Slashdot Mirror
LinuxTag To SCO: Detail Code Theft Or Retract Claims
RoLi writes "Heise has a story (The babelfish translation sounds like a speech from Yoda, but the important facts are translated correctly.) about LinuxTag taking legal action against SCO. SCO will either have to retract their claims, disclose their "proof" (if it exists) or be fined. That's certainly good news."
Update: 05/26 17:25 GMT by T : Reader Fizz points to the more understandable LinuxTag press release (in English and German), and adds: "The notice, dated Friday, May 23, maintains that SCO Group is sowing uncertainty among the community of GNU/Linux users, developers and suppliers."
Maybe now we won't have a SCO/Linux story every day.
You think that I'm crazy, you should see this guy!
The english translation of the english translated version (just a sensible cleaning up of babel fish translating. I assume warned means file some kind of legal document. I didn't want to push the interpertation that far though.)
LinuxTag warned SCO that it is engaging in anti-competitive behavior. SCO has stated that Linux contains patented Unix source code whose patents are owned by SCO. SCO has also warned end users and companies that they could be held liable "for the use of Linux." SCO has not explained which parts of Linux are believed to contain the patented code.
The warning by Linuxtag now forces SCO to submit proof that Linux contains patented code, or to retract the statements. The unproven statements by SCO are causing economic damage to competitors that use GNU/Linux and are tarnishing its reputation.
Hans's Bavarian of SCO Germany has confirmed that the warnings have been recieved. SCO's attourneys are examining them. SCO however only wants to respond with a small statement clarifying its position. It does not want to divulge the proof until the trial against IBM. SCO sued IBM at the beginning of march for $1,000,000,000.
The expresso version:
LinuxTag is mad because SCO is saying to its customers that you could be sued because we might own some of the linux IP and you haven't paid us. LinuxTag called SCO out saying that is anticompetitive and either prove or retract your statements. SCO now caught between a lie and a legal brief doesn't want to until the trial with IBM. LinuxTag will probably tell SCO 'tough cookies' and possibly blacken the sky with paratrooping attourneys... maybe with some air support from IBM.
Karma: SELECT `karma` FROM `users` WHERE `userid`=138474;
You don't need babelfish to understand "Hey SCO; shit or get off the pot!"
Trolling is a art,
I mean... SCO claimed code theft and they will have to prove it... DUH!
This feels like the OJ trial... boring, pointless, everyone knows the verdict... unless we put too much media coverage on it... then we'll all of a sudden have a surprise twist at the end of the trial... for ratings... it's all about the ratings...
---
Programming is like sex... Make one mistake and support it the rest of your life.
Hans's Bavarian, Geschaeftsfuehrer of SCO Germany, confirmed, three warnings to have received.
German, Yoda is?
From the Babelfish translation: three warnings to have received
In related news, George Lucas confirms that LucasArts is to sue AltaVista for stealing trade secrets relating to proprietary Yoda Speech Mannerisms v3.1 algorithms.
What kind of pull do they have? I mean, I'd certainly like to see SCO "shit or get off the pot". But other than the letters, what can they do? Are they a German EFF (or is the EFF an American LinuxTAG)?
The simple truth is that interstellar distances will not fit into the human imagination
- Douglas Adams
It is a writing (or a writ) given by a lawyer to somebody. I think you call it "cease and decist" letters.
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
I've been swashdotted -- Elmer Fudd
from the English index page...
A Good Idea Needs a Good Platform
LinuxTag is the largest Linux and Open Source fair in Europe. Our concept unites technical expertise and the special charm of the world of free software. This mixture has made LinuxTag the most successful event of its kind.
The Open Source culture finds its expression in the organization of the event: everyone is invited to play an active part in the preparation of the fair. At LinuxTag, innovative technologies are not only planned out in theory, but also made a reality.
Concepts. Information. Orientation.
The LinuxTag concept is tried and true. As a convention for professionals and a fair for a broader public, LinuxTag has something to offer every visitor. Users learn about the latest in applications; developers display their current products and inform one another about their work. Decision-makers and IT specialists gather information on the professional use of free software.
For young entrepreneurs, LinuxTag offers the chance to address specialists in the field face to face. This is the stepping-stone to turn new business ideas into successful strategies. LinuxTag sets the standards for the development of innovative concepts and powerful synergies.
If SCO ignores the German suit, how long will it take for them to be fined, and how big will the fine be?
If they produce documents in the German suit, will they be available in the US suit against IBM? Or can they stick to their original timetable for releasing docs here in the states?
It's amazing -- I didn't think it would be possible to dislike SCO any more than I did after I had to work on their OS a few years ago, but here we are. They pulled it off.
The company I work for sells network security products, some of which are based on Linux. We have gotten inquiries from a large user saying that SCO sent their CEO a "cease and desist from using Linux" letter.
I can't confirm that SCO actually did this, and it's not just the customer's way of pushing the issue. But, either way, it shows their FUD campaign is working.
Not making any guarantees of validity...
LinuxTag warns SCO
The LinuxTag e.V. warned SCO of its anti-competitive behavior. SCO stated that Linux infringed on its enterprise Unix patent rights, since Unix source code was cpoied into the Linux source, and warns Linux users that they could be made liable "for the use of Linux". So far SCO has not disclosed which parts of Linux are concerned.
The warning is to now force SCO to submit proofs for the alleged infringement, or retract their statements. 'With the allegations made by SCO, they are causing economic loss to their competitors through intimidation of their competitors customers and damaging the relationship of Gnu/linux as open platform', says Michael Kleinhenz, LinuxTag e.V spokesman.
Hans's Bavarian, CEO? of SCO Germany, confirmed that three warnings have been received. The letters were examined time by a lawyer at the time. The letter states that the present legal situation for Linux companies is unclear. Also SCO wants to only submit a clarifying brief, covering its proofs of copyright offences by Linux in the lawsuit against IBM. SCO had sued IBM for a billion US dollar compensationat the beginning of March .
You think that I'm crazy, you should see this guy!
I didn't see mention of a fine in either the babel translation or in the english version. Can anybody comment on what gives LinuxTag the ability to fine SCO?
Finally, a useable version.
Best Slashdot Co
I'd like to know why IBM hasn't counter-sued SCO yet. If a small company can make abuse the legal system, you'd think a big company could abuse it a lot more.
Which is basically what they are saying. FYI, you don't need bablefish, you just need to click on the british(or english?) flag.
What SCO is doing is could be considered slander IF they have no proof, thus slander is finable.
Well I say, SCO, show us what code you think Linux is infringing, and what proof you have that it came from IBM OR "SCO/UNIX IP"?
Only 'flamers' flame!
Does slashdot hate my posts?
Here's a human translation:
LinuxTag e.V. sent an "Abmahnung" [a legal document somehwat similar to a cease-and-desist letter, I think, but IANAL] to SCO because of anti-competitive behavior. SCO is claiming that Linux violates the company's intellectual property because Unix source code has been copied into the Linux sources, and they're warning Linux users that they might be liable when using Linux. However the company has not yet disclosed, which parts of Linux are actually affected.
The cease-and-desist forces SCO to either prove their claims or to take them back. "We cannot accept that SCO trys to use unproved claims to harm competitors by intimidating their customers and to damage the reputation of GNU/Linux as an open platform", said Michael Kleinhenz, LinuxTag e.V.'s spokesperson.
Hans Bayer, director of SCO Germany, confirmed having received three ceases-and-desist letters. They are currenlty examined by a lawyer. He could understand that the current uncertain legal situation is problematic for Linux companies. SCO would also aim for a quick resolution, however they will not present their proof until the court case against IBM. In early march, SCO had sued IBM for one billion dollars damages.
I've read all the English language versions (BabelFish, English press release, etc.), and don't see any mention of a fine.
The real Webmaven is user ID 27463. I don't rate an imposter, because my ID is such a lame-ass high number.
SCO bought Xenix from Microsoft. Does anybody know whether Microsoft retained any commercial interest in SCO?
The members of the opensource community are like a hive of busy bees. We need to realize that worker bees carry a sting.
Here is how to utterly stop anything like the SCO legal action in the future.
Each individual in the open source movement needs to file a small claims law suit not only against SCO but against the individual lawyers working for SCO. These people have defamed us, and they need to learn that they do well to leave all of us alone.
It is impossible to fight thousands of law suits filed in hundreds of different courts. The expense is huge, and failure of the other side to respond results in a summery judgment against them.
While each suit might be small - a few thousand dollars - the end result is a disaster for someone like SCO and their lawyers.
If this lawsuit goes against linux, could this be the rebirth of BSD to the mainstream? The lawsuits in the early 90s nearly killed it, but now it is legally clear, so if Linux has problems legally we could revive BSD.
Although there is a problem because FreeBSD has problems with Christian owned companies in my experience. One of my clients got offended when I installed an OS whose logo was a Daemon. She made me install Solaris instead of FreeBSD because she didn't want a "Satanic" OS.
So now what's a company to do when they develop new code? Do you GPL it, or can you try to squirm your way out of the GPL claiming FUD? And then what - 4 years later...
Wouldn't this be like E3 suing Electronic Arts because Electronic Arts alleges IP violation in say a ID Software Game?
Or like COMDEX suing Motorola, because they allege Ericsson stole some technology.
LinuxTag is a conference, a media event. I think they are grossly overstepping their bounds.
Would a "Car Show" sue a major car manufacturer because said manufacturer comes up with some legal case that threatens to make all other manufacturers indebted to them? They might be pissed, but filing some legal suit for such a 4th party participant in the field is misuse of the system.
-malakai
-Malakai
A Dragon Lives in my Garage
Neither the German nor the English text says anything at all about any legal action by LinuxTag. The piece in heise.de does say that lawyers have sent each other nastygrams. Lawyers do that all the time, I hear. I get the sense that people don't know what LinuxTag is. It's a trade show. Nowhere in any of the linked articles does anyone say what the legal theory for a lawsuit against SCO would be...especially by a trade show! Frankly, it'd be more of a story if there were such information. Nothin' to see here, people, move along...
The SCO attorneys were seated across the courtroom from
IBM's legal team. "Your Honour," began SCO lead council
Henry L. Pencilneck, "we believe the defendent typed SCO
trade secrets into the Linux kernel. Furthermore, your Honour,
we maintain he did so whilst wearing this.."
The courtroom went silent as Pencilneck dumped the contents
of a brown paper bag on the table he was behind. The courtoom
erupted in gasps and cries as a bloodied leather glove landed
silently on the table. "Order! Order!" called Judge Shyster
as he hit his gavel.
"Mr. Pencilneck, why was this not brought into evidence earlier?"
asked the Judge. Pencilneck smiled. "Your Honour, only this morning
did we find this glove behind a small guest house owned by the
lead programmer employed by the defendent. Furthermore, we are
ready to prove that during the night the alleged copyright
transgressions took place, the lead programmer from IBM's Linux
project hit his head on an air conditioner behind the guesthouse
which is what caused him to drop this glove! Finally, we maintain
that in the guest house, none other than Linus Torvalds himself was
living rent-free." Two of SCOs programmers in the courtroom
broke into tears as they looked on the glove which was covered
in blood they maintain was from their source code. "There's only
one way to settle this," sighed Judge Shyster, "Have Linus Torvalds
try on this glove." The courtroom exploded.
A door at the back of the courtoom opened. Four armed guards
encircled a furniture wheeler
bearing the straight-jacketted form of Linus. Women in the courtroom
fainted.
Unshackling his right hand a guard tried to fit the glove on Linus.
It didn't fit.
The courtoom exploded again. "Order! Order," cried Judge Shyster,
"Notice how Torvalds balled up his fist? It won't fit in a glove like
that, but.." The Judge leaned back, "Bring in the Goatse.cx guy!"
To Be Continued
Trolling is a art,
They have called the linux developers liars and theives, plain and simple.
They claim the "Enterprise Features" mentioned in ESR's work did not exist before IBM's involvement.
I'm suprised a variety of lawsuits haven't been filed against SCO by now. In particular, a class action law suit by the developers of all the enterprise features.
Of course, SCO has been planning this (probably with Microsoft) for many months, it might take time to get all the ducks in line for a major counter suit.
This could be a violation of their terms with the DOJ as well. DOJ should be subpoenaing all notes/conversations/etc between Microsoft and SCO for the last year or so...find that smoking gun and turn it right back that Microsoft.
Treatment, not tyranny. End the drug war and free our American POWs.
See my user info for links.
Mark Twain once said he'd never read another book in German, because once he did attempt it, and got to the last page, but it was missing.
But all the verbs were on the last page.
So anyhow, thank goodness for the last line. It's a lifesaver.
Correct Horse Battery Staple: 72 bits of entropy. Enter "Correct H" into google. When it generates the phrase, that's
Knowledge can not be stolen, it can be gained and used.
Hmm. So taking something that isn't yours, doesn't belong to you, belongs to someone else and the rightful owner didn't want you to have it isn't theft?
Have Mandrake sue them in the States and France, and they're gonna have enough legal pressure to last them until they cease to exist as a company (which one way or the other will very likely happen, as this process is their last bet of making money)
The Raven
Suppose Stallman said:
"I think it's disgusting that some people believe that cannibalism is good"
or
"I believe that that cannibalism is good but only when referring to salvaging some parts from some machines to use it in another. Human cannibalism is disgusting."
Quoting him as saying "I...believe that cannibalism is good" or "I believe that cannibalism is good" is libelous even though Stallman may have actually said those words.
Context is everything.
"Linux is a copy of UNIX. There is very little new stuff in Linux." - Richard Stallmann
A kernel does not a unix make, so shouldn't he have said "Gnu/Linux"?
The above is brilliant
I had already apologized for the poor translation of the engrish bastardization which I posted earlier. I was just sectioning out part of it for someone who couldn't understand my piss-poor translation.
And one of the problems with translating German is you never really know when to yell. That is why there isn't a lot of German love poetry.
You think that I'm crazy, you should see this guy!
SCO now has to fight on two different battlefields. One is the IBM case to which US law applies. This can take quite a while, and maybe that is exactly the purpose of the whole case, because they may want to keep the FUD up as long as possible. And since we know how bizarre US law can be, this could take a long long time.
The other battle is fought in Germany, and here the rules (read the law) are different. The German court could really put a lot of pressure on SCO to open the questionable code ASAP, and this could have a huge influence on the case with IBM (or even make it totally irelevant), because it may show really soon if the "stolen" code exists or not.
Signature deleted by lameness filter.
Good idea. It would probably be more proper though to have received one of the threatening letters, and to also be using linux in a business capacity, or have a client who has declined a bid or contract from you involving the "controversial" linux from you based on a letter they had received from SCO. Even judge judy wants to see documents.
With that said, I forget exactly how many letters sent out, but it sure seems like anyone receiving one could sue in small claims. Not very expensive and the good part is most places (that I am aware of, I could be corrected) they can't use lawyers in the presentation!
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
Somebody set them up the code. They have no chance to survive make their time. All their kernel are belong to SCO.
I found the meaning of life the other day, but I had write-only access.
,i>Hmm. So taking something that isn't yours, doesn't belong to you, belongs to someone else and the rightful owner didn't want you to have it isn't theft?
The operative word here is thing, as in tangible and physical. If you appropriate a salad fork from me, I no longer have it. If, on the other hand, you copy my blueprints for salad forks, I still have them. Of course, you may have damaged my ability to compete in the cutthroat salad fork industry, but that's a separate issue. Knowledge about salad fork manufacture is not the same as a physical object.
"We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
They have cleary stated that Red Hat is one of the companies infringing on their IP. If I was in charge over at Red Hat I'd being suing them right now for libel and slander. They are in effect try to destroy the reputation of Red Hat through flase claims that are in all likelyhood causing Red Hat to lose business.
You simply can't issue press release after press release slandering a company legally.
Either Red Hat thinks this will all blow over or they are really guilty along with everyone else. Sitting on the sidelines is stupid IMO and the longer these SCO claims are out there the more credence they will accumulate.
Its not time for SCO to shit or get off the pot, its time for linux vendors and service providers to go on the offense and sue the crap out of SCO for the damage this is causing. That or face the music for the infringing IP.
If you wanna get rich, you know that payback is a bitch
We just need to do the same thing to fight back.
h ives.asp?ArticleID=41480
...SCO is right ... We're ... trying to destroy the Linux industry ... we're attacking Linux ... We've ... attacked. - Darl McBride, president and CEO of The SCO Group
http://www.crn.com/sections/BreakingNews/dailyarc
McBride: What if SCO is right? We're not trying to destroy the Linux industry. They say we're attacking Linux, but IBM brought this on. We are in defense mode. We've been attacked. To the open-source community, I ask them how they feel that IBM knew about these contracts and did what they did anyway. You have to shift the responsibility back to IBM and ask them why they're ruining [the open-source community's] party.
Can be quoted as:
SCO: YOU ARE USING OUR IP UNLICENSED PAY US BIG MONEY. ...Linux is the work of thousands of developers around the world, your claim is baseless.
IBM:
SCO: WE HAVE PROOF
IBM: Show us.
SCO: NO!
IBM: Fine, we'll go to court.
SCO: WHAT? YOU DON'T WANT TO BUY US?
IBM: Our Lawyers are better than your lawyers. neener neener
However, this is taking place in Germany. Germany, if you will note the name, is not America. Laws are different there. Exactly how different, I'm not sure, but I'd assume that they are different enough that this is not a suicidal attack on SCO. I doubt these Germans are stupid enough to start something like this if they can't carry through with it. At least, I hope so. Otherwise, I fear for their history teachers.
Would this even be possible? My understanding was that in order to file suit, you have to demonstrate that you have standing -- that is, that you personally are affected in such a way that it makes sense for you to be bringing the suit. Wouldn't all these zillions of worker bees be forced to show they have standing (with most of them then failing to do so)? Or am I missing something here? (quite possible -- as usual around here, IANAL)
According to the OSDN site there are 2.9 Million Active visitors to slashdot, which means if we each pony up $50 or so into a fund we could buy the SCO Group outright and release the source into the wilds of the Public Domain or GPL it.
Economic Left/Right: -0.62
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -3.69
As a person who has written open source code - I do have standing in this case. People who haven't written code wouldn't.
I wonder if Linus will hold back on releasing 2.6 until this is sorted?
Get your own free personal location tracker
It's been a few years since I took my college German classes, but if I recall correctly from that class, Germany has some very strong laws meant to protect the good names of people, companies and organizations. If I go about talking trash about you, your company, firm or organization, you have the right to present me with an Abmahnung. It's not a "cease and desist" letter, it's a "put up or shut up" letter.
What the Abmahnung does is creates a legal obligation for me to present evidence to prove my claims--or else I'm legally enjoined from continuing my trash-talking, under penalty of a very hefty fine.
So no, LinuxTag hasn't just sent SCO a nastygram. They've sent SCO a nastygram with teeth. From here on out in Germany, SCO has three choices: they can either prove it and keep talking, they can keep talking and pay a huge fine, or they can shut up.
ObWarning: it's been a while since I took my college German studies, and even longer since I was a foreign exchange student in Germany (where my host father was a German prosecutor). This is all based on my best recollection.
it a community and i am proud to be part of it. i am part of the translation team and we translated the website to english http://www.linuxtag.org/2003/en/index.html linuxtag EV is an association registered in germany and linuxtag is a congress and expo they organize every year and its the biggest open source event in europe. so its not like comdex sueing motorola for abusing ericsson. we are part of teh open source community and we feel concerned and an association is the best way to defend our interest. i am neither german nor do i live in germany, but i have to say the guys are organized and at least someone is doing something about this!
who wants to rule the world?
Quotes from Linux leaders.
Karma: The shiznight, mostly because I am the Drizzle.
From secret SCO documents:
Lawyers using advnaced pattern matching software have found that the ENTIRE LINE:
"main() {"
occurs in both SCO UNIX 'source code' and Linux 'kernel' 'source code' numerous times.
Coincidence? SCO thinks not...
Babak
1st of all:
Linux Tag *is* damaged if Linux loses reputation.
2nd:
This kind of thing SCO appears to be doing (falls claims and statements) actually *is* 'wettbewerbswidrig' (roughly translates to 'comerce opstructive') and thus plain and simply illegal in germany. And Linux Tag need not even be directly affected by it to have a reason, if not to say the lawfull duty of filing a notice to german officials that SCO is acting 'comerce obstructive'.
A 'Einstweilige Verfügung' ('temporal decree') could actually force SCO Germany to publish proofs for the supposed violation or officially back down from their claims/statements and even publish a suing partys 'Gegendarstellung' ('counter statement') in the media releases SCO Germany controlls (Websites, corporate flyers & publications, etc.).
With the Linux Tag being a rock-solid institution in the country with the highest amount of linux-users per capita (even high-ranked politicians and officials attend the linux tag) this is not just far from insane, it's also quite conclusive and weighs pretty hard in favor of the OSS community.
Aside from that, if you ask me, I see a major ass-chewing for SCO at the horizon. Not just in germany. I was bound to become one of their customers, but 650 $ for their United Linux distro and now this shurely asks for serious trouble from *everybody* in the *nix world.
We suffer more in our imagination than in reality. - Seneca
To amplify: because SCO has failed to identify the code they claim to be copied they have cast aspersions on, and created harm to, the reputations of everyone who has written open source code.
By the way, since SCO is threatening individual Linux users - everyone who uses Linux has standing to file suit against them.
That exact line occurs exactly zero times in the Linux 2.4.20 source. So looks like we're okay.
From the bounce page in your homepage URL: /. are disallowed for some reason.
Referrals directly from
Well, for an obvious reason. A bunch of slashdot reader clicking on Bugzilla URLs brings Bugzilla to it's knees. Remember: 1) It's database driven. 2) it's a development tool, and having it unusable during a slashdot storm really doesn't help the programmers much.
I have a question, to anyone: How does all this SCO nonsense affect Synaptic, which is a fine program?
...it comes to court.
Something that FAR too many people here are forgetting, is that SCO has sued IBM. When they get to court, SCO will be legally required to provide any evidence or proof of wrongdoing on IBM's part. Until then, and release of evidence could destroy their case.
IT DOESN'T MATTER at this point if they're telling the truth or full of shit. They CANNOT reasonably reveal their evidence outside a courtroom. Now let's all just quit ranting about how full of shit they are, and wait for the case to come to court. I expect them to end up bankrupt with egg on their face, but I'm at least willing to let them try to defend their claims properly.
"People who do stupid things with hazardous materials often die." -- Jim Davidson on alt.folklore.urban
Spongebob lies down and acts dead.
Spongebob: Hey Patrick, what am I?
Patrick: Uhh, you're dead?
Spongebob: No, Patrick, I'm SCO.
Patrick: What's the difference? ha ha ha ha
Spongebob: ha ha ha ha
Oh no. The first program I ever wrote in C had that. Please don't give SCO my address. I think In the future I'll just modify it to "void main(void){" and cross my fingers.
I make a reasonable middle-class wage by going to work and not spamming blogs with scams.
I don't know any names, but something tells me that many of them will have law degrees.
Any sufficiently advanced influence is indistinguishable from control.
I have a naive belief in balance in the universe. Of course, the universe takes a while to make its effects known ...
... I can't see how this could have any merit, and after all has been shown to be the usual FUD, it will strengthen free source software very much. I believe that's why Microsoft is keeping quiet. They can afford to throw a few million at SCO for "licensing" and never miss it when it turns out to be a lost cause. A few pantywaists will flee Linux. Anyone with half a brain will proceed as if nothing has happened, because, well, nothing *has* happened.
But anyway, I believe this will backfire badly on Microsoft. Of course they paid SCO a bunch of money to throw more FUD in Linux's way, and free source software in general. Whether or not they put SCO up to it in the first place, I don't know.
However
And after it's all over, Microsoft's arguments about the evils of free source software will look more and more inane.
Every tactic Microsoft has tried has backfired or at least failed, and the bigger the lie, the more egg on their face when it is discovered.
Infuriate left and right
A typical civil trial in America takes like 2 years at least. But what I find interesting about this move is assuming one can press criminal charges agenst SCO, they are guaranteed speedy trial, unless they wave that right.
I'm unsure about a few aspects of this though.
Can LinuxTag press criminal charges in Germany and have SCO expedited to that venue to face charges of criminal liable?
Can a plantif in a criminal trial in America actually wave the right to a speedy trial? I'm not a lawyer, nor do I know of any situation where I've seen it in the best interest of the plantif to actually request a slow trial. I have known of cases where the plantif's car broke down, but nothing on this scale.
There is no sanctuary. There is no sanctuary. SHUT UP! There is no shut up. There is no shut up.
And aside from that....anybody have the publicly obtainable personal info for the SCO CEO? It's not exactly the same as spamming a spammer, but in this case, it can't hurt.
Buy Steampunk Clothing Online!
Slanderous statements made by either individuals or companies could be considered libelous, deframatory of character or image. IANAL, but I think that IBM might be able to countersue, claiming that the unfounded statement made by SCO tarnished their image.
They are up to more than suing IBM. They are threatening every user of Linux and every seller of products and services based on LInux. If SCO were only talking trash about IBM then I would agree with you. At this point, they have threatened pretty much everybody and are doing damage in the process. They should either document their accusations or be made to pay in some way for the damage their trash talking is doing to Linux development and business.
If they sent me one of their cease and desist letters I would tell them to either substantiate the infringement in detail (no bullshit NDA either.. I didn't sign anything to use Linux now did I?) or go straight to hell and shut the fuck up.
That should read "Defecatus elsum Necessarium Risus," at least in ecclesiastical Latin. :)
I'm not a geek, I'm just a clever script.
By the way, the first paragraph of RMS's reply provides a good context for that statement:
SCO, of course, wants it to sound like "copy" as in "we ripped off SCO's trade secrets to make it." Some credibility they give themselves with pages like this!
We need a new ultra unique Slashdot topic icon...the SCO logo combined with the Microsoft logo, alongside a sickle and a hammer.
Sorry, don't believe it. You're just repeating an urban legend.
This is a true story. I told her it was just a mascot, but she said it made her feel uncomfortable because in the back of her mind she wanted a positive Christian business. Solaris for her was an acceptable alternative because the cost of the servers were about the same plus she got the benefit of having the SPARC architecture and no BSD Daemon on her server.
I know some christians who won't let their kids participate in halloween, others who won't let their kids go to the theatres, and still others who don't believe in dancing. But I've never once run across one who thought that a cartoon representation of a red guy with horns and tail was satanic.
I know, but she doesn't understand computers she only understands her business which is a christian bookstore and her faith. It is not about being overly sensetive over a mascot it is about knowing that she is being faithful to her religion by not supporting an OS whose founders decided to put a daemon as a mascot. It would be like putting a darwin sticker on her car..it isn't a big deal to some people, but it would be to her.
And besides, if Solaris can do the job at almost the same price but with the benefit of a RISK SPARC Server, why not?
Also, why are you judging what she should take seriously and what she shouldn't? She is a good woman and just like some people in your chuch don't celebrate Halloween, she doesn't have Servers whose logo is a daemon on her business computers. There is nothing wrong with that, and it doesn't make her a "National Enquirer" reader.
Sorry, don't believe it. You're just repeating an urban legend.
This is a true story. I told her it was just a mascot, but she said it made her feel uncomfortable because in the back of her mind she wanted a positive Christian business. Solaris for her was an acceptable alternative because the cost of the servers were about the same plus she got the benefit of having the SPARC architecture and no BSD Daemon on her server.
I know some christians who won't let their kids participate in halloween, others who won't let their kids go to the theatres, and still others who don't believe in dancing. But I've never once run across one who thought that a cartoon representation of a red guy with horns and tail was satanic.
I know, but she doesn't understand computers she only understands her business which is a christian bookstore and her faith. It is not about being overly sensetive over a mascot it is about knowing that she is being faithful to her religion by not supporting an OS whose founders decided to put a daemon as a mascot. It would be like putting a darwin sticker on her car..it isn't a big deal to some people, but it would be to her.
And besides, if Solaris can do the job at almost the same price but with the benefit of a RISK SPARC Server, why not?
Also, why are you judging what she should take seriously and what she shouldn't? She is a good woman and just like some people in your chuch don't celebrate Halloween, she doesn't have Servers whose logo is a daemon on her business computers. There is nothing wrong with that, and it doesn't make her a "National Enquirer" reader.
These days patents are pretty much a rubber stamp. If I decide that I want to patent some sort algorithm they taught in CS101 and manage to get it rubber stampped by the PTO, I can then use it to extort money from companies that don't want to take the risk of litigation. Even large companies will often settle rather than take the risk that some uniformed judge or jury will decide against them, especially if the settlement cost is less than that of retaining a lawyer. Extortion using the legal system is still extortion, and claiming that people who use the system like this are being robbed of something is wrong-headed, dishonorable and argumentative.
NDA protected IP is a bit of a different beast. It doesn't give you quite the same legal extortion capabilities that the patent system does. Someone can think up the idea on their own and implement it without worrying about your IP... Normally. Because normally you have a small developer base and it's easy to remember who's seen NDA protected IP versus who's inputting into your code base. Given the clever developers working in the Linux kernel and the rapid development process (I've never seen a commercial product that evolved as quickly as the Linux kernel does) It's equally as likely that someone in the kernel developers group came up with a perfectly logical implementation of something that SCO has NDA protected as it is that someone in IBM violated an NDA to add something. There's a lot of stuff in programming that follows similar lines. Claiming that a common pattern is theft is as reprehensible as extorting money from a company with a trivial patent.
Quite frankly, as a programmer I don't really have the time to be looking over my shoulder every time I think up something new and somewhat clever. Given the quality of patents granted based in the stories in this forum over the years, I'd be more inclined to say that patents themselves are theft. Perhaps once they weren't but since they've been approprated by corporate America, their original purpose has been perverted beyond recognition. I would suggest that the easiest method of solving this problem is to prevent a corporation from owning any patent or copyright nor contractual obligations applying to them.
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
only if you have code in the kernel, they aren't (as far as I am aware) saying anything about the rest of open source code
This does raise an interesting point... what about libel? Does it apply? (Or some analog?) If SCO turns out to be knowingly spreading false information could IBM et. al sue them for lost business? I'd LOVE to see them get bitchslapped. :)
C'mon, it returns an int, so for the love of lint, call it int main()!!
Then they'd sue you for terrorism :( It's technically biological warfare to send your tapeworm-infested feces to anyone.
If everyone could sned their $50 (cash, PayPal, cheques, postal orders, etc accepted) to me, then I promise that (just as soon as I have all the money needed) I will buy SCO and release the source code.
Unfortunately, if I don't recieve all the cash, I won't be able to return it, because of ummm.. the errrr.. hassle of doing so. And legal issues and the like.
Remember - send me money, save Linux.
(That ought to work.... Mwaaaa ha ha ha haaaaaa)
--- My dad's political betting
If I remember right, MS has hired Gartner to do many "tests" and "evaluations" of MS vs lots of other products. It might be another company, but I doubt it. So why trust them.
The Doormat
If you're not outraged, then you're not paying attention.
They do have to disclose their proof, and unless they do so this is (most likely) libel.
See this thread.
I only ever once came across SCO UNIX in a commercial application.
They're not even worth thinking about, let UNIces die, long live UNIX.
By SCO sitting on its ass, they are screwing around with Linux, if anything it could be considered libelous. I'm sure that there are at least a few in the Linux kernel circle that have suspended working on things in order to distance themselves from the code in case of a legal fallout. SCO is just making things tense for good-willed open source programmers. (Now my opinion) What a bunch of assholes!
Bzzzzt. Wrong. main() in C must always return an integer.
You fail it, thank you for playing.
Look twice. Unless you're using a different compiler than mine, "void main() { }" compiles. there's nothing technically wrong with "void main(void) { }" either, but it's ugly to throw the command line data into the bitbucket, IMHO.
It's been a long time.
Why are you posting that as an AC? I mean, it'd be different if it was just a straight rip from babelfish. Hell, the fact that your grammar translating from babelfish is better than most slashdot editor's normal grammar makes me believe you deserve to modded up.
"...we dont care about the economics; we just want to be able to hack great stuff."
SCO has done a better job distributing FUD than it ever has distributing Unix.
How about a class-action suit against SCO for anti-trust based on their clearly harmful actions toward innovation ,and their violations of the GPL by trying to be retroactive and enact an ex post facto lawsuit? They screwed up and GPL'd their code. Don't tell me that they didn't because they know they did. That is also why they are withdrawing their UnixWare CD's from the market as well - they have GPL'd code and they are afraid to get caught with their pants down.
All Ad hominem replies happily ignored as the sender shall be deemed to lack the faculties to comprehend the equation.
Thanks, do you work for SCO, Microsoft, the RIAA, MPAA, or their lawyers?
As a matter of fact since SCO and their lawyers can't show up at all of these suits, and will in effect ignore them, the result is that the courts in question will be mightily pissed that they have been ignored. Even small claims courts judges don't like being ignored. It is a very dangerous thing to ignore government officials acting in their official capacity.
The judgment won't be for $1.00, most likely it will be for the maximum amount that the jurisdiction can allow, as punishment for contemptuously ignoring their jurisdiction. As one of the other posters pointed out, by publicly questioning the honesty of open source coders SCO has made it more difficult for us to obtain employment; that is real and substantial damage.
This is pure fud and defamation!
This is only agaisnt IBM my ass! This is clearly a fud job to take such things out of context. They are clearly painting a picture of abunch of copyrighted crocks in order in order to scare customers and make a false claim in court.
http://saveie6.com/
There will be a day of reconing with SCO. A totaling of sums and a snaping of necks. I can't wait to deficate on their ashes.
Karma: The shiznight, mostly because I am the Drizzle.
What that really means is: they've been Slashdotted.
Happy?
Nerd: Derogatory term typically directed at anybody with a lower Slashdot ID than you.
"... Pottus Risus "
------ The only greater hazard to your liberty than n politicians is n+1 politicians.
If SCO is right, I suppose we will just have to rewrite those (probably few) lines of code and linux will be free again! I'm sure we will have a lot of volonteer to get rid of this unwanted stuff under linux.
I guess Mr. Boies really is a lawyer after all.
Part of the Second American Revolution!
That's against both K&R's and Linus's styles. SCO can keep it. Functions are the only blocks whose brackets start on the next line.
Litigious bastards
build a house within close distance of the nuclear reactors at Three Mile Island,
after the radiation accidents, for the sole purpose to sue for damages to my quality of
life. I think the law says that since I knowingly bought a house in a radiation area,
I have no case for complain.
Why is this concept similar to Caldera who bought the IP after
they knew that IP property has been devalued (as they claim) ?
"reactionary right"
Isn't that the republican party? Or are you talking about other racist facists.
War is necrophilia.
Dear Sirs,
It is extremly obvious to all of us in the Open Source and Free Software communities that SCO's case is without merit. Please see the OSI paper at (http://www.opensource.org/sco-vs-ibm.html). This is only backed up be the fact that SCO has, to date, failed to produce any tangible evidence whatsoever of infringement.
I am certain that if there were infringement then Open Source community would be willing to work with SCO to facilitate it's removal. However, given SCO's refusal to show the offending code, it is obvious to all involved that SCO has no interest in reaching this conculsion, but has every interest in gaining monetarily from this situation.
Given that the case is weak for the reasons stated in the OSI paper, SCO's defeat at the hands of the Linux community and IBM will come in two forms:
1) IBM's legal fight against SCO will undoubtedly drain SCO of whatever money it has left leaving it ill prepared to run it's business.
2) The backlash from the Linux community and the UNIX community at large (UNIX is a trademark of the Open Group) will be massive and has, in fact, already begun in the form of people refusing to buy SCO products due to this lawsuit.
Your legal machinations, it is obvious to all, are really SCO's last chance to stay solvent and viable given the fact that it has been soundly outperformed by its competitors.
Good Day.
Sincerely,
Gregory John Casamento
Gregory Casamento
## Chief Maintainer for GNUstep
"Would this even be possible?"
Yes. Scientology did it when their tax exempt status was being questioned by the IRS. They filed thousands of suits against the IRS.
War is necrophilia.
SCO said that the GPL does not apply to their code in the kernel (if it exists). Therefore, when they distributed the kernel after suing IBM, they *knowingly* made a distribution that (according to their own logic and analysis) violated the IP of all the kernel developers.
How about a press release from Linus commenting on the above: ie. If SCO's code is in the kernel and if the GPL is not applicable to it, then SCO was a mass IP violator!
The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
They've already made the comments and issued the letters, so under german law, they need to retract or show some evidence of their claims due to the german business laws. All-in-all it's a neat end run around SCO's abuse of the american legal system.
We all know MS is eager to discredit open source software when ever and where ever it can... humm, didn't MS just sign an expensive deal with SCO prevously posted here on /. Kinda makes me wonder if MS is really helping fund the court case presented by SCO, without directly saying as much.
Just because it compiles doesn't mean you should do it. Programs should return an integer so that the calling program can know whether it failed or not (0 for success, anything else is failure and may indicate a specific problem). If everyone adhered to your "standard," writing shellscripts would become a living hell. Where were you when they were passing out standards, anyway?
That's it. I'm no longer part of Team Sanity.
so we'll know who we should absolutely never... hire to do anything...
Now _that's_ McCarthyism. How would you answer the question, "Are you or have ever been a member of the Santa Cruz operation?"
=> I am not, and never have been, a member of the Santa Cruz operation.
=> I was young, and this girl was interested in SCO. So I went. It was just a bunch of people doing work. But I didn't really help.
=> I was young, and I wanted to experiment. I tried working at SCO, but I found out that they were just as hypocritical as IBM and HP and Microsoft. I've worked on open source a lot since I left them.
=> It was only an internship. I was a go-fer.
=> It was only an internship. I was a code monkey.
=> I applied for a job, but they rejected because they doubted my moral direction.
=> I was blacklisted as a member of the Communist Party, you insensitive clod!
The problem is probably not going to be this case. It's the fact that this case opens the doors for a united assault on the open source paradigm.
Regardless of if there is, or is not any case for SCO, think about the big issue which is not accidental insertion of IP code, but deliberate insertion of IP code.
Consider this:
Look at how the open source community for the kernel and all the other open packages out there is run. Imagine that some company Company$XXX has hired some person PersonBad. PersonBad is told by the company to contribute (privately) to some open source product by placing some code from a proprietary product Product$XXX in the open source product.
Imagine that PersonBad pretends to be a NiceOpenSourceCoder, who is simply contributing to the open source product. Imagine that PersonBad does what they are told and takes the bonus Company$XXX is offering.
Now, six months later, Company$XXX launches a law suit (like SCO) claiming either the kernel or the open source product in question contains IP belonging to the company. They (like SCO) refuse to disclose the details of the code in question outside of court.
The kernel or product must be changed to have the sections in question removed. Now, regardless of the fact that distributing versions of the code with the IP in it is illegal according to the court case, making getting people to fix the problem is going to be difficult, just imagine:
Imagine that this six months later is just after a major new release of some distribution, and not only Company$XXX have done this, but Company$XXY and Company$XXZ and Company$XXP, who have formed a consortium claiming that the open source community is ripping them off.
That could easily tie up distribution and development of the open source products (and the distribution in general) for days, weeks, even months (if the court orders an injunction).
It would finally get resolved one way or another, but it'd be a serious blow to the open source community. It'd also be a serious blow to people trying to distribute versions of the distribution that was infringing IP. It'd be bad.
Imagine if the same thing happened all over again six months later. It'd be a disaster.
The problem is that there is NO WAY to tell a decent open source coder from a nasty malicious coder who is pretending to be a decent open source coder but providing obfuscated IP code.
Look at all the people who are unhappy with the open source community of free stuff. Look at how they've been trying to cut it down to size for a while now. Don't say the SCO thing is nothing to worry about. It's a serious, major concern that we should all be thinking about RIGHT NOW. It's not really SCO that a huge problem, it's other people who can use the same tactics (and do it properly).
Trying to tackle this problem once it has already happened is going to be a total pain.
Maybe I'm just being paranoid and cynical. Maybe not. Think about it.
Investment was made in ~1986 from my recollection of events. Of course, if you weren't in the computer industry in 1986, you probably wouldn't remember it happening.
;^)).
Microsoft holds equity stakes in a large number of companies; some of them are really surprising. For example: they have 1.9M shares of Borland stock.
You should read their SEC filings for their Section 13G and Section 13G/A filings. Unfortunately, if you want to see the filings from ~1986, you'll have to travel and look at MicroFiche (something else that was used the 1980's
Microsoft SEC filings on stock held
-- Terry
Not if they add it in quick enough.
http://saveie6.com/
Some thoughts on Trade Secrets, Patents...
U.S. Trade Secret law is very specific... once a Trade Secret is disclosed, it's disclosed, and there's no getting it back.
SCO appears to be trying to close the barn door after the horse has escaped. The only thing they can get out of this, at least as far as any Trade Secret disclosure, is trebled damages for their loss of the secret, based on their reasonably expected loss of revenue, and a public records acknowledgement that they no longer own the Trade Secrets, if any, that were disclosed.
USL tried this "My Secret Was Disclosed But I Still Get To Keep It" tactic vs. UCB when BSDI infringed the UNIX trademark, woke the USL lawyers up, couldn't get them back to sleep, and then ended up hiding behind UCB. They ended up settling under undisclosed terms, which is usually code for "We Get To Save Face".
Sun bought out of their UNIX license for ~$120M from Novell in 1994, so their damages would be an adjusted $360M, maximum. I'm guessing the adjustment would be down, not up, given the current value of the technology sector, compared to 1994... *de*flation is a bugger. They might get 1/10th of what they got from Microsoft the other day, and then pay it back to IBM in patent licenses.
As far as patents are concerned, the most important patents that Linux may be infringing do not belong to Caldera/SCO, they belong to Novell, and they belong to Lucent and AT&T.
Caldera/SCO generally do not have assignment of these patents; instead, they have a non-exclusive license to them.
In fact, a simple patent search reveals Caldera is the assignee of a grand total of 3 active patents: 6,529,784 in their own name, and 6,104,392 and 6,362,836, in the name of SCO.
Comparatively, Novell has 205 active patents assigned to them; Lucent has 6,725. Microsoft has 2,621.
If anyone *might* have a cause of action, it would be Novell or Lucent, but neither of them are suicidal enough these days.
Oh yeah... and IBM has 33,196 active patents assigned to them... wonder who's going to win a "patent trading card" fight, if IBM legal becomes "Engaged".
-- Terry
Ah, indeed. That'll be why I spend much of my time arguing novelty and inventiveness in detailed logical statements with the examiners from various patent offices around the world. Rubber stamp... I only wish!
If I decide that I want to patent some sort algorithm they taught in CS101 and manage to get it rubber stampped by the PTO, I can then use it to extort money from companies that don't want to take the risk of litigation..."Extort" is a dangerous word. Be careful how you use it. Trying to get money out of people who infringe patents (which is how I spend a lot of the rest of my time) is very, very difficult. No sizeable company will take and serious notice of an infringement notification letter. It costs so much to do a decent job of work on an infringer that only sizeable companies are worth addressing. It costs around a minimum of GBP 1.5 million to set up a court action and unless you set up a court action, ain't nobody going to take any notice of you. It would be wonderful (for some) if your view of the patent system were based on reality but believe me, it isn't. At all.
The fact that it takes money to bring an infringment prosecution is one form of correction to the problem of bad patents. Do you think anybody really wants to put GBP 1 million into court to litigate a bad patent? The odds are ridiculous, even in the EU where patent cases are heard by judges not juries. Stupid patents don't come to court.
Now, one final point on patents; the existence of a number of examples of bad patents is not proof that the system as a whole is fatally flawed or discredited any more than the existence of a few bugs in your code shows you to be completely inept as a programmer.
This can only work within a country and with the cooperation of the plaintiff's lawyers. We are talking here about mischief from almost every SCO subsidiary. Anyone who is involved with either supplying Linux, organising Linux related events and particularly the authors of the kernel have their own rights to reply because it is they who are affected by the suit.
See my journal, I write things there
And which courts have jurisdiction over libel and intellectual property suits? It's NOT small claims court, which is more properly called "small PROPERTY claims court". If you file in the wrong court, you have just pissed off the judge and get the suit thrown out for "lack of jurisdiction" and lost the filing fees.
Cranking out thousands of "request to transfer to higher court and/or consolidate cases" is a relatively easy matter for a lawyer's clerk with a word processor, and if a judge sees dozens of individual cases against a single corporation for the same reason, they usually grant it unless EACH defendant can prove they will be damaged by the consolidation.
Actually, that looks like they're just passing along the system-generated message (java.lang.NullPointerException) with a note about the location in the code where the error took place (the routine that creates a transform handler). The programmer would probably be able to make perfect sense out of it. Remember, error codes aren't for users, they're for developers.
Farewell! It's been a fine buncha years!
Except for one thing. You live in the EU (I'm guessing Great Britain, because you listed monetary amounts in british pounds), but the original poster and I live in the United States. So, your observations about how things work in Britain have no bearing on how things work here. It may very well be that patents are managed more effectively in Britain and the EU than in the United States (my gut feeling is that they are). But, remember -- over on THIS side of the pond, the patent and IP situation is completely, hopelessly out of control. It's been a joke for so long that it's starting to be considered a cliche.
Seriously. An American complaining about an inane patent system is probably complaining about HIS, not YOURS. From the sound of it, things aren't quite as bad over there.
Farewell! It's been a fine buncha years!
Customers of Microsoft were exposed to lawsuits when Microsoft breached Timeline's patents with code in SQL server. (Specifically, MS licensed the tech for their own use, not for distribution.)
Copyright regulates publishing, and so it only effects publishers, not end users (copyright = the right to make copies). End users cannot be held accountable because they bought a product that included someone elses copyrighted code. Had it merely been copyright in the SQL example, only Microsoft would be liable.
Patents, however, must be licensed in order to be used. A patent holder can go after end-users for license fees for the use of the patented device.
Microsoft has been convicted of copyright infringement before, but it was for some multimedia thing and nobody ever heard about it until it was brought up by that Peruvian guy.
Under capitalism man exploits man. Under communism it's the other way around.
Did you ever fucking think that maybe the error message wasn't intended for you? Like you could do fuck about it anyways? You obviously can't tell the difference between a java error and a Linux kernel error, so maybe you should just sit back and STFU while the people with intelligence get things to work. It's a pretty straight forward error message. much more so than "A fatal exception has occured". If you want error messages dumbed down to your ability to comprehend why don't you fucking write something instead of being a lecherous waste of air, instead of whining "I'm too stupid to understand! Dumb this down for me so I don't feel as stupid as I really am!"
Fucking moron..
Everyone is entitled to their own opinion. It's just that yours is stupid.
I suggest that we tax the square of the patent holdings of any legal entity, regardless of whether it is a corporation or an individual.
I suggest an annual tax, paid to the federal government, of $0.01 multiplied by the square of the total number of claims in all of the patents owned by that entity. Thus if you own 5 patents with 10 claims in each, you pay
But if you own 1000 patents with 10 claims in each, you payThe tax should be waived for "defensive patents", where you patent something so that nobody else can patent it and then irrevocably release the patent rights into the public domain.
(To prevent ridiculously huge claims in patents to get around the tax, the law should also specify that a patent claim can only be considered infringed if it is entirely infringed).
If SCO did distribute pieces of its own lockin code, it was almost certainly done unknowingly.
Forcing SCO to relinquish control of this code because of an accident is wrong.
SCO basically sucks, but that doesn't change the fact that if we set such a precedent, then microsoft's "pacman" claims are partially legitimized.
Of course you're right. I thought "patent" and for some reason typed "copyright".
End users cannot be held accountable because they bought a product that included someone elses copyrighted code.
That seems right to me, but I wonder. A lot of SCO's FUD against Linux users relies on the idea that customers may be liable. Their letter says:
[...] Linux distributors do not warrant the legal integrity of the Linux code provided to customers. Therefore legal liability that may arise from the Linux development process may also rest with the end user.
Since proprietary licences generally disclaim liability too one would expect their customers to be in the same position -- at least if it is possible to disclaim liability for this.
Microsoft has been convicted of copyright infringement before
I wonder how many cases have been settled before going to trial, or went to court without a conviction. Just from the sheer number of programs they've released I would think it must have happened a few times.
The other thing I find bizarre about SCO's letter is their contention that proprietary groups do more to prevent copying. In nearly a decade in commercial software I've never seen or even heard of a development organization that does anything more to prevent plagiarism of code than the Linux team do. And that is: if a programmer suddenly comes up with heaps of code that looks a bit different, people wonder where they got it from. I don't really see how any organization can do any more than that -- well, and hiring ethical programmers. Proving that a particular line was never written before is pretty impossible.
I never said anything about it being standard, or even paticularly smart. But it is possible, and it would compile, so the "BZZZZT!!! WRONG!" comment isn't exactly completely accurate.
It's been a long time.
$companyYYY are alleging that $personBad working for $CompanyXXX contributed code they got from $companyYYY, and they are suing $companyXXX for it and warning you that you could be next.
Exactly how do your signed statements from $companyXXX help against $companyYYY ???
[ all they do is demonstrate that you acted in good faith - but proving the code was distributed to you claiming to be under the GPL would do that anyway ]
No. It's wrong theoretically (it's not allowed by either the C or C++ standards) and in practice (on some platforms you'll shaft the linking between the run-time start-up code and your own code in main(), typically resulting in a crash).
I'll self-moderate this down since it's not really on topic, but for goodness' sake go and read page one of a good book before you start going off on one about programming languages.
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
but if it compiles, and it runs, then practically, it works. It might not run everywhere, but it does run where you want it to run. Not exactly "BZZZZZZZT! WRONG!!!"...
It's been a long time.
And error codes for developers should never be visible to end users...
The bottom line is: bad design. Why people do not design these things to fail gracefully is one of the mysteries of IT. If the goddam Web server cannot handle the flood of connections, STOP ACCEPTING THEM and SAY SO! This isn't rocket science...
I got a bunch of messages from Slashdotters telling me that it means the site was Slashdotted. I KNOW that...My point was not to slam Linux but to slam the idiots who allow this sort of behavior on the part of a system which is supposedly accessible to the public.
It's entirely unacceptable. And it's common throughout the IT industry.
Richard Steven Hack - This sig is TOO GODDAMN SHORT TO DO ANYTHING USEFUL WITH! MORONS!
Okay, fucking moron, let me explain something about system design to you since you are obviously fucking clueless.
No fucking system accessible to the end user should EVER issue a message to that end user under ANY circumstances which is not comprehensible to that user. ANY error message pertaining to a system condition which results from a programming error (except of course a run time failure by the underlying system itself which crashes the entire application - and even there that is the fault of the fucking OS designer and IT'S error messages should be comprehensible) should identify itself as such and direct the end user to contact the sysadmin (which in fact this message tried to do). It is better to log the actual error than bother the end user with incomprehensible garbarge.
The real problem is that these stupid Web systems are designed to CRASH when overloaded instead of failing gracefully by simply refusing to accept more connections. I don't know enough about the internal code of Apache or the HTTP protocol which mandates this, but it is FUCKING STUPID.
And anybody who excuses this piss-poor system design is a fucking moron as well...
So YOU STFU...
Richard Steven Hack - This sig is TOO GODDAMN SHORT TO DO ANYTHING USEFUL WITH! MORONS!
First of all, you're completely overreacting to an issue that is relatively insignificant. I don't know your background, but your approach makes me suspect you're not a programmer -- perhaps someone who is only involved with programming on the periphery of the activity, like a programmer's manager, or a nontechnical website manager. I'm not saying this to insult you; it's just an observation, that professional programmers don't let this stuff get them all worked up, while nontechnical staff often do, and the less directly a person is involved with an activity, the more obsessively they seem to want to control how the activity is carried out.
There's nothing wrong with putting some debugging information in a production page. In doing so, when your clients call tech support, they can give you the actual error message that was generated, and let you know what sort of query (or whatever) they were doing at the time when they had the error. This lets you reproduce the error more easily, and solve the problem. IF, that is, solving the problem is more important to you than conveying the illusion that your software is perfect. I don't get the sense you feel this way.
You really, really ought to calm down. Who nominated you as the guardian of easily frightened end users, anyway? And, what makes you think you've got any right to call programmers "idiots" just because they don't agree with your views on software development? Bossy, flaming screeds about how people ought to do their work are pointless and stupid. There must be a better way you could use your time.
Farewell! It's been a fine buncha years!
Ha ha ha!!! That's beautiful!!! From one programmer to another, well said! At least I'm not alone in being sick of end-user pissing and moaning... I never could figure out why the hell they all get so worked up about things, anyway... It's like the fans at baseball games getting pissed off because a pitcher uses a curveball instead of a fastball. Ridiculous... :)
Farewell! It's been a fine buncha years!
I think the most important part of the incredibly boorish flame listed above is the poster's admission, "I don't know enough about the internal code of Apache or the HTTP protocol which mandates this". It is important because it indicates that the poster is aware that he doesn't know enough to know whether he has a basis for his complaint.
Another gem is (talking about system failure messages that the poster considers permissable): "...should identify itself as such and direct the end user to contact the sysadmin (which in fact this message tried to do)". So, he's basically saying that the error message he's flaming about actually met his criteria for being permissable.
So here we have an end-user who is angry because a website got slashdotted, and spit out a descriptive error message he didn't have the technical wherewithal to comprehend. He admits that he doesn't know enough to know whether he should be angry or not, and he admits that the message he is angry about is reasonable, but he's angry anyway. And, he wants to let all of us "geeks" know that he thinks we are morons.
Quite remarkable. I didn't know guys like this could work a web browser.
Farewell! It's been a fine buncha years!
Hey Anonymous Brave Guy, you responded to one of my postings by asking for an email to continue the discussion. Do you want to drop me a line at danmose@hotmail.nospamremovethis.com ? Posting was at http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=63816&cid=5939 597 and I don't know how else to contact you.
Typo. Try danmose@microsoft.removethis.com instead. Drop me a line if you like.
First of all, I programmed for fifteen years in RPG, Cobol, and xBASE starting in the seventies.
Secondly, I am well aware that it is useful to have the end user report an error message. The question is how? You don't just dump the message to the screen. The user must be informed that a system error has occurred and that he should contact his system administrator (which in fact the error message in question did say, IIRC). However, the way the message was displayed would have been utterly confusing to anyone visiting the Web page.
In fact, it would be better to simply log the error (if possible) to an error file and simply put up a message that says a system error has occurred. The programmer can check the log for the actual error. In some system problems, of course, this might not be possible, but it's a better technigue than simply dumping the message to the screen to baffle the end user.
The fact of the matter is that error messages written by programmers - instead of system designers, who really are responsible - tend to be short, incomprehensible to anyone else (including maintenance programmers, note) and displayed at the wrong time to the wrong people.
In short, one reason why I'm not programming now is the level of incompetence in the field is now taken for granted and accepted as normal. The result is crap like Windows 98...
Richard Steven Hack - This sig is TOO GODDAMN SHORT TO DO ANYTHING USEFUL WITH! MORONS!
First of all, I was not actually angry - I was disgusted by the incompetence displayed by the system designer - which is very common in the industry.
Secondly, my point about not understanding enough Apache was that REGARDLESS it should not require any designer to have to handle things that way.
Third, the error message displayed - while correct in telling the user to contact their sys admin - was displayed incompetently in a manner which would certainly confuse the end user - probably to the point of not bothering to visit the Web site again. Keep in mind this was not an application that blew up, but a Web site. If your Web site blows up, people won't come back. It's that simple.
The fact of the matter is that the level of incompetence in the IT industry is now taken for granted and accepted. Geeks who may be clever coders but lousy system designers are in charge. One reason I left programming after 15 years was this situation.
And yes, geeks who can't write an intelligible error message (intelligible to whomever has to MAINTAIN the app after they take the money and run) are morons...
Richard Steven Hack - This sig is TOO GODDAMN SHORT TO DO ANYTHING USEFUL WITH! MORONS!
Master of Transhuman said two things I have to reply to:
1)"First of all, I programmed for fifteen years in RPG, Cobol, and xBASE starting in the seventies."
2)"In short, one reason why I'm not programming now is the level of incompetence in the field is now taken for granted and accepted as normal." (then he wrapped up with some doofy comment about Windows 98).
Ok, taking them one at a time, in response I say:
1) The seventies lasted only ten years, so you cannot have programmed for fifteen years during the seventies. Second, the technologies you used are absolutely archaic, so how can you claim that you are even remotely qualified to second-guess modern programmers? You weren't even doing structured programming, much less OOP or event-driven programming. You have no basis for understanding the current state of the trade, and you have no right whatsoever to pretend you're some kind of expert.
2) What amazing arrogance and self-delusion this reveals! No, pal, the reason you're not programming now is that your antediluvial skills are worthless in the modern marketplace. You couldn't get an entry level job with that skill-set, much less a job with real responsibilities. So, stop insulting the current practitioners of the trade and go back to puttering around with your Altair, or whatever it is you weird old farts do when you're not screaming at the rest of us about our supposed "incompetence".
Look, to some degree, I sympathize with you old cats who can't seem to pull it together and learn the new stuff. It must really suck to fall further and further behind with every passing year. I mean, Jesus, you're still using Windows 98! Who still uses that? If you were really a techie, you'd be using Linux or FreeBSD by now. Or at least, you'd have moved to Windows 2000 and gotten rid of some of your stability problems. But my sympathy for you has limits; no one is twisting your arm, and making you use an old piece-of-shit like Win 98, you're CHOOSING to use it instead of better alternatives. No one is blocking you from doing modern programming; you're CHOOSING to be a crusty old fart instead of a current and up-to-date pro. You're not even willing to help yourself, so how can you dare to second guess others? It's nothing but hubris -- hubris and arrogant, false pride.
What a waste. You're deliberately dooming yourself to utter irrelevance.
Farewell! It's been a fine buncha years!
Here you go again, calling people morons, pretending you left programming because of other people's "incompetence" instead of the fact that your skills are no longer in demand... You're not fooling anyone except yourself. You were ejected from the industry because your skills are worthless and you were unwilling or unable to adapt, ok? You're living in the past, fantasizing that your RPG, COBOL, and xBase skills are still relevant, that you actually have the right to try and throw your weight around, that you actually have something relevant to say. So you spend all your time criticizing the current practitioners of the field, like a crusty old fart at the end of the block who yells at the kids playing stickball outside, shaking his fist and hollering "you damn kids!" when really, in your heart of hearts you wish you could join them in their game. You're a stereotype made real. Worse than that: you're a cliche.
You had your time. Now it's our world -- it's our time. Show some class and fade into the background like the ghost you are, or show some initiative and get back in the game. But don't sit on the sidelines and howl. It's unseemly.
Farewell! It's been a fine buncha years!
"The seventies lasted only ten years, so you cannot have programmed for fifteen years during the seventies..." This is idiotic - STARTING in the seventies, moron...
"You weren't even doing structured programming, much less OOP or event-driven programming." Structured programming came into vogue in the mid-to-late seventies and I practiced it. Event-driven programming was available in FoxPro in the early nineties and I practiced it.
"If you were really a techie, you'd be using Linux
or FreeBSD by now." I have Red Hat 7.3 on my new box and Red Hat 7.0 on the old box. I use Windows 98 because that's what I had on the old machine and I don't feel like paying Microsoft $200 for anything newer. Plus I hope in the next couple months to do away with it completely and rely on Linux.
I have just completed a certificate program in UNIX/Open Systems plus three semesters of C++ as well as Perl and UNIX Systems Programming in C. I'd like to see you go back to school in twenty years and get three A's and a B in your last semester, rocket scientist...
This does not mean however that I intend to get back in the game as a professional programmer. I learned my lesson on that - programmers in the commercial marketplace are essentially clerks with lots of responsibility and no authority - which is why they run their mouths about their technical skills while bending over and kissing ass to the financial types. Only the open source people can get away with doing what they want - unfortunately none of them can make any money unless they work for Red Hat or consult on the side.
No, I'm going to use the knowledge I've gained in the last year and a half to administer my own system and write my own stuff from the ground up the right way.
Back in the eighties, Ted Nelson said at a West Coast Computer Faire that there was no acceptable software on the market. He was serious and he was right - and if he said it today, he'd still be right.
The crap you geek clowns put out is pathetic. At least Linux and other open source projects are advancing rapidly but they still are based on primitive and ineffective system design and development technologies. OOP is just a few principles extracted from AI research and applied imperfectly to the system design process. It will be superceded in the coming years by more effective methods. But those methods won't come from code-heads buried in current programming technigues.
Somebody wrote in Computer Language some years back that probably only 2% of programmers read one programming book a year or subscribed to the magazine. You so-called "professionals" are nothing more than "hacks" (and I don't mean in the positive sense of "hackers") and your output is garbage. Go work for Microsoft - you're the kind of mouth they need up there to justify their crap.
Richard Steven Hack - This sig is TOO GODDAMN SHORT TO DO ANYTHING USEFUL WITH! MORONS!