Slashdot Mirror
SCO Taking Linux Discussion To Japan
levin writes "EETimes is carrying a new story about our good friend Darl McBride, CEO of SCO. His latest escapades include a trip to Japan in response to the CE Linux Forum initiative undertaken by several big-name Japanese tech firms such as Sony and Toshiba. He's putting his famous tainted code dog-and-pony show on parade, trying to influence some of the major CELF founders."
FilePro. We use it for a FilePro database that runs our entire accounting operations. I dunno why. Maybe I should mention to them that FilePro runs on Linux now. (duh).
My journal has hot
It probably was popularized by Clint Eastwood in 'The Outlaw Josey Wales' when he said, "I'll kick you so hard, you'll be wearing your ass for a hat".
Although, UrbanDictionary.com says:
5 definitions found.
asshat
One who has their head up their ass. Thus wearing their ass as a hat. Asshat
asshat
One who enters into a new environment without taking the time to learn any of the social rules of the place. Then they promptly make pretty much every social gaff you can imagine this side of shitting on the dinner table.
You know, a moron.
Scrappy Doo is one of the few existing examples of an animated asshat.
asshat
a person who has no common sense or just plain stupid.
Some of the people on notPopular.com are asshats.
asshat
exclamation said when being woken up for the third time by your drunken roomates
i hope this asshat likes the taste of concrete
asshat
1. A hat worn by a drunken fool, or ass.
2. A foolish person, as one who would wear an asshat.
1. At the party, Jon made a fool of himself when he donned his asshat, the lampshade.
2. By bothering everyone at work, that asshat has made a real fool of himself.
Hope this helps...
Asshat was around long before fark.com.
An interesting etymology of asshat.
--
the strongest word is still the word "free"
"In the past three months, SCO Group, a small software company that owns Unix patents, claimed it had found chunks of its Unix code in Linux."
I thought it was already concluded that SCO doesn't even claim to own UNIX patents. They just claim that they own the copyrights. The Novell escapade brought all of that out. EE Times needs to get their story right.
Many "mom and pop and kids" circuses that toured small towns could not afford the expense of maintaining large animals such as camels and elephants, or dangerous and also expensive ones such as lions and tigers. Often, their only menagerie was a few dogs and a pony. The majority of their entertainment consisted of clowning, acrobatics and juggling, with a few acts that involved the dogs and pony. The larger, more sophisticated and better equipped circuses came to refer to these little guys as "dog and pony shows."
I'm sure there was the occasional carnie who would put on "special" shows for select clients, but so far as I know beastiality has long been illegal in many US states and, therefore, the practice you describe, performed in the US, would present a very real risk of imprisonment to all participants - hence the legends about "pony shows" down in ye olde Tijuana.
Because you'd be a damn fool to do so.
As it stands, SCO will have to prove that IBM broke its trade secret agreement, which is going to be a damned difficult thing for SCO to do. They're alleging copyright infringement as well but, and this is important, have yet to file a claim in court about any infringement whatsoever. Until they do so what exactly are you going to sue them for? Libel? Good bloody luck. You'd then be on the wrong side of the table -- you'd have to prove that their claims are false without ever seeing any of their documentation. Enjoy! You'll lose that case in a millionth of the amount of time the SCO/IBM case will take. If you even make it to day 2 in court I'll be amazed.
Here's the deal though -- since SCO is bringing the case against IBM they will have to disclose ALL relevant information on the case to IBM. And presumably to the public, unless they somehow get the record sealed (and SCO does not have the political might that AT&T had in the AT&T/Berkeley case). The claimant is not allowed to spring surprises on the defendant in the US court system -- the defendant, being presumed innocent, is privy to all the claims being brought against them as well as all evidence to support those claims. The same is not true in reverse -- IBM can bring out evidence to counter SCO without SCO's lawyers having ever seen it before (this, however, is generally considered bad form and frowned upon not only by the other lawyer, but also the judge -- judges don't like having their time wasted and any such evidence should be shared with the claimant in order to avoid having the case go to trial in the first place).
IBM may bring a countersuit against SCO, but in order to do so they'd have to show some substantive damages to their business model... not a very easy thing to do, particularly when you're the size that IBM is. It also complicates matters, and if IBM thinks they have a solid case they may not feel the need to bring a countersuit... easier just to shut them down quickly rather than turn an already long and complicated case into an even longer and more complicated case. Countersuits seem to be used most often when neither side has a particularly strong case.
It seems to me that some of the players in this game have much more knowledge then they admit openly.
Welcome to reality.
Apprently some still do. A lot of bricks and mortar type companies run their manufacturing systems on Openserver. They are generally low-tech firms to begin with and have no plans to budget for any upgrades, nor should they - for what they do.
Now. Any company that requires, HA/failover/performance, etc. Needs to *not* be running OpenServer. Netconfig requires a re-link and reboot anytime you breathe on it. THe package manager is this thing called 'custom', which is anything but customizable. SMP? Gigabit Ethernet? Journalized filesystem? I think not! Maybe the Military can use it, considering that Colonel Panic and Major Re-install are part of the core functionality.
UnixWare is better, but it ain't Solaris.
.sig
From his bio:
From 1988 to 1996, he worked at networking leader Novell where he was responsible for growing Novell Japan's growth to more than $100 million in revenue.
I was in Japan from 1986 to 1996. Novell went absolutely nowhere during that time. Microsoft took over the networking market. I ended up dealing only with Novell U.S. as Novell Japan was absolutely hopeless to work with. Now that I think about it, I seem to recall meeting Darl at a gaijin get-together. Just another expat executive lording over the locals.
If he knows more Japanese than "o-kane dase" I'll be amazed.
If you don't want to repeat the past, stop living in it.
Supposedly its the RCU (Read, Copy, Update) code that speeds up threading on super-highend systems. It came from Sequent which was later purchaced by IBM. The AT&T contract signed by sequent didn't have the add-on that IBM had, which said that IBM 'owned' all the software they developed. In other words, all the UNIX stuff developed by sequent before it was purchaced by IBM SCO has a rights on.
The problem is what Sequent did was come up with the system and patent it, publishing the system in a patent, which applied to any multithreaded OS. In other words, they developed something and stuck it into their unix system, not the other way around.
Anyway, this is only one part of the story...
autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
the defendant, being presumed innocent, is privy to all the claims being brought against them as well as all evidence to support those claims.
You mean presumed "not liable". This is a civel case, not a criminal case.
The same is not true in reverse -- IBM can bring out evidence to counter SCO without SCO's lawyers having ever seen it before...
No. In a civil case, the discovery rules allow either party to examine the other's records.
I don't know half of you half as well as I should like, and I like less than half of you half as well as you deserve. BB
You are talking about the SEC form 8-A12G/A from SEC's SCO page, correct?
It's all governed by General Corporation Law, in this case indemnification is limited by section (e)
All they're really saying is, if we didn't have seperate D&O policies for the directors and officers before, we do now. And some other stuff to try to prevent a hostile stock take over.