Slashdot Mirror


SCO Protest And Anti-Protest In Provo

a.ameri writes "On Friday, June 20, the Provo Linux Users Group decided to head on over to SCO's offices and hold a protest; information on the event, including pictures and press coverage, can be found on the PLUG page. Among other things, the protesters claim that SCO employes came out and joined the event holding pre-prepared signs saying things like 'I love software piracy' and 'Try communism - use Linux.'" There are some funny shots linked here (thanks to reader lucif latum). Daddio64 points to the press covereage in the Deseret News and Provo Daily Herald.

865 comments

  1. Original LWN discussion by TRS-80 · · Score: 5, Informative
    The original post on LWN containes a few comments on why the SCO people did this (ie they have a sense of humour).

    Slashdot - stealing LWN stories for fun and profit since 1998

    1. Re:Original LWN discussion by dougmc · · Score: 1
      ie they have a sense of humour
      Agreed. This is the classiest thing that SCO has done since this all started.

      (It's not classy, but it's funny and it's not really unclassy. Everything else they've done is very unclassy, so this is the most classy. Did that make sense?)

    2. Re:Original LWN discussion by Pflipp · · Score: 1

      Did that make sense?

      In this context, yes.

      --
      "We can confirm that Debian does *not* ship the version with the trojan horse. Our version predates it." [CA-2002-28]
    3. Re:Original LWN discussion by mackstann · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Yeah, great, but isn't humor inappropriate here? Why are the linux dorks being buddy buddy with their arms around the SCO CEO? They have signs that say "Linux feeds my family", so how can it be a joking matter for them? If someone did something to cause you to lose your livelihood, would you joke around and be buddy buddy with them? Just a thought.

      Note that I'm not a linux dork being defensive, I think it's pretty pointless to go out there and protest, I just like to point out possible hypocrisy when I see it.

    4. Re:Original LWN discussion by Davorama · · Score: 4, Interesting

      No, gotta disagree there. It's unclassy. Especially where they started in on the Iraq and France bashing by association. I know it's the in thing now to bag on "those French cowards" but it's still just mindless follow-the-hurd humor (unclassy). I do have a sense of humor but I don't like to have to turn my brain completely off in order to exersize it. The sign might be funny if if there was anything that could tie the two (IBM/Linux/SCO and France/Iraq) concepts together.

      --

      Davo -- Free speech, free software, AND free beer.

    5. Re:Original LWN discussion by gad_zuki! · · Score: 4, Insightful

      >(ie they have a sense of humour).

      I'm not sure about that. Let's see theres a BILLION dollar lawsuit, linux's reputation has been tarnished, IBMs AIX licenses are now in question, Linus himself is getting threatened, and now they're hurling insults under the guise of "just kidding!"

      Its like that wanna-be bully in gradeschool who insults you then says, "I'm kidding!" Its a lame attempt to bait OSS types and get them angry thus producing more negative press.

    6. Re:Original LWN discussion by elmegil · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The drugs reference was also very unclassy.

      --
      7 November 2006: The day Americans realized corruption and incompetence weren't addressing 11 September 2001
    7. Re:Original LWN discussion by dougmc · · Score: 5, Interesting
      No, gotta disagree there. It's unclassy.
      They did more than put out signs. They provided drinks for everybody -- even the protesters. That's relatively cheap -- but extremely classy.

      They went out and picketed with them. They posed for pictures. They came out and `shared laughs'.

      The posters themselves were a little unclassy (but still funny.) But they made up for it in the other things they did.

      Especially where they started in on the Iraq and France bashing by association.
      They made a joke. That's more than they've done up to this part.

      (And I'll bet the SCO lawyers have a field day with this, and the people who did it get yelled at big time. After all, I doubt those signs were approved by legal (even though they were ready beforehand?)...)

    8. Re:Original LWN discussion by innocent_white_lamb · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Why are the linux dorks being buddy buddy with their arms around the SCO CEO?

      Indeed.

      Unfortunately, actions like these take the whole point away from having the protest in the first place.

      I recognize that "techies" are not particularly good at protesting stuff; that's not what they do and there is no reason why they should be. However, this action by Canopy (provide drinks for everyone, buddy-buddy with folks there and "We're all friends now!") was a calculated public relations move to diffuse the impact of the protest.

      If the protest was a cold, "Screw you SCO" affair, that's a real protest and will be portrayed as such. This, however, appears to have been turned into a simple picnic on SCO's front lawn.

      Which is exactly what SCO wanted.

      --
      If you're a zombie and you know it, bite your friend!
    9. Re:Original LWN discussion by darkov · · Score: 1

      "Leagalise stupidity...smoke Linux"

      Yeah, that's hilarious.

    10. Re:Original LWN discussion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is the funniest thing in the world. A discussion on classiness on slashdot. Slashdot users wouldn't know class if it bit them in the butt. (Except FroMan - he's classy).

    11. Re:Original LWN discussion by MimsyBoro · · Score: 1

      "Linus himself is getting threatened" -- I love it when geeks get mad about personal stuff.

      --
      God made the natural numbers; all else is the work of man - Kronecker
    12. Re:Original LWN discussion by linzeal · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I would gauge a majority of us geeks still have at least one pot smoking friend who is a functional member of the community. I'm 25 and know a slew of them, of course I live in Humboldt County.

    13. Re:Original LWN discussion by bbhack · · Score: 1
      "Leagalise stupidity...smoke Linux"
      Yeah, that's hilarious.
      Utards have a special sense of humor.
      --
      The next thing to remember is to put next things next.
    14. Re:Original LWN discussion by scoove · · Score: 4, Interesting

      They went out and picketed with them. They posed for pictures. They came out and `shared laughs'.

      it's called 'coopting' and it's right out of Microsoft's manual.

      pretty interesting in all. it seems that SCO's got some rather competent handlers... that and the "steal free music" attempted reference in SCO's signs is a rather fascinating insight to how their PR folks are going to shape this battle in the press.

      I smell a Hatch...

      *scoove*

    15. Re:Original LWN discussion by shadowbearer · · Score: 1

      It's not any different in most of the country; although I'd agree Humboldt and the area probably have a greater functional concentration than most areas.

      I haven't been out there in a long time, tho. I'm still kinda amazed the DEA simply hasn't nuked the whole area.

      SB

      --
      It's old. The more humans I meet, the more I like my cats. At least they are honest.
    16. Re:Original LWN discussion by Daniel+Phillips · · Score: 1

      "They went out and picketed with them. They posed for pictures. They came out and `shared laughs'."

      it's called 'coopting' and it's right out of Microsoft's manual.

      pretty interesting in all. it seems that SCO's got some rather competent handlers... that and the "steal free music" attempted reference in SCO's signs is a rather fascinating insight to how their PR folks are going to shape this battle in the press.

      I smell a Hatch...


      Smells like gates to me.

      --
      Have you got your LWN subscription yet?
    17. Re:Original LWN discussion by shadowbearer · · Score: 5, Informative

      Especially when one considers this

      Tuesday 17th June 2003

      (emphasis mine)

      SCO has made no secret in recent months that it hired high-profile attorney David Boies to spearhead its case against IBM, but the company's legal representation in Utah courts is also noteworthy. The company retained Brent O. Hatch and Mark F. James of the law firm Hatch, James & Dodge. Hatch is the son of Senator Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, a representative for SCO confirmed Monday.

      SB

      --
      It's old. The more humans I meet, the more I like my cats. At least they are honest.
    18. Re:Original LWN discussion by Jeremi · · Score: 4, Insightful
      I know it's the in thing now to bag on "those French cowards"


      Indeed, this despite the increasingly obvious fact that the French were right. But hey, if we make enough clever anti-French jokes, maybe we won't have to face up to how idiotic we look now.

      --


      I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
    19. Re:Original LWN discussion by elmegil · · Score: 2, Insightful

      And that's why it was unclassy. You can be a pot smoker and still be functional.

      --
      7 November 2006: The day Americans realized corruption and incompetence weren't addressing 11 September 2001
    20. Re:Original LWN discussion by the+gnat · · Score: 2, Funny

      Indeed, this despite the increasingly obvious fact that the French were right.

      This rests on the dubious assumption that the French foreign policy is dictated by anything other than greed and anti-Americanism. I'm about to reach the point where I hold my nose and vote for Bush in 2004 just because it'll piss off the French and Germans for another four years.

    21. Re:Original LWN discussion by the+gnat · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I would gauge a majority of us geeks still have at least one pot smoking friend who is a functional member of the community.

      I had a number of friends in college and high school who smoked pot regularly. Many of them were perfectly functional in their work lives, and were generally talented and intelligent people. Almost all of them, however, tended to let their social lives revolve around getting high. Everyone's experiences differ, but I've lost several friends this way, and now avoid the stuff as a result.

    22. Re:Original LWN discussion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I know you guys were supposed to have a serious protest, but the way everyone is pointing out how you're supposed to laugh and see it as a funny joke, it seems like you guys are helping SCO do a perfect job at disarming this serious protest into a meaningless joke. Way to go, guys, I'm sure SCO appreciates your help!

    23. Re: Original LWN discussion by Black+Parrot · · Score: 4, Insightful


      > I know it's the in thing now to bag on "those French cowards" but...

      Also "in" to ignore the fact that French troops are the only Western soldiers trying to stop the horror in the Congo right now.

      Three million people have died in the Congo over the past four years, but the members of the "Coalition of the Willing" who were so eager to 'rescue' the people of Iraq are falling all over themselves to see who can ignore what's happening in Africa the best.

      --
      Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
    24. Re:Original LWN discussion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So your domestic policy is based solely on anti-Frenchism and anti-Germanism?

      With maybe a little greed thrown in?

    25. Re: Original LWN discussion by LurkerXXX · · Score: 1

      There is no oil in the Congo.

    26. Re:Original LWN discussion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, they're just too bitchy and pitiful. Playing their little games as if a multi-billion dollar company cares what they do with their unemployed lived - so precious!

    27. Re:Original LWN discussion by LurkerXXX · · Score: 3, Insightful
      That's a brilliant thing to base your vote on. Pissing off the french and germans.

      Just ignore the little things, like our economy which shrub has put in the dumpster, or the 19-year old kids dying in the desert (more than one a day since shrub declared we "won" the war), or the lying about the quality of the intelligence of the threat of weapons of mass distruction this while mess was based on. Please leave the voting to folks who actually CARE about our country.

    28. Re:Original LWN discussion by DoomHaven · · Score: 1
      Agreed. This is the classiest thing that SCO has done since this all started.

      dougmc, that was pure comedy genius!

      --
      "Don't mind me cutting myself on Occam's Razor"
    29. Re:Original LWN discussion by Gojira+Shipi-Taro · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      " the French were right"

      No. They weren't. God I love the /. killfile (aka friend/foe) too bad it's limited to 200 entries...

      >plonk

      --
      "Oh my God. This is terrible. This is the end of my Presidency. I'm fucked."; ~ Donald J. Trump
    30. Re: Original LWN discussion by Gojira+Shipi-Taro · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      There's no oil in Cot`e d' Ivore either. Doesn't stop the french from interfering where they're not wanted at all. People on both sides of the Ivory Coast conflict want the French to butt out. Difference is, the French can't seem to let go of their REAL Imperialist ties in Africa (unlike the accused "Imperialist" ties others attribute to the US.

      When there's a US incursion into GUAM or the US Virgins, then I'll place the US as low as I place the French.

      When the UN pays as much attention to what France is doing in Africa AGAINST THE WILL of the natives of those countries, then I'll give a damn about the UN's opinion of what the US is doing in Iraq, with partial support from the formerly oppressed people there.

      Do you somehow think the people of Cot`e d'Ivore and Congo are less important than the people in Iraq? It certainly sounds like you do. Why would THAT be? you wouldn't be... I dunno.. Racist or anything....

      --
      "Oh my God. This is terrible. This is the end of my Presidency. I'm fucked."; ~ Donald J. Trump
    31. Re: Original LWN discussion by rifter · · Score: 1

      Are you sure it's the French? Or is it the French Foreign legion? If it really is the French it's a historical moment, the first time since Napoleon they have actually fought in their own wars instead of getting someone else to do it for them. So far my googles have revealed articles saying "French Troops" but not specifying whether it is the Legion. My money is still on it being the French Foreign Legion, though.

    32. Re:Original LWN discussion by TopShelf · · Score: 1

      Humor, if anything, is desperately needed here!

      "You down wit OPIP???" I'm sorry, that's about the funniest thing I've seen in a while...

      --
      Stop by my site where I write about ERP systems & more
    33. Re:Original LWN discussion by rifter · · Score: 1

      SCO is barely worth 100 Million dollars, and even then only because of the lawsuit. SCO was in the red until this and has made a pretty measly profit. Now they did sue a multi-billion dolar company, and their employees will be unemployed as a result, but your assertions are wholly inaccurate.

    34. Re:Original LWN discussion by mackstann · · Score: 1

      Yeah, but the sad thing is, SCO was being funny, while the linux dorks were just made asses of. _I_ think it's funny, YOU think it's funny, but if I were them, I would be pissed.

    35. Re: Original LWN discussion by Gojira+Shipi-Taro · · Score: 1

      There's no international terrorists in the Congo, either.

      --
      "Oh my God. This is terrible. This is the end of my Presidency. I'm fucked."; ~ Donald J. Trump
    36. Re:Original LWN discussion by Gojira+Shipi-Taro · · Score: 1

      " That's a brilliant thing to base your vote on. Pissing off the french and germans."

      Considering the French based their actions in the UN regarding Iraq prior to the war on Pissing off the Americans (and covering up the illegal business they'd been doing with Saddam), I think that's a fair trade.

      --
      "Oh my God. This is terrible. This is the end of my Presidency. I'm fucked."; ~ Donald J. Trump
    37. Re:Original LWN discussion by Felinoid · · Score: 2, Interesting

      As a kid I didn't let the bullys bother me. It really pissed them off and ultimately made them look bad.
      It was better than trying to defend myself at the time simply becouse I was to small to do anything.
      (7 year old vs 14 year old bully)
      The teachers would see it and the bully would be in deep trubble.

      SCO people run out being childish saying "Just kidding" we can laugh and let it go making them look bad or we can whine and look bad ourselfs.

      After all we should laugh at outselfs once in a while.

      The rest of the story gose that when I did fight back the poor kid went to the hospital.
      When they think you'll fight back they are ready. when they don't they are easy targets.
      Pick your battles :)

      --
      I don't actually exist.
    38. Re:Original LWN discussion by the-build-chicken · · Score: 1

      Nah...it's not coopting...for most people in business, this stuff is a bit of a game, and it's fun to see it being played out...in the end, they know that it will more than likely be settled between two lawyers in a conference room...they take it a lot less seriously than you do (except if they're giving an interview)...for most CEOs and Directors, law suits are just another strategic play...it's the mark of a good CEO not to get emotionally involved in these sort of things

    39. Re:Original LWN discussion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The protesters were cowards and let the SCO CEO make the best of a bad situation - he turned their protest into a joke, disarmed it completely - brilliant strategy! I guess that's why he's a CEO, and why the linux protesters had nothing to do in the middle of the day...

    40. Re:Original LWN discussion by doradox · · Score: 1

      How do you steal "free" music?

      --
      If he really thinks we're the Devil, then let's send him to Hell.
    41. Re:Original LWN discussion by Synithium · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Lets not forget the thousands of Iraqis who were tortured on a daily basis and the thousands more abused under the Iraqi government.

      There is a lot to be said about people dying, in this case being wrong (about WMD) is still right in the end (getting rid of abusive dictators).

      So whether the intentions are honorable or not, in my mind this is one thing that ended up good no matter what.

      On that end i would point to WJC's record on going into countries and getting US soldiers killed.

      Let us not forget that the product of peace comes at the price of war and that the nature of humanity has changed little since the beginning of recorded history.

    42. Re:Original LWN discussion by salesgeek · · Score: 1
      increasingly obvious fact that the French were right

      No such fact. There is an opinion that could be proven correct in about ten years... As international politics go, the whole Iraq thing was overhyped by everyone, Chirac included. Anyhow - I'm not sure how French Bashing relates to Linux advocacy other than the French are as easy a target as MS for Americans (I'm sure it works in reverse if you are French).
      hold my nose and vote for Bush in 2004

      Let's see who the dem's put up next time around. From what I see today, Bush is most certainly the lesser of the two evils we'll have to select from...

      $G
      --
      -- $G
    43. Re:Original LWN discussion by naasking · · Score: 1

      but it's still just mindless follow-the-hurd humor (unclassy)

      And jumping on the "bash Hurd" bandwagon isn't following the *herd*? Is it classy?

    44. Re:Original LWN discussion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Indeed! Most multi-billion dollar companies have very little concern for their customers.. And wind up pissant little multi-million dollar companies barely surviving on inflated stock valuations and protection rackets based of unfounded legal claims.. Unisys? SCO?

    45. Re:Original LWN discussion by Cranx · · Score: 1

      Admit it. It's funniest when it hurts, and it hurt. I was funny as hell.

    46. Re:Original LWN discussion by u-235-sentinel · · Score: 1

      "Stealing software is NOT a crime"

      Are they serious? And they attribute using Linux is but it's ok to take money from Micro$oft. A company that started out by using free software and putting a label on it. You have to admit, it's not a crime when it's free software however using SCO UNIX is.

      I wonder if they figured out who in their company decided to publish their code in the Linux Kernel. Sorry my memory is short however I do recall an article in wired.com in which SCO anonymous cowards mentioned the IP code was put in by them. Dumbasses. Put the code in and complain we stole it. ROFLMAO!!

      --
      Has Comcast disconnected your Internet account? Same here. You can read about it at http://comcastissue.blogspot.com
    47. Re:Original LWN discussion by operagost · · Score: 0, Offtopic
      Is there someway to add a filter in Slashdot for "shrub" or "Dubya" so that I can weed out all these trolls?

      I dislike many politicians but making infantile insults based on their names isn't my style.

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    48. Re:Original LWN discussion by Boatman · · Score: 1

      In our community there's a lot of value placed on treating people properly even when we disapprove of their activities. I protested with a smile on my face and didn't throw rocks at their building.

      But I was dead serious about making the point that greedy bastards trying to take control of community software to inflate their pocketbooks will not only get you smacked down by IBM, but that people in your own home town will take the afternoon off work to make sure that everybody in the neighborhood knows what you're up to. I want their kids to ask them why we were out there, and I want their stockholders to wonder why protesters are showing up on LWN, /. and the Deseret News.

      I was polite to everyone I met, but I held the sign I was carrying none the lower.

      --
      --Just the place for a snark!
    49. Re:Original LWN discussion by iceT · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Sense of humor my ass. That is SCO property, which is a place of business. If the management at SCO allowed THEIR employees to place those signs out in front of their building during business hours, then they CONDONED the posters. It wasn't a sense of humor, but a glimpse at a childish, petty organization that only comes across as 'smug'.

      Whether they have a valid basis for a lawsuit or not, I expect companies to act like grown-ups. I've seen to many articles recently where executives, management, and lawyers result to threats, and childish statements.

      What ever happened to professionalism?

      --
      -- You can't idiot-proof anything, because they're always coming out with better idiots.
    50. Re:Original LWN discussion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Kill capitalism dead. CEOs against the wall, NOW.

    51. Re: Original LWN discussion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There's no international terrorists in the Congo, either.

      And as much as you would hate to admit it, there was little evidence of international terrorists in Iraq.

    52. Re:Original LWN discussion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So were SCO thinking free beer AND free speech?

    53. Re:Original LWN discussion by Frodrick · · Score: 1

      While I am sure that SCO would have been overjoyed if their infiltrators had managed to start a riot, I doubt if they cared very much either way.

      The purpose of infiltrating the demonstration with pre-made signs - particularly signs bearing slogans linking Linux with unlawful activities, Communism, support for piracy, or Iraq - was to tarnish the reputations of Linux supporters, at least in the eyes of the mainstream press and the Tech-ignorant public in general.

      If the public turns against Linux it doesn't matter if SCO wins or loses the lawsuit - SCO's masters [Microsoft] will see to it SCO doesn't suffer.

    54. Re:Original LWN discussion by Saint+Stephen · · Score: 2, Offtopic

      POT: IT DON'T HAVE TO BE LIKE THAT.

      Okay, remember when you were 16 and got some alcohol? It was a big huge deal, you made a huge fuss about it, told stories about it, and generally acted immature.

      Flash forward: now, you'll MAYBE drink a beer or have a few drinks, but unless you're a drunk you don't obsess over it, spend all your time thinking about it. You drink light beer, drink responsibly, try not to get wasted amoung your respectible friends, and are usually more interested in a conversation than your drink. You don't talk about your drink. You just drink.

      Now: consider folks from Holland. You might not know this, but they prefer to mix tobacco with their pot when they smoke it, because it cuts down the smell and makes the experience more social and less -- whatever. Just like we drink light beer and not moonshine.

      And I've seen a guy from Holland get passed a bong, and spend WAY more time finishing his conversation before he took a hit, whereas even your coolest American pot smoker will rather quickly take a toke.

      In short, it is possible to have a healthy, mature, moderate, temperate view towards pot, and to use it in small amounts, watered down, and in a proper context. It's the incrimination which causes fienddom. Legalize it, and watch it become not too big a deal, at least amoung respectable successful people, except for "pot drunks".

      Pot can be used responsibly like alcohol. The legalizers need to stop envisioning a world where it's okay to get smashed, and the demonizers need to chill. Just equate light beer == pot+tobacco. /soapbox

    55. Re:Original LWN discussion by erat · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Actually, I think you're the one misunderstanding the point of a protest.

      Let's face a simple fact right up front: SCO isn't going to kill a lawsuit because 50+ people picketted behind their building for 2 hours. I hope nobody has any confusion over this.

      Protests are done to draw public attention to an opinion, be it for or against a certain issue. Judging by the actions of the protesters in Utah I have to say they understood perfectly well what they were doing. They notified the press before the protest, they picketted in back of SCO's building which just so happens to be the only side that fronts on a public road, and not long before 4:00pm the protesters LEFT THE AREA to go protest near the entrance/exit to I-15. If they were there to piss off SCO's upper management, they probably would have figured out a way to protest in front of the building where all the offices were (the front of the building faces a parking lot and is not visible from any public road. It would have been an intimate, easilly swept under the carpet show placed for a few SCO employees and that's it. Talk about a waste of time).

      They made themselves and their opinions very visible in very public areas. In doing this, they made their protest successful. They got print coverage in a few local papers (Deseret News is actually fairly big in Utah), and rumor has it that a TV crew got some shots (I didn't see them arrive or leave, but I wasn't there the whole time).

      The lawsuit seems to still be moving forward, but is that really a surprise?

    56. Re:Original LWN discussion by fucksl4shd0t · · Score: 1

      Just equate light beer == pot+tobacco. /soapbox

      Just so you know, light beer has the same amount of alcohol as any other beer. It's called "light" or "lite" beer because its less fattening and therefore doesn't fill you up as much, therefore allowing you to drink more.

      Personally, I can't stand light beer. I prefer a good, strong, Amber beer, which still isn't the strongest available.

      --
      Like what I said? You might like my music
    57. Re:Original LWN discussion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Learn how to type you stinky moron.

    58. Re:Original LWN discussion by innocent_white_lamb · · Score: 1

      They made themselves and their opinions very visible in very public areas.

      They made themselves very visible. Indeed. However, they appear to have made their opinions less so. How is it fowarding the agenda when the "good Linux guys" are hugging Darl Mcbride?

      They
      In doing this, they made their protest successful.


      They made themselves visible, but they didn't actually make their point. I still think it looks like a simple picnic to me.

      They got print coverage in a few local papers (Deseret News is actually fairly big in Utah), and rumor has it that a TV crew got some shots

      That's nice. Too bad the protesters weren't visibly protesting at the time.

      I saw another comment where someone stated that "everyone had a good time". Well, the point of the protest wasn't (or shouldn't have been) to have a good time. Can you imagine a Teamsters strike where the management folks are playing games on the lawn with the strikers?

      I'm sorry, but I don't think media coverage is the be-all and end-all of a protest. Media coverage of a protest is important, but the folks appearing on television (or whereever) should be there for the purpose of making their point heard, not just to say, "Hey Grandma, I'm on the 6:00 news!"

      The lawsuit seems to still be moving forward, but is that really a surprise?

      Of course not. But an opportunity to whip up public support for the cause appears to have been wasted here.

      --
      If you're a zombie and you know it, bite your friend!
    59. Re:Original LWN discussion by evilviper · · Score: 1
      Its like that wanna-be bully in gradeschool who insults you then says, "I'm kidding!" Its a lame attempt to bait OSS types and get them angry thus producing more negative press.

      Introducing "Passive Agressive Patty" of SCO!

      "You know, I really LOVE Linux... I got so tired of all my coasters saying 'AOL'."


      Doesn't sound much different than what they are doing now... Putting up signs that look like they were made by Linux advocates, but which encourage drug use, copyright infringement, IP theft, etc... I have a good sense of humor, but I really don't find this funny at all.
      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
    60. Re:Original LWN discussion by GnarlyNome · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure how French Bashing relates to Linux
      Mandrake is a French Company, So at least their Distro works even for Idi.. geek deficent people

      --
      Diplomacy is the art of saying "Nice doggie" until you can find a rock. Will Rogers
    61. Re: Original LWN discussion by ERASE+THE+JEWS · · Score: 1

      Duh

      --

      "The jews are insidious pigs bent on world domination." - Noam Chomsky

    62. Re:Original LWN discussion by erat · · Score: 1

      1) I didn't hear of anyone "hugging" Darl. However, I wasn't there so it's possible it did happen.

      2) Had you viewed the video posted on the protest site you would have seen that protesters were actually talking with folks stopped at stoplights, I assume answering questions. Perhaps you're confusing the Darl encounter with the protest at the busy intersection near I-15. I seriously doubt the two took place near each other.

      3) I keep hearing stuff about the protesters not making their point. Exactly how would you propose they make this point more effectively? Clearly you know more about this than the rest of us do...

      4) Define "visibly protesting".

      5) Who are you to say that folks were there so grandma could see them on TV? Everyone that showed up for the protest felt strongly about the SCO lawsuit. Don't diminish their effort just because you're ticked off.

    63. Re:Original LWN discussion by Curtman · · Score: 1

      I'm not a fan of SCO by any means, but I remember a few hundred SCO threads back where someone posted McBride's home address and phone number. The posters were funny. That was just not called for.

    64. Re:Original LWN discussion by Doomdark · · Score: 3, Insightful
      Iraq and France bashing by association. I know it's the in thing now to bag on "those French cowards"

      This is something that's been puzzling me a fair bit, actually: there were couple of mid-sized countries that stood up to the only actual superpower, saying it would be wrong to attack Iraq (based on just inconclusive evidence and lots of strong words). And that's cowardice? Knowing US military, political and economic might, that seems fairly brave move on France's (and Germany's) part to me. Note that I'm not commenting on right/wrongness of those actions, just the impression on courageousness (or lack of).

      It's bit like people calling 9/11 terrorists cowards; I mean, they were scumsucking evildoing asswipes and all, but still; doing a kamikaze attack like that isn't your every day coward would really do. I guess it's just using word "coward" as a general derogatory term, and/or applying different criteria for different people (as in "if they weren't such cowards they'd had attacked US army forces directly").

      As to France specifically; I know, I know, it is/was just "sore loser's syndrome"; the problem wasn't who's brave who's not, but who is with us or against us. But still... it is scary how sometimes politics get close to Orwell's new world, where war is peace, lies are truth, and bravery is cowardice.

      --
      I like paying taxes. With them I buy civilization -- Oliver Wendell Holmes
    65. Re: Original LWN discussion by den_erpel · · Score: 1

      They are not the only western soldiers in Congo, the Belgians are sending troops too (heck, another country the US loves to hate right now), but those are mainly restricted to medical teams and transport due to historical sensitivities in the former colony.

      --
      Genius doesn't work on an assembly line basis. You can't simply say, "Today I will be brilliant."
    66. Re:Original LWN discussion by the-build-chicken · · Score: 1

      great concept....but your replacement would be?

    67. Re:Original LWN discussion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      QUOTE:
      but it's still just mindless follow-the-hurd humor
      END QUOTE:

      But, if we did follow the HURD, wouldn't we all be dying now?

      </$KERNEL_is_dying_joke>

    68. Re:Original LWN discussion by jimmyharris · · Score: 1

      I have two issues with the previous comment -

      Firstly in most countries of the world, light beer == beer with reduced alcohol.

      Secondly, calories aren't a measure of how full you will get from something. Check out the difference between eating the same number of calories via a chocolate bar and the same number of calories via lettuce.

    69. Re:Original LWN discussion by Smoking · · Score: 1

      Hatch is the son of Senator Orrin Hatch, R-Utah
      Isn't this the guy who had links to porn sites on his senator website?

    70. Re:Original LWN discussion by fucksl4shd0t · · Score: 1

      Firstly in most countries of the world, light beer == beer with reduced alcohol.

      In the States, Bud lite and Budweiser have different alcohol content, iirc. But budweiser has the maximum allowed by law and still be classified "beer". That's the only exception I know of, otherwise coors lite, michelob lite, et al, all have the same alcohol content as their more fattening counterparts. Alcohol content is heavily regulated in teh US.

      Secondly, calories aren't a measure of how full you will get from something. Check out the difference between eating the same number of calories via a chocolate bar and the same number of calories via lettuce.

      All marketing lingo aside, the purpose of lite beer in the US is to provide beer with alcohol comparable to regular stuff that beer-haters can drink and get drunk with. So it doesn't have as strong a flavor as the so-called heavier stuff. It is marketed as "less fattening", but it's really there for people who can't stand the taste of beer but wanna get drunk cheap. Beer companies never do the cost breakdown that shows its cheaper to get drunk off an expense bottle of liquor than beer anyways. :) Wine coolers provide the same alternative, actually, and some of them approach the alcohol content of beer.

      It's a sure thing that lite beer will have a different definition in other countries, since alcohol laws vary so widely from one jurisdiction to another.

      It gets more complicated when you introduce the other stuff, like bocks and ice ales and so forth. Icehouse, the best of the cheap shit, actually has more alcohol than standard buttwiper, and usually clocks in at $1 or more cheaper (or did 3 years ago when I obught this stuff). But Icehouse is an "ale" and not a beer. And the bocks usually rank with the ice ales. Ziegenbock (any Texans out there?) packs quite a bit of alcohol for a non-liquor drink, and tastes really good as well.

      I had another problem with the grandparent post, actually, which is that maturity doesn't require drinking lite beer and I felt that the poster was just trying to justify his preference. I can't stand lite beer, but I haven't had a drink in over a year at least. The next time I *do* have a drink, I'll do everything needed to avoid having it be some punk-ass lite beer.

      --
      Like what I said? You might like my music
    71. Re:Original LWN discussion by utd-blaze · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Let's see who the dem's put up next time around. From what I see today, Bush is most certainly the lesser of the two evils we'll have to select from...

      Unless the democrats nominate someone who lied to our nation and the world to sell a war that killed thousands of foreign nationals for the benefit of a few American companies (I'm looking at you Halliburton), then who the "lesser of two evils" is should be pretty obvious.

      --
      Do me a favor and double it!
    72. Re:Original LWN discussion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This rests on the dubious assumption that the French foreign policy is dictated by anything other than greed

      And American foreign policy is dictated by altruism?

      Get real. America is the greediest bloody country on the face of the planet.

    73. Re:Original LWN discussion by commodoresloat · · Score: 2, Informative

      The french based their actions on their perception of their national self-interest, as any country's leaders worth their salt will do. If anti-Americanism played a role in french foreign policymaking, it was based on a belief among french leaders that it was in their national interest. And in this case it was also based on the fact that the overwhelming majority of French citizens felt this was the right stance to take.

    74. Re:Original LWN discussion by a.ameri · · Score: 1

      Hey, It wasn't /.'s fault. I saw this message on LWN, and thought it was important, so sent it to /. And BTW, editors at first rejected my article, it seems later they changed their minds and accepted it. Even now, on my sublit page it is written :
      * 2003-06-22 20:08:10 Provo Linux users protest at SCO (articles,caldera) (rejected).

      --
      -- /* Those who don't underestand Unix, are condemned to reinvent it poorly */
    75. Re:Original LWN discussion by davFr · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I'm French, so i can discuss about it. I think that not all decisions here are based on altruism, BUT there are obvious reasons that make me say "We were right in this case". An advice I can offer you is : "Stop reading US media about US actions of US politics around the world". Coz your media and politics are deeply connected and share the same goals. So try to get alternative points of view and you should surely notice US government is acting wrong with its external (and maybe internal - but that's not my business) unilateral decisions. and here is my little US bashing : Why Bush didn't sign Kyoto protocol about greehouse effect gazes? Was it because of Ben Laden, or rather Hussein?

      --
      RIP Slashdot. I used to love you. dead account - but slashdot wont let me delete it.
    76. Re:Original LWN discussion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Christianity is stupid! Communism is good!
      (Negativland)

      Seriously.

      Read up on anarchism.

    77. Re:Original LWN discussion by RemoteRabbit · · Score: 2, Insightful

      From the look of your Florida election you'll all be voting for Bush ......Mugabe Style.

    78. Re:Original LWN discussion by sebi · · Score: 1

      Isn't this the guy who had links to porn sites on his senator website?

      Don't know about that, but he definitely is the guy who wants to destroy computers.

    79. Re: Original LWN discussion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Unlike Washington then?

    80. Re:Original LWN discussion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just ignore the little things, like our economy which shrub has put in the dumpster

      A little revisionism, huh? It was already going down the toilet before Bush took office. The economy towards the end of the Clinton era was much worse that anyone thought, too, due to the bogus bookkeeping by companies such as Global Crossing, Enron, WorldCom, etc.

    81. Re:Original LWN discussion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Unless the democrats nominate someone who lied to our nation and the world

      Like Clinton? And his attacks on places like Sudan and Iraq, that alwasy seemed to happen when he was getting bad press?

    82. Re:Original LWN discussion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, Clinton didn't push the Kyoto treaty. And the Democrats in the Senate were against it. So don't just blame Bush. But, hey, many of the countries that voted for Kyoto knew that we wouldn't go along with it, so they knew that they were off the hook, while looking good politically.

    83. Re: Original LWN discussion by Black+Parrot · · Score: 1


      > They are not the only western soldiers in Congo, the Belgians are sending troops too (heck, another country the US loves to hate right now), but those are mainly restricted to medical teams and transport due to historical sensitivities in the former colony.

      As I understand it there are other nations' peacekeeping troops there, but everyone other than the French is giving way to stay out of any fights. The French are ordering the combatants out of towns and threatening force if they don't comply.

      --
      Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
    84. Re:Original LWN discussion by lga · · Score: 3, Insightful
      Lets not forget the thousands of Iraqis who were tortured on a daily basis and the thousands more abused under the Iraqi government.


      Let's not forget the hundreds of iraqis now being killed by US soldiers. Let's not forget the thousands of people who are still without water, electricity or food. Let's not forget that the soldiers were supposed to leave as soon as possible.

      Then again, maybe you don't get those reports on the news in your area.
    85. Re:Original LWN discussion by davFr · · Score: 1

      Anyway, I would like to thank the US gov to make soo many countries around the world look soo good politically, year after year : http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2003/dc2854.doc. htm and so on... so on... so o... ...

      --
      RIP Slashdot. I used to love you. dead account - but slashdot wont let me delete it.
    86. Re:Original LWN discussion by Marc2k · · Score: 1

      As a rule, domestic policy should come before foreign policy. Of all people, conservative, religious Republicans should know this, it's in the the Bible, (something like) "Ignore not the log in your own eye before removing the twig from your brother's." As we've seen, Bush is poor on both fronts.

      --
      --- What
    87. Re:Original LWN discussion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I *am* such a guy from Holland. I smoke a lot of pot. My friends all
      smoke pot as well. I have a coffeeshop at 100 meter awat from my house
      where I can buy the stuff legally. And it rocks. Actually I mix pot with
      tobacco because it would be like drinking 80% alcohol pure (and quite
      expensive).
      I don't smoke sigarettes. I don't drink. I am actually considered to be
      quite healthy- except for my pot habit. I can still program the weirdest
      algorithms in C after smoking pot; even to my own surprise the next day.
      (god.. how did I do this)

      Did you know that in some states in the USA you get a lower conviction
      for rape than for possession of pot? For instance in California, if you
      get caught 3 times for possession you are locked away for life.
      So, harming yourself is considered worse than harming someony else.

      I thought that the USA were about freedom. Well, you're definitely not
      free to do to yourself whatever you want.

    88. Re:Original LWN discussion by Kirth · · Score: 1

      Sense of Humor? "Stealing software us not a crime -- in Iraq and parts of France". This is not funny, this is just plain insulting for everyone, including iraqi and french people.
      --

      --
      "The more prohibitions there are, The poorer the people will be" -- Lao Tse
    89. Re:Original LWN discussion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      yeah, your voice on who leads the last great superpower is based on your desire to piss off some stupid westeren european countries? How retarded is that. I'd vote for whoever can lead the country i live in the best...but thats just me

    90. Re:Original LWN discussion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why the hell should we believe you about that either? I'm not sure you realize the gravity of the situation. Your government lied to the world. Repeatedly. Do you think we're as stupid as you? That after being lied to again and again we'll still take what you have to say at face value?

      Do you think America is a force for peace in the world today?

    91. Re:Original LWN discussion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's because you're an gullible, ignorant, redneck.

      Do you think the US has gained such a horrible reputation throughout the worlds first world nations because foreign people are mean? Perhaps because well-off people are somehow jealous that they don't live in the US? I think you'd better take a second look at the world. Tear off the black and white glasses you've been trained to see the world with and see that your country is run by arrogant assholes who would sooner take a bribe than contribute to humanity or stay in an agreement that isnt' 100% benefical towards them.

    92. Re:Original LWN discussion by Gri77oN · · Score: 2, Insightful

      (my first post on /.)

      (I'm a french pothead that doesn't drink nor smoke)

      I think that you're making a point very VERY important here:

      US citizen (as it seems from france) are NOT educated.

      I'll make my point :

      In paris youy are allowed to drink alcool on the street, but are not allowd to /be drunk/ on the street.
      (it's the right opposit in NewYork, or so I've been told)

      So in NewYork, you can be completly drunk on the streets, with all the danger that could outcome from such a situation, but there are many restrictions as to where and how yo drink.

      on the opposit, in Paris, the legal system take the citiezen as "educated" enough to drink and stop /before/ being drunk.

      now, wich one of these two "currents of law" is enlighten?
      is it the one that actualy allows the citizen to endanger himself and others, and prohibits him from doing something as harmless as drinking,
      or is it the one that lets you drink until your become a danger to yourself or others?

      now in the us, you can go to prison for life for selling pot, but can be on the street again after having killed/raped?

      those americans that control the country since 2nd world war, are inteligent people, yea right, but their are not into altruism, whereas such control should be held by altruism.
      (mind me, with chirac, look who's talking)

      --
      "Knowledge, as wisdom, has value /only/ when shared."
    93. Re: Original LWN discussion by stuntpope · · Score: 1
      When there's a US incursion into GUAM or the US Virgins, then I'll place the US as low as I place the French


      What, Panama wasn't good enough for you?

    94. Re:Original LWN discussion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bribes? Are you talking about the ELF scandal in France or the Galloway scandal in England? Or perhaps all those arms sales that Russia made to Iraq, for which they are still owed quite a bit of money that they will now never get? Or, maybe, just maybe, was it all that for-domestic-consumption oil that Syria sold to the outisde world so they could buy Iraq's oil cheap, thus circumventing the economic sanctions?

    95. Re:Original LWN discussion by garrulous · · Score: 1

      Actually McBride was hoping that his ancient address would leak. So that it could get entangled with IP issues.

    96. Re:Original LWN discussion by Gri77oN · · Score: 1

      (I'm french)

      actually I would pity the USofA to have to cope with GW Bush another four years. But Hey, you do whatever you want with your country, its future, its health, its economy.
      The problem is although some americans seem to think so, you americans do not do whatever you want with the world, the planet.

      by "the world" I mean you don't go in a place you know nothing about (<_choose the coutry of your choice and place it here_>) and change whatever you wanna change, may it be governement, economical strategies or whatever;

      AND

      by "the planet" I mean you don't go on poluting the planet's atmospher 10 times more than any other citizen of the planet without even acknowledging it..

      --
      "Knowledge, as wisdom, has value /only/ when shared."
    97. Re:Original LWN discussion by Smeagel · · Score: 2, Informative

      No offense, but there are stupid laws in every country. You're the one being foolish if you think that the US is the leader of stupid laws. US citizen (as it seems from france) are NOT educated. Funny that one of our 50 states (california) alone has a larger economy than all you genius french citizens. Oh yeah, your economy is also shrinking drastically solely because we decided to stop visiting you after you desecrated the cemeteries that our grandfathers are buried in from liberating you from nazi's -- classy. Your post is pretty funny though, you accuse all American citizens of being uneducated solely because there's a law against drinking in public in New York. You probably don't understand our version of Federalism, since your government operates differently not because I'm calling you stupid, but just because a law is in New York doesn't mean it's everywhere. For instance, it is illegal period to drink OR be drunk in public in Ohio and Indiana. I'd be willing to bet, if you were intelligent enough to do your research, you'd find it IS illegal to be drunk on the streets in New York. Everywhere I've been in this country it is illegal to be drunk in the streets (Public Intoxication) IF you are making it obvious. I suspect that's the only way it's illegal in France too -- they don't go around breathalizing everybody do they? And by the way, I'd never call an entire country of citizens ignorant -- especially if my own country's economy was largely dependant on the aforementioned country's tourism.

    98. Re:Original LWN discussion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      If the protest was a cold, "Screw you SCO" affair, that's a real protest and will be portrayed as such. This, however, appears to have been turned into a simple picnic on SCO's front lawn.

      There wasn't even one car overturned and torched or anyone hurt at this protest. What kind of protestors are these?? Go back to your day jobs you dirty smelly Linux hippies. Let the WTO protestors step in your place so we can get some real action. It's just not protesting without people in black clothes and ski masks torching buildings!!

    99. Re:Original LWN discussion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Budweiser (3.9% in most markets) contains far less that the legal alchol limit in most the most conservative states. My state had the most conservative beer alchol limit in the country which was then raised by more than 130% to 12% by volume from 6% by weight.

      In most states exceeding the limit does nto mean you can't call it beer. Any "brewed" beverage with the notable exception of Sake (which somehow gets catagorized as wine) that exceeds the legal limit in most states simply cannot be sold.

    100. Re:Original LWN discussion by broohaha · · Score: 1

      Why is the US singling out France? They're not the only ones who disagree with the US's foreign policies. Let's go for some real isolationism and single out the rest of the world! After all, you're "either with us, or against us." Unilateralism. That's the U. in USA, baby!

      Seriously, though. I find this little piece by News World International interesting. It's on the wide gap in perceptions the US has of itself compared to how the rest of the world thinks of the US.

    101. Re:Original LWN discussion by carlos_benj · · Score: 1

      Did you know that in some states in the USA you get a lower conviction for rape than for possession of pot? For instance in California, if you get caught 3 times for possession you are locked away for life.

      And what happens if you get convicted three times for rape in California? Same thing. How is that a "lower conviction" which I take to mean a lesser sentence?

      --

      --

      As a matter of fact, I am a lawyer. But I play an actor on TV.

    102. Re:Original LWN discussion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      They provided drinks for everybody -- even the protesters. That's relatively cheap -- but extremely classy.

      They didn't _really_ provide drinks for everybody. The drinks didn't come out until the protest was over, and only about 6 guys got offered any. Then SCO claimed that they provided drinks to everyone. Lie, lie, lie.

      SCO's real class was demonstrated when they wouldn't let my friend's 4 year old use the bathroom. <sarcasm>What hospitality.</sarcasm>

    103. Re:Original LWN discussion by FinalCut · · Score: 1

      the arrogance of everyone who has posted in response to this joking message is amazing. None of you know a thing about the guy who posted this. You lecture about how greedy and tyrannical the US is - you lecture about how OUR media is corrupt and in cahoots with our govt. Perhaps you should look at your own nations. During the imperial age what nations were colonizing others? It wasn't the US (though to be fair we did have a couple small colonies .. the US actions pale in comparison to the oh so noble Europeans). Even without finding NBC weapons in Iraq - the potential for a decent outcome is still there. Should the administration based their attack on the WMD card? Hell no - but they did and now they are suffering the political pain for it. But Hussein is out of power - and that can't be a wholly bad thing. And to the french guy who questioned the E. Timor thing - and the US involvement in Iraq. What was france doing in Sierra Leon the whole time? Enforcing their own foreign policy on another country? For what reason? Was it anymore valid than the US in Iraq? Probably not. Deal with it folks. A goverenments job is to, first and foremost, look out for its countries self interest. If they aren't then they are failing their people. The Kyoto treaty wasn't written in a way that would have made a difference since the major producers of green house gasses, developing countries, were excluded so why should the US have hamstrung itself with it? Why hasn't Britain jumped into adopting the Euro? It isn't in the interest of historic nationalism - some attachment to the pound - its due to economic self interest. If Germany could fix their crap economy maybe England would join them. But for now the English Govt has to look out for #1. That is its job. France is no different, nor is Germany, or anyone else. The only differnce is the US govt is bigger, and a more obvious target most of the time when people want to bitch about a govt. Instead of trying to fix our system - why don't you guys spend some time working on your own nation(s) and it's problems? Be realists and drop the idealism for a bit. You might be amazed at what you see.

    104. Re:Original LWN discussion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > where I hold my nose and vote for Bush in 2004

      Don't forget to grab your ankles. oh, and it might be a good idea to have something to bite on, too.

    105. Re:Original LWN discussion by shadowbearer · · Score: 1

      Senator Orrin Hatch a Pirate?

      Read down a bit for the porn :-)

      SB

      --
      It's old. The more humans I meet, the more I like my cats. At least they are honest.
    106. Re:Original LWN discussion by stanmann · · Score: 1

      REALLY?? Why do you say that??

      Unless you have a different definition of sin than God.

      Gen 1:29 And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which [is] upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which [is] the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat.

      --
      Food not Bombs is a nice platitude but it breaks down when you notice that the Bombees are usually well fed
    107. Re:Original LWN discussion by Ceallach · · Score: 1

      But why the #3!! did we attack Iraq in the first place? There has _never_ been any meaningful intel linking Iraq to terrorist groups, esp. Al Quaeda. They have never had any weapons capable of attacking the USA. Yes, S.H was an evil nasty dictator who killed and tortured the people of Iraq ... but there are at _least_ twenty other countries in similar straits and the USA could care less about them ...
      So waste BILLIONS of dollars, and hundreds of American lives for what ? Oil? Halliburton?
      Bush's ego?

      --
      -- More Smoke! The mirrors aren't working!!!
    108. Re:Original LWN discussion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "I'm about to reach the point where I hold my nose and vote for Bush in 2004 just because it'll piss off the French and Germans for another four years."

      Please do so, having Bush in the White House for another four year is more punition than deserved for voting for him and while he continues to drive America in the dumpster we will laugh our asses off.

    109. Re:Original LWN discussion by Rogerborg · · Score: 1

      SMACK! Why are you suing yourself? SMACK! Why are you suing yourself?

      --
      If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
    110. Re:Original LWN discussion by hesiod · · Score: 1

      > your replacement would be?

      People in Anarchy, Government trying to impose martial law, and loss of about half of the population. Yeah, sounds great, woo.

    111. Re:Original LWN discussion by SubtleNuance · · Score: 4, Insightful

      BULLSHIT!

      This *is the* reason the world disagreed w/ the US.

      Good leaders make decisions based on PRINCIPLE(!); and the "We are going to invade Iraq because we lie about trumped-up charges" is *not a reason*.

      The rest of the planet didnt want to *start a war* -- you know, launch an army to INVADE another country... there is NO reason to do it. Ever.

      Because USofAmerica believes it can do what it likes, on the basis of serving its percieved-best-interest is what irks the planet. We have to apply international law, freedoms, rights and responsibilities equally. Not "might-makes-right" pursuit of national interests.

      Bottom line: i applaud the French for standing up refusing to legitimize the illegal invasion, slaughter, and occupation of *any* nation... its was in the USA's interest to do it to Iraq -- who else? when? The USA is a rogue nation, out of control... lead by unprincipled tyrants.

    112. Re:Original LWN discussion by hesiod · · Score: 1, Flamebait

      > SCO's real class was demonstrated when they wouldn't let my friend's 4 year old use the bathroom

      This takes nothing away from the argument, but WHY THE HELL SHOULD THEY? You expect them to allow bathroom use for any homeless bum who comes along? Then why should they let his son? If your friend was responsible (which I don't claim he isn't, maybe he just didn't think long enough) he would take his son elsewhere, or maybe NOT BROUGHT HIM TO A FRIGGIN PROTEST. Pause the picketing for five minutes, Gandhi, and walk to a damn MacDonalds.

    113. Re:Original LWN discussion by hesiod · · Score: 2, Funny

      > Do you think we're as stupid as you?

      Well, since America was made up of mostly Europeans, yes, we are exactly as stupid as you.

    114. Re:Original LWN discussion by crazyphilman · · Score: 1

      I respect your sentiment and desire to follow a higher road, but "Dubya" was GWB's idea; it was the nickname he used during his campaign in an effort to seem friendly and approachable. It's not exactly an insult; more of a nickname the man and his advisors chose.

      I don't know where the "shrub" thing came from; this is the first I've heard of it. How'd he get a nickname like shrub???

      I'm not a supporter -- I don't like Bush one iota, and I'm going to vote Democrat in the next election just to help rid the nation of him (usually I vote Green Party, but in this case I'll make an exception). But, seriously -- "Dubya" was HIS idea.

      --
      Farewell! It's been a fine buncha years!
    115. Re:Original LWN discussion by hesiod · · Score: 1

      > Why Bush didn't sign Kyoto protocol about greehouse effect gazes?

      Because he wasn't going to sign something simply for the sake of signing it. (Clinton didn't either, and he was correct for it.)

      Not, take your own advice and read your own non-national media. You'll find that, of the countries that DID sign Kyoto, none of the major ones are anywhere close to the requirements. Why? Because it was hugely unrealistic in its expectations. Therefore, it was smart to not sign it because we couldn't meet the reqs and that was well known then as well.

      But, I guess that "it's the thought that counts," whether or not it actually does anything.

    116. Re:Original LWN discussion by hesiod · · Score: 1

      > you don't go on poluting the planet's atmospher 10 times more than any other citizen

      Even though we have 10x the production of any other "citizen" of the planet?

    117. Re:Original LWN discussion by crazyphilman · · Score: 1

      ...Not to mention that they're currently blowing up convoys with unmanned drones, based on rumors about who might be in them. This weekend, an unmanned, remote-controlled drone blew the hell out of a convoy with Hellfire missles. They're going to go scrape up the bodies and check them for Saddam's DNA this week. Funny; I thought assassination was against international law. But apparently, they felt Saddam might be in the convoy, so they blew it up. No attempt at capture; no attempt at forcing a surrender. They just blew it up from the air, with an unmanned drone no less. Man...

      Imagine what it must be like over there! If you were a civilian and you wanted to get out of dodge, you'd probably get your ass shot off just for trying. Not only has the country been occupied, but there's *no escape* from it. Anyone trying to leave gets vaporized. Talk about harsh!

      --
      Farewell! It's been a fine buncha years!
    118. Re: Original LWN discussion by hesiod · · Score: 1

      > Are you sure it's the French? Or is it the French Foreign legion?

      Okay, what's the difference? Are the members of the FFL French? Ordered around by French Gov? If the FFL isn't military, what is it?

    119. Re:Original LWN discussion by Gri77oN · · Score: 1

      no no no! I am not saying that american laws are stupid-ier thant anywhere else (we have here in france stupid laws you wouldn't even imagine in your wildest fantasy!); please don't put word in my mouth: You're the one being foolish if you think that the US is the leader of stupid laws
      I do not think so.

      I am saying that the control US leaders (political, enocomical, ideological...) "SEEM" to want is to control without "education". Wheras in france (in europe actually) leaders (some of them) "SEEM" to be trying to "educate" people to be more responsible, more altruist, more how would you say "aware" .
      We are much more aware (OR SO IT SEEMS) of the consuquences of or actions.

      Oh yeah, your economy is also shrinking drastically solely because we decided to stop visiting you after you desecrated the cemeteries that our grandfathers are buried in from liberating you from nazi's
      i'll answer that in two ways:
      FIRST
      our economie is down due to our own inabbility to have it go steady, you USofA have nothing to do in that matter.
      But that argument of yours actualy makes my point: you are not _whatever you may actually believe_ nor will you /ever be/ the center of the world, not economicaly, not politicaly, not religiously, not philosophicaly, not anything, period.
      I beleive that no one is the center, but we, meaning /WE/, all together, are the center.

      SECOND
      We have not forgotten thos americans whom died to "free France".
      We have never desacralise anything, anyone, or any memory.
      We have not forgotten, how you USofA waited before "rescuing" us to be the last one standing. You talk and do war all the time, but never actualy had a war on your ground, you have never been invaded, you just DO NOT know what you're talking about, so please have the decency to let those dead for other where they are: at peace.
      the political decision which led the USofA in war are exclusively economical. You didnt' cross the ocean to exclusively "rescue" france from the nazi if you did you would have done it three years ealier. No you cross the ocean to rescu us becaus it was an opportunity. (more power / more money/ you choose)
      so pleeeaaaaase stop bringing that argument on the table, I'm sick of it, you had to loose pearl harbour to even get involved.

      you accuse all American citizens of being uneducated solely because there's a law against drinking in public in New York
      no, I do not. Once again i ask you not to put words in my mouth.
      I am acusing the leaders (whom ever they are: political, economical, religious...) to seek control instead of education. I am acusing leaders ALL OVER THE WORLD actualy to seek power/money in order to obtain more power/money. I know for sure that people that seek power should be seeking power for the GREATER GOOD.
      I know very few people whom actualy /did/ good once they actualy got power:
      Martin Luther King (american, be proud!)
      Gandhi
      Dalai-lama
      Mother Theresa

      my post showed my opinion (read IMHO)
      this opinion is always open to debate, revision, fluctuation, of course, I am human, what I say or believ in is not the truth it may at the very best be MY thruth, but will always be opened to debate.

      I did not wish to insult not you personaly, nor the americans, not even the leaders..

      As a mater of fact, I don't offend; period.
      (it very supprising how such an attitude arouses many conflicts: it SEEMS people are scared by friendly open-minded people!!)

      That said, it is interessting to see that you do speak of califormian as having a larger economie than us quote "genius french citizen" unquote.
      That's exactly true.
      But the fact that the USofA are bigger than others actually gives USofA a power (economocal, political etc) that is certainly used (political embargos, army deployement, etc); but it also grants the USofA responsibilities, which it seems your leaders are not aware of.

      FYI: from definition Pocket Oxford Dictionary
      seem: v. (often foll. by to + infin.) appear or feel (seems ridiculous). I etc. can't seem to I etc. appear unable to (can't seem to manage it). it seems (or would seem) (often foll. by that) it appears to be the case. [Old Norse]

      --
      "Knowledge, as wisdom, has value /only/ when shared."
    120. Re:Original LWN discussion by G.+Waters · · Score: 1
      Please leave the voting to folks who actually CARE about our country.

      ...and please don't assume those people are strictly Democrats. Both parties are selling you out one H1b at a time:

      The republicans for cheap labor.
      The democrats for cheap votes.

      Different reasons, same result.

    121. Re:Original LWN discussion by Smeagel · · Score: 1
      I'm sorry but if you think that your economy is not taking a huge hit for losing American business -- than I know more about your present economy than you do. Here's an article:

      http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename= article&node=&contentId=A33986-2003Apr15&notFound= true

      As easy as it is to claim I'm just being an over-confident American, you honestly cannot deny that we are the economic center. Our economy is bigger than the next 3 countries combined. California alone would have the #3 economy in the world. Whether the French like it or not, America is in many ways a center right now. I'm not saying that as a bash to any other country, we're all important, but we are far and away the economic leader of the world -- and in a capitalist world (for the most part) -- that makes you the center. We also are far and away the most powerful country militarily -- and in a militaristic society (the rest of the world that's not capitalist) that makes you the center. Again I do NOT mean that as a disrespect or to say that any American is any better than any other citizen. I am saying that as a matter of fact, we are the most economically and militarily powerful nation in the world -- by far.

      And by the way, the disrespect you just payed to our soldiers who died in your land is disgusting. My grandfather took a bullet to liberate you from the nazi's, and the attitude that we only did it because we "had to" is ridiculous. You don't think we could have chosen another vantage point to enter europe from? You don't think we could have let Hitler burn and scorch your land before choosing your HEAVILY guarded beaches to enter from?

      Finally, you said:
      We have never desacralise anything, anyone, or any memory

      That is simply untrue:

      http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/2907701.stm

    122. Re:Original LWN discussion by japhmi · · Score: 1

      Indeed, this despite the increasingly obvious fact that the French were right

      The French were right about the Iraqi WMD? Well, good, because the French knew they had them.

      The argument between the Americans and the French/Germans wasn't IF Saddam had WMD, but how to handle it / how much time to give him / etc.

      --
      "Giving money and power to government is like giving whiskey and car keys to teenage boys" P. J. O'Rourke
    123. Re:Original LWN discussion by Gri77oN · · Score: 1

      about the first aritlce on the impact of the us boycott.

      I am not saying it (the boycott) has no influence ... no wait actually i did say that. I meant we would have gone down as steadily, I assure you, the economical descision taken at this time in france are... stupid. The us boycoot /is/ felt, but is not the cause. (am I understandable on this?)

      as for the second article, well, it's true some idiots came and put graffiti on some tombs.
      But these few idotics do not represent the french community, I hope you do know that, right?

      where as you first page said "they have forgotten" meaning they= the french people...

      actually the majority of the french people (you know which majority, you have the same : the one that is easily drove by headlines, the one that dosen't think much) felt offended that you would acctually say "they have forgotten" (/my/ grand father was saved by one of yours!).
      We felt offended that you would event /think/ we would forget. We deeply know that if not for you, the USofA, France would ben german speaking today.
      so the french croud did feel insulted when we read that article "they have forgoten". and yes somme of these people started the anti-american trend.
      I actualy was part of it.
      I then realised that it was only the tip of the iceberg. Yes some people did paint those tombs, yes some french did say "americans out".
      But when we try to understand the way you think, we very rapidely conclude that you use the power you have (the power that is granted by your economical and military superiority) , without the responsibilities that comes with it.

      so yes, you're good at working with google and finding articles that will deniy what I say, but all the articles in the web (4 trilion pages i think!) will not show USofA as acting responsible /towards the power it has/.

      (may I point out that for ANY kind of reserach, it is always wiser to get the counter information : you went to US and british sites to get these articles, but look as well in french or event other sites... get the point of vue from ALL points of vu before stating something)

      here is one thruth:
      "Power comes with responsabilities"

      and another:

      --
      "Knowledge, as wisdom, has value /only/ when shared."
    124. Re:Original LWN discussion by davFr · · Score: 1
      "[...]unrealistic in its expectations"[...]
      This single widget really make me say that you talk about things you don't know much about, but just repeating Bush's BS:
      http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/environment/energy/ bush_6-11.html
      Are you from Bush's PR staff? ;o)

      Read the official proposal here :
      http://unfccc.int/resource/convkp.html

      And you may learn things, such as the fact that the main aim of Kyoto protocol is to return to 1990 level of C02 in the atmosphere. But maybe you're thinking 1990 is WAYYY too old!! There wasn't even XFiles on TV!

      The unrealistic expectation is to think that US, which produce ~25% of CO2 on earth, would accept to show the way.
      Anyway, I thought that Bush wanted to "lead the world to a better day": http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20 021007-8.html
      But maybe I'm just to naive??
      --
      RIP Slashdot. I used to love you. dead account - but slashdot wont let me delete it.
    125. Re:Original LWN discussion by Gri77oN · · Score: 1

      well to me there's a terrible difference between something done to one's self and something done to other.
      The one that got raped didn't asked for it (dont come on me about exceptions)
      The one that rolled himself a cone asks for the consequences, and actually is very aware of the consequences.

      so in the first case we have somebody that has to be punnished for doing something outlaw on somebody else and in the second case, we have somebody that has to be punnished for doing something outlaw on himself.

      ok now let's take a look at one definition of freedom :

      One's freedom stops where the next guys freedom starts.

      Cleary the one who rapes does interfere with someone else's freedom.
      but what about the one who's smoking his cone at home say at the window. (Who's freedom is he interfering with?)

      so if for some reason both actions are regarded as outlaw, then the one that interfere with someone else's freedom should (I THINK) be punished much more severly.

      i think that is originaly what Anonymous Coward meant.

      .

      --
      "Knowledge, as wisdom, has value /only/ when shared."
    126. Re: Original LWN discussion by davFr · · Score: 1

      lol!! "Foreign" means that it can recrute foreigners and its primary mission are abroad, but there're lots of French in it! Dumbass!
      Today is your lucky day, you'll learn something: Read this:
      http://www.frenchforeignlegion.org/

      Be happy, you won't have to practice foreign language to read it! Redneck!

      FYI, lots of "american" soldiers in Irak were strangers who signed in because they were promised immigrant cards and/or study fundings!!

      --
      RIP Slashdot. I used to love you. dead account - but slashdot wont let me delete it.
    127. Re:Original LWN discussion by 4of12 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Lets not forget the thousands of Iraqis who were tortured on a daily basis and the thousands more abused under the Iraqi government.

      Yes, I'm glad that stopped.

      But that has not been a consistent good reason for invading another country.

      If it were, why isn't the United States invading other countries with appalling records of human rights abuse?

      PRC, North Korea, Myanmar, Zimbabwe, Congo, just about every other country in the Middle East, etc.

      It's becoming clear that GWB made a mistake. If the evidence for WMD was just so compelling, then it certainly ought to have turned up by now, as American forces have free reign to look anywhere in Iraq. Many American choose to believe his warnings about WMD in Iraq. The evidence he presented months ago was not compelling, but one could always argue that he was supplied with greater evidence that he could not reveal due to concerns of national security and preserving an intelligence-gathering capability. That is, we had to trust him that he really dug deep into the evidence and knew categorically that WMD in Iraq were a problem. [The supposed tie between bin Laden and Saddam Hussein was as weak as they get. If removing bin Laden's support network were the real object, the USA would have invaded Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Sudan and not Iraq.]

      I support American troops, who are dedicated men and women, and have sworn an oath to obey their commander in chief. They're great people we can ill afford to lose and they're putting their lives on the line.

      Theremore, the commander in chief has an incredibly important responsibility to exercise, and he has not done it properly.

      I don't believe GWB is malicious or evil, just not capable of acting as President of the United States with the dedication and thoroughness the office deserves. He's made a mistake in gullibility, believing Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz, and accepting their appointments inthe first place, not willing to do the homework it takes to know what is really going on. Before you commit someone else's life to a military objective, you owe it to them to be as smart as you can, as hardworking as you can, willing question your advisors, get alternative opinions, etc.

      The United States Armed Forces, the people of the United States, and the world at large, all deserve the best possible person in that position. Sadly, the best person is not there now.

      --
      "Provided by the management for your protection."
    128. Re:Original LWN discussion by SubtleNuance · · Score: 1

      ..or the thousands being held as "illegal combatants"; contrary to both USA and International Law.

    129. Re:Original LWN discussion by DustMagnet · · Score: 1
      What ever happened to professionalism?

      I'm pretty sure they left the company years ago.

      --
      'SBEMAIL!' is better than a goat!!
    130. Re: Original LWN discussion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      salesgeek claimed:
      "From what I see today, Bush is most certainly the lesser of the two evils we'll have to select from..."
      So you like George W. Hoover's 2nd Great Depression?

    131. Re:Original LWN discussion by FatAlb3rt · · Score: 1
      Sorry, i disagree.

      First off, you lose credibility by referring to our President as shrub.

      Secondly, your facts are unsubstantiated and wrong. Allow me to demonstrate:
      • our economy which shrub has put in the dumpster
        Dow Jones Industrial Average, last 5 yrs. Notice it peaked around Feb/Mar 2000. Bush was elected Nov 2000, took office Jan 2001. The downward trend was well on its way by then.
      • more than one a day since shrub declared we "won" the war
        From CNN today near the bottom of the article, "Nineteen U.S. troops have been killed in hostile action since President Bush declared an end to major combat in Iraq on May 1..." Let's see, this is the 23rd of June, so let's call it ~50 days since the war ended. 19/50 is not greater than 1 ... I can't follow your math ...
      • lying about the quality of the intelligence of the threat of weapons of mass distruction this while mess was based on
        Sorry, I can't find a link that gives evidence that he wasn't lying. Perhaps the impetus is on you to find one that shows he was. Apparently your feelings toward the President are obscuring your view of reality?
    132. Re:Original LWN discussion by Smeagel · · Score: 1

      We have come to an understanding then. I will say that I think the war in Iraq was needed, whether for the reasons Bush stated or not. For those who say that war causes death which should be avoided at all costs, I agree, but they must also realize SADAM causes death. He executed more people on average in a day than the war was killing on average in a day. That statistic alone makes the war worth while to me. And keep in mind, the pacifism that is being so preeched by some french people is the same pacifism that you just were critical of the US for in the beginning of WW2. We were mistaken then, you can't appease and ignore war-mongering dictators, and I believe France is mistaken in the same way now -- just my political stance. I'd be interested in hearing how we are irresonsibly using our power. Most complaints are concerning the war in Iraq, and I think it'd be a tough argument to say that what has occured in Iraq was not for the greater good in the long run. Sadam needed out, we got him out without many casualties (compare a SINGLE bombing attack in WW2 with the total casualties in the Iraq War and you'll gain my perspective). If you're of the opinion that Sadam didn't need out, I urge you to do some research of what he was doing to his people. Read their testimonials. Read the articles of where men were forced to watch their own brothers shot before they themselves were shot -- all because of political protest. I'm sure you saw the images of iraqi's welcoming US troops and tearing down Sadam's statues. That wasn't a population under assault, that was a population being liberated.

    133. Re:Original LWN discussion by utd-blaze · · Score: 1

      Clinton was always getting bad press thanks to the Republican Party who viewed the President's sex life as not only a public matter, but also one which was more important than any other matter facing the nation. Considering how long their botched impeachment took, it only stands to reason that military actions would have to take place while the President was getting bad press. Should Clinton have waited until the Republicans had finished their investigation into the Presidential Penis to act as commander in cheif of the United States military?

      --
      Do me a favor and double it!
    134. Re:Original LWN discussion by 2b · · Score: 1

      Sorry I disagree. Note the careful wording: "killed in hostile action." This allows CNN to cut the total of all servicemen who have died in Iraq in half. From USA Today we see stats indicating that the number of combat deaths is sometimes less than the number of accidental deaths especially when the force is asymetric, which in this case it clearly is. ABC News has a more detailed list of casualties and how they happened (it appears to be out of date). Ask yourself, has Ryan Cox served his country any less for dying in a "noncombat weapon discharge?" Does his Mom feel any differently?

      I can't find a link handy, but I read in the Boston Globe (on paper) that the actual death rate, including those not killed "in hostile action" is roughly one per day. I find it rather disgusting that CNN would minimise the sacrifice made by those who went and served honorably and gave everything for us, just because of some beaurocratic label.

    135. Re:Original LWN discussion by Nelm646 · · Score: 1

      You speak French instead of German because we do what we want with the world. Show some respect for a country that has twice come to the rescue of France spilling American blood to save your conntry from a dictator just like Sadam. *Americans against rectal-cranial inversion* ~Nelm

    136. Re:Original LWN discussion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Just so you know, light beer has the same amount of alcohol as any other beer. It's called "light" or "lite" beer because its less fattening and therefore doesn't fill you up as much, therefore allowing you to drink more.


      Not where I come from. Over here in Blighty, beer is often categorised as light and heavy. I'm not sure of the science but light beer is so called because of it's lower original gravity and tends not to be as intoxicating as heavy beer even of the same alcohol content. It just so happens that light beer tends to be also lighter in colour so they're easy to spot.

      What you're talking about is lite (as you said) but that is a completely different thing; not least because it never refers to beer, only to lager.
    137. Re:Original LWN discussion by LurkerXXX · · Score: 1
      First off, after all the use by Republicans of 'slick willie', I feel I'm more than justified in using shrub in reference to bush. How many 20 year old kids died because monica gave Clinton a blow job? I think lying to American citizans about weapons of mass descruction as an excuse to go to war and make your oil buddies rich is a much more serious crime.

      Acording to CNN:

      http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/06/22/sprj.irq .main/index.html

      "Nineteen U.S. troops have been killed in hostile action since President Bush declared an end to major combat in Iraq on May 1, according to the Pentagon. Another 37 have died in what are described as nonhostile incidents."

      That's over one soldier dead a day since the "end of the war". Describe 'nonhostile' however you will, dead is dead. Iraq is a bit more dangerous of a place than the U.S.

      Sorry, I can't find a link that gives evidence that he wasn't lying
      How about all the reports coming out about how all those reports about weapons were from sources the CIA thought were unreliable. How about the paperwork on Iraq buying plutonium that the U.N. figured out were forgeries in an afternoon? Like the CIA with their massive resources couldn't have figured that out if they (or bush) had wanted to know.

    138. Re:Original LWN discussion by carlos_benj · · Score: 1

      We weren't talking about which crime was worse. You said that the (paraphrasing here since you didn't take exception to anything in my statement) sentence for one was less than for the other and I pointed out that your "Three Strikes" example would be the same for both.

      --

      --

      As a matter of fact, I am a lawyer. But I play an actor on TV.

    139. Re:Original LWN discussion by zaphod_es · · Score: 1

      "Stop reading US media about US actions of US politics around the world"

      Surely you do not mean Fox. Shame on you!

    140. Re: Original LWN discussion by zaphod_es · · Score: 1

      Is that a Belgian defending his country's record in the Congo (formerly Belgian Congo)?
      Belgium is to be congratulated for any help given to that desperate country; on the other hand they should keep in mind that it will take a long time and a lot of aid to wipe out their shame.
      I have not got much karma but will give it all for this OT and minority interest. btw what was the original topic?

    141. Re: Original LWN discussion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Indeed. But Belgians are aware. See
      http://www.guardian.co.uk/congo/story/0,12292,76 5632,00.html

    142. Re:Original LWN discussion by Sj0 · · Score: 1

      Genetics aren't the only thing that makes people stupid, buddy. You can easily be raised to worship stupidity and ignorance. I've seen the greatest minds of our generation succumb to it's wraith. Hell, I've seen an entire nation fall under it's spell because their president, or their senator, or their congressman told them to; time and time again.

      And if you disagree with me, maybe I'm just another nerd who thinks too much?

      --
      It's been a long time.
    143. Re:Original LWN discussion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A shrub is a small bush. It is a play on George Bush Jr. Junior Bush == Shrub. I suppose it is a bit of name calling. Every time I hear it though, it serves as a poignant reminder to me that the current President of the US is a political legacy. The US was founded on very strong anti-aristocratic sentiment. Heriditary power was seen as unethical and extremely dangerous.

      It is blatently obvious that George Junior and and Jeb have benefitted immensley from their family wealth and connections and the machinery of party politics which have built a meta-aristocracy around and through our supposed democracy. There certainly is a vanishingly small chance that the younger Bushes would have ended up in power without those advantages

      Frankly, this sort of thing disgusts me. It disgusts me even more that catering to aristocrats seems to be a built in part of human nature. It's nearly as bad as the (blech!!) Kennedys, who are the quintessential example of this sort of thing.

    144. Re:Original LWN discussion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What does it matter if you have ten times the production? It is all for your own benefit but draws from common resources we all have to share. How is selfishness and self-centeredness an excuse?

    145. Re:Original LWN discussion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      FinalCut wrote:

      During the imperial age what nations were colonizing others?

      For crying out loud, learn some history. What about the annexation of Hawaii? That was in 1893, so maybe you do not consider that "the imperial age". Of course, if you do not, that just means that the US got a late start on imperialist expansionism and decided to give it a go when everyone else was giving it up. The United states probably keeps more people in "territories" outside its borders than any other nation on earth at this point.
    146. Re:Original LWN discussion by Jeremi · · Score: 1
      The French were right about the Iraqi WMD?


      No, the French were right that an invasion of Iraq was unnecesessary. Bush's argument was that Saddam has WMDs ready to launch on 45 minute's notice. Given that the American forces now can't find any evidence of them, either the weapons don't exist, or they are so cleverly hidden that we can't find them. And if the weapons were in fact widely deployed, it's somewhat difficult to believe that a nation in the process of being invaded would have time to hide their WMDs with such great skill in such a short time.

      --


      I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
    147. Re:Original LWN discussion by Gri77oN · · Score: 1

      well actually there is also a fact to take into consideration: the USofA are a big country (that means that you indeed have to burn more gas to go from city to city)
      but then why is there 4 cars per family all with high consuming quotas?...

      --
      "Knowledge, as wisdom, has value /only/ when shared."
    148. Re:Original LWN discussion by Gri77oN · · Score: 1

      Certain americans, with the diplomacy that we have come to expect from them, demand that french people remember that we owe them our freedom. We let them know, we do remember the legacy those dead in Normandie have granted us.
      BUT
      This remind me of a happening at home when I was very very young. Once I came to dinner and I had washed my hand without having to be told to do so. I looked up at my dad across the table and claimed "look dad, I washed my hands!" he looked at me very severely and said "you don't want me to congragulate you for something totaly normal, do you?".
      You came to our rescu against an enemy of freedom. that is the normal course of action. There is nothin grand about it. period.
      ANYWAY
      Our memory is not as selective, or so it seems, as yours. We do not forget that in 1940, on french roads, the heavy trucks that were dragging people to the slaughterhouse were powered by Ford and GeneralMotors, nor that the Messerschmiit were running on GeneralMotors engines. finaly we do not forget that the IIIrd Reich could not have been born and prospered if not for the investissement done in germany by the biggest US industrials, acting as they were doing this for peace, although as always they were working for the money, as always. "world peace through world trade", had said Thomas Watson, IBM, american, yes, but nazi at heart, and decorated by hitler himself of the German Eagle.
      Must I quote Charles Lindberg, decorated also by hitler himself, or Joseph P.Kennedy, father of the president, whom did not loose money with his freindship with the reich and the contribution given to Hitler.
      No rest assured, americans, we have not forgotten. Those of us that were in the basement in Caen, Saint-Lo and other normand town, we do not forget how the american army bombarded any and everything from 10throusand feet. Many were those who were freed at that very moment.
      But still we thank you.

      The Old Europe has a long history, each page of this history is stained with blood and tears. Yours, Americans, is much shorter, and no doubt, although your frequetly quote the bible, you have not yet assimilated the universal message that solidarity is much more efficient thatn struggle. It will come with time, no doubt, when you will have suffered (I actually thought that 9/11 would be the turning point). I sincerly wish to americans that this thruth does not come to late, that you will not have to pay the heavy price for your warly thoughtlessness.

      But once again, we thank you for your 1944 intervention. It answered those of La Fayette, of Rochambeau, of the french troupps whom in 1778 came to help you /become/ the USofA.
      there is one tiny difference though.
      We came at the very start of the conflic, without having ever helped your adversaries.
      In 1917 and 1942 it toke you 3 years to run to the human rights' rescue, after having helped hitler humiliate your friends.

      +++++++
      having said that, I am completely aware that TODAY 95% of the weapons that exists today are made and sold by the 5 top coutries in the UN (that means France and US and others)
      I am ashamed of it, are you?
      +++++++

      now about saddam hussein, we never said "saddam is not a mass murderer" we always said, the UnitedNations' policy for desarmement /is/ working, the war "for mass murder weapons" is not necessary.
      And time has proven us right since thou still haven't found any weapons.
      WE NEVER said that saddam was not ma mass murderer. we agree with you when you say he had to be removed for the GREATER GOOD of the iraqi people. but please don't tell me you did that: you didn't. you did it for money as usual and always. but still it is a good thing for the iraqi people (that saddam's gone, i mean, not that /you/ did it).

      not do you understand this? we are not criticizing what you did but WHY you did it.
      you USofA do not use your power with responsibilities, you use it for YOUR OWN GOOD.

      .

      --
      "Knowledge, as wisdom, has value /only/ when shared."
    149. Re:Original LWN discussion by Gri77oN · · Score: 1

      you may wanna have look at my answer here

      --
      "Knowledge, as wisdom, has value /only/ when shared."
    150. Re:Original LWN discussion by hesiod · · Score: 1

      > You can easily be raised to worship stupidity and ignorance. I've seen the greatest minds of our generation succumb to it's wraith.
      > And if you disagree with me, maybe I'm just another nerd who thinks too much

      Absolutely not, no one thinks too much; most don't think enough. But that stupidity-rearing is not purely an American problem. It is prevalent all over the world, and the USA is not even the worst offender. I am bothered that you would suggest that I consider you stupid because I don't agree with you. That seems to be far too common. It may be that people automatically call others stupid because they do not understand their point of view.

    151. Re:Original LWN discussion by Smeagel · · Score: 1
      The flaw in your logic is that you pretend actions can only have a single motivation. Many things we do have more than one cause. Was world economics a consideration when liberating Iraq? YES. Was getting rid of a dictator who liked to declare his role model as Stalin -- the largest mass murderer of all times -- a motivation? YES. Was liberating an oppressed people who weren't allowed to even speak their voice a motivation? YES.

      I ask you, who did more for the Iraqi people:
      The Americans who liberated them from a dictator, or the French who tried to disarm the dictator and let him continue to torture his people for times to come. Sometimes results and actions speak louder than motivations, don't they? No matter what selfish goals, if any, there is no way that you can say that we put the Iraqi people in a worse place now than they were 12 months ago. Your complaining about our motivation is simply semantics. What we did was good for the people, as simple as that.

      Next, let me point out that the french people did NOT come to our aid in the start of our revolution. You guys didn't actually give us troop aid until the END of the war. When you did give us aid, which was seldom until it looked as if we were going to win, it was in the same form that we helped you in the beginning of WW2 -- munitions. Do your research on this one, and you will find that my facts are accurate. How this is EASILY shown is how you say that you came to our help at the "start" of the war in 1778...ahem...our revolution started in 1775..but yes you did start helping in 1778.

      For reference:
      http://www.pbs.org/ktca/liberty/chronicle/timeline .html

      And yes, the German army had SOME American parts in their war machines. They probably had some French parts. The majority of parts were probably BMW parts since they ORIGINATED creating war machines for the germans. You say that we never should have invested money in Germany's economy in an attempt to rebuild it. Then I ask you, after your country was torn apart by Germany after World War II, are you happy that we invested billions in YOUR economy to help you rebuild? Were we just trying to make money like always when we GAVE you billions to help make up for destroyed lands? Don't be so naive as to think that our help ended on the beaches of Normandy. At one point in the 50's if we had recalled the debt own to us from giving money to rebuild economy's, we could have bankrupted almost every country in western Europe. The money given to Germany was not unusual, what was unusual was the rise of an unexpected dictator, and the worlds attempt to ignore him until he rebuilt a super-power.

      And I ask you as a people, do you dislike the money that our government gives yours every year to date in an attempt to help balance your economy? You probably don't read about that in your newspaper, but we read about it in ours, and I hope you do dislike receiving those funds, because our legislators are currently working on removing them.

      I'm sure it's very popular in France to say that American's care about nothing but money. There you are 100% wrong. Above money we care about liberty. Do you realize that after the revolutionary war we ended up paying almost TWICE the taxes that the british were taxing us with? The war was not about taxes alone as is often thought, that war was about the right to representation.

      Do you realize how much the Iraqi war COST us? Far, far, FAR more than we will ever see monitary profit from. Every single one of those smart bombs you saw costs literally millions of dollars, and we were shooting 100's an hour, do the math. We had a few jets go down, each jet costs us BILLIONS of dollars. Sometimes it's easier to say that we just "did it out of greed" than it is to actually prove. I'd be interested in seeing you prove that beyond anti-american sentiments. How exactly has America profited from an Iraq without Sadam so far? Aside from having one less anti-american terrorist supporter in the world.

    152. Re:Original LWN discussion by Gri77oN · · Score: 1

      this is starting to bore me.
      not because you efficiently "break" the exemples i choose to use, but because you do not want to step back and glance at the whole situation.

      I am not saying that we, french people/governement are better then you USofA.

      what I am saying is that the economcal/military/political dominance you have grants you a great power and a great responsability.
      you use the great power with so little responsibility that it makes you unworhty of the said power.

      ok here I could spend say an hour or so digging anecdotes to asses what I say here. I will not, you seem to have that kind of time which I don't.

      I'll just direct you to this beautifull letter from paulo coelho entitled, "thank you president bush".

      now please, dig out some google search that will proove me wrong, i don't mind.

      +++
      about that argument, there is not only one reason for which we went to iraq etc etc.
      that argument is TRUE.
      so i will not deny it.

      but then , why is the "get more money and/or power" ALWAYS behind anything you USofA do outside USofA?

      (could it be because it is the USofA's primary objective?...)

      .

      --
      "Knowledge, as wisdom, has value /only/ when shared."
    153. Re:Original LWN discussion by Sj0 · · Score: 1

      Actually, I was insinuating that the culture of what I like to call "the cult of stupidity" starts with labels like nerd or geek, and I was more proving the point that genetics aren't the only way to make someone stupid. I hate to have to make the point in that way, but after this whole WMD debacle and such, it is stupidity to continue to believe anything coming out of this administration -- especially without question.

      A recent poll shows 66% of Americans believe Saddam worked in conjunction with Osama bin Laden. Since I haven't been convinced fully that bin Laden was even involved(their proof was far than convincing back in 2001), and there is zero (0) proof that saddam was involved, even from the spin doctors who tried to convince the world that Saddam had all these weapons of mass destruction.

      --
      It's been a long time.
    154. Re:Original LWN discussion by mink · · Score: 1

      Possibly from Texas politics. See the following book.

      --
      Well I've wrestled with reality for thirty five years doctor, and I'm happy to say I finally won out over it.
  2. All these stories and events miss the point by fr0dicus · · Score: 0, Troll

    SCO Unix is a pain in the ass to use and the sooner it dies the better. Never mind the companies attitude, SCO Unix sucks!

  3. Uh, note to SCO by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    You're a corporation. You're supposed to keep quite and smirk at protesters. You do not allow your employees to come out and hold their own "anti protest", especially when a large percentage of the computing world think you're unbalanced anyway!

    Earth to SCO. SCO come in now...I think we lost 'em.

    1. Re:Uh, note to SCO by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Any picture's of SCO employees actually holding those cards? I'm sure the RIAA would be interested in people who download all their music for free. I also suggest the police investigate SCO's PUBLIC ADMISSION OF SOFTWARE PIRACY!

      Anyway film at 11...

    2. Re:Uh, note to SCO by zedmelon · · Score: 1

      I have a question:

      I read that flyer, which allegedly dispells the assertion that IBM-contributed Linux contains SysV code. If that's not true, and SCO has zero case, why are they claiming they do? What is SCO's rationale for it?

      Please tell me that it's a bit more than just a last-ditch attempt at saving a dying company.

      --
      Mom says my .sig can beat up your .sig.
    3. Re:Uh, note to SCO by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Any picture's of SCO employees actually holding those cards? I'm sure the RIAA would be interested in people who download all their music for free. I also suggest the police investigate SCO's PUBLIC ADMISSION OF SOFTWARE PIRACY!

      No pictures, but there's more information available here.

    4. Re:Uh, note to SCO by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's not a corporation. The Internal Revenue Service has recognized the religious nature of the Church of SCOentology.

    5. Re:Uh, note to SCO by SpaceLifeForm · · Score: 4, Funny
      It's a bit more that just a last-ditch attempt at saving a dying company.

      Ouch! Ok, ok, so I lied.

      --
      You are being MICROattacked, from various angles, in a SOFT manner.
    6. Re:Uh, note to SCO by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Cool! So if IBM were produce pamphlets hailing lawyers as the saviours of the known universe, demanding revenue to form the new order from ALL computer users and stick a picture of our fuher looking a little like Darl McBride.... That would be mockery? Hey great resource you linked too. Even has a description of you!

    7. Re:Uh, note to SCO by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I sure am glad that I switched to BSD.

      Phffft. BSD is sooooo 20th century. I switched to GNU/HURD, a new OS for a new century.

    8. Re:Uh, note to SCO by MrLint · · Score: 1

      Id like to officially recind my post about feeling bad for SCO employees. Anyone who still works there is a jackass.

    9. Re:Uh, note to SCO by WCMI92 · · Score: 1

      "You're a corporation. You're supposed to keep quite and smirk at protesters. You do not allow your employees to come out and hold their own "anti protest", especially when a large percentage of the computing world think you're unbalanced anyway!"

      Good point.

      Sort of gives them legitimacy, doesn't it?

      Not to mention the idiocy... SCO WAS a Linux company!

      --
      Corporatism != Free Market
    10. Re:Uh, note to SCO by Puu · · Score: 1

      Mod parent UP.

    11. Re:Uh, note to SCO by dipipanone · · Score: 1

      The Internal Revenue Service has recognized the religious nature of the Church of SCOentology.

      I just wanna know how many wives Darl McBride actually has...

    12. Re:Uh, note to SCO by shadowbearer · · Score: 1

      It's called the Scorched Earth Policy. We're dying anyway, let's see if we can't get someone to help us take down our enemies (like, Micros^H^H^H^H^H^H flaming torches) :-)

      SB

      --
      It's old. The more humans I meet, the more I like my cats. At least they are honest.
    13. Re:Uh, note to SCO by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh, I get it! Because SCO is in Utah, right? And people still associate polygamy with Mormons even though they stopped over a hundred years ago. Wow, you've got one good sense of humor! Don't stop there, let's here some more!

    14. Re:Uh, note to SCO by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My father lived in Utah. In the house next door there lived 1 man, 4 women, and a whole buncha kids. Call it what you will. Legally I'm sure that man only had one wife, but in practice.... This was about 3 years ago. No joke, just the facts.

    15. Re:Uh, note to SCO by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Right here, the poster in the upper-right that says SUE ME.

    16. Re:Uh, note to SCO by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well during the anti-war protests in America the Clear Channel corporation organized and promoted several pro-war "anti-protests" even though a large percentage of the world thinks America is unbalanced so this kind of moronic behavior is not new.

    17. Re:Uh, note to SCO by dipipanone · · Score: 1

      Look, just don't come knocking on my door when you're doing your missionary service or you'll get a bucket of water over you. OK?

  4. Re:Lets all join Hands (handles) by jmaatta · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Maybe all this SCO stuff should be placed under its own topic. That would make ignoring it a lot easier.

  5. Mad? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Got bandwidth? Mad at SCO? Download a 5mb file from here or launch an unspecified number of wget processes:

    wget sco.com/images/pdf/eserver/eserver_sysadmin.pdf

    This will teach you to administrate the SCO OpenLinux server, the only officially novell-compatible Linux distribution.

    1. Re:Mad? by miketang16 · · Score: 1

      Hahhaha they removed it!

      --
      -------
      "In times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act."
      -- George Orwell
    2. Re:Mad? by shibbydude · · Score: 1

      It says "document not found". I think they caught on to you.

      --
      We're only gonna die from our own arrogance, that's why we might as well take our time...
    3. Re:Mad? by zedmelon · · Score: 1

      There have only been like 30 posts so far; betchya a dollar there's an admin there who reads /.

      --
      Mom says my .sig can beat up your .sig.
    4. Re:Mad? by GlassUser · · Score: 2, Funny

      This is rich. I think I am starting to like SCO. Kinda in the way you liked the nerd in middle school, and would save the special lunch money theft for him.

    5. Re:Mad? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The file was removed... already. Here's another...

      A 36.6mb ZIP from the SCO Authorized Eduaction Partner program from here

      or wget: (removing the space in 'zip')
      wget sco.com/images/pdf/education/SCO_AEP_posterfiles.z ip

    6. Re:Mad? by DarkSkiesAhead · · Score: 1


      The 5Mb file is gone. However, one thing they cannot remove is their front page. Nor the links on it. So, for all you vengeful linux users:

      wget -r -nd --delete-after www.sco.com

      Let that go for a while, stop when you want more bandwidth.

    7. Re:Mad? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Nah, this is just a repeat of one of the previous attempt to Slashdot SCO (some of which succeeded). Well, that link isn't from the first, but from some other. The file was renamed, but:

      Download this 25+ MB file instead!

    8. Re:Mad? by Esion+Modnar · · Score: 4, Insightful
      betchya a dollar there's an admin there who reads /.

      And in a few months he (or she, you goddamn PC assholes) will have a lot more time to read /. SCO has not just filed suit against IBM, they have declared war against the rest of the IT world. (Linux = Communism?!?!)

      These people better start thinking towards the post-SCO world, much like the concentration camp guards started making nice towards the end of WWII.

      You see, even if they win their lawsuit against IBM and everybody else, they will be a pariah in the tech community. Nobody will do business with them, and eventually they'll spend their $3 billion on operating expenses and tacos and go bankrupt.

      And most of the OSS community will be saying goodbye good riddance.

      --

      They say the first thing to go is your penis. Well, it's either that or your brain. I forget which...
    9. Re:Mad? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ApacheBench:

      ab -n 1000000 -c 30 http://www.sco.com/

    10. Re:Mad? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or just DOS them into oblivion!

    11. Re:Mad? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Time to invoke Godwin's Law, thanks for comming, try again next time.

    12. Re:Mad? by Graspee_Leemoor · · Score: 1

      "start thinking towards the post-SCO world"

      "post-SCO world" ?

      Have you been taking writing lessons from Jon Katz?

      graspee

    13. Re:Mad? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I am sure the millions of people who lost friends and family members in the holocaust appreciate the comparison, why don't you just crawl back under the rock from which you came.

    14. Re:Mad? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And if you're looking to make the backend work a bit more than usual...

      here

    15. Re:Mad? by fliplap · · Score: 1

      I'm sure history should be supressed and eventually forgotten.

    16. Re:Mad? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You stupid moron, you cannot compare SCO in any way to concentration camp guards. Millions of people died a burtal death at the concentration camps, no one has ever been harmed because of SCO. Suing over IP != Genocide, it is very offencive to even compare them. It has nothing to do with history. You are a complete and total moron.

    17. Re:Mad? by commodoresloat · · Score: 1
      You see, even if they win their lawsuit against IBM and everybody else, they will be a pariah in the tech community. Nobody will do business with them, and eventually they'll spend their $3 billion on operating expenses and tacos and go bankrupt.

      Yeah, just like Microsoft's repeated and blatant anti-social behavior led to their pariah status and bankruptcy. Most businesses will make decisions like this based on rational self-interest, not politics, and if TSG/SCO wins, in a couple years people will have forgotten the politics anyway. If they win, as others have pointed out, they basically 0wnz0r the licenses for every computer not running a Microsoft OS. If the government enforces this claim, they are rolling in money and power. Very few businesses will challenge them on principle alone.

    18. Re:Mad? by zedmelon · · Score: 1

      Suing over IP != genocide

      You're right, but that's not what he was stating.

      He was drawing a comparison between two groups of people which both found themselves occupying a position of sour limelight.

      He didn't say that the reasons for begrudging SCO employees are similar to (or as justified as) those for despising concentration camp guards.

      working for unscrupulous company != murder, horrible physical / mental abuse

      He didn't say that the motivation to work for SCO was comparable to swearing one's loyalty to Hitler.

      earning a living != forced / intimidated / extorted / propaganda-misguided into service

      He only pointed out a clear parallel between the SCO employees and Nazi guards.

      OhShitThisIsGoingToEndSoonSoI'dBetterFigureOutHowT oAvoidEveryoneHatingMe = OhShitThisIsGoingToEndSoonSoI'dBetterFigureOutHowT oAvoidEveryoneHatingMe

      Yes, those were tragic events in a tragic time, but don't read provocation into what was said; no one made any offen S ive statements until you did.

      --
      Mom says my .sig can beat up your .sig.
  6. Astroturf. by CrazyDuke · · Score: 1

    "Among other things, the protesters claim that SCO employes came out and joined the event holding pre-prepared signs saying things like 'I love software piracy' and 'Try communism - use Linux."

    I guess SCO really isn't ashamed to outright astroturf.

    --
    Any sufficiently advanced influence is indistinguishable from control.
    1. Re:Astroturf. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I guess you arent ashamed to use terms that you have no idea what they mean.

    2. Re:Astroturf. by gearheadsmp · · Score: 1

      So who wants to setup a SCOtoady.com site, ala Linux Toady? (about that incident where the L. Today editor was astroturfing).

    3. Re:Astroturf. by CrazyDuke · · Score: 1

      Astroturfing is the set up of a fake grassroots movement. This can be in order to undermine or misrepresent a real one or to disguies the efforts of a lobbying group as an political effort by citizenry.

      "astroturf
      (AS.troh.turf) n. A fake grass-roots movement."

      --
      Any sufficiently advanced influence is indistinguishable from control.
  7. YOU IS TEH WHINNER!!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Your prize is my fabulous nutz all up in ya mouf, baby!

    MMMmmmmMMM Nutz!

  8. pro-linux sco employees by stonebeat.org · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I wonder how many SCO employees are actually pro-linux, but are afraid to say anything, against their own company......

    1. Re:pro-linux sco employees by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Take a second look at the slogans and think if it that realy helps SCO to accuse IBM of supporting communism.

    2. Re:pro-linux sco employees by d3faultus3r · · Score: 2, Informative

      Quite a bit. If you look at the history of SCO, half the time they were working on Linux alongside UNIX. I'm sure a lot of SCO employees developed an affinity for Linux.

      --
      read my blog
      musings on politics and technol
    3. Re:pro-linux sco employees by Jonner · · Score: 4, Informative

      Unless there's been a purge, I'm sure many of them are big GNU/Linux users, since that was one of the company's main products until a month or two ago.

    4. Re:pro-linux sco employees by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What the fuck is GNU/Linux? Don't you know it's Lignux? You MUST do as RMS tells you...

    5. Re:pro-linux sco employees by WCMI92 · · Score: 3, Funny

      "I wonder how many SCO employees are actually pro-linux, but are afraid to say anything, against their own company....."

      Does SCaldera have any employees left who aren't lawyers?

      --
      Corporatism != Free Market
    6. Re:pro-linux sco employees by althalus · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Actually most of their IT guys were standing outside of the building watching us. Many of them are actually members of the LUG...

    7. Re:pro-linux sco employees by newhoggy · · Score: 2, Insightful

      They're pretty good artists though - maybe they should consider changing professions.

    8. Re:pro-linux sco employees by Kris+Magnusson · · Score: 1

      There's been a purge. Several employees that I know of have been given their walking papers, with draconian exit contracts forbidding them from talking about any of the circumstances of their exits. Sucks.

      ............. kris

      --
      "I thought I could organize freedom. How Scandinavian of me."
    9. Re:pro-linux sco employees by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      like many people, they pretend to like linux.

    10. Re:pro-linux sco employees by SpaceLifeForm · · Score: 1

      I'm far, far away from Redmond, but I can still smell the stench.

      --
      You are being MICROattacked, from various angles, in a SOFT manner.
    11. Re:pro-linux sco employees by ichimunki · · Score: 1

      Exit contracts? You mean like the severance contracts almost any large company will make you sign in order to get severance pay during a layoff or something? Usually just enough money involved to where you're really glad to take it rather than being able to take your beef public, but not so much that it will completely tap the corporate payroll keg. The contracts are how they get you to agree that they have bought your silence. It's standard operating procedure, and I wouldn't call it draconian. It's a fair trade. You get a six month (or thereabouts) paid vacation in return for keeping mum. You don't have to take the money or sign the contract.

      --
      I do not have a signature
    12. Re:pro-linux sco employees by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Respect my authori-TAY!

  9. at first.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    At first when I read about signs saying Linux is communist, I thought it was Slashdot trolls protesting. :)

  10. Slightly OT - The SCO dog ;) by Daath · · Score: 3, Informative

    Userfriendly has modified a Gary Larson (Farside) comic to fit SCO! It's quite funny!

    --
    Any technology distinguishable from magic, is insufficiently advanced.
    1. Re:Slightly OT - The SCO dog ;) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      User Friendly isn't funny normally. Now they're taking an existing copyrighted comic and "modifying" it, and it's still not funny.

      If users are trying to get people to believe that the Linux community respects others' legitimately-owned intellectual property, then I think that strip ought to be taken down.

    2. Re:Slightly OT - The SCO dog ;) by Otter · · Score: 3, Insightful
      Fairly typical User Friendly: "I must write a strip ridiculing SCO and defending Linux users against accusations of ignoring the IP rights of others. But how? Got it -- I'll steal Gary Larson's old bit about what the dog hears! Except I'll modify it just enough to make it no longer make sense!"

      And the readers see it and go, "Hey, I use Linux! And I know about SCO! And I know the original cartoon!"

    3. Re:Slightly OT - The SCO dog ;) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      userfriendly is not, has never been, and will never, ever be funny. please refrain from linking to it in the future.

    4. Re:Slightly OT - The SCO dog ;) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      User Friendly gets a *lot* of mileage out of being the only comic strip Linux users can relate to...

      It's a pretty dull, badly written strip otherwise...........

    5. Re:Slightly OT - The SCO dog ;) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      fap fap fap fap! "Only I know what's funny and if you don't agree with me you're a turd!" fap fap fap fap!!

    6. Re:Slightly OT - The SCO dog ;) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's funny and it's true!

    7. Re:Slightly OT - The SCO dog ;) by Mogomra · · Score: 1

      And I'm sure that this little bit of intellectual property (Gary Larson's cartoon) was appropriated with the proper permissions from FarWorks, right?

      Way to further the cause.

  11. Let Us Hope... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The signs made do not represent the staff of the current Operation, those signs look like they were made by the child with the "SUE ME I USE LINUX" sign.

  12. Troll, dude comon! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Troll
    After 50 acrticles this is not a troll it IS Funny

    You mods just enjoy modding people down more than up. If this were by an SC it would be an instant +5 funny.

  13. invisible anti-protesters? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Either the anti-protesters are invisible, or just really really tiny. Surely they aren't cowards?

  14. Image Problems? by RWarrior(fobw) · · Score: 4, Informative
    I can't mirror the pictures, but when they get Slashdotted, the important text on the signs are below, since I can't mirror them.

    It this really the image these people want to project?

    • "Legalize Stupidity - Smoke Linux"
    • "Give Communism A Try - Free Linux"
    • "Who's Down With IPOP - Other People's Intellectual Property" with Tux saying "I'm Down I'm Down"
    • "My Son Stole Code & Republished It (and all I got was this lousy t-shirt"
    • "I Don't Pay For Music - I Don't Pay For My O.S. Either - So Sue Me"
    • "Software Stealing Is Not A Crime - In Iraq And Parts of France"
    • "I [heart] Software Piracy" complete with Tux in a pirate outfit

    Too bad I'm not an SCO shareholder. Maybe I could sue SCO management for permitting such stupid childishness on company time.

    --
    Remove the caps and hold to a mirror.
    1. Re:Image Problems? by stonebeat.org · · Score: 1

      i m not justifying any of these, but SCO employees have their right of free speech as well. SCO management can not stop them, nor do they have to.

    2. Re:Image Problems? by sukottoX · · Score: 1, Insightful
      I think these signs are absolutely outrageous! I'm shocked that this was allowed by the company. Now, instead of targeting IBM, all of these signs ridicule Linux and open source users in general! I use Linux... does that mean I'm a Communist, SCO? Does that make me stupid?

      Allowing comments like these to be made publicly by employees is absolutly not the way to run a business.

    3. Re:Image Problems? by drinkypoo · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Of course, if the signs were dreamed up on company time, especially if they were thought up by marketing (they have that look about them) then it's not a free speech issue, it's a how are you spending money that could instead be used to raise stock prices issue.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    4. Re:Image Problems? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I use Linux... does that mean I'm a Communist, SCO? Does that make me stupid?

      Probably. It also means that you are a virgin and you live off of cheetohs and mountain dew.

    5. Re:Image Problems? by cowmix · · Score: 4, Interesting

      * "Give Communism A Try - Free Linux"

      Hmm.. well is was Caldera riding on high on the capitalistic Linux
      IPO craze of the late 90s that allowed them to purchase SCO thus
      any usable IP left in SystemV code base. It was the promise of Linux
      who bank rolled the whole thing. I think that anyone who bought
      into their IPO because they thought they were investing in a Linux
      company should get their money back.

    6. Re:Image Problems? by csteinle · · Score: 1
      "Give Communism A Try - Free Linux"


      Which also has tux doing a Nazi salute and saying "Ya Vol". So, Communism==Nazism? Eh? And misspelt German is not the way to look clever. What a bunch of dumb fucks.
    7. Re:Image Problems? by mccoma · · Score: 1

      just out of curiosity, does anyone own the trademark on Tux? If someone does, I sense an opportunity for some money for actions of a company's employees on company time.

    8. Re:Image Problems? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Software Stealing Is Not A Crime - In Iraq And Parts of France"

      psssst... always read the fineprint: The penguin says "But don't drop the soap, just in case"

      Wanna by an insurance btw?

    9. Re:Image Problems? by Kaeru+the+Frog · · Score: 4, Funny

      "Who's Down With IPOP - Other People's Intellectual Property" with Tux saying "I'm Down I'm Down"

      Naughty by Nature promptly treatened to sue SCO for unauthorized use of it copyrighted material. When asked what matereal exactly was copied, Naughty by Nature refused to say claiming if they disclosed they risked others also using it without their permission.

    10. Re:Image Problems? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hey idiot, its spellt "Ja Wohl".

    11. Re:Image Problems? by netsharc · · Score: 2, Funny

      Legalize Stupidity alright, because at the moment SCO is breaking the law with copious amounts of it.

      --
      What time is it/will be over there? Check with my iPhone app!
    12. Re:Image Problems? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you've ever been to an anti-war protest you know this kind of crap is par for the course.

      Since I don't think invading a country on non-existant evidence and against the UN is good for America and since as an American obviously I want America to have a good standing in the world and a bright future I protested to show my belief that the current administration has America heading for the rocks but this apparently means I am a pot smoking hippy, a mao zedong worshipping commie, I give blowjobs to yassir arafat, I surrender while eating cheese and should just move to iraq.

      I became all of these things simply because I don't want to see America smash onto the same rocks of empire-past that everyone from the Romans to the British and Ottomans have before us...

      Still the pro-SCO protestors really sank about as low as it can get at this one...

    13. Re:Image Problems? by metatruk · · Score: 1
    14. Re:Image Problems? by 3.1415926535 · · Score: 1

      Linus owns the trademark on the name "Linux".

    15. Re:Image Problems? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      just out of curiosity, does anyone own the trademark on Tux?
      I belive so, but it is probably allowed for general use in a GPLish manner.

    16. Re:Image Problems? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      does that mean I'm a Communist, SCO? Does that make me stupid?
      Why are you implying that being a communist is stupid?
    17. Re:Image Problems? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      It's actually spelt "Jawohl".

      You call someone else an idiot while being unable to spell neither English nor German properly?

    18. Re:Image Problems? by Cone83 · · Score: 1

      nope, it's a single word. spelled: "Jawohl"

    19. Re:Image Problems? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He knows. That's why he said that it was misspelled.

      And you should get your facts straight before posting. Jawohl. One word.

      Idiot.

    20. Re:Image Problems? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm guessing the sense of humor of the posters were targeted specifically at people like you.

      I guess some people will never get it.

    21. Re:Image Problems? by caouchouc · · Score: 1
      Those are so awful and self-defeating that there can only be three reasons for it:
      1. It's a management-sanctioned and sanitized "event."
      2. Some Pro-Linux employees are tripping SCO up while pretending to support the company.
      3. SCO really is as stupid as people say it is.
    22. Re:Image Problems? by csteinle · · Score: 1, Flamebait

      Once you've finished trying to smoke your own cock, you might want to read what I wrote again. "Ya Vol" is in quotes, indicating that it is in fact, a quote. From the poster. You know, the one I was commenting on. The comment "And misspelt German is not the way to look clever" may also have been a little pointer.

      Oh, and it's spelt "spelt" not "spellt", numbnuts. And it's "Jawohl". One word. Do try to keep up. I know it's hard for the educationally challenged like yourself.

    23. Re:Image Problems? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      i m not justifying any of these, but SCO employees have their right of free speech as well. SCO management can not stop them, nor do they have to.

      Shouldn't they be, like, working or something? Like, fixing UnixWare or Open Server or something?

    24. Re:Image Problems? by divide+overflow · · Score: 5, Insightful
      i m not justifying any of these, but SCO employees have their right of free speech as well. SCO management can not stop them, nor do they have to.

      Yeah, right. What planet are YOU on?
      • The right of free speech is a restriction preventing the government from limiting your speech. It is standard practice for companies to tell their employees what they should and shouldn't say to the press.
      • Do you think for an instant that SCO would allow any of their employees to keep their jobs if they stood out their and SUPPORTED the protestors? That would be a MEANINGFUL test of their right of free speech. If the company didn't want them to come "out of the SCO building with pre-prepared posters for the protest" do you think they would allow them to? Their lawyers would most certainly have sent memos around telling the employees exactly how they were expected to behave.
      In short, the notion that these folks aren't supported by SCO or that SCO wouldn't stop them if they didn't support such activities is ludicrous and absurd. Anyone who would harbor such delusions should seek professional help.
    25. Re:Image Problems? by Dumbush · · Score: 5, Funny

      Dude, havn't you learn from our leader? You can never go wrong blaming Iraq, France, and communism.

      Now to all hawks, rejoice!
      Hail Bush!

    26. Re:Image Problems? by hendridm · · Score: 1

      Some of those seem borderline libelous towards Linus. Let's say code was "stolen" from SCO and Linus approved it - it's not like it was premeditated. Also, Linus et. al. could plead ignorance in the same way SCO did when they released Linux (and thus their stolen code) under the GPL (we didn't know it was there!).

    27. Re:Image Problems? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What are you saying? They've got a point. I don't care who's right and who's wrong, but hats off to SCO: those slogans are real funny and in many cases quite cutting.

    28. Re:Image Problems? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Many of us don't feel ridiculed by these signs. We all "share" MP3s and divxes and most of us don't really give a rats ass if some Linux developer cut+paste from System V. More power to em! Hell, we might even admit to 'smoke' and be a little left-of-center politically, if you know what I mean. And if we were being really honest, who hasn't sniped a little GPL code here and there for an internal app or whatever. Software industry norm.

      But, no, all the rightous old ladies here are all "OMG! Copying MP3s! How dare they accuse us!". Loosen up, man. Smoke a little and let the capitalists worry about intellectual property while we worry about the computers. That's how the world works.

    29. Re:Image Problems? by minus_273 · · Score: 1

      communism==nazism?
      hmm i wouldnt know... seems to me that the German national Socialist workers party has alot in common wih communism.. they dont like dissidents, slaughter millions build empires.. dont allow other parties to exist and build a state based around that single party and a personality cult around the dictator.. hmm... seems quite smiliar to me.

      --
      The war with islam is a war on the beast
      The war on terror is a war for peace
    30. Re:Image Problems? by DataPath · · Score: 1

      [Graphic of SCO's revenue over the past 3 years]

      [Graphic of RedHat's revenue over the past 3 years]

      Communist THIS SCO!

      --
      Inconceivable!
    31. Re:Image Problems? by KjetilK · · Score: 1

      What planet are YOU on?

      [...]

      The right of free speech is a restriction preventing the government from limiting your speech.

      Uhm, talking about planets...: No, that's the US version of free speech, codified in the first amendment. The US is not the whole planet, and for quite a lot of the rest of the planet, that's insufficient protection.

      other than that, what you write is OK.

      --
      Employee of Inrupt, Project Release Manager and Community Manager for Solid
    32. Re:Image Problems? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It also means that you are a virgin and you live off of cheetohs and mountain dew.

      Umm, I dont see your point..

    33. Re:Image Problems? by SoupIsGoodFood_42 · · Score: 1
      Thank you for you ignorance on socialism and communism. The Nazi party were dictators. Starlin was also a dictator. Just because they say they are socialists or communists, It doesn't mean they really stand for what communists or socialists stand for.

      Anyone who believes that communism is about the things you mentioned, is just as bad as the communists and socialists who cry out and say that the capitalist system is the sole blame for all it's problems.

      I'm not a communists or a socialist BTW. But this FUD has to stop.

      Ironicly, you post could easly be about the current state of the US government.

      Whether you like it or not. The OSS movment is communistic. Now, you can bitch and moan about how it isn't, because communist ideas are evil. Or you can wake up and see that perhaps communist ideas can work in certain places.

    34. Re:Image Problems? by linzeal · · Score: 1

      Aren't they protected by the fact that it is a parody?

    35. Re:Image Problems? by Aardpig · · Score: 1

      Oh, and it's spelt "spelt" not "spellt", numbnuts.

      That would be "spelled". Hoisted by your own petard!

      --
      Tubal-Cain smokes the white owl.
    36. Re:Image Problems? by divide+overflow · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Uhm, talking about planets...: No, that's the US version of free speech, codified in the first amendment. The US is not the whole planet, and for quite a lot of the rest of the planet, that's insufficient protection.

      DUH! The protest is happening in the U.S., so I'd think it obvious to everyone that the laws of the U.S. are applicable. Apparently you aren't familiar with the idiomatic expression "What planet are YOU on"--here in the U.S. it can be interpreted as "Are you as clueless about U.S. law as a Norwegian is about U.S. idiomatic expressions?" ;^)

    37. Re:Image Problems? by canajin56 · · Score: 1
      spell
      v. spelled, or spelt (splt) spellÂing, spells
      v. tr.
      1. To name or write in order the letters constituting (a word or part of a word).
      2. To constitute the letters of (a word): These letters spell animal.
      3. To add up to; signify: Their unwise investment could spell financial ruin.
      - Dictionary.com
      --
      ASCII stupid question, get a stupid ANSI
    38. Re:Image Problems? by lendude · · Score: 1
      Don't choke while you're up there yourself:

      Cambridge Dictionary Online

      --
      "Get off the cross - we need the wood" - Tori Amos
    39. Re:Image Problems? by the+gnat · · Score: 1

      The OSS movment is communistic.

      Wrong. Marx felt that capitalists produced nothing of value and became rich off the hard work of others. In contrast, this is actually encouraged in the open-source community. All the companies getting involved in open-source do so because they (rightly or not) see the potential for profit, not because their executive board still thinks Marx was right. Open-source software represents a very different R&D model, but there's nothing inherently less capitalistic about the way companies have adopted it. IBM is pimping Linux because IBM thinks that Linux will help it get more boxes out the door. Linus works on Linux because of personal pride and ambition (as well as simply enjoying it), and gets paid well to do so.

    40. Re:Image Problems? by rifter · · Score: 2, Funny

      Hmm, that reminds me. I am out of cheeto's... mmmmm cheetos...

    41. Re:Image Problems? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Another stupid fuck confused and thinks that "Information should be Libre' == Communism"? Well at least nobody wasted mod points on your stupidity as so often happens here on slashcrap. "News For Blithering idiots, Lots of stuff that means absolutley jack shit"

    42. Re:Image Problems? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Anyone else notice www.sco.com is running linux?
      www.netcraft.com

    43. Re:Image Problems? by Fnkmaster · · Score: 1
      Bingo. This company made their money on Linux. Now they've turned their back on it, but to claim that "Linux==communism" is laughable. Yeah, all those communists at IBM who support Linux for "hippie goodness".


      This is big time PR spin factor here. Trying to cast this as the valiant American capitalists vs. the communist hippie Linux users, who are apparently all a bunch of smelly Stallman clones.

    44. Re:Image Problems? by SoupIsGoodFood_42 · · Score: 1

      Thank you for confiming my point.

    45. Re:Image Problems? by SoupIsGoodFood_42 · · Score: 1

      That's why I said communistic, not that it's a model of communism. Partly because of the fact that companies are also involved in OSS. But there are still people out there who contribute to the OSS community for free.

    46. Re:Image Problems? by numark · · Score: 1

      Well, Larry Ewing is the creator, so assumedly he has copyright over the image of Tux. However, his site specifically states that you can use the image for whatever you'd like, as long as you give credit to him if anyone asks who drew Tux. In other words, SCO can use the image of Tux however they want; they're allowed to by the creator, just like everyone else who uses the image.

      --
      Want Slashdot headlines on your site? Try SlashHead
    47. Re:Image Problems? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No no, like this:

      [Graphic of SCO's vs RedHat's revenue over the past 3 years]


    48. Re:Image Problems? by minus_273 · · Score: 1

      I live near a communist country (china) and have seen what they do in tibet. Sorry, commniusm is inherntly evil Yes, even the way marx taught it. It calls for a dictatorship and assumes that when a utopia is established the people in power will just give it up. Also in a communist utopia, dissent is not looked kindly upon. Fascism doesnt vary far from it in many respects.
      As for OSS being commnuist? I dont know, my argument had noting to do with oss. I was merely pointing out that nazis and communists have alot in common except it is OK in some circles to be a communist.
      Also for the record, as along time minix then linux user, i decide to drop OSS completly and use OSX. Dont know about OSS but If you want to communism look at Mozilla they even emnbrace the symbols of the 'communism' you siad was not communism in your post.

      --
      The war with islam is a war on the beast
      The war on terror is a war for peace
    49. Re:Image Problems? by Eunuchswear · · Score: 1

      That'll be Hoist by your own petard maybe?

      --
      Watch this Heartland Institute video
    50. Re:Image Problems? by KjetilK · · Score: 1

      "Are you as clueless about U.S. law as a Norwegian is about U.S. idiomatic expressions?"

      hehe, probably... :-)

      --
      Employee of Inrupt, Project Release Manager and Community Manager for Solid
    51. Re:Image Problems? by Aardpig · · Score: 1

      That'll be Hoist by your own petard maybe?

      (from Cambridge Advanced Learner's Dictionary): be hoist(ed) with/by your own petard

      --
      Tubal-Cain smokes the white owl.
    52. Re:Image Problems? by SoupIsGoodFood_42 · · Score: 1
      What has you living near China got to do with communism? Cuba is a communist country, and although they are far from perfect, they were much better then when they were a banana republic, run by capitalist USA.

      You don't seem to get my point. The ideas in communism, capitalism, or socialism, are not "evil". The whole idea of evil is just silly when talking about economic and social systems. I think the word you're looking for is corrupt. Anyway. Both those 3 systems have some good ideas in them (while you think each one may fail, is another thing).

      If communism has a lot in common with nazis, then the same can be said about capitalism. The implimentaion of someone's take on an idea is not a good example of what those ideas represent.

      I'm not sure how you got the idea that I said Mozilla was not communism.

    53. Re:Image Problems? by csteinle · · Score: 1

      Check the alternate spellings in your dictionary. Failed pedantry is so sad.

    54. Re:Image Problems? by dago · · Score: 1

      ""Give Communism A Try - Free Linux"

      Which also has tux doing a Nazi salute and saying "Ya Vol". So, Communism==Nazism? Eh? And misspelt German is not the way to look clever. What a bunch of dumb fucks."


      That means they just lost the case thanks to Godwin's law !!! (now bring that to a court)

      --
      #include "coucou.h"
    55. Re:Image Problems? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, Stallman is not anti-capitalist at all, and regards many leftist "hippy" ideas as stupid.

      About the only thing he has in common with hippies is the long hair.

      If it looks like a hippie, and it smells like a hippie, it might just be a hippie... then again, if you're particularly (un?)lucky, it might be RMS.

    56. Re:Image Problems? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Working for free has nothing to do with communism.

      Communists simply believe that each participant should get the same reward and recognition for the product of the group as a whole regardless of the work they, as an individual, dedicated to the said product.

      Also, you cannot take a subset of an economic system (OSS is a subset of the software industry, which, itself, is a subset of the larger economy) and proclaim it to be communistic. If you did, one could argue, for example, that slave laborers are communistic, as they all get the same reward for the product.

      OSS will be communistic on the same day that the community regards a kernel beta tester as being equal to Linus--and rewards him/her appropriately.

    57. Re:Image Problems? by carlos_benj · · Score: 1
      I can find no instances of hoisted so perhaps we could allow the man who coined the term to speak to the issue:
      'tis the sport to have the engineer Hoised with his own petard.'
      --William Shakespeare (1564-1616), British dramatist, poet.
      More modern versions I can find use the word 'hoist' but not hoisted. Hoised may have meant 'heaved' or 'thrown' and may likely be the root for hoist.
      --

      --

      As a matter of fact, I am a lawyer. But I play an actor on TV.

    58. Re:Image Problems? by minus_273 · · Score: 1

      Living near a communist country i have seen what it does to those deemed racially undesirable. Sound familiar?
      i know what communism is in theory. But even you HAVE to admit that it has never happened. Every single country that that has a communist label and even those who are fighting for communism have turned into mass murderers. I believ i am i accutae in depicting a system which may have somehwt noble goals but does so through the pain and suffering of millions as evil. I doesnt matter if you say they are not communist (which i might add is a argument used by many aplolgists). Aditinally, Cuba whicjh it appears you accept is a communit country (from this post) accepts china the USSR among others to be other communist countries. If you accpet cuba to be a communist country and they slabghter millions and do the stuff i pointed out, doesnt that imply you accept communits do slaughter millions etc? (which counters your first argument)
      Secondly, in your orginal post you siad that these countries that claim to be communist an slaughter millions are not communits (to paraphrase, you said just because they have socilait or communist doesnt make them so) however mozilla does use the sybols posters and slogans made by the USSR as its logo. So, what type of communist system is the ussr? what is mozilla?
      here is an intersting website by a moz developer (which sadly is not a parody but the REAL thing.. this guy is dead serious).
      http://mithgol.pp.ru/Mozilla/

      I saw this an left OSS and mozilla all together.

      --
      The war with islam is a war on the beast
      The war on terror is a war for peace
    59. Re:Image Problems? by geekee · · Score: 1

      Read We the Living by Ayn Rand. It will help you understand that govt. enforced communism is evil in that it restricts basic freedoms. Yes, communists say the same thing about capitalists, but the difference is, if you value individual freedom, communists are wrong. Using moral relativsm isn't a good way to put capitalism and communism on the same footing. You must use reason to determine which is right and which is wrong based on objective principles. This can be dome without FUD.

      --
      Vote for Pedro
    60. Re:Image Problems? by geekee · · Score: 1

      "Cuba is a communist country, and although they are far from perfect, they were much better then when they were a banana republic, run by capitalist USA. "

      Tell that to the protester who have been arrested and sentenced to 25 years for speaking out against the govt. Communism is evil because it places the needs of society oabove the freedom of an individual Capitalism is a system where individuals intereact freely using trade. In communism and nazism, the individual is second to the state. The idea of communism is evil and that is why no state can enforce it without turning into a dictatorial regime.

      --
      Vote for Pedro
    61. Re:Image Problems? by SoupIsGoodFood_42 · · Score: 1
      Communists simply believe that each participant should get the same reward and recognition for the product of the group as a whole regardless of the work they, as an individual, dedicated to the said product.

      Sounds like OSS to me. People contribute, some more than others, others not at all. But in the end they can all share the product.

      Also, you cannot take a subset of an economic system (OSS is a subset of the software industry, which, itself, is a subset of the larger economy) and proclaim it to be communistic.

      Yes you can because not all people in the OSS community are contributing for commercial reasons.

      If you did, one could argue, for example, that slave laborers are communistic, as they all get the same reward for the product.

      Not sure how you come to that coclution. But the point is moot because slavery happens under capitalism as well.

      OSS will be communistic on the same day that the community regards a kernel beta tester as being equal to Linus--and rewards him/her appropriately.

      Bollocks. OSS would considered not to be communistic when people are rewared given how much they contribute.

      I should point out that the only reason that the OSS community shows ideas of communism sucessfuly is because software is infomation, so of course, has an infinite supply.

    62. Re:Image Problems? by SoupIsGoodFood_42 · · Score: 1
      Tell that to the protester who have been arrested and sentenced to 25 years for speaking out against the govt.

      As I said, they are far from perfect. But they are much better than when they were a banana republic, being controled and expoited by a capitalist country, just like some communist countries exploit people.

      Capitalism is a system where individuals intereact freely using trade.

      Tell that to the people who were under a dictatorship what was worse than Castro....Controled by a capitalisn nation.

      I hope you get my point. Capitalsm is no freeier than communism. As the old saying goes, "Under capitalism, man exploits man. Under communism, it the other way around".

    63. Re:Image Problems? by geekoid · · Score: 1

      since they are representitves of SCO, and this was on SCO time, and the Management of SCO was aware they where doing this, does that mean SCO supports
      stealing of IP? Software piracy?

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    64. Re:Image Problems? by geekoid · · Score: 1

      It would be interesting if a SCO employee took a vacation day so s/he could protest against SCO.

      In all likely hood they could sue if they were fired.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  15. Woah. by RyanFenton · · Score: 1

    I'm getting a bit dizzy. I can't tell the spin from the sarcasm anymore. Any chance the fine folks from SomethingAwful are behind any of this?

    Ryan Fenton

    1. Re:Woah. by Trusted+Content · · Score: 0

      Sounds like you need to :gb2gbs: am i RITE Fookoff this toupe.

      --
      OMG OMG LUNIX OMG
    2. Re:Woah. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      sup trusted content :cool:

      hay what's going on in thi

  16. IBM's Q&A about SCO, for the record by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting
  17. actionable? by lophophore · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Just wondering: Since some of those signs seem to imply that Linus is a thief, I wonder if he can now sue SCO for defamation???

    --
    there are 3 kinds of people:
    * those who can count
    * those who can't
  18. More effective. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Wouldn't be more effective to combine anti-SCO activity and a twice daily /. SCO story by just changing all links to those stories to the SCO site and bankrupt them with high bandwith costs?

    1. Re:More effective. by d3faultus3r · · Score: 1

      Yes. everyone click on this. shlashdot and burn!

      --
      read my blog
      musings on politics and technol
    2. Re:More effective. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      better yet, everybody:

      ab -n 10000 -c 200 "http://www.sco.com/"

    3. Re:More effective. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    4. Re:More effective. by antirename · · Score: 1

      No, it still works. Click faster. Or see an earlier post for scripts to do it for you :)

    5. Re:More effective. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      like this

      #!/bin/bash

      while [ $SHELL = /bin/bash ]; do
      wget -r -P /dev/null -A sco.com http://www.sco.com
      done

  19. SCO by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    wow. even the employees are tards.

    1. Re:SCO by Alan+Hicks · · Score: 1

      wow. even the employees are tards

      Unfortunately, they probably just value their jobs. I'm sure the majority of people with children to feed and rent to pay would tote those signs around outside their place of employment if their boss said they were fired if they refused regaurdless of what your job description (if you have one) says.

      --
      Slackware, what else when it must be secure, stable, and easy?
  20. Fasen vad bajsnödig jag är by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Helt galet bajsnÃdig. Usch!

  21. Read this before bashing SCO by Martin+Kallisti · · Score: 5, Informative

    From the LWN page: This is sad... (Posted Jun 22, 2003 20:47 UTC (Sun) by erat) (Post reply) No, not the SCO folks who made the signs... It's the people who don't have a shred of humor left and, more importantly, weren't even there who seem to be take everything SCO employees touch as being an insult. I work across the street from SCO. I was at the protest. At one point, I was one of the people carrying a SCO-produced sign (as a JOKE. At one point I even saw picketters holding SCO signs). If you were there you'd know that the entire event -- albeit serious in its message -- was taken in good spirits by pretty much everyone. I'd be surprised if anyone seriously though the SCO signs were meant to be anything but fun. You remember FUN, don't you?? It's like when you're in a bar watching a football game and there are folks rooting for the other team in the bar with you; friendly "traitor" jabs are tossed back and forth, joking insinuations are made, and in the end you all laugh together and say "bye" when you leave. Here are some facts that some (all?) of you didn't get from the pictures: 1) It was very hot that day so Canopy provided drinks for everyone, including the protesters. And yes, protesters took them up on the drinks, and they even said "thanks". 2) SCO and Canopy employees (including Ralph Yarro and Darl McBride, among others) shared laughs with the picketters. No, I didn't see Chris Sontag or Blake Stowell out there, but I don't know them so I could have just missed them. 3) Darl, on his way home, stopped by the picketting near 1600 N. (he didn't have to; he could have driven by and nobody would have noticed) and chatted with the protesters. There are at least two pictures of him with his arms around a few of the protesters, and all of them are happy. Sorry folks, but other than a reporter who got heat stroke, the people who showed up had a good time. The folks there mixed with SCO, Canopy, etc. employees from around the office complex, had some fun with the "rivalry", and went on their merry way happy. At least that was my observation. The intent of the protest was to bring attention to the opinions of those who oppose SCO's actions, not to threaten, throw things, fight, or yell. In that regard, the protest was more successful than I would have hoped. Nobody walked away with a different opinion of SCO's actions, but people can disagree without hating each other. At least here in Utah they can.

    1. Re:Read this before bashing SCO by spydir31 · · Score: 1
      Formatting is often useful.

      this is sad...

      No, not the SCO folks who made the signs... It's the people who don't have a shred of humor left and, more importantly, weren't even there who seem to be take everything SCO employees touch as being an insult.

      I work across the street from SCO. I was at the protest. At one point, I was one of the people carrying a SCO-produced sign (as a JOKE. At one point I even saw picketters holding SCO signs). If you were there you'd know that the entire event -- albeit serious in its message -- was taken in good spirits by pretty much everyone. I'd be surprised if anyone seriously though the SCO signs were meant to be anything but fun.

      You remember FUN, don't you?? It's like when you're in a bar watching a football game and there are folks rooting for the other team in the bar with you; friendly "traitor" jabs are tossed back and forth, joking insinuations are made, and in the end you all laugh together and say "bye" when you leave.

      Here are some facts that some (all?) of you didn't get from the pictures:

      1) It was very hot that day so Canopy provided drinks for everyone, including the protesters. And yes, protesters took them up on the drinks, and they even said "thanks".

      2) SCO and Canopy employees (including Ralph Yarro and Darl McBride, among others) shared laughs with the picketters. No, I didn't see Chris Sontag or Blake Stowell out there, but I don't know them so I could have just missed them.

      3) Darl, on his way home, stopped by the picketting near 1600 N. (he didn't have to; he could have driven by and nobody would have noticed) and chatted with the protesters. There are at least two pictures of him with his arms around a few of the protesters, and all of them are happy.

      Sorry folks, but other than a reporter who got heat stroke, the people who showed up had a good time. The folks there mixed with SCO, Canopy, etc. employees from around the office complex, had some fun with the "rivalry", and went on their merry way happy. At least that was my observation.

      The intent of the protest was to bring attention to the opinions of those who oppose SCO's actions, not to threaten, throw things, fight, or yell. In that regard, the protest was more successful than I would have hoped. Nobody walked away with a different opinion of SCO's actions, but people can disagree without hating each other.

      At least here in Utah they can.
    2. Re:Read this before bashing SCO by cowmix · · Score: 1, Insightful

      I guess it is refreshing that SCO and Co. seemed to be taking the
      protest in stride. However, it does nothing to boost my view of SCO.
      All there actions like picking on Linus, ignoring basic facts, etc
      are nothing but wrong, immoral and mean spirited.

      Let me amend what I just said a little. My view of the management
      of SCO is very low, I feel bad for the employees though.

    3. Re:Read this before bashing SCO by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      OK, so You go to SCO in an attempt to bring attention to an issue, they co-opt your PR stunt and they mock you.

      They made you look like a bunch of idiots.

      And why is SCO bashing Linux. Don't they sell Linux? If the higher ups in SCO were involved in this it sounds like they aren't praticing due dilligence with the shareholders assets.

    4. Re:Read this before bashing SCO by Pentagram · · Score: 1, Insightful

      I work across the street from SCO. I was at the protest.

      Do we have a guarantee of this? Or was it posted by a SCO employee?

      It was very hot that day so Canopy provided drinks for everyone

      Who is Canopy (excuse my ignorance)?

      It's like when you're in a bar watching a football game and there are folks rooting for the other team in the bar

      Sports teams don't usually sue each other though. Instead they find out who is the best on the field of play. The equivalent here would be SCO and Linux competing to see who can produce the best code.

      but people can disagree without hating each other

      Creating a poster insuating Linux == Communism == Fascism is not a reasonable disagrement imho. It sounds like hatred to me, or very unprofessional at the very least. I would be seriously worried if I was a SCO shareholder when they are allowing their employees to represent their company like this.

    5. Re:Read this before bashing SCO by mcgroarty · · Score: 5, Insightful
      When somebody's shouting lies about you, while simultaneously trying to steal your property and sell it back to you, humor shouldn't be high up your priority list.

      There are times for fun, and there are times for seriously defending what you think is important.

      This is a time to take up a rigid position, and this isn't an appropriate area for feel-good games. Put plainly: The world's single most important piece of free software and the future of free software's acceptance are at stake.

    6. Re:Read this before bashing SCO by CableModemSniper · · Score: 1

      Were you there protesting? Considering your strong feelings on the matter, I'd imagine you'd be out there practically everyday, handcuffed to a post until they dropped the suit.

      --
      Why not fork?
    7. Re:Read this before bashing SCO by mcgroarty · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Bad things are happening every day. You don't give up your life and go checking door to door for unjust actions for the rest of your life. But you don't make light of these things when they happen, either.

    8. Re:Read this before bashing SCO by adrianbye · · Score: 1
      had some fun with the "rivalry", and went on their merry way happy

      .. this is why you went to the protest? I thought there are billions of dollars at stake, along with the future of unix..

    9. Re:Read this before bashing SCO by amcnabb · · Score: 5, Informative

      I was there, too, and I don't agree with this interpretation of what the SCO people were doing. First of all, they only gave drinks to two or three people; the rest of us had our own.

      And none of our protesters touched their anti-protest signs. The writer of this comment must have mistaken them for our people because the signs were being marched around.

      Sure, everyone had a great time, but I don't feel like the SCO people were very respectful, except for McBride who talked to us in a political not-actually-answering-any-questions way.

    10. Re:Read this before bashing SCO by shadowbearer · · Score: 1

      All of that, and I have a question:

      Were those SCO employees on the clock?

      IF it was in "good fun" and IF they were on the clock, and worked for me, I'd fire their asses.

      SB

      --
      It's old. The more humans I meet, the more I like my cats. At least they are honest.
    11. Re:Read this before bashing SCO by shadowbearer · · Score: 1

      Not everyone lives close enough nor has time to show up to a protest in Utah, man. Some of us work. That said, I'D show up - if I could. That's how strong I feel about all this crap.

      That was a ridiculous comment and should be modded as flamebait. Sorry, that's the way I see it.

      SB

      --
      It's old. The more humans I meet, the more I like my cats. At least they are honest.
    12. Re:Read this before bashing SCO by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      At least nobody was dressed up like Obiwan Kenobi.

    13. Re:Read this before bashing SCO by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Who is Canopy (excuse my ignorance)?

      Ahh standard /. . You know very little yet you post anyway.

      The equivalent here would be SCO and Linux competing to see who can produce the best code.

      SCO is not fighting Linux, they are trying to extort money from IBM. (extort may be too harsh, they may be in the right). Linux is simply an innocent bystander caught in the crossfire.

    14. Re:Read this before bashing SCO by puppet10 · · Score: 1

      Why bother? Unless they were lawyers they have nothing to do with the future business model of SCO.

      Maybe they haven't been layed off yet for PR value, or to keep up appearances, or to provide some small revenues while the lawsuits get up and running but I don't think whether they actually work or not has much effect on the future of the company with its current direction.

      --
      -------- This space intentionally left blank --------
    15. Re:Read this before bashing SCO by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Canopy/SCO by all appearances are trying to perpetuate a scam in order to extort money out of people. I'll admit that it isn't actually impossible that there have been serious violations of their IP, but it is looking increasingly less likely all the time. They are not acting like people seeking to fight a court battle, they are trying to fight a FUD war.

      Sure I can disagree with their actions without hating them but I can't help feeling contempt for them and I have trouble understanding how you can have any tolerance for them.

      By all appearances they are extremely low, devious, nasty people. There is nothing amusing about what they are trying to do.

    16. Re:Read this before bashing SCO by shadowbearer · · Score: 1

      Heh. That's all true.

      In all seriousness, tho, (and I do run a business although I very rarely employ anyone else) having company employees join a protest, even in fun, against my business is not what I hired them for. If they're off the clock, it's not that big a deal, they are entitled to their opinions. On the clock, I don't pay them to do things like this.

      MHO

      SB

      --
      It's old. The more humans I meet, the more I like my cats. At least they are honest.
    17. Re:Read this before bashing SCO by Pentagram · · Score: 1

      Ahh standard /. . You know very little yet you post anyway.

      I admit I am not omniscient. Apologies for trying to improve my knowledge of the situation by asking for information rather than doing the noble thing and festering in my own ignorance. However, after having now discovered who Canopy are I don't see how it invalidates any of the points in my post.

      SCO is not fighting Linux

      Then why are they creating signs equating Linux with piracy/Nazism/Communism etc.? Why this page? Why the constant threats against Linux users? The whole mess is about alleged SCO IP in Linux code in case you weren't paying attention.

    18. Re:Read this before bashing SCO by Billly+Gates · · Score: 1
      Also I would mention potential liability.

      I assume SCO employee's were all doing the anti protest or will just looking around out of curiousity.

      If they slander RedHat or Linuxtag and they sue for defamation then your company could be held liable. This is true when your employees are on the clock.

      I would fire them as well but for these reasons. I also would be pissed that my employees would be doing public events without PR or the marketing departments knowledge. Only the higher ups need to make these decsions as they reflect on your corporate image and even liability.

      An employee is not a spokesmen for the company unless specifically stated. They can not do this on the clock without permission. THis is true for large corporations like Canapy which owns SCO.

      I am not a business owner but I would be much more concerned about that then wasting company time.

    19. Re:Read this before bashing SCO by toopc · · Score: 3, Interesting

      If you'll recall, in the past Microsoft has acted this way in reponse to Pro-Linux protestors as well.

      Basically it's a not so subtle way of saying, "You're protest is meaningless. It does not matter as it accomplishes nothing more than making you feel better about yourself. Enjoy the discussion on Slashdot, but until then have some milk and cookies on us."

      I know that's harsh, but it's the truth of the matter. This protest will not result in any meaningful public outcry, nor will it effect the upcoming legal case in any way. SCO may lose, SCO may win, but this protest won't figure into it, therefore they have nothing to lose by being nice and essentially treating it as a joke.

      Linux Users Shut Their Windows

      Microsoft officials served refreshments to the demonstrators on the upper deck of their parking lot under an 8 foot banner that read: "Microsoft Welcomes the Linux Community."

    20. Re:Read this before bashing SCO by MrGrendel · · Score: 1
      That's a protest?? That sounds more like a friendly dispute between old women to me.

      Where are the angry chants? Where are the mad rushes on the SCO building to break into McBride's office and hold it hostage? Where are the flying bags of flaming poop? Where are the riot police for God sake???

      Those people should come to Seattle and see how to do it right (or go to Italy, which beats Seattle hands down). If they don't break out the tear gas and pepper spray, it isn't a protest. Clubbings are an extra bonus.

    21. Re:Read this before bashing SCO by WannaBeGeekGirl · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The parent post hardly provides any information or insight for me to think twice before bashing SCO. Its misleading at best.

      First of all, the post contradicts its own statement that the protest "was taken in good spirits by pretty much everyone". The author goes on to state that he/she isn't even sure that no one misinterpreted the SCO signs. Its really just his/her guess that everyone else found it funny.
      Comparing people to Hitler, making light of significant historical events that had huge casualties and singling out specific people isn't light-hearted, joking, funny humor - its satire or the stuff political cartoons are made of, even worse its what controversial cable network commentaries that claim to be news shows use to get people's attention. (Basically, this kind of stuff that is guaranteed to offend someone, regardless of the intentions.) These kind of catalytic comparisons utilized at protests in outdoor public places aren't what the status quo implicitly sees as "fun" or "funny". In fact, I don't think protests are typically seen as fun events. (Aren't there so many better ways to spend a Friday?) This "protest" is starting to sound like a party.

      Next, I fail to see how portraying the whole event as more of a party than a protest is causing me to think before bashing SCO (or anyone). Obviously, if the protested issues are going to court, its not much of a party for anyone, except possibly legal parties who might end up making money.

      In defense of the quoted poster, we have no idea of the original context. All we see is this post. But that just begs the question of why this is relevant information even more.

      Before suggesting that there is another side to SCO's response to be found in this information, at least present some clear evidence within an established context.

      WBGG

      --
      ~WBGG~ "And I'm so sad like a good book I can't put this Day Back a sorta fairytale with you" ~Tori Amos
    22. Re:Read this before bashing SCO by CableModemSniper · · Score: 1

      It wasn't flamebait (or rather intended as flamebait), I was just severly annoyed that someone who seemed to be playing armchair activist was denouncing the actions/words of people who were actually there protesting. The original poster elucidated on the point he was trying to make, and I agree with him in some ways after the clarification. I still maintain that the concepts that the original poster I replied to with "flamebait" and you need to get a sense of humor :-p. I also admit that I unesscessarily extreme in expressing my opinion and I apoligize.

      --
      Why not fork?
    23. Re:Read this before bashing SCO by Bakaneko · · Score: 1

      I guess I have a hard time having "fun" with any group of people who are making very serious legal claims that affect my general livelihood, and who have threatened on more than one occasion to get us lousy Linux USERS next. This isn't a football game, its a corporation talking about suing for REAL money. This isn't to say that people should get nasty, but I'm not going to forget that these people are very much NOT my friends.

    24. Re:Read this before bashing SCO by shadowbearer · · Score: 1

      Good points.

      SB

      --
      It's old. The more humans I meet, the more I like my cats. At least they are honest.
    25. Re:Read this before bashing SCO by shadowbearer · · Score: 1

      Well....well put, but I'd consider it flamebait unless *you* were out there protesting. Otherwise you're just blowing hot air his way. I really did not mean to flame you, but I hope you see what I mean :-)

      In one sense, you were doing exactly what he was. If you *were* there protesting, I withdraw my comments and apologize.

      SB

      --
      It's old. The more humans I meet, the more I like my cats. At least they are honest.
    26. Re:Read this before bashing SCO by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Then why are they creating signs equating Linux with piracy/Nazism/Communism etc.? Why this page? Why the constant threats against Linux users?

      They believe that that is the best way to extort money from IBM. IBM has put a lot of money and resources into Linux and perhaps more importantly has put its reputation on the line by publicly associating itself with Linux. SCO think that if they can do enough reputational harm to Linux that IBM will cave in and settle with them or buy them out. They are wrong about this.

      The Linux=Nazism/Communism thing is just... extreme stupidity I guess. As a matter of public record they were very recently a Linux company themselves. Suddenly turning around and announcing that Linux is communist just makes them look ridiculous. Are people supposed to think they believe this?

    27. Re:Read this before bashing SCO by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Where are the flying bags of flaming poop?

      McBride came out but you can't really expect the full management team.

    28. Re:Read this before bashing SCO by CableModemSniper · · Score: 1

      Well here's my "logic" on the matter. I wasn't criticizing him for not protesting, i was critizcing him for criticizing those who were. I wasn't having an actual opinion on the protest either way, eh, this is just getting stupid. Forget it. I'm just gonna chant "IBM!" for the rest of this post: "IBM! IBM! IBM! IBM!..."

      --
      Why not fork?
    29. Re:Read this before bashing SCO by unoengborg · · Score: 1

      Yes, I remember FUN. That was something we had before all these SCO stories turned up.

      --
      God is REAL! Unless explicitly declared INTEGER
    30. Re:Read this before bashing SCO by jorgen · · Score: 1

      What is sad is that no one (?) aparantly was upset by SCO (yes. this was a buillshit astroturf by SCO, not "free speech by SCO employees") pointing a finger at the Linux community, calling us thieves and pirates.

      And the protesters just "have a few good laugh" with McBride. What kind of protest is that? Did anyone actually stand up for the Linux community? I'm not talking about getting violent here, but protesters should at least try to refrain from carrying around their bullshit signs, even as a JOKE. :(

      I'm not a thief or pirate or communist, and the sign with Tux making a nazi greeting saying "ya vol" (javohl) is extremely offending to me, and probably a whole bunch of other people around the world.

      KÃftsmÃll!

    31. Re:Read this before bashing SCO by shadowbearer · · Score: 1

      I'll second, third, and Nth that. IBM! IBM! IBM! CRRUSH THOSE BASTIDS! RIP THEIR SUITS OFF! Subject them to Britney all day! (Don't use so many caps. It's like YELLING. - no shit, slashcode :-)

      Uh, erm... :-))))

      SB

      --
      It's old. The more humans I meet, the more I like my cats. At least they are honest.
    32. Re:Read this before bashing SCO by shadowbearer · · Score: 1

      "Nerf Herders are NOT scruffy lookin!"

      Damn, lady, you married? :-) /tongue in cheek

      SB

      --
      It's old. The more humans I meet, the more I like my cats. At least they are honest.
    33. Re:Read this before bashing SCO by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think that the problem with SCOs counter-protest is that if this gets enough publicity, people who don't know anything about the case will actually start associating Linux (and/or free software in general) with software/music "piracy".

      Most people I know who engage in software/music piracy are Windows-users. Which is no surprise, since most popular pirated software packages run on Windows, and most of the P2P clients, as well.

    34. Re:Read this before bashing SCO by humina · · Score: 1

      Sounds like suck a fun time. I'm sure that it will be just as fun and light hearted in court. Wouldn't that be so much fun to sue someone when your buisness is just a legal team. That sounds like so much fun. I can't agree with you more. The people in Utah sure know how to have fun.

      --
      check out the best blog ever:
      http://oehlberg.com
    35. Re:Read this before bashing SCO by cdrudge · · Score: 1
      Who is Canopy (excuse my ignorance)?
      They own 46% or 47% of The SCO Group. They are the single largest investor. They also own a slew of other companies...including Linux Networx, which "focus solely on providing Linux clustering solutions."
    36. Re:Read this before bashing SCO by Snodgrass · · Score: 1

      Yeah, but he was just stalling until the police showed up, remember?

    37. Re:Read this before bashing SCO by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So you dont mind if people come around your neighborhood and pass out fliers associating you with illegal activity, unamerican ideals, war crims, atrocities, and wife beating?
      After all everyone is having fun.

  22. NDA? by ottothecow · · Score: 1

    wait so..they whipped out side by side linux and unix code WITHOUT you signing an NDA? I think thats is the exact negligence needed to void their rights to that code...hey I mean testify in court that you have a photographic memmory, just make sure to do it AFTER they show the code to the court hehe.

    --
    Bottles.
  23. Re:Lets all join Hands (handles) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Amazing that you get modded down as well. You make a dam good point. All see you all in Meta.

  24. Re:I NEED HELP SLASHDOT! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    SCO?

  25. Commie Scare by bstadil · · Score: 3, Funny
    Even though

    Nostalgia isn't what it used to be !

    it's hard not to feel a little sentimental when you see good old Commie Scare posters.

    Guess the employees protesting felt akin to the Iraqs cheering Sadam at his strolling casual thru streets of Baghdad TV shows.

    --
    Help fight continental drift.
  26. SCO employees by mocm · · Score: 3, Funny

    Wouldn't SCO employees be better advised to write their resumees, instead of protesting. They probably will have to get new jobs soon. Not that they seem busy doing anything else.
    And it doesn't matter whether SCO wins or loses. They seem to be an IP (not that they ever created any) only company now and would probably not need many employees, except for lawyers.

    --
    ***Quis custodiet ipsos custodes***
    1. Re:SCO employees by Pflipp · · Score: 1

      Wouldn't SCO employees be better advised to write their resumees, instead of protesting.

      And what should they write, then?

      "I worked at SCO"?

      --
      "We can confirm that Debian does *not* ship the version with the trojan horse. Our version predates it." [CA-2002-28]
    2. Re:SCO employees by shadowbearer · · Score: 1

      How about:

      "I used to work at SCO, until I saw the direction the company was being taken. I disagreed strongly with this position and left before the company went under. I would like to work for an honest company* where my work is taken seriously and which does not rely on frivilous lawsuits to increase their profits."

      * I know, there aren't many.

      SB

      --
      It's old. The more humans I meet, the more I like my cats. At least they are honest.
    3. Re:SCO employees by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "I used to work at SCO, until I saw the direction the company was being taken. I disagreed strongly with this position and left before the company went under. I would like to work for an honest company* where my work is taken seriously and which does not rely on frivilous lawsuits to increase their profits."

      I think the bit about "an honest company" might be offputting to many potential employers. How about "a company that stands at last some chance of success"?

    4. Re:SCO employees by shadowbearer · · Score: 1

      LOL

      --
      It's old. The more humans I meet, the more I like my cats. At least they are honest.
    5. Re:SCO employees by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "increase their profits" ?

      Profits? What profits? It should read, "rely on frivilous lawsuits in order to have profits"

  27. It's going to be awkward... by tds67 · · Score: 0

    ...for these SCO employees when they try to get Linux-related jobs after SCO goes belly-up.

  28. Nooooo! :( by ihatesco · · Score: 1
    One of the slogans is

    'Try communism - use Linux.'"

    Does it mean that I can't nickname SCO the Soviet Communist Operation anymore? :(

    + + + +
    In truth I don't have anything against communist at all... well, in the country where I live, communism is something that would be better to encourage a bit more (hint: it's a western country with a madman chief of government obsessed with delusions of communist conspiracies trying to get him)

    Also the economy is really stagnating, with companies trying to hire people for really brief amount of times, a rise in the "black jobs" (unregulated jobs with no taxes being payed on them), and major cuts on the wellfare state.

    + + + +
    Ok, let's return to the point of the article...
    it's good to have some groups of users tacking a civil protest to tell their upset against SCO's FUD tactics (not requests, maybe they are simply right from a legal standpoint, it's the tactic that SUCK anyway and in my opinion will not bring the IT market on SCO's side).

    I'm wondering when we will begin to send them postcards or polite mails telling Darl and the others our opinion on the subject.
    Anyone volounteering to do a first draft of a letter?
    (My english sucks) + + + +
    Finally SCO made the slashdot headlines again :)

    LET'S MODERATE SCO DOWN!!!

    --
    "I am slashbot, hear me roar!"
    1. Re:Nooooo! :( by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      hint: it's a western country with a madman chief of government obsessed with delusions of communist conspiracies trying to get him)

      Cuba?

    2. Re:Nooooo! :( by ihatesco · · Score: 1
      Cuba?

      Nope, look at this.

      --
      "I am slashbot, hear me roar!"
    3. Re:Nooooo! :( by BrainInAJar · · Score: 1

      "(hint: it's a western country with a madman chief of government obsessed with delusions of communist conspiracies trying to get him)"

      OOH!!! OOH!!! I KNOW! TEACHER! PICK ME!
      The USA!

      "My english sucks"
      Yep. definately the USA.

    4. Re:Nooooo! :( by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      wtf? What's with the geriatrics in shitty suits?

      My guess from looking at the guys, Germany. Or possibly France (that dude giving the satan sign looks kinna like chiraq

  29. Don't jump to conclusions about the SCO people... by mdb31 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I don't want to interrupt a perfectly good rant here, but you may want to follow the link in comment #6269021 (should be the FP in this thread if you're reading at a reasonable score treshold...). Idiotic though the whole SCO lawsuit is, the protest and counter-protest actually seemede quite friendly -- to quote a poster on the aforementioned LWN board:

    It's the people who don't have a shred of humor left and, more importantly, weren't even there who seem to be take everything SCO employees touch as being an insult.

    I work across the street from SCO. I was at the protest. At one point, I was one of the people carrying a SCO-produced sign (as a JOKE. At one point I even saw picketters holding SCO signs). If you were there you'd know that the entire event -- albeit serious in its message -- was taken in good spirits by pretty much everyone. I'd be surprised if anyone seriously though the SCO signs were meant to be anything but fun.

    You remember FUN, don't you?? It's like when you're in a bar watching a football game and there are folks rooting for the other team in the bar with you; friendly "traitor" jabs are tossed back and forth, joking insinuations are made, and in the end you all laugh together and say "bye" when you leave.


    You may want to read the rest of that message as well, and just give it a rest... Not if Slashdot hasn't dumped enough vitriol on SCO already lately.

  30. Ok, I read it. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    SCO still sucks.

    1. Re:Ok, I read it. by gavri · · Score: 1

      SCO still sucks.

      Phew! Thanks, dude. Top post almost made me cross over to the dark side.

  31. dear god... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    those anti-protest signs look very racist. contrast them to the well thought out ones held by the LUG folks...

  32. Phew! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    For a minute I thought we were going to go the whole day without an article related to SCO! I'll sleep well tonight.

  33. Another angle by madsatod · · Score: 0, Redundant

    I stumled upon a comment (from some user erat) at http://lwn.net/Articles/37364/ :

    "I work across the street from SCO. I was at the protest. At one point, I was one of the people carrying a SCO-produced sign (as a JOKE. At one point I even saw picketters holding SCO signs). If you were there you'd know that the entire event -- albeit serious in its message -- was taken in good spirits by pretty much everyone. I'd be surprised if anyone seriously though the SCO signs were meant to be anything but fun.

    You remember FUN, don't you?? It's like when you're in a bar watching a football game and there are folks rooting for the other team in the bar with you; friendly "traitor" jabs are tossed back and forth, joking insinuations are made, and in the end you all laugh together and say "bye" when you leave.

    Here are some facts that some (all?) of you didn't get from the pictures:

    1) It was very hot that day so Canopy provided drinks for everyone, including the protesters. And yes, protesters took them up on the drinks, and they even said "thanks".

    2) SCO and Canopy employees (including Ralph Yarro and Darl McBride, among others) shared laughs with the picketters. No, I didn't see Chris Sontag or Blake Stowell out there, but I don't know them so I could have just missed them.

    3) Darl, on his way home, stopped by the picketting near 1600 N. (he didn't have to; he could have driven by and nobody would have noticed) and chatted with the protesters. There are at least two pictures of him with his arms around a few of the protesters, and all of them are happy.

    Sorry folks, but other than a reporter who got heat stroke, the people who showed up had a good time. The folks there mixed with SCO, Canopy, etc. employees from around the office complex, had some fun with the "rivalry", and went on their merry way happy. At least that was my observation.

    The intent of the protest was to bring attention to the opinions of those who oppose SCO's actions, not to threaten, throw things, fight, or yell. In that regard, the protest was more successful than I would have hoped. Nobody walked away with a different opinion of SCO's actions, but people can disagree without hating each other.

    At least here in Utah they can."

    Seems to put the SCO-signs in another perspective.

    1. Re:Another angle by jasonp1014 · · Score: 0


      Well, those hilarious "joke" signs were deluded and misleading (ignorant too).
      How could you take being equated to communists or nazis or a thief anything but insulting?

      What SCO is doing is not lighthearted fun. It could be very destructive to Linux.

      When Darl McBride goes out to offer drinks to the protestors and shake their hand it doesn't make me think he's a swell guy.
      It reconfirms my opinion that he's a total weasel without a clue.

      SCO Group/Canopy Group/Darl McBride == corporate thieving weasel scum ^ 2

      I'd like to see these guys get theirs.

  34. Wow by antiMStroll · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I owe the Slashdot crowd an apology. Seeing that type of behaviour here, I thought it was a thousands high schoolers bashing away at a thousand library computers on their first, euphoric Internet high. But damn, professional adults stoop to this kind of bigoted, ad hominem baiting? Communism and Iraq? And France? Man, that's unbelievably depressing. All I can hope is potential future employers of these people see those signs before SCO does it's inevitable endo.

    1. Re:Wow by shadowbearer · · Score: 1

      Welcome to the real world, man.

      SB

      --
      It's old. The more humans I meet, the more I like my cats. At least they are honest.
    2. Re:Wow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you missed the association of Linux to the Nazi extermination of Jews in the comunism sign.

  35. Darl McBride? by metatruk · · Score: 3, Informative

    In this pic you can see that Darl McBride has his arms around two of the protestors:
    http://mirror.lug-nut.com/mcnabb/med/IMG_0057.JPG

    1. Re:Darl McBride? by Flak · · Score: 1

      right in front of his 80k M5

    2. Re:Darl McBride? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      FYI, that folder that he has in his right hand is "The Code". (I was there)

    3. Re:Darl McBride? by Pflipp · · Score: 1

      I guess both of the protestors hope to see him lose sooo hard ...and then they'll forever have good feelings watching that photograph.

      --
      "We can confirm that Debian does *not* ship the version with the trojan horse. Our version predates it." [CA-2002-28]
    4. Re:Darl McBride? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why didn't you grab the folder and run away?

    5. Re:Darl McBride? by amcnabb · · Score: 2, Interesting

      And interestingly, he waved the one side of the folder in front of us, informing us that he was able to show us the Linux side but not the other "proprietary" side. Of course, he did it quickly enough that we weren't able to read a line of it.

    6. Re:Darl McBride? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The "proprietary" side probably doesnt actually contain any code whatsoever.. why would he bother to print it out if he had no intentions of showing it? For all we know, he probably put ASCII Goatse on the proprietary page just in case someone grabbed the folder.

    7. Re:Darl McBride? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Does it make them infringing SCO intellectual property ?

    8. Re:Darl McBride? by BlackHawk-666 · · Score: 1

      That's the problem with these corporate criminals, they're always trying to get some decent PR out of an event. Time to lean on the words of Shakespeare "That one may smile, and smile, and be a villain. At least I am sure it may be so in Denmark.". Apparently it's also so in Utah.

      --
      All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain.
    9. Re:Darl McBride? by mindriot · · Score: 1

      ...thinking, "I 0wnZ j00!"

    10. Re:Darl McBride? by syukton · · Score: 1

      aye, and it's probably taking every ounce of his willpower to keep from smashing their heads into one another. heh.

      --
      Reinvent the wheel only at either a lower cost, greater effectiveness, or your own personal enrichment and satisfaction.
    11. Re:Darl McBride? by shadowbearer · · Score: 1

      It's like the old magicians trick, distracts you with speed and sleight-of-hand whilst he's making a fool out of you...."See, they can get a look at it, really!" - to the press - he's slick, all right.

      They have the PR FUD down really, really well. That was nothing more than a play to the cameras.

      Bastards.

      SB

      --
      It's old. The more humans I meet, the more I like my cats. At least they are honest.
    12. Re:Darl McBride? by alonsoac · · Score: 1

      protester #1: Dude, they've gone too far, let's go protest against evil evil SCO!
      protester #2: You're on!
      both: (singing protests in SCO's front lawn)
      protester #1: Hey is that McBride?
      McBride: So how are you guys?
      protester #2: Cool man! Can we take a picture with you?
      McBride: Sure
      protester #1: Your rock man! Thanks for the drinks too!

      Most... stupid... protest... ever.

  36. Communist Nazi's? by Warshadow · · Score: 2, Insightful

    In the sign on the right in this picture:

    http://www.kuwan.net/scoAntiProtest/scoAntiProte st -Pages/Image0.html

    Is rather amusing. Not only do the folks at SCO apparently not have internet access, so they can use something like babelfish to look up the proper spelling of "ja vol" (ja wohl) they also seem to think Nazi's were communist instead of fascist?

    Someone didn't do to well in their WW2 history class!

    1. Re:Communist Nazi's? by Warshadow · · Score: 1

      Doh! Sorry they spelled it "ya vol"

    2. Re:Communist Nazi's? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Let's see, communism is an oppressive authoritarian dictatorship characterized by occasional bouts of mass murder and expansionist aggression. Facism is an oppressive authoritarian dictatorship characterized by occasional bouts of mass murder and expansionist aggression.

      Yeah, I guess it was pretty dumb to mix up communism and Nazism.

    3. Re:Communist Nazi's? by Dumbush · · Score: 1

      Dude, you got to free up the term fascist so our administration won't lost too many brain cells

      Bush: now days people love to call me a facist, I wonder what's that suppose to mean

      Hawks: Don't worry Mr. President. You are doing everything for American freedom, American interest, American value, American coperations, American captialism, American culture, American defense, American future, American oil access, umm.. I mean vital resource...

      Bush: Yeah, can't blame a guy for trying right? But weren't the Nazi facists?

      Hawks: Yes they were

      Bush: But I don't want to share the same title with the Nazi. The hippies and tree-huggers were all fired up about facist, for some Democrat reason.

      Hawks: then may I suggest we associate communism to Nazi instead? All we need to do is scrap all the current history text book and released the 69 revised edition.

      Bush: Great!

    4. Re:Communist Nazi's? by EvilNTUser · · Score: 1

      Let's see, communism is an oppressive authoritarian dictatorship characterized by occasional bouts of mass murder and expansionist aggression. Facism is an oppressive authoritarian dictatorship characterized by occasional bouts of mass murder and expansionist aggression.

      Wrong. The Soviet Union was oppressive and authoritarian.

      --
      My Sig: SEGV
    5. Re:Communist Nazi's? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh, but not Cuba, China, Cambodia, North Korea, or Vietnam. They were/are the peace loving communists...

    6. Re:Communist Nazi's? by minus_273 · · Score: 1

      umm communism and nazism have alot in common. they may hate each other but even marxists hate maoists.
      Nazi is shot for German National Socialist Workers party. Also the tactics of intolerance, supression of other parties, one party state, personality cults and mass murder are very similar.
      So, i suggest you pick up a good history book before making a comment like that.

      --
      The war with islam is a war on the beast
      The war on terror is a war for peace
    7. Re:Communist Nazi's? by EvilNTUser · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Oh, but not Cuba, China, Cambodia, North Korea, or Vietnam. They were/are the peace loving communists...

      Perhaps the peace loving ones are just not in power. Note that I'm not saying I think communism works, but I'm tired of people indiscriminately branding it evil.

      Btw, in Soviet Russia a person was defenseless against the government. In the United States a person will soon be defenseless against corporations. Is this a failure of capitalism or of the government?

      --
      My Sig: SEGV
    8. Re:Communist Nazi's? by 1010011010 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I'm tired of people indiscriminately branding [communism] evil

      Why? Point out an example of communism that wasn't or isn't evil.

      In the United States a person will soon be defenseless against corporations. Is this a failure of capitalism or of the government?

      The government. Sometimes I wonder if corporate power isn't a way around the constitution. Corporations should never have been declared to be "people."

      --
      Napster-to-go says "Fill and refill your compatible MP3 player", which is a lie. It's not MP3. It's WMA with DRM.
    9. Re:Communist Nazi's? by EvilNTUser · · Score: 2, Insightful

      "Why? Point out an example of communism that wasn't or isn't evil."

      That's very hard, but my point was that Marx would probably not agree with the things those countries are doing. And I repeat, I don't think communism can work. However, I do think that some of the ideals are worth striving for. But perhaps socialism would be a better word.

      "The government. Sometimes I wonder if corporate power isn't a way around the constitution. Corporations should never have been declared to be \"people.\""

      That's what I meant. If we can't blame capitalism for the current situation - and we shouldn't - then we should be very careful about blaming communism for the USSR etc.

      --
      My Sig: SEGV
    10. Re:Communist Nazi's? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Collectivist philosophies lead to tragedy, because they do not value the individual, and do not assign any power, status or protection to the individual -- only to the group. Collectivist societies, based on these philosophies, assert dominance of the group over the individual. One or a small handful of people typically end up in practical control of any group, thus making any collectivist group a de facto authoritarian regime policed by mob rule. Contradict me.

    11. Re:Communist Nazi's? by FauxReal · · Score: 0

      Good point... But don't forget the armed takeover of the Hawaiian Islands, or the slaughter of the American Indians. Then there was the whole slavery thing. But at least in America we declare these horrible things atrocities and make sure no one else does them after we reap the benefits.

    12. Re:Communist Nazi's? by jmorris42 · · Score: 1

      > they also seem to think Nazi's were communist instead of fascist?

      Or perhaps they HAVE read their history and know the full name of the Nazi party was National Socialists. Interdemoninational rivalary is often more intense than hatred of completely differnent sects, which goes a lot towards explaining the grudge match action in WWII between Germany and Russia.

      --
      Democrat delenda est
    13. Re:Communist Nazi's? by Warshadow · · Score: 1

      I have picked up many history books. While being a "socialist" party the Nazi's were NOT communists and Soviet communism is NOT akin to Nazism. My statement is valid and still holds. Thank you.

    14. Re:Communist Nazi's? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Contradict me

      OK. You're wrong. Collectivist philosophies do assign value to the individual as well as the group.

    15. Re:Communist Nazi's? by 1010011010 · · Score: 1

      The Communist Nazis, or Comminazis, are in league with the Feminazis. It's all part of the Vast Left-Wing Conspiracy.
      </rush>

      --
      Napster-to-go says "Fill and refill your compatible MP3 player", which is a lie. It's not MP3. It's WMA with DRM.
    16. Re:Communist Nazi's? by hether · · Score: 1

      I know this is off topic, but I wanted to mention that the only example of non-evil communism that I can think of is that of Indian reservations. And that's using this definition of communism from dictionary.reference.com:

      1. A theoretical economic system characterized by the collective ownership of property and by the organization of labor for the common advantage of all members.

      not the evil government version. And yes, I agree that corporate power does provide a way around the constitution. I often wonder why corporations are allowed to help finance campaigns, if not only to exert their influence over the candidate.

      --

      Most people would die sooner than think; in fact, they do.
    17. Re:Communist Nazi's? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Contradict you? Ok, how about "From each according to ability to each according to need". That is part of one collectivist philosophy. That is a sign of valuing the individual. This is opposed to capitalistic philosophy which seems to value only the productive individual and believe that those incapable of being productive should end their lives face down in a ditch somewhere.


      Of course, ostensibly Communist, but actually state capitalist countries like the Soviet Union had their fair share of people ending up face down in ditches. That is just a matter of ideology colliding with harsh reality, however.


      Just remember that the principles that a country is based on do not neccessarily have any bearing on how those contries behave. Perhaps _the_ founding principle of the united states is the principle that "all men are created equal" (discussions of whether "men" just means males in the context of the time for another time please). It did not stop the US from continuing to embrace slavery, which is directly opposed to that principle, for decades and segregationist policies for centuries. For that matter, slavery was not technically fully abolished in the US until a few years ago (Mississipi held out until 1995 to ratify the 13th amendment).


      Most societies have certain fundamental principles that they hold as sacred and all important. The truth of the matter is that most societies do not actually follow those principles. Rulers the world over have discovered that you just have to pay lip service to those principles and most people will not even notice.

  37. highly ironical ... by porky_pig_jr · · Score: 1

    considering the fact SCO was selling their own LINUX distribution till recently. Now suddenly Linux = Communism. Stupid slogan, which reminds me the joke I saw somewhere, may be on theonion: 'If you download MP3, you support communism". Is this life immitating art or what?

    1. Re:highly ironical ... by aussersterne · · Score: 1

      I believe it was at Modern Humorist.

      --
      STOP . AMERICA . NOW
  38. SCO violating copyright? (doc, not code) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    From one of the comments after the Herald article:

    Re: BRAVO to SCO!! (Score: 0)
    by M. Leo Cooper on Sunday, June 22 @ 10:51:17 MDT
    (User Info)

    > All I can say is Bravo to SCO! This is a company with an important
    > message about protection of intellecutal property in the U.S.

    SCO is the one trying to steal intellectual property -- the work of thousands of Linux developers.

    One example of this is an SCO server hosting a document of mine, without my permission:
    http://docsrv.caldera.com:8457/en/Adv BashHowto/
    SCO put their own navigation bar and company logo on this document, substantively changing it, which is a violation of copyright.
    I have notified SCO three times about this, but they have not responded.

    Note that unlike the author of the original comment, I have the courage to sign my name to this.

    This would seem to be a bad thing for a company in SCO's position to be doing; I hope Mr. Cooper pursues the matter to court.
    1. Re:SCO violating copyright? (doc, not code) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The link to the comment itself is here.

  39. Who is really out for the free ride? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Wow, just reading the banners and recent comments from the SCO scumbags, it infuriates me more than anything I've seen from them before now. They're accusing people of taking a free ride when those people wrote the software. They're saying Linux just won't be free in future, misunderstanding the meaning of freedom, while showing their true intent. The only folks wanting a free ride are those at SCO who failed in their business and decided to litigate against people who wrote the competing software, none of which was ever created by SCO (formerly Caldera).

    Who is really out for a free ride here? What a bunch of opportunistic scumbags, now theyr'e trying to push a deceptive media campaign with willfully deceptive comments that portray people in a collaborative software effort as pirates.

    How dare they equate using Linux as the equivalent of piracy of any kind. If anyone is acting like pirates it's them. This is a brazen attempt to take something that simply does not belong to them.

    1. Re:Who is really out for the free ride? by yomegaman · · Score: 1

      The whole SCO storyline is unbelievably boring, but I have to admit this sort of impotent rage can be highly amusing. At least we're getting that out of it.

      --
      ...wearing a skin-tight topless leather jumpsuit, with cutaway buttocks and transparent crotch panel.
  40. Unprofessional by 3.1415926535 · · Score: 0

    Wow, talk about unprofessional conduct!

  41. creative calculating, anyone? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Many if not all of SCO's SEC documents are online as PDFs.

    I wonder what the cost is to SCO each time someone downloads (for instance) the Statement of Changes of Beneficial Ownership. Maybe you're interested in "changes of ownership" high muckymucks in SCO itself think are worth making. There's also the most recent quarterly report as well as many others.

  42. Disapointed by EpsCylonB · · Score: 1

    Where's the SCO pun ?

  43. Re:Don't jump to conclusions about the SCO people. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    but you may want to follow the link in comment #6269021 (should be the FP in this thread if you're reading at a reasonable score treshold...).

    Hey moron- you do realize that people can change the ordering around, right? In fact, if you don't have yours set to "highest scores first" then you are a bigger idiot that I first thought...

  44. 40,000 Lines...? by 26199 · · Score: 1
    Jason Hall, president of the Provo Linux users group, said Linux developers are willing to remove the 60 or 80 lines of code in question from the approximate total of 40,000 lines. (harktheherald.com)

    That's got to be a typo, surely?... or is he talking about a specific part of the kernel?

    1. Re:40,000 Lines...? by althalus · · Score: 2, Informative

      Yes, I was misquoted (yes, I'm that Jason Hall, the one who also made the page). The reporter is the same one who suffered the heat stroke, and had absolutely no clue about computers. It was hard enough trying to get her to understand what linux was, or even 'source code'. I did give a more accurate count of total lines, but that didn't get through apparently.

  45. This will NOT help SCO's... by chipster · · Score: 3, Insightful
    case in the least bit. This proves their immaturity, and the fact that they cannot in any way, be taken seriously.

    Analogizing drugs and Open Source is 13-year-old crap, and I'm sure ESR and others will have a ball with this.

    Nice going SCO. Thanks for proving (in "graphic" detail) what kind of corporation you truly represent.

  46. As bugs would say: by conteXXt · · Score: 2, Funny

    "Of course you know, this means war!"

    --
    The truth about Led Zep should never be told on /. (Karma suicide ensues)
    1. Re:As bugs would say: by belroth · · Score: 1
      "Of course you know, this means war!"
      "Of course you realise this means war!" was/is Daffy Ducks catchphrase, not Bugs'. Of course it was often spoken to/about Bugsy....

      Daffy's other catchphrase springs to mind in connection with this thread:
      You're Desssspicable!

      --
      I hereby inform you that I have NOT been required to provide any decryption keys.
    2. Re:As bugs would say: by shadowbearer · · Score: 1
      --
      It's old. The more humans I meet, the more I like my cats. At least they are honest.
    3. Re:As bugs would say: by shadowbearer · · Score: 1

      Doh! The quote above was from the google cache, the link above states "Perhaps more characteristicaly he quotted Groucho Marx in saying "Of course, you know, this means war.". " in referring to Bugs.

      Google isn't usually this far behind :-)

      SB

      --
      It's old. The more humans I meet, the more I like my cats. At least they are honest.
  47. Prepared? What other kinds of signs are there? by Pvt_Waldo · · Score: 2

    "Among other things, the protesters claim that SCO employes came out and joined the event holding pre-prepared signs saying things like 'I love software piracy' and 'Try communism - use Linux.'"

    Erm, what other kinds are there? Ones that spontaneously draw themselves? I bet the protestors showed up with pre-prepared signs as well :^)

  48. When you think about it... by cscx · · Score: 0

    Some of these are just downright funny.

    Why is it that some people from the Linux camp are all about free speech... that is, when the free speech is not targeted against them.

    1. Re:When you think about it... by Threni · · Score: 1

      "Why is it that some people from the Linux camp are all about free speech... that is, when the free speech is not targeted against them. "

      Eh? No-one's saying SCO shouldn't have been allowed to do this else risk prison/fines. They're saying its a dumb protest, the analogies are incorrect and stupid and that it makes the company look amateurish.

    2. Re:When you think about it... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      I think it's kinda like people protesting racism, and then KKK guys come out with 'funny' signs making fun of the protestors and race.

      I will grant you that the people involved are nowhere near 'KKK' status, but it gets the point across. When the good guys make jokes, it's more acceptable and funny. It's "us" vs. "the man", you know? That's the thinking. Stick it to The Man, etc.

      When The Man retaliates, though, it's not cool, and The Man just cackles while the good guys see it as just more oppression from The Man. Whatever humor that was supposed to be there might as well be in invisible ink. (Besides, it wasn't really that funny. Cute, sure, but not really funny. It's as if someone wrote "BURN THE FETUSES!" with a flaming tot next to it.)

      So basically what I'm saying here is: you workin' for The Man!? *nut-kick*

    3. Re:When you think about it... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Funny, I thought the lawsuit made the company look amateurish.

    4. Re:When you think about it... by caouchouc · · Score: 1

      From what I see, the "Linux camp" isn't trying to stop/destroy SCO's protest signs. They are, however, expressing their opinion of those signs and those who made them.
      Last time I checked, that was also protected by free speech.

    5. Re:When you think about it... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      that is, when the free speech is not targeted agaist them

      You're a shit eating cunt who likes to fuck his grandmother up the arse with his clenched fist.

      Gee, free speeech is great! I'm laughing myself stupid!

    6. Re:When you think about it... by dipipanone · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Some of these are just downright funny.

      Really? Which ones did you think were funny? What did you think was funny about them?

      Why is it that some people from the Linux camp are all about free speech... that is, when the free speech is not targeted against them.

      Dunno, but thankfully a righteous supporter of free speech like yourself obviously won't object at all to my pointing out the possibility that you must be retarded if those posters were your idea of humorous?

    7. Re:When you think about it... by NDPTAL85 · · Score: 0

      I hate SCO but there's no denying that what they did WAS hilarious.

      --
      Mac OS X and Windows XP working side by side to fight back the night.
    8. Re:When you think about it... by dipipanone · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I hate SCO but there's no denying that what they did WAS hilarious.

      Sorry, but I just don't get it. Which bit do you find hilarious? The amateurishly drawn, not at all funny signs, or the fact that the CEO of the company can direct his under-employed staff to go out and pretend to be participants in a demo against the company?

      Perhaps it appeals to something about the American sense of humour that just slips we British by...

    9. Re:When you think about it... by NDPTAL85 · · Score: 1

      What was funny is that via a simple act of AstroTurfing they were able to completely deflate the sails of the protesters.

      --
      Mac OS X and Windows XP working side by side to fight back the night.
    10. Re:When you think about it... by dipipanone · · Score: 1

      Well, as I said, this has clearly gone way over my head. Perhaps it might have deflated the protesters sails in the eyes of a non-technical audience, but it isn't exactly the sort of thing that has me rolling in the aisles laughing. And I don't think it's because of the way I feel about SCO either. I believe I'm capable of appreciating an attack from my enemies that's executed with style and wit and humour, but this just seemed to me to be an example of an organization that's happy to do and say anything to try and further their case, regardless of how nonsensical it might be, and worse, are happy to conscript their employees into that process. The only way I can see it as funny is in the same way that the Jerry Springer show is funny. ie, you've got all these poor yokels who are prepared to do and say anything, even get their tits out in public, because that's the only way they have of deluding themselves into believing they aren't total losers. And another way that this is similar to Springer is that its hard to figure out which of the guests are actually professional whores.

  49. Re:I NEED HELP SLASHDOT! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I like "meat-canoe", I heard it on TV.

  50. SCO can't distinguish Communism from nazi Germany. by Vellmont · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Did anyone else find it extremely funny that the "Try Communism" sign has a penguin doing a sig heil and saying "ya vol"? Maybe if you're going to make a protest sign you should at least get your major points of history right ;).

    --
    AccountKiller
  51. This really is pointless for all parties. by rdewald · · Score: 5, Insightful

    For the sake of discussion, let's assume the case has merit. The Linux community will rewrite the improperly used code, redesigning it if need be, craft tools to migrate everyone over to it, and go on. This is open source, utter transparency, no secrets. They can't go after every line of the current kernel, we know that, and there's more than one way to do everything.

    SCO will be soon be a shell company. They might as well be making buggy whips. I think this is the ultimate agenda of the leadership, they just hope to cash out with the settlement from IBM.

    It was interesting to me how the PR folks tried to associate Linux with software piracy and communism. I don't think this is because of a real misperception on their part, it seems much more likely to be spin-directed FUD. It's more pathetic than enraging to me.

    It really all seems like a legal strategy to exploit the fact that our IP laws have not really caught up with the PC revolution. They might get some money from IBM, if they do, they leverage their legal victory and liquid revenues to bump the stock price and sell the company. It won't fool Warren Buffet or Peter Lynch, but there are still plenty of fools with money in the world.

    This type of business strategy--utterly bereft of moral values--has not yet entirely faded from view. The real tragedy is not the threat to Linux, but the threat to SCO employees and investors. I don't see this working out well for them in any way. Some lawyers will get rich, though.

    So, follow the money. SCO is now a lawsuit machine. IBM will survive this no matter how it turns out. SCO won't.

    --
    The best way to do is to be.
    1. Re:This really is pointless for all parties. by Quothz · · Score: 1

      "For the second quarter of fiscal 2003 ended April 30, The SCO Group, Inc. (Nasdaq: SCOX) reported net income of $4.5 million, or $0.33 per diluted share, on revenue of $21.4 million..."

      From here.)

      If SCO loses this lawsuit, as the _plaintiff_, mind you, it's not gonna put a dent in 'em.

      "The whole GNU project is really one big hack. It's one big act of subversive playful cleverness..." Richard Stallman, as pointed out by SCO. You think these guys even understand the issues here? They don't even understand the _language_.

    2. Re:This really is pointless for all parties. by rdewald · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Yeah, I do think they understand both the issues and the language. It's not that I have a high estimation of them. I've spent a significant portion of my IT consulting career working for litigation firms. The top-down overview of this just too closely resembles a litigation team taking advantage of a legal position in a relatively unchallenged area of the law. It is best, they estimate, to act as stupid as possible to narrow the debate as much as one can. They're aren't unintelligent, they just lack virtuous character.

      If you treat code like prose, which is essentially what the current copyright laws do, you're bound to end up in situations like this at some point. Until the system acquires the wisdom to correctly resolve these new kinds of arguments concerning what property really is, ligitators know that the early birds are going to get the big worms, if there are any to be had.

      $5M profit on $25M of revenue is is not as much money as it sounds like and their company name will be in ruin no matter how this turns out. If they win, they're the new bullies, if they lose, they will expose the idiocy underlying their allegations. Either way, stick the proverbial fork in them, they're done.

      This is every bit as stupid as the AOL-Time Warner merger. But that doesn't mean some people aren't going to get rich. If the last 10 years have demonstrated anything, it's that there are other ways to derive a fortune from one's association with a tech company than just selling good products and providing excellent customer service.

      --
      The best way to do is to be.
    3. Re:This really is pointless for all parties. by rking · · Score: 1

      It was interesting to me how the PR folks tried to associate Linux with software piracy and communism. I don't think this is because of a real misperception on their part, it seems much more likely to be spin-directed FUD. It's more pathetic than enraging to me.

      Agreed. This is a company that until recently sold a Linux distribution as its main product. Their IPO was on the basis of their being a Linux distributor.

      The story about them suddenly realising their IP was being infringed upon isn't inherently implausible, though their behaviour in general makes it seem unlikely. But their moving from being a supplier of Linux to a "Linux=Communism" position is just, as you say, pathetic.

    4. Re:This really is pointless for all parties. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      $5M of profit on $25M of revenue for a SINGLE QUARTER.

      That mean's SCO has revenues of approx $100M per year. Now it's no IBM or Microsoft by any stretch, but still...

    5. Re:This really is pointless for all parties. by rdewald · · Score: 1

      I stand corrected. You're quite right, they won't be ruined by losing a lawsuit on the plaintiff's side. I think they've already done the damage.

      Enron and Worldcom were much bigger. Stupid, greedy, pointless moves by the morally-agnostic leadership of those companies brought them down. Their size was no protection, in fact, one could argue that their size was necessary to lend credibility to their self-delusion. I think the same forces are at work in SCO.

      But, it's just an outsider's opinion, I'm just commenting on patterns I recognize.

      --
      The best way to do is to be.
    6. Re:This really is pointless for all parties. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They simply don't have a case. If did, there would not be any computer industry from now on, because it would mean that any software developed for, say, Windows 2000, was the property of M$ since it was developed using, at one level or another, M$ APIs. In other word, if what The SCO Thieves are claiming was true, any software developed for a particular OS would be owned by however owns the given OS patents/copyrights. This would also mean that Sun Microsystem would own any program developed in Java. Or, that any program/module developed for HP OpenView is owned by HP. If The SCO Thieves case holds any water, then patent authorities (and countries) all around the world would simply stop working with the US, since their economies would simply be in ruins because of this. If any court on the face of the US land can believe that SCO has any case against IBM, the US as a whole will be simply fuck! Somebody in Washington, DC should better put these kids at SCO in their place unless they want to start playing solo from now on as far as patents, trademarks, and copyrights is concerned.

    7. Re:This really is pointless for all parties. by MickLinux · · Score: 1
      This type of business strategy -- utterly bereft of moral values -- has not entirely faded from view.

      Has not faded from view? This strategy fits neoliberal capitalism to a tee, and it isn't just a threat to Linux. It's a threat to real families in Zaire, Nigeria, Argentina, Brazil, Venezuela [let's not forget America's little revolution, shall we?], India [Bhopal disaster still not cleaned up], ... and soon, coming to a site near you.

      You know, there is a group that rates the honesty of governments by asking businesses how many bribes they have to pay in each country. I think that's significant, because a moral businessman would not pay bribes, period. I'd love to see surveys of government judges, customs officials, and so on, asking "which companies offer to pay you bribes?" But they go hand in hand in neoliberal capitalism.

      Using governments to help you steal is a hallmark of the method. When SCO said "Give communism a try: free Linux", they were specificially saying "we represent [neoliberal] capitalism," and setting Linux against us therefore supports communism. [Note that I put [neoliberal] in brackets: they wouldn't have said neoliberal, they would have said just capitalism.]

      In a way, they're right. Back in the cold war days, it seemed that there were to geopolitical forces: nominally capitalism and communism, they were really neoliberal capitalism and Marxism. Other movements just didn't seem to have the force that these two did.

      But in a way, I believe they're wrong. In reality, I think that Malachai Martin [The Vatican] was right: there is and was a third geopolitical force, and it is pushed by an institution that is older than either force, and sometimes seems as corrupt: the Vatican. And when it comes down to it, I keep on finding myself on that third side: what they say, I agree with.

      --
      Correct Horse Battery Staple: 72 bits of entropy. Enter "Correct H" into google. When it generates the phrase, that's
    8. Re:This really is pointless for all parties. by rdewald · · Score: 1

      Your rage is well-placed. My line "has not entirely faded from view" was an ironic understatement.

      We can't rely on the system to be good. People have to be good.

      I think what is happening now is a reaction to the rejection of narrow values of the 50's by the children of the 60's. The 60's-era ethic embraced alternative values and norms for behavior. Exploration of such demanded a relaxation of heretofore overly stringent culturally-mandated standards of moral conduct.

      The reins were never hauled back in by the ME decade of the 70's and the hyper-moralism of the Reagan 80's was just ignored by people who saw through it's hypocrisy. When Reagan and his ilk got away with all that, our culture become to regard personal morality as a personal decision as a sort of defense against the hypocrisy and idiocy of "Just Say No" and Iran-Contra.

      Now, we have found ourselves without a moral compass with only the law as a standard, i.e., if it is legal (or if the accountants sign off on it), it is okay. Concepts of "right and wrong" are relegated to personal choice, not cultural mandates. Our president wasn't elected by those he governs and he lacks the mental gravitas to understand the nuances of moral government in that situation.

      I don't think we should go back to a day when having long hair could get you beat up by thge cops, but the pendulum swings too far in the other direction at this time, in my humble opinion.

      And, as you point out, this problem is in no way confined to this country or western culture.

      --
      The best way to do is to be.
    9. Re:This really is pointless for all parties. by Oloryn · · Score: 1
      For the sake of discussion, let's assume the case has merit. The Linux community will rewrite the improperly used code, redesigning it if need be, craft tools to migrate everyone over to it, and go on.

      Trouble is, SCO appears to be doing everything they can to avoid giving out enough information to identify the allegedly infringing code. They don't want the infringing code taken out, they want it left in so they can then levy a charge on every Linux user. Giving out enough information to enable removal of infringing code would threaten that potential revenue stream, so they'll do everything they can to avoid it. They don't want the infringement to stop, they just want to make money on it.

  52. Nothing to worry about by mpsmps · · Score: 1

    My favorite reassuring quote from SCO. I'm glad to see that all my concern has been misplaced.

    SCO spokesman Blake Stowell says his company's lawsuit will not put an end to Linux.

    "Linux could still be used; it just wouldn't be free," Stowell said. "These people are upset because they've been enjoying a free ride for some time. They're upset their free ride will potentially be gone."

    1. Re:Nothing to worry about by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      wow that guy really is retarded.

      Lets see, tons of PROGRAMMERS find out their OPEN SOURCE program contains someone elses code, so what do they do? They give up and let SCO charge to license linux???

      Dumb fuck, the second SCO shows the offending code (if it even exists, which i doubt), that code will be removed and replaced within 15 minutes and everyone will move on while SCO goes bankrupt and dies.

    2. Re:Nothing to worry about by Grax · · Score: 1

      Free ride? SCO wants to get paid for a product Linus and a bunch of internet buddies wrote and we're the ones after a free ride?

      I don't think so.

    3. Re:Nothing to worry about by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      SCO wants to get paid for a product Linus and a bunch of internet buddies wrote and we're the ones after a free ride?

      No, SCO wants to get paid for the bits they wrote (own, rather), which made it into Linux illegally.

      Try to think before you post

    4. Re:Nothing to worry about by Grax · · Score: 1

      Don't be a prick. I know the story.
      SCO claims to own all operating systems and wants to be paid lots and lots of money by everyone out there.

    5. Re:Nothing to worry about by jedidiah · · Score: 1

      The offending parts, if any, will be removed. There is no reasonable legal interpretation that would allow SCO to hijack the work of others after that point.

      YOU try to think before you post.

      This has already been done before: USL vs. BSDI.

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
    6. Re:Nothing to worry about by hobsonchoice · · Score: 1

      While I have no evidence to support it, my gut theory tells me that they might start making claims against applications and/or device drivers, too, soon. It would seem logically consistent with their stated position.

      After all, X-Windows or other *nix applications are "derived" from the Unix operating system, if their legal theory about the definition of derivative-rights works.

  53. MAN, ARE YOU EVER FIRED! by YOU+ARE+SO+FIRED! · · Score: 2, Funny

    Yeah, it is too bad you're not an SCO shareholder. Then you'd at least have a tiny amount of money to spend on groceries that you could snack on while standing in the unemployment line. Come on, take a hike. You're fired. You can come in on Saturday to pick up your belongings (such as they are). Now, I'm going to get some ice cream and then crawl into my bed made mostly of $100 dollar bills and ripped up resumes.

    What's the big deal about the signs? They're kinda funny. I'd wear a shirt (on my off days, of course) that said, "I Don't Pay For Music - I Don't Pay For My O.S. Either."

  54. Pretty busy those SCO people by arcanumas · · Score: 3, Funny

    As much as i hate SCO i have to admit that some of these SCO posters are actually nice.
    I can't help but wonder how much coding thy do and how much drawing.
    If their people did as much coding as drawing they would not be in this position right now.

    --
    Slashdot Sig. version 0.1alpha. Use at your own risk.
    1. Re:Pretty busy those SCO people by nettdata · · Score: 1

      I can't help but wonder how much coding thy do and how much drawing.

      Well, they probably don't do any more coding, as they're all lawyers now... and the signs were probably done by legal secretaries and interns.

      --



      $0.02 (CDN)
    2. Re:Pretty busy those SCO people by geekee · · Score: 1

      "If their people did as much coding as drawing they would not be in this position right now."

      Hmmm. That doesn't make sense. You mean is Linux did more coding, and less copying, they would not be in this position now.

      --
      Vote for Pedro
    3. Re:Pretty busy those SCO people by arcanumas · · Score: 1

      Hmmm. That doesn't make sense. You mean is Linux did more coding, and less copying, they would not be in this position now.

      Yes. Linux is all about copying. Those poor SCO people have been deprived of their hard earned Intellectual Property by the savage , mindless hordes of Linux hippies , backed by the vilainous mega-corporation IBM.
      I am pretty sure that IBM , being such a small company with no expertise in Research & Development, copied SCO's breakthrough technology into Linux.
      It is also certain that SCO has absolutely unquestionable evidence as to where did THEIR code come from.
      Plus, it makes their argument so much stronger when they refuse to pinpoint the source code in question.
      I am convinced. Thank you for showing me the light.

      --
      Slashdot Sig. version 0.1alpha. Use at your own risk.
  55. Re:THANK GOD FOR OS X HUH YOU TROLLING ASSHOLE!?!? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Rude!

  56. Re:Mad? (for Windows users) by FearUncertaintyDoubt · · Score: 1, Flamebait
    for windows users:
    REM sco.bat
    :START
    ftp -s:sco.ftp -i -A ftp.sco.com
    GOTO START

    sco.ftp file:

    cd /pub/OpenLinux311/Server/SRPMS/
    mget *.*
    quit
    Step 3: run sco.bat and profit?
  57. Re:SCO can't distinguish Communism from nazi Germa by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hit the streets of Los Angeles or Las Vegas or any other western US city and start asking people who was the worst communist, Hitler or Ivan the Terrible.

    You'll get one of two answers:

    1) "Who's Ivan the Terrible?"

    2) "Hitler, definitely."

    You will not get the more appropriate answer that you expect. Citizens of the US do NOT tend to know their history at all. What they know is a) Hitler is the most evil person of all time, b) communism is the most evil thing of all time, therefore c) Hitler and communism must be one and the same.

    I would suspect you could now throw terrorism into that equation somewhere, though I haven't had opportunity to test the theory...

  58. I'm sorry, but this is not enough. by callforsco · · Score: 5, Interesting
    I hate to say it, but I think that this protest isn't going to do a god damn thing. Protests like this are pretty much ignored by everybody in the corporate setting; if anything, all it does is make corporate people roll their eyes.

    Take it from me - I work for a Fortune 500 company (no not microsoft ;-)) that gets protests pretty much *weekly* and the upshot of it is that company email gives logistical directions on where and how to avoid the protests. (ironically, I think that the protesters are *dead on* but believe me, its not going to change the company's practices. Nothing but an act of god is going to do that.)

    Anyways, don't get me wrong. I think that SCO is a borderline illegal company, but to *really* hurt them where it counts, we need to organize online. Hurting them where it counts means presenting the SEC with a well-thought out case on why they need to be investigated.

    I posted the following proposal to slashdot (it was rejected, probably because it was too controversial) and the gist was that SCO's share price (ticker symbol SCOX) has gone up 1400% on rumors and FUD. Now SCO may have a case, they may not have a case, but the least that should happen is an investigation by the SEC into the facts surrounding this incident.

    Here's a SEC link that lets you enter a complaint. Hell, if SCO gets enough heat from this, they may divulge all. We deserve, as a community, to be able to evaluate their gripe objectively, and that requires full disclosure by SCO of what their gripe is. SCO's failure to do so is *hurting our livelihood* - and at the least it is libelous.

    Anyways, below is the text of the original submission. I'm hoping to get it on the head Slashdot page, so if you could submit it as a story, I think it would do us all a favor. (Note to slashdot editors - a 'soapbox' icon would be very nice... something which allows users to post controversial stories like this whilst having a disclaimer so slashdot can keep its nose clean)

    original submission:

    I just read the vaguely demeaning forbes article describing the complacency of the linux community, and believe me, this "crunchie" wasn't pleased, at either a) being called a crunchie for having the ethics to be upset about what SCO is doing, or b) for being labeled as ineffective and powerless. The truth is, the open source community isn't powerless. The whole SCO incident has a very bad smell to it, and what they are doing (and the consequent effect on their stock price) is in my opinion highly unethical if not illegal. I am not a lawyer (or SEC official for that matter) but their stock price has jumped from 60 cents to $11 per share, in dubious circumstances... so in my opinion at the very least the SEC should be notified about the unsavory aspects of it and other pieces of background info so they can do an investigation and find out the facts for themselves. So - I think the open source community should take a stand. If you don't like what SCOX is doing, here is the sec complaint form where you can submit evidence, background facts, personal knowledge, and - if you think so - your opinion about how malfeasant SCOX's actions are and the damages that they are doing. (Any info about how SCOX insiders are capitalizing on the stock price would be especially helpful.. personally, its the element I find most distasteful of all, and if they find manipulation, its information the SEC can directly use.) How many people read slashdot? How would the SEC handle 500,000 complaints? Only time would tell - but I think at the minimum it would warrant an investigation, possibly even a class-action suit. Anyways, if you are going to submit, please be civil about it. The worst thing possible would be for the SEC to get lots of long-winded rants - they want courteous dialog and accurate information they can use, not a vitriolic screed of profan

    1. Re:I'm sorry, but this is not enough. by BrainInAJar · · Score: 1

      "Note to slashdot editors - a 'soapbox' icon would be very nice... something which allows users to post controversial stories like this whilst having a disclaimer so slashdot can keep its nose clean"

      Then we'd be K5.

    2. Re:I'm sorry, but this is not enough. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Note to slashdot editors - a soapbox icon would be very nice... something which allows users to post controversial stories like this whilst having a disclaimer so slashdot can keep its nose clean


      Then we'd be K5.

      ... the big difference being that slashdot has - what - 10 times the readership of kuro5hin? Anyways, I don't think the poster wanted every story to be a soapbox article, just a few (the more interesting ones). Katz done right.

    3. Re:I'm sorry, but this is not enough. by amcnabb · · Score: 4, Interesting

      What do you think we're trying to do? Do you think we're so stupid that we think we're going to change SCO's mind?

      No way!

      The purpose of the protest was to show normal everyday people, through the media, what is really going on in the peaceful town of Lindon. And you know what? We were successful. Two major Utah newspapers covered our protest, and we had a front page article with one of them.

      After the "chat" we had with McBride, it was obvious that he didn't care at all about what we thought, but as long as the public is a little more aware of the issues, we feel we were successful.

      And besides, we had a lot of fun.

    4. Re:I'm sorry, but this is not enough. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So, write an article and submit it to slashdot. People have done it in the past.

    5. Re:I'm sorry, but this is not enough. by BrainInAJar · · Score: 1

      Yeah, it was meant as a joke. Evidently a joke only me and a couple guys on IRC (we all read both, and make fun of both) thought was funny.

    6. Re:I'm sorry, but this is not enough. by Daniel+Phillips · · Score: 1

      I posted the following proposal to slashdot (it was rejected, probably because it was too controversial) and the gist was that SCO's share price (ticker symbol SCOX) has gone up 1400% on rumors and FUD. Now SCO may have a case, they may not have a case, but the least that should happen is an investigation by the SEC into the facts surrounding this incident.

      Take a good look at *when* it started to go up: sveral weeks before the lawsuit was announced and filed. This cannot be explained by the timing of the quarterly report either.

      --
      Have you got your LWN subscription yet?
    7. Re:I'm sorry, but this is not enough. by shadowbearer · · Score: 1

      Problem is, an SEC investigation could take *years* (most do); meanwhile, damage is being done to the linux developers and community in general in the public eye (meaning mostly corporate acceptance). While this may or may not hurt the developers, it is hurting and will continue to hurt those of us who are trying to spread the word about Linux and it's advantages.
      The damage hasn't been that great - yet - but if this drags on for a while, with SCO and their public statements being in the public limelight, it could do a great deal of damage. I've approached two businesses in the community I just moved to who use SCO products about changing to Linux (one of them being the local Ace Hardware, who had his complaints about support costs) and both have noticed the FUD being spread, and had little or no idea about the other side of the story until I pointed them to a few sites (slashdot being one).

      DMB and Sontag know this. The fact that they're more or less willing to publicly self-destruct their reputations in the IT industry at large means to me that they've already been paid off, and are not worried about retiring wealthy. Paid off by whom, I wonder? Hmph. Who would benefit the most, right now, from long term damage to the OSS community? I think the answer to that is obvious.

      The only *good* thing I see coming from all this, is that in the long run, if SCO is investigated and the major players there are slammed hard by the SEC (we can hope) that there may be some changes in how corporations have to do business. Yeah, it's optimistic. We have to be - and have to keep fighting. This is the battle of the collective individuals in IT against the entrenched corporate legal teams. The winner - if there is one - may not emerge for a very long time. One way or another, the damage is going to be tremendous - and I'm talking damage to people in the service industry side of IT especially.

      If it was up to me, DMB and Sontag would hang. Probably a good thing I'm not a judge :-)

      SB

      --
      It's old. The more humans I meet, the more I like my cats. At least they are honest.
    8. Re:I'm sorry, but this is not enough. by stor · · Score: 1

      I found it funny :)

      Cheers
      Stor

      --
      "Yeah well there's a lot of stuff that should be, but isn't"
    9. Re:I'm sorry, but this is not enough. by Thing+1 · · Score: 1
      ironically, I think that the protesters are *dead on* but believe me, its not going to change the company's practices. Nothing but an act of god is going to do that.

      Please post your root passwords. The act of God will follow.

      --
      I feel fantastic, and I'm still alive.
    10. Re:I'm sorry, but this is not enough. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      SCO made an official announcement about SCOSource some months before the lawsuit was filed, hinting heavily about a very large blue target. Slashdot had a whole bunch of stories.

      That's when the stock started going up. Were I not stupid, I would have bought in.

    11. Re:I'm sorry, but this is not enough. by RemoteRabbit · · Score: 1

      I agree with you here that the linux community is way too complacent. I think one danger is the movement of the battlefield away from the technical arena into an arena which microsoft and friends clearly own. I.e. The US law courts. Who would would of guessed the Dept of Justice investigations would lead to virtually zero punishment and the takeover of the education market. ROFL. It could just happen that despite all the evidence and truth that a decision will be made against linux . The amazing decision to reward Microsoft for being a illegal Monopoly could be a predicate for punishing linux for being an egailitarian product. WOOOOAAAHHH hellfire missiles targetting warning posi...ZZ@£"%$!!

    12. Re:I'm sorry, but this is not enough. by geekoid · · Score: 1

      " that gets protests pretty much *weekly* and the upshot of it is that company email gives logistical directions on where and how to avoid the protests."

      R J Renolds?

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    13. Re:I'm sorry, but this is not enough. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How do you feel about the humor of SCO trying to associate yall with the exterminations of jews, anti-american ideals, murder and theft of goods as well?

  59. SCO scores by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Seems to me that SCO managed to obtain what it wanted: make the whole protest lose its point. It seriously looks like it was easy to make fools out of the LUG protesters.

  60. This is good. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We should have a national SCO protest day where all the LUGS should protest outside of say a mcdonald's since they are one of sco's bigger customers...

    1. Re:This is good. by b29651 · · Score: 1

      This might be the best idea i have heard so far to get national attention.Mcdonalds is a company that worries about image.If we knew a few more companies also the same thing could be done at them also. Also a note about the SCO protest they will be able to point to their own signs and say this is what most linux people represent.Do we want that image of us presented to a court?

  61. Re:Lets all join Hands (handles) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Maybe it already has its own topic, called "Caldera". It is odd that this particular article wasn't there, however.

  62. New low by dtfinch · · Score: 1

    More greed driven insults and baseless accusations. I don't think they expect to sell any more copies of Unix in the near or distant future. They'll undoubtably retire from the software business if they find a judge crooked enough to give them a win. And if they lose, they'll still retire, just not in style. There's nothing left for them here.

  63. Re:I NEED HELP SLASHDOT! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Pork receptacle?
    Slippery slit?
    Baby chute?
    Goddamned irresitable?
    Breakfast?
    Lunch?
    Dinner?
    God's greatest gift to man?

  64. Re:Userfriendly is the most god awful thing ever by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    blah, blah, blah. If you cared to look, you'd've seen that Illiad didn't draw this one himself (apparently Larson did, and he only filled in the text balloons). Which makes a huge difference.

  65. Mod up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


    It seems this is not a troll.

  66. Re:Don't jump to conclusions about the SCO people. by the+gnat · · Score: 5, Insightful

    That sounded like bullshit to me, until I found the pictures of Darl McBride and a couple of protestors. God knows the Linux community can be, um, a little humorless and self-congratulatory, and SCO has veered into the realm of insanity. The concept of Darl laughing with the pro-Linux people simply doesn't make any sense whatsoever, since he's accused nearly half the tech industry of outright theft. It's hard to think of any of this as "FUN" when you're dealing with a group of corporate raiders who are literally trying to sabotage the future of computing.

    I'd reached the conclusion a long time ago that Linux was grossly overrated, but it's also done great things for my workplace and my research field, and it's a shame to see another sleazebag IP holding company try to hijack that. I don't condone IP theft or DDoS attacks on SCO's website, but I also wouldn't speak to the likes of Darl McBride except through a lawyer.

    Oh, by the way, the Communism thing isn't funny any more. It's not McCarthyism, but it's pretty fucking stupid and offensive. Most of us in The Real World use and like Linux because it helps us do our jobs and make (and save!) money, not because it fits our half-baked socialist ideals.

  67. SCO really does want to own Linux by Stephen+Samuel · · Score: 5, Insightful
    SCO spokesman Blake Stowell says his company's lawsuit will not put an end to Linux.

    "Linux could still be used; it just wouldn't be free," Stowell said. "These people are upset because they've been enjoying a free ride for some time. They're upset their free ride will potentially be gone."

    I think that this pretty much puts to rest the question of whether or not SCO wants to own Linux.

    Part of the problem is that this wouldn't work. Under the GPL, if you can't distribute it for free, you can't distribute it at all. To relicense Linux as an SCO-0wned product, you'd have to get the agreement of all the contributors. I doubt that that would happen.

    --
    Free Software: Like love, it grows best when given away.
    1. Re:SCO really does want to own Linux by dmaxwell · · Score: 1

      To relicense Linux as an SCO-0wned product, you'd have to get the agreement of all the contributors. I doubt that that would happen.

      I think they better be more worried about many of the contributers suing them.

    2. Re:SCO really does want to own Linux by aussersterne · · Score: 1

      Don't be surprised if they don't bother to ask anyone or actually win a court battle before they start selling Linux licenses. Their plan of action is not to go to court with this. Their plan of action is likely to raise a stink (as they have done), get CIO's and functionaries thinking about it (as they have done), and then to send out tens of thousands demand letters to every corporate Linux user they can locate, threatening legal action if the company in question doesn't "come clean" and "license Linux" from SCO for $$$.

      They will thus begin to sell Linux licenses and make other profitable deals based on "their" Linux code whether or not they have "the right" to do so. Clueless corporate operatives will Send Them The Money and will continue to use Linux, happy in the knowledge that their license is now "legal" since they have "licensed" it from SCO for $$$. This money will then go into SCO's legal coffers for more demand letters, more suit threats, and preparation for defense against any lawsuits that come their way as a result.

      This will continue until one of the big boys actually sues SCO to stop them. SCO's plan was probably originally to get bought out. Their contingency plan is likely not to sue others; it's to rake in the cash until someone successfully sues them.

      --
      STOP . AMERICA . NOW
    3. Re:SCO really does want to own Linux by shadowbearer · · Score: 1

      Your sig is sure appropriate here, ain't it?

      SB

      --
      It's old. The more humans I meet, the more I like my cats. At least they are honest.
    4. Re:SCO really does want to own Linux by amcnabb · · Score: 2, Informative

      I was at the little "chat" with McBride afterwards. He informed us that home users don't have to worry yet, but that commercial users aren't going to get away with their free lunches anymore. McBride repeatedly (at least 10 times) said that SCO's intentions would become clear in July.

      My impression is that in July, SCO is going to send a bill to each of the 1500 companies that they sent the warnings to, and more. I think that they're going to start collecting money before anything has happened in court.

    5. Re:SCO really does want to own Linux by groomed · · Score: 1
      Under the GPL, if you can't distribute it for free, you can't distribute it at all.

      That's nonsense. The GPL doesn't stipulate that you have to distribute your software for free, but that you make the source available on request, and allow it to be redistributed. This has the tendency of driving the cost of obtaining the software down to zero, but that is by no means a necessity.

    6. Re:SCO really does want to own Linux by Billly+Gates · · Score: 1
      Free ride gone?

      Not a problem I will use FreeBSD thank you.

      What is that SCO?

      You want to sue Windriver and the FreeBSD team as well?

      Hehe fat chance.

      I will use another Os, and so on and so on, etc.

      SCO can not win every case and lets say theoritically win agaisnt FreeBSD and Linux...their is always Morphoeus( another Free Unix like system in development), altos, and I believe a free version of the BeOS is being developed as well.

      OSS is like a multihead dragon. Slay one head and another pops out.

      If none of the above works out I assure you within 48 hours the remaining Linux and Free/net/openbsd developers will rewrite their own projects again from scratch.

      It can not be bought out, killed, or plainly die.

      It will just keep getting better and never go away.

      Long LIVE OPEN SOURCE!

    7. Re:SCO really does want to own Linux by Billly+Gates · · Score: 1

      Was not the court case set in early July?

      I have found very little data on this.

      I want this straighten out as soon as possible. Of those 1500 recipients, how many will use any OSS projects again?

      My point exactly.

    8. Re:SCO really does want to own Linux by mark-t · · Score: 1
      They can go right on ahead and sell Linux licenses if they so choose, but they can't legally stop anyone else from freely distributing it because ... (wait for it) they *DO NOT OWN ALL THE COPYRIGHTS*!

      SCO loses big time on this one. Whether or not they "claim" to own IP in Linux or not, once that code is removed, there is squat all they will be able to do to stop people from distributing it for free, and they can't allow it to remain in there while simultaneously disallowing its free distribution without, themselves, being guilty of unauthorized distribution (that is, the copyright holders of Linux who have placed their code under the GPL will not authorized *them* to distribute their source code if they won't release it in accordance with the terms of the GPL).

      Linux will survive. SCO will not.

    9. Re:SCO really does want to own Linux by Strudelkugel · · Score: 1

      Well Bill, you and Steve must be having a grand time watching the *nix community frag itself again, just like in the 90s.

      Maybe that's how WinXX got on all those machines.

      --
      Imagine how much harder physics would be if electrons had feelings! -Feynman, maybe
    10. Re:SCO really does want to own Linux by izzyb · · Score: 1
      I think you confuse free as in "beer" with free as in "speech".

      The GPL prevents anyone from distributing code if it can't be distributed free as in speech. If SCO's claims of IP infringement on the Linux kernel are true, then it can't be distributed under the GPL and simply buying a lisence from SCO doesn't resolve the problem.

      In order for SCO to be able to sell you a license for a non-free Linux, they'd need permission from all the copyright holders for all the pieces. This isn't going to happen. Here is the best explanation I have seen for this. Too bad the poster didn't put their name on it. It's actually quite good!

      If, and this is far from certain, there is code in linux that violates SCO's IP, the only way for Linux to move forward is for the code to be removed, or SCO to lisence it under the GPL. SCO doesn't like either of these solutions. They want to continue there FUD campaign as long as possilbe in the hopes of extorting money from companies in the confusion.

      That's why they wont show anyone proof of their alligations (all of them, and without a NDA). They know any valid issues would be fixed within weeks and they'd once again become irrelevant.

    11. Re:SCO really does want to own Linux by shadowbearer · · Score: 1

      "SCO's intentions would become clear in July."

      Isn't that what they said before, but s/July/June?

      "going to start collecting money "

      IMHO, but any company that pays them a dime before this is resolved should fire the exec that makes that decision.

      It's time to put on the waders, the BS is getting really deep. McBride is responsible for the floodgate control, and it's wideopen, damn the industry, full speed ahead on the lawyer throttle.

      Thanks for your contributions to the /. forum, man :-) We *really really* appreciate it.

      SB

      --
      It's old. The more humans I meet, the more I like my cats. At least they are honest.
    12. Re:SCO really does want to own Linux by LurkerXXX · · Score: 1
      Perhaps you don't understand. They don't have to distribute Linux at all. All they have to do is sell Licenses to current(and future) linux users, allowing them to use the system legally.

      "Want to use linux legally? Send in $25/copy and we'll send you licenses in the mail. You will then legally be allowed to use that many copies of linux using the SCO code"

      No distributing the OS, just send out licenses. Much less overhead. It's a beautiful plan if you think about it. Most large companies will just put in orders for a number of licenses, and won't think twice about it.

    13. Re:SCO really does want to own Linux by mark-t · · Score: 1
      Okay, perhaps you don't understand. They can't insist that their code remain in Linux without it becoming GPL'd, regardless of whether or not it was initially put into Linux without their consent.

      Bottom line, their code has to be removed, at which point they have *no* claim over Linux and cannot legally require people to purchase licenses.

      Further, if they try to charge for licenses for Linux, they open themselves up to class action suits by the copyright holders who wanted their stuff to remain free. SCO has no right to be collecting fees for work that they did not author.

    14. Re:SCO really does want to own Linux by LurkerXXX · · Score: 1
      They won't insist their code remain in Linux, only that you have to pay them if you want to use a copy that does contain their code.

      They aren't licensing Linux to you, but they are licensing THEIR CODE, which is in it (at least at the moment. They are only selling you the right to use the code which is theirs. Other are free to donate or charge for their individual contributions to Linux as they see fit. SCO won't be licensing that, only the right to use SCO's code. So no one else can sue them, class action or not. They are only licensing the code taht is their own

    15. Re:SCO really does want to own Linux by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dude... It's a lie... It's a SCAM... They can't "legally" do anything with Linux... but they're gonna contact a million bazillion companies and extract money by LYING and saying that they own Linux and that companies' copies of Linux are pirated SCO property and that if the companies don't pay up, they're operating outside the law...

      So the companies will pay...

      SCO is gonna get rich off Linux without ever contributing a single line of code...

      And then someday years down the road when Linus has moved on, when some existential question does come up, SCO will suddenly jump in and act as if it does own Linux, and people and the courts will listen... after all, business will have been licensing Linux from SCO to the tune of millions of dollars for years arleady...

    16. Re:SCO really does want to own Linux by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "They won't insist their code remain in Linux, only that you have to pay them if you want to use a copy that does contain their code."

      Yeah, but don't you see it happening already: They will keep it secret which code that really is, keeping the world guessing while collecting money from the gullible ones that fall for their 'trust me, its in there somewhere' line...

    17. Re:SCO really does want to own Linux by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "These people are upset because they've been enjoying a free ride for some time. They're upset their free ride will potentially be gone."

      What I hate about the way they phrase things like this is that they make it sound as if there's no way Linux could actually have been developed my volunteers, and therefore that Linux fundamentally relies on stolen code to function. It sounds like the BSA; if you're not paying for software, you're a pirate! Riight... so it's greedy to get a "free ride" with linux when we should be paying corporations for the right to use our computer. And we're only angry because we might have to pay money.

    18. Re:SCO really does want to own Linux by PhxBlue · · Score: 1

      Under the GPL, if you can't distribute it for free, you can't distribute it at all.

      Have you read the GPL lately? You can distribute the executables for whatever price you want, as long as you distribute the source with it.

      --
      !#@%*)anks for hanging up the phone, dear.
    19. Re:SCO really does want to own Linux by Stephen+Samuel · · Score: 1
      My impression is that in July, SCO is going to send a bill to each of the 1500 companies that they sent the warnings to, and more. I think that they're going to start collecting money before anything has happened in court.

      If they do that, then I'd hope that Linus would go to court and get a restraining order on them demanding that they stop the demand letters and put any money recieved into a trust account until the lawsuit can be settled.

      --
      Free Software: Like love, it grows best when given away.
    20. Re:SCO really does want to own Linux by Stephen+Samuel · · Score: 1

      I didn't say if you don't I said if you can't. More specifically, if I can't distribute the source freely, then you can't distribute either the binary or the source to me.

      --
      Free Software: Like love, it grows best when given away.
  68. Friendly? by drivers · · Score: 2, Insightful

    With all the comments on here that "the protest was friendly, SCO gave us lemonade, and everyone laughed and had a good time" about the anti-protest it makes me wonder what the protesters were trying to accomplish. The way I look at it is the purpose of a protest is to raise the social costs (in other words make it more costly for SCO to pursue the actions they are trying for than the rewards they think they will gain from it) against the company you are protesting. As it is, SCO is making itself look bad enough through its own actions. It sounds like there were no real demands and anywhere to raise the social costs if they didn't meet those demands.

    1. Re:Friendly? by geekee · · Score: 1

      Face it, your biased. If SCO were suing MS, over the exact same issues, you, as well as those protesters, would be siding with SCO.

      --
      Vote for Pedro
    2. Re:Friendly? by drivers · · Score: 1

      Of course I'm biased. I have an agenda and it is anti-corporate. What's wrong with being biased (i.e. having a point of view)?

  69. Why is it a big deal? by simonff · · Score: 1

    Okay, please somebody enlighten me. Assume the worst case: SCO wins hands-down. The Linux kernel community then calls for volunteers to rewrite the questionable parts, making sure the people who do it have never seen previously the code in question (they will just get the requirements). Linux becomes compliant again. Why wouldn't it work?

  70. Re:SCO can't distinguish Communism from nazi Germa by Dashmon · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Argh! It's jawohl. :P People should get their languages right, too... "ya vol"... Damn stereotypes. :P

    On topic: That's not the only thing they've got wrong.. Free Software is all about sharing, but doing so decentralised, and out of free will.. both fascism and communism are forms of state that promote centralised, strong goverment and basically take away people's free will (that is, with marxistic communism.. there's allot of other kinds of socialists out there, o american commie-haters). Both nazi-germany and communist russia can't be compared to Linux, which started out far more anarcho-socialistic, but has now (unfortunatly) ended up mostly libertarian.

  71. And while we are at it... Makelift! by ihatesco · · Score: 1
    Sco's website got a major makelift, maybe waiting for this very article to appear... let's look at.. this page

    SCOsource is a new business division to manage its UNIX® System intellectual property. The charter of the new division is to create new and innovative licensing programs to meet the changing demands of today's market and to protect its intellectual property asset.

    SCO is the owner of the UNIX Operating System Intellectual Property that dates all the way back 1969, when the UNIX System was created at Bell Laboratories. Through a series of mergers and acquisitions, SCO has acquired ownership of the patents, copyrights and core technology associated with the UNIX System. The SCO source division will continue to offer traditional UNIX System licenses to preserve, protect and enhance shareholder value.

    Interesting are also the side-links, expecially this, this other, and also this one.

    The third link here is Sco trying to submerge the Free Software Movement on the whole by taking out some two random phrases out of context and putting them in the mouths of RMS and Perens.

    This is a very very dirty tactic Sco, and I deserve all the right to remind people that you were a dying company, selling an inferior technology, taking the road to extinction, then saved by a bunch of former employees who thrived thanks to linux, bought back for a dime or two. I will only state the truth, don't you think?

    + + + +
    I wonder when they are going to tell people that Linux helped Saddam Hussein fleeing the battlefield, or that the FSF headquarters has a time machine and they will use it to start a Soviet Revolution in the US instead of the War of Independence.

    + + + +
    Did I tell you that I Hate Sco?

    + + + +
    If you download this, Darl will cry:
    ed2k://|file|debian-30r1-i386-binary-1_NONUS.iso|6 78395904|39BE2DD045C910DDC81B7FC882ABB203|/

    --
    "I am slashbot, hear me roar!"
    1. Re:And while we are at it... Makelift! by msergeant · · Score: 1

      http://uptime.netcraft.com/up/graph/?host=www.sco. com

      nuff said

      --
      -mutter- something something something...
    2. Re:And while we are at it... Makelift! by ihatesco · · Score: 1
      nuff said

      Yeah Sarge. "My son sold stolen software and all that I got is this lousy T-Shirt"...
      Their hipocrisy is endless...

      --
      "I am slashbot, hear me roar!"
  72. Its called baiting by gad_zuki! · · Score: 5, Insightful

    They want Linux users and OSS types to fly off the handle thus creating more negative press, just ignore them. Right now they're only making themselves look bad. Really bad. Man, these are adults?

    1. Re:Its called baiting by Dr_Marvin_Monroe · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I can't agree more with the poster.

      At this stage, ANY coverage that SCO gets directly benifits them. This is precisely why they have chosen to "dribble" out little bits of information, escalate their rhetoric and claims and generally try this case in the media BEFORE getting to court.

      The best thing the Linux community could do is to start shaping the "language" of the case in the court of public opinion, making sure that the language is centered on "where's the evidence?"....

      The burden is on them to show where copying took place...do NOT allow them to start making this a case about "Linux helps terrorists" or "Linux is for criminals"....they will attempt to shift the argument to this, baiting us to defend our "non-criminal" status....if it gets that far, they've won...

      The best answer is to follow IBM's lead..."we've done nothing wrong, so there's no need for comment"....followed by media blackout. This would hurt SCO more than a few signs and protesters.....keep them out of the spotlight, and every time they announce another increase in damages or whatnot, they will appear more shrill....

      Shun them completely!....and DONT BUY THEIR PRODUCTS!...but most importantly, stay away from this rabid dog....stay far away....

    2. Re:Its called baiting by Cpt_Kirks · · Score: 1

      It may have been mentioned before, but if I was a SCO employee, I would be scared shitless.

      Talk about "resume stain". Just about *ANY* place they apply after SCO gets flushed, there will be people who will still be pissed about the mess SCO caused. They may get hired, but they will also be hated.

      It may be better to list the SCO time as "minimum security prison" time...

    3. Re:Its called baiting by numark · · Score: 1

      That's like saying the receptionist at Enron at the time of their collapse is an undesirable employee at any other company. They didn't have any power over company policy, so why blame them for the indiscretions of their bosses? The coders at SCO, likewise, have nothing to do with the fact that their CEO and board decided to sue.

      --
      Want Slashdot headlines on your site? Try SlashHead
    4. Re:Its called baiting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "I was only doing my job" is not an acceptable defence in most serious matters. A receptionist still has free will.

    5. Re:Its called baiting by numark · · Score: 1

      But the receptionist wasn't engaging in any illegal activities. They weren't being asked to cover up debts, shred papers (at least, as far as I know) or lie to investors. They just happened to work at the wrong place at the wrong time. Likewise, SCO's coders aren't being asked to go out and harass companies and programmers associated with Linux. They just happen to work for a company where other people above them are deciding to sue IBM, etc. I could see if they were actively involved in tainting code or investigating behind-the-scenes, but most of the coders are honest workers who work on SCO products and probably could care less about the whole controversy (well, except for the future of their jobs). That's where I see the difference.

      --
      Want Slashdot headlines on your site? Try SlashHead
  73. LOL LOL by Ender+Ryan · · Score: 1
    Yeah, that's fucking hilarious, forgive me if I'm not laughing.

    --
    Sticking feathers up your butt does not make you a chicken - Tyler Durden
  74. Fascism mention == Automatic SCO loss by klaun · · Score: 1

    Per Usenet tradition, whoever first compares the opposing viewpoint to Hitler, Nazis or Fascism loses. Given that SCO made signs that equated Linux and Fascism (and Communism, hello SCO? communist and fascist collectively killed 30 million of each other during World War II... might want to look into the differences...), SCO has automatically lost this argument. I think now is a perfect time for the judiciary to set the precedent of giving Usenet posting traditions the weight of law and to summarily dismiss SCO's suit.

  75. Conversation between SCO and AIX by Bruj0 · · Score: 5, Funny
    Topic in #os: hey guyz, stop pickin on irix.
    <SCO> w00t! i bought unix! im gonna b so rich!
    <novell> /msg atnt haha. idiot.
    <novell> whoops. was that out loud?
    <atnt> rotfl
    <ibm> lol
    <SCO> why r u laffin at me?
    <novell> dude, unix is so 10 years ago. linux is in now.
    <SCO> wtf?
    <SCO> hey guyz, i bought caldera, I have linux now.
    <red_hat> haha, your linux sucks.
    <novell> lol
    <atnt> lol
    <ibm> lol
    <SCO> no wayz, i will sell more linux than u!
    <ibm> your linux sucks, you should look at SuSE
    <SuSE> Ja. Wir bilden gutes Linux für IBM.
    <SCO> can we do linux with you?
    <SuSE> Ich bin nicht sicher...
    <ibm> *cough*
    <SuSE> Gut lassen Sie uns vereinigen.
    * SuSE is now SuSE[UL]
    * SCO is now caldera[UL]
    <turbolinux> can we play?
    <conectiva> we're bored... we'll go too.
    <ibm> sure!
    * turbolinux is now turbolinux[UL]
    * conectiva is now conectiva[UL]
    <ibm> redhat: you should join!
    <SuSE[UL]> Ja! Wir sind vereinigtes Linux. Widerstand ist vergeblich.
    <red_hat> haha. no.
    <red_hat> lamers.
    <ibm> what about you debian?
    <debian> we'll discuss it and let you know in 5 years.
    <caldera[UL]> no one wants my linux!
    <turbolinux[UL]> i got owned.
    <caldera[UL]> u all tricked me. linux is lame.
    * caldera[UL] is now known as SCO
    <SCO> i'm going back to unix.
    <SGI> yeah! want to do unix with me?
    <SCO> haha. no. lamer.
    <novell> lol
    <ibm> snap!
    <SGI> :~(
    <SCO> hey, u shut up. im gonna sue u ibm.
    <ibm> wtf?
    <SCO> yea, you stole all the good stuff from unix.
    <red_hat> lol
    <SuSE[UL]> heraus laut lachen
    <ibm> lol
    <SCO> shutup. i'm gonna email all your friends and tell them you suck.
    <ibm> go ahead. baby.
    <SCO> andandand... i revoke your unix! how do you like that?
    <ibm> oh no, you didn't. AIX is forever.
    <novell> actually, we still own unix, you can't do that.
    <SCO> wtf? we bought it from u.
    <novell> whoops. our bad.
    <SCO> i own u. haha
    <SCO> ibm: give me all your AIX now!
    <ibm> whatever. lamer.
    * ibm sets mode +b SCO!*@*
    * SCO has been kicked from #os (own this.)
    --
    http://securityportal.com.ar
    1. Re:Conversation between SCO and AIX by jasonp1014 · · Score: 0



      haha... that was good

      Puts it all into perspective.

    2. Re:Conversation between SCO and AIX by kscguru · · Score: 1

      I need mod points. Good... so very good...

      --

      A witty [sig] proves nothing. --Voltaire

    3. Re:Conversation between SCO and AIX by shadowbearer · · Score: 1

      That was rolling on the floor funny and you just made my friends list :-)

      Encore! Encore!

      SB

      --
      It's old. The more humans I meet, the more I like my cats. At least they are honest.
    4. Re:Conversation between SCO and AIX by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It looks like the third times a charm, you finally go people to notice your lameness, gratz.

    5. Re:Conversation between SCO and AIX by retro128 · · Score: 1

      Funny as hell, thanks for that. You have my modpoint :)

      --
      -R
    6. Re:Conversation between SCO and AIX by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Christ, i almost wet my pants! ROFLMAO!!!

    7. Re:Conversation between SCO and AIX by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      and posting this just threw away that point.

      sucks to be you, eh?

    8. Re:Conversation between SCO and AIX by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ROTFL!

      It's comments like that, they're the reason I still read slashdot. (snigger)

    9. Re:Conversation between SCO and AIX by retro128 · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      That is why I mod before I post. Dumbass.

      --
      -R
    10. Re:Conversation between SCO and AIX by digitect · · Score: 1

      Dude, that was hilarious. (And I *never* laugh at SlashDot humor.)

      --
      There is no need to use a SlashDot sig for SEO...
    11. Re:Conversation between SCO and AIX by CoolVibe · · Score: 1

      Priceless... I'm a fan. Woohoo!

    12. Re:Conversation between SCO and AIX by zapfie · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      Modding then posting after you mod in the same story undos any moderation you've done in that story... 'least, it used to.

      --
      slashdot!=valid HTML
    13. Re:Conversation between SCO and AIX by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      PUTO SUDACA

      Troll Glass

    14. Re:Conversation between SCO and AIX by shfted! · · Score: 1

      I was the fucking funniest thing I've read all week!

      --
      He who laughs last is stuck in a time dilation bubble.
    15. Re:Conversation between SCO and AIX by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      LOL, great...
      I wish in my monday team meeting we would all speak like this. :)

      btw, here SCO take that trout.... *g*

    16. Re:Conversation between SCO and AIX by hynek · · Score: 4, Informative

      Nice copy'n'paste from http://www.livejournal.com/community/linux/397771. html?thread=2531787.
      However you forgot to mention it.

    17. Re:Conversation between SCO and AIX by retro128 · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      Oh, mod points are so hard to come by. Well they might be for you seeing as how you are a troll AC. Are you one of those guys that got modded to 0 one too many times and now you are just posting as an AC so you can be a full time dickhead?

      --
      -R
    18. Re:Conversation between SCO and AIX by retro128 · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      Yeah, reading the docs more carefully they say that moderation and posting can't be done in the same article, so oh well, chalk that one up to experience. I only used one mod point anyway and the author has a +5 soooo...it doesn't matter now. Thanks for not being a lamer about it like that AC up there.

      --
      -R
  76. Humor or no, SCO signs are wrong by jonman_d · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The protestor's signs were regular protest signs - "SCO AWAY" and whatnot. They were somewhat whitty, but they had a serious point to make. But the SCO signs were downright awful. I don't know about you, but portraying Linus as Hitler and Tux as a Nazi, with the phrase "give communism a try" isn't funny to me. Especially seeing as how Linus is European...you see where I'm going with this.

    Whether it was intended for humor or not, SCO owes Linus and the OSS community a formal appology.

    1. Re:Humor or no, SCO signs are wrong by alannon · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Actually, a mostly overlooked fact was that Finland was allied with Germany against Russia in WWII. Linus is a Finn. If one assumed that whoever put together these posters actually knew of this fact, it could be seen as a huge insult, comparing Linus himself to a Nazi due to his heritage. I would not, however, give them the credit to put those pieces together and assume it to just be a series of barely sequitur insults strung together.

    2. Re:Humor or no, SCO signs are wrong by Dumbush · · Score: 1

      more than a apology,
      probably more than some spanking too =)

    3. Re:Humor or no, SCO signs are wrong by EvilNTUser · · Score: 4, Informative

      I know you didn't draw any conclusions from Finland being allied with Germany, but before anyone else does, I would like to point out two things:

      1) Russia sought to invade Finland
      2) No one else would help

      --
      My Sig: SEGV
    4. Re:Humor or no, SCO signs are wrong by glesga_kiss · · Score: 3, Insightful
      Which is pretty much why Cuba embraced all things Soviet...the USA sought to invade Cuba. And did. Twice. With "Terrorists". So the Cubans turn to the Ruskies, get the bomb as a self-defence, last resort, and WW3 nearly kicks off.

      Most strategic alliances are based on self-interest rather than ideology.

    5. Re: Humor or no, SCO signs are wrong by Black+Parrot · · Score: 1


      > Linus is a Finn.

      I thought he was part of Finland's largish Swedish ethnic community.

      --
      Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
    6. Re: Humor or no, SCO signs are wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, but he's still a Finn by nationality.

    7. Re: Humor or no, SCO signs are wrong by Black+Parrot · · Score: 1


      > I know you didn't draw any conclusions from Finland being allied with Germany, but before anyone else does, I would like to point out two things:

      > 1) Russia sought to invade Finland
      > 2) No one else would help

      Actually, Britain tried to. In fact they were going to invade Norway to open a port where they could put troops into Finland from the north. They actually lanched the troopships for the invasion, but bad weather made them turn back and the Germans occupied Norway just a few days later. IIRC both invasion forces were actually at sea simultaneously.

      --
      Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
    8. Re:Humor or no, SCO signs are wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Albeit offtopic ... Did you know that your name is redundant thrice?

      1. Evil.
      2. Nt.
      3. User.

      Sorry. Just thought I'd point that out.

    9. Re: Humor or no, SCO signs are wrong by CoolVibe · · Score: 1

      That still makes him a Finn. And a swedish speaking one at that. Although, Linus does speak finnish, it's just not his native tongue.

    10. Re: Humor or no, SCO signs are wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Actually, Britain tried to. In fact they were going to invade Norway to open a port where they could put troops into Finland from the north."

      No. Look at the map. Or did they plan to invade Sweden, too? It was about iron ore.

      Invading neutal contries to help other neutral contries defend against invaders?

    11. Re: Humor or no, SCO signs are wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No way Britain would have stepped on Stalin's toes.

    12. Re:Humor or no, SCO signs are wrong by vex24 · · Score: 1

      It appalled me that they would invoke Nazism and Hitler, and call it "Communism". A high-school textbook could tell you that the Nazis were fascists. :P

      --

      People shape laws. Not the other way around.

    13. Re: Humor or no, SCO signs are wrong by Anonymous+Bullard · · Score: 2, Informative
      Britain tried to promote the creation of a neutral Nordic (Norway, Sweden, Finland) zone to prevent the germans from gaining access the massive nickel deposits in the Finnish Lapland.

      Stalin refused to allow this. What the world didn't know back then was that Stalin and Hitler already had a secret pact diving Europe between them, and Stalin considered Finland and her resources to be his.

      Churchill was pissed when Stalin attacked Finland (having even the nerve to claim at the time that it was Finland who started the war LOL), giving Hitler his cue to start occupying Norway.

      In what became known as the miracle of the winter war, an ad-hoc Finnish army with no modern weapons or even rifles for everyone, beat back a massive mechanized Soviet force and managed to sue for peace in spring '40 when even bullets were running out in many sectors of the front.

      Until 1941 Churchill was praising Finland as the model for all nations fighting against tyranny but neither Britain nor US were prepared to offer Finland material assistance to keep any imminent threats (i.e. Stalin, who's purges the Finns had helplessly witnessed across the border for a decade) at bay. Out of ammo and any modern gear, Finland is approached by Germany who are prepared to sell them much of what is needed (in preparation of their own Operation Barbarossa, as it turned out).

      Let's see what the choices were: 1) Refuse German material aid and subject the Finnish nation to Stalin's mass murder, or 2) Accept the material support (without political alliance), at least have a chance of defending yourself and unfortunately piss off Churchill who was offering no material support anyway.

      Soviet bombers began bombing Finnish cities and air fields without declaring a war (nothing new there) a few days after Hitler had betrayed his friend Stalin by invading, and with the red army occupying the homes of some 400,000+ Finns after the winter war, those folks were soon to be back fixing their homes and resuming their lives.

      After reaching the old borders, and even invading western parts of Soviet-held Karelia where ethnic Finns and Karelians had been suffering under the totalitarian communist rule and contemplated their own independence, the war became stationary until Stalin (using the latest weaponry Britain and US could provide them) started another massive attack in '44 and under the imminent threat of national extermination and genocide, the Finnish parliament agreed to some very harsh and unjust peace terms dictated by the Dear Leader himself.

      In the final peace treaty in Paris '47, just before the Cold War began in full swing, the western allies watched approvingly as the Soviets pushed all their demands through, threatening to throw the Finnish delegation out if they were to as much as speak.

      End result for Finland: hundreds of thousands of casualties, second largest city (Vyborg, now decayed beyond recognition) and the homes and lands of over 400,000 people surrendered to Stalin, massive war reparations to Stalin (uniquely paid in full, while many others were receiving Marshall aid) and, bitterly, declaration of accepting guilt for the whole madness. Oh, but Finland was never occupied so the civilian population was spared from the horrors in which tens of millions russians and their occupied neighbors died...

      In a sense, therefore, one can argue that Hitler's desire to keep Stalin busy with Finland created the path of history in which Linus was born with appreciation for freedom and yet with ability to freely engage in modern western scientific cooperation that lead to the release of Linux and the subsequent SCaldera scam and yesterday's picketting...

      (I was just trying to help you guys back on topic here!)

      --

      Should invading one's peaceful neighbours be opposed, or rewarded with trade deals?

    14. Re: Humor or no, SCO signs are wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      UK and France wanted to stop Stalin, they considered him at least as dangerous as Hitler. They negotiated with Norway and Sweden about the northern front. Finland could not wait long enough, on the other hand Finnish government did not want that Finnish territory would become the main battleground in new world war. If Soviet Union would have been weakened by UK and France from north, Germany could have signed alliance with the latter and taken the Russia. This scenario was a real possibility, remember that cold war began almost immeditely after the WW2.

    15. Re: Humor or no, SCO signs are wrong by Black+Parrot · · Score: 1


      > No. Look at the map. Or did they plan to invade Sweden, too? It was about iron ore.

      They wanted to seize the ice-free port Narvik and use it to stage overland aid to Finland via Sweden. Norway demurred, so the British decided to do it by force. They counted on the Norwegians to show token resistance and then go along with it.

      And of course, it was about ore. Britain wanted to 'secure' Narvik for the same reason Germany did.

      > Invading neutal contries to help other neutral contries defend against invaders?

      So the game of nations is played.

      --
      Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
    16. Re: Humor or no, SCO signs are wrong by Black+Parrot · · Score: 1


      > No way Britain would have stepped on Stalin's toes.

      This was early 1940, after Stalin had stabbed Poland in the back but before Stalin was at war with Germany.

      --
      Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
    17. Re:Humor or no, SCO signs are wrong by ratamacue · · Score: 1

      That pre-packaged insult which associates Linux with communism is particularly ridiculous. Communism describes a society based on force, where a central "planner" (government) controls the economy -- by force. Capitalism, on the other hand, describes a socity devoid of force, where the people are free to engage in trade according to their own agenda, not the agenda of those in power. Capitalism is freedom; communism is oppression.

      The notion of "working together towards a common goal" has absolutely nothing to do with it. The notion of profit has nothing to do with it. Capitalism does not guarantee business success; it only guarantees the freedom necessary to create business. By the same token, communism does not guarantee social advancement (or whatever the goal may be) -- it only guarantees force. The simple difference between the two is defined in terms of voluntary association.

      The only question we have to ask, in regard to whether Linux (or OSS in general) represents communism or capitalism, is whether the OSS developers are forced to work (involuntary association), or whether they work by their own interests (voluntary association). So the answer should be quite clear. Linux (and OSS in general) represent capitalism, because the people who develop these products do so by voluntary association, and not by compulsion.

    18. Re:Humor or no, SCO signs are wrong by geekee · · Score: 1

      Define terrorists. When has the US actively engaged in killing civilians?

      "Most strategic alliances are based on self-interest rather than ideology."

      self interest is an ideology.

      --
      Vote for Pedro
    19. Re:Humor or no, SCO signs are wrong by glesga_kiss · · Score: 1
      Easy. Here you go. Hope you feel proud and "free".

      Here is a quote:

      Among its graduates are many of the continent's most notorious torturers, mass murderers, dictators and state terrorists. As hundreds of pages of documentation compiled by the pressure group SOA Watch show, Latin America has been ripped apart by its alumni.

      I recommend reading the whole article. It's from a very highly respected British newspaper.

      Everything you believe about the USA is false. It used to be all true about the freedom loving nation, up to around the 50s, but after that things went sour and everyone put their heads in the sand and sought out to ignore anything nasty that their country does. Schools began to teach less and less about things that put their country in a bad light, instead focusing on the prowd and admiral things (e.g. the declaration of independance). For example, did you know that the population of the Native Americans was reduced from around 20 million to half a million in the space of 50 years? Ethnic cleansing perhaps? Another holocaust? The figures are similar, but hardly anyone knows about it.

      I believe that countries should teach children about the bad things they have done, in order to prevent similar things happening in future. However, the American phsyce is that of someone who can do no wrong, and that is a very dangerous situation.

      Sorry, I'm not trolling or being anti-US, but that's the way it is. I'm in the UK, and my government is just as bad. We talk of Saddam bombing the Kurds, but Winston Churchill did the exact same thing in 1920s. We supplied crackpots like Saddam with powerful WoMD. Popular history has a very selective memory.

  77. SCO was framed at this protest by the commies by dan_bethe · · Score: 1
    The Linux-carrying infidels allege that SCO employees produced this anti-protest artwork on the lawn in a brazen attempt to discredit the efforts of the grassroots community, as personified as a whole by one Linus Torvalds. But how can this be?

    I am not convinced that any old SCO employee made those amateur drawings. Those pictures are good art, and I see no evidence that anyone at SCO knows how to produce quality art on a volunteer basis.

    Hence, if Chewbacca lives on Endor, you must acquit SCO!

  78. Re:SCO can't distinguish Communism from nazi Germa by hkmwbz · · Score: 1

    Communism is actually about getting rid of the government. A temporary government is needed to crush all those who oppose Communism, but when Communism is fully in place, the government steps down.

    --
    Clever signature text goes here.
  79. ironic by Ender+Ryan · · Score: 2, Insightful
    Is it not ironic that SCO calls Linux "communist", but Linux companies are making more money than SCO these days in the (relatively) free market?

    --
    Sticking feathers up your butt does not make you a chicken - Tyler Durden
  80. Contra protest totally understandable by OeLeWaPpErKe · · Score: 4, Funny

    what else would a non-lawyer sco employee be doing all day ?

    1. Re:Contra protest totally understandable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny
      what else would a non-lawyer sco employee be doing all day ?

      Well, the obvious answer is...


      Sucking

      Cock

      Often

    2. Re:Contra protest totally understandable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It would be more productive for them to be writing up their resumes. Or mailing them.

    3. Re:Contra protest totally understandable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      a contra protest? for dyslexic people who can't type "up up down down left right left right b a start" ?

    4. Re:Contra protest totally understandable by Trusted+Content · · Score: 0

      I was going to complain about how such a shitty post got modded "2 - funny" but then I realized you're an AC so you're not getting the karma anyway.

      In place of my whine, I will salute you sir. 5 golden manbabies. Bigpeeler, I wish I had your life.

      --
      OMG OMG LUNIX OMG
    5. Re:Contra protest totally understandable by cyroth · · Score: 2, Funny

      Rewriting the SCO kernel and adding in lines from HURD? Might as well take out two birds with one stone. Or 2 OS'es with one lie ^H^H^H legitimate lawsuit

  81. SCO - The foundation of Communism by Soporific · · Score: 1

    If they are saying Linux is communism, wouldn't SCO then be the root of communism?

    ~S

    1. Re:SCO - The foundation of Communism by ihatesco · · Score: 1
      If they are saying Linux is communism, wouldn't SCO then be the root of communism?

      SCO -> Soviet Communist Operation
      Linux -> Chinese Communism?

      --
      "I am slashbot, hear me roar!"
    2. Re:SCO - The foundation of Communism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If they are saying Linux is communism, wouldn't SCO then be the root of communism?

      Not at all. SCO is a Supremely Capitalist Operation. You pay for pretty much everything that you get, although they are much more generous today than in the past. (TCP/IP? Thats extra.) There is no doubt who owns what in SCO land, and it isn't the users, or coders, its the company.

      Unix is a tool, a means of production, that arguably is owned by SCO. In Linux land, nobody really owns Linux, only the Linux name. It is arguably the workers who own the tools, the means of production, even as they create them. (Sound familiar?) The struggle of the coder proletariat to control the means of production for its own ends finds its fullest expression in Linux. Each Linux coder contribues according to his abilities, and each Linux user takes according to his needs. In this way the Linux collective (community) is served.

    3. Re:SCO - The foundation of Communism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Not at all. SCO is a Supremely Capitalist Operation.

      Really? I thought it meant Sex Change Operation on Darl(ene).

  82. What about the PLUG web page? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Interesting. The PLUG web page seems to take a different attitude. While SCO may have just been poking fun, it seems a little strange. Most of SCO's posters were obviously drawn up by an artist and not just some random employees. Why spend money and/or time on something like that?

    I assume the PLUG people were there too and they didn't seem to think McBride was such a nice guy.

  83. Try communism - Use linux by Goalie_Ca · · Score: 1

    I'll remember that next time i think of IBM and many other large multinational corporations.

    --

    ----
    Go canucks, habs, and sens!
  84. Re:Don't jump to conclusions about the SCO people. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You're a moronic, mindless, SCO lover.

    but I'm just joking with ya.

  85. Buy Out? by cameronm · · Score: 1

    The SCO Group (SCOX) has 12.2 million shares outstanding at $10.77 per share, for a market capitalization of $131.3M. I think some have assumed IBM would buy them out to remove the litigation risk, but why not someone else? For $66M or so you could control the company. That's only $3.65 for each estimated Linux user.

    1. Re:Buy Out? by Quothz · · Score: 1

      The Gartner Group thought about that, too, and did a little paper that SCO has on their site. Er, here. It sounds like they may be fishing for a takeover, if they're posting this kinda info. I'm not an MBA, though, so I don't really know the intricities of this sort of thing.

    2. Re:Buy Out? by Tony+Hoyle · · Score: 1

      It would cost more than that... to buy what is currently $66M of shares, it might conservatively cost you $300M..$1BN... controlling interest in a company isn't cheap, especially hostile takeovers (which is what this would be).

    3. Re:Buy Out? by wkjel · · Score: 1

      It's very unlikely IBM would even consider a buyout. It would be seen as giving in to blackmail and only encourage others to try the same attack. I'm sure that they will fight a long and expensive battle in the courts.

  86. Re:Don't jump to conclusions about the SCO people. by niko9 · · Score: 1

    Maybe when the company goes belly up they can patent a "Jump to conclusions Mat". You know, like that guy in Office Space.

  87. Mod parent up. by dmaxwell · · Score: 1

    Nuff said. Couldn't have said it better myself.

  88. "Down with OPIP?" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Holy outdated pop-culture reference, Batman!

    1991 called, it wants its catch phrase back.

  89. Yes, Modern Humorist by porky_pig_jr · · Score: 1

    Thanks for correction.

  90. SCO like Castro by curious.corn · · Score: 1

    Ya know, these poor helpless employees from SCO look awfully like those cuban folks sent marching in Havana holding party sanctioned signs against EU governemt officials. I bet some internal memo hit their Outlooks calling for 'vigorous action' against the 'community enemies'... sad. In their small ecosystem these people are living through a cultural revolution from a Linux company to a M$ cheerleader; what a shame and what a disgrace for those C*Os acting like banana-republic dictators. U-G-H!

    --
    Mi domando chi à il mandante di tutte le cazzate che faccio - Altan
  91. How about SCunt? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Give it a try.


    By the way, has anyone gone to SCO's website and seen the picture of that ugly brunette? In what world is it good marketing to scare people away from your website with that shit?

    1. Re:How about SCunt? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      By the way, has anyone gone to SCO's website and seen the picture of that ugly brunette?

      Hey, come on now, she's alright. She has a few wrinkles around her eyes, but that just means she could probably teach you a few tricks.

  92. Where's Triumph? by doorbot.com · · Score: 1

    Wow... where's Triumph the Insult Comic Dog when you need him?

    Looking at the pictures of the anti-SCO protesters, I thought about the Triumph episode where he interviews/insults the Star Wars "nerds" waiting in line for Episode II. Could've been some great material...

    I guess someone should've called Conan before the protest started...

  93. Re:SCO can't distinguish Communism from nazi Germa by Vellmont · · Score: 1

    Yah, I figured they misspelled "ya vol", but I was too lazy to go look it up somewhere. It does make it all the more funny that they couldn't even get that right ;).

    --
    AccountKiller
  94. To clarify: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The comic (in general) sucks dong and the stealing of Gary's work is wrong

  95. coffee meeting @ sco by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    hu...

    what's this - a coffee meeting with sco? do you really think that they care about your 'protest'?

    this is what protests should look like if you want to reach something http://www.lahaine.org/global/tesa_fotos_zonroja.h tm

  96. Re:SCO can't distinguish Communism from nazi Germa by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Erm, no. Stalinism is what takes away free will and has a strong centralized bureaucracy.

    Marxism, leninism and trotskyism have none of this.

    Mainly because the stalinist program went against marxist philosophy in a few areas...and as history has shown those where the key areas that where REALLY important. Doh.

    Really marxism is just a philosphy of history and economics that leads to revolution with the proletariat triumphant. It DOESN'T say what you are supposed to do afterwards. That's where leninism, trotskyism, stalinism, etc. come in.

  97. Way to show them by autopr0n · · Score: 1, Flamebait

    That linux users do not steal IP.

    Oh wait, was it a parody? Arn't those supposed to be funny? I mean, this commic dosn't really make any sense, because there isn't really any reason for SCO to listen to all of us, if they really think they're right.

    --
    autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
  98. Capitalism =/ Intellectual Property by Zork+the+Almighty · · Score: 1

    I don't see what capitalism or communism has to do with intellectual property. Capitalism comes about through the trading of goods. If I trade you an apple for money, then I don't have the apple anymore. "Intellectual property" is an attempt to make ideas and expressions of those ideas behave like physical goods. It's an arbitrary construction, and it has nothing at all to do with capitalism or communism.

    --

    In Soviet America the banks rob you!
    1. Re:Capitalism =/ Intellectual Property by spongman · · Score: 1
      It's an arbitrary construction
      So is the number on your bank statement.
    2. Re:Capitalism =/ Intellectual Property by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wait. You don't understand what communism has to do with property?

      Intellectual Property is no more of an arbitrary construction than money is. You can still trade it for food booze and sex. "Collective delusion" said Marx.

    3. Re:Capitalism =/ Intellectual Property by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What do you know about my bank statement?

    4. Re:Capitalism =/ Intellectual Property by Chandon+Seldon · · Score: 1

      The number on your bank statement represents the number of little green pieces of paper with dead presidents on them that the bank is holding for you.
      These pieces of paper are "Money", and are the basis of a capitolist economy - "Money" can be exchanged for goods and services.

      --
      -- The act of censorship is always worse than whatever is being censored. Always.
    5. Re:Capitalism =/ Intellectual Property by Zork+the+Almighty · · Score: 1

      "Intellectual Property is no more of an arbitrary construction than money is."

      Are you trolling me ? Real property can only be held by one person. If I give it to you, then I can't have it anymore. Ideas and thoughts do not work this way. I can give you the idea of a particular piece of music, or the idea of how to build an invention, and it does not detract from my own ideas about those things.

      The notion of "intellectual property" is to impose a (sometimes limited-term) monopoly on people's ideas, so that although I may share my idea, I am the only one with the rights to benefit from that idea. If we wanted to, we could get rid of the concept of intellectual property tomorrow.

      Capitalism is somewhat harder to stamp out. As soon as people have possessions, and some of those possessions are finite, people will trade.

      --

      In Soviet America the banks rob you!
    6. Re:Capitalism =/ Intellectual Property by rifter · · Score: 1

      Wait. You don't understand what communism has to do with property?

      Intellectual Property is no more of an arbitrary construction than money is. You can still trade it for food booze and sex. "Collective delusion" said Marx.

      The AC is right. In Soviet Russia, there was no intellectual property. Well at least not that an individual could own, because the government owned everything. (In Soviet Russia, the government 0wnz j00!) Ask Alexei Pazhitnov how he felt about the Communist way of handling intellectual property sometime.

    7. Re:Capitalism =/ Intellectual Property by spongman · · Score: 1

      There's more money in the world than there is cash.

    8. Re:Capitalism =/ Intellectual Property by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      False dichotomy alert. Disagreeing with corporate-owned IP is not agreeing with state-owned IP.

      I just want NO IP.

      I also consider the moral right of an author to be recognised as the author of a work completely separate from government-granted monopoly privileges on naturally non-scarce patterns of information (IP). Transferrable IP rights actually make the right to be recognised as the author weaker.

      In my view, the best option would be neither the american corporate-neofeudal-overlords-own-your-information , nor the soviet unaccountable-state-overlords-own-your-information , but the anarcho-capitalist information-cannot-be-owned approach.

    9. Re:Capitalism =/ Intellectual Property by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But with no IP, how will the Interent work?

      baddum-tisshshshshh.

      Thank you, I'll be here all night.

    10. Re:Capitalism =/ Intellectual Property by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fuck you you Microsoft loving BSAA RIAA MPAA loving fucking asshole. You are a fascist/communist hybrid.

      Anything deemed untransferable or not able to resold is FUCKING WORTHLESS. That includes all of your beloved Microsoft software. Its only through lobbying and bribing of judges and other illegal (not all Capitalists break the fucking law) activites is this pathetic Jihad against the public allowed.

      AND supporters like you you fucking Frtiz Hollings DMCA loving storm trooper FUCKER.

      DIE, you closet fag dead dot com living in San Fran meting out yout fucking crap, DIE. DIE you fucker, DIE. You are WORTHLESS.

    11. Re:Capitalism =/ Intellectual Property by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There are more pseudo intellectual assholes than smart people. There are more horses asses than horses because of people like you. What the fuck is your point, buttfuck? You are such a washed up FRAUD. FRAUDULENT. You are a fucking sham.

    12. Re:Capitalism =/ Intellectual Property by spongman · · Score: 1

      What, like airline tickets?

    13. Re:Capitalism =/ Intellectual Property by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Like the airline tickets you buy to take to Thailand to molest little boys to fulfill your pedophile urges.

    14. Re:Capitalism =/ Intellectual Property by jaoswald · · Score: 1

      There are any number of abstractions that are treated like goods which are not physical goods, and are not exclusive.

      Charging admission is one example. In the usual state of affairs, I can sell more than one person the right to enter a museum. Just because I sell you the right to enter doesn't mean I can't sell another person the identical right of admission. And if you sneak in, I can have you hauled off by the cops, although you haven't taken anything physical.

      True, I can't sell someone else the right to occupy the same spot that you do at the same time, but he can't do that outside the museum either.

      The airlines sell more rights for admission (actually, only the contract to deliver you from your origin to destination) to a plane than there are seats. Just because they have sold all the notional seats doesn't mean they can't sell a number of additional tickets, although in principle they are selling you something they are not sure they have.

      Insurance is yet another fascinating example. I can collect money from you in exchange for a promise; that is, that I promise to pay you a certain amount if a certain event occurs. I can make promises to any number of people, and even promise different people money at different odds for the same event.

      Stock options, futures, annuities, etc., are all powerful abstract goods.

      Modern societies operate much more efficiently because of these abstractions. That is why they are valuable, much like the idea of "due process" and "legal rights" are valuable. They are abstract, but hardly arbitrary.

    15. Re:Capitalism =/ Intellectual Property by Zork+the+Almighty · · Score: 1

      Thank you for a great reply. I very much appreciate the subtleties of insurance and stock options, etc. My point was that copyright law, patents, etc all exist to impose artificial constraints on ideas, so that they work like physical property. Your example of museum admission seems to offer the greatest challenge to my theory, so I will address it.

      Most museums contain physical objects which can not be duplicated. In this sense, when the museum sells you the right to view the objects, it is a bit like a car rentalship selling you the right to drive their car. The fact that multiple people can view the artifacts simultaneously doesn't really change the business model. If we had the technology to duplicate the museum's artifacts for free, the analogy to copyright law would be to say that "the museum containing the original artifacts (whatever that means anymore) controls who gets a copy of the artifacts, and they alone may make copies". It is in this sense that copyright really is an arbitrary restriction.

      What I'm wondering is this: why would we accept these controls at all ? If duplication of the artifacts is free, why not let everybody have their own copies ? Would society really benefit more by allowing the original museum a monopoly (as was the case before this type of copying was possible), or should we adapt our laws to what is possible today ? My opinion is that laws have to adapt to our society and technology, not the other way around.

      --

      In Soviet America the banks rob you!
    16. Re:Capitalism =/ Intellectual Property by jaoswald · · Score: 1

      I think you've missed the point because you are focusing on the duplication. I don't need to cheaply duplicate the artifacts to allow free access. I could just nationalize all the museums and say "everybody can come in for free." I.e. "those works of art are too valuable to the community to allow you to restrict access." Yet we allow private collectors to prevent public viewing.

      The low cost of duplication/additional admission does not alter the right of the owner of the museum restricting people's rights to view the artifacts.

      Plus, part of what gives these artifacts value is the uniqueness. We *do* let people make copies of most of these works. Lots of amateur painters will make copies of the masters. My uncle made a copy of Vermeer's Girl with a Pearl Earring. He's a good enough painter and I'm ignorant enough that I probably couldn't tell the difference. Nifty, but not Vermeer, is it? Rodin and his workshop made multiple copies of the Thinker from the same cast, but if I were to make an exact duplicate, would it really be the same experience to look at it?

      Cost of duplication is also not much of an issue even for the printed word. We don't seem to have any shortage of cheap editions of the Bible, Federalist Papers, or other works in the public domain, although the physical cost of duplication is the same as for copyrighted works. The Gideons can afford to give away their Bibles.

      Practically everything in our society is "artificial." Ownership of land, political borders, voting, rules of baseball, the novel as a literary form. Whatever. "Artificial" does not mean "easily or obviously disposable."

  99. Re:SCO can't distinguish Communism from nazi Germa by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I have to agree on this one.

    Hang around any political discussion forum for an extended period of time and you'll eventually see someone putting forth the concept that Hitler was a communist. (Small c, thereby denoting ideology, not big C, thereby denoting the party, never actually seen anybody actually putting forward the idea that he was a Communist.)

    People have a tendency to link Hitler to whatever ideology they think is evil regardless of any facts. It's a pretty good explanation for the existence of Godwin's law.

  100. Overall a nice plus by Crashmarik · · Score: 1

    Personally, I think having SCO act like idiots is about the best outcome anyone could hope for from this and more than was expected.

    I expected SCO to do the sensible thing and just play it cool. This slander and thats what it truly is can't do their cause any good. IANAL, but the counter protest was done by their company employees , on company time and with the tacit approval, of the top company management. At the very least, there is a good case for slander, defamation of character, and perhaps misuse of the TUX trademark.

    Barring the legal issues, This situation emphasizes the fact that SCO is not a company to do business with. My company supports numerous SCO installations for medical practices, we are not even in the remotest sense considering moving forward with them. The lawsuit and SCO's long term viability were not the only factor (support for current hardware, easy access to development tools, documentation, availability of training, availability of trained personell and last but not least having a license and a sales staff that could actually inform you of what you currently needed to buy to acheive a given feature set) were all important, but this was the capper.

    I am certain that as other companies look at the situation, they will come to the same conclusions. The winners will be Windows, Sun, AIX, HPUX, and other unixes not neccesesarily in that order.

    So yes if you dislike SCO you should hope they do more of this. I do.

  101. Re:Don't jump to conclusions about the SCO people. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's obvious that the Linux protesters don't understand spin and PR. Sure Darl McBride was laughing, because he was thinking "all of you bastards are going to be paying me every time you install linux." He doesn't give a shit about linux users, and likely as not was spewing insults about them all the way home. But he does know enough to pretend to be cordial in front of the cameras, and the linux protesters fell for the spin.

  102. Free Code to SCO users? by Beatnick · · Score: 1

    One option to those who develop free software
    is to stop development of free software that
    runs on SCO. I have seen a few stop development
    but I as well as many others would like to see
    other big products stop or hinder their development
    or support to the SCO user-base.

  103. going to bed depressed by mlush · · Score: 1

    This is the saddest story I've seen come out of this whole sorry affair, either the employees really thought this. Of Marketing in a fit of madness made them do it I'm betting on option 2

  104. Re:SCO can't distinguish Communism from nazi Germa by Dashmon · · Score: 1

    You're right. I should have said marxism-leninism.

  105. Stowell by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    From the Deseret News link

    "SCO spokesman Blake Stowell says his company's lawsuit will not put an end to Linux.
    "Linux could still be used; it just wouldn't be free," Stowell said. "These people are upset because they've been enjoying a free ride for some time. They're upset their free ride will potentially be gone.""

    Fuck you, Stowell. Even if there is, by some weird chance, some copied lines from SCO Unix in Linux, the vast majority of it was still created by developers who gave it away for free. You and your greedy cohorts have no right to try to profit off of our "free ride" which was created BY A LOT OF HARD WORK.

    I hope you rot in the Utah sun and vultures eat your eyes.

  106. I paid for their lousy Caldera distribution by VampireByte · · Score: 1

    It was totally for shit. How can I sue them?

    --

    Run and catch, run and catch, the lamb is caught in the blackberry patch.

    1. Re:I paid for their lousy Caldera distribution by PurpleBob · · Score: 1

      I paid for Caldera OpenLinux 2.2. Yes, it sucked.

      A few months later, by which time it was totally clear that they had released a buggy piece of shit, they sent me an offer for a free upgrade to 2.3.

      I wonder if I could redeem that now? And have them send me all the CDs, including the kernel source? :)

      --
      Win dain a lotica, en vai tu ri silota
    2. Re:I paid for their lousy Caldera distribution by Billly+Gates · · Score: 1
      OpenLinux is nothing have you tried Caldera OpenLinuxLite? The old distro?

      That was my first. It was very Openserver-ish and unfriendly.

      It took me weeks to figure out how to configure X and when it launched it used fvwm1 with their proprietary openlook desktop.

      I was thinking that this Linux thing felt like a trs-80. Very old and rustic.

      Thank god 7 months later I found out about redhat 5.1. Wow a graphical login xdm. Cool??

      OpenLinux was at least based on kde and kdm and was more graphical and had better administration programs.

      I am proud that I used that old product just so I can say that I no longer use SCOX products. :-)

    3. Re:I paid for their lousy Caldera distribution by hobsonchoice · · Score: 1

      IANAL. Look at your local small claims court. You probably need some evidence that what they sold you, wasn't what they led you to expect you were getting. If they don't turn up, I assume you might win by default.

    4. Re:I paid for their lousy Caldera distribution by shadowbearer · · Score: 1

      Give it a try. If they do, attempt to get it entered as evidence that they're still distributing Linux. *shrug* Don't know if it'll do any good, but hey....

      2.3 also sucks, BTW. I've had a chance to play with it a bit.It's like going back 4 years in distros. Poor configuration, poor setup, crippled apps...compared to a modern dist - any of them - it's junk.

      SB

      --
      It's old. The more humans I meet, the more I like my cats. At least they are honest.
    5. Re:I paid for their lousy Caldera distribution by Stephen+Samuel · · Score: 1
      It was totally for shit. How can I sue them?

      No, but if you got it after March 1, you can email a copy to RedHat. It would be a copy that Caldera/SCO knew had their code in it, so all RedHat has to do is cut and paste the Caldera version of the code into their release, reapply any patches, and voila! a completely IP-safe version of RedHat.

      --
      Free Software: Like love, it grows best when given away.
    6. Re:I paid for their lousy Caldera distribution by PurpleBob · · Score: 1

      Well, certainly. I wouldn't actually use 2.3 if they sent it to me.

      But "get it entered as evidence"? No way am I going to get that involved.

      --
      Win dain a lotica, en vai tu ri silota
  107. Re:SCO can't distinguish Communism from nazi Germa by Dashmon · · Score: 1

    Trotskyism = Stalinism (idea of permanent revolution and all). Stalin stole most of his stuff from Trotsky, who got most of it from Lenin, who in turn had ideas *somewhat* similliar to those of Marx. And Lenin really was just as bad. Just go read his quotes about how to define 100,000 dead.

  108. SCO vs. IBM vs. [INSERT YOUR NAME HERE] by oaf357 · · Score: 1
    First off, I have to say that flyer was VERY good. Perhaps people should start putting them up all over the cities they live in. Eventually, people will take notice.

    As for showing off the code I really hope someone identified where that code lies in the Linux kernel itself and makes that snippet known to others. This also could very easily make the case null and void because the IP has been shown to anyone and everyone.

    As for the SCO made signs. I don't care if it was to be funny, taken to heart, or loved by all who attended. That is hands down, barnone the most unprofessional and childish display I've ever seen by a company. I guess I shouldn't expect much else out of SCO at this point.

  109. Wtf? by Distinguished+Hero · · Score: 1

    First, all these signs are more or less retarded, but the right sign in the first picture must be one of the stupidest things I have ever seen. It states "Give communism a try! - Free Linux," but also contains Tux hailing in the manner of a Nazi and stating "Ya Vol!" (sic).

    How retarded do these people have to be in order to mix up communism and Nazism, which are polar opposites.

    --
    Uttering logically derived and empirically supported truths to the disciples of the orthodox establishment.
    1. Re:Wtf? by The+Master+Control+P · · Score: 1

      Although I can't remember exactly where, I once found an interesting page detailing how political parties can't be described in a one-dimensional "left vs right" way, but in a two-dimensional chart using their positions on economics and politics as the axes: Capitalist/Communist, and Facist/Libertarian. And the chart showed that, if you didn't try to talk about economics, Stalin and Hitler would have been good friends.

  110. Communism? by orzetto · · Score: 1

    Well...

    "Try communism - use Linux"

    That's the way it was in Soviet Russia, you insensitive clod!

    orzetto,
    who's been called a communist by his PM a few thousand times, along with more than half the Italian people.
    (And I am one, in my way)

    --
    Victims of 9/11: <3000. Traffic in the US: >30,000/y
    1. Re:Communism? by m1chael · · Score: 0

      instead of corporations, there would be corrupt corporations and corrupt leaders of state... hmmm... doesnt sound too bad to me :)

      --
      I know you are psychotic, but please make an effort.
    2. Re:Communism? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


      In Soviet Russia, Linux uses you!

      --
      Karma: Anonymous (Mostly the result of being a coward)

    3. Re:Communism? by hether · · Score: 1

      instead of corporations, there would be corrupt corporations and corrupt leaders of state...
      And this is different to our current situation how? :-)

      --

      Most people would die sooner than think; in fact, they do.
    4. Re:Communism? by m1chael · · Score: 0

      yes.

      --
      I know you are psychotic, but please make an effort.
  111. Newest SCO lawsuit by VampireByte · · Score: 1

    SCSI stands for "Santa Clara System Interface" so everyone pay up.

    --

    Run and catch, run and catch, the lamb is caught in the blackberry patch.

    1. Re:Newest SCO lawsuit by doce · · Score: 1

      SCSI stands for "Santa Clara System Interface" so everyone pay up

      It's dubious that the Santa Cruz Operation could sue for something named for the nearby town of Santa Clara.

      --
      woof!
    2. Re:Newest SCO lawsuit by VampireByte · · Score: 1

      Like I could give a flying fuck which town they are named after, you get the stupid point I made in my drunken state (it's Sunday evening, I'm facing another stupid week sitting at a keyboard writing code for idiots, give me a break). Why do you fucking care, do you work for SCO? Are you a fucking lawyer or do you just like nit-picking? How stupid is that anyway, naming the company after a town, maybe the town they are named after could sue SCO for using their name. Jesus fucking christ, just let us fucking code and solve real problems. FUUUUUUCCCKKKKKKKKK!!!! I'm bugging out maaannnn, aahhh, AAAAAHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!

      --

      Run and catch, run and catch, the lamb is caught in the blackberry patch.

    3. Re:Newest SCO lawsuit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Humor, idiot. You seem to be missing that gene.

    4. Re:Newest SCO lawsuit by doce · · Score: 1

      i got the humor. any idiot knows that SCSI isn't named after either Santa Clara or Santa Cruz.

      my point is that one must get the right fucking town if one is going to try humor such as this.

      --
      woof!
  112. Re:Don't jump to conclusions about the SCO people. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    My socialist ideals are fully baked, thank you very much.

  113. repost by mikeee · · Score: 1

    This is a repost from a previous SCO story.

  114. too bad so called "americans" don't... by zogger · · Score: 1

    .. read or understand their own history. Like I'm sure in the pioneer days when neighbor helped neighbor build a fence or raise a barn, that they would have thought it a negative or "wrong" to share with each other and help each other. But see, that's "communism" of some kind, so therefore must be "wrong".

    Hey, if SCO CEO gets in a car wreck, and is laying there all smashed and bleeding, perhaps the EMT people should wait until he wakes up, signs a contract with them and their lawyers, then hires them to use their "IP" to take care of him. If they just do it, that's right off the bat sharing and communism, I mean, they haven't been paid, or even asked permission yet, have they? Just business, right?

    Some people, no matter how old they get, never get past that love of money~greed thing. And calling love of money-worship of money over all things-is not even capitalism, it's just a sick warped mind at work. Capitalism can at least be honorable.

    Besides that, it's kinda sorta funy, the dual protests. I feel sorry for the poor low level schmoos working there, that's it. I feel sorrier for open source and linux more though, there was no absolute need to do this.

  115. Re:Don't jump to conclusions about the SCO people. by BrainInAJar · · Score: 1

    "I also wouldn't speak to the likes of Darl McBride except through a lawyer."

    Are you kidding?! I'd *LOVE* to have a Q & A session with tons of CEO's out there, and most of them are not ones who I agree with

  116. Intellectual Desperation by spiritraveller · · Score: 1

    SCO obviously knows it can't get anywhere except by using propaganda to curry favor. Associating Linux with: Communism Software Piracy Napster/Illegal copying of music Smoking Marijuana It's not funny. It's dishonest. This is the typical modus operandi of someone who lacks not only a sense of humor, but also a sense of reality and of fairness.

  117. Re:SCO can't distinguish Communism from nazi Germa by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Just for everyone's info, the correct answer (I think) is "Neither one was a communist!"

  118. Blake Stowells Comments... by Chicane-UK · · Score: 2, Insightful

    "Linux could still be used; it just wouldn't be free," Stowell said. "These people are upset because they've been enjoying a free ride for some time. They're upset their free ride will potentially be gone."

    Maybe he needs to be reminded about GPL and what it stands for. I hate to tell you this Blake, but you and your bullshit company will get annhilated by IBM.

    It sickens me that companies (and people) like this feel that potential threats to their business can potentially be converted into revenue streams simply because they have (in the short term at least) money to throw away on lawyers and big threats.

    I hope IBM leave the judicial equivilant of a smouldering crater where the SCO office stood.

    --
    "Hey! Unless this is a nude love-in, get the hell off my property!!"
    1. Re:Blake Stowells Comments... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "I hope IBM leave the judicial equivilant of a smouldering crater where the SCO office stood."

      Someone give the address of SCO to the nearest Taliban zealot. End of problem..

  119. Mr T said it best by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ah pity the foo's...

    It's sad when a company's main business is so bad it goes below the level of arguing over a non-existant intellectual property case and ends up with colouring in.

    Sco timeline:

    A long time ago in a galaxy far far away
    *coding
    historical times
    *rehashing other people's work and sticking a SCO sticker on it
    the not so distant past
    *vapourware
    living memory
    *lying blindly to gain a few stock points
    at present
    *colouring in, macaroni & glitter pictures, finger painting and potato stamps

    Incidentally I do like the Linus cartoons, but they can't draw Tux for shit.

  120. This is in really bad form by zakezuke · · Score: 1

    Would it be considered a form of criminal slander to a company to sugest that users of a particular software product smoke illegal drugs?

    I use linux, but I don't smoke pot. While I'm not offended by people who do smoke pot, I really don't want HR to look at my resume and assumume I smoke pot because of my choice in operating systems. I'm not aware of any connection between linux and pot, yet somehow SCO has. It's a very dangerious remark given the fact that the war on drugs is still happening.

    Actually I should get on the horn and send off a letter to them communicating my dismay on the subject of infering linux users smoke pot.

    For you linux users who also smoke pot, hey might be legal where you are at, or your might have a medical prescription. But for most people living in america, posession of pot carries heavy criminal penitalies.

    --
    There is no sanctuary. There is no sanctuary. SHUT UP! There is no shut up. There is no shut up.
  121. They don't care by mcrbids · · Score: 3, Insightful

    SCO doesn't care anymore.

    They aren't the same company as Caldera once was - even Ransom Love is gone. I'd seriously doubt if any employees of the company from 2 years ago are there, and most of those from a year ago are probably gone.

    The only thing that exists of the Caldera we once knew are the records of its past. It's just a bunch of lawyers at this point, and maybe a few remaining techies.

    It is now a purely parasitic organization - and we can all just hope that the remaining IP around Unix is either opened (as being "generic" now) or that the IP is bought by a company that (like AT&T) allows its free use.

    --
    I have no problem with your religion until you decide it's reason to deprive others of the truth.
  122. Buy SCO, fire everyone by cowbird · · Score: 1

    IBM could end this quickly by buying SCO outright, then promptly disbanding the company. I hope that is what happens, because SCO deserves it.

    1. Re:Buy SCO, fire everyone by dcavanaugh · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The problem is that a SCO buyout rewards Canopy group, thus encouraging Canopy (and others) to try stunts like this. These bottom-feeders will be back with a new lawsuit every day of the week if this tactic turns a profit.

      In the end game: suit or no suit, settlement or no settlement, SCO has little to sell and nobody to sell it to. If IBM takes a hardline attitude (and they win), SCO will be unable to deploy their executive golden parachutes. If McBride & associates actually want to continue their careers, then it becomes interesting.

  123. Re:Don't jump to conclusions about the SCO people. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Not if Slashdot hasn't dumped enough vitriol on SCO already lately."

    Some of the employees may not deserve it, but the company management deserves every bit of vitriol they invite with their idiocy.

  124. Re:SCO can't distinguish Communism from nazi Germa by Overly+Critical+Guy · · Score: 1

    Dude. It's called humor.

    --
    "Sufferin' succotash."
  125. United Front To SCO Lawsuit?? by self.loathing() · · Score: 1

    Are there any plans for IBM, SUSE, Redhat and all other companies with an interest in Linux to form a united front to this threat to Linux and open source software ... ? Obviously SCO's plans don't just stop with IBM ...

  126. HA HA! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This just made my day. Linux script kiddies getting OWNED by SCO on SCO's own turf!

  127. Scientologists... by janda · · Score: 1

    have been known to engage in this "anti-picket" stuff before.

    --
    Karma: Food Fight (Mostly affected by Date Plate).
  128. I wonder if we are looking at this the wrong way by Unleashd · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Everyone is always talking about the fact that SCO wants a buy-out ... I'm thinking that is exactly what they want but they are expecting it from a completely different company than IBM. SCO knows that Linux is becoming a major competitor in the Corporate world and what company is doing everything it can to stop this .... ding ding ding ... that's right Microsoft.

    I have seen tons of comments about how what SCO is doing is very odd ... normally you approach the party that you believe is causing the problem(IBM in this case) and ask for them to resolve the issue, so that both parties can save face if there is a problem ... however SCO began this in the public domain and refuses to show any actual proof. If actual proof was shown the linux community would remove the lines ASAP (contrary to SCO believe there is definatly more than one way to scin a progrm) however at this point that would damage their prospects at a MS buyout (no linux threat = no MS $$$'s).

    At this point they are only damaging their reputation and making people question the reputation of linux. They have destroyed any semblance of a "corporate image". They company that will potentially benefit the most from this whole scandal is MS. I mean look at how quickly they sent funds to SCO. By paying SCO they were trying to "legitimize" SCO's claims in the public eye. I wouldn't be suprised to see a MS buyout of SCO in the neer future.

    --
    We don't need no stinking sig!
  129. Amazing... by gad_zuki! · · Score: 1

    I can't think of a better way to discredit my critics and emasculate them at the same time than taking a smiling photo with them. It helps if protesters you know protested, shouted, and got a little angry.

    "See, we're all friends, its all overblown. Go back to your daily routine. Don't worry about some silly lawsuit."

  130. Re:SCO can't distinguish Communism from nazi Germa by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Bullshit. If you know people that believe that, than you don't know very many smart people.

  131. Eerie resemblance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sounds like SCO has been taking lessons from the $cientologists.

    Hmmm. . .

  132. Children cringe factor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I always cringe when I see children involved in protests. The little girl would barely know what Linux is, let alone the issues surrounding it's use vis a vie the SCO lawsuits.

    All she knows is that Linux has something to do with a cute fluffy penguin.

    Please, don't show me any more pictures with kiddie rent-a-crowd (/ drag kids along) 'protesters'.

    1. Re:Children cringe factor by pair-a-noyd · · Score: 1

      "The little girl would barely know what Linux is"

      You must not have any kids eh??
      A kid her age most certainly would know the difference between winbloz and Linux.
      And would probably know the difference better than most adults. Don't sell kids short on computers. They were born into a computerized world. Some of us were not.

    2. Re:Children cringe factor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      That little girl happens to be my daughter, and she does use linux. She is quite good at clicking on the little icons, drawing pictures in Gimp, playing games with GCompris, closing windows, and generally screwing up the KDE setup I have for the rest of my family. She is far more computer literate than my 5 year old, and she is only 3. That is far better than I was doing when I was 3.

    3. Re:Children cringe factor by pair-a-noyd · · Score: 1

      You're truly blessed and fortunate to have such a beautiful and obviously intelligent child.
      She's a real peach. Take very good care of her!
      (Keep M$ stuff out of her reach! ;-)

    4. Re:Children cringe factor by yoyoboy · · Score: 1

      I am the father of the 8 year old boy who was in the Penguin suit. He hasn't stopped talking about the protest and asking questions about what else he can do. I was careful to explain to him why I was attending the event, and it was his choice to come along. I think this was a perfect "learning opurtunity" for him that he would never have gotten at school!

  133. Re:Don't jump to conclusions about the SCO people. by Ricin · · Score: 1

    IMHO in Real Life most of these OSS advocate people aren't quite as fanatical and bigmouthed as they'd like to be and in Online Life they can. And I don't mean that in a rotten way, I think it's just the way it is.

  134. Re:I wonder if we are looking at this the wrong wa by Ricin · · Score: 1

    SCO is on a crusade now. And that was kindof a self-fulfilling prophecy anyway.

  135. YOU'RE A DUMBASS by eupheric · · Score: 4, Funny

    ...just kidding!

  136. Clearly... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Clearly SCO is jelious because their product isn't pirated!

    Let's face it, if you were given the choice between BSD, Linux, or SysV... the choice is is pretty clear on the whole the free ones have much more in the way of online support [newsgroups] and software.

    Clearly SCO is a communist organization as they choose to run linux and apache, both OSS solutions.

  137. SCO trying to win an award... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    It's the Valerie Mallinson award, given each year for the best corporate astroturfing campaign. Last year was the first year of the award, won by Microsoft, of course.

  138. Fact : SCO is dying by Sevn · · Score: 4, Funny

    It is official; IBM confirms: SCO is dying One more crippling bombshell hit the already beleaguered SCO community when IDC confirmed that SCO market share has dropped yet again, now down to less than a fraction of 1 percent of all servers. Coming on the heels of a recent IBM survey which plainly states that SCO has lost more market share, this news serves to reinforce what we've known all along. SCO is collapsing in complete disarray, as fittingly exemplified by failing dead last in the recent Sys Admin comprehensive networking test.

    You don't need to be a Microsoft Zealot to predict SCO's future. The hand writing is on the wall: SCO faces a bleak future. In fact there won't be any future at all for SCO because SCO is dying. Things are looking very bad for SCO. As many of us are already aware, SCO continues to lose market share. Red ink flows like a river of blood.

    unixware is the most endangered of them all, having lost 93% of its core developers. The sudden and unpleasant departures of long time unixware developers only serve to underscore the point more clearly. There can no longer be any doubt: unixware is dying.

    All major surveys show that SCO has steadily declined in market share. SCO is very sick and its long term survival prospects are very dim. If SCO is to survive at all it will be among OS dilettante dabblers. SCO continues to decay. Nothing short of a miracle could save it at this point in time. For all practical purposes, SCO is dead.

    Fact: SCO is dying

    --
    For every annoying gentoo user, are three even more annoying anti-gentoo crybabies. Take Yosh from #Gimp for example.
  139. PURE CORPORATE EVIL OF IMMENSE PROPORTIONS by DogKnots · · Score: 1

    I saw the pics and I've been keeping up on this for a long time. I hope the courts fry these losers but let's not forget that they ARE a corporation so they will probably end up winning this thing because of $$$$

  140. Who wants to sue SCO by mormop · · Score: 2, Funny


    * I love software piracy
    * I don't pay for my music, I'm not paying for my os, so sue me
    * My son stole code & published it! And all I got was this lousy t-shirt
    * Try communism - use Linux


    Are these premium grade idiots trying to get sued or what?

    1) I am not a software Pirate and have not knowingly used ripped of software. Until the point SCO made their claims over Linux it was under no suspicion of being hooky and until the case and or an injunction it remains that way.

    2) I do not download music, I spend most of my time listening to the radio and have more important things to do than rip music off.

    3) I am not a communist, although if you litigation monkeys are a sign of capitalism to come I'm thinking there must be a better alternative.

    Thanks to those who took the photos, they may come in handy if I ever decide to sue SCO for Libel. Given that these comments are apparently aimed at the entire Linux community how many people are up for a class action suit.

    Up yours SCO, you really are a bunch of sad tossers.

    --
    Hmmmmmm..... Deep fried and look like Squirrel.
    1. Re:Who wants to sue SCO by Loki_1929 · · Score: 1

      I was looking for the standard IANAL disclaimer, but having read your entire post, I now understand how completely unnecessary that disclaimer is. You go ahead and sue SCO. I'll give you 20:1 odds that they get further in their suit against IBM than you get in your suit against SCO.

      Couple simple points from someone who isn't a lawyer, but who at least has a fundamental understanding of law which you seem to lack:

      1) A claim of libel must show that the written statement(s) were directed towards you, personally.

      2) A claim of libel must also show that the written statement(s) would be believed by a reasonable person.

      By your (incorrect) definition of libel, me writing "all white people are dumb" on a piece of paper would open me up to lawsuits from every white person on Earth. Now just how silly do you think law is that you could actually bring such a suit without being laughed out of the courtroom?

      --
      -- "Government is the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else."
    2. Re:Who wants to sue SCO by s-orbital · · Score: 1

      Employees of SCO wrote and depicted that Linux Torvalds is a Commie Thief/pirate whose life work is "stupidity", and displayed that at my corporate HQ. IANAL, but something is seriously wrong with this. How fscking lame and unprofessional can you be?

      --
      Patent: from Latin patere, to be open
    3. Re:Who wants to sue SCO by hether · · Score: 1

      That means that Linus can sue, because he was actually named, thus specifically targeted. He might get somewhere with his suit especially because they've said other things about him as well, but I doubt the rest of us would.

      --

      Most people would die sooner than think; in fact, they do.
  141. The anti-protest was overreported by expro · · Score: 4, Informative

    I was at the protest. I saw it pre-announced on /. and decided to show up. Sadly, from the world's perspective, it becomes what was reported.

    In some of the media, the SCO signs are shown larger than life. In reality, they were 1. devoid of intelligent comment, 2. quite small, 3. sitting off to the side on SCO property for most of the time. They were mostly insignificant except for to those taking pictures. If individual pictures had been taken of the protester signs, there were 10 good protester signs for every stupid SCO sign, and real stakeholders/protesters circulating them.

    It WAS obviously a waste of time to protest in front of SCO for any significant amount of time, and after the first hour the protesters went to a very busy nearby intersection and carried on their protest in complete absence of SCO, and brought hundreds to some degree of awareness of the issues surrounding the case, and what a bunch of scum-sucking lawyers in their community with no technical merit were trying to do to community-developed free software.

    Maybe Utah is not unique in giving the establishment much better press than they deserve. Maybe we bring it upon ourselves. I could not say. But regardless, I will be there again next week.

    1. Re:The anti-protest was overreported by Trollificus · · Score: 2, Interesting
      "But regardless, I will be there again next week."

      If over-reporting of SCO drones is a problem, strike back by bringing your own camera and shooting your own pictures. Preferably from wide angles, so the folks at home can get a better sense of what is really going on. I don't know about most people, but shots taken by average joe protestor are a lot more interesting than those tight media shots that leave out 90% of the story.

      I'm not being a whining prick. Hell, if I could be there, I would be one of the people taking pictures for people who could not. I'm just saying, we have cheap digital media and the internet at our disposal(that is, until the Slashdot effect gets through with us ;). Beat the mainstream media at its own game!

      --

      "People should be allowed to keep midgets as pets."
      - Gov. Jesse Ventura

    2. Re:The anti-protest was overreported by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Protesters never do that, because it would show the protest was only about 25 people, with 5 counter protesters and the whole thing would immediately seem completely insignificant.

      The SF Chronicle flew a plane over downtown during the huge antiwar protests and found that the crowdsize was overestimated by a very large amount (by the police dept).

    3. Re:The anti-protest was overreported by thelenm · · Score: 1

      I will be there again next week.

      What day/time? Is this being organized already? I'm in Utah and missed this protest but would like to show up if there's going to be another.

      --
      Use Ctrl-C instead of ESC in Vim!
  142. Fundamentally incorrect. by aussersterne · · Score: 1

    Trotskyism = Stalinism (idea of permanent revolution and all).

    No.

    Stalin vs. Trotsky.

    --
    STOP . AMERICA . NOW
  143. Re:I wonder if we are looking at this the wrong wa by expro · · Score: 1

    I would be quite surprised to see an actual Microsoft buyout because there are a variety of reasons it is not in their interest, and would raise insurmountable antitrust criticism. But I would not be surprised if SCO attorneys, in their many other grand delusions, think something like that might happen.

  144. Absolute worst-case scenario? by Cid+Highwind · · Score: 3, Funny

    Assume the worst case: SCO wins hands-down

    The Linux kernel is found to be a willful violation of SCO's UNIX copyright. In the US, the statutory penalty for willful infringment of copyright is $150,000US per infringment (in this case, every installed Linux kernel would be an infringment) Suddenly, the business community owes SCO $150,000 per Linux server. Most home users owe more than their life's savings. Many will go bankrupt. Google (with 10s of thousands of Linux machines in it's data center) disappears in a puff of debt. Redhat, and any other US-based distros are responsible for several million infringments each, and are liquidated to pay a small fraction of the fine. People and companies in nations that have "harmonized" their copyright laws with the US (poor fools!) are subjected to the same treatment. SCO will continue to prosecute Linux developers and users around the world.

    End result: By 2008, SCO and their lawyers own 34% or the world's wealth. They buy IBM, Sun, SGI and Microsoft, fire the R&D teams, and start collecting "licensing fees" on their new-found patent portfolio. In 2012, the last independent business in the world sells to SCO to settle a $428,997,646,251US patent/copyright/trademark infringment suit. SCO now owns 84% of the world's wealth. In 2016, SCO test-detonates a nuclear weapon. France surrenders. In a series of hostile takeovers, SCO strongarms its way into the UN security council. By now most permanent UNSC member governments are subsidiaries of SCO. 2032: SCO disbands the UN, and renames it's constituent nations "branch offices". The head of SCO's official title is changed from "President and CEO" to "Emperor of Earth". Members of the board are granted heredetary feifdoms and titles. By 2045 the entire world's economy has reverted back to subsistence agriculture, since it is the only economic activity SCO doesn't have patents on. Starvation and economic stagnation take their toll, hundreds of millions of people starve, and a billion more die in wars that break out all over the earth. The entire world sinks into another dark age.

    Still think it's harmless to let SCO win? :D

    --
    0 1 - just my two bits
  145. Now protest outside of IBM by StarTux · · Score: 1

    But make it a supportive "protest"! Bring them some positive PR.

    Lets go a step further, "protest" outside of Microsoft saying we support innovation and the rights of the individual, but make it kind of supportive, with the words, "sco will get you next". SCO have basically made indirect threats to the whole IT community, and really if the IT community did get united on issues like this no other indutry could stand against us on issues we share common ground on. We're not always going to agree, but it shows maturity to at least know when to bury the hatchet.

    StarTux

  146. In the famous words of Admiral Ackbar... by mark-t · · Score: 1
    "It's a trap!"

    This is SCO's own handiwork trying to deliberatly create the impression of strong associative ties between Linux users and media and software piracy, in the effort to strengthen their own OS. I only hope that others will see this for what it is.

    1. Re:In the famous words of Admiral Ackbar... by miu · · Score: 0, Troll
      --

      [Set Cain on fire and steal his lute.]
    2. Re:In the famous words of Admiral Ackbar... by bofkentucky · · Score: 1

      That is the most foul thing I have seen, and yes it is worse than the infamous Goatse Guy

      --
      09f911029d74e35bd84156c5635688c0
    3. Re:In the famous words of Admiral Ackbar... by miu · · Score: 1

      Kentucky? Must be a Fark partisan.

      --

      [Set Cain on fire and steal his lute.]
    4. Re:In the famous words of Admiral Ackbar... by bofkentucky · · Score: 1

      I like fark, but it is painful to read on a dial-up (home) and some of the SFW stuff is NSFW by my company's standards, so I only read it when I know my bosses aren't going to be droping by (golf day's, training, hung over)

      --
      09f911029d74e35bd84156c5635688c0
  147. Protest SCO! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    By downloading this 25MB file!
    xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
    Tell your friends!

  148. feh by Garen · · Score: 1

    Uh, ok, I've heard enough. Someone please tell me where I can get my "Fuck SCO" T-Shirt already. :)

  149. So.... by pfleming · · Score: 1

    Our Linux Users group should probably send back the box of OpenServer OpenWorkstation and the trial versions of Volution Message Server as well as the nifty hats they sent us?

  150. Remember the November bet by linuxislandsucks · · Score: 1

    Remember that IBM is and will postpone the proceedings until SCO runs out of money in Novemeber..

    Now I mean theproceedings after first groups of evidence is presented ...

    Boise is in his last hurhah before becoming unemployed for life from the tech industry in any lawyer capacity..who else woudl make the bonehead assumptioo that IBM is incorporated in other than what its incorporation papers satte!

    --
    Don't Tread on OpenSource
  151. Re:Don't jump to conclusions about the SCO people. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Geez, the only way I'd get that close to McBride is with a gun in my hand.

  152. A Little Hypocritical? SCO supports Linux by Kramer747 · · Score: 1

    A quick browse of SCO's website reveals this page promoting "United Linux"

    "United Linux is an enterprise-grade Linux with real-world power."

    From another page on SCO's website: "The UnitedLinux initiative has full support from industry companies such as AMD, Borland Software Corporation, Computer Associates, Fujitsu Siemens, Fujitsu, Hewlett-Packard, IBM , Intel, NEC, Progress Software, and SAP".

    Sounds to me like bashing Linux may be a little counterproductive. :0)

  153. Re:SCO can't distinguish Communism from nazi Germa by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


    Thanks, that wasn't obvious.

  154. holding pre-prepared signs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    holding pre-prepared signs

    Isn't it just "prepared" ?

    I mean what is pre-prepared? the opposite of Post-Prepared?

    WTF? Slashdotters should learn to spell.

  155. Re:Don't jump to conclusions about the SCO people. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Fucking top comment. Well said.

  156. Have they so totaly given up... by incom · · Score: 1

    on actual work that this is all thier employees do? Might as well fire everyone except the CEO, who would be given an office in the phonebooth outside thier lawyers building.

    --
    True genius is grasping a situation like a peice of fruit, and peircing it just right so that it drains dry.
  157. Wow by Aqua+OS+X · · Score: 1

    I'm glad to see some geeks actually protesting about tech-injustice. Now, if only we can motivate and organize protests against Microsoft :)

    --
    "Things are more moderner than before- bigger, and yet smaller- it's computers-- San Dimas High School football RULES!"
  158. More images and mirrors by kuwan · · Score: 4, Informative

    My co-workers and I were the ones that took some of the pictures. You can find more of them here (with mirrors):

    http://www.kuwan.net/scotesters/index.html

    http://www.karlrees.com/sco/scotesters/index.html

    http://www.normanfam.org/sco/scotesters/index.html

    I should note that Ralph Yarrows, head of the Canopy group which owns 46% of SCO, was the one to organize the anti-protest and was the one who had the posters made.

    1. Re:More images and mirrors by dysprosia · · Score: 2, Informative

      "I should note that Ralph Yarrows, head of the Canopy group which owns 46% of SCO, was the one to organize the anti-protest and was the one who had the posters made."

      Very interesting, considering Canopy owns a Linux clustering company, which supports Linux's use and even has a Linux BIOS product!

    2. Re:More images and mirrors by MasterKayne · · Score: 1

      I also took some pictures. Available here

      It is a friends server so be gentle :-)

      I became suspicious when I noticed the ratio of male to female was unusually high. I soon realized that the ratio was skewed because most (all) of the anti-protesters where women.

      My favorite was the anti-protest sign "I don't pay for my music, I'm not paying for my OS! So Sue me!"

    3. Re:More images and mirrors by MasterKayne · · Score: 1

      I also took some pictures. Available here

      It is a friends server so be gentle :-)

      I became suspicious when I noticed the ratio of male to female was unusually high. I soon realized that the ratio was skewed because most (all) of the anti-protesters where women.

      My favorite was the anti-protest sign "I don't pay for my music, I'm not paying for my OS! So Sue me!"

  159. Re:Don't jump to conclusions about the SCO people. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Agreed, especially since McBride is in the position of running a publicly quoted company in the middle of a massive lawsuit and is actually giving statements, press conferences, even now attending demonstrations and talking to the demonstrators.

    Seriously, anyone else in anything like his position would be communicating through press releases already run past the lawyers.

    He's about as unpleasant a person as you'd ever want to meet, and seriously I recognise that there are people I would never want to meet, but he'd actually be potentially fascinating to talk to.

  160. No, you idiot... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That's a 10-year old picture of Bill Gates and Ashcroft... I KNEW IT!

  161. Hmmm...interesting little tidbit from the article by knewman_1971 · · Score: 3, Informative

    One of the comments made by the SCO reps was "Linux users will still be able to use Linux, it just won't be free. Linux users are just upset because they've been getting a free ride for so long and it's coming to an end".

    Um, I think I have paid for every distro of Linux that I've used in the past 3 years. RedHat, Club Mandrake, Suse. I've either bought them from CrapUSA or paid for the direct from the company (in the case of Mandrake).

    So how have I been getting a free ride? I've paid for an OS that I sometimes use.

    The only freedom that I've had has been that which is like speech, not that which is like beer.

    --
    where is the "I feel for ya, but that's some funny ass shit" moderation?
  162. You Mean EX-employees, Don't You by Master+of+Transhuman · · Score: 1

    as of Monday morning...

    Reference: " SCO employes came out and joined the event holding pre-prepared signs saying things like 'I love software piracy' and 'Try communism - use Linux.'"

    --
    Richard Steven Hack - This sig is TOO GODDAMN SHORT TO DO ANYTHING USEFUL WITH! MORONS!
  163. Re:I NEED HELP SLASHDOT! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hairy Hatchet Wound

  164. This could have been solved much easier by Stonent1 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    SCO could have just originally said... "Here is the code that shouldn't be there" And give a month or two for kernel developers to produce code patches for 2.0.x, 2.2.x, 2.4.x and 2.5.x. Then say that users are legally required to migrate to the nearest patched kernel or perhaps use some kernel diffs on whatever version they are running. Then later go after any "linux company" that is still actively making available the code in question. But then again, as some marketing pundits will tell you "there's no such thing as bad publicity"

    1. Re:This could have been solved much easier by Stonent1 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Actually, now that I think about it, if the above situation would force kernel gurus to focus on reinventing that particular piece of code, someone might step forward and say... What if we did it this way...? And find a better way to do it. Worst case scenario, do the clean room trick were you have 2 people one that can see the code and one that can't and let the linux guy ask the nda guy generic questions about the code, so they can write it from scratch without explicitly seeing it. Who knows, it may even be something like a bit of code that enables MicroChannel support... When's the last time you ticked that box when compiling your kernel? 99% of us may not even be using it! Though IBM may... IIRC some of the RS/6000 systems had MCA slots before PCI was popular.

  165. Communism? by noda132 · · Score: 1

    I don't understand how Linux is related to communism. Maybe it's that I'm not the only Linux user who starts to wonder, with corporations like SCO and Microsoft alive and well, if communism wouldn't be all that bad?

  166. More images and mirrors by kuwan · · Score: 4, Informative

    My co-workers and I were the ones that took some of the pictures. You can find more of them here (with mirrors):

    http://www.kuwan.net/scotesters/index.html

    http://www.karlrees.com/sco/scotesters/index.html

    http://www.normanfam.org/sco/scotesters/index.html

    I should note that Ralph Yarrows, head of the Canopy group which owns 46% of SCO, was the one to organize the anti-protest and was the one who had the posters made.

  167. Billy Gates by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Will take care of the SCO running out of money issue.

  168. Re:I NEED HELP SLASHDOT! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    map o tazzy

  169. Linux users are like the RIAA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    seeing those pictures make me think even worse of linux users. they are just as bad as the RIAA

    1. Re:Linux users are like the RIAA by pair-a-noyd · · Score: 1

      I'm tempted to call you a fucking retard but I won't. This time..

  170. Yup, Provo LUG were sucked in good and hard by leonbrooks · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Copy of a post to LWN in answer to someone else who applauded the humour:

    The Who's down with Other People's Intellectual Property sign is major chutzpah. The IP which TSG (not the original SCO, The SCO Group) is laying claim to is code written by IBM which belongs to IBM according to the terms of the AT&T agreement.

    For an example of such code, turn to SMP. TSG's own SMP implementation sucks so badly that all of their licencees, past and present, have written and are using their own implementation instead. TSG is claiming ownership of those implementations.

    The short story is that the IP in contention does not belong to TSG even if it was originally developed (by IBM) for use with SCO UNIX or UnixWare sources and is not a part of the BSD codebase or otherwise public domain or copyright (e.g. GPL) by others. To put it in the same terms that TSG are applying to IBM and Linux TSG are using barratry to steal the rights to code that they did not write and do not own.

    It's worse than that. If you read what Chris Sontag said in the BYTE article, you will see that TSG are trying to leverage their barratry to steal ownership of every significant OS in the world.

    You know how annoying parking meters are? In asserting that everything else descends at least in principle from their UNIX codebase, TSG are trying to install a meter on every CPU in the world, starting with the USA. They are trying to encumber everybody with a licence agreement, but instead of using Microsoft's attrition method, they're aiming for one fell swoop.

    To show you how brazen this is, consider the same scenario in another industry. The Canopy Group buys Ford, then claims that since every production-line car in the world was derived in one way or another from Henry Ford's system. They start with General Motors but have an eye on an unexpectedly thriving kit-car industry. Is the analogy clear, and good enough?

    While TSG employees might be fine and friendly to deal with, TSG management is trying to stage one of the biggest ripoffs in software history. If they succeed, it will undermine the livelihood implied in tens of thousands of Linux-related job in the USA and greatly slow Linux deployment worldwide. They even have the gall to hint about taxing the BSDs! If they fail, TSG and these guys' jobs, pensions etc will be a scorched memory.

    This (to say nothing of much other lying and prevarication) makes those posters a lot less funny than you hope. Ha, ha, and all, but meanwhile they're trying to throw the IT world over a barrel.

    And suddenly Boise' actions make sick sense. In the unlikely event of him winning this one, he'll be first in line for the next one, and the next, and the next... and if TSG's licence works out to something of the order of $100 a CPU a year, their income will easily exceed Microsoft's. Are you reading me, Bill?

    The penny evidently hasn't yet dropped for Sun. The $100M they've already paid is a drop in the bucket compared with what TSG will get out of them if they win.

    --
    Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
    1. Re:Yup, Provo LUG were sucked in good and hard by the+gnat · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The Canopy Group buys Ford, then claims that since every production-line car in the world was derived in one way or another from Henry Ford's system. They start with General Motors but have an eye on an unexpectedly thriving kit-car industry. Is the analogy clear, and good enough?

      Yes, and no. The problem is that SCO's case rests on the details of contracts that many of these companies signed in order to license the original code. You're entirely correct that SCO has done fuckall to develop these technologies they're claiming rights over, but if the contracts are as restrictive enough to give SCO that kind of power, they may have a case. That's a pretty pathetic justification for claiming theft of your IP, and it certainly doesn't leave the Linux community at fault, but this is irrelevant to contract law. SCO doesn't need rights to the code itself (although it does appear to be claiming those as well - I'm still confused), as long as the contracts stipulate that the licensor can control the distribution of associated technologies. (Which is itself doubtful, but we'll see.)

  171. Re:Don't jump to conclusions about the SCO people. by sheldon · · Score: 1

    "Oh, by the way, the Communism thing isn't funny any more."

    The Software Communist sentiment comes from the continued attempts by certain members of the "Open Source Community" to lobby for laws which ban commercial software.

    If Linux does the job for you, that's all it should take, in a free market, to want to adopt it, correct?

  172. sco.com running linux? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    not sure if this came up already, but sco.com is running linux!!!?? http://uptime.netcraft.com/up/graph/?host=sco.com makes you wonder!.

  173. Anti-"anti-protest" Protest by gibber · · Score: 3, Insightful
    I can understand that SCO employees feel defensive. If protesters set up a picket out side of HP (my employer) I'm sure I would feel likewise. What I don't appreciate is the apparent reaction of a proper subset of the SCO employees, the libelous and slanderous posters presented at this website.

    Let us consider the following facts:

    • Linux user cannot be characterized, by and large, as music or software pirates -- there is no precedent to label them as such any more than Microsoft Windows users
    • Not paying for Linux is not a piracy issue, Linux is, by it intent and modus operandi free of licensed and proprietary code
    • Presuming that IBM has placed illegitimate, license bearing code into the Linux source tree this does not necessarily reflect poorly on Linus Torvalds, Linux kernel developers, Linux users or the OpenSource community
    • Linux usage != stupidity. (I can only assume that this was meant to be farsical. In the realm of debate the tactic of argumentum ad hominim, "argument against the man," (In this case: "You're stupid!") is generally abandoned in grade school.
    • "Ya Vol!"[sic] (Intended, correct me if I'm wrong, to be "Jawoll!" a characterization of Nazi adherence to orders popularized by "Hogan's Heroes".) is a crude characiture of nazism not communism. But hey! To the culturally illiterate, what's the difference? Besides, IBM is an oligarchy.
    • And... Well I could go on but that would be a full scale rant.
    I'm reasonably certain that these posters (A) do not characterize all of the "anti-protesters" and (B) do not characterize most SCO workers. It does reflect poorly on SCO managment who allowed their employees to present the above image at the SCO Lindon facility. In all fairness I have no idea what the "anti-SCO" protesters were carrying. It may have been equivalently malevolent drivel. :-)

    1. Re:Anti-"anti-protest" Protest by hether · · Score: 1

      Your comment is right on target. Very insightful! My guess is that the posters were drawn by an outside person or company. IMO the skill exhibited were better than those likely to be held by an average SCO employee. Most likely the drawers were given a theme that they didn't fully understand, and attempted to just create attention grabing artwork intended to inflame. I bet they were hoping the anti-SCO protesters would get upset by them and do something stupid in response to ruin the credibility of the protest.

      BTW, I'm pretty sure it's spelled Jawohl!

      --

      Most people would die sooner than think; in fact, they do.
  174. SCO should've taken the high road like Apple. by pherris · · Score: 3, Interesting
    Years ago there was a protest at Apple headquarters over the ending of the Newton. What did Apple do? They served the protesters drinks (and I think sandwichs). Apple realized that trying to degrade the protesters would only reflect poorly on them. From the start SCO has decided to take the lowest road they could find. Is their "antiprotest" really that surprising to anyone?

    Is it just me or are SCO's actions truly surreal? I mean is someone smoking crack over there?

    --
    "And a voice was screaming: 'Holy Jesus! What are these goddamn animals?'" - HST
    1. Re:SCO should've taken the high road like Apple. by s-orbital · · Score: 1

      is someone smoking crack over there?
      Yes.

      --
      Patent: from Latin patere, to be open
    2. Re:SCO should've taken the high road like Apple. by zakezuke · · Score: 1

      The diffrence is the apple newton was an inovative product, sorta pioneer pda that people actually actually purchaced. The demonstration was to protest them ending the product line and attempt to convience apple that people would buy newtons. While I'm not a big apple fan my self, I had respect for the newton.

      SCO on the other hand is a product that typicaly isn't purchaced [not often pirated either]. Protesters could either care less if their product is sold to anyone, and in many cases actually don't want their product sold. I would even venture to say that signs that said, "Go away SCO" implied that sco should take their business and shove it up their own respective asses.

      This type of crowd you don't want to actually find drinks and candy to. Apple for example wanted the crowd to continue to support Apple products. SCO on the other hand, I believe, wished to antaganize the crowd so they can document how evil the pot smoking communist nazi linux users are, and toss these hippies in jail.

      Two very diffrent companies. While Apple products are a might bit costly IMHO, they do see everyone as being a customer, and they act accordingly. SCO only sees pot smoking nazi communist hippies who can't afford their products.

      To add the the contrast, one time protesting microsoft they gave out free copies of back office.

      --
      There is no sanctuary. There is no sanctuary. SHUT UP! There is no shut up. There is no shut up.
  175. Finland in WWII by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Finland was NOT a German ally; they were a co-belligerant. This is not just playing with words, IIRC Italian forces on the Allied side after the death of Mussolini also fought as co-belligerants. Nor, unlike any other force that was on the Axis side, was Finland run by a Fascist government. The Finns were NOT fighting for fascism, let alone Nazism; they were fighting to get their territory back.

    The background to this was that the USSR invaded Finland in 1940 (IIRC) in the so-called Winter War, and although Finland lost and had to cede territory they gave the far bigger but post-Stalin purges Soviet forces an almighty hiding. (Arguably the weakness shown by the Soviet army in this conflict helped convince Hitler that the USSR was a push-over).

    When Germany invaded the USSR, the Finns decided it was a good opportunity to get their territory back and attacked the USSR forces in Finland; this is called the "Continuation War".

    Finland's conduct during the war was IMHO both heroic and beyond reproach. They eventually fought the USSR to an armistice.

    IANAF (I am not a Finn) but I really respect their WW2 record. In particular, anyone who used the Brewster Buffalo as an effective combat fighter has my greatest admiration :-)

  176. Re:SCO can't distinguish Communism from nazi Germa by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Who said that history was taught well in our schools? Obviously, you don't know many *people*, smart or not.

  177. Re:I NEED HELP SLASHDOT! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I haven't seen "cooter" or "pink gully" yet.

  178. Re:I wonder if we are looking at this the wrong wa by mpost4 · · Score: 1

    I donâ(TM)t think that MS will want to buy SCO that could turn into a major amount of bad PR, not to mention they could end up in court again with the government for anti-trust violations. Also I would believe some where in MS they want to see IBM win this case. Why do I say this, well in the last case MS was involved in Linux was part of their defense that they did not have a monopoly. MS needs IBM to win this one, but MS can not act to help IBM because that can again come back to haunt them. So the best course of action for MS is to stay the heck away from this, and hope that IBM wins this one.

  179. IBM have the rights to derivations they make by leonbrooks · · Score: 4, Insightful
    SCO doesn't need rights to the code itself (although it does appear to be claiming those as well - I'm still confused), as long as the contracts stipulate that the licensor can control the distribution of associated technologies. (Which is itself doubtful, but we'll see.)

    TSG (as distinct from the original SCO, now called (IIRC) Tarantella) seems to be claiming just about everything, probably working on the idea that the worst outcome is the judge saying no. The common-language term for this is "trying it on".

    As I read the contract docs, IBM unquestionably retains the rights to any derivatives they wrote, the only thing they can't distribute is the original source. In their last Exhibit, TSG are implicitly including those derivatives in "SOFTWARE PROGRAMS", trying to eliminate a distinction carefully drawn in the original contract.

    --
    Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
    1. Re:IBM have the rights to derivations they make by minkwe · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The lawsuit is very clearly about the definition of derivative.

      A = SysV
      B = RCU, NUMA, JFS
      C = AIX

      IBM licenses A, independently develops B, combines A + B to produce C.

      C is a derivative of A,
      C is also a derivative of B.
      B is not a derivative of A. Although TSG (The SCO Group) wants B to be a derivative of A. They are trying to reinterpret their contracts to imply that B is a derivative of A.

      IBM has the right to do what it wants with B (including contributing it to Linux). If SCO got B through Project Monterey into Unixware, then of course there is going to be common code between Unixware and Linux.

      I doubt verymuch if McBride, Sontag, or any of their attornies know enough about code to know what a derivative is. By their argument, all software written for Windows is a derivative of Windows(TM), and if you have a Windows(TM) License that prohibits distribution of derivatives (all Windows users) you can legally open-source your code!

      --
      "Fighting terrorists with millitary might is like killing a mosquitor on your Dad's forehead with a rifle."
  180. Re:Don't jump to conclusions about the SCO people. by the+gnat · · Score: 2, Interesting

    The Software Communist sentiment comes from the continued attempts by certain members of the "Open Source Community" to lobby for laws which ban commercial software.

    The ranting of a few delusional leaders in the FSF does not represent the opinion of the many professionals who use, develop, or promote Linux. Particularly not IBM or Linus (who is on record as saying that everyone should be able to choose whatever license they please for the software they write). I haven't even heard RMS weigh in on the SCO lawsuit, so why drag his distinctively weird opinions into this?

    If Linux does the job for you, that's all it should take, in a free market, to want to adopt it, correct?

    Yes. What's your point?

  181. Utah. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Utah is a weird, little place that is run by sissy, white-ass geek-hicks.

    Weird...

    Weird!!!

    I really don't know what to say...

  182. Quick Question? by Mark19960 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Was RMS there? :D
    Prolly not.

    Please, its just a question. dont mod me a troll, or flamebait.

  183. H-1B protests more important by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I don't see this much activity for H-1B protests. Regardless of who wins the SCO lawsuit, it does not kill total IT jobs. But H-1B's or other visa bills do. Priorities are messed up here.

  184. I am not amused. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    I don't think it's funny. Not at all.

    People act like idiots -- and in the end the motivation *is* money. TheyÂre not doing it for the sake of comedy. Nor are they trying to preserve national values.

    TheyÂre in _just_ for the money. No matter what they say, theyÂll voice an opposite opinion in 3 seconds, if that can make them more money.

    And they can brainwash less brilliant dudes, who wonÂt even make any money, to tease us by calling us names, like "troll" or "zealot".

    And this, incredibly, they do because we dared to think different from the mainstream Windows OS -- and our "different thinking" is really different, it's not ApplesÂs OS X official alternative.

    ItÂs almost as if they wanted to portrait the very people who can code -- and can make things happen -- as idiots and lazy.

    They say:
    "You can use a sophisticated world-class developed OS like Linux? What? You actually develop it? Bang! You're just a zealot!"

    I am not. I'm just a regular guy, wife and daughter, regular job, regular life, etc. I have to explain to guys who say "Why use Linux? Why donÂt you just copy Windows? Nobody will ever know!"

    I will. So I don't pirate, nor do any of other Linux-only users like me, I imagine.

    What use would this labeling have, but to outlaw those who donate their work?

    Would they also move such a campaign against us if we decided to donate food?

    No, it's not funny anymore. ItÂs sick. The more I learn about them, the less I get concerned about the flaws in their product.

    The real problem is their gangster methods.

  185. Why bother? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The world has seen Linux source code, kernel et all - even if SCO wins the case in court, it will be next to impossible to stop Linux movement. Sure IBM can stop selling AIX and Linux - but in this slow economy, who's bying anything except maintenance service?

    The way I see it, SCO can sue until blue in the face and nothing is going to stop - except making some lawyers richer

  186. Closed Source More Communism Than Linux by tjstork · · Score: 1


    1) Closed Source is owned by the people, via the shareholders.

    2) Closed Source is controlled by a central planning committee, for the people's good.

    OTH

    1) Open source is owned by no one

    2) Anyone can make whatever they want with it

    --
    This is my sig.
    1. Re:Closed Source More Communism Than Linux by Gleng · · Score: 1

      I have to disagree.

      1) Closed source is owned by a select few, with profits only benefiting the proprietors. Wage labor workers provide the products, but the means of production is solely owned and directed by the few at the top.

      2) Open source, however, (for the most part) is controlled by the very people who create it. The production is controlled by the workers, and the proceeds benefit the community as a whole (with adequate remuneration for whoever did the hard work).

      "Give Communism a Try - Use Linux" - Ok then, sounds fair to me :)

      --
      "Proudly Posting Without Reading The Article"
    2. Re:Closed Source More Communism Than Linux by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "1) Open source is owned by no one

      2) Anyone can make whatever they want with it"


      Two concepts that are completely orthogonal to communism.

      IP laws were codified in the US for the explicit purpose of increasing the amount of knowledge in the public domain... you know, so it is owned by no one and anyone can make whatever they want with it. This is not communistic any more than OSS is.

  187. Black Parody by The+Famous+Brett+Wat · · Score: 4, Interesting
    Astounding. I thought that Tom Lehrer's idea of satire was pretty black, but those SCO anti-Linux posters are blacker than black. So black that they're just plain disturbing whether they are intended as parody or not. They almost make you laugh, but the stronger urge is to run away because you're pretty sure that they were designed by a dangerous psychotic who is probably closer than you think.

    The obvious answer to this is to organise a pro-SCO demonstration, lauding all the worst aspects of that company. "Litigation is better than innovation," and so on. Just make it funny for goodness sake. That's the beauty of satire which the SCO posters miss.

    --
    proof, n. A demonstration that a conclusion is implied by certain premises and axioms.
    1. Re:Black Parody by zakezuke · · Score: 1

      Agreed...

      The OPIP [other people's Intelectual Property] sign I found particularly disturbing. SCO wouldn't be wehre they were today without OPIP, though it be legaly aquired. And the whole thing seems to be about making money from OPIP. Even is SCO's account is 100% accurate and there is a very small percent of their(sic) code in linux, the vast majoirty of it just isn't.

      More disturbing the fact that AT&T got in trouble for OPIP violations, a legagy they seem to be ignoring.

      And the most prominate fact... SCO's products just are not worth the time to pirate.

      --
      There is no sanctuary. There is no sanctuary. SHUT UP! There is no shut up. There is no shut up.
  188. SCO are the Thieves by deathmolor · · Score: 1

    I can not believe that SCO has the gaul to call us all thieves when in actuality they have not contributed even 1% to the Linux effort. They are using a highly dubious IP right to STEAL linux from the people who put the real effort and work into creating it. This is absolutely unbelievable, I am beside myself with furry over this company. SCO are the thieves right now. They have no right to Linux at all but they are hoping a judge with less technical ability to understand the codes origins hands over rights to it. There constant illegal mouth flapping is also stealing business away from the Linux community as well. The first release Caldara made of OpenLinux validated the code which is there. If there is indeed any present of any merit. Under the GPL terms they have no claim to it. Even if SCO looses the battle with IBM does not mean they are not going to stop this ridiculous claim to ownership over Linux. SCO are Thieves in the act of stealing as we speak. Business and IP rights. From the first moment I have had to speak with their technical support team I have always had a distaste for these people. The lie like a rug.

  189. Capitalists/Communists by screenrc · · Score: 0

    There is no standard definition of Capitalism
    and Communists, at least as Microsft and SCO (Caldera)
    sees it. According to them, when something is
    to their benefit they call it "capitalism", and
    when the very same thing is to their detrivmetn
    they call it "communism". It is all a matter
    of what definition they use today, and it
    is also very possible that tomorrow will
    define these things differently, as they have
    done already!

  190. Bullshit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The only way to make a bully look bad is to punch him good and hard back. That is the unfortunate truth; and this coming from a liberal who finds this truth a sad commentary on life. We are a violent species.

    1. Re:Bullshit by Felinoid · · Score: 1

      The only way to make a bully look bad is to punch him good and hard back

      I find the harder a person pushes his "truth" the less true it is. In this case I'm dealing with someone who is defending his own philosophy of life. Very hard to debate or argue with someone when I have to destory his basis of reality to make my point.

      However there are two obveous problems with his clame.
      1. Bullys pick on people who can't fight back. It's a game and they want the victiom to try and fight back so they can justify doing them sereous harm. The first attack has to look to anyone else to be just kidding around so the victom can look bad if he complains.

      2. My own experences disprove this. I didn't make this up I actually did beat the school yard bully at his own game simply by laughing at him or ignoring him depending on how I felt.
      He got angry and couldn't pretend he was just joking around anymore becouse of it.

      Of course there is....
      "He will be victorious who knows when to fight and when not to fight"

      Pick your fights... don't let your fights pick you.

      --
      I don't actually exist.
  191. letter to author of forbes "crunchies" article... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    To whom it may concern,

    I am baffled by the article by Daniel Lyons which appeared on Forbes.com today (6-18-2003), entitled "What SCO Wants, SCO Gets". I take no issue with the facts presented therein, rather it is the mocking, unprofessional tone the author has chosen to employ which to me seems to belie your organization's reputation for journalistic integrity.

    Specifically, I take issue with the author's knee-jerk stereotyping of Linux users as self-righteous religious fanatics. To wit, and I quote the author,

    "...like many religious folk, the Linux-loving crunchies in the open-source movement are a) convinced of their own righteousness, and b) sure the whole world, including judges, will agree."

    This statement is false and implies insult both to people with religious beliefs and to those who like or use Linux. Painting with such a broad brush is simply inaccurate and, frankly, sophomoric ("crunchies"?) and offensive to people for whom these matters are important.

    Additionally, almost without exception, nearly every discussion (involving Linux advocates) of this SCO-IBM suit that I have participated in or read about has included genuine interest in the details of SCO's, as of yet, vague claims. This intense interest exists, not only because the veracity of these unexamined details determine the merit of the case, but also because those concerned will be able to identify who is responsible for improperly contributing code to Linux once SCO details just what code has been misappropriated. This is because such changes to Linux are logged and it will be easy to tell who contributed any offending code.

    It is thus immediately apparent to anyone who has actually participated in such discussions that Daniel Lyons assertion that Linux users are simply "convinced of their own righteousness" is, again, presumptuous stereotyping.

    It is my hope that in the future your writers will be held to a higher standard of accuracy and maturity.

    Sincerely,

  192. It's smell trouble by perdelucena · · Score: 1

    I was just wondering: since SCO is dying and, they are probabily cheap now, what if some other evil corp (let's say M$) decides to buy them? Oh wait a minute they just started doing that.

    ---
    nothing to say

  193. Re:Don't jump to conclusions about the SCO people. by pi_rules · · Score: 1

    I felt like you did, sort of, until I read the parent post. Then I understood the whole deal... I think.

    Both sides want to make a stink about this. Both sides think they're right... but nobody has a personal one-on-one problem here really. So, the pro-Linux crowd shows up, SCO joins in and a bigger "stink" is made in the public eye and both sides get attention. The individual participants can still be friendly though. You might as well have fun while you're out there, and there's certainly no point in making personal enemies while you're out there.

    Ooo.. that brings a funny image to mind. A couple hundred coders in an all out brawl. Lens Crafters could make a -killing- if the instigated the fight!

  194. Re:Don't jump to conclusions about the SCO people. by sheldon · · Score: 1

    The ranting of a few delusional leaders in the FSF does not represent the opinion of the many professionals who use, develop, or promote Linux.

    One would think so, but this delusion is has spread much further than just the FSF.

    I haven't even heard RMS weigh in on the SCO lawsuit, so why drag his distinctively weird opinions into this?

    Because you brought up Communism and how you are disgusted by the label. Unfortunately, SCO's protest signs had a ring of truth to them... That ring of truth is all you need to coerce public perception.

    Yes. What's your point?

    The Linux "Community" should be more concerned about the bad public image they are creating for themselves.

  195. someone needs to tell Blake Stowell... by inode_buddha · · Score: 1

    that maybe the reason people are upset has little to do with any perceived "free ride". It has everything to do with damaged reputation. But then again, he's obviously not banking on *his* reputation now, is he?

    --
    C|N>K
  196. Uh okay. by /dev/trash · · Score: 1

    Cuba only embraced the USSR after Castro was in power, after Castro decided that having power was too good of a thing to let go.

    If the US really wanted to invade Cuba and take over, we'd have a 51st right now.

    1. Re:Uh okay. by glesga_kiss · · Score: 1
      Nope. The USA did invade Cuba. Twice. And yes, it was by terrorists who were paid for, armed and trained by the USA. It was only after this that Castro turned to the USSR for their own defence. Cuba is socialist, not communist, while there are many similarities, there are also differences. Socialism is more of a middleground between the two cold war ideologies.

      Trade was a another key factor. Prior to the Cuban revolution, Cuba was essentially an American province, with strong USA trade links and Cuba was a popular holiday location. The prior leadership was a corrupt military dictatorship that had sold off most of Cubas national resources to large businesses, mainly in the USA.

      When Castro came to power, one of the first things done was to re-nationalise all of the resources. The USA didn't like that, as threatening US business interests is a big no-no around the world. Cuba then gets a trade embargo from their largest trade partner. What's more, the USA refuses to do any business with any country with ties or trade with Cuba. Turning to the USSR was their only option, and the similarites between the two political systems helped.

      Google for the terms "Bay of Bigs" and "School of the Americas". They don't teach you this in school, a tragic mistake as people need to learn from past mistakes, not sweep them under the carpet!

      The story taught about the Cuba Missile Crisis in schools is also mostly phony. Any account of it that doesn't mention Turkey heavily is way off-the-mark. Lot's of info on the web about that, but there are also a couple of Discovery/History channel documentaries that cover the lies we have been told.

    2. Re:Uh okay. by /dev/trash · · Score: 1

      I've heard of the Bay of Pigs and School of the Americas. Perhaps, not ALL of the citizens of Cuba preferred being under a socialist(communist, whatever) dictator.

      So Cuba didn't have missiles? Well that's relaxing to know.

      You're saying that Castro came to power, then courted USSR, I'm saying he was going to become a part of the Soviet Bloc from the beginning.

      That said, I'm not in favor of the embargo. The fastest way to have Castro overthrown is to flood his country with US citizens and their dollars.

    3. Re:Uh okay. by glesga_kiss · · Score: 1
      Perhaps, not ALL of the citizens of Cuba preferred being under a socialist(communist, whatever) dictator.

      So that makes this sort of thing alright then? ;-)

      Joking aside, terrorism is terrorism. I'm sure there are many Saudi's that want the US out of their country, and they believe that terrorism is a way to do it. Exactly the same scenario and neither is morally acceptable.

      So Cuba didn't have missiles?

      Yeah, they did have missiles, however the USA also had missiles in Turkey at the time. The Soviets wanted to put missiles on Cuba to even the playing field, remember this is before the days of ICBMs and nukes had a relatively short range. Turkey could strike Moscow, Cuba could strike Washington. The big lie about the Cuban Missile Crisis is that no one knew about the Turkey missles except the relevant governments. The deal that led to us all being alive today was hinged on the mutual removal of both Turkey and Cuban missiles. The US kept the Turkey part of the deal secret and for 30 years proclaimed that they managed to get an "overly agressive" Russia to back down.

      I'm saying he was going to become a part of the Soviet Bloc from the beginning.

      If so, he would have used their support from the begining. It took a long time for him to reach power, including several failed revolutions.

      At first, he was a really good leader. Not all dictators are arseholes! Like most politions though, he became corrupt with power. However, you shouldn't let your US-taught racism to automatically assume all things "socialist" are evil. There are many socialist states in Europe that are fairing much better than Capitism is, in terms of business and standard of living.

      Remember, socialism != communism and communism != Stalinism. Only the last one is the one you should fear.

    4. Re:Uh okay. by /dev/trash · · Score: 1
      If so, he would have used their support from the begining. It took a long time for him to reach power, including several failed revolutions.


      If he had come out as Socialist as soon as he wanted to be a big bad dictator, he risked the US really invading, not a few people here and there, but a wham bam, there's your star on the flag invasion.

      Not all things socialist, are evil, if I thought that I couldn't even live in the US. By the way, labelling me a racist because I happen to disagree with you is just wrong.

  197. Re:Don't jump to conclusions about the SCO people. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It may not be funny but it is true. Linux proponents have turned Linux from an OS into
    a politcal statement and many view that statement for what it is : "Socialist Computing". Of course
    if half of these would ready the linux advocacy mini-howto the world would be a much nicer place and we would not have this stigmata.
    Try here for starters : http://www.datasync.com/~rogerspl/Advocacy-HOWTO-6 .html

  198. How much of SCO's stuff uses GPLed or BSD code? by goatbar · · Score: 1

    Can anyone using SCO non-linux systems comment on how much opensource software is in a SCO unix or SCOx system? They mention all sorts of things that lead me to guess that they are using Apache, PHP, and others. Any one want to do a run down?

  199. only one of them by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    SCO has implicitly hinted they may sue other OS sellers that have UNIX code. That would include Apple OS. I do not think in my wildest dreams that Steve Jobs is pleased with SCO's actions. SCO is attempting, really out of nowhere, to take ownership of the open source revolution, through use of shell corporations and dubious IP claims.

    Yes, Microsoft has to be having a good laugh at this one, but Apple? No way.

  200. Why? It all makes sense by iamacat · · Score: 0, Troll

    SCO = Iraq, Microsoft = France, IBM = US. I hope the sign also mentioned Freedom Windows (KDE). Huh? Are you saying that's not what they meant?

  201. Is that all? by Graelin · · Score: 1

    That many high-res pics and the servers are still quick and responsive? Pshaw. /. is showing it's age here.

  202. Linux is related to communism... by towatatalko · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Linux is related to communism in the following way: Finland that Linus T. comes from was once bordering with the communism country. Well, not good enough?, hereâ(TM)s another one: the whole IP idea is a capitalist ditch to save their falling model of doing business. Anything that is out there that seems to threaten that model such âoeopen sourceâ, âoefree softwareâ, is going to be to their dislike and labeled as anti-property, anti-free trade, âoeunpatrioticâ, etc.

    It is capitalist way of saying that intellectual property is part of a religion of ego-centered and selfish model that ought to predominate always and everywhere. Since Linux is about sharing code and software innovation it is a threat to that insanity. But they will defend it tooth and nail and SCO Groupâ(TM)s lawsuit against IBM is an example of it.

    --

    IP was invented for the sake of lawsuits.
  203. correction... by di0s · · Score: 1

    Try communism - use Linux
    Should have read: Try communism - use Caldera Open Linux.

  204. Re:Don't jump to conclusions about the SCO people. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hmmm... my understanding of Communist regimes is that under such systems, all property is controlled by the government, presumably for the good of the people. In contrast, the proposed law to which you refer give control of software to the people for the good of the government. However, regardless of Red Hat's support for this proposed law, Linus is the de facto spokesman for Linux, not Richard Stallman, not IBM, not Red Hat, so to assert that something that conflicts with Linus's own opinion is that of the Linux community is absurd.

    Speaking of sickening political comparisons, elsewhere in this thread the likening of Linux to Nazi-ism is shrugged off as "good fun" for people with a "sense of humor". Of course, you can easily understand why people have such an attitude, or, "at least in Utah you can."

  205. Comunism x Capitalism. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Comparing Linux to Comunism is such an USA'ism..

    Anyway, USA's capitalism is more like socialism than like capitalism itself. That stuff about minimal government - 'pure capitalism' - is *crap* and if you think it works, look how it worked on Argentina...

    Also, Linux is about choice. The fact of having no royalties does not take it closer to Comunism. AFAIK, the GNU homepage have some more information that proves the opposite.

    When some north-americans - and other north* friends - grow up and learn a bit about history - and politics -, world'll be a little better place to live.

  206. It might just be McCarthyism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I recently read that the disturbing popular Ann Coulter's book is about how mccarthyism was not actually a bad thing and is only potrayed that way to satisfy the evil traitor communist liberal agenda. She says that is was really a good thing and that liberals really were and are communists and we should start doing it again. of the. The fact that she is very popular amoung the large and growing Fox News Zombie crowd could be very bad.

    1. Re:It might just be McCarthyism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      well.. DID you read the book? At least read the book and refute it before making generalizations.

  207. You sir, are very wrong. by mosch · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I'd hire a SCO employee without hesitation, so long as they weren't the CEO or on the board of directors. The rest of the employees are just trying to do their jobs, in an economy where it's not easy to find a better job. If I were working for SCO when they started this mess, I'd still be working there and I'd be hoping that we might someday get a leader who recognizes that the economy is in shambles, and would try to fix it.

    1. Re:You sir, are very wrong. by Cpt_Kirks · · Score: 1

      I wouldn't.

      Yes, the CEO and lawyers are stirring up the stink, but some quarters are leaning toward the possibility that SCO themselves put the "illegal" code into Linux.

      If that is the case, the coder(s) in question either didn't document the inclusion properly or "lost" the docs.

      "Just following orders" didn't work in Nuremberg either.

    2. Re:You sir, are very wrong. by mosch · · Score: 1

      Thank you for your opinion, Mr. Godwin.

    3. Re:You sir, are very wrong. by Cpt_Kirks · · Score: 1

      Until just now, I had never heard of "Godwin's Law".

  208. linus defamation by ender's_shadow · · Score: 1

    linus might have a case a/g SCO for the libelous sign saying that he, personally, steals software, yes?

  209. the sharp guy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    dude,

    First of all "It's smell trouble" make no sense.

    Second of all, if you had actually read the story you link too in your posting, you'd know that there is no chance in hell that microsoft is going to buy SCO. Sharp guy indeed.

  210. You guys only moderated me to 2 !!! by timlewis_atlanta · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Seems like I was right. Hate to say "I told you so" but...

    http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=64233&cid=5958 703

  211. Who is stealing from whom? by walterbyrd · · Score: 1

    SCO screams and cries about everybody stealing from them. At the same time, SCO is attempting to profit from IP which they did not contribute to, nor did they buy. SCO is trying to profit from the donations of thousands of volunteers.

    SCO's claims are not based on any sense of justice. Rather SCOâ(TM)s claims are based on what SCO thinks is a legal technicality.

    And SCO has the nerve to call the open-source community "thieves" ?

  212. Re:I NEED HELP SLASHDOT! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    YOU NEED HELP A/C!

  213. People in glasshouses... by grolschie · · Score: 1

    Um...aren't they forgetting something? Didn't SCO sell copies of Linux too? Then it should be:

    "Legalize Stupidity - Smoke SCO Linux"
    "Give Communism A Try - Free SCO Linux"
    "Your Son Stole Code & We (SCO) Republished It
    "SCO [heart] Software Piracy"

    (Or replace the above SCO references with Caldera)

  214. dumb fucking mormons by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    are the only people who could think up this act of extortion and, moreover, make those retarded fucking protest signs. Every day I'm grateful I don't live in that state.

  215. Simple by Dalcius · · Score: 1

    This is simple. People are protesting your actions. What is the best way to make their protest meaningless and to make yourself look like the good-guy who is in control.?

    Embrace them.
    Give them drinks.
    Laugh with them and join the party.

    Embrace, love, and then crush your enemy.
    This is business as usual for scum^H^H^H^Hpoliticians, lawyers and businessmen.

    I'm willing to bet that several SCO employees were doing it out of true heart, but Darl?

    This guy is suing everyone and their mother for billions. Even if his claims were valid, he's basically claiming that all UNIX IP is his.

    Read this. Darl is 'hip and down with OSS' and he makes himself look like a victim. When I read it, I started to say, "Hmm, maybe this guy is the victim."

    Then I remembered the damages and claims he's making and the FUD he's spreading.

    Some normal SCO employees might mean well, but as for Darl and the rest, either they're insane and think they're the victims, or they're playing a masterful political game.

    --
    ~Dalcius
    Rome wasn't burnt in a day.
  216. Apologies in advance by alexburke · · Score: 4, Funny

    Topic in #os: hey guyz, stop pickin on irix.
    <SCO> w00t! i bought unix! im gonna b so rich!
    <novell> /msg atnt haha. idiot.
    <novell> whoops. was that out loud?
    <atnt> rotfl
    <ibm> lol
    <SCO> why r u laffin at me?
    <novell> dude, unix is so 10 years ago. linux is in now.
    <SCO> wtf?
    <SCO> hey guyz, i bought caldera, I have linux now.
    <red_hat> haha, your linux sucks.
    <novell> lol
    <atnt> lol
    <ibm> lol
    <SCO> no wayz, i will sell more linux than u!
    <ibm> your linux sucks, you should look at SuSE
    <SuSE> Ja. Wir bilden gutes Linux fr IBM.
    <SCO> can we do linux with you?
    <SuSE> Ich bin nicht sicher...
    <ibm> *cough*
    <SuSE> Gut lassen Sie uns vereinigen.
    * SuSE is now SuSE[UL]
    * SCO is now caldera[UL]
    <turbolinux> can we play?
    <conectiva> we're bored... we'll go too.
    <ibm> sure!
    * turbolinux is now turbolinux[UL]
    * conectiva is now conectiva[UL]
    <ibm> redhat: you should join!
    <SuSE[UL]> Ja! Wir sind vereinigtes Linux. Widerstand ist vergeblich.
    <red_hat> haha. no.
    <red_hat> lamers.
    <ibm> what about you debian?
    <debian> we'll discuss it and let you know in 5 years.
    <caldera[UL]> no one wants my linux!
    <turbolinux[UL]> i got owned.
    <caldera[UL]> u all tricked me. linux is lame.
    * caldera[UL] is now known as SCO
    <SCO> i'm going back to unix.
    <SGI> yeah! want to do unix with me?
    <SCO> haha. no. lamer.
    <novell> lol
    <ibm> snap!
    <SGI> :~(
    <SCO> hey, u shut up. im gonna sue u ibm.
    <ibm> wtf?
    <SCO> yea, you stole all the good stuff from unix.
    <red_hat> lol
    <SuSE[UL]> heraus laut lachen
    <ibm> lol
    <SCO> shutup. i'm gonna email all your friends and tell them you suck.
    <ibm> go ahead. baby.
    <SCO> andandand... i revoke your unix! how do you like that?
    <ibm> oh no, you didn't. AIX is forever.
    <novell> actually, we still own unix, you can't do that.
    <SCO> wtf? we bought it from u.
    <novell> whoops. our bad.
    <SCO> i own u. haha
    <SCO> ibm: give me all your AIX now!
    <ibm> whatever. lamer.
    * ibm sets mode +b SCO!*@*
    * SCO has been kicked from #os (own this.)

    1. Re:Apologies in advance by s-orbital · · Score: 1

      ROFL -- MOD this guy up!!!

      --
      Patent: from Latin patere, to be open
  217. smoking gun by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


    The IBM lawsuit could bring a windfall to Canopy, which owns 46% of SCO.
    Another beneficiary could be John Wall, chief executive of Vista.com, a
    Redmond, Wash., company that last August struck a licensing arrangement with
    SCO. Wall got 800,000 shares of SCO stock in the deal and still holds 600,000,
    making him SCO's biggest individual shareholder after Canopy. Those shares,
    which were worth about $1 each when Wall made the deal, now trade above $10.

    CEO John Wall, who also founded Wall Data Inc. launched Vista.com.

    "Microsoft and Wall Data are building on their combined industry-leading
    expertise in server software, SNA, legacy applications, and database reporting
    and publishing to create a mission-critical, intranet-ready solution," said
    John Wall, president of Wall Data.

  218. PLUG protesters avoided an ambush? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Were those inflammatory signs placed on SCO property in an attempt to goad the PLUG protesters into trespassing? I would suspect so.

    Props to our Linux homies in Utah for their cool, calm, collected response. They may have just walked away from an ambush and possible criminal prosecution.

  219. It is a sad sad day... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    when you see nerds turning one on another. We're supposed to be supporting each other here in Nerd-dom and trying to bring about Nerdist ideals. This is a bad thing(tm).

  220. By definition, SCO can't own Linux by MickLinux · · Score: 1

    In a very real way, I own my wife and child; they own me.

    If another person comes in and trespasses, pulls a gun on me and shoots me dead, and steals my function, they can probably force my wife and child to "act" in some of the same ways as they do with me. But they can't own them. Owning is how you invest yourself, and ends up being identical with who you are.

    Open and honest marriage involves owning each other in a way that a rapist never can own a person.

    Now, Linux was developed under a specific set of conditions, open, and [hopefully, and at least for the most part] honest. SCO wants to steal that. They have a gun that like a Saturday Night Special sometimes blows up in your face, but often works just as intended.

    But they don't want to own Linux. That would take honesty, and really posessing what is Linux.

    SCO wants to steal Linux. There's a huge difference. In my book, they are software pirates.

    --
    Correct Horse Battery Staple: 72 bits of entropy. Enter "Correct H" into google. When it generates the phrase, that's
  221. Re:I NEED HELP SLASHDOT! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    pissflaps!

  222. Software Government by mabu · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Linux = Communism? I think not.. let's work this out...

    Linux = Multiparty Democracy to Monarchy at times

    Oracle, Sun = Monarchy

    Unix = Anarchy with various flavors being multiparty democracies

    Windows = Single Party State Authoritarian Regime which occasionally morphs into a Military Junta, and occasionally pretends to be communistic to improve public image

  223. Offtopic Iraq thread.... by jmorris42 · · Score: 1

    > Knowing US military, political and economic might, that seems fairly
    > brave move on France's (and Germany's) part to me.

    How? Knowing the US, they know there isn't a chance in hell of us actually hurting France or Germany even if Osama showed up in Paris. We will snub them for a while in insignificant ways, but that is about it. Personally I support having the US withdraw from NATO and let em start learning just how much it costs to build and maintain a modern high tech military.

    > It's bit like people calling 9/11 terrorists cowards...

    Agreed, cowards they aren't. And I'd go you one more and say the guys that went splat into the Pentagon weren't terrorists. Terrorism is a deliberate attack against a civilian target and if anyone wants to call the Pentagon a civilian target I want them to explain just what they think a military one might be. The passengers were just collateral damage. (War is a bitch like that, which is why it is usually considered a 'bad thing'.)

    Same for Tim Mcveigh and the OKC bombing not being terrorism. If a federal building full of feds and the machinery of the FedGov isn't a legit target, what is? No, Tim was part of a revolutionary force of less than a dozen, but it was an act of revolution, not terror. Of course I still agree with the State responding by planting the S.O.B.

    Words mean things, and I get ticked when people try to expand the meaning of one word to the point where it loses any meaning.

    --
    Democrat delenda est
    1. Re:Offtopic Iraq thread.... by orim · · Score: 1

      9/11 terrorists *were* cowards. It's easy to scare the piss out of a plane full of people, and ram it into the building, never seeing the consequences of your actions.

      Now, if they were real men, they would challenge the Seals or any other elite US military team to a one-on-one knife fight. Now *that* would be balls.

      --
      "If you could only see what I've seen with your eyes..." - Roy Batty
    2. Re:Offtopic Iraq thread.... by Sloppy · · Score: 1

      Regarding "never seeing the consequence of your actions": remember that a mystic can plan to do something that will result in their instantaneous painless death, but still believe that they will see the consequence of their actions. They see a bigger picture, where death isn't the end.

      --
      As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
  224. OT: Intel creating 32 cpu 64bit server with Linux by ihatesco · · Score: 0, Offtopic
    Read on devchannel

    Intel: Linux 32-chip server rivals Windows
    posted by cdlu
    on Friday June 06, 2003 - [ 03:16 PM GMT ]
    Section: High Performance Computing : News
    Topic: High Performance Computing
    Read article at: zdnet.com.com

    Intel has found that a 32-processor Itanium server running Linux is rivaling Windows and Unix servers in database performance, a major accomplishment for the comparatively young operating system.

    It pinpoints to this zdnet article here.

    --
    "I am slashbot, hear me roar!"
  225. One thing I noticed by imaniack · · Score: 1

    That penguine mascot is rather kid friendly. I think linux community has a perfect tool to indoctrinate kids and free them from the dark side.

  226. Re:Don't jump to conclusions about the SCO people. by andrewski · · Score: 1

    More realistically the Communist sentiment is a manufactured one, relating to the Linux development process and community. It never has been a sensible or realistic way of viewing the community - which is a benign, banana-republic dictatorship more than communism. Some people may have their doubts as to how benign Linux is, but they are mostly trolls. At least he manages to piss off a lot of folks who think their patches deserve to be in the kernel.

    The 'Free' market we have here in the US isn't exactly free. When it comes to MS taking the people who do the purchasing out, showering them with gifts, and doing the usual corporate 'bidding (bribing)' on a government contract' thing, of course Linux won't stand a chance. Bills requiring the consideration of open source software make sense on many levels. So would laws banning the gifts in the bidding stage.

  227. You forgot Trade Libel by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm a paralegal. You are forgetting that it's against the law to say damaging and untrue things about a competitor and if it in fact damages their business, they have a claim for "trade libel". At least one attorney has been quoted in the press as saying that SCO could be making themselves liable for such a claim.

  228. Just thought of something by SlashDread · · Score: 1

    Suppose SCO wants to loose?

    - SCO's sys V contract mumbles something about "derivitave works", suppose the court nullifies license inheretance? They loose.

    Does this leave GPL code to be picked up by anyone smart enought to grasp "embrace and extend"? Like SCO? /Dread

  229. PLUG protest... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is the best anti-FUD project they could come up with? A demonstration such as this only serves to show (yet again) the social cluelessness of a great number of Linux enthusiasts. I am that way myself sometimes. They should have beat those SCO'ers a new lump on their heads, though.

  230. Re:Don't jump to conclusions about the SCO people. by the+gnat · · Score: 1

    One would think so, but this delusion is has spread much further than just the FSF.

    That bill says nothing whatsoever about banning proprietary software.

    The Linux "Community" should be more concerned about the bad public image they are creating for themselves.

    Oooooh, another consultant tells me why I should be using Windows instead, this time because a bunch of pimply 13-year-olds make Linux look bad. (He's also the first person I've read who actually takes all of SCO's claims seriously, which is sort of bizarre.) I thought you said the main criterion should be whether Linux does the job or not?

  231. "Provo, Spain?" by tommck · · Score: 0

    "No. Provo, Utah". :-)

    --
    ---- It puts the lotion on its skin or else it gets the hose again. It does this whenever it's told.
    1. Re:"Provo, Spain?" by tommck · · Score: 1

      How can _anyone_ rate a Fletch quote "Overrated"?? Geez!

      T

      --
      ---- It puts the lotion on its skin or else it gets the hose again. It does this whenever it's told.
  232. It's nice to see some spirit and support... by qtp · · Score: 2, Interesting

    But this seems to be the wrong way to address a company, especially a company like SCO.

    First, SCO doesn't care what you or I think about them. They want money.

    More specifically, they want money for what they bought, as in "We have deep pockets and political connections. Show us the respect that we paid for."

    Any protest of that type is unlikely to have the desired impact on SCO, the media or the outcome of the court case.

    Second, if you think that there is something illegal happening at SCO, such as insider trading, buying and selling of stock by executives that is in opposition to to the interest of investors, lying on the quarterly and anuall reports, etc., then report that to the SEC. But be damned sure of your accusations.

    Third, write well reasoned, insightful letters to the editor of major (business) news outlets. Be clear in your opinions and support all your claims with logical and ethical arguments. Business readers are not much swayed by pathos.

    And be ready for the remote possibility that SCO may win the court case, despite having no valid claims. It's happened in the past, it will happen in the future, and it's just the way it sometimes goes. I know it sucks to be in on the side of right in a losing battle, but there's a lot of that going around right now.

    --
    Read, L
  233. Re:I NEED HELP SLASHDOT! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A mussel (mossel, shell creature) is my fav because it actually looks like one
    also: the 'warm slimey hole' metaphore fits it quite well.

    Never trust a creature that bleeds for three days and doesn't die.......

  234. Yee GADS! by TheConfusedOne · · Score: 1

    You're not in the least bit serious are you?

    Agreed, cowards they aren't. And I'd go you one more and say the guys that went splat into the Pentagon weren't terrorists. Terrorism is a deliberate attack against a civilian target and if anyone wants to call the Pentagon a civilian target I want them to explain just what they think a military one might be. The passengers were just collateral damage. (War is a bitch like that, which is why it is usually considered a 'bad thing'.)

    Bullshit, complete and utter clap trap.

    First, the terrorist WERE cowards. They dressed as civilians, they took civilians hostage, and they deliberately with full knowledge and desire killed civilians.

    The passengers in the plane were in no way "collateral damage" and the Pentagon wasn't a millitary target.

    Why not you might ask? Because these people were not military soldiers acting under state sanction in an announced aggression against another country.

    They were common thugs. They were the guy who sticks up the little old lady on the street corner.

    And for Tim McVeigh. What was he rebelling aginst then? What was his message to the world? What did he hope to accomplish by "overthrowing" the government?

    No, he was just a misguided angry little man with just a little too much smarts and luck for his own good.

    --
    --- I wish I could hear the soundtrack to my life. That way I'd know when to duck.
    1. Re:Yee GADS! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I like how you assume that because you don't like what they did, it's cowardice. If that's the case, America was founded on cowardice, since it's small army fighting against the british used guerilla tactics to effectively win the revolutionary war.

    2. Re:Yee GADS! by carlos_benj · · Score: 1

      Why not you might ask? Because these people were not military soldiers acting under state sanction in an announced aggression against another country.

      They were common thugs. They were the guy who sticks up the little old lady on the street corner.


      Dang! Whiplash! You shouldn't shift gears so suddenly, unless you really meant to say that the people in the Pentagon were common thugs.....

      --

      --

      As a matter of fact, I am a lawyer. But I play an actor on TV.

    3. Re:Yee GADS! by jmorris42 · · Score: 1

      > Because these people were not military soldiers acting under state
      > sanction in an announced aggression against another country.

      And by this logic I would assume we should locate and prosecute any surviving members of the French Resistance for terrorism? Sorry, it just doesn't work that way. Irregular forces are a fact of life in a war.

      Which is of course what nobody wants to admit this is all about. There is a war on between Radical Islam (which claims a much larger percentage of the Islamic world than we wish to admit to) and Western Civilization and nobody wants to admit it because to admit it would be to be forced into some unpleasant decisions. In the end we only have three choices:

      1. Subvert Radical Islam and transform it into a belief system compatible with the existance of our civilization.

      2. Launch the last crusade and convert them by the sword.

      3. Keep ignoring the problem until they obtain WMD and see our civilization destroyed.

      > And for Tim McVeigh. What was he rebelling aginst then? What was his
      > message to the world? What did he hope to accomplish by
      > "overthrowing" the government?

      He believed the FedGov was hopelessly perverted from it's original design and had become a threat. Views I tend to also agree with. Where we differ is that he believed that peaceful redress was no longer an option and that large numbers were ready for a revolution, only needing a spark to set one off.

      But the important point is that he was not a terrorist, but a mistaken revolutionary who properly paid the price for being wrong. But it is critical to keep in mind that he had the right to declare a revolution, and so do thee and me. But it not something to be undertaken lightly and one must be prepared to risk (like the Founders understood, the stakes are your "life, fortune and sacred honor") everything on such a venture. After all, if you don't have the right to declare a revolt then then two questions must be asked, "Who does?" and "By what right?"

      Which gets us to the point the Founding Fathers were on about when they put the 2nd Amendment in. After all, they had just carried out a pretty violent revolution (using a non trivial amount of irregular warfare themselves) against the most powerful military on the planet and understood that they probably hadn't fought the last one in history so they wanted to make it easier to get rid of the next defective government when the time came. Remember these were radical dudes wont to spout lines like "The tree of Liberty must be occasionally watered with the blood of Patriots and Tyrants."

      --
      Democrat delenda est
    4. Re:Yee GADS! by DavidTC · · Score: 1
      First, the terrorist WERE cowards. They dressed as civilians, they took civilians hostage, and they deliberately with full knowledge and desire killed civilians.

      That is a very intesting definition of 'coward' you have there. It appears to be 'commits something you think is a war crime'. (Killing civilians isn't actually a war crime, killing civilians without military purpose is the war crime.) For the rest of us, a coward is someone who's afraid of stuff.

      And, BTW, capturing civilians is not 'taking them hostage'. To be a hostage, there has to be a threat to kill them if X happens, or delibrately placing them where if you get killed, they get killed. Yes, they were on the same plane, and thus an external attack would kill them both, but it wasn't delibrate...its not like the civilians could leave the plane. As the attacker's entire plane depended on secrecy, it's fairly misleading to call those people 'hostages'.

      They could be 'kidnappees', but there's nothing wrong with kidnapping people during war.

      The passengers in the plane were in no way "collateral damage" and the Pentagon wasn't a millitary target.

      In what universe is the Pentagon not a military target? Your dislike of the means of attack does not magically make the Pentagon not a military target. The Pentagon is not really the best target, just a very visible one, but that's another story. It is a government building intensely involved in military, intelligence, and counter-intelligence activities, and is a completely legitimate military target.

      And, BTW, while it's not very nice to fly a plane full of civilians into a military target, it's not a war crime unless you had a equivilent way of doing it that wouldn't kill civilians and delibrately choose to kill them. It's not like they could have let the people off before ramming it, and hence it's no more a war crime than blowing up an important bridge with civilians walking on it. Civilians die in war.

      Why not you might ask? Because these people were not military soldiers acting under state sanction in an announced aggression against another country.

      And that has nothing at all to do with them being 'cowards' (It's not like they can just magically create a country to fight for.), and nothing at all to do with the Pentagon not being a legitimate target. Guerrilla warfare is quite well accepted, and simply because Bush insists on calling people unlawful combatants, that doesn't actually make them be unlawful.

      By that logic, every single rebel in existence is an unlawful combatant.

      Hell, not wearing a uniform isn't a war crime either...it's spying, and means you might not protected under various Geneva rules, but it's not a war crime. A country that captures you might treat you as a criminal instead of a soldier, but you aren't going to brought before the Hague.

      Of course, that doesn't mean Al Queda were waging a legitimate war...they are terrorists, after all. But pretending all their attacks are illegal is just stupid and pointless.

      They were common thugs. They were the guy who sticks up the little old lady on the street corner.

      No, they were terrorists. They were the kind of scum who thought holding us in fear was the way to win a war against us.

      But that doesn't make all Bush's rhetoric about 'illegal combatants' and whatnot true. A group of individuals can, in fact, quite 'legally' wage war against a country. It's hard for them to get Geneva Convention protection, but that's another matter entirely, and doesn't automatically make everything they do a war crime.

      Now, flying planes into the WTC, that was a war crime.

      And for Tim McVeigh. What was he rebelling aginst then? What was his message to the world? What did he hope to accomplish by "overthrowing" the government?

      If by that you're trying to imply he didn't have one, you are amazingly mistaken. None of us know it, because it was probably some

      --
      If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
    5. Re:Yee GADS! by TheConfusedOne · · Score: 1

      The members of the French Resistence were in fact involved in a war and fighting an occupying force. There are absolutely no parallels to be drawn in this case.

      The terrorists of 9/11 chose to strike in a cowardly fashion and attempted to extract as many civilian deaths as possible. Terrorists. Cowards. End of discussion.

      Mr. McVeigh at best was mentally deranged. There are already well established methods within this country to bring about change. These methods go up to things like civil disobedience. They do not cover wanton mass murder. The fact that only 7 people killed in the building were actually federal officers should give you a hint about that.

      He believed the FedGov was hopelessly perverted from it's original design and had become a threat. Views I tend to also agree with.
      Well now isn't that interesting. Is there anything in particular that you find particularly threatening about the current government? Did you vote in the last election? Have you considered running for office yourself? Maybe you volunteered to work on a campaign of someone who's views you agree with? I would recommend pursuing any and all of those courses if you find the government such a threat to your wellbeing and happiness.

      I would also hope that you articulate your problems much better than Mr. McVeigh did.

      Mr. McVeigh does not deserve nor warrant the title revolutionist.

      --
      --- I wish I could hear the soundtrack to my life. That way I'd know when to duck.
    6. Re:Yee GADS! by jmorris42 · · Score: 1

      > The members of the French Resistence were in fact involved in a war
      > and fighting an occupying force.

      No, France had surrendered. But I'm not arguing they didn't have the right to resist, I was objecting to the notion that unless you are wearing the uniform of a nation-state you don't have the right to fight.

      > The terrorists of 9/11 chose to strike in a cowardly fashion and
      > attempted to extract as many civilian deaths as possible. Terrorists.
      > Cowards. End of discussion.

      No, grabbing the stick of a 747 and flying it into a target is anything but cowardly. It requires balls of steel in fact, which is why they scare the hell out of me. Yes the planes that hit NY were acts of terrorism, but the Pentagon was not because it wasn't a civilian target. But since Al Quaeda engages in acts of terrorism it doesn't really matter if they also attack legitimate targets since they must be hunted down and exterminated with the utmost vigor.

      What I am objecting to is the misuse of the word terrorism. It ceases to have it's original meaning if we stretch it to mean ANY attack on the US. Pearl Harbor was not terrorism for another example. Doesn't mean we shouldn't have declared war and bombed them into the stone age though, we were entirely within our rights to do that.

      > Is there anything in particular that you find particularly
      > threatening about the current government?

      You mean besides violating most of the Bill of Rights on a daily basis.
      Or how about any or all of these: "A rage for paper money, for an abolition of debts, for an equal division of property, or for any other improper or wicked project..." (Go look up the quote) I could list a few more hundred if you would like. ;)

      > Did you vote in the last election?

      Every federal election since being eligible. I think I have missed one or two local ones though.

      Not the sort to want to hold office though. Being a libertarian leaning Republican I wouldn't be able to uphold the oath of office since almost every elected office requires the initiation of force against the innocent. (Ok, I think I could ethically hold office as a District Attorney or Judge but I lack a law degree and the interest to effectively discharge the duties those offices. That and after campaigning on the list of laws I would be ethically barred from enforcing I wouldn't get elected.)

      --
      Democrat delenda est
    7. Re:Yee GADS! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


      > 1. Subvert Radical Islam and transform it into a belief
      > system compatible with the existance of our civilization.
      > 2. Launch the last crusade and convert them by the sword.

      how is (2) different then so called radical islam ?

    8. Re:Yee GADS! by Sloppy · · Score: 1
      They dressed as civilians,
      Stealth does not imply cowardice. It's just a tactic. It's something you do to succeed at a mission, and I would be very disappointed, outraged, and surprised if my own government didn't do the same thing at certain times.
      they took civilians hostage,
      That's bad, but not cowardice. Taking the civilians (on the planes) hostage was the means, not the end. It was the only way to control the plane, so they did it.
      and they deliberately with full knowledge and desire killed civilians.
      Yes, in the wider context, we know that to be true because of the WTC collisions. If the Pentagon collision had been the only one that had happened, though, we never would have known that they wanted to deliberately target civilians.
      the Pentagon wasn't a millitary target.
      ?! This .. *boggler* I just don't know what to say. This defies common perception.
      They were common thugs. They were the guy who sticks up the little old lady on the street corner.
      But we mainly only know (or very strongly suspect) that because of what happened at WTC.
      And for Tim McVeigh. What was he rebelling aginst then? What was his message to the world? What did he hope to accomplish by "overthrowing" the government?
      Ok, this is much better way to look at it, and adds a lot of strength to your argument. That's the thing I don't get about McVeigh and the guys who targeted the Pentagon: even though they targeted government installations, I can't see a stategy or how they had any hope that their actions would accomplish something useful to their cause. That makes me very suspicious about what their "cause" really was.

      But the Pentagon targeting, in itself, isn't a dead giveaway. I'm sure that building was targeted by Soviet ICBMs, but no one would call the use of such an ICBM, an attack against a nonmilitary target, would they? In wartime, practically all of Washington DC is Fair Game.

      --
      As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
    9. Re:Yee GADS! by TheConfusedOne · · Score: 1

      Taking the civilians (on the planes) hostage was the means, not the end. It was the only way to control the plane, so they did it.
      They could have gotten their own plane and tried to dive bomb the Pentagon. They were in fact counting on the hijacker doctrine to allow them unfettered movement and to not be shot down/engaged by military forces. The civilians were shields. This is directly reflected on the cowardice charge.

      The Pentagon was not a military target because there was no state of war. The fact that it is a military institution means that it becomes a target if there is an actual state of war. (Note that a lot of essentially civilian buildings/locations become military targets during war time.)

      Look at your final sentence and you have the crucial difference (at least as how I parse the whole military/non-military target):
      In wartime, practically all of Washington DC is Fair Game.(emphasis added)

      --
      --- I wish I could hear the soundtrack to my life. That way I'd know when to duck.
  235. O Bush e as suas histórias! by R80 · · Score: 1

    The french and german don't give a peanut's head about America or Americans. Pretty much as America does not care about us europeans or the rest of the world outside the country. Voting for Bush is the best thing you can do for us europeans, so he can continue messing with all the protocols and put reason on our side. Plus, we can continue making jokes and cartoons on him. Would you like french better if they had obeyed to Bush? Well, why don't you americans show us all where the massive destruction weapons are? Maybe then we can start do believe that Bush is not driven on imperial madness, economic reasons and supremacy hysteria. Where were you when East Timor got invaded by Indonesia and almost destructed for 25 years? Oops! Indonesia is a friend of the US.

  236. Odd.... by peterprior · · Score: 1

    Thats not what Darl Mcbride is saying....

  237. Whatever happened... by clonebarkins · · Score: 1

    ...to a good old-fashioned Denial of service attack?

    --

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

  238. So's the US going to invade 1/2 of Africa now? by DABANSHEE · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Afterall I can now at least half a dozen administrations there that mach Saddam's for repressiveness.

  239. You should learn English by DABANSHEE · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    Whether you agree with their actions or not, & whether attacking civilians in immoral is irrilivent, the fact is they put their lives on the line for their beliefs.

    A coward would have blown up the WTC (or for that matter, a essential antibiotics plant in Sudan) by remote control using cruise missles

  240. What if rewrites aren't enough? by dachshund · · Score: 1
    For the sake of discussion, let's assume the case has merit. The Linux community will rewrite the improperly used code, redesigning it if need be, craft tools to migrate everyone over to it, and go on.

    Well, SCO is claiming that even a re-written Linux that removes the offending code will still be a derivative work, because it's based off of their copyrights. If their case has that much merit (and hopefully no judge agrees with this), then it's not simply a matter or rewriting the improperly used code.

    1. Re:What if rewrites aren't enough? by rdewald · · Score: 1

      Right, you've hit on the piece of ambiguity that I believe the SCO legal team finds interesting. You can't rewrite a book and call it your own just because you put the words in a different order.

      If you treat code as prose, when does it become original and not derivative? How much has to change? Is this a fair way to assign property rights for code? I think the lawyers are seeing dollars signs right here.

      However, I have to acknowledge that sometimes important law is made because lawyers are chasing money, that's not necessarily a bad thing....

      --
      The best way to do is to be.
  241. It a joke mate by DABANSHEE · · Score: 1

    Go undo your top button.

    Are you one of these bloody Yanks that actually think's it's good that you only get 1 or 2 weeks holiday a year?

    Here in Oz I we get away with drinking generic bourbon & coke all day from oversized cans, while at the desk & we still get 5 weeks holiday a year & that's ontop a ADO every month, 2 weeks worth of public holidays & sickies galore.

    You Yanks take work too bloody seriously - living to work, when you should be working (as little as possible) to live.

  242. America's Enforced Pax Arabia by emil · · Score: 1

    Germany and France have allowed a large emmigration of Arabic/Islamic peoples into their nations. Their oppposition to the US conquest of Arabic lands is motivated by obvious self-interest.

    As an American and a US Citizen, I personally think that the attack against Iraq is irrational and potentially counterproductive. However, it is my hope that at some point our nation insists upon guaranteed civil rights for our (current) subject Arabic nations; ideally, I would like to see the Bill of Rights from our own Constitution as a major component of any new government formed in Iraq and Afghanistan.

    However, I do not think that our current Presidential regieme has the foresight for such action. Bush must be replaced as soon as possible. It would be hard to imagine a candidate with less foreign policy acumen.

  243. Tallahassee Democrat is garbage.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I go to school up in Tallahassee, at Florida State University. I'm a democrat (well that is what it says on my voters registration card.)

    The writing in the Tallahassee Democrat is the biggest bunch of crap I have ever seen. Besides the articles written by the A.P. the newspaper is nothing but columns with little facts and one might as well be reading a tabloid.

    I hope you don't read that newspaper every day, it'll warp your poor little mind more then internet porn.

  244. Shame on SCO by wizardmax · · Score: 1

    I understand that some might think that SCO is in the right, but how does Linux equal music piracy and communism? I lived in communism, I did't get a say in what went on. They need to read a few good history books.

    Even if some code from SCO got in (probably nothing that wasn't available already) how does that make every Linux user a thief? How am I a thief? I didn't steal anything from SCO, so don't call me a thief!

    --


    Free speech is getting expensive...
  245. No maybe its not..... by curtisk · · Score: 1, Interesting
    Hatch is the son of Senator Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, a representative for SCO confirmed Monday.

    Great, another Republican "Father and Son" team.
    This is almost funny. On second thought, no maybe its not.

    It's odd that SCO would align themselves once removed to the blithering idiot that went on a rant last week about destroying computers remotely. On second thought, no maybe its not.

    --

    Sehr geehrter Toilettenbenutzer!

  246. OT: Pilsner != Beer by bobKali · · Score: 1

    Icehouse is an "ale" and not a beer.

    I know I'm picking nits here, but last I heard both pilsners and ales were both considered beers.

  247. MOD PARENT FLAMEBAIT OR OFFTOPIC by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    talk about off topic, just another america hater who is a bastard.

  248. Re:America's Enforced Pax Arabia - compare to EU by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There was actually quite an interesting article in Wired about this: USA usually tries to enforce other to behave the way they would like them to. EU tells others (e.g. former soviet union countries, Turkey etc.) that we will do business with you if you change your bad ways; or you might even be able to join EU if you do this and that...

    That point seemed quite insightful (and also simple) to me: US is trying to bully other countries to behave - as soon as you turn your back they start behaving right as they did ealier (and as an added bonus you have made one more enemy). EU instead is offering other countries something in turn for behaving nicely... It should be quite easy to figure out which approach usually works better.

  249. Ridiculous by GCP · · Score: 1

    But an opportunity to whip up public support for the cause appears to have been wasted here.

    In the small, local community where all of these people live, work, and see each other at their children's PTA meetings, you don't "whip up public support" by acting like crazed San Francisco PETA protestors screaming thru megaphones, blocking traffic, vandalizing property, wearing face paint, beating bongo drums and dancing on their neighbors' cars.

    In an ordinary community where few people have even heard of Linux but do care about a number of genuine life and death issues, you could certainly whip opposition to "Linux wackos" pretty fast by overdoing the self-righteous outrage over this issue in front of the local news cameras.

    --
    "Those who have never entered upon scientific pursuits know not a tithe of the poetry by which they are surrounded."
  250. Re:Original LWN discussion (offtopic) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    OK, so the French and Germans are not cowards. Your logic is just fine. France and Germany are questionable allies, not to be relied upon. As far as the yes/no option on invasion, I'll admit the evidence (at least what was shared) was circumstantial. However, there was a mutually-exclusive choice: Believe Bush and invade or believe Hussein and go home. At that point, it wasn't all that hard to figure out what had to be done.

    France and Germany were not betting that Saddam was anything other than Bush stated. They were betting on his ability to deter or at least keep his dictatorship intact, thus maintaining a useful commercial relationship. If SCO were a UN member, I'm sure they would join the French and German position as well, although a buyout would flip them 180 degrees in an instant.

  251. Re:SCO can't distinguish Communism from nazi Germa by geekee · · Score: 1

    Communism and Nazism aren't that different. Communism says the individual must sacrifice himself for the collective, while Nazism says an individual must sacrifice himself for the state. Neither system recognises the individual as important.

    --
    Vote for Pedro
  252. No, the terrorists were cowards by metamatic · · Score: 1

    It's bit like people calling 9/11 terrorists cowards; I mean, they were scumsucking evildoing asswipes and all, but still; doing a kamikaze attack like that isn't your every day coward would really do.

    I disagree. Carrying out military attacks on unarmed and unwarned civilian populations is the very definition of cowardice. If they had attacked military bases, on the other hand, that might have required some bravery.

    The fact that the terrorists died in the attacks doesn't stop them being cowards either. If intel is to be believed, only the guy flying the plane knew what the whole plan was. Besides, even if they had all known, suicide is not inherently brave.

    --
    GCHQ Quantum Insert installed. If only our tongues were made of glass, how much more careful we would be when we speak
  253. Why France by superyooser · · Score: 0, Troll
    is singled out for derision concerning its opposition to forceful disarmament of Saddam's regime (something that it agreed to in U.N. resolution 1441, btw):
    The Paris-based daily (Le Monde) reported that a third of French people want Saddam Hussein to win the war, while another third do not feel they are on the same side as Britain and America. Overall disapproval for the war is at 78% ...
    Also:
    "France's decision to use the veto against any further Security Council resolution has in effect disarmed the United Nations instead of disarming Iraq." - a UK Member of Parliament, March 18, 2003
  254. derivative works by dubiousdave · · Score: 1

    Those photographs were taken in front of a building which is owned or rented by a company which may or may not own, in whole or in part, various versions of the UNIX operating system, and are therefor derivative works. As such, they are the property of SCO. The photographer and the manufacturer of the camera are hereby ordered to cease and desist photographic activity and manufacture of equipment facilitating same, respectively, until such time as said criminals *Dr. Evil voice* pay SCO one million, dollars. Mwahahahahahah!!!

    --
    Thank you. Drive through.
  255. that picture by geekoid · · Score: 1

    is one crosshair from being funny.

    --
    The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  256. OTOH by geekoid · · Score: 1

    If they have stock, and they do win, they will no have to work again.
    AAMOF, it would surprise me if SCO managment offered stock to keep people around. Hell, if they need someone, they offer 10,000 shares if they stay for a year. The worker would still get a lot of money because the case won't be over in a year and there stock will probably increase based on the talk alone.
    Could you imagane being part of a stock program last year and slowly watching your stock turn to nothing, then WHAM it's up 1440%?
    If I worked at SCO and had a few thousand share, I might ride this out. If it fails, I'll just lie on my resume with something nicer, like I was in prison.

    --
    The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  257. Bull crap by geekoid · · Score: 1

    You really need to wathc less XFiles.

    Almost everybody knows what are ancestors did to the indians. Bio warefare, etc... It was wrong and everybody I know considers it a damn shame.

    I pretty much learned any bad thing the US has done since there has been an US in public school.

    BTW, there is know way to know the original number of indians. Please don't forget the tribe to tribe warfare that killed many as well. America would be a lot different if the tribes orginized against a common threat instad of back stabbing each other.

    Schoold teach MORE about and MORE accurate information SINCE the 50s'

    --
    The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    1. Re:Bull crap by glesga_kiss · · Score: 1
      You really need to watch less XFiles

      I didn't say it in some huge conspiricy way. People are just unconfortable about teaching things like that. It's not as though there is some guy in a chair dictating this policy. Nationalism is a scary beast, and we are all guilty of it.

      America would be a lot different if the tribes orginized against a common threat instad of back stabbing each other.

      Tell me about it...I am Scottish you know. That's pretty much the same history as mine.

  258. kidnapping Linux IP by wilddur · · Score: 1

    The GPL was designed becouse some firms where using the code that some people had donated to the world and once it was modified and used by some companies they found they had to pay for it.

    All the IP in Linux and Open Software is a huge donation to the world. Free, just becouse some people think that we don't need money to help our peers.

    But SCO wants, once again, to use and control what others have built with the effort of years. They are kindnapping the IP that is free for the world. They known that even if they found some copied lines they would be changed soon (a day or two) They maintain the secret becouse it is the only power.

    I think that IBM should force them to act soon.

  259. Re:Don't jump to conclusions about the SCO people. by sheldon · · Score: 1

    Some people may have their doubts as to how benign Linux is, but they are mostly trolls.

    And you aren't a troll?

    So would laws banning the gifts in the bidding stage.

    In most states I am familiar with it is already illegal to give gifts to government employees, has been for many years. The prohibitions are quite extreme, govt employees can't even accept a paid lunch, but possibly a pen or a pad of paper. I don't see many people giving up their careers for office supplies.

  260. Re:Don't jump to conclusions about the SCO people. by sheldon · · Score: 1

    In contrast, the proposed law to which you refer give control of software to the people for the good of the government.

    It is unclear to me how you can interpret the banning of commercial software in government purchases as anything other than an attempt to exert state control on the software industry.

    Oh yes, it's "presumably for the good of the people".

  261. Re:Don't jump to conclusions about the SCO people. by sheldon · · Score: 1

    That bill says nothing whatsoever about banning proprietary software.

    Please, at least be honest with yourself.

    Read Section 3, which basically states that any company wanting to sell software to the State of California must give up it's Copyright.

    Oooooh, another consultant tells me why I should be using Windows instead, this time because a bunch of pimply 13-year-olds make Linux look bad.

    I don't recall the article saying you should use Windows. It simply questioned the business justification of a religious argument.

    He's also the first person I've read who actually takes all of SCO's claims seriously, which is sort of bizarre.

    Interesting, I've seen several such articles. But then I tend to read a variety business rags and trade journals, not just Linux specific sites for my news. I guess it must be easier living in a world where your notions are never questioned.

    I thought you said the main criterion should be whether Linux does the job or not?

    Actually I believe I asked you if that shouldn't be the main criterion. You agreed. Do you want to distance yourself from that agreement now that your anti-IP views are coming to the surface?

  262. SCO stealing my IP by pdxdada · · Score: 1

    As the creator of the original Protest Protest that ran successfully in Portland, Oregon for more than two months I'm considering taking legal action against SCO for damaging my intellectual property. The concepts of irony, humor and sarcasm and their derivative works are my sole property. Much of my IP has been copied verbatim, while some of it (for example humor) have been disguised enough not to be funny, but are still obvious copies. I'll provide specific examples never, but you're encouraged to speculate wildly until then. Current users of ironic works are encouraged to purchase a license to avoid legal issues. In case you're wondering the Protest Protest is real. Go to OutsideWorld if you don't believe me.

    --
    Don't mess with the bunny, outsideworld.org
  263. Serious consequences... by jotaeleemeese · · Score: 1

    ...is not synonymous of military invasion, no matter how you and your idols in the White House spin it.

    --
    IANAL but write like a drunk one.
    1. Re:Serious consequences... by superyooser · · Score: 1

      What are the other possible interpretations of "serious consequences"? Please explain how those other interpretations would have amounted to doing something more serious than what we had done before, and explain how those measures would have been effective in disarming Saddam Hussein fully, immediately, and unconditionally.

  264. Orgulhosamente Europa by R80 · · Score: 1

    Don't worry, we are far more concerned about our european countries than about your miserable politics. That is your matter. We would leave you alone, if only you let us! But let's see, your always sticking your noose everywhere. At least, you could do it equally in every country with dictatorships. Obviously, you don't. And still expect us europeans to support your asses and hail. The difference between us and you is that we don't proclam ourselves as noble or kings of the world. Which you do, hooney. Oh, I love Madonna, Marilyn Manson, Tori Amos and Howard Stern. But that is a choice and it doesn't make me an america lover. I am so european. My exams weren't little ticks. I had to write more than 12 pages in two hours just on History. Sorry, but that's how come europeans get a whole less stupid than americans. Am I generalizing? Am I putting you all in the same bag? How bad.

  265. There is a link... by R80 · · Score: 1

    The link between Iraq and Al-Qaeda must be the "Q" both have on their names. Of course the US won't care about the dozens of countries with similar dictators. It's much more easy to attack a bunch of old men with rough weapons and no food and cry Victory. Losers. Both of them.

  266. I do not think that means what you think it means. by frane · · Score: 1

    Carrying out military attacks on unarmed and unwarned civilian populations is the very definition of cowardice

    Look up 'cowardice' in the dictionary. The one I looked in defines it as:
    1. Ignoble fear in the face of danger or pain. 2. Want of courage to face danger; extreme timidity; pusillanimity; base fear of danger or hurt; lack of spirit. 3. The trait of lacking courage.

    I don't see how you can believe that the 9/11 terrorrists showed 'extreme timidity', or 'fear of danger or hurt', or especially 'lack of spirit.'
    Their acts were terrible, wrong, evil, sinful, etc. But they did not demonstrate cowardice. I will not mutilate the meaning of a word just to lob an insult no matter how nasty I think the recipient is.

    Sorry I missed most of the discussion, but I had to get in my 2 cents.

  267. Re:I do not think that means what you think it mea by metamatic · · Score: 1

    Want of courage to face danger. They could have attacked a dangerous foe, but chose to attack a harmless target.

    --
    GCHQ Quantum Insert installed. If only our tongues were made of glass, how much more careful we would be when we speak
  268. Re:I do not think that means what you think it mea by frane · · Score: 1

    Of course they could have attacked a dangerous foe. However, that doesn't change the meaning of the word 'cowardice' to suit your purpose. The definition you chose, "Want of courage to face danger", means that a person with cowardice lacks the necessary courage to face a dangerous situation. They hijacked the planes and killed themselves and many others. That is a dangerous situation for all involved. By the simple fact that they carried through with their actions they demonstrated that they did not lack the courage to do it.

    Your response states that they "chose to attack a harmless target". You are incorrectly implying that because they could have done something more honorable, they are cowards for the actions that took place. Lack of performing a brave action does not necessarily make one a coward. Try and think of a day that you didn't go out of your way to do something particularly brave (there must be one sometime). Your use of the word 'cowardice' would imply that you were a coward that day. That is certainly not correct.

  269. Re:I do not think that means what you think it mea by metamatic · · Score: 1

    It's not mere lack of performing a brave action; it's performing a non-brave action in preference to the brave alternative that makes one a coward.

    --
    GCHQ Quantum Insert installed. If only our tongues were made of glass, how much more careful we would be when we speak
  270. Re:I do not think that means what you think it mea by frane · · Score: 1

    1. Performing a non-brave action in preference to the brave alternative does not make one a coward. Running from a dangerous situation, when faced with one, makes one a coward. This is not a world where if you are not classified at an extreme (e.g. brave), you are automatically classified as the opposite (e.g. coward). Following that logic, you could say that if you are not hot, you are cold.

    2. The braveness of an action is determined exclusively by the person performing the action. If one thinks something is not brave, but another person is performing the action and that other person considers it a courageous, brave action, then that is what it is. An outside judgment of the ethics / honorability / braveness, etc. has no bearing on whether or not the person performing the action did so with courage. This is my guess (which I obviously can't corroborate): The terrorists probably recognized the supreme danger of their situation. They approached it and carried out their plan. If they in fact recognized the danger beforehand, that means that they acted bravely and courageously (i.e. *not* cowardly). So, as an outsider making a judgment on their actions, I can say that they were despicable, but I have no right to say they acted cowardly.