to 10 most qualified "expert witnesses" on the Linux portion of this suit, and ultimately probably the most damaging witness that IBM could bring to bear (even pre-trial).

"Linus came forth"? by Call+Me+Black+Cloud · 2003-03-10 15:41 · Score: 5, Funny

I suppose he was carrying his comments on 2 stone tablets... Let's see, what did he spake unto us? "Ho humm..." Wow...words to live by.

Re:"Linus came forth"? by SmokeSerpent · 2003-03-10 15:55 · Score: 4, Insightful

"Ho humm..." Wow...words to live by.

I think so. We should all cultivate a more detached and relaxed attitude when confronted with the writhing death pains of a Corporate Dinosaur.

Not only is SCO not going to get a penny out of IBM if this went to trial (I'd like to see the battle of the expert witnesses as to whether Linux is to Unix as a Bicycle is to a Luxury Car), but they don't intend to go to trial or to do anything else other than get IBM to put some of the money the money they would of spent on a trial directly into SCO's pocket instead.

The "Slashdot thing to do" is often to start with the wailing and gnashing of teeth on every issue. Many of those issues, like this one, that sort of thing simply isn't appropriately spent on.

Linus is a smart guy. He walks softly, but carries a big stick.

--
All kings is mostly rapscallions. -Mark Twain, The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn
Re:"Linus came forth"? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-03-10 16:06 · Score: 0, Informative

Sorry to be an off-topic nitpicker, but I just have to point out a couple of things:

> ...they would of spent...

Should be, "they would HAVE spent". The sentence uses the perfect tense conjugation of a verb ("to have"), the word "of" is not a verb.

> He walks softly, but carries a big stick.

The Teddy Roosevelt saying is "speak softly...". Many people say "talk softly", which sounds like "walk softly".

OK, end of rant, and feel free to moderate me down into oblivion.
Re:"Linus came forth"? by unitron · 2003-03-10 16:32 · Score: 0, Offtopic

"Why was this post modded "overrated" before it had been rated?"
It was rated. The poster didn't turn off his (her) +1 good karma bonus point, thereby expressing his (her) opinion that his (her) post deserved to be rated at +2 right out of the gate. (Of course this is probably really because you have to opt out of the extra point manually each time you think it unjustified instead of going to the trouble of adding it if you think it justified.)

--
I see even classic Slashdot is now pretty much unusable on dial up anymore.
Re:"Linus came forth"? by SomeGuyFromCA · 2003-03-10 17:16 · Score: 1

I would have just sent OP here: http://kipster.org/scrubs/strips/20020316.html

--
if the answer isn't violence, neither is your silence / freedom of expression doesn't make it alright
Re:"Linus came forth"? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-03-10 17:23 · Score: 0

Ok, I can see throwing a point or two towards the AC but +5?! Are you guys high?
Re:"Linus came forth"? by Pharmboy · 2003-03-10 17:23 · Score: 0, Offtopic

Why was this post modded "overrated" before it had been rated? That's just laziness on the mod's part...geez

Not to argue with the other guys answer, but several people also moderate using only UNDERRATED and OVERRATED because those are the only moderations that are not subject to M2.

So, some spread their bad moderation that is motivated only by their agenda, and not good citizenship, by using these two mods, and never get metamoderated, thus, never get moderation taken away. Not all, but some do this. and its lame. and slashdot wont fix it for some reason.

--
Tequila: It's not just for breakfast anymore!
Re:"Linus came forth"? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-03-10 17:27 · Score: 0

> Should be, "they would HAVE spent". The sentence uses the perfect tense conjugation of a verb("to have"), the word "of" is not a verb.

While we're being "off-topic nitpickers," I'd point out that the sentence uses the conditional perfect tense conjugation, not the perfect tense.
If you're gonna give people crap for their grammar, you may as well do it correctly.
Re:"Linus came forth"? by vocaro · 2003-03-10 17:29 · Score: 0, Offtopic

While we're on the subject...
My pet peeve is what seems to be the #1 grammar mistake on Slashdot (even in the articles): it's instead of its. (i.e. "Netscape and it's parent company AOL") I can understand messing up a Teddy Roosevelt quote, but a friggin' pronoun?
Tip: If you change "it's" to "it is" and it doesn't make sense, then take out the apostrophe.
Re:"Linus came forth"? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-03-10 17:38 · Score: 0

People ignore some punctuation when typing in this type of informal channel, so basically accept it and get the hell over it.
Re:"Linus came forth"? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-03-10 17:52 · Score: 0

Linux is to Unix as a Bicycle is to a Luxury Car

so, uh, let me guess...not to hot in the verbal section?

...take what you know, mix it up and rearrange it...

Ok, let's practice putting them in the right order...

Remotly managing 10000 linux boxes is to typing for $x in `more dhcp_table.txt' ; do ./whatever.sh

As managing 2 Windows boxes is to

Yes, that's right folks, is to properly shaving a rabid cat with a dull jacknife
Re:"Linus came forth"? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-03-10 17:52 · Score: 0
Arrrrgh - Don't give bad advice on aprostrophies.
There are TWO places to use them in common english language.
1. When you leave someting out (it's == it is)
2. Aprostrophie of ownership
  - The boy's car. This is the car the the boy owns.
  - The boys' car - Move the apostrophe to assign ownership to a plural. A group of boys own the car. Using the boys's car will get you shot.
  - The boys are going to steel a car - there's no aprostrophe here because the boys don't own the car.
Re:"Linus came forth"? by BJH · 2003-03-10 18:05 · Score: 1

Just thought you'd like to know - the word is spelled "steal".
Not to mention the plural of "apostrophe" being "apostrophes".

The irony, the irony...
Re:"Linus came forth"? by fishbowl · 2003-03-10 18:11 · Score: 1

>The Teddy Roosevelt saying is "speak softly...".
>Many people say "talk softly", which sounds
>like "walk softly".

Sure, but "walk TALL and carry a big stick" is a whole generation of irony removed from TR.

In other words, there's no need to speak or walk softly if you have no qualms against USING the big stick... And don't intend to do any talking anyhow.

I am thoroughly convinced that more people who use this epithet are quoting the 1973 film "Walking Tall" than are quoting Teddy Roosevelt. Roosevelt's meaning was, you could avoid using the stick.

Buford's meaning was, the stick is the solution. You won't have to speak, because dead men don't ask questions.

--
-fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
Re:"Linus came forth"? by fishbowl · 2003-03-10 18:21 · Score: 3, Troll

>>Linux is to Unix as a Bicycle is to a Luxury Car

>so, uh, let me guess...not to hot in the verbal
>section?

I don't think you understood -- that is a verbatim quote from the actual court document. SCO has actually made that statement in their complaint, and with a straight face, filed it with a court.

Personally, I would have fired the lawyer who came up with that. (It reminds me of the time I DID fire a lawyer for saying "you don't need a nuclear bomb to blow up an anthill" in a piece of litigation for me.)

In a first draft you can say amateur crap like that, but this is a billion dollar suit. It calls for some standards.

--
-fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
Re:"Linus came forth"? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-03-10 18:21 · Score: 0

> The sentence uses the perfect tense conjugation of a verb ("to have"), the word "of" is not a verb.

With the phrasing you have above, there should be a semi-colon, not a comma, between the two clauses.
Re:"Linus came forth"? by JWSmythe · 2003-03-10 18:28 · Score: 4, Funny

I think the more important question is, if this *DOES* come to trial, are they going to charge for admission? It's starting to sound like it would be the most entertaining thing I've seen in years!

Hmmmm. But in Utah? Isn't it kind of religious out there? I'm not sure I'm allowed in that state. For some reason, there's a booming voice every time I go near a church that says "You Aren't Welcome Here.".. My girlfriend won't sit anywhere near me, even at weddings, in fear of being struck by lightning.. I think Utah is one of those states that may turn itself inside out just for me attempting to cross the border. Just picture that whole Moses parting that river thing, in reverse.

Maybe it'd be fun after all.. :)

All joking aside, it would be interesting to listen to. I want to know how SCO owns all Unix's and the idea of how they work, and even Linux, although their parent company (correct me if I got that part wrong) was selling a distribution for years..

Poor Linus though, he can't put an X on his name to name his program Linux.. I guess that means Malcom-X is just Malcom again or he owes SCO money. :)

--
Serious? Seriousness is well above my pay grade.
Re:"Linus came forth"? by nomadic · 2003-03-10 18:37 · Score: 0, Offtopic

(Of course this is probably really because you have to opt out of the extra point manually each time you think it unjustified instead of going to the trouble of adding it if you think it justified.)

Also it might be because the No Karma Bonus button is a few pixels away from the submit button.

Of course, people who moderate offtopic tend to be humorless gits it seems; when I get mod points I'll mod down for obvious trolls (and, I know a lot of people will be surprised by this, "I don't agree with them" does not equal "troll"). For some reason I picture the overrated modders as being weaselly little neurotic, obsessive-compulsive accountant-type guys; unjustified maybe, but the image keeps coming to me.

I'm sure this post will be modded overrated by someone who thinks it's just unbearably clever and ironic to do so. Ah well, I can afford the karma.
Re:"Linus came forth"? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-03-10 18:41 · Score: 0

You know what annoys me? The way people use i.e. (equivalently) when they meant e.g. (for example).
Re:"Linus came forth"? by aardvarkjoe · 2003-03-10 18:54 · Score: 2, Interesting

My rule of thumb is always mod up.

That's been my philosophy as well. (I usually get metamodded to hell ... usually because I find those posts that don't parrot the party line to be 'interesting'.) I haven't had mod points in a long time, though.

I really wish that they would get around to fixing the mod system. Despite some of the stupidity that goes on here, /. really does have quite a bit good about it. (Every time I think that I've had enough of it, I try reading k5 for a bit ... and I'm always back here in a hurry.) However, the only way to find the really interesting stuff on slashdot is to pick through all the goatse trolls. There's got to be a better way to handle it.

--

How can we continue to believe in a just universe and freedom to eat crackers if we have no ale?
Re:"Linus came forth"? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-03-10 19:10 · Score: 0

fucking idiot, it's "talk softly and carry a big stick" not "walk softly". fucking christ.
Re:"Linus came forth"? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-03-10 19:32 · Score: 0

'Not to mention the plural of "apostrophe" being "apostrophes".'

Which is true. But since there's just one apostrophe, he wouldn't use the plural.

And "steal"? Erm?
Re:"Linus came forth"? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-03-10 19:58 · Score: 0, Offtopic

The mod system is broken. I metamod religiously, and at one time probably slapped down one mod out of a hundred, and skipped modding three or four others as borderline. Now I find one or two gross violations each and every time I metamod. This includes "insightful" goatse posts, and well-reasoned, on-topic, uncontroversial posts modded as "troll" or "flamebait." And it's slowly but steadily getting worse.

K5 sucks for technical reporting; I still find a lot more interesting geek material here (although some of the technical articles on K5 are of a calibre I never see here, they seem to be pretty sparsely represented). But the comments here are rarely worth the trouble any more.

It used to be that most of the non-flame/non-troll comments on a technical subject were from people who actually had experience and hard knowledge in the area. Now, I see pure guesswork getting modded to +5 even though it is half-wrong. If things are so bad for subjects I know about, why should I trust what I read in areas I don't know about? It's getting to the point where I mostly just mod and metamod, and spend rekatively little time actually reading the comments at other times.
Re:"Linus came forth"? by DrMrLordX · 2003-03-10 20:08 · Score: 0, Offtopic

But goatse posts are insightful!
Re:"Linus came forth"? by BJH · 2003-03-10 20:35 · Score: 1

Take a closer look at his post.

Don't give bad advice on aprostrophies.
The boys are going to steel a car
Re:"Linus came forth"? by Iffy+Bonzoolie · 2003-03-10 20:39 · Score: 1, Informative

"(Of course this is probably really because you have to opt out of the extra point manually each time you think it unjustified instead of going to the trouble of adding it if you think it justified.)"

Actually, you can select "No Karma Bonus" by default in your posting preferences... I always post at 1, just for equity's sake - though now that people can turn that off in their comment browsing preferences, maybe I should start using it.

-If

--
Run a pencil-and-paper RPG campaign with your far-off friends: Gametable!
Re:"Linus came forth"? by Terralthra · 2003-03-10 21:01 · Score: 1

The indefinite singular pronoun "it" is exempt from the possessive apostrophe. A possessive its does not have an apostrophe, unless it happens to be a proper noun, like, say, Cousin It's hairbrush.

--
-Terralthra...
Re:"Linus came forth"? by pyrrho · 2003-03-10 21:07 · Score: 2, Funny

If I was an irony minor, this is where I'd dig.

--
-pyrrho
Re:"Linus came forth"? by pyrrho · 2003-03-10 21:17 · Score: 4, Informative

since you asked for correction, here is a clarification.

Caldera sold linux for years. They RENAMED themselves SCO after buying SCO. So SCO actually is the actual company that has been distributing linux for years. But mind you, not well.

--
-pyrrho
Re:"Linus came forth"? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-03-10 21:19 · Score: 0

"it" is eh? what is this it...? oh, "it" is the cliche he didn't use? so you are talking about how he didn't say something you just said, which he did not? So it is something else instead of itself?

fuck your confusing. yeah, you're, i know.
Re:"Linus came forth"? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-03-10 21:21 · Score: 0

advise them to put a for loop in there somewhere for god's sake.
Re:"Linus came forth"? by wossName · 2003-03-10 21:22 · Score: 1

Buford's meaning was, the stick is the solution. You won't have to speak, because dead men don't ask questions.

Truth. :)

--
Someone is wrong on the Internet!
Re:"Linus came forth"? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-03-10 21:29 · Score: 0

I write that ie. and eg., because the bugs you too!
Re:"Linus came forth"? by gig · 2003-03-10 22:31 · Score: 1

The "rules" on "its" and "it's" vary in different parts of the world. It is different in England and the United States, for example.

This goes with "color" and "colour" and the US idiosyncrasy of using antique measurements. You just get over it and you have a wider variety of reading material.

Languages are always (d)evolving. There are no rules. It's a wonder when two people communicate at all, never mind if they happen to be from the exact same part of the world and have the exact same education so that their punctuation can match. That's asking too much.
Re:"Linus came forth"? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-03-10 22:45 · Score: 0

Fuck it, I'm going to start leaving out letters. I can't be bothered to type them.

ter ats betr aaah ti s omch eser!
Re:"Linus came forth"? by spectral · 2003-03-10 22:46 · Score: 1

I didn't know they had college courses on such things, unless you meant miner ;) Of course given the content/purpose of your post, I assume this was intentional. :P
Re:"Linus came forth"? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-03-10 22:47 · Score: 0

An irony minor? An ironic child?

Man, kids just keep getting weirder!
Re:"Linus came forth"? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-03-10 23:09 · Score: 0

Linus is a smart guy. He walks softly, but carries a big stick. I thought he carried a blanket, and barely made peanuts off his operating system... I am so confused. Where's the coffee?
Re:"Linus came forth"? by 1u3hr · 2003-03-10 23:12 · Score: 0, Offtopic

The "rules" on "its" and "it's" vary in different parts of the world. It is different in England and the United States, for example.
Okay, I'll bite. How are they different?
Re:"Linus came forth"? by chthon · 2003-03-11 00:10 · Score: 1

I thought it was from Churchill : "Be gentle, but carry a big stick".
Re:"Linus came forth"? by Rip!ey · 2003-03-11 00:20 · Score: 1

Of course this is probably really because you have to opt out of the extra point manually each time you think it unjustified instead of going to the trouble of adding it if you think it justified.

That can be changed in your /. preferences. Opt-out is the default preference.
Re:"Linus came forth"? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-03-11 00:22 · Score: 0

Blackadder: Baldrick, have you no idea what irony is?
Baldrick: Yeah! It's like goldy and bronzy, only it's made of iron.
Re:"Linus came forth"? by Roofus · 2003-03-11 01:10 · Score: 0, Offtopic

I hardly ever see trolls (at least the Goatse kind). I browse higher score first, with anything scored 3 or above brought up. That way, I see all the score 5's then 4's, etc. I don't care enough to read anything under a 3, so I don't =)
Re:"Linus came forth"? by Pharmboy · 2003-03-11 01:12 · Score: 0, Offtopic

really? I m2 every day and yet to see under or over, yet i see them all the time in m1. is it just luck of the draw? Since I have been here a while (years), thats pretty 'lucky' that I have yet to M2 under/overs. I have not seen anything in the FAQ that indicates it either. Not trying to be a smartass, quite sincere.

--
Tequila: It's not just for breakfast anymore!
Re:"Linus came forth"? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-03-11 01:21 · Score: 0

This is crap - they are the same re "its" and "it's", it's just that many more people use them incorrectly in one of these countries. I'll let you guess which...
Re:"Linus came forth"? by Tony-A · 2003-03-11 02:05 · Score: 1

And "steel" the car.
Maybe it was fiberglass. ;-)
Re:"Linus came forth"? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-03-11 02:10 · Score: 0

You're trying to be funny, right?

Their is no scientific reason for prefering the meter to the cubit.

The scientific reason is that the metre is based on a scientific measurement.
Re:"Linus came forth"? by sjames · 2003-03-11 02:24 · Score: 1

I think so. We should all cultivate a more detached and relaxed attitude when confronted with the writhing death pains of a Corporate Dinosaur.

If only we could find a way to cremate them before they spread the diseases that killed them.

In one sense, you're right, most of the nonsense spewed by a dying dinosaur is just that.

On the other hand, if people would get appropriately outraged (rather than fearful) at the dinosaur's willful abuse of the structures of society for it's own petty gains and see to it that they all know such behaviour to carry an immediate death penelty, it wouldn't happen anymore.
Re:"Linus came forth"? by Gleef · 2003-03-11 02:32 · Score: 1

dnoyeb wrote:

We don't use "antique" measurements in the US, we use the measurements based on the measure handed to us by God.
What are you talking about?!? I live in the US, and, other than a few industries (eg. soda and drugs) we use an antique system called "Imperial" because we inherited it from the British Empire before they got wise and changed to metric.

The rest of the world is using a system of measurements handed to them by the French.
Yes, the French designed and popularised the metric system. They did this because all previous systems had gross problems with them.

Which would you prefer?
Metric, please.

For those outside of the know, the inch is related to the cubit which you can find throughout the Bible.
Huh? The cubit in the Bible is the distance from a person's elbow to the tip of their middle finger. This distance obviously changes from person to person, and is far from being a standard. There is no mention of inches in the bible, and historically, an inch was the width of the thumb. I fail to see the basis for the inch being "the measure handed to us by God", even if I accepted your Bible as being from God.

The measurements we use in the US are primarily those handed to us by the English Parlement in the 1820's, because that standard was closer to what we had been using up until that point than the metric system.

Their is no scientific reason for prefering the meter to the cubit.
Well, yes there is. The metric standard is defined much more precisely, so it can be used more accurately for very large and very small scale measurements. The math is easier, and using the same measuring system as everyone else facilitates communication, which is a good thing.

--

----
Open mind, insert foot.
Re:"Linus came forth"? by vocaro · 2003-03-11 02:38 · Score: 2, Insightful

The "rules" on "its" and "it's" vary in different parts of the world. It is different in England and the United States, for example.
There is absolutely no difference between the British and American usage of "its" vs. "it's". You must be thinking of "its" vs. "their". In British writing, for example, companies are usually pluralized, such as: "Red Hat are working on their next release of Linux." In American writing, you will see: "Red Hat is working on its next release of Linux." A similar example comes from the word "crowd", as in the British expression "The crowd are roaring." American English never pluralizes the word "crowd", taking it to be a singular group rather than a number of people.
You just get over it and you have a wider variety of reading material.
No! The problem of "its" versus "it's" is universal. It is a grammar mistake, not an idiom, no matter what country you live in. I challenge you to come up with a sentence where British English would use "it's" and American English would use "its". (Correctly, I mean, and without grammar mistakes.)
never mind if they happen to be from the exact same part of the world and have the exact same education so that their punctuation can match.
This is not an issue of regional differences in punctuation. "It's" and "its" are completely different words.
Re:"Linus came forth"? by TheRaven64 · 2003-03-11 02:44 · Score: 0, Offtopic

I've found that if you give a +1 bonus to offtopic mods then /. becomes a lot more readable. A lot of moderators feel that a direct reply to a previous comment is offtopic.
Off topic, who gets to moderate? Is it karma limited, or age limited at all? I still can't meta-mod, even though I have 'Excellent' karma, since I haven't been here very long, but idiots who don't bother to check facts before moderating up often seem to be able to moderate.

--
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
Re:"Linus came forth"? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-03-11 03:18 · Score: 0

Somehow I doubt that the units that a person uses affects their salvation or eternal destiny...

The main reason to use the metric system is...

QUICK! How many inches in a mile? How many ounces in a gallon? How many square yards in an acre?

If you ask simiar questions in the metric system, the answers are easy. They also all begin with a "1" and end with a bunch of "0"s.

In the Bible everybody wore robes and sandals. Somehow, I doubt that you have ever even worn a robe once to work. If you are going to mention the Bible, please make sure that it is about stuff that matters, and NOT trivial junk. This just makes you look silly.
Re:"Linus came forth"? by XO · 2003-03-11 03:38 · Score: 1

I think Mr. Roosevelt's meaning would have been more like "You should attempt to not use the stick. But some people are just so stupid, that you'd better have the big ass stick to back it up. Not only will that help you in the talking, but should they not be reasonable persons you are dealing with, they just might only listen to force."

--
"Champagne for my real friends - and real pain for my sham friends!" http://ericblade.postalboard.com/
Re:"Linus came forth"? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-03-11 04:02 · Score: 0

No, no. The correct quote is: "I talk LOUDLY, and I carry a BIGGER stick!!!" -- Yosemite Sam
Re:"Linus came forth"? by Rick+the+Red · 2003-03-11 04:11 · Score: 0, Offtopic

Hell, I'd rate my own posts off-topic at posting time, if I could.
Well, AC, you could start by getting an account.

--
If all this should have a reason, we would be the last to know.
Re:"Linus came forth"? by aardvarkjoe · 2003-03-11 04:12 · Score: 0, Offtopic

I believe that the newest 10% of users is ineligible to moderate. (It's in the FAQ.) I suspect that I've probably been made ineligible for various "abuses" (I'm not very editor-friendly), since it's been a year or so since I moderated. (I can still metamod, though.)

--

How can we continue to believe in a just universe and freedom to eat crackers if we have no ale?
Re:"Linus came forth"? by gorilla · 2003-03-11 04:13 · Score: 1

we use an antique system called "Imperial" because we inherited it from the British Empire
Not quite. The length units are the same as the British Imperial system, but the volume units aren't. A US gallon is 231 cubic inches, while an Imperial gallon is 277.4. A US bushel is 2150.4 cubic inches, while an Imperial bushel is 2219.4 cubic inches.
Re:"Linus came forth"? by harrkev · 2003-03-11 04:41 · Score: 1

The scientific reason is that the metre is based on a scientific measurement.

The original basis for the meter was the size of the earth. The metric system is convenient for scientific use, but this is just because everything is based on powers of 10. When they metric system was first being conceived, they could have had the meter be twice as long. Such a measuring system would still be as valid. Obviously, if the length of a meter were changed, the actual numerical values for the fundamental constants would change (avagadro's number, planc lenth, etc.) would all be different, but still just as useful.
The metric system only offers two advantages over the english system:
1) There is only one basic unit per measurement type. This one unit can be modified with standard prefixes (contrast this with ounce/pint/quart/gallon and inch/foot/mile).
2) There are only a few basic units defined, and other units derive from that (a milliliter is one cubic centimeter, and so on.).
There is nothing inherently better about the length of a meter compared to the length of a foot. It is all arbitrary. In fact, if I were to design the metric system over again, I would set the speed of light at 100,000 meters/sec. This would yield a much larger meter, though. But then again, this assumes that a second is already defined. Does anybody remember when Swatch tried to invent a new time system? It went over like a lead balloon, but nobody said that their system was inherently wrong!

--
"-1 Troll" is the apparently the same as "-1 I disagree with you."
Re:"Linus came forth"? by Anonymous+DWord · 2003-03-11 04:48 · Score: 0, Offtopic

The problem with over- and underrated in M2 is that they indicate a comment on the score of the post, not the content. When you meta-moderate, you're judging the mods as they relate to the content - this post was funny, the mod was "+1, Funny," OK, fair. In order to M2 an 'overrated' post, you'd have to know what the score was at the time of the moderation, e.g. X post was marked overrated, and at the time was modded +5 funny, so it was funny, but it wasn't that funny. And good luck on getting half a million geeks to agree on how funny a beowulf cluster of hot Soviet Russia grits is (pretty funny).

--
"If he thinks he can hide and run from the United States and our allies, he's sorely mistaken." Bush on bin Laden
Re:"Linus came forth"? by osu-neko · 2003-03-11 04:50 · Score: 1

We don't use "antique" measurements in the US, we use the measurements based on the measure handed to us by God.
I was going to say something, but as an American of primarily British ancestry, I decided this is actually fairly close to the truth... :)
Not that our system of measurements makes much sense, but they came from an otherwise great source...

--
"Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies."
Re:"Linus came forth"? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-03-11 04:52 · Score: 0

Man, if somebody was threatening me with an ass stick, I'd probably listen to them.
Re:"Linus came forth"? by TheRaven64 · 2003-03-11 04:59 · Score: 1

So, your post was moderated interesting. I replied to points you'd raised, and got moderated as offtopic. You then replied to my question, and got moderated offtopic. Good, huh?

--
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
Re:"Linus came forth"? by Pharmboy · 2003-03-11 05:06 · Score: 1

that is why you click to see it in context. and while under/over SHOULD be used to mod down 'interesting' when its not, or is incorrect, it can easily ABUSED is the problem. there is not CHECKS AND BALANCES. I can mod everything that sounds "liberal" for instance, as OVERRATED to push a conservative agenda, and go unchecked. I wouldn't, but some will, and do. It can be used to silence others without being subjected to M2. Yes, most wont', the ones who DO have an agenda, WILL. thats the point. I see people mod using OVER on +1 posts. Even on +2 posts, it shouldn't be used, imho. if its not offtopic, redundant or flamebait, then maybe your being too subjective in calling a karma bonus OVERRATED.

In order to M2 an 'overrated' post, you'd have to know what the score was at the time of the moderation,

Yes, its called "see it in context". its already a feature. I use it about once every other time I M2 anyway. Sometimes it hard to see if something is "offtopic" without looking at it in context. but then again, silly me, I may just be trying to M2 correctly and objectively. Offtopic, for instance, i end up saying nothing or 'unfair' about half the time, as long as the message is remotely concerning the topic, or its relative to the conversation that has flowed from the original topic.

Any system that allows abuse, will be abused. Just like any hole in an OS will be exploited, by some "just because i can". IMHO, this is a bug of slashdot.

Personally, I only mod up, almost never mod down. Its a choice. I view 0+ and find stuff that is worthy, instead of taking my bad day out on someone's opinion simply because i disagree.

--
Tequila: It's not just for breakfast anymore!
Re:"Linus came forth"? by aardvarkjoe · 2003-03-11 05:08 · Score: 1

Hey, I like having karma 50. That way, when I get modded up, I know it's actually doing something. :)

--

How can we continue to believe in a just universe and freedom to eat crackers if we have no ale?
Re:"Linus came forth"? by Anonymous+DWord · 2003-03-11 05:30 · Score: 1

Yes, its called "see it in context". its already a feature.

Well, assuming you'd see it at the exact time it was moderated, I'd agree with you. But you don't. It could be at -1 by the time you look at it. See what I'm saying? A post is funny, or it's not, at any particular time, but a mod of 'underrated' only applies to a specific score of a post, which you don't see when you click on "see in context."

--
"If he thinks he can hide and run from the United States and our allies, he's sorely mistaken." Bush on bin Laden
Re:"Linus came forth"? by TheRaven64 · 2003-03-11 06:01 · Score: 1

I know what you mean. I'm just sick of all of my trolls being modded insightful, and everything serious I say being modded to funny.

--
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
Re:"Linus came forth"? by You're+All+Wrong · 2003-03-11 06:53 · Score: 1

"you have to opt out of the extra point manually each time"

There is a setting to make it the default. I find it a handy laziness aid, as I never self-up-moderate.

Go to your "Preferences", and then select "Comments" - 3 settings from the bottom is a "No Karma Bonus" tickbox.

YAW.

--
Your head of state is a corrupt weasel, I hope you're happy.
Re:"Linus came forth"? by Pharmboy · 2003-03-11 07:00 · Score: 1

em>Well, assuming you'd see it at the exact time it was moderated, I'd agree with you. But you don't. It could be at -1 by the time you look at it. See what I'm saying? A post is funny, or it's not, at any particular time, but a mod of 'underrated' only applies to a specific score of a post, which you don't see when you click on "see in context."

No, actually you see all moderation done to it, the parent, the author, the full context. If you see it Funny +3 and one Underrated, then fine. BUT I HAVE NEVER SEEN UNDERRATED OR OVERRATED ON M2. Thats the point. In the years and years I have been on slashdot, never seen it. Unless you can finally show me where I am wrong, I have to assume YOU are, and just being acedemic.

REPEAT: Since I have never seen under or overrated on M2, everything else you are saying is irrelevent. Period. If you can point to where it says that they ARE, or 3 reasonable references from individuals, then I will stand corrected. Until then, I say UNDER and OVER are not subject to M2, which was THE POINT I had made.

--
Tequila: It's not just for breakfast anymore!
Re:"Linus came forth"? by WhiteDragon · 2003-03-11 07:52 · Score: 1

in fact, the inch is precisely defined as well. The definition of an inch is in terms of centimeters! In other words, the US has really been using the metric system all along (since 1964 at least)! Here is an article about it

--
Did you mount a military-grade, variable-focus MASER on an unlicensed artificial intelligence?
Re:"Linus came forth"? by XO · 2003-03-11 07:56 · Score: 1

Exactly my point. :)

--
"Champagne for my real friends - and real pain for my sham friends!" http://ericblade.postalboard.com/
Re:"Linus came forth"? by Principal+Skinner · 2003-03-11 08:45 · Score: 1

QUICK! How many inches in a mile? How many ounces in a gallon? How many square yards in an acre?

If you ask simiar questions in the metric system, the answers are easy. They also all begin with a "1" and end with a bunch of "0"s.

...that is, if you're still using that archaic decimal number system.

--
one hundred twenty
is just enough characters
to write a haiku
Re:"Linus came forth"? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-03-11 09:14 · Score: 0

Utah is a state and as such can not be religions. Many of the people that live in Utah are religious. I happen to be a member of that religion. While your comment is very insulting most of the people would treat you well. Most likley better than you would treat them. Isn't it time that we got past all bashing based on religion?
Re:"Linus came forth"? by Trogre · 2003-03-11 09:45 · Score: 1

Silly!
You're always welcome in church!

--
"Nine times out of ten, starting a fire is not the best way to solve the problem." - my wife
Re:"Linus came forth"? by ccp · 2003-03-11 09:54 · Score: 1

I second that!

We want a trial!
We want a trial!

Trial, trial, TRAL!!!

Cheers,
Re:"Linus came forth"? by unitron · 2003-03-11 10:20 · Score: 1

That no karma bonus checkbox in the preferences must be a somewhat recent addition. It didn't used to be there and no one bothered to inform me when it was added. I still say the page you use to submit comments should have a checkbox for adding the bonus point on a case by case basis instead of the present system where the addition of the point is by default unless the poster de-selects it each time.
For quite a while I checked the box each time to prevent the addition of the extra point, except for the few times when I forgot. That's how I discovered that I was more likely to be modded down (usually in ways that indicated an apparent agenda or lack of understanding on the part of the moderator) if I posted at +1 than if I posted at +2. I don't understand why the extra point makes me less of a target instead of more of one, but then there are many things that go on here that don't make sense.

--
I see even classic Slashdot is now pretty much unusable on dial up anymore.
Re:"Linus came forth"? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-03-11 10:32 · Score: 0

Perhaps ac has an account, but wishes to protect his precious karma.
Re:"Linus came forth"? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-03-11 10:36 · Score: 0

It seems this is exactly what they are. After all, overrated mods are not given metamoderation. Therefore a moderator giving such mods does not risk losing karma for bad moderation. It is also because of this feature that "overrated" has lost all meaning here. Perhaps the wisdom of the slashdot developers is overrated? ;)
Re:"Linus came forth"? by JWSmythe · 2003-03-11 18:30 · Score: 1

I'll stop bashing religions, when they stop harassing me.

Why did I have to pray to their god at school ("One nation, under God"), and was punished for not repeating the phrase?

Why do religious freaks stand on street corners and chant their christian garbage trying to save my soul?

Religion is thrown in our faces every day, and the Christians are the worst of them. Honestly, I have more respect for Muslims simply for the fact that I've never had one try to drag me to their church or convert me to their faith. Over the years, I've been to just about every kind of religious event.. Catholic, Jewish, Morman, Jehovia's Witnesses, Baptist, Presperterian, Lutherian, (x-ian ad nausium).

I've been told the wonders of Scientology and had my kharma examined. They have interesting insights into self examination and reflection through therapy (errr, talking of self to a more enlightened person). I like their bio-feedback/self control tool.. Talk to a scientologist, they'll tell you more.

The "pagan" religions have to be the best groups I've met.. Lots of openness without being pushed into anything. Ever been dragged into anything by a Wiccian? Probably not. But if you talk to them, they're more than happy to tell you everything they know. Well, unless they're "pagan", because they think pagan is cool. I'm rather upset that I have never found anyplace that can give me a good structured insight into their histories like the Christians have managed to put together.

If you read your message again, you'll immediately see how you point to people in Utah being of one religion. If I wore a T-Shirt with a pentagram on it, I'd probably be shot.

I don't.

I don't bring up religion in daily conversation. I won't knock you because you pray to God, Allah, o r any particular set of gods, or even self as god, but honestly I don't want anyone's religions pushed on me.. I have exactly one tattoo. it's a religious marking. It's a Celtic knot, symbolizing Earth, Air, Fire, Water, and Life...

And yes, I'm fun around the winter holidays. Celebrate the Winter Solstice, it's a great time of the year.. But leave your Christmas or Haunnaka in your pocket. Understand what you're celebrating before you tell your kids that St. Nick is coming down to drop presents under your tree. That's anything but a Christian celebration of faith.

You don't know how much it's been pissing me off that lately Bush has been making his whole war thing a christian vs Muslim thing.. Great. Piss off a bunch of Muslims.. I didn't know the USA is a Christian-only country, especially how we're suppose to be of religious freedom.. Utah is well known for it's religious freedom, as long as it's one religion..

Now ask what I am. I can't answer you.. Pagan maybe? They have a great viewpoint of understanding the universe.. Much better than "God created me, and I don't need to know anything else". Next week I'll be burnt on a stake as a witch. I can't say specifically what religion though.. I don't pray to gods or any particular set of gods. But, when I die, something will happen, and then I'll know. You never know, there may be a god that says "You should have moved to Salt Lake City, kiddo." Or I'll become part of a greater being that is the universe and all of us..

P.S., no offense to the thousands of other religions I didn't mention. You all have your good points too. More than likely I didn't say anything because you've never grabbed me on the street and said "READ MY BIBLE OR GO TO HELL!", and sure don't stand in front of every retail establishment for weeks on end begging for money just because you've declared it your holiday for giving.

--
Serious? Seriousness is well above my pay grade.
Re:"Linus came forth"? by ek_adam · 2003-03-14 03:39 · Score: 1

Also they need a moderation a long the lines of "stupid shit" or "crap" for all the stupid posts that get modded troll. Half the stuff modded troll is definatly not a troll. Offtopic? sometimes, crap? always, troll? rarely.

That's what the "overrated" moderation is for.
Re:"Linus came forth"? by dnoyeb · 2003-03-19 05:58 · Score: 1

Actually the inch did come from Britain, which came from Egypt, which was from a man named
"Enoch." hence, "inch" and it is from the Bible. No its not some stupid rediculous elbow to finger measurement. How is that even a measurement. You must think the Egyptians and all related were dumb. Not a single temple or anything could be built to such a rediculous inconsistent measurement.

I am not being religious by suggesting its is indeed holy, I am only giving you reasons that many believe it is holy. It is certainly more holy than the "French."

The metric "system" is nice, but the base unit of measurement is no more precise than that of the inch. In fact a base unit is irrelevant so long as it does not change. We could just as easily have milliInches and centi-inches.

Who cares what Linus thinks? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-03-10 15:45 · Score: 5, Insightful

No, really. I mean, yes, he's the figurehead of the Linux movement, but who cares? This is a legal matter, we should go ask Lawrence Lessig instead.

He has already said he does even think about patents, and that pretty much shows his attitude towards the whole thing.

Mozillaquest asking Linus for his comments were a typical waste of time, because everyone already knows what he is going to say.

Re:Who cares what Linus thinks? by DataPath · 2003-03-10 15:56 · Score: 5, Insightful

Well, the question involved is whether IBM has been insinuating UNIX (SCO owned, apparently) IP into the Linux kernel. And apparently their claims are that Linux could not POSSIBLY have advanced as fast or as far as it has without stealing UNIX IP, it MUST be stealing UNIX IP. Linus knows better than just about everyone else WHAT goes into the kernel, if not necessarily where it comes from. Since you can be pretty sure IBM isn't talking, Linus is the best source for evaluating with the community is capable of.

--
Inconceivable!
Re:Who cares what Linus thinks? by ehiggins · 2003-03-10 16:08 · Score: 5, Insightful

And there's the beauty of open source. We could ask SCO, "fine, you've got the source, show us the alleged Unix IP-infringing code".
Re:Who cares what Linus thinks? by PizzaFace · 2003-03-10 19:37 · Score: 4, Interesting

We could ask SCO, "fine, you've got the source, show us the alleged Unix IP-infringing code".
SCO's claims aren't limited to source code. SCO makes no claim of copyright infringement, though such a claim would be expected if source code had been stolen. SCO's complaint alleges (1) misappropriation of trade secrets, (2) unfair competition, (3) interference with contract, and (4) breach of contract. The trade secrets that IBM allegedly stole were SCO's "unique know how, concepts, ideas, methodologies, standards, specifications, programming, techniques, UNIX Software Code, object code, architecture, design and schematics that allow UNIX to operate with unmatched extensibility, scalability, reliability and security." (par. 105)
It takes chutzpa for SCO to claim that it could do things with operating systems that IBM couldn't. I predict there will ultimately be a charred and smoking gash in the land where SCO now stands.
Re:Who cares what Linus thinks? by mark-t · 2003-03-10 20:42 · Score: 3, Funny

And apparently their claims are that Linux could not POSSIBLY have advanced as fast or as far as it has without stealing UNIX IP, it MUST be stealing UNIX IP

Does anyone else find it interesting that this argument has such a strong parallel to the argument Christians use to try to refute the possibility of evolution?

--
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
Re:Who cares what Linus thinks? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-03-10 21:35 · Score: 0

Chutzpa?! Hey, Torvalds is Swedish/Finnish.
Re:Who cares what Linus thinks? by spyfrog · 2003-03-10 22:04 · Score: 1

I don't understand some part of this:
Is SCO claiming that Linux is using one of its patents or are they claiming that Linux use some of their copyrighted material?

Second - if they are claiming that Linux use some of ther copyrighted material, can't this simply be lifted out of the kernel?

Third - if they claim patent violation, does this affect us Europeans at all? Can't we simply kidnap Linus back to Finland and continue without americans?
Re:Who cares what Linus thinks? by idlethought · 2003-03-10 22:29 · Score: 1

From what I have heard of SCO I don't think they have any claim to being 'Intelligent Design'.
Re:Who cares what Linus thinks? by orcrist · 2003-03-10 23:22 · Score: 1

Does anyone else find it interesting that this argument has such a strong parallel to the argument Christians use to try to refute the possibility of evolution?

You just made my day :-) Awesome comparison.

-chris

--
San Francisco values: compassion, tolerance, respect, intelligence
Re:Who cares what Linus thinks? by DrWhizBang · 2003-03-10 23:43 · Score: 0

Does anyone else find it interesting that this argument has such a strong parallel to the argument Christians use to try to refute the possibility of evolution?

Does anyone else find it interesting that this argument has such a strong parallel to the argument evolutionsists use to try to refute the possibility of God?

--
Schrodinger's cat is either dead or really pissed off...
Re:Who cares what Linus thinks? by nathanh · 2003-03-10 23:56 · Score: 0

Hey, I just did some checking and a large number of them have recent account IDs (600k+) and have never posted to Slashdot before. Do you reckon that there was a link to Slashdot on a fundie website and they have all come swarming here to defend their faith?
Re:Who cares what Linus thinks? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-03-11 00:14 · Score: 0

Dont lump all Christians into the creationist/anti-evolution camp.
On the other hand, the real world makes extensive use of the "stack" and "queue". I find it hard to believe that these constructs could have "evolved". Clearly, an intelligent designer lifted the ideas from fundamental data structures used in SCO UNIX(TM).
Re:Who cares what Linus thinks? by forgoil · 2003-03-11 00:55 · Score: 1

Finnish... //Hej från Sverige//
Re:Who cares what Linus thinks? by forgoil · 2003-03-11 01:01 · Score: 1

I would call it defending their lack of brains!
Re:Who cares what Linus thinks? by hconnellan · 2003-03-11 01:16 · Score: 1

What they are claiming is that IBM violated a contract.

When IBM first created AIX they licenced some of the technology from SCO (or whoever owned the unix IP at the time). I assume one of the conditions of the licencing was an NDA which prevented IBM from sharing the technology with third parties.

SCO is now claiming that the improvments that IBM are making in Linux is derived from the original IP and thus violating that contract. This is how they can threatening to stop the distribution of AIX.
Re:Who cares what Linus thinks? by 0x12d3 · 2003-03-11 02:06 · Score: 1

And there's the beauty of open source. We could ask SCO, "fine, you've got the source, show us the alleged Unix IP-infringing code."
SCO very carefully worded the allegations, and earlier said something to the effect of 'IBM has shared copyrighted techniques even if no actual line off code was duplicated...'
Re:Who cares what Linus thinks? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-03-11 02:37 · Score: 0

Does anyone find it interesting that on /. the posters are credulous of anything labeled "science"?
Re:Who cares what Linus thinks? by bahamat · 2003-03-11 02:41 · Score: 1

Um, not really.

Evolution:
IBM turns over a leaf and says "oh look here's some UNIX technology. It must have wrote itself through endless years of trying"

Christianity:
IBM says "Let's work and create something, because even an idiot knows that something can't come from nothing"
Re:Who cares what Linus thinks? by Tony-A · 2003-03-11 02:42 · Score: 1

I'd be curious as to how much of that "unmatched extensibility, scalability, reliability and security" came from Berkeley and MIT instead of from AT&T.
At some point the norm was to obtain the license from AT&T and the program itself from Berkeley. Without the same kind of processes that have made Linux, UNIX would never have shown up as any viable commercial operating system .
Re:Who cares what Linus thinks? by Zirnike · 2003-03-11 03:23 · Score: 1

Actually, they haven't done this with code yet, but they have done it using FPGAs.
http://www.netscrap.com/netscrap_detail.cfm?scrap_ id=73
I find it astounding that anyone can think the human body was designed. It is one of the worst peices of engineering I've seen, and I've seen a lot.

--
I'm not shy, I'm stalking my prey
Re:Who cares what Linus thinks? by a_n_d_e_r_s · 2003-03-11 03:29 · Score: 1

Brains ? They got brain ?

--
Just saying it like it are.
Re:Who cares what Linus thinks? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-03-11 03:35 · Score: 0

well, that was Swedish.
Re:Who cares what Linus thinks? by harrkev · 2003-03-11 03:36 · Score: 2, Interesting

I apologize to all for being off topic, but I did not start this.
I would call it defending their lack of brains!

You, sir, are an obvious troll!
I am a previous member of Mensa (but I am too smart to keep giving them my money). I sometimes use Linux at home on a PC that I built myself. I currently work as an electrical engineer in military avionics. And I believe in God and Jesus.
The very fact that you are so sure of your beliefs (or lack thereof) that you are entitled to attack other people who feel differently means you are guilty of the same type of narrow-mindedness that you probably feel Christians to (stereotypicaly) hold.
If you wish to discuss facts and/or opinions, I welcome it. However, please do not resort to insulting people who have done nothing to you.
I read this thread because I am interested in Linux, and Linus. Please leave discussions like this out of it. As far as I know, no church organizations have yet to sue IBM over Linux.

--
"-1 Troll" is the apparently the same as "-1 I disagree with you."
Re:Who cares what Linus thinks? by mark-t · 2003-03-11 04:37 · Score: 1

Touche, but that since Christianity isn't particularly "politically correct", you're less likely to make your point understood.

--
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
Re:Who cares what Linus thinks? by mark-t · 2003-03-11 05:18 · Score: 1

Yes, but those "ideas" are not trade secrets. They are a standard part of the curriculum for almost any post-secondary Computer Science course on Operating Systems. So it's obvious that anyone could have access to the knowledge. The point I was making is that "they couldn't possibly have done this without help" has not been a credible argument before, why should it be now?

--
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
Re:Who cares what Linus thinks? by Mr.+McGibby · 2003-03-11 05:42 · Score: 1

he's the figurehead of the Linux movement

He's hardly a figurehead. He's in charge of the code. Figureheads don't do anything.

--
Mad Software: Rantings on Developing So
Re:Who cares what Linus thinks? by arkanes · 2003-03-11 09:20 · Score: 1

Fundies are brainless no matter what religion they follow. In fact, one of the key definitions of a fundie is that they don't think for themselves, but rather let other people or books think for them. Intelligent, normal people who happen to be Christian need not be offended by Fundie-baiting.

rejoinder by Alomex · 2003-03-10 15:48 · Score: 3, Funny

....for once a lawsuit that isn't really Microsoft's fault.

Re:rejoinder by Anonymous Coward · 2003-03-10 15:57 · Score: 0

Actually, it may very well be Microsoft's fault...
Check Slashdot Posting
Re:rejoinder by Anonymous Coward · 2003-03-10 16:22 · Score: 0

Arithmetic according to C: float x = 3.14159; float y = 1/2 * x; Value of y? zero.

You find that confusing? Integer division in C yields an integer result. Why wouldn't it? 1/2 is 0 with a remainder of 1. Hence, the integer result is 0. If you need floating point division, 1.0/2 will do you fine. Instead of complaining about the language, learn it.
Re:rejoinder by kfg · 2003-03-10 16:41 · Score: 1

Dear Sir,

Poster does not find his observation confusing. Indeed, he clearly understands enough C to pose the joke.

No, what he does is understand *mathmatics* to a degree that makes the joke. In other words, rather than being confused he is amused.

This indicates a certain intelligence as well.

Since you are confused by the humor of his little jest we can only asume. . .

Oh, nevermind. It isn't worth it.

KFG
Re:rejoinder by Anonymous Coward · 2003-03-10 17:33 · Score: 0

It seems like "Poster" is confused about the relationship between C notation and mathematics. His complaint is about as interesting as the observation that "agenda" means something different in French and in English--which is to say, not very. C and mathematics are different languages.
Re:rejoinder by loginx · 2003-03-10 18:05 · Score: 1

actually, agenda has a different meaning from french to english.
Re:rejoinder by kfg · 2003-03-10 18:17 · Score: 1

Q.E.D.

KFG
Re:rejoinder by Goalie_Ca · 2003-03-10 19:00 · Score: 2, Insightful

re sig: well, 1/2 is integer divide which will return 0.

--

----
Go canucks, habs, and sens!
Re:rejoinder by 10Ghz · 2003-03-10 19:33 · Score: 1

To my knowledge, MS owns part of SCO.

--
Lesbian Nazi Hookers Abducted by UFOs and Forced Into Weight Loss Programs - -all next week on Town Talk.
Re:rejoinder by blake182 · 2003-03-10 20:21 · Score: 1

Arithmetic according to C: float x = 3.14159; float y = 1/2 * x; Value of y? zero.

Value of understanding C programming and avoiding this problem? Priceless.
Re:rejoinder by CProgrammer98 · 2003-03-11 00:38 · Score: 1

You're not from here are you. It was humor

--
And the people shall be oppressed, every one by another, and every one by his neighbour Isaiah 3:5
Re:rejoinder by cdrudge · 2003-03-11 01:36 · Score: 1

They use to own about 4.2 million shares or about 11%, but this was back in the late 90's. I do not beleive that they currently have a stake in the company since Caldera bought them and then changed names.

It was actually a win-win situation for Microsoft when they did own them. Microsoft had an agreement where SCO had to include a useless bit of code in the OS for backwards compatibility with Xenix. In doing so, SCO had to pay royalties since Microsoft originally owned the rights to Xenix. So they got a few bucks for every copy sold. Then the agreement was judged to be anticompetitive so Microsoft let them out of the agreement. This raised stock prices, of which Microsoft took their 11%.
Re:rejoinder by 10Ghz · 2003-03-11 01:57 · Score: 1

I do not beleive that they currently have a stake in the company since Caldera bought them and then changed names.

That might be if Caldera bought SCO's shareowners out with cash, but that was not the case. Caldera bought SCO with their own shares, which means that SCO's shareholders (MS among them) got Caldera-shares for their SCO-shares. So MS could still own a stake in SCO/Caldera.

--
Lesbian Nazi Hookers Abducted by UFOs and Forced Into Weight Loss Programs - -all next week on Town Talk.

Not too bad of a write up by Hardwyred · 2003-03-10 15:49 · Score: 2, Insightful

Ya know, while the article was short, it was nice to see mozillaquest take great pains to ensure that they added no bias of their own, but instead simply acted as a scribe. Nice to see.

--
www.linux-skunkworks.com

Re:Not too bad of a write up by 21mhz · 2003-03-11 04:10 · Score: 1

If this is the same MozillaQuest as once was on http://www.mozillaquest.com, it was originally run by a troll who thrived on badly written articles misinterpreting statistics from bugzilla.mozilla.org and submitting links to NewsForge, Slashdot and elsewhere.
It's nice if they have grown since then.

--
My exception safety is -fno-exceptions.

Spin by IIRCAFAIKIANAL · 2003-03-10 15:50 · Score: 4, Insightful

Normally, we end our articles with a summary and/or conclusion. We do not do so with this article. That's because we want you to have the benefits of Linus Torvalds' comments about the SCO-Caldera v IBM lawsuit without any spin from us.

The fact that CmdrTaco left out snide comments as well as these guys just proves how stupid this whole SCO thing is. Well, it doesn't really prove anything :P - but it's nice to get an article without the OSS "zealot" spin (I mean that nicely, really!)

Very interesting how he put in into perspective - basically, SCO is alleging that Linux wouldn't be enterprise class without

(1) a high degree of design coordination, (2) access to expensive and sophisticated design and testing equipment; (3) access to UNIX code, methods and concepts; (4) UNIX architectural experience; and (5) a very significant financial investment

which it got indirectly from SCO.

Course, that's bullshit (at least point 3, which is the only one that really matters as far as I can tell - correct me if i'm wrong).

--
Robots are everywhere, and they eat old people's medicine for fuel.

Re:Spin by dido · 2003-03-10 17:40 · Score: 5, Insightful
A brief exposition on why the points are BS...
1. a high degree of design coordination Who says this couldn't be achieved by the Open Source world? It has, and Linux is not the only example (though it is, admittedly the largest scale project of them all).
2. access to expensive and sophisticated design and testing equipment In the true spirit of Free Software/Open Source, all of the design and testing is done by the community. Having hundreds of thousands (and now millions) of people all making use of it is far far better than the best testing equipment money can buy.
3. access to UNIX code, methods and concepts What for? Have they taken a look at the Linux code, or even the code for the GNU utilities that are part of a standard UNIX environment? Does any of it have anything in common with the code they say is theirs? It's all open, SCO, prove it. You can have a look.
4. UNIX architectural experience Oh please. As if there weren't already thousands of people with this kind of expertise at the time Linus Torvalds began this work!
5. a very significant financial investment The off-time of thousands of hackers who would otherwise be paid significant money is indeed a "significant financial investment". And furthermore, what's wrong with the fact that real financial investments are coming in from IBM and other companies?
--
Qu'on me donne six lignes écrites de la main du plus honnête homme, j'y trouverai de quoi le faire pendre.
Re:Spin by SN74S181 · 2003-03-10 19:39 · Score: 1

In the true spirit of Free Software/Open Source, all of the design and testing is done by the community.

Uh, I don't think they brought up Linux on the Itanium by throwing a tarball or two out to 'the community' to test. Any time a port is made to a new architecture, there's a certain level of 'bringing it up' that demands expensive hardware. Having worked with older-generation hardware debugging equipment, I am frightened to imagine what gear for the current architectures cost.

Let's not pretend Linux, or any Modern Operating System, is so 'grass roots' that Joe Random and twelve of his buddies can throw it together using castoff hardware and lots of sweat.
Re:Spin by Anonymous Coward · 2003-03-10 20:50 · Score: 0

Interestingly, when you run it through the Automatic Lawyer Speak Translator (tm) you get this:
Well yeah, Linux is cool and all but really, have ya seen how many lines of code are in that thing? Let me tell you: millions. And we're supposed to believe that thousands of disconnected hackers around the world wrote this thing? Ha! I mean, this is Unix we're talking about. I mean, "Open Source" is cool and all that, but really, this is WAY too good to be true. Right? Right?
Unfortunately for SCO, they obviously never heard of Alan Cox.
Re:Spin by MrResistor · 2003-03-11 06:42 · Score: 1

Uh, I don't think they brought up Linux on the Itanium by throwing a tarball or two out to 'the community' to test.

Linux got ported to Itanium because Intel paid SuSE to port it. I very much doubt they did that without providing any documentation, which makes your comment about hardware debugging equipment completely irrelevant.

Even if they weren't working directly with Intel there is no reason they would have needed any expensive hardware debugging equipment. An IA-64 compatible C compiler would be sufficient. If they really wanted to do it "right", meaning by using gcc, then they likely would have needed an Assembly Language Reference, and a User's Guide for porting developement platforms to IA-64 might have been helpful as well. Too bad Intel is so tight-fisted with that info!

Let's not pretend Linux, or any Modern Operating System, is so 'grass roots' that Joe Random and twelve of his buddies can throw it together using castoff hardware and lots of sweat.

Except that's pretty much exactly what Gary Thomas did when he ported Linux to PPC and had a working port before any of the PPC vendors got involved with the project.

Perhaps you should do a little research into the history of Linux ports before you make statements like these.

--
Under capitalism man exploits man. Under communism it's the other way around.
Re:Spin by Anonymous Coward · 2003-03-11 07:38 · Score: 0

Except that's pretty much exactly what Gary Thomas did

That's the romantic version of the story, of course.
Re:Spin by You're+All+Wrong · 2003-03-11 07:41 · Score: 1

In particular, for (3) and (4), I'd simply like to know how many copies of ISBN: 0-13-637331-3 were sold prior to the alleged offence.

I believe your "thousands" could be scaled up much further!

YAW.

--
Your head of state is a corrupt weasel, I hope you're happy.
Re:Spin by MrResistor · 2003-03-11 08:31 · Score: 1

That's the romantic version of the story, of course.

That's Gary Thomas' version, and I think he would know.

According to Gary, he had a working port in 1995, before mklinux even got started, which was the beginning of Apple's involvement and what got Motorolla and the rest involved.

If you have evidence that contradicts his version of the story, feel free to present it here.

--
Under capitalism man exploits man. Under communism it's the other way around.

From the complaint... by darkov · 2003-03-10 15:51 · Score: 4, Funny

84. Prior to IBM's involvement, Linux was the software equivalent of a bicycle. UNIX was the software equivalent of a luxury car. To make Linux of necessary quality for use by enterprise customers, it must be re-designed so that Linux also becomes the software equivalent of a luxury car. This re-design is not technologically feasible or even possible at the enterprise level without (1) a high degree of design coordination, (2) access to expensive and sophisticated design and testing equipment; (3) access to UNIX code, methods and concepts; (4) UNIX architectural experience; and (5) a very significant financial investment.

I think SCO missed them most important ingredient, the one they haven't got: a clue.

--
Reliable, Great Value Hosting: $7.95/mo 2.4G/120G

Re:From the complaint... by steve_l · 2003-03-10 16:25 · Score: 4, Funny

Also they've missed out the fact that bicycles are lower cost and often more practical than a luxury car, better suited to european cities and third world countries, and perhaps the future of transport for humanity :)

I think I have access to the SysV code. I also have access to VMS somewhere, and NT. Do I look at them? Why bother? All you can learn is what not to do.
Re:From the complaint... by lenski · 2003-03-10 16:36 · Score: 5, Insightful
- a high degree of design coordination: The internet
- access to expensive and sophisticated design and testing equipment: dyadic (to quote the old evil empire...), quad, and higher-count multiprocessors that have become far more common under the influence of Moore's "law"
- Access to UNIX code, methods and concepts: People have been studying OS technology for 40+ years... Including IBM! :-)
- UNIX architectural experience: Again, this is standard upper-classman study. I studied this stuff at the age of 18, 28 years ago. (Back then, our studies were somewhat "academic", given how many System/360. /370, CDC supercomputers existed at the time...)
- A very significant financial investment: Add up the contributions of the core teams, the hundreds of regular patch providers, thousands of enthusiasts, and hundreds of thousands of people studying this stuff (Gnu very much included): The cost of paying that many smart people professional wages would be, in a word, huge.
SCO has completely missed the effects of common availability of computational resources. I remember when crossing the gigaflop "barrier" was a big deal. Today it's your average laptop. 18 years ago, a UNIX source license in a business context could cost about $125,000 (as priced by a friend of mine, working on Sequent boxes). Apparently, that's when SCO executives seem to have stopped noticing the progress of technology.
Re:From the complaint... by jmv · 2003-03-10 19:30 · Score: 0

Aside from point 3 (access to UNIX code), what's the matter with the rest. Yes, there's been a high degree of design coordination. Is that illegal? (if so, close all companies right now) Same holds for access to sophisticated hardware (sue every owner of a super-computer), UNIX architecture (sue every UNIX programmer), and financial investment (again sue every company). This is just plain stupid.

I can see the trial go:

SCO lawyer: Did you do all the things we accuse you of doing?
IBM rep.: Yes, what's the problem?
SCO lawyer: Euh...
judge: Case dismissed!

--
Opus: the Swiss army knife of audio codec
Re:From the complaint... by erc · 2003-03-10 23:37 · Score: 1

As for point 3, "The Design of the UNIX Operating System" was quite popular at the time, and was probably used by more than one person while working on the kernel code - I know I used it. No infringment necessary.

--
-- Ed Carp, N7EKG erc@pobox.com PGP KeyID: 0x0BD32C9B What I'm up to: http://intuitives.mine.nu

Correct me if I'm wronge... by PapaSMURFFS · 2003-03-10 15:52 · Score: 3, Interesting

Correct me if I'm wronge, but isn't the SCO Group involved with several linux projects itself? I think the one real reason for the lawsuite is pointed out in the article-->The fear of loosing the revinue from the IBM liscencing on AIX

Re:Correct me if I'm wronge... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-03-10 16:13 · Score: 0

And Smurf not Smurffs. Gotta love someone who misspells their UID.
Re:Correct me if I'm wronge... by rsax · 2003-03-11 05:50 · Score: 1

OK. You are wrong. Sorry, just couldn't resist.
Re:Correct me if I'm wronge... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-03-11 09:39 · Score: 0

I'm posting anonymously so not to be modded down...
Just to let you know, being a middle class western individual I damn well know its Smurf not SMURFFS, it has a meaning a few of my more privvy friends can know...but not you, sorry

Mirror in case it's slashdotted by jsse · 2003-03-10 15:56 · Score: 5, Informative

SCO-Caldera v IBM: Linus Torvalds Comments on SCO-Caldera's Linux-Related Allegations

Nearly One-Half of SCO-Caldera Income from IP Licensing and Enforcement

By Mike Angelo -- 10 March 2003 (C)

For more than a month now, SCO-Caldera has been doing some intellectual property (IP) saber-rattling and market posturing regarding its UNIX source code ownership and Linux. On 6 March 2003, SCO-Caldera stopped its saber-rattling and pulled the sword out of its sheath when it filed a legal action against IBM regarding claims involving the UNIX and Linux operating systems.

Of the 136-paragraph Complaint filed by Caldera Systems, Inc., d/b/a The SCO Group, six are particularly significant regarding the Linux kernel, and the GNU/Linux operating system, and Linux distributions.

Paragraphs 74 and 82 through 86 of SCO-Caldera's Complaint belittle and insult Linux developers, the Linux kernel, GNU/Linux, Linux distribution providers -- in essence the entire GNU/Linux and free software community.

In an e-mail discussion, we asked Linus Torvalds to comment on the Linux-related allegations SCO-Caldera makes in its Complaint against IBM. Here is Linus Torvalds' uncensored commentary.

Linus Torvalds: Ho humm..

I'm not all that excited about commenting a lot on lawsuits, since quite frankly I want to have as little as humanly possible to do with such things. At the same time I obviously do find the SCO one a bit interesting, since it's the first lawsuit ever I know of that actually involves Linux, even if Linux itself seems pretty peripheral.

Just as well, that "peripheral" thing ;)

MozillaQuest Magazine: SCO-Caldera says in paragraph "82" that "it would be difficult or impossible for the Linux development community to create a grade of Linux adequate for enterprise use." (Without the aid of the alleged actionable conduct of IBM) Is that true?

Linus Torvalds: I don't think IBM would have started using Linux if it was true. I think IBM got serious about Linux because it noticed that it _was_ "adequate for enterprise use" from a technical perspective, but lacked a lot of things IBM could bring to the table (marketing, of course, but even more than just marketing, just the presence of IBM made Linux be taken much more seriously).

So I think IBM's involvement has been very important, but while IBM has fine engineers, the most important part by _far_ has been the "mindshare" part of it.

But what does "adequate for enterprise use" really mean? The marketing and mindshare certainly _matter_ a lot for pretty much all enterprise customers. So in _that_ sense maybe SCO is right, even though I don't think that is really what SCO _meant_.

MozillaQuest Magazine: It sounds as though this lawsuit is not a suit alleging copyright infringement, patent infringement, or trademark infringement (the standard three prongs of the intellectual property complex). Rather, it appears the Caldera v IBM action is more in the nature of a contract or tort action.

Linus Torvalds: Yeah, I don't personally think they have any IP rights on Linux, and I agree, it looks more like a suit over the contract rather than over Linux itself.

I don't think they are going to win it (very very weak arguments, since at least from a technical perspective I don't think the IBM involvement has been that significant, and SCO was losing out _long_ before IBM started pushing Linux). However, my personal (maybe overly cynical) suspicion is that even _they_ don't think they'll win the suit, and it may be nothing more than a way to force IBM back into license discussions over UNIX itself.

So I think that 100-day license revocation thing may actually be the most important part of the whole suit, and that the rest might be just the excuse. If I was SCO and looking at IBM, I'd have long since noticed that IBM has been talking about Linux taking over more and more of their current AIX usage, to potentially eventually replace it altogether.

So SCO sees IBM largely going away as a licensee in a few years - and while I certainly don't have any knowledge of how much that means for SCO, I would not be surprised if IBM licenses are quite a noticeable part of SCOs receivables.

And what would you do? You want to get IBM back to the discussion table over licensing _before_ IBM starts to consider the UNIX licenses for AIX to be no longer worth it. I think IBM has announced they'll drop AIX eventually, but I do _not_ think that IBM is willing to drop it within three months. They tend to pride themselves on supporting their existing customers.

MozillaQuest Magazine: What sort of impact do you believe this sort of lawsuit filed by SCO-Caldera has on the Linux kernel, GNU/Linux, UNIX, and the Linux and free-software communities?

Linus Torvalds: None, really. The people I work with couldn't care less.

The thrust of paragraphs 74 and 82 to 84 of SCO-Caldera's Complaint against IBM is that without the aid of the alleged actionable conduct of IBM, GNU/Linux would not be an enterprise/server grade operating system. Although in paragraph 84 of its Complaint, SCO-Caldera does not directly say it, when taken in context of the entire Complaint, SCO-Caldera is alleging that it is the alleged actionable conduct of IBM that provides items (1) through (5) set forth in paragraphs 84 to the Linux kernel, GNU/Linux, and Linux distributions.

84. Prior to IBM's involvement, Linux was the software equivalent of a bicycle. UNIX was the software equivalent of a luxury car. To make Linux of necessary quality for use by enterprise customers, it must be re-designed so that Linux also becomes the software equivalent of a luxury car. This re-design is not technologically feasible or even possible at the enterprise level without (1) a high degree of design coordination, (2) access to expensive and sophisticated design and testing equipment; (3) access to UNIX code, methods and concepts; (4) UNIX architectural experience; and (5) a very significant financial investment.

MozillaQuest Magazine: Did the Linux kernel and GNU/Linux developers and groups lack the technological capability of producing an enterprise level Linux without being bailed-out by IBM as SCO-Caldera claims?

Linus Torvalds: "Bailed-out by IBM"? Hardly. Oh, IBM has certainly been very helpful, and I like the IBM engineers I work with, but Linux was running on 16-cpu Sun sparc computers long before IBM really got into it.

In paragraph 85 of its Complaint against IBM, SCO-Caldera alleges that the Linux kernel and GNU/Linux are limited to handling a maximum of four CPUs.

85. For example, Linux is currently capable of coordinating the simultaneous performance of 4 computer processors. UNIX, on the other hand, commonly links 16 processors and can successfully link up to 32 processors for simultaneous operation. This difference in memory management performance is very significant to enterprise customers who need extremely high computing capabilities for complex tasks. The ability to accomplish this task successfully has taken AT&T, Novell and SCO at least 20 years, with access to expensive equipment for design and testing, well-trained UNIX engineers and a wealth of experience in UNIX methods and concepts.

MozillaQuest Magazine: Is this true? I thought the Linux kernel and GNU/Linux can handle 32 CPUs?

Linus Torvalds: We still claim 4-8 CPU scalability. Yeah, it sure works on bigger machines, but they are just so uncommon as to not be a big issue yet, and most of peoples' resources are certainly spent on the mass market (well, UP is the _real_ mass market, but most of the kernel people tend to be fascinated by SMP issues, so we tend to target slightly higher ;)

Normally, we end our articles with a summary and/or conclusion. We do not do so with this article. That's because we want you to have the benefits of Linus Torvalds' comments about the SCO-Caldera v IBM lawsuit without any spin from us. You are getting this just the way Linus said it and in context. Moreover, Linus Torvalds' comments are concise, well-expressed, and to the point. The only material in this article is Linus' comments with just enough background added by us to put the comments in perspective and context with the allegations of SCO-Caldera's Complaint. Thus, Linus Torvalds' comments need no interpretation or spin from us.

Re:Mirror in case it's slashdotted by SubliminalLove · 2003-03-10 18:16 · Score: 0, Troll

Let's leave the copyright infringement to the bad guys, shall we? At least get permission before you plaigarize the entire article on /.

~SL
Re:Mirror in case it's slashdotted by Anonymous Coward · 2003-03-10 20:26 · Score: 0

Technically, it's not plagiarism as the poster cited the author and source. It is however a copyright issue to repost it without permission.
Re:Mirror in case it's slashdotted by phoxix · 2003-03-10 22:49 · Score: 1, Troll

I'm sick of this karma whoring going on at slashdot recently. People should be given points of having something to say, and not just reposting data.
To jsse (254124):
So you like posting copyrighted material ?
You do know that with the approval of the copyright holder of this content, you have no legal right to repost this material. So essentially the fine folks of of MozillaQuest Magazine could come after your ass.
This isn't about the DMCA, or the other crap that slashdot babies cry about. This is about copyright laws that exist to rightfully protect information. These same laws protect whatever open source license you choose to use. (Copyright laws might be abused, but they aren't all a bad thing.)
PS: So the next time you re-post copyright data. Don't karma-whore and post it as AC.
Sunny Dubey
This assumes you live in the US, or a country with a vague understand of normal IP.
Re:Mirror in case it's slashdotted by mivok · 2003-03-10 23:21 · Score: 2, Informative

But the thing is.. the article DID get slashdotted, and unless there is a google cache available (Not likely if this is a new post), then this actually helped.
Actually, how is this different from a google cache? Its a mirror of the article, it helps people when the original article was no longer available.
And before you claim lost adverising revenue or some such drivel, I, and others presumably, couldnt get to the site anyway, so no adverts would have been served.
I would like to know what on earth is wrong with my browsing preferences that the post ends up half way down the page however. (Browsing at +2, Nested, Highest score first)
Re:Mirror in case it's slashdotted by 1u3hr · 2003-03-10 23:58 · Score: 1

ou have no legal right to repost this material
Since the whole site has been blown off the net, I don't see the problem. To gain damages in a copyright case, one usually has to show a loss incurred.
How is this differnt from using Google's cache? Has anyone sued them?
Re:Mirror in case it's slashdotted by FrostedWheat · 2003-03-11 00:26 · Score: 1

I'm sick of this karma whoring going on at slashdot recently.

Please step away from the computer Sir!
Slowly .. no sudden mouse clicks ...

Now, go outside! Enjoy yourself! Get some fresh air! It'll do you the world of good!
Re:Mirror in case it's slashdotted by Anonymous Coward · 2003-03-11 00:29 · Score: 0

i personally can't get a response from the original fucking article on mozilla mag atm, so i'm glad to finally have found someone kind enough to help the discussion.
Re:Mirror in case it's slashdotted by AKnightCowboy · 2003-03-11 00:53 · Score: 1

You do know that with the approval of the copyright holder of this content, you have no legal right to repost this material.
If you can't repost the material with the approval of the copyright holder, whose approval do you have to get? SCO?
Re:Mirror in case it's slashdotted by zimbu · 2003-03-11 01:44 · Score: 1

I'm sick of this meta-karma whoring going on at slashdot recently. People should be given points of having something to say, and not just flaming people who repost data.

To phoxix (161744):
So you like flaming people who post copyrighted material ?

PS: So the next time you flame someone for re-posting copyright data. Don't karma-whore and post it as AC.
Someother Dude
Re:Mirror in case it's slashdotted by bps7j · 2003-03-11 02:04 · Score: 1

I assume you have never heard of fair use? or are you from a country without a vague "understand" of normal IP.
Re:Mirror in case it's slashdotted by edoug · 2003-03-11 02:05 · Score: 2, Insightful

If successful, would this lawsuit open the door against any other company that allows employees to contribute to open source projects as the primary function of their job? Let's say I work for Company X which has access to IP of another company, if I'm involved in an open source project that could (however loosely) infringe on that IP, would Company X be open to suit? This just doesn't feel good.

--
meh.
Re:Mirror in case it's slashdotted by imadork · 2003-03-11 02:15 · Score: 5, Interesting

We should have a (+1, Mirror) option when we moderate. This way, people can still Karma Whore, which is of course an essential part of the Slashdot Experience, but I can filter these silly redundant posts out in my preferences.
Re:Mirror in case it's slashdotted by Anonymous Coward · 2003-03-11 02:28 · Score: 0

While appreciative of the mirror. The flamer does have a point.

As to fair use, one is allowed to quote a resonably small portion of the text for use in literary/political/etc. criticism or education. One is not allowed to copy the entire document.
Re:Mirror in case it's slashdotted by XO · 2003-03-11 03:07 · Score: 3, Informative

The ability to accomplish this task successfully has taken AT&T, Novell and SCO at least 20 years, with access to expensive equipment for design and testing, well-trained UNIX engineers and a wealth of experience in UNIX methods and concepts

Well, duh. I seriously doubt that 18 years ago, for example, AT&T, Novell, or SCO would have had 32 processor systems around. For that matter, likely having -2- processors around would have been a miracle, although i certainly recognize that mainframes would have had that capability.. i don't think we're discussing mainframes necessarily. More on the order of personal to mini-computers, not going to the Big Iron level.

The hardware business has been commoditized (I was -given- a server box capable of handling 2-4 Pentium 3 CPU's, unfortunatly it only had one installed.. because the hard drive didn't work. *boggle*).. there have been people studying operating systems design and implementation and such for 30-40 years now in schools, with much of their learning coming from Unixes such as HP/UX, AIX, and yes... BSD, FreeBSD, NetBSD, and Linux. This is all just absoluetly silly.

--
"Champagne for my real friends - and real pain for my sham friends!" http://ericblade.postalboard.com/
Re:Mirror in case it's slashdotted by Drakonian · 2003-03-11 06:43 · Score: 1

Wow, you must refresh pretty often to never have the articles Slashdotted!

--
Random is the New Order.
Re:Mirror in case it's slashdotted by Anonymous Coward · 2003-03-11 07:19 · Score: 0

Actually, I believe that parallel architectures were larger back then. A Sequent Symmetry as one example comes to mind (circa 1987 w/ 30 i386s). I am sure that was not their first multiprocessor machine either. Many/several parallel processor companies existed.

In any case, going down to any university library and walking through their stacks would yield tons of research and knowledge for free. As far as having testing hardware, the linux kernel mailing lists seems to have a huge testbed outside of IBM. So I agree that the whole lawsuit is silly.
Re:Mirror in case it's slashdotted by rsd · 2003-03-11 09:24 · Score: 1

__THANK YOU__
Re:Mirror in case it's slashdotted by jsse · 2003-03-11 13:45 · Score: 1

Thank you for your support. I just tried to help but end up being called whore, as expected. My karma is already at max and it's not that I'd really care of it otherwise; BUT some people DO get mad at seeing that because they feel jealous as they ARE whore. :)

Concerning your post end up half way. I browse with Phoenix(similar to mozy I think) at +3/Threaded/Oldest First and don't get the problem. I've notice that the /. sometime returns false content length which causes adnormal behavior on client side like loading the page continously after it's being loaded. I'm not sure if it's related to your problem but IMHO either get /. fix that problem, or find another browser that is intelligent enough to detect false content length in loading pages.

Would it help to email to SCO & IBM... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-03-10 15:57 · Score: 1, Interesting

I thought it'd be a fun thing to email ibm's contact us page and say "best of luck guys -- for your support i'm much more inclined to recommend your solutions" to IBM, and something like "what? are you nuts? i'll never work with anyone who buys your company again" to SCO.

would this help

Re:Would it help to email to SCO & IBM... by einhverfr · 2003-03-10 17:42 · Score: 4, Insightful

I thought it'd be a fun thing to email ibm's contact us page and say "best of luck guys -- for your support i'm much more inclined to recommend your solutions" to IBM, and something like "what? are you nuts? i'll never work with anyone who buys your company again"

Better--

Call their sales line-- get product information, ask licensing questions, etc. Then send them a letter indicating that you cannot recommend their solutions on the basis that their licensing gives none of the benefits of open source and that the suit against IBM works against them ;-)

--

LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
Re:Would it help to email to SCO & IBM... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-03-10 21:56 · Score: 0

you get information about which of their products? not buying anything from them is all nice, but its not like you would have done so anyway. you can only boycot a company that actually sells something, otherwise they wont even notice
Re:Would it help to email to SCO & IBM... by BigDish · 2003-03-11 04:26 · Score: 2, Insightful

But generally, one only requests information if they have an intent to purchase a product. Even though there never is an intent to purchase, the goal is to make them THINK that you intended to purchase, but their licensing and lawsuite are why you did not.
Re:Would it help to email to SCO & IBM... by einhverfr · 2003-03-11 04:32 · Score: 1

But generally, one only requests information if they have an intent to purchase a product. Even though there never is an intent to purchase, the goal is to make them THINK that you intended to purchase, but their licensing and lawsuite are why you did not.

After all the licensing and lawsuit is exactly why you don't anyway, right?

Aside from SCO UNIX..... Who wants that? ;)

--

LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
Re:Would it help to email to SCO & IBM... by fantastic · 2003-03-11 04:45 · Score: 1

The same logic could be applied to USA supporting Afghanistan against the USSR, and Iraq against Iran.

The enemy of your enemy isn't always going to be your friend. IBM need to fight this on their own.
Re:Would it help to email to SCO & IBM... by BigDish · 2003-03-11 04:53 · Score: 1

While you would have not run SCO Unix anyway, if the sales team starts getting a noticeable amount of calls interested, but turned off because of the licensing and lawsuite, they WILL change their ways.
Re:Would it help to email to SCO & IBM... by einhverfr · 2003-03-11 05:34 · Score: 1

You might be a troll... But I am not complety sure, so I will reply.

The same logic could be applied to USA supporting Afghanistan against the USSR, and Iraq against Iran.

My point has not been to support IBM per se (although I highly support their Linux development efforts, BTW-- they do bring something useful to the team). The point is to try to send a clear message to SCO about how their business practices are hurting them.

And for the record, we didn't so much support "Afghanistan" agaisnt the USSR as we recruited the most militant Islamists from across the Arab world and North Africa (not sure if we recruited among the Turks). We brought people together from many small terrorist organizations and trained them to fight the Soviets. And for the record, that was probably the worst mistake in American history. I don't think that this applies to the IBM vs SCO.

Regarding Iraq, we even supported them when they were gassing their populace or attacking our ships (USS Stark). We then conspired to create a war in the region and deliberately with-held Aluminum Sulphate and Chlorine so that their water treatement facilities would stop functioning (source: declassified DoD documents)-- the result of which was that 500,000 Iraqi children under the age of five were killed by water-born illnesses (UNICEF and WHO statistics), and Secretary Albright on CBS stated that this price was "worth it." I can only imagine that the same logic was used by Al Qaeda in September 11, except that they "only" killed just about three 3,000 American civilians. So I think that the same logic you mention about Iraq and Iran also unfortunately applied to supporting Bush SR ad Clinton in their policies towards Iraq and possible Bush Jr's plans as well.

Look, the instant IBM betrays us the way that SCO has I will agree with you. But-- the idea right now is to encourage Intel, AMD, IBM, and even SCO to be responsible members of the community. And in the case of SCO, deprive them of resources until they live up to their responsibilities. Making sales calls like that is a good way to do that.

--

LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
Re:Would it help to email to SCO & IBM... by ScoLgo · 2003-03-11 07:21 · Score: 1

We then conspired to create a war in the region and deliberately with-held Aluminum Sulphate and Chlorine so that their water treatement facilities would stop functioning (source: declassified DoD documents)-- the result of which was that 500,000 Iraqi children under the age of five were killed by water-born illnesses (UNICEF and WHO statistics), and Secretary Albright on CBS stated that this price was "worth it."

Do you have a link to those documents? I'd be interested in reading more in depth for myself. Thanks.

--
"Michael, I did nothing. I did absolutely nothing - and it was everything that I thought it could be."
Re:Would it help to email to SCO & IBM... by einhverfr · 2003-03-11 07:37 · Score: 1

Take a look at this:

http://www.firethistime.org/attackingwater.htm

--

LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP

What are you talking about by autopr0n · 2003-03-10 15:58 · Score: 4, Funny

This is all Microsoft's fault. If they hadn't made XENIX, and then gave up on and sold it (or whatever) to SCO we wouldn't be in this mess!

It's all microsofts fault! :P

--
autopr0n is like, down and stuff.

Re:What are you talking about by Anonymous Coward · 2003-03-10 16:18 · Score: 0

Few people seem to know that Microsoft was licensed to write Xenix (IIRC). It was actually this big affair involving several companies, and it ceased to be Microsoft Xenix rather quickly; SCO snatched it up within several years.
--os
Re:What are you talking about by mijok · 2003-03-10 19:41 · Score: 1

Everything is always Microsoft's fault but if you don't know how you can always turn to slashdot to get a completely objective explanation why.

--
Karma. Moderation. Is my .sig good now?
Re:What are you talking about by McNihil · 2003-03-11 03:56 · Score: 0

Why was this modded funny? SCO did get Xenix from Microsoft. Microsoft is probably funding them with this suite because it is in their best interest.
Re:What are you talking about by Uwe+Barschell · 2003-03-11 06:42 · Score: 1

Xenix is actually peripheral to this issue. The code in question is the UNIX System V code, which was developed by AT&T and marketed as a UNIX for the Intel 386. It was not overly successful, and was acquired by Novell in the early 1990s.

Novell renamed UNIX System V to UnixWare, and tried to position it against Windows NT, without much success. Novell eventually sold UnixWare to SCO, which later sold it to Caldera. Caldera has now changed its name to SCO, and the old SCO is now called Tarantella. Caldera itself was founded by Novell founder Ray Noorda, who had never wanted to sell UnixWare to SCO.
Re:What are you talking about by Anonymous Coward · 2003-03-11 07:38 · Score: 0

It's all Microsoft's fault, but not that way...Microsoft's anti-trust suit made a monster out of David Boies.

Now that Frankenstein's monster is besieging your particular little girl picking petals off daisies it's not so funny, eh?

SMP? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-03-10 15:58 · Score: 5, Insightful

UNIX, on the other hand, commonly links 16 processors and can successfully link up to 32 processors for simultaneous operation. This difference in memory management performance is very significant to enterprise customers who need extremely high computing capabilities for complex tasks. The ability to accomplish this task successfully has taken AT&T, Novell and SCO at least 20 years, with access to expensive equipment for design and testing, well-trained UNIX engineers and a wealth of experience in UNIX methods and concepts.

Um, SysV doesn't do this. Good SMP for UNIX has been added to all the VendorOSes, but without any help from SCO.

Re:SMP? by stratjakt · 2003-03-10 16:01 · Score: 1

SysV IPC? Semaphores, shared memory segments and queues?

Has a bunches to do with SMP if that's how you apply it.

--
I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!
Re:SMP? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-03-10 17:58 · Score: 0

UNIX, on the other hand, commonly links 16 processors and can successfully link up to 32 processors for simultaneous operation. This difference in memory management performance is very significant to enterprise customers who need extremely high computing capabilities for complex tasks. The ability to accomplish this task successfully has taken AT&T, Novell and SCO at least 20 years, with access to expensive equipment for design and testing, well-trained UNIX engineers and a wealth of experience in UNIX methods and concepts.
Funny. This guy wrote his own OS from scratch with SMP support. If one amature can do it at home with duel Celerons, who are SCO kidding?
Re:SMP? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-03-10 18:52 · Score: 0

> SysV IPC? Semaphores, shared memory segments and queues?
>
>Has a bunches to do with SMP if that's how you apply it.

What the hell are you talking about?? Those are equally useful under UP as SMP.
Re:SMP? by jhunsake · 2003-03-10 20:00 · Score: 2, Informative

IPC: InterProcess Communication. It stands alone, it has nothing to do with SMP.
Re:SMP? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-03-11 01:15 · Score: 0

I'll bet not too many people know that zenith data systems federal systems group financed a goodly portion of the first sco xenix multiprocessor development...... (believe it or not, I've still got frequent flyer miles left over from that project.....)
Re:SMP? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-03-11 03:16 · Score: 0

Youd be surprised how much code in the AtheOS kernel comes from Linux. However, it still doesn't mean it isn't possible, and a lot of other OS's have been written from scratch that do SMP without using anyone elses code. SCO are on LSD, methinks.
Re:SMP? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-03-11 08:57 · Score: 0

you miss the point

The ability to accomplish this [SMP] task successfully has taken AT&T, Novell and SCO at least 20 years,

Please someone tell me how many SMP motherboards and systems were available in 1983?? or the fact that Linux DIDN'T exist in 1983..

today SMP machines are as common as gumball machines. ( almost EVERY server is SMP and many high-end home systems are SMP) if you give cheap hardware to students they will find a way to use it much faster than a bunch of suits and masters degrees will with that 20 billion dollar mainframe.

Only a complete blithering idiot would think otherwise. 1/2 the tech students at a mid sized university with pro-sumer hardware at their disposal can produce things much faster than the best CS scientists with 20 bajillion dollar equipment. students dont CARE if they crash the whole system or blow it up. plus they think outside the box instead of the forced criteria the "scientists" have to use.

Mozillaquest? by ebuck · 2003-03-10 15:59 · Score: 4, Insightful

Let's all take a step back, and take a deep breath.

Remember that this is Mozillaquest.

Keep breathing.... KEEP BREATHING!!!

(read some of the past articles if you don't already know, or better yet... don't).

Re:MozillaQuest? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-03-10 16:43 · Score: 3, Informative

Last time I saw anything from mozillaquest, it was another of their mozilla "news" articles. The whole site was essentially an anti-mozilla troll.
Re:Mozillaquest? by cetan · 2003-03-10 17:05 · Score: 0

I can't for the life of me figure out why /. still posts articles with links to them. They have been discredited time and time again and yet...

Oh wait, it's just an off-shoot of the dupe-post disease. Never mind.

--
In Soviet Russia...michael would be rotting in Siberia!
Re:MozillaQuest? by Spoing · 2003-03-10 18:13 · Score: 2, Informative

Last time I saw anything from mozillaquest, it was another of their mozilla "news" articles. The whole site was essentially an anti-mozilla troll.
Same here...though I learn quick (1 article was enough). With a track record like that, I'll keep clear of them and I advise others to do the same.
We have enough sensationalism to wade through already, no point in paying attention to the obvious trolls.
If MozillaQuest wants to change that opinion, they (he?) will have to stay "clean" for a year or more. Do something positive...not that that will make me trust them, but maybe the negitive reaction won't be as strong.
Face it...they #ed up.

--
A firewall can not protect you from yourself. Turn off what you do not need. Do not use the firewall to do your work.
Re:Mozillaquest? by WWWWolf · 2003-03-10 22:59 · Score: 1

(read some of the past articles if you don't already know, or better yet... don't).

Yeah, this is just as good but far funnier.
Re:Mozillaquest? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-03-11 01:09 · Score: 0

Remember that this is Mozillaquest.
Maybe it is a Slashdot ploy to run up Mozillaquest's hosting bill and wipe them from the face of the Earth? That would be sweet!

Business Plan by ntsucks · 2003-03-10 15:59 · Score: 5, Funny

Those who can, do.
Those who can't, sue.

--
Those who can do. Those who can't sue.

Re:Business Plan by leviramsey · 2003-03-10 17:22 · Score: 2, Interesting

Those who can, do.
Those who can't, sue.

Those who can't sue, teach law school.
Re:Business Plan by No.+24601 · 2003-03-10 18:01 · Score: 2, Insightful

But those who win, "innovate". ;)
Re:Business Plan by Anonymous Coward · 2003-03-10 23:25 · Score: 0

It's their 3-steps-to-profit plan:
1. Sue IBM
2. ...
3. Profit!
Re:Business Plan by imadork · 2003-03-11 02:18 · Score: 1

Dude, that's great! Mind if I steal that for my sig?
Re:Business Plan by Anonymous Coward · 2003-03-11 03:25 · Score: 0

Those who can, do.

Those who can't, teach.

Those who can't teach, teach gym.

--Woody Allen

Dennis Ritchie Comments and Documents from by zoid.com · 2003-03-10 16:01 · Score: 5, Informative

Here are Dennis Ritchie's Comments from usenet and some supporting documentation from the USL vs. BSDI case.

--
Zoid.com

Re:Dennis Ritchie Comments and Documents from by Greg+Koenig · 2003-03-10 16:39 · Score: 5, Insightful

Actually, I immediately thought of the USL v. BSDI case when I heard about SCO's recent filing. My OS of choice tends to lean towards the BSD side (simply due to my background as a CS Ph.D. student, I suppose) but I certainly use Linux for many projects. I used FreeBSD back in ca. 1992 when it seemed that it might be encumbered due to licensing difficulties from USL.

I think the important thing to realize is that while different open source software camps may at times compete against each other (Linux vs. BSD, Gnome vs. KDE, etc.), in the end the diversity we have within our ranks is a very powerful asset. Had the lawsuit in 1992 turned out differently, Linux would have been an unencumbered alternative that would have allowed the movement to continue forward. Likewise, in the extremely off chance that SCO did do something to encumber Linux today, the open source community has many other fine operating systems that are alternatives and which could be a basis to continue moving forward.

IMHO, an important lesson to realize from this after it finally settles down (and I have no doubt that SCO will end up appearing kind of stupid in the end) is that the diversity in open source software is the biggest benefit and allows it to overcome these kinds of things.
Re:Dennis Ritchie Comments and Documents from by evilpenguin · 2003-03-10 17:16 · Score: 5, Insightful

I agree, and I would go even further. Diversity in technology and infrastrcuture is, in general, good. The internet worms and viruses should teach us this. This is why One Microsoft Way is not a good thing, even if you do not subscribe to the GNU philosophy of Free Software (although I happen to do so).

Diversity is good even within the Free Software world. We don't all use sendmail and that is good. We don't all use Gnome and that is good. We don't all use Mozilla, and that is good. There should be three, four, five choices for every major category of software.

A lot of people seem to think this is a bad thing. It is "confusing." I dont think so. You select by feature, fit, or whim (depending on necessity) and you limit failure by design, failure from malicious interference, and failure from excessive lawyering.

I'd like to see diversity in all infrastructure technology. (Like combining the present grid with neighborhood wind/solar energy).

Sure, I can be a loudmouthed bigot about my favorite technologies, but even though I don't happen to use FreeBSD, I am glad to know it is there (and I have an ISO of it at hand if need be).

I use more than one Linux distro at home (Debian, RedHat, and SuSE). I use OpenBSD for my firewall machine.

Diversity, redundacy. These are the basis of true reliability. Sure, Microsoft (for example) can try to secure the shit out of their next OS, but if everybody uses that one product, one mistake takes everyone out.

The *nix world hasn't (as a rule) been much more systematic about security than has Microsoft, but its diversity has been its saving grace.

The biggest failures of *nix security have occurred in those few places where one package has indeed been dominant. Sendmail is one. BIND is another (BTW, what alteratives to BIND exist for Linux and *BSD? I actually don't know and would like to know.)
Re:Dennis Ritchie Comments and Documents from by Dr_Marvin_Monroe · 2003-03-10 17:22 · Score: 4, Interesting

In the world of biology, they call that "genetic diversity"....it helps to prevent the spread of disease and creates new and interesting patterns when combined with other genes or ideas...it also promotes evolution...which is cool.

It's also one of the many reasons my desktop doesn't get those evil bugs that seem to plague the "feedlot" computers that run Windows.

Think of my boxen here as "free range".....
Re:Dennis Ritchie Comments and Documents from by MendicantMonkey · 2003-03-10 17:59 · Score: 2, Informative

(BTW, what alteratives to BIND exist for Linux and *BSD? I actually don't know and would like to know.)

djbdns

It's a bit quirky but definitely functional. If you don't like qmail you may not like this. It shares similar philosophies, both being created by D. J. Bernstein.
Re:Dennis Ritchie Comments and Documents from by marko123 · 2003-03-10 18:12 · Score: 0, Offtopic

My OS of choice tends to lean towards the BSD side (simply due to my background as a CS Ph.D. student, I suppose)

Does the CS stand for Cash-Strapped, or Computer Science, or both? Because if it meant both, it would a nice geeky meld of two or more meanings in the one acronym, thus proving you were at least studying Computer Science, and possibly poor.

--
http://pcblues.com - Digits and Wood
Re:Dennis Ritchie Comments and Documents from by nathanh · 2003-03-10 18:41 · Score: 1

Diversity is good even within the Free Software world. We don't all use sendmail and that is good. We don't all use Gnome and that is good. We don't all use Mozilla, and that is good. There should be three, four, five choices for every major category of software.

I agree and disagree.
In real life people have no problem with choosing between competing products. There are 100s of models of cars, 1000s of styles of clothes, and 10000s of tastes in music and movies. I don't think anybody could argue that having this kind of choice is bad.
But at the same time there are several aspects of products that are standardised. Electrical appliances use a common plug standard. Televisions use a common broadcast standard. Cars accept a standard blend of fuel. The cables between your amplifier and your DVD player use a standardised protocol. Interoperability is maintained despite there being a wide variety of choice.
Within computing it's the specifications (for protocols or otherwise) that try and achieve this interoperability. So your mail servers are all compatible because they speak SMTP. When people complain about a specific choice - eg, KDE and GNOME - and they claim this is "a bad thing" they are not complaining about the choice itself being bad. They are complaining that there is no interoperability. KDE and GNOME use different protocols and different specifications. Admittedly there are some shared aspects between their designs but on the whole they are not interoperable.
Diversity is good when it provides you with interoperable choices. Diversity is not a good thing when it creates incompatible choices.
Re:Dennis Ritchie Comments and Documents from by Anonymous Coward · 2003-03-10 19:04 · Score: 0

>on the whole they (KDE and GNOME) are not
>interoperable.

They interoperate for me. Not from an API point of view, and not in terms of decoration. But they function together just as well as any other two competing software products I have ever used.
Re:Dennis Ritchie Comments and Documents from by inode_buddha · 2003-03-10 21:58 · Score: 1

Couln't have said it better myself, I totally agree. I *do* have to wonder, though: Why would the SCO group retain such an expensive lawyer (David Boies) if they thought the case was small or questionable?

--
C|N>K
Re:Dennis Ritchie Comments and Documents from by Luminous+Coward · 2003-03-11 01:22 · Score: 1

A Brief History of FreeBSD
Contributed by Jordan Hubbard.

The first CDROM (and general net-wide) distribution was FreeBSD 1.0, released in December of 1993. This was based on the 4.3BSD-Lite (``Net/2'') tape from U.C. Berkeley, with many components also provided by 386BSD and the Free Software Foundation. It was a fairly reasonable success for a first offering, and we followed it with the highly successful FreeBSD 1.1 release in May of 1994.

Around this time, some rather unexpected storm clouds formed on the horizon as Novell and U.C. Berkeley settled their long-running lawsuit over the legal status of the Berkeley Net/2 tape. A condition of that settlement was U.C. Berkeley's concession that large parts of Net/2 were ``encumbered'' code and the property of Novell, who had in turn acquired it from AT&T some time previously. What Berkeley got in return was Novell's ``blessing'' that the 4.4BSD-Lite release, when it was finally released, would be declared unencumbered and all existing Net/2 users would be strongly encouraged to switch. This included FreeBSD, and the project was given until the end of July 1994 to stop shipping its own Net/2 based product. Under the terms of that agreement, the project was allowed one last release before the deadline, that release being FreeBSD 1.1.5.1.

FreeBSD then set about the arduous task of literally re-inventing itself from a completely new and rather incomplete set of 4.4BSD-Lite bits. The ``Lite'' releases were light in part because Berkeley's CSRG had removed large chunks of code required for actually constructing a bootable running system (due to various legal requirements) and the fact that the Intel port of 4.4 was highly incomplete. It took the project until November of 1994 to make this transition, at which point it released FreeBSD 2.0 to the net and on CDROM (in late December). Despite being still more than a little rough around the edges, the release was a significant success and was followed by the more robust and easier to install FreeBSD 2.0.5 release in June of 1995.
Re:Dennis Ritchie Comments and Documents from by evilpenguin · 2003-03-11 03:53 · Score: 1

I don't think this disagrees with me at all. I was never arguing for icompatible alternatives (KDE and Gnome are only incompatible at the level of the API and IPC mechanisms; many X applications don't know and don't care, so while there are incompatiblities, these tend to exist only in platform specific applications that are duplicated in the other suite, and furthermore, the incompatibilities tend only to disable certain features, not prevent the whole app from running -- I have run Konqueror under Gnome for example).

That said, I do agree that diversity is good and standards are good. As for standards, I much prefer those made by consensus or selected through a free market to those imposed by a sigle dominant player.
Re:Dennis Ritchie Comments and Documents from by OECD · 2003-03-11 11:04 · Score: 1

A lot of people seem to think this [software diversity] is a bad thing. It is "confusing." I dont think so.
Neither do I. I never could understand people who want just one choice (oxymoron?). Confused? Grab first one you see and pretend it's the only one!

--
One man's -1 Flamebait is another man's +5 Funny.

Fear by gmuslera · 2003-03-10 16:06 · Score: 3, Interesting

I don't fear for IBM, even in the worst case it wont be so much affected (but I doubt that this could cost much to IBM). I fear what will come after. This insecurity is doing much more harm to Linux and Unix in general than is doing Microsoft with its "fair" antilinux campaigns.

What I fear is that a way to win the case could be IBM showing some hidden card in their software patents pool. What about something generic enough to say "I own the patents on multitasking"? or concurrent file access, or even the "while" loop, something in some way that disables SCO claims but puts on the table something big enough to be considered a threat to all the industry. Is like using atomic bombs in a war, after one of the parts uses one, all the others feel validated to do the same and we all lose.

Re:Fear by Elwood+P+Dowd · 2003-03-10 20:34 · Score: 1

Um. If IBM has released code under the GPL that is covered by those "atomic bomb" patents, then they have given a free license to use those patents in any GPL product. Perhaps any project at all.

Just because you have a patent doesn't mean you must force others to not use it.

--

There are no trails. There are no trees out here.
Re:Fear by Anonymous Coward · 2003-03-11 00:35 · Score: 0

IBM has a patent on numbers and letters on the screen at the same time, don't fuck with IBM.

Ho Hummm.... by cranos · 2003-03-10 16:06 · Score: 3, Insightful

Okay the site design looked like a dogs breakfast but at least Linus's comments were interesting? Weren't they?

He basically said what everyone else knows, SCO is going to hell in a hand basket and in desperation is trying to suck more money out of IBM. The bullshit claims about linux are nothing more than that, bullshit.

Ho hummm...

Re:The crux of the article-Aim for the eyes. by Anonymous Coward · 2003-03-10 16:08 · Score: 0

"Linus Torvalds: None, really. The people I work with couldn't care less."

More the question: "Were's there's?"

Loud-mouthed weasel! by fzammett · 2003-03-10 16:10 · Score: 4, Funny

Why does Linus Torvalds feel the need to open his big, fat mouth any time there is something happening regarding Linux?

You'd think the guy INVENTED Linux or something like that. What a jerk!

(Yes, it's carcasm. Calm the f**k down!)

--
If a pion (n-) collides with a proton in the woods & noone is there to hear it, does lamdba decay into the source pa

Re:Loud-mouthed weasel! by runderwo · 2003-03-10 16:58 · Score: 1

Carcasm? Is that some sort of vehicular accident?

--
LRC, the best-read libertarian site on the web
Re:Loud-mouthed weasel! by jbolden · 2003-03-10 17:12 · Score: 5, Interesting

Well SCO is somewhat challenging that, they certainly question Linus' version of some events. For example Linus has said time and time again that:

Linux was a pun on Linix and Linus
and
Linix is short for Linus's Minix

SCO asserted in the suit that
Linux is short for Linus + Unix.

Obviously they know the origin of the name better

(and of course Linus's version has newsgroup postings backing it up that only shows that deja/google is in on the conspiracy to defraud SCO).

This is important for SCO since they have 0 rights over Minix.
Re:Loud-mouthed weasel! by vocaro · 2003-03-10 17:41 · Score: 0, Offtopic

Carcasm? Is that some sort of vehicular accident?
No, it's the end of a Saturday night spent in the backseat of a car parked up on Makeout Point.
Re:Loud-mouthed weasel! by SN74S181 · 2003-03-10 19:56 · Score: 2, Informative

Linus has zero rights over Minix as well.

Linus was involved as a Minix hacker before he started his project that became Linux. There is no Minix code in Linux. The only Minix 'connection' in Linux was that Linux started out using the Minix filesystem. Which is a data structure, not code.
Re:Loud-mouthed weasel! by sithlord2 · 2003-03-10 20:05 · Score: 1

You'd think the guy INVENTED Linux or something like that. What a jerk!

Yeah, everybody knows Al Gore invented it !

--
...You are over-qualified and under-paid. If we give you a raise, we will break the cosmic balance of the universe.
Re:Loud-mouthed weasel! by jsse · 2003-03-10 21:40 · Score: 2, Interesting

Linix is short for Linus's Minix

SCO asserted in the suit that
Linux is short for Linus + Unix.

There wouldn't have that much trouble if he's still naming it freax :)
Re:Loud-mouthed weasel! by jbolden · 2003-03-11 02:31 · Score: 1

You are missing the point. SCO is trying to claim IP infringement they want to show a chain. The problem is there is no chain so in the case they point to nonsense.

As for Linux and the original being Minix I don't know. The name came from the early Linux hackers and Linus didn't seem to disagree. Linus has always given a great deal of credit to Tannenbaum and said that Linux version .1 was heavily influenced by his work. OTOH Linux had very different goals than Tannenbaum did so it is possible there was little code in common.
Re:Loud-mouthed weasel! by fzammett · 2003-03-11 03:09 · Score: 1

Wups, me mke a tyyping or spehling errur. Sorrey.

--
If a pion (n-) collides with a proton in the woods & noone is there to hear it, does lamdba decay into the source pa
Re:Loud-mouthed weasel! by gorilla · 2003-03-11 04:41 · Score: 1

Back in the early days, there was a lot of code in common. Minix was a good enviroment to bootstrap development of Linux. However, there was a problem which prevented this from lasting. Minux is not freely distributable. Therefore, as soon as practical, all the Minix code got replaced with other code, either GNU or other freely distributable versions, or freshly written alternatives. Some of this actually happened even before Linux started - the Minix tools were sometimes missing, or inadequate, because there were written to fit in to a 64k+64k environment, and with Minix-386 giving more space available, the Minix people wrote new tools from scratch. These could be reused for Linux.
Re:Loud-mouthed weasel! by Trogre · 2003-03-11 09:59 · Score: 1

... but take it 1 step further:

Where did Minix come from?
I suspect:
Minimal Unix

Oops, there's that 'U' word again.

So all you've done is provided two additional layers of removal:

Unix->Linux

Unix->Minix->Linix->Linux

--
"Nine times out of ten, starting a fire is not the best way to solve the problem." - my wife
Re:Loud-mouthed weasel! by jbolden · 2003-03-11 10:47 · Score: 1

I don't know when this changed but:

Although MINIX is supplied with the complete source code, it is copyrighted software. However, the copyright owner has granted everyone the right to redistribute or sell it, with or without source code, in unmodified or modified form. For all practical purposes, MINIX can be treated as if it were in the public domain. For a copy of the complete MINIX license, written in Middle English, click
Re:Loud-mouthed weasel! by jbolden · 2003-03-11 10:53 · Score: 1

Yes but SCO has a problem if the accept that middle step:

Minix has been written from scratch, and therefore does not contain any AT&T code--not in the kernel, the compiler, the utilities, or the libraries. For this reason the complete source can be made available.

Minix has evolved over the years, so several versions exist. Two of these are still current. The rest are obsolete. The current versions are:

That's going to put a damper on their train of IP theft.

As for the name I don't know one way or another.
Re:Loud-mouthed weasel! by Trogre · 2003-03-11 11:18 · Score: 1

Point taken.

--
"Nine times out of ten, starting a fire is not the best way to solve the problem." - my wife

A Bicycle?!?? by revery · 2003-03-10 16:12 · Score: 4, Interesting

From SCO's document: 84. Prior to IBM's involvement, Linux was the software equivalent of a bicycle. UNIX was the software equivalent of a luxury car. To make Linux of necessary quality for use by enterprise customers, it must be re-designed so that Linux also becomes the software equivalent of a luxury car.

A bicycle??!? Ok, a free bicycle...that seats as many as a luxury car, on just as comfortable seats, and has the same horsepower as the luxury car, and that comes complete with design schematics and a suite of tools that allow you to build more "bicycles", oh and you can give them away to your friends.

Oh, and now nobody is really interested in luxury cars anymore... maybe that's that's what SCO is so mad about.

--

Was it the sheep climbing onto the altar, or the cattle lowing to be slain,
or the Son of God hanging dead and bloodied on a cross that told me this was a world condemnded, but loved and bought with blood.

Re:A Bicycle?!?? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-03-10 19:20 · Score: 2, Interesting

As a cyclist, I find SCO's analogy quite flattering to linux.

A bicycle is one of the most efficient, highly developed machines ever built. In the time you need to walk two miles, you could easily cover a ten on a bike. It uses a small amount of resources in a simple yet highly effective way. You can easily maintain it yourself, if you wish. It's cheap to buy and keeps on working well, even if the hardware you use is far from "state of the art" (much like my 30-year-old Stella touring bike and Brooks saddle).

Compare this work of mechanical art to your average luxury sedan (yechhh!). It's big, it's bloated, it's expensive, before the payments are though it's out of style, and you must periodically pay the high priests of maintenance a king's ransom to keep the damn thing running. It took large amounts of resources just to make it, and obscene amounts to run it. All of this supports features you don't need (perhaps even loath), and which will fail far too soon. Worst of all, it will be a victim of planned obsolesence within a decade (auto parts store: "You want a fuel pump for a what?"), and you must unload it for a fraction of what you paid and sign a contract to buy a new model that's so much worse you wish you kept the old clunker (but you can't, because the broken proprietary parts are all obsolete).

Yes, SCO has a luxury car all right. For all I care, they can keep it!
Re:A Bicycle?!?? by gmhowell · 2003-03-10 19:28 · Score: 1

Yeah, but it's a bicycle with 14 wheels (only two of which you can use at a time, but when you ask which to use, you get 400 different answers) three pedal systems (ditto wrt choices), and you need a special adapter to use the same roads as the econoboxes (Win), sportscars (Macs), and luxury cars. And it didn't come with an owner's manual, but there are 253 published by O'Reilly alone.

And, if you want to talk about the kernel instead of a distro:

But you have to get each part from one of twenty vendors. Then you need either someone else's bike, sportscar, or luxury car to put it together. For which you will need manuals which do not exist. There are many people who have done it this way, but they are better than you, and will not teach you how to build a bicycle. You finally found a website (using a friend's econobox) with instructions. But right around the time you go to install the chain, the bicycle explodes (bootstrapping GCC?)

It's late, and I'm trying too hard.

(Yes, I'm one of those astroturfers who admins about a half dozen Linux boxes. We're all over the place. Remove your tinfoil beany and you'll see us everywhere.)

--
Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
Re:A Bicycle?!?? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-03-11 03:28 · Score: 0

Linux is a Hummer. Not as pretty to look at maybe, but rugged, solid and unstoppable.

Economic Perspective by EvilSuggestions · 2003-03-10 16:12 · Score: 4, Interesting

Just took a look at a financial site and noticed that dear old SCO/Caldera appears to have a market cap of $32.9 million today. As such, I wonder, what will be the total cost to IBM to properly defend themselves in this suit, plus the amount that they spend on "licensing" Unix from SCO? At least $32.9M perhaps? Maybe more...

Seems to me that the logical step for IBM now is to settle this suit by simply acquiring the plaintiff. Even before this suit was filed, it kinda made sense for quite a few reasons:

IBM's services division apparently loves to support old OS's and software, so the SCO support contracts would be a good match.
They would now own all the former members of the Project Monterey alliance (Sequent being the other member). No more sticky legal issues about code developed during that project.
There's the bragging rights of owning the Unix trademark. Certainly would give them a leg up marketing against Sun and HP.

--
"There is a thin line between ignorance and arrogance, and only I have managed to erase that line." - Dr. Science

Re:Economic Perspective by thrillseeker · 2003-03-10 16:56 · Score: 2, Insightful

I wonder, what will be the total cost to IBM to properly defend themselves in this suit, plus the amount that they spend on "licensing" Unix from SCO? At least $32.9M perhaps?
If IBM takes this to court and points out the whys and why-nots then this suit has every possibility of being considered frivolous - depending on where it's filed, etc. IBM can make SCO pay IBM's expenses - and then what's left of that $32.9 MM won't buy a cup of coffe and a wireless browsing session at your local all night diner.
Re:Economic Perspective by 0x0d0a · 2003-03-10 16:58 · Score: 1

Of course, there's the question of how much it would cost to be dragging SCO/Caldera's remains around, which might well exceed $32.9 million.

--
May we never see th
Re:Economic Perspective by Anonymous Coward · 2003-03-10 17:13 · Score: 0

No. A better strategy would be for IBM to leverage their substantial patent portfolio to countersue SCO into the ground thus rendering all the executive stock options worthless and putting all those no good sons of you know whatsas out of work. When IBM wins, they should take all Unix IP from SCO and open it up under the GPL, just to rub it into their faces.
Re:Economic Perspective by hendridm · 2003-03-10 17:26 · Score: 1

> Seems to me that the logical step for IBM now is to settle this suit by simply acquiring the plaintiff.

I see IBM finding value in defending itself rather than submit to black mail. Seems to me they would open up a can of worms if they did otherwise.
Re:Economic Perspective by Brad+Mace · 2003-03-10 18:21 · Score: 1

Seems to me that the logical step for IBM now is to settle this suit by simply acquiring the plaintiff.

Except that that's exactly what SCO wants. If IBM buys SCO, they validate this kind of behavior, and encourage other failing businesses to do the same thing. Better to counter-sue for everything they've got left.
Re:Economic Perspective by WindBourne · 2003-03-10 18:36 · Score: 1

IBM's services division apparently loves to support old OS's and software, so the SCO support contracts would be a good match.
Perhaps, but they would make more money moving these accounts quickyl to Linux . They would now own all the former members of the Project Monterey alliance (Sequent being the other member). No more sticky legal issues about code developed during that project.
Less of an isue than you think. They brought in Bois in hope of scaring IBM to do the wrong thing.
There's the bragging rights of owning the Unix trademark. Certainly would give them a leg up marketing against Sun and HP. SCO gave the trade mark to Xopen group long ago.
In addition, Sun (and I think HP) paid ATT a lot of money to have rights forever. It is this last item that should have IBM scared. They have no choice but to take on and beat the lawsuit.
Soon the others will jump in to this becuase IBM really is trying to destroy Unix's value. In doing that, it will hurt Sun and HP. IBM is also doing major damage to MS, by slowly bringing in Linux at all the sites that they admin. IBM has a well thought out plan that the others are not paying close enough attention to.
Even being an Ex-HPer and Ex-IBMer, I say go Big Blue.

--
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Re:Economic Perspective by WindBourne · 2003-03-10 18:39 · Score: 1

If IBM buys SCO, they validate this kind of behavior, and encourage other failing businesses to do the same
Actually, that goes on all the time. It is called settleing. I fear that it will encourage other suits from Sun, HP, and MS, But itdoes happen all the time.

--
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Re:Economic Perspective by fucksl4shd0t · 2003-03-10 20:07 · Score: 1
Of course, there's the question of how much it would cost to be dragging SCO/Caldera's remains around, which might well exceed $32.9 million.
Here's the steps: :)
1. Get sued by SCO
2. Drag it around in court until SCO is a bankrupt mass of broken bones and dead limbs.
3. Offer to buy SCO at $TOTALSCODEBT + $0.25
4. Hang a SCO/Caldera trophy head on your wall
5. It looks like SCO doesn't want to commit suicide so they're trying to harass IBM into killing them in self-defense. Someone just give 'em some sleeping pills and let it be done...
--
Like what I said? You might like my music

Well done. by paroneayea · 2003-03-10 16:12 · Score: 1

Once again, Linus has shown his ability to intelligently respond to a situation. I think this has to be his best response since he said something (regarding microsoft) loosely along the lines of "I don't think anything good can come out of trying to destroy something." (once again, I know that's not the exact quote.) I found it to be a good commentary not only on Microsoft, but on zealous advocates trying to force it to choke and die. (It's doing good enough of a job doing that on it's own.) Also, kudos to the authors for leaving this article without a summary or commentary. In other words, both Linus and the writers did an excellent job here. Long live intelligence. Well done.

--
http://mediagoblin.org/

Re:Wow by Anonymous Coward · 2003-03-10 16:14 · Score: 0

It doesn't even display properly under *Mozilla*. What the fuck is with that? @_@

Not is. by Tony-A · 2003-03-10 16:16 · Score: 4, Funny

Was.

Should IBM buy SCO? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-03-10 16:17 · Score: 1, Interesting

I've heard some people mention it would just be cheaper for IBM to buy SCO. After taking a look at SCOs current market cap of not quite 33 million it makes me wonder. If IBM has so much invested in UNIX would it not make sense to buy them outright rather than continue to pay license fees? Would it really cost all that much for IBM to buy SCO?

Re:Should IBM buy SCO? by steve_l · 2003-03-10 16:33 · Score: 2, Insightful

no, but there is no point. They'd be better of buying Sun, or Apple. Sun for Java, Apple for power PC systems people still want.

SCO are like microsoft: a company trying to make money out of middleware. It seemed a good idea when everyone was prepared to pay for middleware, but now that's just, well, silly. Linux, Apache and to an extent the OSS Java projects (apache, jboss and sforge hosted) have helped reduce the value of middleware. Which leaves cash for the hardware vendors and the consultants. Which is where IBM fits in.
Re:Should IBM buy SCO? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-03-10 17:00 · Score: 0

For the same reason IBM overlooked several years ago.

I constantly can't fathom why IBM did not buy Unix System Laboratories, the UNIX trademark, AND the associated IP when they had the chance.

The money involved is chump change compared to the overall business value to Unix customers (present and future) in general.
Re:Should IBM buy SCO? by vidarh · 2003-03-10 21:54 · Score: 1

The point is it might be worth buying SCO just for the IP, even if they just shut down the company, both to prevent any further ridiculous lawsuits and save themselves the trouble (and risk), as well as to risk any further problems with licensing other technology from SCO.
Re:Should IBM buy SCO? by ebbomega · 2003-03-10 23:32 · Score: 1

I honestly think this is what SCO intends. They realize that they're Linux model is going down the crapper. They realize that they're in the field for high-end IBM-type monolithic computer solutions.

But they're also getting the crap kicked out of them by the major competition... Red Hat's got them beat insofar as OS sales go, IBM's got them beat for major system solutions, and the list goes on and on of people SCO cannot compete with.

So they cut their losses by being bought out. Very simple. Shareholders get a big chunk of their money back so that they at least stay in until the death of the company. It would be more devastating for them to have to declare bankruptcy by the look of it.

So they do something ludicrous and don't even bother hoping for a settlement.... they want to be bought out.

However, from what it looks like, IBM has no intent to buy or settle, so the gamble looks like it's going to end in a blaze of glory and SCO is going to go crumbling.

Furthermore, if IBM stays it out in court and publicly defends all of the case, then it gets a chance to publically exorcise all of the FUD and myth that could possibly be exploited by Microsoft and the like that's surrounding Linux in general as a result of this.

Plus it'll serve SCO right. I'm tired of bullshit political tactics that exploit governmental systems and it's about time a corporation gets kicked in the butt for taking a stable government for granted.

--
Karma: Non-Heinous

A Question by Anonymous Coward · 2003-03-10 16:18 · Score: 0, Interesting

I have trouble following this mess and am not a lawyer so I'll ask a question.

Linux & Unix both descend from the same ancestral home at AT&T (I believe).

Caldera owns the AT&T IP.

The DMCA is an insane piece of legislation.

By connecting the following points is it possible that the sky could fall and all OS descendants of Unix could be affected?

Odds are I am horribly wrong, and hope I am - but please, enlighten me.

Re:A Question by cranos · 2003-03-10 17:46 · Score: 5, Informative

Important point - Linux is a UNIX Workalike, AIX is a derivation of the original UNIX making them completely different beings. Linux was built from the ground up based on the POSIX standards.

Hope that clears things up.
Re:A Question by bluGill · 2003-03-11 01:29 · Score: 2, Interesting

Linux is not directly descended from anything AT&T did. It is a clean room implimentation started before the DMCA. Therefore the DMCA at most applies only to a small amount of the code. And there is an introperability clause in the DMCA that gives some hope that even for that code it does not apply. IANAL so I don't know what applies and doesn't. Worst case we have to go back to 2.0 kernels and apply only improvments that we know are safe, and 2.0 was pretty good. (not as good as the latest, but still good)
Second, BSD decendants have been proven in court to NOT be infringing decendants of UNIX (6 files were found infringing and removed and replaced). IBM has not worked (much?) on any BSD system so we can go to them. OpenBSD has been especcially paranoid about intellectualy property issues, plus they are based in Canada so the laws that apply are different anyway.
And finially for this to stick in court, SCO will probably have to point to some code and say "Joe wrote this after working with code we own", at which point linux will just re-write those sections, just like BSD did for the 6 infringing files. There are some difficulties here, but worst case for linux isn't that bad.
Re:A Question by emolitor · 2003-03-11 03:48 · Score: 1

Linus is not directly descended from anything AT&T did. His parents may have used a telephone during some part of his conception but I doubt his architecture was dependent on such acts.

SCO is wrong... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-03-10 16:21 · Score: 0

I replaced SCO with Slackware on all my servers over 6 years ago. That was a couple years before IBM joined the Linux party. Somebody needs to tell the folks at SCO that Linux was enterprise-ready without IBM before they do something profoundly stupid like, say, sue IBM.

SCO is just trying to proclaim relevance where none exists.

MozillaQuest? by Captain+Rotundo · 2003-03-10 16:29 · Score: 4, Insightful

I've never read MozillaQuest, but I find it wierd that a site with the word "Mozilla" in its title doesn't render properly in my copy of Mozilla (1.2.1 from Debian Testing)

or maybe they intended the page to have a 3-inch margin?

Linus Comments on SCO v IBM by Anonymous Coward · 2003-03-10 16:35 · Score: 0

Now all we are waiting for are the reporters to come in and twist things into something completely different. Hmm, I think SCO already have. But, not to fear, any good (bad) reporter can twist with the best.

Soon we will see headlines saying Linux is being disbanded as SCO is the real owner since they actually developed it. News at 11.

The point is something else... by tanveer1979 · 2003-03-10 16:38 · Score: 3, Insightful

SCO wants to be bought. Either by M$ or by IBM.... Only Satan know what will M$ do with this if they buy SCO... If IBM buys them... well thats another story.

--
My Aurora : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o91ZsGwJYyg
FB : https://www.facebook.com/TanveersPhotography

Re:The point is something else... by FatRatBastard · 2003-03-10 16:51 · Score: 1

The only thing MS would buy SCO for is to get out of their agreement to never release a Unix-like OS ever. And if they thought they needed to get out of that agreement then they would have just thrown some cash SCO's way. SCO would have gladly taken it. I doubt MS wants 'em.
Re:The point is something else... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-03-10 17:47 · Score: 4, Funny

1) That agreement is a urban legend
2) Microsoft sells a "Unix" called Interix.
Re:The point is something else... by Jahf · 2003-03-10 18:37 · Score: 5, Interesting

Not necessarily. If anyone has the lawyers capable of making SCO's infringement claim stick, it would be Microsoft. $1B isn't complete chump-change (even to them), especially as that's only IBM, and if it would hurt their competition, I could Microsoft doing it. Don't forget that patents (and their infringements) would transfer in an aquisition.

In my opinion, if SCO -isn't- looking for a buy-out, they're nuts. They don't have clout in the market anymore and they probably don't have the coffers needed to pursue these infringements. I'm not saying I agree with their claims, but if they are looking to get bought, it's a proven strategy to build up a portfolio of cases and then sell off to someone with more muscle.

--
It is more productive to voice thoughtful opinions (reply) than to judge (moderate) others.
Re:The point is something else... by mentin · 2003-03-10 21:15 · Score: 4, Insightful

Another possiblity for SCO [management] is to make sure everybody else thinks they are looking for a buy-out and that there is a chance of actually being bought. This raises their stock and the current management can get rid of this stock with better profit.
The goals of corporation and goals of corporation managements don't always coinside. It does not seems as if SCO is any different from Enron in this sense.

--
MSDOS: 20+ years without remote hole in the default install
Re:The point is something else... by Surak · 2003-03-11 00:10 · Score: 1

SCO wants to be bought. Either by M$ or by IBM.... Only Satan know what will M$ do with this if they buy SCO... If IBM buys them... well thats another story.

Hey! Don't go giving them any ideas! They're evil enough without your 2 cents! :-P

--
My journal has hot /. gossip.
Re:The point is something else... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-03-11 00:26 · Score: 0

A quick peek on the M$ Interis page reveals that this isn't really a *NIX at all, but yet another shell that rides on top of an NT kernal. If you're going to do something like this, why not just use CygWin? For that matter, the smart money just replaces the entire NT mess with something like Ninnle Linux.
Re:The point is something else... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-03-11 00:28 · Score: 0

Oh, yes, I forgot...it requires one of those expensive CDROM drives, too. We all know how expensive and hard-to-find they can be!
Re:The point is something else... by cdrudge · 2003-03-11 00:59 · Score: 3, Informative

They don't have clout in the market anymore and they probably don't have the coffers needed to pursue these infringements.

I would not completely say that yet. SCO in the US is gasping for air, but they are still quite big in Europe and Asia where they have quite a presence in the financial industry. Dell is trying to penetrate those markets with their servers and the only way that they can do that is if their servers are SCO certified.
Re:The point is something else... by zogger · 2003-03-11 01:19 · Score: 1

--hey, thanks! One of the few posts in at least three threads on this subject that provided some information about sco that went beyond "no one buys their stuff". I wasn't aware of their products being used in industries like that.
Re:The point is something else... by Tony-A · 2003-03-11 01:49 · Score: 1

Then nail them for insider trading. After Enron, they'd make pretty decent fall-guys.
Re:The point is something else... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-03-11 02:01 · Score: 0

We use their stuff. I don't like it though. =)
Re:The point is something else... by Trailer+Trash · 2003-03-11 02:55 · Score: 1

The goals of corporation and goals of corporation managements don't always coinside.

And in that case the management have a fiduciary duty (read: legal obligation) to make sure that the betterment of the corporation comes first. Otherwise, they risk a shareholder lawsuit.

MDC

--
Do you have ESP?
Re:The point is something else... by Mojo+Trolljo · 2003-03-11 03:24 · Score: 1

Good point! Look what happened when a dying and defeated Informix tried to take on IBM in a legal patent battle... They got bought out a year later.

--
This post was made by I, Mojo Trolljo, for you to read that was written by I who is Mojo Trolljo!
Re:The point is something else... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-03-11 03:37 · Score: 0

Maybe SCO should set up a web page with a Paypal donations link like Blender.nl did and open source themselves :-)
Re:The point is something else... by Jahf · 2003-03-11 04:44 · Score: 1

Linux is also quite big in the EMEA regions ... doing something to damage Linux is only going to further lower SCO's pull in those markets.

The EMEA markets tend to lag the US by about a year for trends like this. I would expect that in 2-3 years SCO's influence there will be minimized.

--
It is more productive to voice thoughtful opinions (reply) than to judge (moderate) others.
Re:The point is something else... by alanp · 2003-03-11 05:23 · Score: 1

Couldn't help but laugh at this .. linux was invented in Europe , and hugely popular there before it hit the US !!!

--
Alanp
Re:The point is something else... by Uwe+Barschell · 2003-03-11 05:44 · Score: 1

I believe there was such an agreement, and that it was the reason the development of OpenNT/Interix was outsourced to Softway Systems, rather than developed internally by Microsoft.

If my memory is correct, Microsoft and SCO nullified this agreement a few years ago, when settling a related lawsuit, and Microsoft acquired Softway shortly afterwards.
Re:The point is something else... by Jahf · 2003-03-11 06:08 · Score: 1

Ouch, point taken :) Socially and technically, yes, I would agree.

However when speaking commercially (and that is the area I meant to talk about), not from my experiences over the last few years marketing Linux appliances and general purpose servers.

Admittedly, I'm skewed by being in the US, but the markets I work with in the US have adopted Linux commercially between 1-2 years faster than in those I have worked with in the EMEA. Though, once adopted, the EMEA folks seem to have a much stronger relationship (loyalty) with their chosen partners.

--
It is more productive to voice thoughtful opinions (reply) than to judge (moderate) others.
Re:The point is something else... by Uwe+Barschell · 2003-03-11 06:09 · Score: 3, Informative

It depends on how one defines an operating system. Tru64 UNIX, for example, comprises the Mach kernel with a kernel-mode UNIX server running on top of it, yet it is universally regarded as a real UNIX.

Interix comprises the NT kernel with a user-mode UNIX server running on top of it, and with much of the supporting software (e.g. the file system, networking, et al.) running in kernel mode. From a technical perspective, it is reasonable to say it is a UNIX OS, just as Tru64 UNIX is such, and as Mac OS X is a BSD. I believe Interix was also certified by The Open Group, making it de jure UNIX, but this is only from memory.

CygWin is a set of shared libraries and executables which provide some UNIX-like APIs on top of Win32. It does not run natively on NT, and therefore cannot access kernel features that are not exposed to Win32. For example, fork() is implemented by the NT kernel, and used by Interix, but not by Win32. CygWin runs on top of Win32, so it therefore cannot implement a true fork(), and must inefficiently emulate it using the available Win32 APIs.

There are further differences between a subsystem such as Interix and a set of shared libraries such as CygWin. One of these is that a subsystem does not allow access to the APIs of other subsystems: an Interix process cannot call a Win32 API, and a Win32 process cannot call an Interix API. Other differences are discussed on the CygWin site, and include such things as Cygwins lack of security, its lack of a UNIX process-tree structure (with init as the root process), its lack of a dedicated binary format (a CygWin binary is just a Win32 binary), etc.
Re:The point is something else... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-03-11 07:06 · Score: 0

Microsoft used to own a stake in SCO, and were forced to sell it by the EU. So Microsoft buying it is not an option.

What IBM should do by afidel · 2003-03-10 16:41 · Score: 3, Interesting

is buy SCO, market cap is 25 million which is a steal to ensure the future of AIX and Linux. IBM has put untold Billions into AIX over the decades and is planning on putting over one billion into linux over the next couple years. Heck the lawyers will probably cost in the millions on this one, buy the IP and make sure they never have to worry again.

--
There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.

Re:What IBM should do by Anonymous Coward · 2003-03-10 17:42 · Score: 0

> is buy SCO, market cap is 25 million which is a steal to ensure the future of AIX and Linux. IBM has put untold Billions into AIX over the decades and is planning on putting over one billion into linux over the next couple years. Heck the lawyers will probably cost in the millions on this one, buy the IP and make sure they never have to worry again.

That may yet be the endgame, but I'd guess IBM thinks SCO's stock is still too high. IBM needs to do a little countersueing, squash the stock price down by, say, 90%, THEN buy it up, close it down, etc.

And Lo..... by Nemus · 2003-03-10 16:46 · Score: 4, Funny

He Came from A Mountain On High. And Borne Upon His Shoulders Was Borne The Sacrificial Bull of An SCO CEO. And Thus He Spake

"Be Not Afraid My Children, For I Have Busted Them Gorts Up."

Amen

Btw, as I noticed the site had been slashdotted, a thought occured to me. When this happens to a site, does anyone else sit back and imagine a poor, defenseless server shrieking its last, dying breath, before being blown through the stratosphere while melting off slag? No. K.

--
Mod Points: Helping you keep your opinion to yourself.

Re:And Lo..... by Soko · 2003-03-10 19:06 · Score: 4, Funny

Btw, as I noticed the site had been slashdotted, a thought occured to me. When this happens to a site, does anyone else sit back and imagine a poor, defenseless server shrieking its last, dying breath, before being blown through the stratosphere while melting off slag? No. K.

Heh. I imagine a CAT5 cable glowing a bright cherry red, and a server actually spitting out the connector from the RJ45 plug holding that cable.

The NOC operator plugs it back in, and actually hears "PPPTTTTUI!!!" as it's spat back out again...

Wash, Rinse, Repeat.

Soko

--
"Depression is merely anger without enthusiasm." - Anonymous
Re:And Lo..... by upt1me · 2003-03-10 20:51 · Score: 1

No what comes to my mind is the bill for the bandwith.
Re:And Lo..... by vidarh · 2003-03-10 21:51 · Score: 1

I've had the pleasure of seeing Slashdot'ings from the side of the server 3-4 times or so at my two last employers, and it's not that bad - if you're lucky maybe 20-30 gigs of extra traffic. If you're with a decent hosting provider that won't cost you more than 20-60 USD. Of course there are providers out there that charge you more than 5USD a gig too, but if you're using someone like that you get what you deserve :-)
Re:And Lo..... by stor · 2003-03-11 02:08 · Score: 2, Funny

>And Borne Upon His Shoulders

Why did Linus' have a Bourne Shell on his shoulders? So he could hear the C?

Oh sorry

Stor

--
"Yeah well there's a lot of stuff that should be, but isn't"
Re:And Lo..... by stor · 2003-03-11 02:19 · Score: 1

> I imagine a CAT5 cable glowing a bright cherry red, and a server actually spitting out the connector from the RJ45 plug holding that cable.

Well you have some imagination. 8)

I just can just imagine a dude trying desperately to shell into the machine and then make the silly mistake of running 'top'

If top actually comes up, the admin will then screech something like "Load Average: 60! HUH? Whoa! Look at the number of tasks that are currently RUNNING!"

Then the fun really starts: OOM. whee...

Cheers
Stor

--
"Yeah well there's a lot of stuff that should be, but isn't"
Re:And Lo..... by XO · 2003-03-11 03:25 · Score: 1

It's all about bandwidth, not server load. I'd be willing to bet money that I could hook up a 486 to a gigabit ethernet connection, and it could handle being slashdotted.

--
"Champagne for my real friends - and real pain for my sham friends!" http://ericblade.postalboard.com/
Re:And Lo..... by pboulang · 2003-03-11 04:42 · Score: 2, Insightful

I see you've never hosted a poorly written dymanic site. Good for you!

--
This comment is guaranteed*
*not guaranteed

When The Smoke Clears by E-Rock-23 · 2003-03-10 16:57 · Score: 5, Insightful

I don't think I quite understand SCO's position on this whole matter. But, with UnitedLinux slowly crumbling and the nature of Linux, I'm willing to bet that SCO/Caldera might get laughed out of the Linux business.

IMHO, IBM has done a world of good for Linux. My favorite commercial remain's IBM's basketball team ad that featured the Chris Mullin wannabe wearing number 12, and the team owners discussing his role on the team.

"How can we get him to work for peanuts?"
"Because he loves the game..."

That's exactly what Linux needed - to get it's name out beyond our little Geeks-Only circle to the masses, both Corporations and the Average Joe/Jane. Now, how did that harm Linux or Linux development? How did that muddy the waters? If you ask me, it rocked the boat in a good way.

Linux has grown by leaps and bounds, from a grassroots OS to a viable option for both business and home use (more the former then the latter). This lawsuit serves no real purpose, IMO. Honestly, I'll just bet that it's an attempt by a faltering SCO to steal some of the thunder that IBM has built for Linux. They just want a piece of the pie.

Final Prediction: SCO's complaint will be thrown out, and Linux will continue moving forward, with or without them.

--
Blog Prophyts - Right On, Man

Re:When The Smoke Clears by budgenator · 2003-03-11 00:37 · Score: 1

SCO/Caldera might get laughed out of the Linux business.
Caldera was the NUMBER ONE business distro for Linux. But they forgot the number one rule of business which is "what business am I in?" this rule keeps you focused and keeps people from laughing. Who's Caldera now, anybody know? Linux to embedded systems to DOS clones fro embedded systems to litigetion for profit.

An other example HP Engineering technology, high class calculators-high ticket test equipment, then high end server, then high end desk top then commodity desktops maybe soon just printers and a death spiral.

--
Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds

IBM is going to fight... by What+is+a+number · 2003-03-10 16:57 · Score: 5, Informative

"sources close to to IBM say" IBM is going to fight it

...
I type this every time.

Re:IBM is going to fight... by No.+24601 · 2003-03-10 18:14 · Score: 2, Funny

"They told us to take a proverbial jump in the lake, which is why we filed the lawsuit."
In other words, "They told us to take a proverbial jump in the lake, so we did."
Re:IBM is going to fight... by marko123 · 2003-03-10 18:14 · Score: 1

These must be the sources that are open.

*ducks*

--
http://pcblues.com - Digits and Wood
Re:IBM is going to fight... by jaaron · 2003-03-10 18:34 · Score: 2, Interesting

A source close to IBM said its lawyers were preparing a substantial defence of the suit and are likely to file counter-claims based on its huge portfolio of patents, the largest in the computer industry.

You knew this was going to happen. Ever since SCO announced this lawsuit, I was just waiting for IBM to come in and take them out. You know, I almost feel bad for SCO. Almost.

--
Who said Freedom was Fair?
Re:IBM is going to fight... by fucksl4shd0t · 2003-03-10 20:15 · Score: 3, Funny

You knew this was going to happen. Ever since SCO announced this lawsuit, I was just waiting for IBM to come in and take them out. You know, I almost feel bad for SCO. Almost.
This is the first time I've cheered for IBM since, well, um, since.....
This is the first time I've cheered for IBM!

--
Like what I said? You might like my music
Re:IBM is going to fight... by d^2b · 2003-03-10 23:15 · Score: 1

I particularly like the following

"Our focus is on IBM. It has been taking our code wholesale and dumping it into Linux," said Darl McBride, chief executive of SCO.

That looks a lot like an accusation of
copyright infringment. Hmm. I wonder if that
statement is in itself actionable.
Re:IBM is going to fight... by the+gnat · 2003-03-11 04:24 · Score: 1

It's almost funny. You have to wonder: what the fuck is SCO thinking? I imagine the official order from IBM upper management is to ass-rape SCO in court. IBM's lawyers are probably laughing their asses off right now. SCO will run out of cash before IBM even gets warmed up. . . I keep getting this image of an expensive European loafer flattening a helpless insect.

On a side note, David Boies' career seems to be headed off a cliff lately...

Linus Torvalds Comments on SCO-Caldera's Linux-Rel by Anonymous Coward · 2003-03-10 17:07 · Score: 1

Please redirect your links to this story
Linus Torvalds Comments on SCO-Caldera's Linux-Related Allegations

to
http://mq.moo.net/Linux03/ScoSource-05_Story 01.htm l

Thank you.

MozillaQuest Webmasster

uh... by gid13 · 2003-03-10 17:10 · Score: 1

couldn't SCO just hide their own code, take the open code and say "see, we had it first"???

Re:uh... by einhverfr · 2003-03-10 17:50 · Score: 2, Insightful

Be hard to do.... Probably they would supeona the source code and cvs records (or other concurrency systems) and try to prove them wrong.

--

LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
Re:uh... by ebbomega · 2003-03-10 23:19 · Score: 1

Yes. Yes they could.

This would also be what is known as "illegal".

They can very well do that.

However, all it would take is a whistleblower or a contradictory changelog for that to be brought to the forefront, destroying SCO, and devastating any possibility that a major corporation would cut SCO's losses and buy them out... much like IBM seems to be in an especially advantageous position to do so now that SCO is suing them.

--
Karma: Non-Heinous

I told you so. by Anonymous Coward · 2003-03-10 17:11 · Score: 0

Most people on /. seem to think getting in bed with IBM is such a great idea. They're nothing but trouble and their kind of trouble is intellectual property trouble. IBM is about the wost possible friend free software could have.
Now I realize that it's the nature of Open Source that anybody can use it in accordance with the license including even Microsoft. I don't take issue with that. But I do find all the IBM famboys on /. rather repulsive. Their hard drives suck and people get modded down for saying so. But that's a minor point. The real point is their take on intellectual property is among the most vicious in the corporate world.

Re:I told you so. by jedidiah · 2003-03-10 17:55 · Score: 4, Interesting

It's not the consumer devices that earn IBM fanboys. It's the big iron systems that have been running since before NT was a gleam in Cutler's eye. IBM is not merely limited to the XT. IBM has been contributing to the state of the art in computing since before Microsoft even existed (mebbe even Bill too).

They already have enough of a patent portfolio to make the computing industry look like Kuwait after Iraq got through with it. However, IBM has as much to lose from such a firestorm as anyone else.

Fear the man who has nothing to lose. That man is SCO.

--
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
Re:I told you so. by Anonymous Coward · 2003-03-10 18:46 · Score: 0

Anyone up for a massively parallel demonstration of The Slashdot Effect: :repeat
wget https://www.caldera.com/
wget http://www.sco.com/scosource/ExhibitA.qxd.pdf
wge t http://www.sco.com/scosource/ExhibitB.qxd.pdf
wge t http://www.sco.com/scosource/ExhibitC.qxd.pdf
wge t http://www.sco.com/scosource/ExhibitD.qxd.pdf
got o repeat
Re:I told you so. by fucksl4shd0t · 2003-03-10 20:18 · Score: 1

IBM has been contributing to the state of the art in computing since before Microsoft even existed (mebbe even Bill too).
Definitely before Bill. Unless Bill was up and programming when IBM helped slaughter Jews.

--
Like what I said? You might like my music
Re:I told you so. by Anonymous Coward · 2003-03-10 22:30 · Score: 0

Let us keep in mind who is really behind this movement: Caldera

I am sure that some of you will remember them buying DRDOS from (was it?) Novel with the specific intentions of sueing Microsoft.

This is actually kind of interesting when you think about it. MS licensed Xenix to IBM, sold it to Novell, who sold it to SCO who sold it to Calreda....etc...

IBM would more likely stop selling AIX altogether before they would buy SCO/Caldera. It is a move they have been working on for quite some time.
Re:I told you so. by Anonymous Coward · 2003-03-11 00:49 · Score: 0

It's that patent portfolio and the way they abuse it that makes them so ugly. This is precisely the point. They've sat on technology going all the way back to WWII. They aren't about innovation, they're about monopoly and they do an incompetent job of even that.
Sure, they've got history and it all sucks. They're evil bastards and they're no friends of open source.
So there.
Re:I told you so. by budgenator · 2003-03-11 00:57 · Score: 0

Are you guys kidding or am I realy that old, IBM made Microsoft. Quite literaly microsoft was Bill Gates in a garage set-up hacking on Basic (a computer language designed to help teach Fortran in a friendly way). IBM had an OS they called IBM-DOS and hired microsoft to polish it up for their new product called a Personal Computer, and also liciensed microsoft to distribute DOS as MS-DOS to the clone market. In those days single-source was bad. Anyways that's the way I remember it, but I also walked to school 20 MI uphill both directions in waist deep snow with no shoes too so some of the details may be a little fuzzy

--
Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
Re:I told you so. by fucksl4shd0t · 2003-03-11 01:16 · Score: 1

Are you guys kidding or am I realy that old, IBM made Microsoft. Quite literaly microsoft was Bill Gates in a garage set-up hacking on Basic (a computer language designed to help teach Fortran in a friendly way). IBM had an OS they called IBM-DOS and hired microsoft to polish it up for their new product called a Personal Computer, and also liciensed microsoft to distribute DOS as MS-DOS to the clone market. In those days single-source was bad. Anyways that's the way I remember it, but I also walked to school 20 MI uphill both directions in waist deep snow with no shoes too so some of the details may be a little fuzzy
Um, age has nothing to do with it. :) You're just adding stuff to the discussion that wasn't there, that's all. I'll be more than happy to concede that IBM made Microsoft, because it's true. But it's totally irrelevant to the discussion. We were talking about IBM doing cutting-edge stuff, and the post I responded to was a guy wondering if Bill Gates existed before IBM. So, to set the poor dude straight, I cited IBMs dealings with the Nazis in WWII. Hell, I think they've been around now more than 100 years, but I could be wrong about that. They're an OLD company, and they've survived by changing with the times, albeit barely sometimes (they almost didn't make it out of the '90s).

--
Like what I said? You might like my music
Re:I told you so. by chez69 · 2003-03-11 04:25 · Score: 1

actually, your wrong.

- Microsoft + SCO developed Xenix
- Novell brought the UNIX ip from AT&T
- SCO (Caldera) brought the UNIX ip from Novell

--
PHP is the solution of choice for relaying mysql errors to web users.
Re:I told you so. by jedidiah · 2003-03-11 04:45 · Score: 1

Like what?

Who are they abusing exactly?

What companies do they victimize in a SCO-like manner?

--
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
Re:I told you so. by jedidiah · 2003-03-12 12:52 · Score: 1

I wasn't speculating on the age of IBM. I already know that IBM started out long before the digital computer.

I was specifically speculating on hard research devoted to computing topics. When I speculated on IBM's contributions predating Bill Gates, I meant to imply that such contributions likely preceed Bill Gates's BIRTH.

I wasn't refering to the shaking down of MITS.

--
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
Re:I told you so. by fucksl4shd0t · 2003-03-12 13:08 · Score: 1

I wasn't speculating on the age of IBM. I already know that IBM started out long before the digital computer. I was specifically speculating on hard research devoted to computing topics. When I speculated on IBM's contributions predating Bill Gates, I meant to imply that such contributions likely preceed Bill Gates's BIRTH. I wasn't refering to the shaking down of MITS.
Am I just not following the discussion? You speculated that IBM's contributions started before Bill Gates was even a gleam in his daddy's eye, right? So I provided a link that showed that IBM was around building their evil empire during WWII as proof that IBM has been around far longer than Gates, to support your post. Eh?
Did I hit a speed bump?

--
Like what I said? You might like my music
Re:I told you so. by jedidiah · 2003-03-12 16:29 · Score: 1

Making German trains run on time likely has little if anything to do with IBM contributions to the state of the art in COMPUTING.

--
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
Re:I told you so. by fucksl4shd0t · 2003-03-12 17:21 · Score: 1

Making German trains run on time likely has little if anything to do with IBM contributions to the state of the art in COMPUTING.
This is true! Dude, you're missing the point! It demonstrates, with proof (like it's really needed), that IBM was around and working before Billy boy was born. That is *all*.
For the record, though, IBM also provided the Nazis with cutting-edge information technology that they were able to use to keep track of the extermination project and check its progress and so forth. Early database design, actually, with a very early computing setup. I don't know if it was credited as being a computer, but I *do* know from other articles I read that they provided more technology than just train scheduling. They also provided specific technology for the application of transporting Jews to be slaughtered, rather than just typical military, civilian, or cargo style information technology.
That's all irrelevant, I only used that article to show that IBM was in business and multinational before Billy boy was even a swimming sperm.

--
Like what I said? You might like my music

At least it's not WorldTechTribune... by BitwizeGHC · 2003-03-10 17:17 · Score: 1

Any moment now they're going to put up a see-I-told-you-so article citing the SCO case as "irrefutable proof" that Linux hackers are intellectual property thieves, and touting Windows 2000 for "real" enterprise server use.

That is, of course, once they fix the Microsoft database which drives their site...

--
N4st0r, trixx0r h0bb1tz0rz! Th3y st0l3 0ur pr3c10uzz!

Ho Hum... by bumblebury · 2003-03-10 17:24 · Score: 1

For those of you wondering, that's a Vonnegut reference. Surprising that Linus would know it, I don't know many europeans who read/know Vonnegut.

Re:Ho Hum... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-03-10 19:41 · Score: 0

You are right. Most Europeans do not read literature outside of their native language. So it goes.
Re:Ho Hum... by fucksl4shd0t · 2003-03-10 20:20 · Score: 2, Informative

For those of you wondering, that's a Vonnegut reference. Surprising that Linus would know it, I don't know many europeans who read/know Vonnegut.
Maybe he read AA Milne when he was a kid, since that's obviously where Vonnegut got it? I'm sorry, the only Winnie the Pooh you've ever heard of was Disney's mutilation? Ho Hum...

--
Like what I said? You might like my music
Re:Ho Hum... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-03-10 23:18 · Score: 0

I've read Vonnegut in high-school with the rest of my class in Finland so it's not that surprising that Linus has also.

Classic it is.
Re:Ho Hum... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-03-11 01:03 · Score: 0

As an European I can say that is THE TRUTH. As true as I can speak for all Europeans. It has quite homogenous population after all.

So it goes.
Re:Ho Hum... by matthewg42 · 2003-03-11 02:18 · Score: 1

Ting a ling

Calling all linux coders! by Anonymous Coward · 2003-03-10 17:26 · Score: 0

Go class-action!

Sue SCO for their insulting remarks against you!

Obligitory Microsoft BitchSlap... by HotNeedleOfInquiry · 2003-03-10 17:34 · Score: 2, Funny

"it would be difficult or impossible for the Linux development community to create a grade of Linux adequate for enterprise use."

Oh, you mean like Microsoft server products?

--
"Eve of Destruction", it's not just for old hippies anymore...

_I_ _think_ by gangien · 2003-03-10 17:39 · Score: 0, Offtopic

_SCO_ _is_ _full_ _of_ _shit_ _._

Read the SCO document by NullProg · 2003-03-10 17:43 · Score: 5, Informative

As I've stated before (and have wasted too much time on this matter), here it is again...

Concerning the few specific examples SCO listed in their court filing, the Omni print driver and JFS appeared in OS/2 long before Linux. Warp 3 and Warp 4 Server respectively. JFS appeared in AIX first but was never the property of UNIX.

Per the SCO view, with project Monterey IBM gave away the keys to the UNIX kingdom to Linux.
I'm sorry, but Monterey was annouced in October 1998. Well after Linux was ready for "prime time". I still have servers to prove so. Bicycle my ass.

Sorry, end rant. Gulp Beer,
Enjoy.

--
It's just the normal noises in here.

Re:Read the SCO document by XO · 2003-03-11 03:30 · Score: 1

They are claiming the Omni print driver? Isn't the Omni print driver available for virtually everything?

*boggle*

--
"Champagne for my real friends - and real pain for my sham friends!" http://ericblade.postalboard.com/

Its the other way round by SuperKendall · 2003-03-10 17:45 · Score: 1

The article speaks about the action in terms of contract violation - not patents. This case only very tangentially involves Linux and has no effect on Linux itself...

Except that you have SCO "Founder of UNIX" (or so they would claim) saying that Linux is a fully enterprise ready system - but IBM must have broken contract to get it that way. But the basic message from SCO is "Hey, Linux is enterprise ready". Even if it's not a direct comment, shouldn't this lead to an increase in respect for Linux?

--
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley

are u guys high? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-03-10 17:47 · Score: 0

how'd you guess?

Is there some rule... by seanadams.com · 2003-03-10 17:49 · Score: 4, Funny

which guarantees a +5 moderation whenever you say:

feel free to moderate me down into oblivion

Seriously, I've never seen this except on +5 comments. Feel free to moderate me down into oblivion.

Re:Is there some rule... by Fryed · 2003-03-10 18:13 · Score: 3, Funny

feel free to moderate me down into oblivion

Seriously, I've never seen this except on +5 comments. Feel free to moderate me down into oblivion.

Well, usually only two kind of comments feel the need to add that message. There's the ones which are really good but against popular opinion, hence the author thinks they will be modded down, and states that he doesn't care.

The other type of comment that gets added to are the really terrible ones. These are the ones that really didn't need any further reason to be modded down. Of course, you probably don't see these ones since they get modded below the level you browse at, more than likely. Hence, you only see it on the really insightful (yet often anti popular opinion) posts, which wind up getting modded up for their insight.

Hope that cleared things up for you. Of course, this is massively offtopic, so feel free to moderate me down into oblivion...
Re:Is there some rule... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-03-10 19:08 · Score: 0

Actually I browse at -1 and from what I've seen his observation is pretty accurate. Of course this is even more offtopic, so I'm posting AC. Cover me!
Re:Is there some rule... by tuffy · 2003-03-11 05:11 · Score: 1

feel free to moderate me down into oblivion
Seriously, I've never seen this except on +5 comments.

That's because the rest were moderated down into oblivion ;)

--
Ita erat quando hic adveni.
Re:Is there some rule... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-03-11 07:54 · Score: 0

Looks like you're right, but feel free to moderate me down into oblivion.
Re:Is there some rule... by ccp · 2003-03-11 09:57 · Score: 1

So we're going to use FFTMMDIO?

This is going out of hand.
Re:Is there some rule... by bigmase521 · 2003-03-11 10:41 · Score: 1

Well I'm still a bit lost here, how does this modded up/modded down thing work again?

Maybe Cowboy Neal needs to explain it, I'm sure that'd get the point across. Please feel free to mod me down into oblivion.

--
"I didn't come here to tell you how this is going to end. I came here to tell you how it's going to begin"

A luxury car??? by xixax · 2003-03-10 18:10 · Score: 1

This is more like Trabant suing Subaru because back in 1945, they pulled the design of an engine from a bombed out factory before GM did. If Subaru hadn't released the 2001 WRX, the Trabant would have a 700 HP engine, do 300 mpg and have a mini-bar with Ricardo Montalban as bartender in the back.

A trabant or one of those grandiose but crummy cars that Nader thought were unsafe at any speed. Or a Rover that has 6 volt electrics and leaves puddles of oil on the driveway.

Xix.

--
"Everything is adjustable, provided you have the right tools"

Re:A luxury car??? by sconeu · 2003-03-10 18:32 · Score: 1

one of those grandiose but crummy cars that Nader thought were unsafe at any speed.

It was the Corvair.

--
General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
Re:A luxury car??? by Moofie · 2003-03-10 18:55 · Score: 1

Reminds me of a joke I like. You know why the Brits like to drink their beer warm? It's because their refrigerators are made by Lucas.

--
Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
Re:A luxury car??? by fishbowl · 2003-03-10 19:09 · Score: 1

>grandiose but crummy cars that Nader thought
>were unsafe at any speed.

Grandiose? The Covair?! That was General Motor's answer to the VW Karmann Ghia. They were pretty nice actually, as downscale sportscars go, but hardly "grandiose!"

--
-fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.

Premium to acquire by Goonie · 2003-03-10 18:11 · Score: 4, Insightful

There seems to be some suggestion that that is exactly what SCO is trying to get IBM to do, so that SCO's owners can get out with some cash.

If IBM made a takeover offer now, the market would probably assume that they fear losing the lawsuit, and that would increase SCO's value way above its current market capitalization, to somewhere much closer to a billion dollars(maybe more-they could probably go after several other big Linux-supporting IT firms).

Given that the evidence behind the claim appears to be very, very shaky, and the stakes are high, it would seem to be worth IBM's while to fight this one out in the courts for a while. If they win, they can *then* purchase SCO's IP for a song, far less than even the 25 million of the current market cap :)

--

Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from a rigged demo
--Andy Finkel (J. Klass?)

Re:Premium to acquire by afidel · 2003-03-10 18:17 · Score: 1

and acording to yahoo biz and financial times that is IBM's strategy, well at least the fighting the lawsuit bit, including of course the countersuit using their massive warchest of patents. I think that IBM will sucessfully crush the lawsuit, crush SCO, and buy the IP without giving the bottomfeeders at Caldera/SCO their golden parachute, sounds like poetic justice to me =)

--
There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.

Well, this IS Santa Cruz by stefanlasiewski · 2003-03-10 18:13 · Score: 3, Funny

Ah, well, this IS Santa Cruz. I lived in Santa Cruz for 4 years during college. Great place. Rediculous lawsuits are part of the character!

While I was at the University, some nutcase brought a $1 Trillion lawsuit against UC Santa Cruz for screwing up his brain with government mind probes.

He lost, quickly, but oh how I feel sorry for the clerk that had to deal with that one.

--
"Can of worms? The can is open... the worms are everywhere."

SCO does not equal Santa Cruz by RonBarr · 2003-03-10 18:28 · Score: 2, Informative

They took the Santa Cruz out of SCO a long time ago...

Re:SCO does not equal Santa Cruz by fucksl4shd0t · 2003-03-10 20:22 · Score: 1

They took the Santa Cruz out of SCO a long time ago...
Are you seriously trying to suggest that moving to Utah saved their sanity?

--
Like what I said? You might like my music
Re:SCO does not equal Santa Cruz by Anonymous Coward · 2003-03-11 07:08 · Score: 0

I'd say they traded santa cruz loony for religious quackery of utah.
Re:SCO does not equal Santa Cruz by stefanlasiewski · 2003-03-11 12:53 · Score: 1

Yes, but there is still some Santa Cruz left. My friend who grew up in Santa Cruz still works there (at Caldera).

--
"Can of worms? The can is open... the worms are everywhere."

SCO business model: three steps to $$$ by incrustwetrust · 2003-03-10 18:38 · Score: 1

1.get a legion of typing monkeys to make up reasons for why IBM has f***ed you over that does NOT include producing things on a higher quality.
2.threaten legal action and hope that they don't push you to court
3.make $$$
(alternative ending: be the laughing stock of geeks everywhere)

Standards come with maturity by Webmonger · 2003-03-10 18:57 · Score: 1

You just compared Gnome to Sendmail. But Sendmail does email delivery, which is basically a solved problem these days. Meanwhile, desktops are very much up in the air. There's just so much up for grabs. Sendmail pretty damned old, while Gnome is pretty youthful.

Competing protocols and formats make sense when you're still mapping out the problem domain, figuring out what's important and what isn't. When you're figuring out what's optimal and suboptimal.

When there's agreement on these issues, there will be standards, too. Gnome and KDE are already cooperating on standards, and more are sure to come. But too many standards too fast just stunts growth.

Mr. Lessig would ask Linus... by LinuxGeek · 2003-03-10 19:01 · Score: 4, Insightful

Linus is one of a few expert witnesses in this matter. He knows who contributed code and when it was merged. Lawyers can't enter testimony, they ask questions and enter exhibits that the judge and/or jury will use to decide matters.

The interview with Linus is quite informative and indicates that SCO will have a hard time proving their accusations. He will likely present the same answers if or when he is asked about these things in court if called as an expert witness.

Good lawyers are experts on legalities and current legal trends, not tedious subject matter.

--

Kindness is the language which the deaf can hear and the blind can see. - Mark Twain

Re:Mr. Lessig would ask Linus... by erc · 2003-03-10 23:31 · Score: 1

The few? I can name at least 50-100 developers who were intimately involved with the Linux kernel source around the time that SCO is claiming misappropriation.

--
-- Ed Carp, N7EKG erc@pobox.com PGP KeyID: 0x0BD32C9B What I'm up to: http://intuitives.mine.nu
Re:Mr. Lessig would ask Linus... by LinuxGeek · 2003-03-11 00:06 · Score: 1

Yes, there are only a few people that manage the aspects of the Linux kernel that will be relevant to this lawsuit. I wrote; "He knows who contributed code and when it was merged".

Anyone can read the CREDITS file and count contributers, but not everyone has the patch files that were emailed and knows the hows and whys of the merges.

--

Kindness is the language which the deaf can hear and the blind can see. - Mark Twain
Re:Mr. Lessig would ask Linus... by osguru · 2003-03-11 02:14 · Score: 1

From a strictly trying to save money point of view - wouldn't the changelog(s) be just as good in court?
Re:Mr. Lessig would ask Linus... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-03-11 03:22 · Score: 0

"Good lawyers are experts on legalities and current legal trends, not tedious subject matter."

Uh... I think I'll just let that hang there for a moment...
Re:Mr. Lessig would ask Linus... by LinuxGeek · 2003-03-11 03:36 · Score: 1

Why so? The lawyers I know are very versed in legal precedent and case law, but pretty light on technical knowledge. For instance; David Boise didn't even have email until the end of the Microsoft antitrust trial he was prosecuting for the DOJ. The "tedious subject matter" is a term I actually heard a lawyer say while a friend was trying to explain some technical matters to an attorney over lunch one day.

--

Kindness is the language which the deaf can hear and the blind can see. - Mark Twain
Re:Mr. Lessig would ask Linus... by LinuxGeek · 2003-03-11 03:39 · Score: 1

From my limited observations in real court, judges and juries respond best to real people. Documents can be entered as exhibits, but if the information isn't self explanatory, you need a credible expert witness to interpret.

--

Kindness is the language which the deaf can hear and the blind can see. - Mark Twain
Re:Mr. Lessig would ask Linus... by blakestah · 2003-03-11 04:43 · Score: 1

I think in this case it will be something far more specific.

IBM solely adapted linux to >4 CPU SMP machines of their own architecture that ran AIX. The obvious implication is that whereas before you could only run AIX on these boxes, now you can run linux as well. Linux has never been well adapted to SMP machines with more than 4 CPUs (big iron), mainly b/c not enough developers have access.

So, the question is, did IBM use inside information from UNIX to do that port? Will this impact future licensing of AIX from SCO (or, rather, the UNIX license)?

AIX is dying, IBM is helping linux supplant it, and SCO is pissed.
Re:Mr. Lessig would ask Linus... by CrkHead · 2003-03-11 16:08 · Score: 1

I always thought the only good lawyers are dead ones.

Nameservers for Linux and *BSD by rickmoen · 2003-03-10 19:04 · Score: 3, Informative

evilpenguin wrote:

BTW, what alteratives to BIND exist for Linuxand *BSD? I actually don't know and would like to know.

There are now a number of alternative packages that may have advantages for many deployments. E.g.:

MaraDNS is a general-purpose, fast DNS server package (doing recursive, authoritative, and caching roles, plus fully supporting zone transfers):
http://www.maradns.org/

pdnsd is a small caching-only DNS server with a disk-based cache, suitable for small networks and workstations:
http://home.t-online.de/home/Moestl/

Dnsmasq is a small authoritative and caching DNS server for a group of NATted / IPmasqued machines (optionally pulling names from DHCP leases):
http://www.thekelleys.org.uk/dnsmasq/

DNRD is a small caching-only DNS server for NAT / IPmasq networks:
http://dnrd.nevalabs.org/

MyDNS is a MySQL-based authoritative and caching server (no recursive service) suitable for very large sites. In such roles, it's faster and more responsive than BIND9, even though the latter uses a RAM-based cache:
http://mydns.bboy.net/

ldapdns implements the same idea, except out of an LDAP database. Again, much faster than BIND9:
http://nimh.org/code/ldapdns/

GnuDIP is an authoritative server for Dynamic DNS:
http://gnudip2.sourceforge.net/gnudip-www/

NSD is a high-performance authoritative-only daemon:
http://www.nlnetlabs.nl/nsd/

PowerDNS (open source as of 2002-11-25) is an authoritative-only daemon with a modular structure supporting various back-end information stores such as SQL databases (MySQL, PostgreSQL, Oracle 8i, Oracle 9i, IBM DB2, and others via ODBC), BIND zonefiles and other file formats, and LDAP directories. Supports AXFR zone transfers.
http://www.powerdns.com/products/powerdns/

CustomDNS is a authoritative-only daemon for both static addresses and its variant form of dynamic DNS:
http://customdns.sourceforge.net/

lbnamed is a similar authoritative-only daemon for static and dynamic information, with a load-balancing multi-machine architecture:
http://www.stanford.edu/~riepel/lbnamed/

Posadis is another fast authoritative-only daemon:
http://posadis.sourceforge.net/

dents is another general-purpose DNS server, but is perenially unfinished, and is probably dead, at this point:
http://sourceforge.net/projects/dents/

Pliant DNS Server is another general-purpose DNS server, although it may not support zone transfers:
http://pliant.cx/pliant/protocol/dns/

Yaku-NS is another small, fast general-purpose DNS server:
http://www.kyuzz.org/antirez/ens.html

Twisted Names is an authoritative and caching DNS server, written in Python:
http://twistedmatrix.com/documents/howto/names

Oak DNS Server is an authoritative and caching DNS server, supporting dynamic DNS updates and AAAA records. It's written in Python, and doesn't need to run privileged:
http://www.digitallumber.com/oak

dnsjava is a minimal, authoritative-only server, a resolver library, and a set of DNS utilities, all written in Java:
http://www.xbill.org/dnsjava/

FireDNS is a client library for DNS requests, with emphasis on speed and asynchronous processing. Written in C, and has low-timeout blocking functions. Can be used to relace standard libc resolver library functions like getbyhostname with much faster equivalent code:
http://ares.penguinhosting.net/~ian/

GNU adns is a resolver library for C (and C++) programs, and a collection of useful DNS resolver utilities:
http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~ian/adns/

Proprietary packages include:

UltraDNS (UltraDNS Corporation)
djbdns/tinydns
ATLAS (Verisign)
BINDPlus (Information Network Eng. Group, Inc.)
Global Name Service (Nominum, Inc.)
NeDNS (Neteka, Inc.)

I maintain this list at http://linuxmafia.com/~rick/linux-info/dns-servers

Rick Moen
rick@linuxmafia.com

Re:Nameservers for Linux and *BSD by stor · 2003-03-11 01:50 · Score: 4, Informative

Also there's Dr. Bernstein's djbdns

It's actually a group of programs: a caching nameserver "dnscache", a non-recursive nameserver "tinydns", a zone-transfer-handling program "axfrdns", reverse DNS wall "walldns" and some rbldns thing.

I used to run various mixes of the above on a few boxes at my last job. Nice software but read the fine instructions: tinydns is very different to Bind wrt administration.

Cheers
Stor

--
"Yeah well there's a lot of stuff that should be, but isn't"
Re:Nameservers for Linux and *BSD by Anonymous Coward · 2003-03-11 02:22 · Score: 0

Moen mentioned this. But in his opinion djbdns is proprietary and hence apparently undeserving of summary. I would suggest a less biased source of information on available dns options.
Re:Nameservers for Linux and *BSD by rickmoen · 2003-03-11 08:04 · Score: 1

stor wrote:
Also there's Dr. Bernstein's djbdns
Already included. To repeat the relevant excerpt, for your convenience:
Proprietary packages include:
UltraDNS (UltraDNS Corporation)
djbdns/tinydns
ATLAS (Verisign)
BINDPlus (Information Network Eng. Group, Inc.)
Global Name Service (Nominum, Inc.)
NeDNS (Neteka, Inc.)
If people know of additional nameservers for Linux/*BSD, either open-source or proprietary, please e-mail me, and I'll be glad to add them to the list.
Rick Moen
rick@linuxmafia.com

Re:rejoinder No it's my fault :-( by vlad30 · 2003-03-10 19:15 · Score: 1

I once was given a copy of xenix which I immediately put in a box and then passed on to a friend. I think he might have looked at it as he wasn't the same same since

--
Your'e all thinking it, I just said it for you

Poor Linus by mrscorpio · 2003-03-10 19:16 · Score: 2, Insightful

He has a cult following that borders people like Kurt Cobain, Ed Vedder, Jim Morrison, etc. Every word this man speaks/writes is copied, discussed, scrutinized, and dissected into oblivion.

Tomorrow on Slashdot - "Linus Found Using Porta-Potty in Public Area".

Chris

Thanks guy (or gal, though that's highly unlikely) by Anonymous Coward · 2003-03-10 19:30 · Score: 0

cuz it DID get /.ed...

Chris Mullin wannabe? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-03-10 19:33 · Score: 0

That was Detlef Schrempf, moron!

I'm not a big fan of IBM either... by pointwood · 2003-03-10 19:37 · Score: 5, Insightful

It's easy to look at IBM as a "the good guy" and forget all the bad things they stand for too!

In Europe there is currently a big fight about software patents and who do you think is a big supporter of them?

Here is a quote:
IBM's patent department is actively lobbying Europe to legalise software patents. They have invested millions in fighting example cases to leading European lawcourts such as the EPO's Technical Boards of Appeal and the German Federal Court in order to soften and eventually remove European restrictions on patenting software. They have also threatened European politicians that IBM might close down local facilities if software patents are not legalised in Europe. IBM has also prevented the US government from conducting studies on the value of software patents for the national economy. In the wake of the Opensource hype, IBM's rhetoric has become relatively moderate, but nonetheless it is supported by real pressure. IBM has acquired approximately 1000 European software patents whose legal status is currently unclear. Given the great number of software patents in IBM's hands, IBM is one of the few software companies who may have a genuine interest in software patentability. Once software patents become assertable in Europe, an IBM tax of several hundered million EUR may be levied on European software companies.

Link

Now, what is the biggest threat to Linux? SCO or software patents?

Besides that, I find SCO's suit very stupid - the only winner in this is going to be the laywers.

Re:The crux of the article-Aim for the eyes. by Anonymous Coward · 2003-03-10 19:41 · Score: 0

That would be "Where's theirs," you elementary school drop-out.

IT IS /.ed. cheers by Anonymous Coward · 2003-03-10 19:41 · Score: 0

qw412qw1231reqfw

I Appreciated... by kirn_malinus · 2003-03-10 19:44 · Score: 2, Interesting

This line (or so ;): "85. For example, Linux is currently capable of coordinating the simultaneous performance of 4 computer processors. UNIX, on the other hand, commonly links 16 processors and can successfully link up to 32 processors for simultaneous operation. This difference in memory management performance is very significant to enterprise customers who need extremely high computing capabilities for complex tasks. The ability to accomplish this task successfully has taken AT&T, Novell and SCO at least 20 years, with access to expensive equipment for design and testing, well-trained UNIX engineers and a wealth of experience in UNIX methods and concepts." So they're saying IBM cheated because Linux now do something that took the smartest computational scientists 20 years to achieve, maybe, but that a 20 year old can now understand? Weak.

--
All circuits busy.

Re:I Appreciated... by mark-t · 2003-03-10 20:30 · Score: 1

Agreed... its about as weak an argument as assuming that a computer science student couldn't ever hope to do any better than his teacher. Considering the abundance of Unix system internals publications, there is no lack of teaching material -- so why couldn't the next generation surpass the previous?

--
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
Re:I Appreciated... by vidarh · 2003-03-10 21:43 · Score: 3, Informative

It also ignores the number of companies with SMP and NUMA experience (SGI, anyone?), as well as individuals with significant experience in the area, that have contributed significantly to the Linux kernel. It's not as if good SMP and memory management solutions in Linux have all come from IBM.

PLEASE DO SOMETHING by Anonymous Coward · 2003-03-10 20:01 · Score: 1, Interesting

We must not let this stupid little company that

a) Never created UNIX (just got the rights after 999 tranfers)

b) Has as a CEO the most evil person around

c) Has a stupid name

d) Creates a distro (and SPOILS linux' name)

do harm us.

Please people, do think and find a solution for this not to touch linux.

Maybe Linus doesn't care, and most programmers don't, but it is not about THEM, nor about the CURRENT linux users and programmers.

It's about the FUTURE people.

If SCO succeeds over this and creates a reputation for linux that harm the beliefs of people for the years to come

a) People will no longer care about Linux, having

i) Less programmers for linux
ii) Less Users

DO STH, YOU OF YOU WHO CAN.

English blathering by Iffy+Bonzoolie · 2003-03-10 20:32 · Score: 3, Funny

I use "it's" as a possessive pronoun, despite the fact that it's technically correct to use "its," simply because it is not intuitive. I imagine it was devised as a distinction between the possessive pronoun, and the contraction for "it is," but the meaning is obvious in context, so it's a valueless prescriptive rule. Nearly everyone uses "it's" in place of "its" unless they are told by someone that it's incorrect, and that tells me that it's not intuitive - and I believe that language should be as intuitive as possible.

So this is my little civil disobedience, I'm such a rebel!

-If

Of course, "his" and "hers" and "theirs" don't have apostrophes, but unfortunately just adding the apostrophe doesn't really solve that little problem. Damned if you apostrophe, and damned if you don't apostrophe!

--
Run a pencil-and-paper RPG campaign with your far-off friends: Gametable!

Re:English blathering by pyrrho · 2003-03-10 21:12 · Score: 4, Funny

This reminds me of the time when I used to sometimes split my infinitives, and then finally the Oxford Dictionary came around to my way of thinking.

--
-pyrrho
Re:English blathering by dheltzel · 2003-03-11 02:04 · Score: 1

- and I believe that language should be as intuitive as possible.
You don't do much programming, do you ?
Re:English blathering by vocaro · 2003-03-11 03:02 · Score: 1

I use "it's" as a possessive pronoun, despite the fact that it's technically correct to use "its," simply because it is not intuitive.
Yes, I believe this is exactly why so many people make the mistake. (I get it wrong myself on occasion, but I almost always catch it.) The thought pattern is "Microsoft's", "Mandrake's", "it's". On the surface, this might seem consistent, but it actually isn't, given that "its" is a possessive pronoun that fits the pattern: "yours", "his", "hers", "theirs", "its". (Weren't we were supposed to master all that in kindergarten?) It's a special pet peeve of mine because I taught English in Japan for a year, and my students always got it right! So I'm always annoyed when I see native speakers get it wrong.
the meaning is obvious in context, so it's a valueless prescriptive rule
Hmm...almost any grammar and spelling error you can make is obvious in context, so let's just throw all the rulez owt th' wendoh. Y34h, TH4T w0uLd BE K3WL. W3'd 83 AbL3 +o Under5t4nd 34Ch 0+HeR MoRe 3@SilY If 3V3RY0n3 wro+3 englI$H 1N Wh@TevER w4Y thEy pHe3l 1$ In+U1+1VE. 1+ aLL m@K3$ pERph3Ct $EN$e in cONTEXT, r1gh+?
Re:English blathering by vocaro · 2003-03-11 03:11 · Score: 1

Oops. That pattern should be "my", "your", "his", "her", "its", "our", "their". So maybe it's not so consistent. But that still doesn't forgive us for not learning how to write a three-letter word correctly.
Re:English blathering by evilpenguin · 2003-03-11 05:48 · Score: 1

Don't forget "whose." An even more confusing possessive.

But this can be simplified to a general rule: When an apostrophe-S could mean both posession and a contraction of the word with "is," the contraction takes precedence and there is some other way to indicate possession. Look for it.

The weird pronouns we are listing exist because of English's inflected past. They evolved (devoloved?) from gender/case markers that used to hang on every noun in the Old English (pre-Norman) days.
Re:English blathering by Principal+Skinner · 2003-03-11 09:14 · Score: 1

given that "its" is a possessive pronoun that fits the pattern: "yours", "his", "hers", "theirs", "its". (Weren't we were supposed to master all that in kindergarten?)

IMHO, this is about as good a pattern as saying "Humans, earthworms, jellyfish and pine trees are all living things that do not have gills, so let's put them in the same category." I was tested on the "its/it's" thing in 3rd grade; I think I got it wrong, but the teacher missed it. I took second place in a regional (a region of the city) spelling bee in 8th grade, but it was high school before someone finally told me what the "rule" was (I still consider it more a mnemonic than a rule) and I was able to spell them without trying to remember which was more important, the contraction or the possessive. I still enjoy spelling these two "correctly"; it's like a silent wink to the 5-10% of readers who know and care about the difference, letting them know I'm in the in-group.

It's a special pet peeve of mine because I taught English in Japan for a year, and my students always got it right!

I always noticed this when teaching English in Korea (3 years). I'd give them a nice smile and a pat on the back when they'd spell things right, but I'd jump for joy when they used the plural form for anything other than the stock plurals (shoes, sports, donuts, shirts, a few others that I forget). Rote memorization of how to spell stuff is easy for them compared to thinking about new concepts such as countability and definiteness, but breaking rules that natives never break is more likely to lead to miscommunication than breaking the rules most natives don't understand.

--
one hundred twenty
is just enough characters
to write a haiku
Re:English blathering by alext · 2003-03-11 14:07 · Score: 1

The weird pronouns we are listing exist because of English's inflected past.

Right, but this wasn't properly understood in the 17-18th centuries when the grammarians took charge - they thought that when you said "the mans watch" mans must be a contraction of man his, hence the apostrophe was used. As you mention, this was wrong - Old English had a genitive case that often ended in S and this is where the possessive S came from. The horrible collision with plural S is just an accident of history, somewhat boosted by French imports using S plurals.

Actually, to be pedantic, "its" is a very recent coinage - until the mid-1600s "his" was the neuter possessive pronoun, e.g. "the candle throws his light", hence the very few instances of "its" in the KJB and Shakespeare. This was the last pronoun to fall into line with the modern pattern.
Re:English blathering by vocaro · 2003-03-11 14:40 · Score: 1

this is about as good a pattern as saying "Humans, earthworms, jellyfish and pine trees are all living things that do not have gills, so let's put them in the same category."
I don't see how you can say this is the same thing. I was pointing out a "sounds-like" and "is-spelled-like" pattern, which is not what your example illustrates. And even if they didn't sound alike or were spelled alike, they're all either pronouns or possessive pronouns -- the most common words in the English language. So they should be easy to memorize and write correctly.
Rote memorization of how to spell stuff is easy for them
Exactly! Rote memorization is easy for us, too, yet so many people get it wrong so often. That's why it's my pet peeve.

Deterrence by Galvatron · 2003-03-10 20:39 · Score: 1

People keep on recommending this, and it's really getting on my nerves. Yes, IBM could buy SCO. Yes, it might have a lower expected cost than fighting the suit in court (expected cost = legal costs + (cost of losing * probability of losing)). But, it would set a bad precedent. By rewarding those who bring a groundless lawsuit against them, they encourage others to do the same.

My mother is a lawyer, and worked for PacBell for a number of years (back when it was PacBell, we're talking early 80's here). One of the things she has told me is that it almost certainly would have been cheaper for PacBell to settle every single lawsuit broght against them, and fire 9/10ths of their legal staff. However, if they did that, then everyone would start suing them because they'd be an easy source of money. So, settling a lawsuit out of court (or buying the company in question) can have large hidden costs above and beyond the actual amount that you pay.

As for your three other reasons why IBM should buy SCO, I'll examine them in turn. Reason 1, support services, would be redundant. SCO's total revenue is too small to be worthwhile to IBM. The costs of integrating the company into IBM would exceed any future profits it might bring in. As for items 2 and 3, intellectual properties, IBM could pick those up for almost nothing in a year when SCO has to file for Chapter 7 liquidation :)

Oh, one last point. The cost of a hostile takeover is not simply equivalent to its market cap. You need voting control of the company, which means you have to be the largest shareholder by a decent margin to forestall any proxy fights (obviously, you never need more than 50.01% of the stock). Also, as you buy up shares, the price will rise. You're dramatically increasing the demand for the shares, so the laws of supply and demand will push prices up. So, to know the real cost of acquiring SCO, we'd need to know a lot more about who the major shareholders are, how much they own, and how willing they would be to sell their shares to IBM.

--
"The question of whether a computer can think is no more interesting than that of whether a submarine can swim" -EWD

Re:Deterrence by isj · 2003-03-10 23:45 · Score: 1

Also, as you buy up shares, the price will rise
If you look at the SCOX stock you will see something interesting. Since SCO filed the complaint (march 6) the stock has risen from 1.80 to 3.66. So someone is buying already.
Re:Deterrence by Galvatron · 2003-03-11 01:40 · Score: 1

If you're going to make a hostile takeover, you have to declare your intent with the SEC. So it's definately not IBM (or any other company looking to acquire SCO).

--
"The question of whether a computer can think is no more interesting than that of whether a submarine can swim" -EWD

IBM to fight lawsuit. by Anonymous Coward · 2003-03-10 20:58 · Score: 0

FT.com
IBM prepares to fight $1bn SCO lawsuit
Monday March 10, 8:55 pm ET
By Tom Foremski in San Francisco

International Business Machines is preparing a strong response to a $1bn lawsuit filed on Friday by SCO Group that threatens IBM's ability to sell billions of dollars of Linux-based IT systems.
A source close to IBM said its lawyers were preparing a substantial defence of the suit and are likely to file counter-claims based on its huge portfolio of patents, the largest in the computer industry.

ADVERTISEMENT

SCO Group, which owns intellectual property on Unix, a widely used operating system on which Linux is based, claims IBM violated trade secrets and took its proprietary code and transferred it to Linux, then released it into the global IT community.

It is seeking at least $1bn in damages from IBM. It could potentially launch legal actions against thousands of companies selling or using Linux.

However, SCO is not prepared to comment on potential legal action against others.

"Our focus is on IBM. It has been taking our code wholesale and dumping it into Linux," said Darl McBride, chief executive of SCO.

He added that SCO had contacted IBM about the matter.

"They told us to take a proverbial jump in the lake, which is why we filed the lawsuit."

IBM denied SCO's charges and said that it had no prior knowledge of the matter before being served with the lawsuit.

SCO purchased the rights to Unix from AT&T in 1995. It has been selling its version of Unix and licensing Unix to thousands of companies.

The licence specifies that licensees cannot take the software and use it in other software, which is what IBM is alleged to have done.

Brian Ferguson, a partner with law firm McDermott, Will & Emery in Washington, said that SCO would have trouble proving its case.

"Trade secrets lawsuits are extremely difficult to prove.

"It would have been better to use patent infringement claims, which leads me to suppose that their patents are no longer valid or nearing the end of their useful life. Trade secrets never expire."

The lawsuit was filed by the law firm of Boies, Schiller and Flexner.

It is the law firm of David Boies, who was once the lead prosecutor for the Justice Department in its antitrust prosecution of Microsoft.

SCO shares jumped 40 per cent on Friday to close at $3.10.

The bicycle was MS-DOS, wasn't it? by Vegigami · 2003-03-10 21:08 · Score: 4, Informative

The bicycle was MS-DOS,

The luxury car was the Mac,

BeOS was the batmobile,

and Linux was the Tank.

I think that was how Neal Stephenson wrote it in "In The Beginning Was The Command Line" anyway.

--

I can tell you the meaning of life,
but you have to promise not to laugh.

Re:The bicycle was MS-DOS, wasn't it? by sql*kitten · 2003-03-11 00:00 · Score: 2, Informative

I think that was how Neal Stephenson wrote it in "In The Beginning Was The Command Line" anyway.

Off the top of my head, Windows was a station wagon.
Re:The bicycle was MS-DOS, wasn't it? by imadork · 2003-03-11 02:23 · Score: 1

Windows was a station wagon.
I always thought it was more like a SUV myself...
Re:The bicycle was MS-DOS, wasn't it? by ogre57 · 2003-03-11 08:22 · Score: 2, Funny

Windows was a station wagon.

I always thought it was more like a SUV myself...

Huh. And I thought Windows 9x/ce/me/nt/2k/xp was more like a bicycle with training wheels, loose gooseneck, no seat, with front brakes that lock at random.

The worst part of it all. by eniu!uine · 2003-03-10 21:17 · Score: 2, Funny

(1) a high degree of design coordination.

It is terrible that IBM stole this from SCO. That kind of coordination is extremely valuable and IBM should definately have to pay licensing fees for it.

--
My Blog

Re:The worst part of it all. by amorsen · 2003-03-11 10:07 · Score: 1

I think IBM did steal the "high degree of design coordination" from SCO. It is at least very clear that SCO doesn't have any such thing.

--
Finally! A year of moderation! Ready for 2019?

one simple question... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-03-10 22:01 · Score: 0

Didn't SCO develop a linux distro (caldera)?

If GNU/Linux is stealing secret code from SCO, wouldn't THAT distro be a good place to start looking for it?

How about UnitedLinux? What was Caldera's contribution to it?

Re:rejoinder No it's my fault :-( by mill · 2003-03-10 22:07 · Score: 1

Why? Did he get a phone call after he looked at it? Has it gone a week yet?

LOL by Tokerat · 2003-03-10 22:33 · Score: 1

Spot on, brotha. +1 Funny.

--
CAn'T CompreHend SARcaSm?

I'm working at SCO! by Anonymous Coward · 2003-03-10 22:50 · Score: 0

Please, WHAT should I do with my life?!!

Let SCO Know by RedSynapse · 2003-03-10 23:08 · Score: 3, Informative

Contact SCO and tell them what you think of their buisness methods:

1-888-465-4689
1-800-726-8649 (Support)
801-765-1313 (FAX)

Or submit an email on their webform HERE
Or if you perfer the personal touch you might want to BCC these people:

jant@sco.com, rr@sco.com, sco@schwartz-pr.com, andrewk@sco.com, anz_info@sco.com, rhondap@sco.com, bstowell@sco.com, skunkware@sco.com, jkj@sco.com, patrickm@sco.com, phatch@sco.com, polska@caldera.com, louisi@sco.com, murray@sco.com, maindesk@sco.com, rogerv@sco.com, alf@sco.com, asirotin@caldera.com, alee@sco.com, rickpo@sco.com, kathyp@sco.com, deanr@sco.com, evanh@caldera.com, jls@sco.com, dfp@caldera.com, carlsa@sco.com, kieramy@caldera.com, belal@caldera.com, rhondap@caldera.com, jlw@caldera.com, bobs@caldera.com, petrs@caldera.com, robertl@caldera.com, jgale@caldera.com, tim.rose@caldera.com, wynnw@caldera.com, tbird@caldera.com, andyb@caldera.com

Re:Let SCO Know by cgh4be · 2003-03-11 09:23 · Score: 1

Well, I sent a polite little letter to those addresses. I'll let you know if I get a response.

Clayton
Re:Let SCO Know by usotsuki · 2003-03-11 12:20 · Score: 1

w00t, maybe they'll be spammed out of oblivion! :)

--
Dreams, dreams, don't doubt dreams, dreaming children's dreaming dreams. Sailor Moon SS

Much ado about nothing by TopShelf · 2003-03-10 23:13 · Score: 3, Funny

This whole episode has been amusing to watch. Sometimes it seems like Sun, IBM, Microsoft et al conduct themselves with all the decorum of your average third-grade kid. Take Sun's response to the lawsuit, or Dell's new ad with a not-so-subtle dig at Sun. I can just see some of these CEO's running into each other in some fine restaurant and getting down to the "nyah nyah nyah nyah-nyah"s pretty quickly...

--
Stop by my site where I write about ERP systems & more

When SCO went bad (a memoir) by charlie · 2003-03-10 23:14 · Score: 5, Informative

Obligatory disclaimer: I worked for SCO from 1991 to 1995. I was in the techpubs team working on SCO OpenServer 5, released in mid-1995. So I think I have some insight into SCO's corporate culture as it then was ...

Kids, the company that filed this lawsuit is not SCO.

Engineers at SCO were bolting together PC based UNIXes back before Linus got started. From the late 1980's, they inherited Xenix -- a descendant of AT&T System 7. In 1988 they bought the rights to AT&T SVR3.2 (for an eye-watering sum -- in 1994, each box SCO sold was encumbered with about $200 in royalty payments to other companies). By 1992, SCO UNIX 3.2.4 was a cash cow, and they needed something new.

I'd rate the rot as having set in by late 1991. Before then, SCO was an exceedingly cool place to work -- one of the early UNIX start-ups, SCO was the outfit with the hot tub in the courtyard of the original company offices and the source of numerous interesting legends. There was a lot of cross-fertilization with SGI and Sun at the engineering level back in the late 80's, and some of that survived into the 1990's. But the ACE Initiative killed it dead -- led to a 15% downsizing in 1991, when SCO was forced to admit that it couldn't market Open Desktop against Windows and hope to win. Then there was a string of bad decisions that effectively doomed the company to ossification and slow decline.

First there was the decision to build OpenServer in the first place. Then when SVR4 appeared to be making ground and SVR4.2 (UnixWare 1) came out, there was IIRC a quiet attempt to clone the SVR4 kernel. (The AT&T copyright declarations were retained in the headers, but by 1995 SCO's main product bore about the same relationship to SVR3.2 that a heavily customized rice burner bears to a showroom model.)

But SCO was, at this point, still a real software company. The UNIX dev team had more than 200 engineers working in it. Then the rot set in for real ...

(Historical aside: I first met Linux in 1993, as the system a bunch of SCO's engineers were running on their home machines. But when I left in early 1995, there was an attitude of complete denial in SCO's management -- Linux was a toy system that could never be relevant.)

Anyway. Why did I leave?

The main warning to me that the company was probably not a good long term career bet happened three months ahead of the functional freeze on OpenServer. One lunchtime managers came around our cubicle farm and pitch-forked us into coaches, drove us for two hours around the M25 motorway, and dragged us into a hotel at Heathrow where we were given glasses of grape juice and ushered into a theatre. The lights dimmed, the sound system came up playing "Things Can Only Get Better" (gack!) and the board of directors ran on stage punching their air. The occasion? It was to announce the retirement of the CEO and his replacement by the CFO (yes, the head bean counter). Said CFO promised to grow SCO's revenue base from $200M/year (in 1995) to $1Bn/year by 2000. I took one look at this stage, considered the Linux box (1.2 kernel) back home, and went back to my cubicle and started updating my resume.

There's a point to this long, discursive ramble. After I left SCO, I kept an eye on it. Sales didn't do well, although the Tarantella middleware product -- Doug Michel's pet, after the board panicked, kicked out the accountant, and invited him back -- did okay. The UNIX dev team languished, became an appendix to HP and IBM with Monterey, and in the end was downsized repeatedly until it no longer existed. Finally, SCO split in two.

The important corporate bit now follows. SCO had two arms; the Tarantella middleware arm, which was doing okay, and the UNIX arm, which was in a death-spiral. As I understand it, SCO Inc sold the UNIX arm to Caldera (then flush with IPO dollars), renamed itself to Tarantella Inc, and is presumably doing okay, albeit as a smaller software company in a different field. Caldera retained some of SCO's UNIX marketing and sales staff, but basically treated SCO's software as a cash cow. Caldera were set up with lots of money by Ray Noorda, but don't seem to have had a clue how to sell software. And the company now known as SCO is actually Caldera.

So what's going on?

Caldera has always been a money hole. Caldera peaked at something like 4% of the market for shrinkwrapped Linux distros, and never quite seemed to get the engineering side together. While Redhat's contribution is well-known, and SuSE have done a lot of solid engineering work (much of which is GPL'd -- the device drivers, for example -- rather than the much-more-visible and proprietary admin GUI), who remembers what Caldera tried to add to the community? (Yes, they tried to build yet another admin front end -- in the end, nobody else bothered using it.) Caldera basically targeted the commercial market before it was ready to buy Linux. Then they bought a sadly run-down product from SCO, and failed to promote it effectively. That's because Caldera still think they're selling software licences, rather than support and services. Now nobody wants to buy their licences (when they can pick up something equivalent for free) they're trying to attach a cost to the free stuff.

It's somewhat sad that SCO's name is being dragged through the mud this way; it feels like someone I knew who's been dead for years just clawed their way out of the graveyard mud and began shambling around town looking for brains to chow down on.

Amateur Crap by budgenator · 2003-03-10 23:31 · Score: 1

I tried to read the complaint, I really did try, but all I seemed to get out of it is Caldera, er I mean SCO saying IBM had purchased the rights to look at our source code for Unix which works good, and Linux works good so they must have stolen our IP. So while IANAL the whole thing seems to be amateur crap. I guess we could say a SCO law suit is to IBM as a bicycle is to a Luxury Car.

--
Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds

Re:Amateur Crap by Copid · 2003-03-11 09:10 · Score: 1

Or, "The SCO lawsuit is to IBM as an insect is to a luxury car's windshield."

--
An interesting anagram of "BANACH TARSKI" is "BANACH TARSKI BANACH TARSKI"

Re:POOPED! by Anonymous Coward · 2003-03-10 23:46 · Score: 0

Flush you dirty bastard!

If Ninnle got involved... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-03-11 00:11 · Score: 0

...could you imagine the brouhahaa?

Expensive Lawyer by budgenator · 2003-03-11 00:12 · Score: 1

Maybe they think having a name at the table will add creditability to the claims. On thing I've noticed is when you bring in the big guns from outa town, the judge tends to bitchslap you a lot if you don't have at least two homeboys of the judge at the table too.

Frequently the local lawyers
1 do all of the real work,
2 do most of the standing up in court
3 keep the big-gun lawyer from doing stupid stuff that pisses off the judge

So David Boies has been in a lot of high profile cases, but I don't remember his win/loss record being particualry impressive, in short he's probably there for show not go

--
Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds

I wouldn't see SCO going down in a fight by The+Analog+Kid · 2003-03-11 00:13 · Score: 1

They most likely do want to get out and get bought. 1 Billion isn't a lot in today's big buissness. SCO will most likely be in the same place again in a year if they win. Microsoft will ofcourse step in and try to buy since well if they don't, and lets say IBM decided to GPL Unix, Microsoft's dominace will crumple quicker than before.

Also, if SCO does win and they demand royalties how do get royalties from something thats already free? We are talking about the Linux kernel containing this code, or am I missing something.

You're in the wrong site, sir. by Anonymous Coward · 2003-03-11 00:16 · Score: 0

They asked what the implications from this lawsuit will be to the Linux movement. And he said what we already know. IBM hasn't contributed more than 0.01% to the kernel, and it's not significant.

So: Linus sais that nobody cares except IBM.

This is news for nerds, not news for lawyers. You're obviously in the wrong site. Try www.yahoo.com for a starting point.

+5 Ironic by Anonymous Coward · 2003-03-11 00:16 · Score: 0

bla bla bla

HOW-TO: SCO - Linux migration by PiotrK · 2003-03-11 00:22 · Score: 3, Interesting

Could we just write:
* SCO to Linux Conversion book,
* SCO to Linux HOW-TO,
* SCO to Linux Migration Case Histories,
and start sourceforge site with all necesery scripts, etc?

Re:HOW-TO: SCO - Linux migration by Anonymous Coward · 2003-03-11 09:56 · Score: 0

Could we just write:
* SCO to Linux Conversion book,
* SCO to Linux HOW-TO,
* SCO to Linux Migration Case Histories,
and start sourceforge site with all necesery scripts, etc?

Be more than happy to make contributions to all 3 projects.

Most apps didn't even require a re-compile with a few terminfo mods, and the old iBcs.
Experience with both rmcobol86 and Informix legacy applications, retaining the same Wyse 3xx serial terminals/Stallion or Digi boards and using the native SCO/Interactive runtime environments.

Post a link to the project home page if you are serious.

Who's selling SCO stock? by xixax · 2003-03-11 00:24 · Score: 1

This quote from the article suggests that it may be a very good time for anyone silly enough to still have SCO shares to ditch them:

SCO shares jumped 40 per cent on Friday to close at $3.10.

This lawsuit is probaably the best thing the board has done for its shareholders in a while.

Xix.

--
"Everything is adjustable, provided you have the right tools"

It all started... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-03-11 00:36 · Score: 5, Insightful

It's a simple story.

It all started when an idiot went and spent a fortune the buy "the UNIX trademark" from bell labs. Then another idiot spent a huge amount of money to buy "the UNIX trademark" from the first idiot (who was now mutated to "smart guy").... You can imagine what happened. SCO is the final idiot who spent the biggest amount of money to buy "the UNIX trademark". They will always be idiots until they find someone else to sell "the UNIX trademark". But nobody wants it today. That pisses them off....

After POSIX, the "UNIX concepts" were made public, and implementing them is certainly cheeper than carring around some rusty code from 1970.

It was all wrong from the start.

Re:It all started... by z_gringo · 2003-03-11 02:32 · Score: 1

Posix.. DEC's version of Unix, whatever it was called, I don't remember. Anyone remember Ultrix, by Sun Microsystems? There are scores of others.. This whole lawsuit is just stupid.. as is SCO. Although, I did enjoy using Xenix for a while.

Good summary by the way..

--
-- -- Warning. Do not stare directly at the sun.
Re:It all started... by Wdomburg · 2003-03-11 03:39 · Score: 4, Informative

>Posix.. DEC's version of Unix, whatever it was called, I don't remember. Anyone
>remember Ultrix, by Sun Microsystems? There are scores of others.. This whole
>lawsuit is just stupid.. as is SCO. Although, I did enjoy using Xenix for a
>while.

You seem to be a bit confused. POSIX is the portable operating system standard. ULTRIX was the Digital version of Unix for its MIPS based line of workstations. They also sold DEC OSF/1, which was later rebranded as Digital UNIX, and then rebranded againt to Tru64 when Compaq aquired DEC.

Sun originally started selling its UNIX as SunOS, which was later rebranded as Solaris when they moved from a BSD core to a SYSV core. They also sold Interactive Unix after aquiring Interactive System's Intel UNIX business.

The "trump card" that SCO thinks it holds is that they own SVR5, which is the decendent of the original AT&T UNIX. Most commercial implementations of UNIX, aside from the BSD descendents (pretty much just BSDI at this point) contain licensed System V code (e.g. Solaris is based on SVR4, HP/UX is based on SVR3, etc). Given that the lawsuit if focusing on Linux, and Linux contains none of this copyrighted code, this is pretty much irrelevent. The entire basis of their case is alleged trade secret and contract violations, along with the unfair competition claim.

They do *not* hold the trademark as the parent claimed. The trademark was originally held by AT&T, who deeded it to USL when that was formed. Novell aquired USL and the UNIX trademark along with it, and then turned around and granted exclusive licence rights to X/Open. The trademark was later granted entirely to X/Open, and finally X/Open became part of The Open Group, who is the current trademark holder.
Re:It all started... by schnell · 2003-03-11 04:14 · Score: 4, Informative

It all started when an idiot went and spent a fortune the buy "the UNIX trademark" from bell labs. Then another idiot spent a huge amount of money to buy "the UNIX trademark" from the first idiot (who was now mutated to "smart guy")....

No no no no no no. Everyone repeat after me: "trademark != copyright."

The trademark to UNIX is owned by the Open Group. What SCO owns is the source code to the "original" AT&T UNIX (and its SVR4 descendants). All Unixes which are based on SVR4 or otherwise use code from the "original" UNIX implementation owe royalties to SCO. This includes Solaris, HP/UX, AIX, et. al. ... basically every Unixish system out there except the *BSDs (which started out using AT&T code but deliberately excised all of it and reimplemented those functions with their own code) or Linux (which never was based on AT&T to begin with).

After POSIX, the "UNIX concepts" were made public, and implementing them is certainly cheeper than carring around some rusty code from 1970.

POSIX, AFAIK, didn't make anything part of the public domain. It was just a specification for what elements an OS should contain so that it would be easy to port software between compliant operating systems ... if parts of POSIX were patented, then just including them in a spec didn't remove the patent holders' rights.

--
"95% of all Slashdot .sig quotes are incorrect or completely fabricated." -Benjamin Franklin
Re:It all started... by minkwe · 2003-03-11 04:20 · Score: 1

Sounds like the Bottle Imp story. SCO has the imp. The only problem is they are trying to sell it for more than it's worth to IBM which is forbidden so the Tao says SCO must DIE!

--
"Fighting terrorists with millitary might is like killing a mosquitor on your Dad's forehead with a rifle."
Re:It all started... by gorilla · 2003-03-11 04:56 · Score: 2, Informative

Actually SCO don't own 'the UNIX trademark'. They own the Unix source code base, but The Open Group have the trademark. SCO Unix had to pass The Open Group's certification to get the right to be called "Unix", same as IBM's OS/390 did, even though one is the Unix code, and one is totally independant.
Re:It all started... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-03-11 06:01 · Score: 0

After POSIX, the "UNIX concepts" were made public, and implementing them is certainly cheeper than carring around some rusty code from 1970.

POSIX, AFAIK, didn't make anything part of the public domain. It was just a specification for what elements an OS should contain so that it would be easy to port software between compliant operating systems ... if parts of POSIX were patented, then just including them in a spec didn't remove the patent holders' rights.

I think what he was saying is that it's cheaper to write new code that performs to the POSIX specs than to license the old Unix code. Which is more or less what GNU and Linux have done.
Re:It all started... by Uwe+Barschell · 2003-03-11 06:23 · Score: 4, Informative

All Unixes which are based on SVR4 or otherwise use code from the "original" UNIX implementation owe royalties to SCO. This includes Solaris, HP/UX, AIX, et. al.
I believe Sun is exempt from this, with full ownership of its UNIX code, owing to a unique agreement it reached with AT&T, at the time if its transition from SunOS4 (BSD) to SunOS5 (System V). It was this agreement which produced the UNIX wars: the other UNIX vendors feared the close relationship between AT&T and Sun, and therefore founded the Open Software Foundation.
The original goal of the Open Software Foundation was to produce an open, UNIX-compatible OS based on the Mach kernel. Its name was OSF/1. In response to this, AT&T and Sun formed a consortium called UNIX International, which was to manage the UNIX standard.
Over time, the rift between OSF and UI was healed, OSF/1 reunited with UNIX and the OSF merged with X/Open to become The Open Group. It currently holds the rights to the UNIX trademark.
Re:It all started... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-03-11 09:19 · Score: 0

LLLOOOOOLLLLL!

this is hilarious

ROFL! ROFL! ROFL!
Re:It all started... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-03-11 09:24 · Score: 0

it's "she". I'm the one that will use the latest windows exploit to hack into your computers.

and yes. that's what I was saying.
Re:It all started... by ccp · 2003-03-11 09:27 · Score: 1

+1 Best sig. of the day
Re:It all started... by BalkanBoy · 2003-03-11 11:26 · Score: 1

I am willing to bet the anonymous coward who posted this is an SCO employee :).

--
'A lie if repeated often enough, becomes the truth.' - Goebbels
Re:It all started... by usotsuki · 2003-03-11 11:34 · Score: 1

You know...

If SCO beats IBM, will they go after Solaris?

Is any *X safe?

--
Dreams, dreams, don't doubt dreams, dreaming children's dreaming dreams. Sailor Moon SS

IBM has so.. by Shads · 2003-03-11 00:44 · Score: 2, Funny

... many patents and trademarks and what not that this basically ammounts to sco shooting off their mouth. It's like pulling a knife on someone who is in a tank.

--
Shadus

Re:IBM has so.. by Anonymous Coward · 2003-03-11 01:51 · Score: 0

Sort of reminds me of the Croc. Dundee scene when
the kid pulls the pocket knife - well, you know...
Re:IBM has so.. by cant_get_a_good_nick · 2003-03-11 04:15 · Score: 1

Or Sean Connery's line in "The Untouchables" -
Don't bring a knife to a gunfight.

Re:The bicycle was MS-DOS, Winows 3.1.... by adzoox · 2003-03-11 00:51 · Score: 2, Funny

I personally think Windows 3.11 should be inserted as the Drunk Driver.

--
Yell & scream & rant & rave... it's no use... you need a shaaaave ~ Bugs Bunny

Mainframes never existed, either? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-03-11 00:57 · Score: 2, Insightful

Cause everyone knows IBM wasn't known for producing scalable, extensible, reliable or secure mainframe operating systems since before Unix was even born...

In fact, one could argue that it's unclear Unix could have reached its levels of scalability and security without appropriating fundamental ideas/approaches to such things from the then-available IBM mainframe operating systems!

Hey Sunny, go bugger yourself with a fish fork. by Anonymous Coward · 2003-03-11 00:59 · Score: 0

Several times!
You fucking hoser.

Who are the individual decision makers? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-03-11 01:10 · Score: 0, Flamebait

So the concensus is: SCO plainly aims to be bought out, so the rat-assed "board of directors" can live out their ill gotten millions in R&R.

So my question is: who are the managers? Who are the decision makers hiding behind the anonymous "SCO" label? Everyone refers to them as if they're some formless entity named "SCO". Well maybe it's time to expose their names to the harsh public light. To make sure they understand that regardless of what happens, they will not be able to slink off annoymously with a fat paycheck.

Maybe when their neighbours recognize them for the scum they are, it'll be a harsh lesson to the rest of the corporate weasels. You will be accountable for your actions!

Re:Who are the individual decision makers? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-03-11 01:49 · Score: 0

Okay. Look at http://www.sco.com/company/execs/

This really wasn't very hard.

slashdotted by master0ne · 2003-03-11 01:14 · Score: 2, Funny

wel, its 8:15 the next day, and the site has been slashdotted... poor sysadmins. i cant even read linus's thoughts... oh well, ill try back later.

--
Noone writes jokes in base 13!

I put in a bid for SCO by linuxislandsucks · 2003-03-11 01:14 · Score: 1

I put in a bid for SCO assets of $2 two weeks ago and they have not gotten back to me..was it something I said?

--
Don't Tread on OpenSource

modding by zogger · 2003-03-11 01:35 · Score: 0, Offtopic

--you shouldn't have to skip reading the posts themselves, that is pretty "wrong". Sorry you have to do that. I don't have a good answer either, other than doing what other forums do, start banning trolls, and making the distinction of what a troll really is, ie, chronically abusive and vulgur as a good starting point. And the only way to do that effectively is by using a registration system that only allows registered users to post, and they have to use a "real" email addy instead of a throw away. Even that is spoofable, but it cuts down the signal to noise ratio immensely in places where it's been adopted.

Besides that I find the moderation system a little confusing. I tend to try and use my 1 point optional thing up and down as required, like this post I won't take it as it is pretty off topic to the main thread. But I have no problem leaving it on if the topic is more or less there, even if some of the comments I might make are tangential, because that's how human speech works, one thing leads to another, etc.

One of the best shows on PBS that I used to enjoy, the series called "connections". I think it was good because it clearly showed this point, and what interesting areas you could find in the "connect the dots" search. It's like the arguments for the "pro" side for "pure science", you never know what gems might turn up when you are looking for something completely different.

Conspiracies? by PurplePhase · 2003-03-11 01:47 · Score: 1

Considering other posters' comments, I'm starting to wonder if this last breath from SCO is a favor to M$ to expose a similar piece of knowledge to use against Linux in some later legal battle. I haven't been following things, so I don't know if M$ has tried suing anyone over Linux yet, but this would be a fine first-sue to test the waters without harming M$'s rep. And if they acquired the dead SCO after the legal battle, who would suspect anything?

8-PP

Re:Conspiracies? by usotsuki · 2003-03-11 12:14 · Score: 1

:(

Full circle...the circle of a target sight. With a Hakenkreuz in the middle. Give me {Linux | FreeDOS} or give me death!!

-uso.

--
Dreams, dreams, don't doubt dreams, dreaming children's dreaming dreams. Sailor Moon SS

google by zogger · 2003-03-11 01:53 · Score: 1

--how does google with it's archive get away with it then?

mod parent up by msouth · 2003-03-11 02:04 · Score: 1

indeed! whatever else we do with the analogy, hail the bicycle!

--
Liberty uber alles.

I Know its a bit late... by Rudy+Rodarte · 2003-03-11 02:42 · Score: 1

and almost 24 hours since the site was posted, but is it still /.ed? I can't seem to get in there.
At any rate, I'll stick to Mandrake.
Thanks!

--
What, me Tweet?

Re:I Know its a bit late... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-03-11 09:31 · Score: 0

Yep...
Does anyone have another link ?

They're Afraid of the Uber-OS by Anonymous Coward · 2003-03-11 02:50 · Score: 0

Don't forget that if SCO _can't_ prove Linux had help in the form of pilfered UNIX source code, then it demonstrates Linux really _can_ move forward and improve that fast.

Not a good thing for Apple or MS. Forget all the tongue flapping about the plethora of window managers. Both Apple and Microsoft disparage Linux as being somehow "lesser" in quality and, therefore, value.

Microsoft will keep customers from fleeing by locking them into ever more costly licensing schemes ("Can you use Linux? Why sure you can. Just keep paying on your 10-year XP program...")

The outlook for Apple is not so good. They're still the premier Interface and Industrial Design operation in Computerdom, but they've lost the technological edge they once had. Their customers are not all artistic beatnics and Ellen Fleiss airheads. They expect Top-Shelf products and are smart enough to know when they're not getting them. Like now...

Always blame Microsoft by Tony-A · 2003-03-11 02:51 · Score: 1

Works pretty well too.
First, it's always Microsoft's fault.
Second, look around to find out why it's Microsoft.
If I can't find out why it's Microsoft's fault, well I'm not that good at what I do.
Principle of the scapegoat. It's not the user's fault. It's not the sysadmins's fault. It's Microsoft's fault.

IBM will fight this! by Anonymous Coward · 2003-03-11 02:56 · Score: 0

they hired legions upon legions of lawyers.... they are all over the place... they taken over my cubicle... my computer... my chair... arghhhh! ;)

Windows ME by dmaxwell · 2003-03-11 03:08 · Score: 1

Does that mean Windows ME is a Vega or maybe even a Pinto?

Re:Windows ME by adzoox · 2003-03-11 03:12 · Score: 2, Funny

Possibly .... or maybe a corvair - cool looking but ("unsafe at any speed")

--
Yell & scream & rant & rave... it's no use... you need a shaaaave ~ Bugs Bunny

(Way) OT Re:I told you so. by msouth · 2003-03-11 03:11 · Score: 1

IBM helped slaughter Jews

The most credible source at that story was the only remaining IBM guy that worked at the office in question, who said that all he knew was that they were helping the government trains run. There was much huffing and puffing and "that gives us the final proof", but never was the final proof mentioned, just a lot of the context and possibility. It looks to me like some people are claiming that there is new evidence linking IBM to direct involvement, but no one in that story seemed to be able to describe what that evdence was, but rather to simply assert that it now existed.

If you want to know who else helped slaughter Jews, don't forget to look at

the (Zionist) Jews themselves.

From that link:

If I knew that it was possible to save all the children of Germany by transporting them to England, but only half of them by transporting them to Palestine, I would choose the second - because we face not only the reckoning of those children, but the historical reckoning of the Jewish people.

Scary. And if you like conspiracy theory, see:

this author's story

--
Liberty uber alles.

Re:(Way) OT Re:I told you so. by fucksl4shd0t · 2003-03-11 03:53 · Score: 1

The most credible source at that story was the only remaining IBM guy that worked at the office in question, who said that all he knew was that they were helping the government trains run. There was much huffing and puffing and "that gives us the final proof", but never was the final proof mentioned, just a lot of the context and possibility. It looks to me like some people are claiming that there is new evidence linking IBM to direct involvement, but no one in that story seemed to be able to describe what that evdence was, but rather to simply assert that it now existed.
Mind you, I'm not trying to open up a wound or nothing. :) I gave that link because it was at the top of google results, not because I found it credible. I only used it to show IBM was around in WWII, and in a graphic fashion at that. I probably could have made my point with less drama, but I didn't. :)
That said, I don't think we'll ever know all the ins and outs of the jewish extermination project that the Nazis mounted, and I don't know that it's necessary to know all the gory details. At least, not for me. Knowing how a madman such as he came into power is far more important to me than knowing a bunch of specifics about how it was done.
Take current politics. I'm not trying to compare George W. to Hitler, because that would be quite a stretch. However, I can see many parallels in his reign to Hitler's own rise to power that I find disconcerting. The main difference here is that we can look at Hitler's rise in a historical perspective, but we must judge current events in a contemporary fashion. Quite a limitation. In 20 years we may look back over this period of our history and say "How could we have ever drawn those conclusions?" Or, we might say "We knew it when it was happening, why didn't we stop it?"
For others, though, I realize that in order to deal with the knowledge they need to know as much about it as possible, uncovering as many details as they need to be satisfied. So long as they are looking for truth and not excuses, I don't see anything wrong with it.
As far as the IBM thing goes, I have read stories that had more detailed information than the one I linked, and there's a guy that put out a book on the subject. Seems it was more like the home office looked the other way when its german branch did business with the Nazis. Since an international corporation has to work in a variety of political situations, I have a hard time seeing the german office as doing wrong from a business perspective, but that doesn't mean I think they did right. It's a classic example of separating business and politics, which us freedom-lovers are always telling both politicians and businessmen they should do. Let history show us that it's not always the best way. :)

--
Like what I said? You might like my music

Re:different take on linus's opinion by rxed · 2003-03-11 03:20 · Score: 0

Thanks for the kuro5hin.org link in your sig. It is very insightful.

No, this is what SCO was actually missing... by sean.peters · 2003-03-11 03:48 · Score: 1

(6) Profit!

I can't believe no one else picked up on that.

Sean

Re:When SCO went bad (a memoir) by Anonymous Coward · 2003-03-11 04:11 · Score: 0

My obligatory disclaimer: I worked for Amdahl Corp from 1988-2000. Your tale jibes with my recollections of the same time period, altho I can't swear to details. At that time I worked for Amdahl Corp, who sold UTS, which was a port of SVR3 for S370 hardware. After a couple hundred talented engineers ported SVR4 from scratch for the next release, only to discover that no customer was even vaguely interested, the company hemorrhaged engineers, giving the rest of the Valley a transfusion. UTS-R2.x remained a cash cow, albeit with a dwindling base, until just recently. Amdahl sold the UTS unit off in 2000, only about 5 years too late. I think we knew from the early 90s onward that Unix was a zombie, kept alive only through inertia and lack of a proven alternative. Linux was a toy, NT was a joke, and it seemed like Sun was going to be the only survivor. "SCO? You mean that Xenix crap? Hahahaha!"

ROFL by crusher-1 · 2003-03-11 04:21 · Score: 1

An error occured while loading http://mq.moo.net/Linux03/ScoSource-05_Story01.htm l:

Could not connect to host mq.moo.net

Slashdotted again! In fact every site I go to about this story is /.'ed and I have to wait at least 24 hrs before I can get in.

Ah, can you feel the Love! (Ok, bad joke)

17 USC 107 by ??? · 2003-03-11 04:55 · Score: 1

Sec. 107. - Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use

Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a
copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any
other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news
reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research,
is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any
particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include -

(1)

the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a
commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;

(2)

the nature of the copyrighted work;

(3)

the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted
work as a whole; and

(4)

the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted
work.

The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such
finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors

Protest action? by BoneFlower · 2003-03-11 05:49 · Score: 1

I don't live in SCO's area, but I'd help out with this idea, shipping out products to be destroyed.

Does SCO/Caldera have retail available products? If so, why don't we all get together, buy every copy, have them shipped to Santa Cruz, bribe the local fire marshal, and have an SCO bonfire? Burn all the SCO produced products we can get our hands on. As close to their offices as the bribe can get us.

They see their sales spike, and are elated. And then, they are " Do you smell something burning?"

sco may very well win by Anonymous Coward · 2003-03-11 06:15 · Score: 0

I don't feel like taking the karma hit for this, but SCO may well be in the right. Its complaint cites numerous statements from IBM that are going to prove extremely embarrassing in court: that it intended to move parts of AIX to open source (when that is not legal under its license), and that it was sheltering itself from IP liability by using a third party as a distributor rather than assuming the liability itself. Housing the open source effort in the same building as the closed source effort and employing the same developers on both projects also looks very bad.

This really does look like an effort to undercut the value of UNIX IP by illegally leaking it into a deniable open-source distribution channel. If you basically disagree with the whole notion of IP -- which would be a standard /. position -- then of course you're going to approve of this apparent IP theft, but if you don't, then SCO's case looks pretty daming to IBM on the face of it. As far as I can tell the opposition to SCO here is mostly along the lines of Napsteritis -- "we should get everything we want for free whenever we want it, and who cares that the owner disagrees?"

-- T

correction by Anonymous Coward · 2003-03-11 06:19 · Score: 0

Although oft repeated in the media, Iraq used chemical weapons against its Kurdish minority.

Q: Where did those chemical weapons come from?
A: the US

It was not that much different than what you did to your own minorities in the recent past.

Re:correction by Anonymous Coward · 2003-03-11 06:50 · Score: 0

And who was Iraq's big ally during that time and for a while after? The US.

Fixed link by Anonymous Coward · 2003-03-11 06:40 · Score: 0

Here is a clickable link.

Re:When SCO went bad (a memoir) by RedWizzard · 2003-03-11 06:45 · Score: 1

SCO was the outfit with the hot tub in the courtyard of the original company offices and the source of numerous interesting legends. There was a lot of cross-fertilization with SGI and Sun

Is that what the hot tub got used for? I hope it got cleaned regularly.

IBM's new naming convention... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-03-11 07:14 · Score: 1, Funny

AIX - Aix Isn't Xenix

apologies to all you GNU fans out there... :-)

Commentary on SCO's take by ajs · 2003-03-11 07:21 · Score: 2, Funny

SCO (aka Caldera) has their own take on this on their Web site. They explain what SCO's new SCOsource division is...

"SCOsource is a new division in SCO. Its purpose is to license and protect SCO intellectual property."

That is to say that their job, like the job of every part of a company, is to contribute to the bottom line.

"SCO is the owner and licensor of UNIX System V operating system technology which originated in Bell Labs in the 1960s and has been evolved and enhanced continually since its introduction."

This is almost true. In reality the UNIX System V codebase has stagnated in the last 5 years because no one really cares.

"SCO is also responsible for licensing and enforcing all copyrights and patents associated with this technology."

An interesting angle. Almost a "hey, we don't *want* to go around suing people, but it's our responsibility to ... well, us." That takes some major meatballs.

"Of course UNIX technology has been licensed since its inception, starting with the original licenses offered by Bell Labs, through those of USL, Novell, and now SCO."

Now we start to get a little too honest. Doesn't really make SCOgroup/source sound very useful...

"SCOsource will continue to offer traditional UNIX System technology licensing activities, but it will also create new licenses to meet the changing demands of today's market."

We'll take money from anyone who is stupid enough to give it to us.

"Changing market conditions are leading SCO to both expand its licensing programs, ..."

We're pretty much broke, so we're going to ask everyone to pay us and see who bites.

"... and to take a more careful look at possible unlicensed use of its intellectual property."

Oh, and I guess we might as well sue some deep-pockets too. After all, it might work and what the hell have we got left to lose?!

Back off on the caffeine buddy. *sheesh* by Anonymous Coward · 2003-03-11 07:25 · Score: 0

You're acting like

1) Karma on /. is in ANY way more significantly important
than the actual curd count of my cottage cheese
this morning.

2) Nobody ever "forgets" to log out accidentally

and most importantly

3) I read your post out loud and my girlfriend says you're a pinhead! ROTFLMAO! Talk about whining slashdot babies!

Bicycle vs. Luxury Car? by eth1 · 2003-03-11 08:20 · Score: 1

I'd have to say I agree completely with that analogy.
Bicycle - small, clean, efficient, dependable
Luxury Car - big, inefficient, expensive to maintain, with too many bells and whistles

Re:The crux of the article-Aim for the eyes. by kinnunen · 2003-03-11 08:52 · Score: 1

More the question: "Were's there's?"

So that's why anonymous posting is still allowed! CmdrTaco wants to take part in the discussion too!

LMMFAO by fluxrad · 2003-03-11 09:17 · Score: 1

Leading authority my ass.

Making software free, but only for folks with enough money
to buy first class hardware is an interesting concept.
Of course 5 years from now that will be different, but 5 years from now
everyone will be running free GNU on their 200 MIPS, 64M SPARCstation-5. .

Now then, I would think that a pretty big portion of being considered The Man(tm) in you field is to be able to predict with at least some degree of accuracy where the world is headed. Anyone remember what kind of box they had in '97?

--
"It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once." -David Hume

Re:LMMFAO by karlm · 2003-03-11 19:39 · Score: 1

Now then, I would think that a pretty big portion of being considered The Man(tm) in you field is to be able to predict with at least some degree of accuracy where the world is headed. Anyone remember what kind of box they had in '97?

266 MHz PII, 64 MB, 4.3 GB, Matrox Millenium II 4 MB, SoundBlaster awe64. I would guess a 200 MIPS SPARC would perform about that well. He had the performance estimate about right, he just didn't properly anticipate chip designers being able to squeeze so much longevity out of the hard-to-decode x86 instruction set and assumed they'd go the easier route of discarding the thing.
My 266 MHz PII now has 288 MB of RAM and a total of about 30 GB of HD. As long as you're running Linux with a good amount of RAM, a PII 266 only shows its age in games and some compilation. Most of the stuff I do is I/O bound in one way or another. I would have upgraded, but I'm deterined to make my next system a 64-bit machine. I'm not sure if I'm going to go x86-64 or POWER4/G5.

--
Copyright Violation:"theft, piracy"::Anti-Trust Violation:"thermonuclear price terrorism"<-Overly dramatic language.

Sigh ... more to *BSD than BSDI by Anonymous Coward · 2003-03-11 10:16 · Score: 0

While it might seem from the Linux side of the fence that there isn't anything else but Linux and Windows, the *BSD family is big and growing. BSDI is just one part. FreeBSD is probably the biggest completely open source BSD, with the very prolific NetBSD and rock solidly secure OpenBSD being contenders. And not to forget that Apple's MacOS X core, Darwin is mixed Mach and FreeBSD.

Re:Sigh ... more to *BSD than BSDI by Wdomburg · 2003-03-11 13:09 · Score: 1

> While it might seem from the Linux side of the fence that there isn't anything
> else but Linux and Windows, the *BSD family is big and growing. BSDI is just
> one part. FreeBSD is probably the biggest completely open source BSD, with the
> very prolific NetBSD and rock solidly secure OpenBSD being contenders. And not
> to forget that Apple's MacOS X core, Darwin is mixed Mach and FreeBSD.

Actually, I specifically said "commercial", which doesn't include FreeBSD/NetBSD/OpenBSD (since FreeBSD is no longer affiliated with a commercial company, AFAIK). I *did* forget to mention MacOS X which implements a BSD compatibility layer on top of the Mach kernel, which would qualify.

Matt

This is so stupid... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-03-11 12:04 · Score: 0

They might just win...

Re: Perhaps this can help clear up some noise by Anonymous Coward · 2003-03-11 12:40 · Score: 0

From SCO's website:

LINDON, Utah-March 7, 2003-The SCO® Group (SCO) (Nasdaq: SCOX), the owner of the UNIX operating system, announced today that it has filed legal action against IBM (NYSE:IBM) in the State Court of Utah, for misappropriation of trade secrets, tortious interference, unfair competition and breach of contract. The complaint alleges that IBM made concentrated efforts to improperly destroy the economic value of UNIX, particularly UNIX on Intel, to benefit IBM's new Linux services business.

IBM originally entered into their UNIX license agreement with AT&T in February 1985 in order to produce the AIX operating system. These agreements require that the UNIX software code be held in confidence, and prohibit unauthorized distribution or transfer.

In 1995, SCO purchased the rights and ownership of UNIX and UnixWare that had been originally owned by AT&T. This included source code, source documentation, software development contracts, licenses and other intellectual property that pertained to UNIX-related business. SCO became the successor in interest to the UNIX software licenses originally licensed by AT&T Bell Laboratories to all UNIX distributors, including HP, IBM, Silicon Graphics, Sun Microsystems, and many others.

As a result of IBM's unfair competition and the marketplace injury sustained by SCO, SCO is requesting damages in an amount to be proven at trial, but no less than $1 billion, together with additional damages through and after the time of trial.

SCO is also demanding that IBM cease these anti-competitive practices based on specific requirements sent in a notification letter to IBM. If these requirements are not met, SCO will have the authority to revoke IBM's AIX license 100 days following the receipt of SCO's letter.

SCO's letter and complaint have been filed by the law firm of Boies, Schiller and Flexner. SCO announced in January that the law firm had been retained to research and investigate possible violations of SCO's intellectual property.

"SCO is in the enviable position of owning the UNIX operating system," said Darl McBride, president and CEO, SCO. "It is clear from our stand point that we have an extremely compelling case against IBM. SCO has more than 30,000 contracts with UNIX licensees and upholding these contracts is as important today as the day they were signed."

From a Q&A on SCO's Website:
Who is violating SCO's UNIX IP license?

SCO is now actively working with BSF and others to research and investigate where SCO intellectual property violations may exist and develop solutions to resolve those violations.

Are any vendors currently in compliance with SCO's UNIX IP licenses?

Yes. There are many vendors that routinely pay SCO for access to our intellectual property. SCOsource is an enhancement to the existing SCO UNIX licensing programs already in place.

How will SCO charge for the use of the UNIX shared libraries?

We will charge a one-time fee of $149 per CPU. We will also offer attractive volume pricing discounts.
What is the United Linux position on this?

Our partners in United Linux understand that SCO has valuable intellectual property and that we are introducing SCO System V for Linux to help benefit Linux by allowing thousands of UNIX applications to run on Linux.

Isn't this going to anger the open source community?

It shouldn't. We haven't formulated all of our plans for SCOsource yet, but it's important for people to know that SCO is not interested in chasing individual open source developers to collect $149. We want vendors and large commercial users to comply with our IP licenses. The individual open source developer performs a great service to all Linux vendors and customers. We appreciate that and we want them to continue unabated.

It's important to remember that the UNIX shared libraries, owned by SCO, are not Linux products. They are not open source software and they are not covered by the GPL. The shared libraries are UNIX intellectual property, which SCO has owned for years. They are proprietary, licensable intellectual property that we sell. Many Linux environments have been using SCO's UNIX shared libraries because they are a superior product and they make these environments more productive. But until today, there were two ways for users to get the shared libraries:

1. Buy a SCO UNIX or Linux product that included the shared libraries as part of the bundled offering. This is legal.
2. Copy the shared libraries from a disk or through the Internet. In this case someone has unbundled the shared libraries from the SCO offering and opened them up for copying. This is illegal. It is this behavior that we will stop through the creation of SCOsource and today's announcement.

SCO's UNIX shared libraries are not open source code available for free use.

Is SCO going to sue Linux vendors?

SCO is a Linux vendor and a member of United Linux. We have no interest in suing Linux vendors. While we haven't formulated the details of our new SCOsource effort, we're confident that we can work together with other vendors to clear up IP issues in a fair and amicable way.

Two weeks ago an industry publication headlined a story saying SCO was threatening to sue Linux vendors.

The story was wrong. SCOsource is now one day old. We haven't made any plans to sue Linux vendors, and we certainly haven't threatened any vendors. This story was damaging to the Linux community and made assumptions that were incorrect.

But isn't hiring Boies, Schiller and Flexner a clear signal that SCO is getting ready to sue people?

Not at all. SCO is working with BSF for their expertise at dealing with complex legal problems. Resolving intellectual property issues does not automatically mean litigation.

If SCO requires Linux customers to license SCO's UNIX shared libraries, won't this damage the Linux market by driving up the costs of implementing Linux?

By purchasing this license, customers will have the ability to run thousands of UNIX applications on Linux, which they would otherwise have to obtain in a native Linux format. A license to SCO's shared libraries will actually save many customers thousands of dollars.

Reply to complaint number 84 by Erris · 2003-03-11 14:09 · Score: 1

84. Prior to the SCO lawsuit, SCO was the software equivalent of a bicycle. After the SCO lawsuit, SCO was the software equivalent of a bicycle. No value added.

--
DMCA, Hollings, Palladium. What might have sounded like paranoia is now common sense.

Listen carefully. by No.+24601 · 2003-03-11 17:54 · Score: 1

That's because we want you to have the benefits of Linus Torvalds' comments about the SCO-Caldera v IBM lawsuit without any spin from us. You are getting this just the way Linus said it and in context. Moreover, Linus Torvalds' comments are concise, well-expressed, and to the point. Listen carefully... you can almost hear that smacking sound as another MozillaQuest reporter's lips smacks Linus' bare ass.

Republic of North sKorea by justaaron · 2003-03-11 18:48 · Score: 1

I suppose they could fire test missiles into the Sea of Japan.

--
aaron@justaaron.com

Mod Parent UP Please by billstewart · 2003-03-23 11:15 · Score: 1

He's correct.

--

Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks

567 comments