Slashdot Mirror
IBM Doesn't Comply With SCO's Deadline
prostoalex writes "IBM refused to settle with SCO and comply with their deadline, expiring Friday the 13th. "We've got a strong defense case, and we're going to fight it", IBM representative is quoted."
← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)
I hate to say this, but who actually thought IBM would give in to this undersized bully?
Someone hates these cans.
Third round!! 50 bucks on IBM!!!
Purile as this comment is, I can't wait for SCO to get their asses kicked. This should be fun, a cathartic troll-bashing in the courts. Just a pity that the SCO were ever so desperate as to try and resort to this.
On Friday the 13th a black cat was found dead at SCO underneath a broken mirror.
SCO: I bet "Friday the 13th"
IBM: I call.
SCO: Umm..*looks at cards*
IBM: *smiles*
to be continued...
When modding "Informative", please make sure it both has a source and IS actually informative.
... was later heard to comment, "Ha ha ha, they are SOOOO dead".
So, this is really the dead line for SCO..
SCO managed to dig its own grave...
I'm sick of the money grubbing BS that's hovering around this case. It's clear that SCO is using the "open" in open source to try and challenge an IP issue because they know the court's never seen anything like this before. Also, the fact that M$ injects money into SCO is really suspect and deserves and out right investigation, because EVERYONE knows they [SCO] wouldn't be paying lawyer's for this FUD if they didn't have the cash.
Everyone here knows that Linux is kicking the shit out of Microsoft on the server, and they [M$]know it's not long before it starts cutting into their desktop margins.
This stuff is making me sick. It's a joke, it's friggin' "high-tech ambulance chasing".
I can't wait until they lose and I hope IBM find's something suspect in the case so that they can reveal the true evil behind all this...
I'm a bit confused here... do we want SCO to win, or do we want SCO to lose?
Ok, SCO is a bunch of scumbags, so obviously we don't want them to win.
On the other hand, if SCO loses, it will send a strong message to the world: "Stay away from anything GPL, or you'll find your proprietary code taken away from you."
I'm really not sure which outcome would be worse.
Tarsnap: Online backups for the truly paranoid
I posted about the dumb NY Times link issue yesterday in a similar post. A day later, a reader submits a story with a no-reg-needed URL. Way to go! Now, if we can get the message out to everybody that they should follow this pattern! Great work!
Who needs drama/soaps on tv when you have a show right here..
SCO and IBM's marriage isnt going well.
SCO says IBM is cheating with another OS.
SCO files for divorce.
SCO takes IBM's keys to the house away
IBM fights for the house.
Oh how I will tune in next week to see what happens.
It seems the Friday deadline looked good to traders, the stock price jumped... Yahoo has an article, written on Friday, about the jump.
Any bets on what happens to the stock price on Monday?...
IBM Chooses Caldera's OpenLinux eServer as First Linux Pre-load On Netfinity Servers
eServer Pre-load Saves Customers Time and Money
OREM, Utah--(BUSINESS WIRE)--April 24, 2000--Caldera Systems Inc., (NASDAQ: CALD - news), the ``Linux for eBusiness'' leader, today announced that IBM (NYSE: IBM - news) will pre-load Caldera's OpenLinux eServer on its IBM Netfinity servers.
The Netfinity servers may be purchased either pre-installed or bundled with OpenLinux eServer through IBM Direct. This is IBM's first Linux pre-load on Netfinity servers.
IBM believes that Linux will help drive the long-term growth of the Internet by providing an open application platform that can harness leading-edge technologies and simplify customer choice. The common application platform will help ensure software interoperability across heterogeneous servers.
"Fighting terrorists with millitary might is like killing a mosquitor on your Dad's forehead with a rifle."
Since I don't have the money to defend myself in court like IBM, I'd really like to comply with SCO's claims that not just linux, but a lot of other software infringes on SCO's claimed copyright. I'm just a bit puzzled as to how I might go about this.
.tgz files and post the URL here, I can download it and take care of it myself.
...
For example, I'm looking at a line of code in one of my GPL'd programs:
i += j - n;
Does this infringe on any code claimed by SCO? How would I know?
The only way I can think of is that SCO should send me a copy of their code. I can easily write a little perl script that will compare every line of my code with every line of theirs, and I can rewrite anything that seems to be infringing.
Can anyone think of another way?
Since my code is GPL'd and on my web site, SCO could do it themselves. But they are probably pretty busy, so I'd rather do it myself. Anyway, recent history shows that when they find infringing code, they don't send the programmer a nice message so the code can be changed. SCO just sues them for big bucks. I'd much rather avoid this threat, and save them time, by eliminating any infringements myself.
SCO doesn't need to send me their code. If someone at SCO would just package it up in a few
Eagerly awaiting the URL
Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.
Linux software companies could also become SCO targets. "Do we have potential issues with Red Hat, SuSE and other commercial Linux distributors--yes, we might," Sontag said, adding that chances for negotiating with such companies appear to be slim.
Bel, the mostly sane.. "Of course I can't see anything! I'm standing on the shoulders of idiots." -- Me
Of a case involving MCA Universal, Nintendo and Donkey Kong.
It ends up Universal didn't actually OWN the rights to Donkey Kong, but bullied several companies, and sued Nintendo anyway... and ended up paying 1.8 million for the trouble.
Ryan Fenton
...of something strongly in doubt.
First off, SCO has to prove that the code in question is in fact "theirs". Considering the rather incestuous family tree that is UNIX that is not so cut and dry.
Additionally, there are allegations that SCO has been helping themselves to GPL'd code without credit or redistribution.
No, the thing we're learning here is that if you really have an IP case against Linux or another GPL project than just be right out in the open. Document the code and PROVE your case. Don't hide behind lawyers, NDA's, horribly out of context quotes and vaguely threatening letters.
And, oh yeah, it helps if you can at least stick to one story for greater than a week.
--- I wish I could hear the soundtrack to my life. That way I'd know when to duck.
SCO can't compete with Linux. Its UnixWare OS, while a fine middle level server OS, doesn't have the the scalability, hardware support or applications that Linux has. They know it. SCO couldn't make money selling its own Linux.
So, it does what M$ could only dream of: launch a self destructive lawsuit in a last, desperate gasp of trying to save its business and destroy Linux, unleashing the greatest FUD attack witnessed yet. People are scared. M$, with its "license" pulls the strings, and watches with glee. "I told you so!" M$ will say. "You can't trust open source!"
SCO needs to be destroyed. No bought or settled with, but crushed, utterly and completely. What they have done is unethical, immoral and (hopefully) completely without legal base.
CDE open sourced! https://sourceforge.net/projects/cdesktopenv/
When is the class-action countersuit going to begin?
You mean like Beowulf clusters? (Who were those copied from?)
Puh-leeze. Any Operting System has to have certain features and capabilities. Of course there's going to seem to be some copying involved because everyone's working to the same goals.
There is NO advantage to SCO successfully prosecuting this case. First off, the "IP" that they're claiming and trying to protect so jealously is something that they bought fourth hand. They didn't even create it themselves.
Second, they've been gladly trying to make a business from others' IP and when that didn't work out they suddenly decide that they need to pursue licensing?
Licensing IP advances nothing. It's just making everyone pay over and over again for the same damn thing. To make matters worse they're pursuing this with all the class and aplomb of any eight-year-old shouting "I'll just take my bat and ball and go home!"
--- I wish I could hear the soundtrack to my life. That way I'd know when to duck.
Directly from the article:
" The dispute between SCO and I.B.M. has not yet slowed the advance of Linux in the marketplace, according to industry executives. But the prospect that the suit may linger indefinitely can only add to the anxiety of corporate technology buyers.
"They're really concerned," noted George Weiss, an analyst at Gartner. "The significance of this case is unclear, but there's no question it has gotten the attention of people." "
SCO & MS are injecting some good ol' fashion Uncertainty & Doubt into the minds of corporate IT people considering a Linux project with IBM. Both SCO & MS have nothing to lose by bringing this case.
Win: They get some $$ and stop IBM's new Linux business strategy
Lose: They spread enough UD around to make buyers hesitate, thus still stopping IBM's Linux business.
THIS SPACE FOR RENT Call 1-800-555-CARL
> Modern OSS lack original ideas.
No it doesn't. Look at GNU Radio. You can use it to decode HDTV signals. Try finding non-free software that does the same thing. The linux kernel has VFS (Virtual Filesystem Switch) which acts as an abstraction layer allowing you to mount and use many different file systems in the same way. That's pretty original. Look at OpenBSD. It has encrypted swap space and random pids. What other OS has that? Look at apache. Before apache you couldn't have more than one website per box. Look at Gnutella, it was the first distributed p2p software ever. And the list goes on....
Correct me if im wrong but didnt SCO aquire Xenix from microsoft some time in the eighties, Xenix then becoming SCO OpenServer. I wonder if this is a reason microsoft and SCO seem to be such good chum's. Also wouldnt it be embarasing if code from what was Xenix turned up in Linux!
2.4.21 is out.
Now, what's particularly interesting is that it's arrived right at the dead time between SCO treatening to do something, and actually doing it.
If I wanted to thumb my nose at SCO, I'd release a kernel right now (probably call it the "recumbant bicycle" release, or something). Of course, the dev time for the stable series is so long, that it's just coincidence - right?
So why did Marcelo say he was planning 2.4.22 in a few weeks?
If SCO's aim is to hurt linux, I think that they just got a good demonstration that the engineers (who, in terms of OSS, are the only ones who count) don't care about them.
If IBM illegally copied code that rightfully belonged to SCO,and is large enough to warrant real copyright protections, and it made it's way into linux, then we want SCO to win against IBM, and we want SCO to do the right thing, which is let us know which code it is so the linux world at large can work to remove that code from future versions.
Furthermore, realize that we aren't obligated to remove it immediately; even if IBM copied it into, say, OS2, their customers would not be obligated to uninstall their software. SCO can claim damages, but claiming control over all of linux sure isn't going to happen.
On the other hand, if scos claims are really baseless, we want them to die, because they suck.
To date, SCO has signed new licensing deals with two companies. One is Microsoft; the other has not been identified.
Could the other one also be Microsoft? Just thinking.
The dogcow says "Moof!"
Friends, I have seen the future.
The SCO Group has three core businesses now. One is OpenServer and UnixWare, which as we all know, suck to high heaven and have never had more than 2% market share in the Unix market. They also hav-- er, had their UnitedLinux offering, but now that we have discovered just how much Darl McBride hates Linux, it's safe to say that SCO OpenLinux is history.
That leaves us with SCO's newest business: SCOsource, their gambit in the lawsuit industry. Now, every time I think about SCO and the lawsuit and the questions being raised, I am reminded of a certain Texas energy trading company that is no longer among the living. SCO can't even confirm how much Unix IP they actually own. Novell says they have the patents as a certainty and some of the copyrights as well, and SCO won't say what they actually own. Meanwhile, SCO says that SCOsource is a key business unit, allowing them to record their extortion fees as regular income, suddenly making them a "profitable" company.
Consider Enron. They inflated their revenues by trading energy that didn't exist and raping their customers for doing so. Now look at SCO. They're suing their customers, claiming infringement of IP that may not exist (they certainly won't confirm or deny the existence of it!).
You'd think investors would have learned from the Enron incident, but nope. SCOX is over $10 for the first time in its history, and McBride and his FUD-spewing lawyer-demons are just waiting for the perfect opportunity to cash out. I just pray that justice is done and that this fscked-up company will be wiped off the face of the planet.
"I am root. Bow before me." To this I say, "You are root, and you bear the sins of the world upon your shoulders."
Microsoft, pays SCO, Microsoft buys the leading AV solution Rav antivirus and announces they will discontinue the Linux product line. What's next they buy Netscape from AOL and say they're discontinueing the linux version and all the code that netscape put in now is not licensed to mozilla and the list can go on.
Obviously the monopoly lawsuit has done nothing but bolster Microsoft into doing more drastic measures to ensure they're the only choice when it comes to running a computer.
How the hell did this teenage troll get modded up? In case anyone actually believes he has a valid point (even though he can spell neither 'hobbyist' nor 'bogus'), here is a little rebuttal.
First, OpenBSD is probably one of the LEAST innovative software projects. It has to be -- innovative means untested, which usually means insecure. Hardly appropriate for a system which strives for the ultimate in security.
Second, SCO's claims have nothing to do with originality of ideas. They have everything to do with alleged code theft. You will have that problem in any open-source project, period. If it's actually innovative, you may also run into patents, which are much more of a problem.
Third, nobody wants "innovative" software, if innovative simply means "different". This is the fundamental difference between a computer science research project and enterprise-class software (which is what Linux is quickly becoming). Rejecting compatibility, adding "cutting-edge" features, and creating a brand-new untested design are all symptoms of amateurism and are OK for college students, but not for serious use. Rejectng backwards compatibility and/or a proven design is just like saying "let's tear down New York City and rebuild it with wider streets in order to solve traffic problems." It's a rather childish suggestion.
No kidding, while I was reading the article I was thinking to myself, hmm this seems familiar. I then realized I read the dead tree version of the article yesterday.
Why not fork?
Ok, let's play what if.
Suppose there was a meeting. There were no notes taken of this meeting. No emails or memos were ever written that it even took place.
The meeting was between Microsoft and SCO.
Microsoft promises to keep SCO afloat...doling out money to them over the next 10 to 15 years. In small chunks. First up is to buy a license from SCO...totally out in the open. Saying that they just want to be on the up and up with any code they may write in the future.
But in exchange for Microsofts funding, SCO must openly attack Linux...the only thing that Microsoft truly fears. They must attack Linux, and all the big companies that support it. They must stir up a huge shit-storm around Linux and spout off FUD like there is no tomorrow. This will put doubt in the eyes of future Linux adopters, investors and users while Microsoft gains an even larger foothold.
But remember, there are no documents ever written to this effect. No emails that can be found or memos to be brought forward. No one even knows what is going on except the people at the top. No one has actually said "Linux must die". But this is the ultimate goal.
Just a thought.
"Music is everybody's possession. It's only publishers who think that people own it." - John Lennon.
How can you say this?
Although Linux originally started as a unix clone, it was derived from Minix which in turn was based on the unix methodology. But Linux has changed, grown, if it hadn't why would people now be using it?
Open source is different for exactly the reason that its open source, anyone can look it and they are free to change it. This means that the software is continually evolving - sometimes using multiple paths, with each contributing to the overall future of the software. Who knows what Linux will look like in another 10 years? but at least it can adapt, new hardware vendors can view the source and optimise their hardware/drivers ready for Linux and if needed the kernel itself can be changed to help accomodate them.
As other people have said any software can become tainted with other proprietry code, especially when you have source licenses from many
vendors used on one of your products.
Take for example the MSQL/Timeline patent issue.
How many people would be willing to start from scratch now? look how long the hurd has taken to emerge, and even now it uses code from Linux to help it take off.
Some would say that Gnome and KDE are just Windows wannabes, but for how long? again they will evolve over time as people demand new ideas and concepts.
So it's important that open source comes out of this mess as clean as possible because if it doesn't then important contributors may be scared off and thus reduce the speed at which the current open source movement is expanding.
This is purely a knee-jerk reaction by SCO^h^h^h Caldera to take as much as possible from our community when they realised that their business model had failed.
It was, of course, King Kong that Universal did not own - making it an even more appropriate story, because Nintendo actually showed that King Kong was public domain! Much of the 1.8 million was to pay for the damage caused by the lawsuit to companies connected to Nintendo... which will be interesting to see what happens with Linux-related companies getting in on the action.
Also, note another connection between Universal and Nintendo - yet again, the offending company had deep, friendly connections with Nintendo and their games, yet still somehow decided to go through with the worthless threats and lawsuit.
Amazing.
Ryan Fenton
Or at least, I feared they might. It is common for very large companies to settle even poorly founded lawsuits, because it is cheaper than fighting them.
IANAL, but it was always my impression you couldn't claim trade secret protection and copyright protection. Copyright protection pertains to works that are explicitly meant to be published and trade secret for works whose publication would destroy their inherent value. Note most companies claim copyright on the object code not the source.
It was a big legal brouhaha in the 70's and 80's on whether object code was copyrightable as it wasn't a human readable entity (yes it does depend on the human).
My question is really does anyone know what tools are being used to build SCO unix products ? And, are there decompilers that could reasonably show that SCO stole GPL CODE.
Lets face it the reason that SCO is being so secretive is they are the thieves hoping to pull a fast one on the world. Its pretty much obvious that SCO isnt protecting anything new or revolutionary. My guess is SCO had programmers that were either pressed to meet deadlines or got involved in a little intracorporate one upsmanship , and appropriated GPL code, thinking how could anyone notice.
The SCO source is the big mystery here. If it can be shown that significant parts came from GPL or the open source community (i.e. berkely unattributed). Well there goes SCO down the toilet where they belong.
SCO lawyers after the deadline passed - "We're going back to get a bigger boat, right?"
the major advances in civilization are processes which all but wreck the societies in which they occur - A.N. White
...and then shuts down all their actual work activities and makes every single SCO employee work out the remainder of their contract fetching coffee and donuts for IBM's IP lawyers and mopping floors.
At the end of each contract IBM can then lay off the employee as 'redundant' because they have decided to shut down their 'total jerk' business unit.
OR
They could buy them out and then use the contract between Micro$oft and SCO to irritate the hell out of MS.
Either way it's gotta be worth a few million to a company the size of IBM to end this bullcrap and win the love of the open source community. I imagine there will be a brutal court battle and, if unsuccessful, IBM will then 'invest' in SCO.
Read Pynchon.
Ah! I understand now. If I simply remove all the comments from my code, I won't have to worry about infringing SCO's copyrights.
/. can get it into a web page, especially if I use the Preview button. In fact, I'd bet that a lot of they have typed in just such a program as soon as they read the parent comment.
I can do that. All it takes is a little perl program. I can probably do it as a one-liner. And I'll be sure not to comment it.
One thing that puzzles me, though. There is an old theory about the lack of comments in the original Bell Labs unix: Before sending it out to universities, the folks at Bell Labs ran it through a filter that deleted comments. This was later verified (by Ken, IIRC) as not a rumor at all; they had such a program.
This would imply that if you actually use the AT&T code, all you have to do is add comments, and your code would be different enough to avoid an infringement charge.
This is apparently what SCO did, since they are charging people with stealing their comments. So making any infringing linux code should be especially easy. Just strip out all the comments.
I'd post a URL for a comment stripper, but I'd bet that any perl, tcl or python hacker here can type the program faster than
Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.
For a company that seems to hate Linux so much it is funny to see via Netcraft that Sco's site SCO.COM is running Linux. Seemed they used to use SCO UNIX but switched to Linux according to the graphs. Yet IBM, that pushes Linux runs on AIX.
Not only are there lines of SCO's code in Linux, but also derivative products based on SCO intellectual property have been created, Sontag said. Getting all of the protected bits out, assuming SCO's claims are valid, would be a huge chore.
"Our biggest issues are with the derivative code," he said. "It would be almost impossible to separate it out."
This is the first time that SCO has essentially admitted in the open what some have been saying all along: SCO does not believe that Linux coders can ever "clean" Linux up; simply replacing "infringing" lines of code with new code is not enough becasue they are trying to claim that Linux itself is now a derivative product of SCO Unix.
The chances of this going away before SCO is utterly dead are zero. SCO has no intention of easily revealing the "matching" lines of code because they believe that they are irrelevant... as far as SCO is concerned, every line of code in Linux is infringing and it is essentially beyond repair. Since it is open-source, Linux can't license proprietary code from SCO. Ergo, the courts should essentially put an end to Linux in much the same way that they did with DeCSS code. At least, this seems to be how SCO sees it.
STOP . AMERICA . NOW
The entire SCO/IBM saga seems like it was written by an amateur scriptwriter. Was SCO's whole idea to cast this as "Open Source vs. The Big Boys"?
After reading a lot of the source material from /. and other sites, it just made me start wondering if someone at SCO thought the Open Source community would jump on their bandwagon in some way, but things went terribly wrong (i.e. Open Source advocates saw them as more threat than friend).
I'm not so naive to think IBM a steadfast friend of Open Source - they and all for-profit companies are out to make money, and they believe Linux can help them do that. It just strikes me as ironic that a former OS-directed company cast themselves in the role of villain, and the corporate giant would be seen by many as the hero in this case.
Ah, sweet irony, "...like goldy and bronzy..."
- Jack
The linux kernel has VFS (Virtual Filesystem Switch) which acts as an abstraction layer allowing you to mount and use many different file systems in the same way. That's pretty original.
No it isn't. The VFS/vnode framework was developed for SunOS 2.0 by Sun Microsystems in 1985.
# init 5
Connection closed.
Oh...
In a surprise announcement, today, SCO head Darl McBride, announced that his company had hired former Iraqi front man Tariq Aziz to handle media inquiries about SCO's legal battle with IBM. SCO's president and chief executive officer seemed very upbeat at the announcement, stating that Mr. had oodles of related experience.
Specious evidence, extravagant claims, hidden proofs, enormous odds.. Mr. Aziz has seen (or used) it all. He understands how it works, and he's shown himself able to handle even the most hostile media attention. We believe that he'll provide an excellent source of of knowledge and leadership.
When asked about the questionable morals of Mr. Aziz's former employer, Mr McBride blustered.
"This is about business -- not morals." said McBride. "Our job is to make as much money for our stockholders as possible within the bounds of the law. Mr. Aziz obeyed the decr... laws of his former country and we expect him to do the same here."
Questions about Mr. Aziz's immigration and legal status were brushed off as "a telecommuting issue". When asked about the former Iraqi functionary's whereabouts, Mr McBride only mumbled something about being "one with the source code".
Free Software: Like love, it grows best when given away.
SCO only damaged its image with the Open Source community doing this (they're so desperate). I hope IBM win this case so other companies trying to rip Linux learn their lesson.
:).
Linux is here to stay
Jose Vicente Nunez Zuleta RHCE, SJCD, SJCP
SCO/STAN Holy sh*t, dude. They're calling our bluff!
M$/CARTMAN YOU are soooo wasted. Screw you guys, I'm goin' home.
To-do List: Receive telemarketing call during a tornado warning. Check.
...Water is wet.
Honestly, who didn't see this coming?
It's in line with the former Minister of Information (God bless his soul): "I will revoke IBM's license... IN ONE HOUR!"
I doubt anyone seriously suspected Big Blue wouldn't just ignore SCO's demands.
SCO's spouted so much hot air over this I really fear for the effect this will have on global warming. They may have a case, maybe, but the way they're acting doesn't suggest they do.
When not anonymous, I work for IBM.
The lawyers there are PICKY.
When dealing with IP, before a project goes out the door, the lawyers go over the thing with a fine-tooth and make sure:
a) We have legal rights to what we're about to put on the market.
b) Everything we have legal right to, we've properly and appropriately protected. (Such as patented, if appropriate - it's not always.)
When buying software from 'outside', the lawyers go through the license terms to make sure it's 'appropriate', and sometimes it's a pain in the neck. Sometimes it seems it takes so long to buy a new, never-before-bought piece of software that by the time you can get it, the need is gone.
Before you can use Linux inside IBM, you need to take the online "Open Source Legal Course" (title probably abridged) and sign off that you have. The mini-course discusses the legal implications of the GPL, etc.
None of these cases is exactly like the SCO case. But the legal folks are so darned diligent about IP that I can't see anything like what SCO alledges happening inside IBM. The place just doesn't work that way.
FYI: Several of the images on SCO's site appear to have been lifted from a Lands' End catalog. Since LE does their own photography, and does not license their images to others, it appears that SCO might have a little IP problem of their own.
Modern OSS lack original ideas
Yeah, the entire suite of internet protocols was stolen from, uh, um...oh.
Well then Web Browsers must have been stolen from uh, um...oh.
Well then multi targettable compilers such as GCC must surely have been stolen from, uh, um...oh.
In that case, Perl, Python, Ruby and TeX must surely have been ripped straight off from, uh, um...oh.
Yeah, nothing inovative ever happens in OSS.
Anybody here knows who is Francisco Franco without googling?
I have a standing order with my brokerage house to snap up 10,000 shares when the stock hits a penny a share. My guess is that I'll be a major SCO stockholder in about 6 weeks.
Even if SCO are right, revoking the licencse is the wrong thing to do. The correct thing for SCO to do is to sue IBM. If SCO ask for an injuction to stop IBM selling AIX, it will most certainly be denied because they have offered no proof. Revoking the license is wrong, because (unless the contract explicily states that SCO can do this) it will violate SCO's contract with IBM. In IBM's suit, IBM shows the contract and SCO revokation letter to the judge and jury and SCO loses.
Two wrongs do not make a right, so SCO has to be careful to follow a clear and rational path to redress their alleged grievances. Their public statments already put them on shaky ground and can be used in any suit that IBM would want to bring. IBM are playing it cool and are not saying anything except denying SCO's changing allegations.
Not only did other flavors of UNIX, and even NT, have virtual filesystem layers long before Linux, they are all to this day better than the one in Linux. The only thing "original" about the Linux VFS layer is the severe NIH syndrome and the near impossibility of getting a satisfactory result from its brain-damaged locking.
Slashdot - News for Herds. Stuff that Splatters.
To "SHG", for Smoking Hole (in the) Ground.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
IBM just rolls over and says: "Well, you won. There's a whole bunch of mainframes out there. Have fun supporting 'em. We're out of this business... We're GPL-ing all of out patents. You'll be hearing from our customers and our customers' lawyers."
If I was SCO I'd shit my pants.
I know you should never gamble if you can't afford to lose. But how about never fighting if you can't afford to win.
MSBPodcast.com The opinions expressed here are my own. If you don't like 'em... Think up your own stuff.
It seems the Friday deadline looked good to traders, the stock price jumped... Yahoo has an article, written on Friday, about the jump.
We all know that it is you, Steve trying to inflate the SCO stock. It is very foolish of you. Believe me there are numbers of more funny things you could do with a billion dollars.
Steve Balmer has reported selling about 60 million shares
Linux is *NOT* derived from Minix. The two OS's are very different creatures, Minix uses a Mach microkernel for crying out loud.
Linus was running Minix (with GNU toolchain) when he started writing Linux, and Linux used the MinixFS until it got its own filesystem (ext). Thats it.
it's just too easy to point a finger at MS each time linux is attacked in some shape or form. Sun is actually getting hit alot harder by linux's popularity than MS. Second undisclosed company licensing SCO's "technology"?? hmmm Sun Micro?
I read SCO's comments differently. To me they seem to be saying "there are tons of other stuff based on Linux out there now. Like TiVo and embedded devices. We deserve royalty payments for all of this stuff too!".
Freedom Is Universal
Linux-Universe
Just a few points and questions:
The linux kernel has VFS (Virtual Filesystem Switch) which acts as an abstraction layer allowing you to mount and use many different file systems in the same way.
NetWare had that since forewer. That's how you presented a native filesystem to Mac, DOS, Unix and later Win95 users on the network. You just had to install the namespace module for the related filesystem.
Look at OpenBSD. It has encrypted swap space
Is that in any way different from software that encrypts your whole HD (including the swap file) like PointSec or Safeguard?
Before apache you couldn't have more than one website per box
This was possible with IIS in 1997. Was this feature available in Apache back then?
Sigged!
I think you've been too confused by the idiotic "They GPL'd their code when they sold linux", which is probably not true.
SCO clams that someone from inside IBM inserted their code into Linux, so even if they had never touched the GPL they still would have had code leakage (which is debatable anyway)
autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
Let's assume for a while that someone from inside IBM actually did take code directly from something SCO owned but IBM was leasing. Let's also assume that SCO has browsed the cvs commits (or whatever source control linux uses) and can prove that it was someone from inside IBM that actually did the copying.
If SCO can't be held responsible for releasing linux (and thus their own code that was copied into linux) under the GPL, how the hell can IBM as a company be held responsible for something illegal that an employee of theirs did? Why are they going after the company instead of the person who actually did the commits? How do we know he did it while at work, as opposed to on his free time?
Shouldn't the goal of any lawsuit be to remove the offending code from linux? I'm sure a ton of people would be willing to rewrite something similar for linux to make this all go away.
It just seems silly... The police don't go after my employer if I get a speeding ticket. They wouldn't blame my employer if I stole some code they had licensed from someone else and put it on the internet (they would blame me!). Unless, of course, they somehow have proof that this was a company sponsored action (which I doubt), or they could prove negligence.
Ah well, what a big mess.
I always thought that OpenBSD's goal was to create bug-free software by "doing things right". This includes fixing bugs, and taking steps to ensure that they're not created in the first place. Security is simply an after-effect of software that is designed right, without bugs.
OpenBSD has made some innovations here, like somewhat more paranoid string functions in libc, and probably some changes I'm not too familiar with, since I don't use OBSD much. (Though I do somewhat, and like it very much.)
Anyway. Then you have your encryption. OpenBSD uses encryption where a lot of other Unices didn't. OBSD is what inspired most of us to ditch telnet. They raised public awareness of the problem.
Unix security was actually something of a joke before groups like OpenBSD came along. If you don't believe me, look at an older release of a proprietary Unix. Unix was notoriously buggy. Buffer overflows were more common. OBSD changed the general attitude towards creating bug-free software on Unix, at least somewhat.
The state of Linux binary compatibility is not that bad, and the state of source compatibility is much better.
I don't think introducing an incompatible interface, or changing a struct somewhere that will require recompiles of maybe a few programs or DLLs, has quite the same consequence as tearing down a city. Most of these changes occur in the kernel, or in internal parts that programs don't have to worry about, such as parts of the kernel that userland doesn't see, or parts of a DLL that programs aren't supposed to be using. If any struct is exported somewhere, people generally try to make that struct forward-compatible. The libc also does a good job of generally keeping things happy.
There aren't a whole lot of changes in Linux or GNU libc that cause an old binary not to run, especially if you keep old libraries around.. Most Linux apps you will use will have source available anyway, and if not, you're not out of luck, either. I remember one instance, when an old binary I needed wouldn't run. I wrote a small DLL which I inserted into LD_PRELOAD that emulated the old behavior of a syscall that had changed. It worked.
One thing that is annoying at times, I'll admit: proprietary kernel modules. They always break, because it's hard for them to stay one step ahead of Linus and his merry men. It's possible that they need to have more of a separation between drivers and code that is subject to change... But some of the breakage I can understand, and expect. For instance, much of the code that breaks between major releases, e.g. 2.2 -> 2.4 -> 2.5. Drivers break between NT -> 2k -> XP too. Even from 98 to 98-SE and ME, Windows drivers broke! Kernels and subsystems change structure, and they need to in order to improve. Do you want every driver to disable interrupts for the whole system? No; that ruins SMP performance. That's why that is no longer possible with 2.5. Drivers will need to be adapted. Tough.
Compatibility can go too far, too, and compromise the integrety of a system. Look at Windows 95, or, say, the IA-32 architecture. Both bend over backwards to be compatible with 16-bit code. There are plenty of operating systems and processors that can be considered "cleaner" than those, and both Intel and Microsoft have moved in the direction of abandoning the old stuff anyway. The current Windows isn't designed with 16-bit code in mind. Neither is IA-64.
There's also bug-for-bug compatibility, which is bad in the long run. For instance, when
Remember, Linux is not the target, it's the means.
SCO want to make money from licensing Unix, but the really major sellers of Unix based systems all bought perpetual licenses and have since enhanced their version of Unix in many ways. None of this makes any money for SCO. In fact because they have neither the ability nor the resources to duplicate the enhancements, SCO's sources are now almost worthless.
But, if SCO could win in court, not only would they get damages, they could also ask for and probably get access to the code that IBM wrote which would be folded back into SCO unix. If IBM loses, SUN and HP would be next to be accused. The grand plan is to bring control of Unix back to and only to SCO with all existing licensing cancelled by the courts.
Fortunately, SCOs case is weak, IBM can keep them in court from now to doomsday. As this will be heard in _civil_ court, damages can and will be adjusted depending on the actions of SCO. So far they have made _no_ attempt to minimize the damage to their IP. Very bad move and the judge will no doubt make a point of mentioning it...
I love it! Let's you and him fight!
IBM is closely involved in many businesses with all kinds of trade secrets. To settle, even for a penny, is to say "yes, we were careless with SCO's trade secrets". What would happen to IBM's lucrative services business if they settled? How many businesses would start worrying about what IBM might leak to a competitor or appropriate for their own benefit?
They have to be like Caesar's wife: absolutely above suspicion.
It may be unfair to single out IBM, though You are right there was a class action suit info however one should remember that they had an CEO (very prominent, he began an extraordinary career at IBM in 1949 and he has served as Chairman of the Board of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York and being in the Bilderberg Group)who was as far away from beeing a nazi as you can get. Or was that later??...hmm yeah -81, just in time to get gates to deliver an OS(google webcache-only the cache is alive) as it says at the harvard site, they key person was Mr Opel, who was a friend of Mrs Gates. See? Networking networking networking.That should teach you to socialize more, dont sit in front of that smelly keyboard! Where was I? Right, IBM are our friends nowdays :)
"And in tonight's top story, Generalissimo Francisco Franco is still dead."
Veteran, Bermuda Triangle Expeditionary Force, 1992-1951
Some people are FUCKING STUPID.
SCO's stock is shit. It's worse than shit. It is the shittiest shit on Wall-Street.
Look at the P/E (Price:Earnings) ratio for SCO's stock. THERE IS NONE. IT IS UNDEFINED, because the denominator in that equation is ZERO. SCO is not making any money. Any pricing of their stock over $0 is over-rated.
social sciences can never use experience to verify their statemen
It will be very interesting to see what the infantile SCO tries to pull against the widely backed IBM.
Debunking the "59 Deceits"
Look at SCO's P/E ratios. SCO does not have a P/E ratio, because it is NOT making any earnings. The stock is thus, no matter how low it is priced, over-valued. Would you pay 50 dollars for a dollar bill just because millions of fuckwits were also paying 50 dollars for a dollar bill?
If you want to invest in a company, SCO is not the one to invest in. Never invest in a company with a P/E ratio that's larger than the average in it's industry, and larger than it's P/E:G ratio (price/earnings to growth...it's ok if the stock has a high P/E as long as it's growing rapidly enough to accomodate that P/E).
social sciences can never use experience to verify their statemen
Sorry, maybe I should have said that Linux was inspired by Minix. The creator of Minix, Andrew Tanenbaum wrote minix from scratch as a teaching aid, are you trying to say that he wrote mach too?. I also read his book which contained the source code to minix, that also made no reference to mach.
I would be interested to see where the minix that Linus was using was based on Mach.
Yea, ONLY IF you are smart enough to time the market and get out of SCO's stocks before disaster strikes, which is inevitable. This lawsuite is bogus, they have no earnings (P/E ratio is N/A, which means they have no earnings). Their stock is enormously over-valued.
Would any of the men who've made themselves multi-millionares or billionares by investing in the stock-market think SCO's a good investment? Do you think Warren Buffet or Peter Lynch would even consider investing in SCO? Nope.
social sciences can never use experience to verify their statemen
In five years, we'll be seeing advertisements with the following line:
"SCO, a division of IBM."
mwuahahahaah what a bunch of retards.
SCO Sucks Inc. I will have an operator that will answer the phone "Thank fo calling SCO Sucks Incorporated. How may I direct your call?" Or I good have whole sytem that lists the departments. "Thank you for calling SCO Suck Incorporated. Where every line of code comes from us. Press 2 for SCO Migration. Press 3 for SCO Complaints. Press 4 for for SCO SUE YOU. Pressing any number will have this response. "We are sorry we are busy Taking, I mean review GLP'd code." If you wish for us to review your code to make sure it is does not have UNIX please send it to sucker@sco.com.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
From the article:
Excuse me?
Software development was originally and traditionally open source. The first software came from academic researchers who had no need to sell software, and from computer equipment manufacturers who initially only viewed the market for selling hardware. There was no concept of proprietary software when the computer industry started. Eventually that was brought into the scheme of things as competitors came along, such as RCA when it first tried to clone the IBM mainframes. But all along, most academically developed software was free and open source. That tradition just became more noticed by businesses once critical mass (e.g. Linux) was reached that attracted everyone to it.
now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
As I remember, Bonnie and Clyde were sort of notorious for using Fords.
SCO's demise will be quick and unmerciful. they will not see 2004. IBM will and should crush them like the ants that they are. I bet microsoft is somehow behind thier silly Fud campaign.
Given the fact that Microsoft is financing SCO's anti-Linux crusade (or do you really believe that they pay millions for a license they don't need?),
Even if SCO has a reason a and SCO's code is in the Linux kennel, I think SCO will have a hard time finding a judge who will be simpathetic with SCO, after seeing how they have behaved.
SCO has done absolutely nothing to explain the problem to Linus, let alone given him enough information to correct the problem.
If SCO can't proove that Linus (or some other kernel maintainer) knew that the code in question was SCO's property, at some time or another, it will be very difficult to claim any meaningful damages from Linus or the other Kernel maintainers.
Likely the Judge will simply order Linus to remove the offending code without demanding any damages paid to SCO.
Either way, win or loose, SCO is fucked .. and that is the reason Micro$oft is paying. It's easily worth 100 milions to M$ to be able to point to the SCO case and say : "You can't fight the Open Source movement, just look at what they did to SCO!"
echo '[q]sa[ln0=aln80~Psnlbx]16isb572CCB9AE9DB03273snlbxq' |dc
On Dec 16 of last year, VP Michael Olson purchased 30,000 shares at the rather low price of, um, one-tenth of a cent per share (must be nice to be an executive, eh?), and then turned around 6 months later and sold 6000 shares for about $52,000.
So he made about $51,994 profit on a $6 investment, in 6 months. That's like a 433,000% profit, and we haven't even annualized it yet.
Where do I sign up?
Would I really have to sell my soul to get this deal?
---------------------------------------------
SERENITY NOW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
It seems as if SCO has a couple of more problems. First, it seems that they showed someone their evidence without an NDA. Second, they have been given notice by a Linux Kernel Hacker. Its one thing to sue IBM, but it is another to have to defend yourself from claims by hundreds of kernel hackers. Heck, the legal footwork alone will be expensive.
The dogcow says "Moof!"
People often use "tradtional" when what they mean is "conventional." I think that's the case here. That's a pet peeve of mine: 'traditional' implies something closer to (as you point out) the Free Software Foundation's vision of the world, because (duh!) it has something to do with *tradition* (complete with a shared set of ideas / attitudes / oral history etc). "Conventional" would better sum up what the writer is talking about IMO, basically "this is sorta how it's mostly done now, at least in the world of packaged software."
timothy
jrnl: http://tinyurl.com/c2l8yr / foes: http://tinyurl.com/ckjno5
That assumes you are correct but since you are Anon I will go with the fact are that you are a trolling punk SCO/Microsoft suckboy and don't have any thing to contribute to any discussion.
The N.Y. times seems to see it as it is. SCO faces a monumental hurdle. SCO will likely loose.
"Next?"
"No one ever got fired for going with IBM" that is the original FUD from the original fudsters at IBM. SCO/Microsoft have a shit load to learn it seems. If I had to choosse a system to deploy it would be IBM with Linux. I am keeping my job BABY! I can hear that being said a hell of alot more than "I am pissing my boots NO Linux in this shop!"
As you can see I don't care about my karma.
Now, I'm an expert crypotgrapher, so I know all there is to know about obfuskation (sp?).
Obviously not!
Steve M
SCO's big problem may be with their UNIX itself. It's my understanding that the original Bell labs Unix was riddled with code from BSD. If that be the case, how does SCO know whether they even have legal ownership of the code they claim that IBM is infringing upon? In other words, if I steal something from you and then Joe steals it from me, does my (illegal) possession of it mean that I have an action against Joe? Frankly, I doubt it. This is a hot potato that could drag on in court for years...and cast a pall over Linux the whole time. ....which explains why Microsoft has put their nose into the muck here.
IBM needs to be decisive and crush SCO like the insect it is...a cockroach that put into the wrong place can really 'gum up' the works.
Read the demand on the Inquirer: http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=10018
I'd love to see this happening on a large scale. Also, it would be great if more linux related organizations would follow Germany's example, and bombard the suckers with preliminary injunctions against them.
I'm sure they'd love to convince a judge of that. Trouble is that most of the 'enterprise' features they're talking about were available in Linux before they were in SCO. The old sysV code is about as relevant in todays world as DOS 3, vendors like Sun had to put in a tremendous amount of their own code, and borrowings from BSD, to make it usable. And the actual SCO branch has always been one of the least advanced Unices around.
With that kind of history, it's damn hard to see how they could have a case. More than likely the shared code, whatever it is, has perfectly legitimate explanations like common borrowing from BSD, obvious implementations of (and cut and paste comments from ) the POSIX specs, and so on. If there's anything left once you weed that kind of stuff out, I'd say it's more likely it came from Linux than the other way around.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Friends don't let friends enable ecmascript.
Financial Times has a small article just mentioning the outline:
"International Business Machines said it would ignore a threat by SCO Group, a small US software company, to recall a software licence on IBM's AIX operating system. [...] IBM has denied it violated its contract and said it would ignore SCO's Friday ultimatum."
Don't financial analysts need more info? Or, do they get the wealth of views on IT-business from Slashdot, too?!
In fact IBM is inherently no safer than any other stock. If you want safety, buy treasuries. The government can just print up more money if they need to pay you.
My understanding is that Sun already has a perpetual license. So no need to pay new money.
... that they did so was a transparent move to help finance the SCO FUD campaign (and with the aforementioned options scam in place, to make it all back by ripping off SCO's investors).
... Sun is one company that really could stand to benefit from this ... and their business practices to date show that they really did not "get" the free software/open source paradigm, and that many of their top leadership still don't.
... reducing, even decimating the wealth of the world (in this case the millions of man hours of volunteer programmers that is the GPLed GNU/Linux system ... and whose to say they won't move on to FreeBSD next ... nothing in the previous AT&T v. FreeBSD addresses many of the ever-changing allegations of SCO) to achieve a better position for oneself. Whoever the players are should be destroyed, by whatever means ... they and their mentality represent a threat to every person, every economic system, and every business they come into contact with. That Sun Microsystems might be one of these players is an intriguing thought ... their past conduct certainly makes them out to have been a Microsoft wannabe in the past.
Exactly his point. Microsoft could have gotten any code it needed from FreeBSD, free and clear. They didn't need to license a single line of code from the dinasaur product that is SCO
Sun Microsystems could be the silent second party to this, financing it by buying a license they don't need just as Microsoft did. They may well be hoping to score a home run and sweep up all of the GNU/Linux refugess in the unlikely event a clueless judge or brainwashed jury react in SCO's favor, but unwilling to publicly alienate the Linux community should the gambit fail (and they they have to finally get on the Linux bandwagen all the way).
It is an interesting thought
This is about capitalist oligarchs seeking to destroy a cooperative economy of abundance in order to maintain their own dominance of a capitalist economy of scarcity. It is the ultimate in negative-sum policy
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
I hope IBM wins the lawsuit and they file a counter-suit and put SCO out of business. SCO needs to learn not to fuck with companies that are 10 times bigger than it.
Has anyone really thought about the fact that IBM probably still has SCO's source code and they've probably done the work by now to find the duplication/similarities of the code? Because IBM has hugely more resources, they've probably already done a better job of identifying the code's origins, etc. I'm betting that IBM has found the code SCO is crying about, identified the code's origins/history, and is going to fight because they see right through SCO's little ploy.
I will laugh and laugh if the code ends up being identified as having been put there by Caldera, or the code never belonged to SCO in the first place.
I say to show our support for IBM we wear our suits to work weather mandatory or not, but instead of a black tie wear a bright blue one!
Until the case is thrownout/over.
wadda ya all think?
While many have mentioned that Boies represented the U.S. in the MS anti-trust litigation, what I have not seen as much mention of is that he and his former firm, Cravath Swaine & Moore (one of the oldest and most respected corporate law firms in the U.S.), represented IBM in the earlier U.S. anti-trust case against it. Cravath is in fact representing IBM in the SCO litigation. I am not up to speed on the nuances of attorney conflict-of-interest principles when it comes to former partners, but it is possible that IBM could allege that Boies representation of SCO in a litigation against IBM represented a conflict of interest.
I hate SCO for being such a shining example of everything wrong with US IP enforcement. I love SCO for being a shining example of why OSS licenses and standards are so important to industry and the general public.
Microsoft is another animal entirely. It is their blatant egomaniacal search for total control and domination of IT that is scary.
SCO is just a mosquito annoying the world, and about to be slapped into protein paste. Microsoft is the wolf pack that can actually do damage if they ever slip their loose leash.
I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
It's a common practice to type in a key algorithm from a textbook or online source as comments to explain what not-so-obvious code is doing. I would not be at all surprised to find that the "identical" comments are the result of such practices, though it's far more likely the code came from BSD or other sources.
SCO doesn't just have to prove there is identical code -- they have to prove that their IP is the originator of that code. I find the chances of that pathetically slim.
I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
S0C1 makes more sense.
You are being MICROattacked, from various angles, in a SOFT manner.
Article here: http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=10018 "Linux Coder puts SCO on notice". In short, the coder is annoyed they are distributing his code apparently out of compliance with GPL. My thoughts: This guy needs to get a lawyer and do this properly - i.e. a proper cease and desist, not an email. If we knew who it was, we could contribute to a legal fund to get him going.
From SCO's own site - I am not a lawyer - but it seems to clearly say - IBM appears to own any derivative works they create: http://www.sco.com/scosource/ExhibitC.qxd.pdf
Not the same thing. For example there is a Linux VFS interface that allows you to remotely mount an SSH session as if it were a local drive. Impossible on Netware. There are many other examples of similar feats that are impossible on Netware, Windows or any other "modern" OS.
Is that in any way different from software that encrypts your whole HD (including the swap file) like PointSec or Safeguard?
Hell yes. Encrypted swap space secures your data at run time. Encrypted hard disks decrypt the data before allowing user space processes access. That's a very bad thing, and negates the purpose of encryption in the first place.
This was possible with IIS in 1997. Was this feature available in Apache back then?
This feature was available at least a year before, I'm not exactly sure when version 1.1 came out, but it was the fist version of Apache to support it.
Face it, honkey, Open Source software has for the last 30 years or so defined the leading edge of software development. It certainly has never been dominant or as slick as the commercial alternatives, but it has always led the way.
That's called a Caldera. Heh
http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=10018
SCO has been sent a Cease and Desist by one of the kernel hackers. The hacker is demanding FTP logs and other records so he can determine the degree of infringement against his copyright. He is promising that he will sue unless SCO ceases their claims against other parts of the kernel.
Every contributor to the kernel can do this. I hope those scumbags get hammered for every penny they have.
Curious how the article uses the periods (I.B.M.)
to denote an abbreviation. I think that IBM, not
I.B.M. is their true name now. I.e., that
International Business Machines is not their name
now.
Lindows had a prior license agreement with SCO and they said the lawsuit against IBM and the alleged license infringement is not going to affect them. I tired to post a discussion on that subject here on /. But it wasnâ(TM)t accepted even though it is a relevant item-subject to this whole story. The article âoeLindows.com Revelation Could Be Fatal Blow to SCO Caseâ is posted on www.linuxdailynews.com: http://www.ofb.biz/modules.php?name=News&file=arti cle&sid=236
IP was invented for the sake of lawsuits.
Thinking that many users here disabled the Caldera slashbox, they put it under an IBM icon so we would see it.
Yeah, he's Mr Aznar's inspiration and role model. I hear there are quite a few busts of him in PP locales...
It's simple, really. SCO can keep their cards close to their chest all they want, but... IBM has probably looked into it long ago (they have TFS) So next thing we'll hear is something like:
CHOMP!!!
But for some of us who haven't really been in touch with the whole SCO/IBM/MS/Open Group/Linux/Everything else scene, is there any site that sorta has a timeline of the battles of this war?
I'm sure I'm not the only ignorant one...
-twb
There once was a company named SCO.
Intent on striking the GNU a foul blow.
With their well bought IP, those thieving bums,
Spreading their FUD and flapping their gums,
Wanted to use Tux as a ho.
How about extortain, rackateering and insider trading charges for the SCO folks? Honestly, lets look at the options. SCO says they have a case, and from what we are seeing they don't. Whether or not they have a case, SCO is fried. But let's have fun with the fall of the moronic. Extortion: If SCO does not own the rights to Unix as they claim they do, then the companies which have been put on notice could file extortion charges. The fact remains that they are argueing that there are problems with the Linux code, but they refuse to tell people, publicly, what pieces of the code have the suspect issues. That is like me walking up to you and saying that your car violates my patent rights. When you ask which ones I tell you that it confidentail. Then I demand royalties. Trying to enforce an unknown violation with out evidence and demanding money is extortion. Rackateering: This one could be fun. Federal law says that one guilty of rackateering has to fork out quadriple damages. Three or four charges of extortion could then make the scope of the criminal charges go to rackateering. Collusion: Isn't it interesting that Microsoft is one of two companies to license the suspect code? I think that a public discussion on the subject could be interesting. We all know that Microsoft claims that Linux is a "viral software" and a "threat." Is Microsoft supporting SCO to help put Linux down? Let's get the FTC there too. Unethical business practices: This is pretty obvious. Staying in business by acquiring and then sueing is pretty low if you ask me. Since invided the FTC for collusion, let's have them look at this one too. Insider Trading: Let's invite the SEC to the table for a little fun too. Can't let the FBI have all the fun. Let's look at whether any of the SCO people who would have had any knowlegde of this law suit have bought, sold or traded any shares in any company that got a letter from SCO. If within a time frame before or after the announcement stocks where sold, then it would constitute insider trading. The best part, is that it doesn't matter how many shares. Wouldn't it be fun if the CEO of SCO had sold off his IBM shares just prior? I think that the SCO execs would make great cells mates to Martha Stewart. Hey, between the suits, and counter suits from IBM, Novell, and the others that will shortly come a little external pressure from the FBI, Department of Justice, Federal Trade Commision, and the Securities and Exchange Commision might help SCO to make an informed decision about future "business moves."
The views expressed are mine own and do not express the views of my employer.
> They are claiming two things - first that "someone" put their code into Linux.
Yep. And if the code is in Linux, it's very possible that it was planted there by someone working for Microsoft or SCO.
Susceptibility to planted evidence is not unique to Open Source. I could just as easily pay a Microsoft employee to plant some stolen code in Windows.
It would, however, be harder to show the authorities that Windows contained the stolen code, due to Windows being closed source.
That's not an argument in favor of Windows. Quite the contrary, it is a good reason to use Open Source software. With Windows, for example, you never know what code you are running, or when it might come back to bite you -- see the Stacker case.
The only real danger to Linux is the same danger that faces every major Microsoft competitor, namely, that Microsoft is a criminal organization, that has been caught commiting sabotage and fraud (as shown by the evidence in the Java, DR-DOS and DOJ cases), yet the law keeps looking the other way.
> By refusing to tell anyone what the alleged code is, they are effectively saying that any code that might be in the kernel is worthless to them.
That's a good point, and I would go further.
By claiming that Linux contains stolen code, then refusing to say where it is, SCO is intentionally damaging Linux businesses. I liken SCO's behaviour to someone who calls in a bomb threat.
Even if they played no part in planting the code, by refusing to say where the "bomb" is located, SCO is making themselves an accomplice after the fact. SCO is taking part in a criminal act against Linux companies, the severity of which depends on whether the threat is real.
It seems to me that SCO is opening themselves up to a large countersuit.
This kind of "professionalism" has lead the IT industry to the state it is today.
I you go into story and by a new Pentium/Athlon, then you get a system which is still compatible with and 25 year old rubbish design - the Intel 8088. And yes, this ain't just a compatibility feature it enforces a crappy instruction set onto modern computers. The microcode thing Intel uses is Intel's confession that CISC is fucked for modern design, so they took a RISC core and added and instruction translation unit. Guess why Intel doesn't have compatibility to x86 for their Itanium systems ?
This compatibility religion has lead MS integrate old 16 bit rubbish into Windows 95 and 98 making the system more unstable and insecure.
It has lead Apple to glue to cooperative multitasking when even Microsoft ditched it. Only Jobs could kick them back into sense.
Sun has still old Java AWT 1.0 support in Java though they admit that it was fucked up beyond all repair.
Companies still have to fuck around with old Cobol code though this language purtefied several decades ago.
No surprise that these dot.com businesses went off like claymore mines with people with your mindset as employees.
Owner of a Mensa membership card.
... but the URL really is mis-spelt.
WebSite had it in 1996 or before. (It is yet another HTTPD descendant.)
One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
From IBM and The Holocaust by Edwin Black:
pages 9-10 page 10. page 20."The machines were [...] regularly maintained and upgraded by only one source: IBM." --Edwin Black, IBM and The Holocaust, page 9.
No consistently winning stock-investor has relied on selling short. It is speculation. Winning stock-investors spend their effort trying to determine which companies are undervalued, likely to grow, and which have good management. They don't waste time on unreliable losing tactics like selling short.
social sciences can never use experience to verify their statemen
I havent seen anywhere what SCO whats IBM to do to comply. How can IBM become compliant short of purchasing SCO.
http://www.wickedtoast.com
You categorize college students' research endeavours and amateurism as bad things.
I have nothing against college research projects. They are certainly NOT bad things. Without research, no field would ever advance. Instead, I was responding to criticisms that Linux was not sufficiently cutting-edge.
My point was that amateurism is not appropriate in software projects which are intended for serious use, just like experimental, untested drugs are not appropriate for patients needing treatment. In both cases, a dependable and proven solution is necessary. Research is good -- but it should stay in the lab until it is ready for general consumption.
No surprise that these dot.com businesses went off like claymore mines with people with your mindset as employees.
Actually, the only dot-coms that went were the ones that did not follow my mindset. Let's look at the examples you list -- Apple, Intel, Microsoft, Java. How many of them are out of business? Exactly zero.
Now let's look at the other players (many of whom followed your mindset -- make good but incompatible products). Alpha, BeOS, and others. Itanium, which you mentioned, is quickly losing market share to the x86-compatible AMD Opteron -- so now Intel will likely make a 64-bit x86-compatible processor.
I would say that backwards compatibility is pretty damn important. Hell, look at the Playstation 2 -- an extremely successful game console. It is backwards-compatible with the PS1 in terms of both software and hardware, and that undoubtedly gives it an edge. Look at Win95 -- would anyone have ever switched to it from DOS if it didn't run DOS and Win3.11 apps perfectly?
And there you put your foot in it. OpenBSD IS innovative, amazing cryptographic things on hardware and software levels, memory access changes, why do you think DARPA was going to fund them until politics got in the way? You failed to rebutt any of his points about OpenBSD.
OpenBSD refined the old BSD and made it more secure. They improved and fixed and added tons of stuff. However, none of that stuff is really new in the true sense of the word. OpenBSD is a refined version of UNIX. It's a proven and reliable solution, but it's certainly not cutting-edge innovation-wise.
Besides, you make it sound like I said that OpenBSD sucks. I didn't say that. I said that while it is a good operating system, it is not innovative -- which it isn't. And remember, my Microsoft-brainwashed friend: innovative != good.
No, innovation is p2p, innovation is bittorrent, innovation is all the things that have sprung from OSS, and from open standards and from creative minds.
Interesting examples, especially bittorrent. That program is NOT innovative. All of what it does has been done before -- by Kazaa, eDonkey, and Napster. Napster was the only somewhat innovative p2p program (and wasn't open source), and even that was not truly new. People did the same thing with WarFTPd and IRC for years prior -- Napster was just a refinement.
I'd like to see you say "nobody wants 'innovative' software" in a job interview.
Many of the things people say during a job interview are exactly opposite of what they actually think.
People want new ways to connect, they want new ways to conserve/use resources - OSS offers these things.
I am not sure what you are trying to say here or how this is relevant to the topic.
OpenBSD has made some innovations here, like somewhat more paranoid string functions in libc
This is refinement, not innovation. Securing string functions is a logical step to improving security. It's not something ground-breaking. But then again, innovation is way way overrated. Most good things are not innovative.
There are plenty of operating systems and processors that can be considered "cleaner" than those, and both Intel and Microsoft have moved in the direction of abandoning the old stuff anyway.
Backwards compatibility is supposed to provide a migration path, not stay there forever. Since Microsoft thinks that few people need 16-bit support, they removed it from newer versions of Windows. As for the "cleaner" systems -- in many situations, they trade minor inconveniences (weird architecture or minor speed problems) for major hassles (incompatibility with existing software). That's why these products almost never succeed in the market.
but how hard would it be to compare the code of the products in question to find matches? I'd think there was some way to find matching code in a decent amount of time. I also wonder if anyone hasn't done this already and I just missed it...
The thing with the Simpson case is that when the cops try to frame a guilty man; what matters is NOT that he's guilty. What matters is that the cops tried to frame him.
No matter that the perponderance of evidence was against OJ. Hell, I personally believe, too, that he DID kill Nicole. But you simply CANNOT let the cops get away with fabricating and planting evidence that wasn't there. Hell, officer what's-his-nuts even got mcaught ON TAPE referring to black people as the n-word, after having LIED IN COURT about NOT being a racist, and NOT useing the n-word.
Racism, bias, and corruption are simply NEVER acceptable, ESPECIALLY not in the police force. And if a few guilty men have to go free to keep the pigs honest, so be it. It's the lesser of the two evils.
cya,
john
Imagine all the people...
Are you being intentionally moronic, or is that your natural state?
;-)?
Are you being intentionally humor-impaired, or is that your natural state?
(And do I really have to include a
Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.
Is DeCSS dead? Doesn't seem like it. Similarly, how could they seriously put an end to Linux?
> Look at Win95 -- would anyone have ever switched to it from DOS if
> it didn't run DOS and Win3.11 apps perfectly?
Well, it didn't (not by a *long* shot), and yet many people did.
Still, it "mostly" (translation: almost) ran "many" (translation:
certain approved) legacy apps, and that was enough for the
marketroids to _claim_ compatibility, and without that _claim_
many fewer people would have accepted Win95 as an upgrade path.
Cut that out, or I will ship you to Norilsk in a box.
Actually, the US was attacked by Japan and Germany declared war on the US seven days later. When a nation declares war on you, it's customary to return the favor.
It was actually one of the wierder incidents of WW II as Germany was not obligated by treaty to declare war on the US. It just decided to do so.
Who's Shnnn?
There are reasons why democracy does not work nearly as well as capitalism.
-- David D. Friedman
that is why it's a republic not a democracy.
As you can see I don't care about my karma.
Which is why Shakespeare was right.
As you can see I don't care about my karma.
I am a US taxpayer. I am a war criminal you say. Come and get me. Better bring some real good friends however. I have no intention of going in peace. Hell I might even get one of my still legal firearms and shoot your worthless asses if you enter my abode uninvited.
This war criminal shit is a farce. If I am one. The French are for Algeria. The British are for Northern Ireland. I can go on if I have missed your nation state, religion or political affiliation.
It's not a democracy it's still a republic.
As you can see I don't care about my karma.
The article claims that the traditional kind of programming produces proprietary software. This seems wrong to me. Wasn't software in the beginning just an addition to very expensive hardware and only became later a product of it's own?
Are you aiming for political correctness, or the opposite? (-:
One thing the SlashCrowd seem to be reasonably even split on is the environmentalist/industrialist tension plane.
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
Surely you mean Chapter 7? Chapter 11 is merely, "oh dear, we're in the pooh, someone come and manage us out of it (yeah, right)", Chapter 7 is going down for the last time.
WRT your tagline, "I'm sorry, are the voices in my head disturbing you?" (-:
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
And yes, it's true that clubbing together is safer in the short term, but SlashDot has this wonderful AC facility, by means of which SCO employees and contractors can bitch their little hearts out from a friend's internet link and never have to pay the piper. (-: </hint> :-)
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
Twit! )-:
Would it be any different if SCO lost against a manufacturer of proprietary software?
(breaks out clue-by-four)... <thwack> <thwack> <THWACK!>
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
If we're lucky Darl will do the old "hold your breath until you turn blue" stick and wait too long.
--- I wish I could hear the soundtrack to my life. That way I'd know when to duck.
Thanks for the chuckle.
--- I wish I could hear the soundtrack to my life. That way I'd know when to duck.
cc -EC old/source.c >new/source.c
(OK, so it does all the #includes and #defines, too.)
JADBP
A small but (apparently) significant drop... and the conclusion that this means IBM is unlikely to settle.
But then, we knew that...
Especially when Hitler is on record as saying he would never declare war on anyone because only cissies do that (or words to that effect).
sigs are hazardous to your health