Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

The Power Behind the SCO Nuisance

Posted by michael on from the luke,-i-am-your-father dept.

akahige writes "Forbes has a fairly detailed story about the sordid history of The Canopy Group and all the various companies they've sued -- Microsoft (who they beat) and CA (this case is still pending), among them. Before joining Caldera, Darl McBride sued IKON Office Solutions, for whom he worked -- and won. And it also seems that a bunch of Canopy power players also sit on SCO's board of directors. The short summary is, 'these guys are professional litigious bastards -- be exceptionally wary.'" A local user's group is planning a protest for tomorrow. Reader myst564 writes: "After reading all of this SCO press I remembered that SCO once offered up all of their 'Ancient UNIX' (their words, not mine) source to the world while retaining all copyrights (i.e, no OSS license). Interestingly enough it WAS located here but isn't any longer: SCO's Ancient Unix. What's more you can read about the original release here at: Linux Today. I downloaded the source myself way back then but never did anything but delete it! Anyway, check out this comment. It's interesting that this was predicted in 2000!"

38 of 821 comments (clear)

  1. Here's a working "Ancient Unix" link.... by i_want_you_to_throw_ · · Score: 5, Informative

    You did not count on the Way Back machine Herr Doktor SCO?

    Here's a working link..

    Enjoy!

    1. Re:Here's a working "Ancient Unix" link.... by jonathan_ingram · · Score: 5, Informative
      From here:

      Trolltech's shares are currently owned by employees, the Trolltech Foundation, and 5 investors with the following distribution:

      Employees 71.0%
      Borland 8.3%
      Canopy Group 5.8%
      Trolltech Foundation 5.0%
      Teknoinvest 3.3%
      Orkla 3.3%
      Northzone Ventures 3.3%

      5.8% is hardly 'owning'.
      --
      -- Help Digitise the Public Domain at DP.
    2. Re:Here's a working "Ancient Unix" link.... by peteo · · Score: 5, Informative

      Heres their press relase.
      Those F'in bastards. You cant hide from your lies. Once its on the net its out there for EVER!

      240 West Center Street
      Orem, Utah 84057
      801-765-4999
      Fax 801-765-4481

      January 23, 2002

      Dear UNIX® enthusiasts,
      Caldera International, Inc. hereby grants a fee free license that includes the rights use, modify and distribute this named source code, including creating derived binary products created from the source code. The source code for which Caldera International, Inc. grants rights are limited to the following UNIX® Operating Systems that operate on the 16-Bit PDP-11 CPU and early versions of the 32-Bit UNIX® Operating System, with specific exclusion of UNIX® System III and UNIX® System V and successor operating systems:

      32-bit
      32V UNIX®
      16 bit UNIX®
      Versions 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7
      Caldera International, Inc. makes no guarantees or commitments that any source code is available from Caldera International, Inc. The following copyright notice applies to the source code files for which this license is granted.

      Copyright(C) Caldera International Inc. 2001-2002. All rights reserved.

      Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions are met:

      Redistributions of source code and documentation must retain the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer. Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution.
      All advertising materials mentioning features or use of this software must display the following acknowledgement:
      This product includes software developed or owned by Caldera International, Inc.
      Neither the name of Caldera International, Inc. nor the names of other contributors may be used to endorse or promote products derived from this software without specific prior written permission.
      USE OF THE SOFTWARE PROVIDED FOR UNDER THIS LICENSE BY CALDERA INTERNATIONAL, INC.AND CONTRIBUTORS ``AS IS'' AND ANY EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE ARE DISCLAIMED. IN NO EVENT SHALL CALDERA INTERNATIONAL, INC. BE LIABLE FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, EXEMPLARY, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES (INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, PROCUREMENT OF SUBSTITUTE GOODS OR SERVICES; LOSS OF USE, DATA, OR PROFITS; OR BUSINESS INTERRUPTION) HOWEVER CAUSED AND ON ANY THEORY OF LIABILITY, WHETHER IN CONTRACT, STRICT LIABILITY, OR TORT (INCLUDING NEGLIGENCE OR OTHERWISE) ARISING IN ANY WAY OUT OF THE USE OF THIS SOFTWARE, EVEN IF ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE.

      Very truly yours,
      /signed/ Bill Broderick
      Bill Broderick
      Director, Licensing Services

      * UNIX is a registered trademark of The Open Group in the US and other countries.

  2. Then the company sounds parasitic. by zptdooda · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Itâ(TM)s a small fish that feeds on big fish. Not symbiotically either.

    âBut it is very good at getting what it wants from other companies.â

    Thatâ(TM)s because (law) practise makes perfect.

    So then SCO isnâ(TM)t suing IBM because IBM is illegally interfering with implementing their business model, suing (IBM in this case) is their business model.

    What then are they really contributing? Is SCO really a software company? What is it? Maybe it contributes within Canopy, but not for a wider good.

    --
    Esteem isn't a zero sum game
    1. Re: Then the company sounds parasitic. by Black+Parrot · · Score: 5, Insightful


      > What then are they really contributing? Is SCO really a software company? What is it?

      Sounds like the so-called "technology firm" - a bunch of lawyers with a big patent portfolio and nothing better to do for society than shake down innocent passers-by, and use the proceeds to buy up more patents.

      --
      Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
  3. Feeling brave??? by monkey_tennis · · Score: 5, Funny

    Quote: "these guys are professional litigious bastards"

    Given the statement that's a fairly brave thing to say in a public forum :)

  4. Obvious opportunity by worst_name_ever · · Score: 5, Funny
    these guys are professional litigious bastards

    Thanks for the libel, we were wondering who we were going to sue today. See you in court!

    Sincerely,
    The SCO Corporation

    --

    In Soviet Rush, today's Tom Sawyer gets high on you.
    1. Re:Obvious opportunity by lovebyte · · Score: 5, Funny

      professional litigious yes, but bastard? I demand a DNA test !

      --

      I'll do it for cheesy poofs.

  5. Even better, you can still download the code... by myst564 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Yeah that's right, you can still download the code

    1. Re:Even better, you can still download the code... by eXtro · · Score: 5, Informative

      It depends really. A MD5 hash will only tell if entire files were misappropriated verbatim. So throwing on a GNU header, adding in a changelog entry for a bug fix etc would all invalidate the MD5 hash. I do not believe that there is any truth to the SCO claims, but MD5 hashes wouldn't be proof in favour of linux either.

      A first step would be to use a regexp to spit out all the comments into a file sorted by some key. Do this for both the SCO and linux code bases. Toss out all the comments which aren't in both lists and you now have a file with common comments. This would be where to start looking, if you see non-trivial verbatim comments then further investigation would be needed.

      --

      Chris Kuivenhoven is a thief, beware

    2. Re:Even better, you can still download the code... by mikeee · · Score: 5, Informative

      No, no, this was gone over before; you MD5 hash each consecutive five-line set (including overlapping ones) for each set of source, sort the list of hashes, do the same for Linux, and then run through the list of MD5s looking for matches.

      That'll give you hits for any five-line segment of code that matches anywhere between the two.

    3. Re:Even better, you can still download the code... by Xoro · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Unfortunately, the MD5 checking won't lead us to the core of SCO's complaints. After reading this inteview, it seems that they claim IP rights to all licensed derivatives of SysV, not just their "ancient" codebase.

      That is, they say their license agreements w/ IBM, Sun, etc. give them control over the bits in AIX, Solaris, etc. that were developed by the licensee. So it seems that if IBM develops a special memory locking scheme for AIX then shares it with linux, SCO still claims a violation even though they played no part in developing the code.

      Here is the relevant comment:

      When we take a top-tier view of the amount of code showing up inside of Linux today that is either directly related to our Unix System 5 that we directly own or is related to one of our flavors of Unix that we have derivative works rights over--we don't necessarily own those flavors, but we have control rights over how that information gets disseminated--the amount is substantial. We're not talking about just lines of code; we're talking about entire programs. We're talking about hundred of thousands of lines of code.

      Where people get a little confused is when they think of SCO Unix as just the Unix that runs the cash register at McDonalds. We think of this as a tree. We have the tree trunk, with Unix System 5 running right down the middle of the trunk. That is our core ownership position on Unix.

      Off the tree trunk, you have a number of branches, and these are the various flavors of Unix. HP-UX, IBM's AIX, Sun Solaris, Fujitsu, NEC--there are a number of flavors out there. SCO has a couple of flavors, too, called OpenServer and UnixWare. But don't confuse the branches with the trunk. The System 5 source code, that is really the area that gives us incredible rights, because it includes the control rights on the derivative works that branch off from that trunk.

      And they say the GPL is viral!

      Now I have no idea if this claim is true, if it's in the contract or if it's enforceable, but it make SCO's claims seem a little less bizarre.

      --
      Kill, Tux, kill!
    4. Re:Even better, you can still download the code... by Bazzargh · · Score: 5, Interesting

      He's talkin about MD5 hashing of small sections, as someone suggested the other day here.

      If you actually have the source code, there are other fairly quick ways to find copy & pastes, eg the BWT-based method I implemented in CPD.

      That method is pretty fast - it mainly depends on the file scanning time, not the sort we used to find the duplicates (eg using a suffix tree sort instead of quicksort won't gain you much here). However its a bit of a memory hog. I originally wrote the algorithm in perl, though, and it used a lot less - it would probably work on something the size of Linux.

      I've come up with a new variation based on rysnc that will be quicker than the original MD5 suggestion, still requires no access to the original source, and sucks a hell of a lot less memory than the BWT method. Its also possible to do incremental checks (extremely quickly) using this method, something we couldn't do before.

      There are other interesting techniques based on gzip and the like if this kind of thing interests you.

    5. Re:Even better, you can still download the code... by the+gnat · · Score: 5, Interesting

      it make SCO's claims seem a little less bizarre.

      No, it makes them seem a little more bizarre. SCO is still claiming that large chunks of original SysV code ended up in Linux, and that this predates IBM's involvement in the kernel. They have only recently amended their claims to cover technologies developed as add-ons to SysV but not originally part of it, which might be covered under some contract. Darl's bluster about the Linux community's indifference to IP rights has no real basis if the only violation were along the lines of IBM adding JFS or RCU to the kernel.

      I'd say this is actually the most bizarre claim made by SCO yet. I find it hard to believe that companies like IBM would have ever signed a contract that gave away so many potential pieces of IP, but this is almost more plausible than the idea that IBM would have allowed wholesale copying of original SysV code into Linux. I've heard of contracts this dumb, but IBM has produced many operating systems in the past fifty years and there's no reason for them to sign away their future for a not-particularly-advanced chunk of code like SysV.

      Regardless, SCO's credibility is pretty much gone due to the way they continually change their claims to be even more nonsensical.

    6. Re:Even better, you can still download the code... by tetra103 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Maybe it's just me, but it sounds like the death of System V UNIX. I believe the statement to be correct. Most all commercial Unix vendors branch from System V. Even Linux has a fair amount of roots tangled with System V. Just because most Unix OS's are dirived from System V doesn't make SCO's case any more legit though. That's just my opinion.

      Although I think SCO's lawsuit is nothing but FUD with the backing from Microsoft. In court who knows what will happen. O.J. got away clean and so did Microsoft. When it comes to the justice system, I have very little confidence that justice will be served. So maybe we do have something to fear.

      I don't know too much about what SCO is battling over, but I think the only safe Unix's out there are ones based off the BSD Lite tree. As far as I know, FreeBSD and NetBSD are totally free of System V source code right? So SCO couldn't even in their wildest dreams touch them with their sue happy plans could they? I'm not a *BSD advocate, but is this not true? I know BSD Lite wasn't a complete OS, but after the court battles in the early 90's with ATT and BSD, I'm under the impression that BSD did indeed purge ALL System V code from their tree. The kernel is totally free of ATT code as I understand it.

    7. Re:Even better, you can still download the code... by ichimunki · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Why go to all that trouble? If SCO wants to claim infringement it is up to them to prove that a) there is duplicate code and b) that the flow of code was from SCO into Linux and not vice versa (or from some pre-existing code base into both SCO code and Linux). So far, they've been very reluctant to even say which pieces of Linux are infringing. They don't have to show anyone there own code base to do that. And if they aren't going to at least say which parts of Linux are in violation, I think the best thing to do (unless maybe you are part of the IBM legal defense team) is ignore them until they do.

      --
      I do not have a signature
    8. Re:Even better, you can still download the code... by d_i_r_t_y · · Score: 5, Informative

      IAABAAP (i am a biologist and a programmer), and the 2 processes are not really similar. most higher organism genomes are chock full of very highly repetitive genetic filler/rubbish/crap, which makes the gene assembly *way* more difficult.

    9. Re:Even better, you can still download the code... by lspd · · Score: 5, Interesting

      If you strip the whitespace before hashing it does turn up a few interesing things.

      Comparing the code from the PDP kernel in sys3.tar.gz and the Linux 2.4.21 kernel there is a good match between the mfree function in usr/src/uts/pdp11/os/malloc.c around line 69, and the atefree function in arch/ia64/sn/io/ate_utils.c around line 187. It certainly looks like the version in SYS3 was used to create the version in 2.4.21. Take a look at the comments in these files, they're almost identical.

      The copyright on the Linux version attributes this file to Silicon Graphics. Anyone want to grep for the same comments in a BSD kernel or provide a history of this file?

  6. Re:This is great news for Linux by ldspartan · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I disagree. This court case will not be a test of the GPL at all, it will be a test of the lawyers on either side. My understanding is that SCO alleges that IBM breached their license of whatever it is that SCO owns and inserted it into the Linux kernel. It has nothing to do with the GPL, and the case promises to be so mind numbingly complex that little quality case law will come out of it.

    I used to think of SCO as a drunk in a knife fight, wildly stabbing about in the hope of drawing blood. This article indicates to me its more like a duel between two masters. I now understand why IBM has been so slow to act in this case, they understand their opponent and are preparing for a fierce battle.

    This is very much bad news.

    --
    lds

  7. Fairness is what is going to get linux killed by peripatetic_bum · · Score: 5, Insightful

    These guys in Utah are no dummies. The crunchies in the Linux community should be paying more attention.

    I know which side I'm on, and I know everyone is pretty sure they know what side they are on, but I cant help getting the feeling that Linux side is relying way to much on the Fair principle and forgetting that it is quite difference from Justice in the legal systems.

    What I am trying to say is that
    Justice does not equal Fairness.
    Ie It may not be Fair what SCO is trying to pull, but the legal courts are also concerned with what is Just and in this we are talking money and if the legal courts are about anything, they are about money. Making sure there are legal grounds to protect property (money).

    Thus, What I see is the linux community simply yelling ,"That's not Fair!" while SCO continues to pound away. How many of us had the "Life-isnt-always-Fair" revelation?

    Is the Linux community about to get the same?

    --

    Sigs are dangerous coy things

    1. Re:Fairness is what is going to get linux killed by JaredOfEuropa · · Score: 5, Insightful

      "Thus, What I see is the linux community simply yelling ,"That's not Fair!" while SCO continues to pound away."

      It's not just the Linux people yelling it, but Big Bad IBM as well! SCO may be in for a serious pounding themselves.

      The burden of proof is on SCO here, and I cannot imagine that they'll be allowed to block use of Linux because of a copyright infringement, without disclosing the offending code portions to Linux developers so they can replace/remove them. That would be like them sueing you for using patented and unlicenced building materials in the construction of your house, and demanding that you vacate the place and tear it down, rather than pointing out the offending bits, because that would be contrary to their trade secrets. No court would stand for that, especially if the material has been publicly published previously (without granting a license, mind), as has happened with the SCO code.

      --
      If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
  8. Joining the protest? by lynx_user_abroad · · Score: 5, Informative
    From the protest link:

    To close, let me re-iterate that this needs to stay legal:

    1) Go onto their property
    2) Talk to ANY customers entering and leaving the premesis
    3) Disturb normal business activities
    4) Block traffic or people on the sidewalk

    Perhaps there was meant to be a NOT in there somewhere?

    --

    The thing about things we don't know is we often don't know we don't know them.

  9. They still running GNU/Linux by lederhosen · · Score: 5, Interesting

    OS, Web Server and Hosting History for sco.com
    OS Server Last changed IP address Netblock Owner
    Linux Apache/1.3.14 (Unix) mod_ssl/2.7.1 OpenSSL/0.9.6 PHP/4.3.2-RC 17-Jun-2003 216.250.140.112 NFT
    Linux Apache/1.3.14 (Unix) mod_ssl/2.7.1 OpenSSL/0.9.6 PHP/4.0.3pl1 28-Nov-2002 216.250.140.112 NFT
    Linux Apache/1.3.14 (Unix) mod_ssl/2.7.1 OpenSSL/0.9.6 PHP/4.0.3pl1 12-Aug-2002 216.250.140.125 NFT
    SCO UNIX Netscape-FastTrack/2.01 26-Mar-2002 132.147.210.109 Caldera, Inc.
    SCO UNIX unknown 24-Mar-2002 132.147.210.109 Caldera, Inc.
    SCO UNIX Netscape-FastTrack/2.01 10-Oct-2001 132.147.210.109 Caldera, Inc.
    SCO UNIX Netscape-Enterprise/2.01 30-Mar-2001 209.1.8.14 Cable & Wireless
    SCO UNIX unknown 29-Mar-2001 209.1.8.14 Cable & Wireless
    SCO UNIX Netscape-Enterprise/2.01 23-Dec-2000 209.1.8.14 Cable & Wireless
    SCO UNIX unknown 22-Dec-2000 209.1.8.14 Cable & Wireless

  10. Re:Mmmmm by ksheff · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The Linux @ Work section on Forbes seems to be authored by pro-MS people. To them, linux is something only fanatics use. Unfortunately, it appears that most of what they are currently suing over was done by them before their current lawsuit happy management was in charge. It's bad when you wish Ransom Love was back in charge of Caldera/SCO/whatever they want to be called.

    --
    the good ground has been paved over by suicidal maniacs
  11. So, now we know the real reason for fear... by tizzyD · · Score: 5, Interesting
    It's not the legitimacy of the case, whether or not IP was stolen from SCO. It's all about lawyers, people who make their money be suing, buying, and financially bullying others. Thus, I predict there is no real IP violation here. The reality is that the case is vague enough and can be argued effectively by effectively lawyers to make it look like there is a violation. Whether or not there is one or not is immaterials, not germaine to the case.

    Does this strategy perhaps demonstrate the lack of any real basis to the case? Or is it that the case is vague enough so that there's the opportuninity for legal FUD to churn cash?

    Inquiring minds want to know.

    --
    ...tizzyd
  12. Stop Using SCO's products by clonebarkins · · Score: 5, Funny

    I almost wish now that I had been using SCO's products all along -- Just so I could make a declaration about how "I will never use them again!"

    But alas, some malevolent twist of fate has conspired to keep me from such bliss....

    --

    "The evil of the world is made possible by nothing but the sanction you give it." -- Ayn Rand

  13. Re:This is great news for Linux by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    There's an article on vnunet that hints at what is really going on. It's sleazier than most have even imagined. When IBM, SCO and Sequent got together for project Monteray, the Sequent code for RCU, NUMA and other scalability enhancements were integrated in to the SysV OS they were building. While Sequent, and later IBM, owned their own code, SCO owned the rights to determine its continued usage. This is a result of the rather odious old ATT license agreements.

    So, what SCO is claiming isn't that Linux has code taken from anything SCO ever created. They are claiming that Linux has code that was created by Sequent (now owned by IBM) and IBM and that the Unix licensing agreements give SCO rights over that code. SCO is suing IBM for giving away its own code because a goofy licensing agreement says they can.

  14. Forbes stupidity by Brian+Blessed · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The Forbes article is unbearably basic and takes the view that SCO have a good chance because Caldera won a previous case against Microsoft.
    No attempts to examine any facts are made, with the assumption being that Caldera won the DR-DOS case only because the judge agreed with them and not because Microsoft actually did anything wrong. Whilst the judge's decision does determine the outcome, if you want to analyse the situation before the end of the case then you must look at the facts yourself, i.e. they are not irrelevant!

    - Brian.

  15. Learned from the Bill Clinton Speak-N-Deny... by Lindril · · Score: 5, Funny

    Your honor, I downloaded the file, but I did not decompress.

  16. Re:Why SCO will prevail in lawsuit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    SCO's strategy is simply this: they will win all claims, because IBM's lawyers will be unable to present a good defense, because IBM's lawyers are unable to concentrate, due to their inability to stop laughing. This will be especially unfavorable if this laughing behavior carries over into the courtroom.

    Don't worry. IBM's lawyers have *NO* sense of humor...

  17. Lawyers by Legal+Penguin · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Many have commented that this is a suit about lawyers more than about technoogy or even law. That's true in a lot of cases, but this one is especially interesting for law-geeks becaue it pits David Boies (former superstar litigation partner at a New York uberfirm) against that very New York uberfirm, Cravath Swaine & Moore.

    SCO has hired Boies, whom slashdotters will remember as lawyer who so skillfully and successfully led the Justice Department's antitrust case against Microsoft and less successfully defended Napster (as well, perhaps, as for his less successful outings in Florida representing then vice-president Gore). IBM has chosen Cravath, its longtime counsel for "bet the company" litigation. Interestingly, Boies made his career as a young lawyer at Cravath by his (successful) work defending IBM against a massive Justice Department antitrust suit in the late 1970s (and 80s, the suit went on for something like 17 years before IBM finally prevailed). There is certainly no love lost between Cravath and Boies and the fight promises to be a fascinating one for lawyers and law-watchers. In any event, SCO's choice of cousel is an extremely canny one, though Boies' typical roster of slashdot-friendly clients has now, one assumes, been somewhat besmirched.

    --
    "The true administration of justice is the firmest pillar of good government." - George Washington
  18. Is there a practical way to assist the defense? by dcavanaugh · · Score: 5, Interesting

    All of these facts about "Ancient Unix", predictions of SCO shenanigans, the wayback machine, etc. are obviously of some interest to IBM. Aside from commenting in Slashdot (and hoping that IBM is reading), is there a better way to share this useful research? I have nothing to offer besides a general disdain for SCO (as if there was a shortage of that), but others seem to be digging up some fine dirt.

    The OSS people have collaborative efforts on so many development projects, I think this is an opportunity to "turn the aircraft carrier into the wind" and focus the OSS "mental firepower" to sink SCO. Never in my wildest dreams did I imagine myself agreeing with IBM (on anything), but here we are. Yes, I actually want a Fortune 500 company to have its way with a [former] Linux distributor. It must be snowing in Hell.

  19. Re:This is great news for Linux by zurkog · · Score: 5, Funny

    This article indicates to me its more like a duel between two masters.

    IBM: [struggling to keep SCO away] There's something I ought to tell you.
    SCO: Tell me!
    IBM: I'm not left-handed either.

  20. McBride bought 7K shares at .001/share on Friday by isn't+my+name · · Score: 5, Interesting

    McBride purchased 7003 shares at .001 dollars per share. That's right. He paid $7 for for stock worth around $70,000 at the current overvaluation.

    The more interesting thing to note is section 15. It shows that after purchasing these 7003 shares, he owned 15003 shares. That implies that he only had 8000 shares before the purchase. However, if you look at some earlier forms 4 for him, you'll notice that in March of this year, he acquired 200,000 shares of stock.

    This means that there must still be some forms 4 in the system that have not made it into EDGAR online yet. Unless, I'm reading this wrong, sometime between March and now, McBride dumped over 200K shares of stock. I'd love to see an SEC investigation of all of this.

    Here's a link for SCO related SEC filings.

  21. Is it just me? by NeuroManson · · Score: 5, Funny

    Or does SCO seem to be more and more like the black knight from Monty Python and the Holy Grail?

    IBM: You fought well sir knight, but the battle is mine.

    SCO: Tis but a scratch!

    IBM: A scratch?! I just took your arm off!

    SCO: It's just a flesh wound!

    ETC ETC ETC.

    --
    Just because you can mod me down, doesn't mean you're right. Shoes for industry!
  22. Another cool comment in the Linux Today thread by theophilosophilus · · Score: 5, Funny

    The comment

    Richard N. Turner - Subject: I'm Reminded of An Old Post... ( Feb 23, 2000, 15:39:02 )

    ...that someone made on an online discussion, oh, about a year ago. It cracked me up so I saved it:

    ``SCO should do the industry a favor and disband, pausing only to bulk-format all their drives so that none of the evil source code can inadvertently escape into the world. Their marketing people and their tech support people should be sent to camps to be retrained for professions more suited to their skills and their buildings should be torn down and burned.''

    I think thats a bit prophetic.

    --
    Why have 1 person driving a backhoe when you could employ 20 with shovels?
  23. Predicted since 2000? by Rogerborg · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Hasn't RMS being predicting this since dinosaurs ruled the Earth? Remember how we all thought "Gee, Richard, aren't you being just a little paranoid?"

    He might be a slightly crazed filthy socialist hippy, but by golly, he nailed this one.

    Next up: all those RedHat "defensive" linux patents, and their sort-of-promise to temporarily refrain from suing over them. Better hope that they never get bought out by someone a little less altruistic, eh?

    --
    If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
  24. Re:Why Linus uses 8 space indents by tchuladdiass · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I remember reading about a study where groups of college students were asked to debug the same program, but each group was given a different indentation level. There was a dramatic decrease in time to debug when the level was increased, up to 4 spaces, but after that it hit diminishing returns. So, 4 is often considered optimum.