Slashdot Mirror
Eric Raymond's Homebrew SCO Poison
What Can You Expect From A University Named "UH?" writes "Eric S. Raymond responds to Darl McBride's charge that he's drinking IBM's Kool-Aid in SCO's fight against Linux.
The main thrust: Yes, there is an alliance against SCO, but, like the Open Source movement itself, it arises from lots of folks spontaneously striving for a common goal. 'It's beyond me how [you] can have the gall to talk as though we need funding or marching orders from IBM to mobilize against you. IBM couldn't stop us from mobilizing!' "
First off, I think he sounds moronic with those StarWars references, secondly, there's a relevant Halloween 9 out.
Belief is the currency of delusion.
The exact same response found in the link provided in this new story can also be found in the final link update in the old story. See Update: 08/22 18:26 GMT by M: ESR responds. Hence this is a duplicate.
ESR is threatening to use every legal means available to fight SCO. that's legal, justified, implied and expected.
But what do I know. I'm just looking for anonymous gay sex.
As long as the letter is to an individual in re his position as a company executive, it is still subject to free speech provisions. In Voight v. Harbiller (search for it on Lexis/Nexis) our fabled McDonald's crusader was sued by Leslie Voight, McDonald's VP of Marketing. Voight alleged that Harbiller tried to threaten her in his letter that was delivered to her house. Guess who won?
I've said it before, and I'll say it again. You can't buy your way out of the first amendment.
I'm not Seth Finkelstein. I still speak the truth.
Since last Wednesday, SCO has risen by about 40%. No particular news has come out, and the volume, while above average, hasn't exactly been blockbuster. Hard to say what's happening here, really. With only 13.1 million shares outstanding, it wouldn't take a whole ton of activity to drive the price rapidly in one direction or another...
Stop by my site where I write about ERP systems & more
I think you'd be pretty hard pressed to find someone who's contributed code to linux and doesn't have it installed on a desktop somewhere. It's still their code and they're still proud of it.
Dreams are better as dreams than reality.
Heh, speaking of DDOSing SC0...
Someone beat us to it
Jaysyn
There is a war going on for your mind.
SCO's MIT mathematicians go AWOL
e rnment/legalissues/story/0,10801,81973,00.html
SCO said, they had three teams, including a team from MIT math department, examine their "proof" of UNIX code improperly in Linux
1. No such team could be found at MIT. And SCO are back tracking on this claim.
http://www-tech.mit.edu/V123/N33/33sco.33n.html
2. Here is an example quote that SCO made about MIT math involvement:
http://www.computerworld.com/governmenttopics/gov
SCO was able to uncover the alleged violations by hiring three teams of experts, including a group from the MIT math department, to analyze the Linux and Unix source code for similarities. "All three found several instances where our Unix source code had been found in Linux," said a SCO spokesman.
...that discusses getting preliminary injunctions against them, you can go here.
Time is what keeps everything from happening all at once.
Basic stock trading lesson: When you short sell a stock, you essentially borrow the stock at its current price, with the understanding that at a particular time, you will buy it back at whatever price. If the stock goes down, you make money (because you borrowed at the higher valuation.) However, if the stock rises, then you have to buy it at the current valuation, and thus you lose money.
It's risky because if you do a regular trade, the most you can lose is what you paid for the stock. When you short, there is no theoretical limit as to how high the stock can go, therefore no limit as to how much you could lose. (Yes, I am aware of "put" options that can be used like an insurance against losing too much money.)
Overrated / Underrated : Moderation
SCO stock is non marginable.
you can't sell it short.
Uh, wrong. It'a a $5/30% issue, which could be quite profitable to short at it's present (~$15/share) price. Be sure to have enough cash on hand to make sure you don't get caught by a short squeeze (and make sure you understand what a short squeeze is) before you try it. Do the math (fire up gnumeric or open office) and be sure you understand what will happen to your position under various conditions (like, what if it shoots up to $20 in a day? $25?) know what your plan is for these sorts of situations before you start.
Happy hunting!
-- MarkusQ
P.S. Don't be put off by the "shorting is un-american" blather. We need a healthy market, not another bubble. That means we need a market in which solid issues rise and the crap gets driven into the basement as quickly as posible. The people who equate unfettered growth of every moronic company that pimps their stock with health are either stupid, working on commission, or both.
The proper term for promising Legal action and not doing it is Barratry..
r y
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=barrat
Whereas ERS promising that if certain action is not stopped that SCO and McBride wil face legal consequences is a perfect legal statement to make in that it does not open OSI or ESR to any other liabilities..
as it stands Now any Linux User not charged by SCO Group has the right to ask the court to convict SCO group on Barratry charges..
Don't Tread on OpenSource
His question, which was a good one, is why short sellers would close out their positions over the last week. The basic gist was that a short squeeze wasn't a likely cause of the recent SCOX runup (with which I agree).
Also, it's a call option that would provide some protection for the short seller. It guarantees a set purchase price that they can use in the event of a rapid rise in the stock they've shorted.
Stop by my site where I write about ERP systems & more
We have made fun of such claims, but we haven't seen the contracts.
Their complaint included a side letter amending the contract between IBM and AT&T/SCO/whoever, to the effect that IBM owns what IBM writes. SCO is DOA.
"that's not encryption - it's a new perl script that I'm working on..." - from some Matrix parody
Huh?
You're welcome to debate the merits of private and public health care in Canada. Write a letter to the editor. Hold a peaceful protest somewhere. Talk about it in a bar.
The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees explicitly "freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;" (Section 2(b) of the Charter).
Mind, the Charter does contain restrictions and exceptions (Section 1 specifies "The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.", and Section 33 aka the "Notwithstanding Clause".) The U.S. Supreme Court also recognizes that there are tolerable restrictions on free speech in the United States--that doesn't make the First Amendment moot.
~Idarubicin
ESR is mistaken about the origin of OpenServer.
There are actually four SCO UNIXes, not two:
1. The original Xenix, which was based on Version 7 UNIX, and had three major releases. This is the version Microsoft sold.
2. The second generation of Xenix, which based on the first commercial AT&T UNIX source trees (System III and System V).
3. SCO UNIX, which came out at the same time as Microport, Interactive, and the other early System V i386 ports (System V revision 2), and was mostly based on the same code base (SVR1, SVR2, SVR3).
4. Unixware, which was the Novell SVR4 port.
The Version 7 and System III code bases were primarily maintained on the 16-bit PDP-11. The 80286 actually provided a larger and in some ways more powerful environment than the code SCO started with. Xenix was the premier small business UNIX port for many years, and the early SCO and Microsoft developers did a very good job taming and stabilizing their system.
The most common platform for Microsoft Xenix was not the PC, it was the TRS-80 model 16, a cheaply built (even in comparison with the PC) 68000-based "all-in-one" computer with a built-in keyboard and monochrome text display. At one point there were more people using Xenix on the TRS-80 than all the other UNIX platforms put together.
He's right that none of this qualifies SCO's product as an "enterprise" system, but it has a better and more complex history than he's presenting.
I believe that the Northumbria story there is number 306 in the list of "names which former polytechnics considered but which turned out to be a bit rude when abbreviated, tee hee". There's more of those than there are ex-poly universities in the UK, and I don't think any student of these matters would consider any of them to be more than urban legend. Let me guess, a friend told you that they'd heard that...?