Posted by
ryuzaki0
on from the to-an-independant-analyst dept.
cheesybagel writes "In this EETimes article SCO claims to have shown their evidence to our independent analyst friends from the Aberdeen Group. The evidence, all 80 lines of it, allegedly even has identical comments."
Re:Has anybody considered
by
ClosedSource
·
· Score: 0, Troll
So first SCO is at fault for not showing any evidence. Now that they have, the claim is that they can't prove the code is theirs. If the Linux community wasn't going to accept code as evidence, why ask for it in the first place?
In your post you are asking why this code, that you don't believe is valid evidence, be made public. Why should SCO bother? Besides, copied or not, you already have it. Just look in the Linux source.
Re:Has anybody considered
by
ClosedSource
·
· Score: 0, Troll
I should have said "isn't made public" instead of "be made public"
Re:Mac OSX based on Linux?
by
Lew+Payne
·
· Score: 0, Troll
Get your basic comprehension skills straight, geek boy...
"The article also claims that Mac OSX is just as vulnerable to attacks as any other Linux based system."
They didn't say it was based on Linux, you mental midget. They said it was just as vulnerable to attacks as any other Linux based system. It's in the same league as Linux when it comes to vulnerabilities. Is that so difficult for your programmatic little mind to comprehend?
You're a short-sighted idiot, too. Boy, I am certainly finding my share of mindless fools in this particular story.
It's not about any decent programmer writing 80 lines of code -- that won't cure the damage already done by distributing proprietary code. You will also be hard pressed to have a programmer replace those lines of code, under a "clean-room" environment. Don't know what that means, as it pertains to intellectual property, geek boy? Better find out.
RE: Your offtopic troll
by
g_bit
·
· Score: 0, Troll
1.) You're an idiot.
2.) Do you think that your sub-average IQ friends could run linux without breaking something? No.
Slashdot Mirror
So first SCO is at fault for not showing any evidence. Now that they have, the claim is that they can't prove the code is theirs. If the Linux community wasn't going to accept code as evidence, why ask for it in the first place?
In your post you are asking why this code, that you don't believe is valid evidence, be made public. Why should SCO bother? Besides, copied or not, you already have it. Just look in the Linux source.
I should have said "isn't made public" instead of "be made public"
Get your basic comprehension skills straight, geek boy...
"The article also claims that Mac OSX is just as vulnerable to attacks as any other Linux based system."
They didn't say it was based on Linux, you mental midget. They said it was just as vulnerable to attacks as any other Linux based system. It's in the same league as Linux when it comes to vulnerabilities. Is that so difficult for your programmatic little mind to comprehend?
You're a short-sighted idiot, too. Boy, I am certainly finding my share of mindless fools in this particular story.
It's not about any decent programmer writing 80 lines of code -- that won't cure the damage already done by distributing proprietary code. You will also be hard pressed to have a programmer replace those lines of code, under a "clean-room" environment. Don't know what that means, as it pertains to intellectual property, geek boy? Better find out.
2.) Do you think that your sub-average IQ friends could run linux without breaking something? No.