Slashdot Mirror
SGI Compares Linux & System V Source Code
mrgoatCEO writes "It seems SGI has finished up their test comparing SCO's Unix System V code and that of the Linux Kernel, according to ITWorld. SGI found that any similarities between the systems (amounting to only about 200 lines of code) have been removed in Linux Kernel 2.4.22, and added that the similarities were 'trivial in amount.'" This follows moves by SCO to terminate SGI's Unix license.
Keep a watch on those stock prices and insider trades. Its not like they are even trying to hide it any more.
No suprise here. We all know that SCO is on a witch hunt, the question that still confuses me is WHY?
"It's better to be a pirate then join the Navy"
shall set Linux free!! ... and make SCO look like a bunch of assholes. Time to dump that SCO stock if you had made a quick buck on it!
--------
Free your mind.
... and it seemed to identify some things. However, as the article says, there is much that could possibly be in the code that violates copyrights that couldn't be picked up by something such as that. Honestly, how do you compare something like that? Sure, you could have a group of real humans compare the code, but that will be subjective... certainly whoever compares it is going to be looking at things from their own point of view. The problem is, there are very few neutral people towards this issue that would know how to compare such a thing. (Arguably, there are just as few on SCO's side :-)
SGI:Hello SCO!
SCO:Hello.
SGI:We have just one word for you.
SCO:And that would be?
SGI:OWNZOR!!
SCO:D'oh!
Note, the above has been checked against the Linux kernel and System V source and it matches neither. (You hear that down there in Salt Lake City?)
Try to hack my 31337 firewall!
SCO said that there are still unpatched systems that are running with the "benefit" of those lines of code. Shouldn't that be "weighted down" or "burdened" insetad.?
Engineering and the Ultimate
So, SGI has something we've all been wanting access to, essentially the System V Source. They run a check against the Linux kernal for infingement and only tell us a summary of their findings? Why can't they be more specific? Why can't they say lines 100-110 of module X in Y in the linux kernal came up infringing. They don't have to reveal any "sco owned" code, just what is already opened sourced on the Linux side. I'm I missing something?
"To lead the people, you must walk behind them"
I can understand why SCO is pissed at SGI but is it financially a good decision to terminate SGI's license? SCO is going to lose the case, be out of a lot of money and lose a substantial customer.
Did Linus know what he was talking about when he said SCO is smoking crack?
Not everything is analogous to cars. Car analogies rarely work.
First and foremost, it's good to be kept honest -- having other people's IP slipped into your codebase by well-meaning (or otherwise) people is a risk in all development projects. At least with OSS, a company can find the code and get it removed; someday, this will probably be used by a company acting in good faith (as opposed to SCO).
Second, it'll be nice to have the GPL tested out in court if for no other reason than the ability to point to it and say "it's been tested, it stands up". Given that a lot of important development in the next 10-15 years will be utilizing the GPL as Free-as-in-Speech products slowly displace proprietary fundementals like operating systems, it's important to the industry in general to work out any "bugs" in the GPL and get a prescident established sooner than later.
And hey, it'll be nice to see McBride brought up on those fraud charges, too -- you can't defraud your investors like this and expect to skate unless you're buddies with the guy in the White House, after all.
Every year during my review, I just pray the words "slashdot.org" aren't mentioned.
Copyright law allows for reasonable copying, e.g., a few pages from a book. So surely 200 lines of code out of millions would simply be laughed out of court?
Can someone please tell me what SCO really stands for? No I don't mean their morals, which may appear to some untrained observers as unprincipled extortion. I mean does anyone have any good expansion of the initials SCO?
"This comparison revealed a few examples of line-by-line copying, but did not determine whether the code was owned by SCO or in the public domain."
If Comparator were run against the appropriate *BSD (AT&T public source, right?) I wonder how many of offending script segments would be taken as not SCO's/SysV.
We here have reviewed you claims and have come to the following conclusions:
I used to wonder what was so holy about a silent night, now I have a child.
So SGI ran Eric's program that makes MD5 sums from a source file - why not release those sums so people can do independant analysis? (I can just imagine SCO's lawyers reving up ... "your honor it's a derived work", "we own those numbers" ...)
This shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone. The more interesting point is what is SCO's next move. I guess it's important to realize that when your selling point is FUD, facts aren't a HUGE hurdle. Just ignore them and put out more FUD.
I think this is the perfect time for a "big player" to file a countersuit (SGI, IBM). It's possible that the PR tide (not on slasdhot, but on "gasp" real media) could now turn.
The safest way to approach lava is to have another person with you and he goes first.
Now publish the questionable ~200 lines of code to replace, let us replace them and be done with it!!!
SGI found that any similarities between the systems (amounting to only about 200 lines of code) have been removed in Linux Kernel 2.4.22, and added that the similarities were 'trivial in amount.'" In a related study, Scientists find that the moon orbits the Earth.
10 Bits= $.25
100 Bits= $.50
110 Bits= $.75
1000 Bits= 1 byte
Dear Design Pattern,
They just implemented the java.util.Comparator interface.
Love,
Los Lobos
- The point of SGI's comparison was to search for any potential matches between Unix System V and any contributions that SGI made to the Linux kernel, not to vet the software for the entire community, Estes said in an interview. "We are not making any kind of representation at all about anybody else's contributed code," he said.
So SCO could still potentially be right in saying that IBM submitted a lot of Unix code into Linux.Curiously, because SGI has access to both codebases, and know how to run the Comparator, SGI probably has a good idea how many non-SGI violations are in the code (eg. the details may be complicated, but surely they can guess within an order of magnitude). So for now, it's IBM and SGI knowing and not telling, SCO knowing and saying as many ludicrous things as possible, and the rest of us left to speculate until this thing goes to court.
"sgi" Changelog information from the 2.4.22 kernel. : o ia64: ACPI fix for no PCI : o ia64: SGI SN update o ia64: SN2 update 030528 o ia64: SN2 update 030630 : o ia64: fix scratch-regs handling in kernel unwinder o ia64: unwind.c - allow unw_access_gr(r0) o ia64: Trivial stack-size correction in mca.c o ia64: mca rendezvous fix o ia64: Hold modlist_lock while searching exception tables o ia64: Handle SAL rejection of MCA rendezvous timeout value
I can't believe that anyone would think that ANY modern system would actually benefit from Unix System V code. Virtually everything can be done better, faster, cheaper, smaller, etc now than in the days that System V was written.
I wonder if SCO has a "printk" function. Maybe that's where all this crap comes up. doh.
"Champagne for my real friends - and real pain for my sham friends!" http://ericblade.postalboard.com/
The real-life usage meaning would be closer to the intended meaning here.
When I was younger and running my own buisness, my role models for conducting myself were my hard working immigrant parents.
They were courteous, fair, always did the right thing by the customer, even if it meant being honest and not recommending work that they didn't need.
The funny thing is, neither was a high school graduate, coming from the farmlands of Greece, nor were they world-cultured, but they were honest.
It's becoming increasingly difficult to find people in buisness who earn honestly and don't have that "I have to gouge out your eyes before you screw me" buisness deal mentality.
Makes 'ya kinda sad; well me anyways.
Step 1: Create awesome and secure OS ... no, wait ... multi-billion dollar loss as a result of "no way in hell are we going to win this" lawsuits ...
Step 2: License said OS
Step 3: Accuse others of license infringement
Step 4: Profit
topreacher@signature.slashdot.org 1% rm -rf sig
I just called Geico and saved a bundle on my auto insurance!
didn't we see this story on friday??
We're like rats, in some experiment! -- George Costanza
I was just wondering, what kind of metrics do they use when comparing source codes... I mean, identical lines are pretty uncommon, but there might be other "similar" code lines in the 120 MB unarchived source code of the linux kernel/SCO kernel.
On the other hand, it's pretty hard to define a Hamilton metric that should be "unpartial" in this case. I think that it might easily reveal that "i++;" is stolen from SCO...
Alexandru
This is a report about SGI's open letter and SCO's response previously discussed on /.
/. makes a SCO news, the whole thing would have ended this summer.
Will the similar news reports from all the other IT websites make it to the front page as well ? If Darl had to pay a dollar each time
In any case, the SCO-IBM comedy is already over.
"sgi" Changelog information from the 2.4.22 kernel.
jbarnes@sgi.com[helgaas]:
o ia64: ACPI fix for no PCI
jh@sgi.com[helgaas]:
o ia64: SGI SN update
o ia64: SN2 update 030528
o ia64: SN2 update 030630
kaos@sgi.com[helgaas]:
o ia64: fix scratch-regs handling in kernel unwinder
o ia64: unwind.c - allow unw_access_gr(r0)
o ia64: Trivial stack-size correction in mca.c
o ia64: mca rendezvous fix
o ia64: Hold modlist_lock while searching exception tables
o ia64: Handle SAL rejection of MCA rendezvous timeout value
Waddaya mean Linux v9??? You mean RedHat v9 or Mandrake v9? Linux itself (omitting obselete revs) is either 2.2, 2.4, or 2.6.
So SCO will still be spreading FUD and delaying lawsuits when Linux 9.0 comes out, with long-awaited time traveling capability? Sounds plausible to me!
"Neque enim lex est aequior ulla, quam necis artifices arte perire sua."
As to why, that's fairly easy. The price of their stock has skyrocketed since they started this fiasco. Stockholders who are selling off stock they bought a year ago are making money hand over fist. If they do eventually prove their case, every single linux supplier would have to either shut down, pay licensing fees , or quickly come up with a SCO-free distribution. It's all "Show me the money", and the longer they can keep the ball in the air, the more money they make.
Which brings me to my question. I've heard that in the US, there is the concept of the right to a speedy trial. In other words, they can't just hold things up forever. This SCO thing has been going on for quite a while now, and I don't think any of it has made it into a courtroom. What is the hold up? Why aren't IBM, Redhat, et al clammoring for a court date?
"I'm not impatient. I just hate waiting." - My Dad
Best Buy.
They have all the latest computer software!
Its my favorite place to go.
The 200 lines part refers only to SGI's contribution to the Linux kernel. A full (though automatic) comparison found several additional matches, though they decline to specify where and say they haven't investigated the origins of the code snippets to see if any are there illegally. It's understandable that SGI's immediate priority is to defend themselves, and not Linux as a whole.
The issue is that some of the contributors to the kernel DO work for companies that DO have access to SCO's source code. SGI and IBM are the top examples. In both cases, the legal departments of both companies HAVE been involved with most of the code that has been contributed. As SGI has already stated, a very small section of SYSV code HAD been inadvertantly added, and later removed.
2003 - 1986 = ???
Bank robbers nowdays, if they manage to get out of the bank with some money, almost always get caught.
I always think, "Wow! Who would be stupid enough to try to rob a bank anymore?"
Darl and his gang are simply pulling the stock market equivalent to robbing a bank. They'll make off with some money, but shortly afterward they'll get reeled in.
SCOX will get slammed once the clue hits the fan for the public here in a few months. Unlike Darl's Ikon lawsuit, which was an altogether different theft than this one, this robbery is right out in public view, and it's not going to go unnoticed.
Once the party is over and the SCOX investor dupes have lost their money, there will be shareholder suits against Darl and other executive and members of the board. There will be SEC investigations (that should have already begun, but public outcry haven't forced yet).
The good news for Darl, I guess, is that he'll manage to stash some of the loot for safe keeping, and the business world will forgive him so he can pull another stunt someday in the future.
We can only hope that he's barred from becoming an executive or board member of a publicly traded company in the future.
.sigs are for post^Hers.
I think a lot of readers have missed the business strategies behind this situation.
Personally, I think its one of the most brilliant exit strategies ever conceived! I didn't say it wasn't messy or the pissy way to go, but this IS an exit strategy in the works.
Even before the lawsuits, SCO was facing two prospects - either continue to lose market share and become irrelevant, or make some noise and see what happens.
They were forced into the latter, simply because they have to make bang for bucks to the officers, employees and stockholders of the company.
FACT: SCO's IP is worth something.
Even if they lose their suit, they wil have driven up the value of their IP - SOMEONE will aquire them. IBM? Probably not. Someone will.
Thanks for the old news. The Linux community has known for quite some time that there's no infringing code in Linux.
Those who invest in SCO haven't.
Why does SGI then release open letters addressed to the Linux community while SCO keeps spewing out financial press reports that are actually read by investors?
I would imagine that SGI had the resources to actually publish a press release while they are at it, but even after exhaustive thinking (I pondered for 37 seconds!) I couldn't come up with a reason why they are not bringing this to the knowledge of people who hold strings in their hands.
Could it be the knife going through the space-where-there-should-be-a-heart of SCO's legal case?
/. will seem like it is missing something without the daily SCO story.
Music to my ears, although
Seriously. I should've copyrighted "i++" a long time ago...
-
What I want to know is who is going to pay compensation for the damage don't to Linux and companies with Linux at the heart of their business model.
:|
Nobody I suppose
----
the best way i can think of to expand "arguably" is "one could make the case that".
This is typically used, as you say, by people expressing an opinion or viewpoint opposite their own as a means of contrast.
So SCO is terminating UNIX licenses left and right, but no one even notices. Can anyone point to any decrease in sales due to this with any affected vendor? Does this amount to the general opinion being set that SCO is now being ignored and good luck with enforcing any such lawsuit?
Is this meek whimper the final end of SCO?
Rule #1 -- Politics always trumps technology.
Posting AC since this is so off topic...
billy gates, sco: no difference.
Dogbert: I can't tell you my plans for the assets of this company...but it rhymes with 'village'.
Dilbert: I hope it's "fillage"...
Then in September SGI carried out its more comprehensive comparison. "SGI continued our investigation to determine whether any other code in the Linux kernel was even conceivably implicated," Altmaier states in the letter ....
...
This comparison revealed a few examples of line-by-line copying,
Not that there's much reason to think that SCO has anything meaningful with their claims
I am sorry for all the things I have said about you. I give it to you. You were right.
(Just in case slashdot gets sued for all the Anti-SCO posts)
SGI first reviewed its open source contributions earlier this summer, ....
Then in September SGI carried out its more comprehensive comparison. "SGI continued our investigation to determine whether any other code in the Linux kernel was even conceivably implicated," Altmaier states in the letter.
I have always taken it to mean that a reasonable case can be made.
Some people still don't get it.
What SGI found makes no difference. In the end it doesn't matter one bit if the Sys V code is the KJV of the holy bible and the Linux code is actually a Monty Python script in chinese.
None of this matters.
Why?
Get it thru your heads people, this is all about stock prices and what the executives can liquidate and move out of the country. They don't give a rats arse about collateral damage and the facts don't have a role in this game.
I've lived thru this before with Gulf Resources and the Bunker Hill Superfund.....believe me this is no different. It's all about a few people taking the money and laughing their way to some off shore bank.
Please do not let facts like this SGI thing distract you from the truth. Believe me, SCO isn't.
. Quit playing Monopoly with Bill. Switch to one of many non-Microsoft products today.
Arguably, either meaning is acceptable.
"A microprocessor... is a terrible thing to waste." --
GeneralEmergency
Originally SCO stood for "Santa Cruz Operation".
Eventually, SCO sold off its OS division, the one that made SCO UNIX and coincidentally happened at the time to own the original Unix copyrights (having bought them from Novell in 1995), to Caldera, a linux company. The remainder of what used to be SCO, the part Caldera didn't buy, is still operating under the name Tarantella.
Caldera, after buying SCO UNIX, changed its name to "The SCO Group." SCO doesn't stand for anything here. It's just "The SCO Group". Shortly after this the company's co-founder, Ransom Love, was replaced as CEO by Darl McBride, and SCO began to serve the Wyrm.
"The SCO Group" is owned by and has since Caldera's inception basically been under the auspices of an umbrella corporation called the Canopy Group. It has been repeatedly theorized that somewhere about the time McBride came in, the Canopy Group gave up on ever making any money ever again on Caldera's projects. Now, goes the theory, the Canopy Group is using the SCO group for no purpose other than as a front/shell company, so that the Canopy Group can engage in illegal but profitable enterprises such as slander, barratry, and fraud, and then when all hell breaks loose as a result and the countersuits start rolling in, "the SCO Group" gets all the blame and takes all the damage and quietly goes bankrupt, and the Canopy Group walks away scot-free.
Irritable, left-wing and possibly humorous bumper stickers and t-shirts
"You used a piece of software written by an open source advocate to determine the differences! Obviously it has bugs and missed several million lines of code! No, we won't show you. Just trust us!"
"It doesn't matter if the truth was there"
Johnny Cash - What is trutht?
IBM has access to System V source as well. They used it in AIX. I would bet a dollar to a doughnut that they have already gone through it and know if they will win or not and I do not see them backing down. This is all very sad for SCO. Get out while you can.
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
"sgi" Changelog information from the 2.4.22 kernel.
Just how many IA64 machines are there running Linux?
The Register has published several articles putting Itanium shipments in the thousands. Not all will be running Linux.
The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
Only an insane party would challenge the GPL under those terms. SCO has talked about it, but they haven't put any of those loony "legal theories" in any of their court filings, so far as I know.
Both Red Hat and IBM has accused SCO of copyright violations, because they have broken the terms of the GPL. I'd say it makes sense that those who think it has been broken (Red Hat and IBM) take it to court, rather than those that think it hasn't (SCO), wouldn't you?
Kjella
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
Please tell me there is a law against forcing higher stockprices based on FUD stories. Is there any justice in the world?
the similarities were 'trivial in amount.
I wonder what the people skewering SCO would say if, for instance, it turned out that Windows XP contained 200 lines of GPL'ed code. Would they be saying, "hell the difference is trivial, let MS take it out and we'll forget the whole deal " ? Or would they be saying, "licensing terms are licensing terms, and violations are violations, let's get everything we might be entitled to" ?
As most commonly used, "arguably" generally means "somebody might argue that..." A synonym might be "debatably." It is generally used when the writer wishes to acknowledge a particular point of view without endorsing it (or in preparation to demolishing it).
First, where did you get a copy of Linux 9? That's some pretty interesting insider work you got going and I'm sure even Linus would be surprised that you got a copy of that.
First of all, Linux is open source and SCO is not. So how can Linus developers see SCO's code besides using backing tools like decompilers?
Glad to see you've been paying attention.
IBM and SGI have access to SCO's code. What SCO's allegations are is that IBM (and if/when they sue SGI they'll say them too) has put SCO's code into linux. So there's a quite plausible way for the code to get into the kernel. Whether or not this involves malicious intent, who knows. Only IBM can really know it and if they are at fault, then so be it. However, SGI, who also has access to SCO's code, has stated that these allegations are shaky at best, and given SCO's consistent counterproductivity in getting this whole issue resolved already and their contradicting arguments and sound bytes upon sound bytes saying they never made the previous sound bytes (Darl McBride is doing an excellent job at munching on his foot) it looks like if they ever did have a leg to stand on, they've since lost it and can bloody well cope.
Karma: Non-Heinous
They count on saturday (1 loss and you're out of the 1 game playoff). Sunday you can lose 5-6 and still make the playoffs (I do prefer the NFL method personally, but I don't get to vote).
However, as the article says, there is much that could possibly be in the code that violates copyrights that couldn't be picked up by something such as that. Honestly, how do you compare something like that?
Haven't RTFA, but what I would do is iterate through each line of my code one by one. I would check to see if the same snippet of code has already been examined (e.g. a line of "i++;" might exist in many places and would only be checked once). I would then scan all of the alleged "source" code for this snippet. If found, I would document the line numbers and filenames where this code was found, and move on to the next line.
Then you sort things so that you hone in on the areas of the alleged "source" code where you have
more than one line number in a row cited. These are hotspots you want to check on first to look for code copying.
Then you'll have to go by the single-line references one by one and see if it's just a generic piece of code, or something that was likely copied, and then remove it and have someone implement something that does the same without looking at the offending source.
Wow. Some new humor on /. Kudos... I crapped my pants.
"My mother never saw the irony in calling me a son-of-a-bitch." - Jack Nicholson
I really can't believe the spin that is being put on this story. Essentially the story boils down to this: "we have looked at the *kernal* and found about 200 lines of offending code which have since been removed" - read - "we were sued for releasing copywrighted code under the gpl. We found 200 code lines we'll admit to and we're NOT TALKING ABOUT THE REST. We did it, we admit it, but we're not gonna admit to ALL of it until we hit court."
Can anyone see a big hook trolling for an out-of-court settlement? This a big neon "we're guilty as charged, can we negotiate" sign.
This does nothing but help SCO in the long run.
It doesn't matter what you wrap your emotions around, Reality is a brick wall specifically designed to scramble eggs
Now if SGI can prove that those 200 lines of codes are in public domain...
1f u c4n r34d th1s u r34lly n33d t0 g37 l41d
It probably depends on what SGI's license contract says and if there was a single one-time lump sum payment or if its a continual trickle of royalties. It it was a one-time lump sum, then SCO (or should I say SCO's predecessors Novell or Tarantula) already has the money and no extra revenue is coming in. This way, SCO can terminate the old license (for which they are not getting any more money anyway) and force SGI to re-license under a more lucrative scheme.
from the song "Pretty Boy Floyd" :
As through this life I travel
I've seen lots of funny men
Some will rob you with a six-gun
And some with a fountain pen...
Who bought sco sys v licenses except for SGI and IBM? I'm been searching on google but I can't find anything.
That sound you hear is the price of SCO shares plummeting.
"Curiosity killed the cat, but for a while I was a suspect."- Steven Wright
If I remember correctly, SCO only gets a small administrative fee (like 5%) of the royalties for pre-existing UNIX licensees, the other 95% go to Novell. So, the "old" UNIX licenses pay SCO almost nothing. But I think SCO gets to keep most of the money on the "new" licenses.
So, how can SCO convert the old licenses to money? They terminate them and force the customers to buy new licenses under more lucrative terms. But they can't just terminate without cause. They need a pretext. The "unauthorized transfer of code" provides just such a pretext.
It just hit me why SGI is important to SCOs' claims.
If the primary thrust of the SCO claims were on the IBM "leak" then only those kernal revisions affected by updates following the SCO-IBM code exchange would be affected. This would leave a huge number of kernal installations that "predate" the current kernal.
SGI has, in effect, with this press release given SCO a handle on those previous versions.
As I said before, this is only good for SCO and maybe the SGI lawyers who might get SGI off cheap while giving SCO what it really wants. Maybe mcbride is more devious than he looks.
It doesn't matter what you wrap your emotions around, Reality is a brick wall specifically designed to scramble eggs
When reviewing the SCO vs. Open Source situation, several elements need to be kept clear. Here are some simple rules:
1. Classify SCO news as rhetoric or legal. Most press is rhetoric only, very little actual changes to legal situation.
a. If rhetoric, compare against previous statements to see if new claim or re-hash / forking of previous rhetoric.
b. If re-hash / forking, compare if clarifies previous rhetoric or obfuscates rhetoric on a subject.
2. If legal, ask if purpose is to resolve dispute or lengthen proceedings.
a. If lengthens proceedings, determine if validity vs. delay factor.
SCO had only nebulous contract claims to derivative works on the thinnest of definitions in its lawsuit. SCO repeatedly blathers on and on over other issues that it has not yet added to the litigation. IBM raised the level of litigation with copyright and patent issues. IBM also raised the General Public License issue.
SCO has a long history of contentious statements about the GPL while continuing to use it to this very day. SCO showed a detailed knowledge of the GPL. SCO based their IPO on the GPL. SCO released several of their applications under the GPL. SCO still ships a large amount of GPL applications to improve the usability of their UNIX product. SCO cannot separate the validity of the GPL when legally disputing Linux and releasing Samba or any of several GNU applications. SCO cannot re-write their history before a court. Their SEC filings are public record, with the GPL included. It seems impossible for SCO to repudiate the GPL given they still have it as a core part of their business strategy. The actual filing of any attempt to invalidate the GPL would place SCO in direct conflict with all the filings that they made to the SEC. Even a win on a contractual basis would not invalidate the GPL, and SCO cannot hope to mount an effective legal challenge against the GPL.
SCO will attempt to stay in a high public profile and convert that into stock value for as long as they can. Possibly a buyout offer will come in to end the charade.
Ofcourse he can make generous donation to both political parties and keep the rest without any harm. Maybe run for president one day!!
I suspect SGI just wants to be left alone. They aren't in the best financial state at the time, so rather than waste time and effort on fighting SCO, they'll take the simpler, easier path. If times were different for SGI, who knows, maybe they'd be making a bigger stink about this too.
/. before. =)
IBM on the other hand, has plenty of resources to fight SCO, and pummel them into the ground... but that's been covered on
...if you ran the same "shred" approach against ye olde linux you would be able to determine identical MD5 segments, and so learn partially the sysv code. That might be treated as sneakily releasing code.
with that seemingly endless stream of phonIE corepirate nazi ?pr? ?firm? whore'sp00pIE that serves as "news".
there's no comparison. you can pretend some more if you want to, but it won't help.
the lights are coming up now. we're in crisis mode. get ready to see the light/join the planet/population rescue initiative.
consult with/trust in yOUR creator....
see you there.
Just because it supports our position doesn't mean that we should apply lower standards. SGI, please show us the source. If it is, as you say, all in the public domain, you have no reason not to.
>"Weiss praised the tack SGI has taken with its letter, saying that Altmaier's response has helped mitigate SCO's allegations. "I thought it was one of the best responses (to SCO) that I had seen. Instead of getting deeply offensive and heaping abuse on SCO, they took a more productive approach, attempting to see what the claims might be," he said.
I believe that it's completely the wrong approach. Why do SCO's job for them? Why validate their claims even to the extent of admitting that there might be something there to be refuted? Until SCO shows us the source, there is no case to answer. SGI's next move should be to send SCO a bill for doing their job for them.
Thirdly, is SCO really admitting that these are the only three pieces of code that are the same as (same as != copied from) System V? Really? 200 lines? They want $1300 per CPU (that's the long term price, $699 is the "sale price") for 200 lines of code? $6.50 per line?
Well, you heard it from them. Now, work out how many lines of code you have in the kernels that SCO sold for years, and send them your bill. $6.50 per line, per CPU.
If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
Lastest news... didn't know they invite people for meetings and then kick them out of the building. The Register
Argument = Reasons to support a conclusion
able = can do.
arguably = The said conclusion can be supported by arguemnts.
make sense?
Way off-topic, but how can an un-rated comment be 'Overrated'? I'd think it would be used for something at +5 interesting that really isn't. Maybe the moderator missed, but I think this and 'Redundant' are the most useless moderations.
Perhaps they are afraid of further "publication" of SCO code? In that case perhaps they could simply say, "In module foo.c we found some duplicative lines. Note that they were NOT in lines 1-156 or 172-5000." (where the foo.c is assumed to contain 5000 lines)
McFly777
- - -
"What do people mean when they say the computer went down on them?" -Marilyn Pittman
...we will be reading news about the SCO and Canopy bigwigs beginning to stab each other in the back, next.
Problems like this can and should be solved with violence. Besides we need a new reality tv show. Lets put SCO, IBM, and SGI officals in a house and the last one to get voted out wins the system V code. Oh and Ted Nugent should be there.
Good!
I don't know if anyone has noticed, but 2.4.22 runs a whole lot better without the alleged System V code. I've noticed performance has picked up tremendously. Leave it up to the open source community to outdo the proprietary community.
So how many major companies currently have access to the SYSV source? So far, IBM is standing up to SCO. HP will indemnify it's Linux users, which implies that they don't believe that SCO has a case. (I doubt they did this w/o comparing the sources, plus it's a slap in the face to SCO since you don't need to spend protection money from them, if you bought HP.) Now we had a *third* SYSV code holder, SGI, saying that it's no big deal. How many are required before all the holders of the code except SCO are supporting Linux? Who would like to be the next SYSV code holder to step up to the plate? Is there an educational instution with license?
I am, and always will be, an idiot. Karma: Coma (mostly effected by
We can compare code all day long. The fact that there are similarieties doesn't say anything on who wrote the code.
Luckily SGI have only found few similar lines that could be open to dispute. But even so, SCO will proclaim those few similarities a great vicorty without proving that it actuall is their code.
The result of all this, is probably just a press release from ths SCO information minister, helping him to pump and dump his stock.
God is REAL! Unless explicitly declared INTEGER
http://saveie6.com/
A: Because you're a fucking anal-retentive nerd.
Of course, Linux users shouldn't have to make such comparisons at all--SCO should just come forth with concrete cases of infringement. However, as long as SGI is trying to make the argument, they have to do a little more: they need to carry out the same comparison with some historical versions of UNIX as well (earlier releases of System V, V7 UNIX, etc.). Otherwise, SCO will just claim that their similarities are from a different version.
However, this doesn't get at another important part of SCO's argument at all. In addition to specific instances of alleged verbatim copying, SCO also seems to claim that basically anybody that ever looked at UNIX source code is creating a derivative work when they work on any operating system. Preposterous as that may sound, there is actually ample precedent for those kinds of claims.
So, it's good for efforts like SGI's to eat away at SCO's claims, but there is still a lot more to go if we want to actively defend ourselves against the kinds of nebulous and unspecific claims SCO is making.
If those code was removed/rewritten with no loss of functionality in further versions, exactly how much benefit could they be? By definition if you remove something and nobody misses it, then it provides no valuable benefit!
And certainly, a snippet of code you can remove does not contain the requisite "magic" to transform an OS from rags to riches, which is what SCO claims.
Why is it that only us geeks are able to see the SCO garbage as garbage?
I'd think even PHBs should be able to understand that "Less than .01% of code has possibly been included from source that is possibly proprietary, and all or most of it has since been removed or rewritten with no loss of functionality" means that what little common code there might have been had no real value to begin with and that SCO's claim are completely bogus!
I guess I'm overestimating the ability of PHBs to fire their neurons in a coherent pattern.
-- MG
1. You're talking about RedHat 9, which is based upon Linux 2.4, not Linux 9, which won't come out until some time in the 2010s or even 2020s.
2. Some Linux developers at SGI and IBM may, MAY have had access to Sys V code under a license from SCO.
3. Meaningless. They're not talking about drivers.
4. No, actually SCO's trying to be enough of a pest for either MS to buy them out to continue the pestering, or IBM to buy them out and shut them up.
get another decent Linux systems intergrator / reseller.
Why not? Clearly SCO is no longer on their radar. Somebody needs to go see this guy and find out what they can do for their business using Open Source tools.
Lots of potential customers to convert and service. Maybe this is not a bad thing for the reseller.
Blogging because I can...
[Dogbert the investment banker to CEO]: "I can help you loot this place and escape."
"The good reader is a rarer swan than the good writer."
I need glasses...
is American "justice" in action. Standard procedure for an big American company to start suing people/companies they did business with.
How could the burden of proof not be on the allegating party? That's the main point people ahould keep hammering on. It's easily forgotten when one party starts acting guilty.
/admitted/ at least a subset of the claims. Throw that at a clueless person et voila their "two parties/two at fault" instinct takes over at best or they'll swallow it whole at worst.
SGI's attempts at "migitating" might be considered an admission and that's just what SCO wants. That's why they go after SGI at this stage. SGI hasn't got very big pockets I believe so there you go. They're afraid they can't beat SCO.
Perhaps SGI should have just shut up but I think the risk was too high. Sure they could sue for damages after SCO revokes licence, basically shutting them down, but what worth is that when you're in chapter 12 already. They hardly deserve praise though, they
SGI should perhaps have played victim and touted its (own) XFS as a much bigger booster for Linux than any 70s relics rebranded as SCO code have done. If anything they *are* the victim here anyway and as such deserve compassion not blame, but certainly no praise either IMHO.
As a couple of other folks have pointed out, any sort of publication of the specific lines in question has the effect of proving SCO's case for them. SCO claims that SGI (and IBM) have *illegally disclosed* SCO IP by incorporating the code into Linux. Publishing the supposedly SCO proprietary lines would be just as illegal.
On the other hand, SGI may have a really interesting strategy behind their announcement. By saying they have rigorously compared the Linux kernel source to SCO's System V source and only found a trivial amount of overlap which they are doing everything in their power to remedy, SGI has raised the stakes to SCO. SCO has to come back with either agreeing that this is the extent of SGI's transgression or they have to further define/identify what SGI code is the problem. Either way, SCO is in a "put up or shut up" situation with regard to SGI.
You have to look at this in the context of the larger issues involved. SCO is trying to assert ownership of a bunch of Linux/AIX/Irix that was created independently by a number of different authors by claiming things like JFS, XFS, NUMA, etc. are derivative works. SGI has just said that there is a little bit of System V code in the Linux source tree and it has since been removed. They want to get SCO to tip their hand by "fessing up" to claiming things like XFS. This is the main issue and the sooner IBM, SGI, et al get it on the table the sooner the real battle can begin.
They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither safety nor liberty.
Ben
http://www.allowe.com/h-SwitchLinux.htm
20031006
I have been using YYYYMMDD for a few years. It is becoming acceptable in the US. If someone sees an eight-digit number that start with "200", they assume it is a date, especially if the context supports it, such as on checks. Just remember to always zero fill the month and the day.
2003-10-06
The dashes do save the brain from a moment's work. Maybe I will switch.
I do not understand why anything that has a possible global audience (such as anything on the internet) does not use a date format that is understandable by the entire audience.
I spend my life entertaining my brain.
Ferme ton bouche, osti!
Is it plagiarism to use the same typeface when printing books nowadays?
Coding styles are similar, and given a large enough sample of data the statistical chance increases of similarities.
Next SCO will sue mathematics since somewhere in the sequence of numbers in pi they will find their entire kernel source.
Thank you. I never took the time to see if anybody else was using the format. I used it. People understood it. It was better than what I was taught. I trained myself to always use it.
Around 1996 I was marking computer file names (specifically my resume and backups of programs in development) with the date. I switched to year first so they would sort correctly. I was working on international projects. Once I realized other people had no problems interpreting them, I started using them everywhere. In early 1999, I started using a 4-digit year to avoid the Y2K issue, and I have not written a digit-only date in any other format since then. (My resume's cover letter does contain the "Month D, YYYY" at the top.)
Using this format does generate converstaion. People usually start with "That's different, but logical. Does everybody understand it?" Now I can say it is a standard and point to ISO 8601. Thank you.
---
To the grandparent post, I am in the US, but I started using this format because I was working internationally. People in the US assume MM-DD-YYYY, but several of my programs are used globally, and the use of this format saves much confusion. I convinced management that this format would be good when we had a major issue about a deadline of 4-6-2000 involving some Europeans.
I spend my life entertaining my brain.
I read that article this morning. I am not sure the author really understands the technology change that is happening right now.
You see, people are beginning to understand that they can create much of the software they need on their own. This realization beginning with Stallman and has resulted in the body of software commonly known as Open Source or Free Software today.
SCO seeks to take control of that body and license it. Those that are currently in the big software business favor this action because it means they will be able to continue to charge people for the ability to perform basic computing tasks.
The reality is simple: We no longer have to pay for much of the software we use because its construction and distribution are both common knowledge and dirt cheap. Do we pay large amounts every year for other technologies that are mature and proven? No. Computing is no different.
Open Source software is disruptive in a big way right now and this SCO spat is not going to do much to change that in the longer term. Why? Because the software all of us have written (me included) is ours and not theirs.
The price for use? Zero + the cost of distribution. The price for use in a product? A requirement that you share your improvements + cost of getting the software to work from. Or, one could pay for the right to commercialize the software and go from there.
This is the part that companies don't like. They want to package, change and manupulate the software to further their goal of making money. BSD software has always allowed this, but Open Source / Free Software does not. (Damn good thing too.)
Will Open Source software remove a billion dollar revenue source from the industry? No. What it will do is redistribute that revenue source across the industry and that is a good thing.
Right now companies, like Microsoft, seek to bundle, intergrate and manupulate their software in ways that people must pay for. The bigger the bundle, the better the lock-in, the more money they make. This is not a bad thing provided we have choice in the matter, but choice breaks the business model now doesn't it? Why? Because choice lowers the overall value of the bundle. If we can choose our own OS, Word Processor, e-mail clients and such what value does the Microsoft bundle have for example?
It would have considerably more value in my mind, if it were open to other solutions, but it is not. Why again? Because that is just hard to do. Cookie cutter does not work because everyone does things just a bit differently.
Their solution? Get all of us to just accept the cookie cutter method, collect enough cash to cover damage control and keep on working each year to keep enough of us happy that the other problems can be dismissed.
No fucking thanks!
What if one does not want to run Office or win32? Should they not be allowed to compute how they want to? If they cannot, what incentive does Microsoft have to act in their best interests? Afterall, the only real check on the power of their monopoly is Open Source / Free Software.
That article represents some of the best FUD surrounding this issue right now. Companies say they need the freedom to innovate. (Read, combine software in ways that force us to pay more.)
Companies say they will lose revenue. (Is this a bad thing? Should we pay for something we no longer need to pay for year after year because it is just part of the package?)
Companies say the OSS / FSF folks have copied and distributed their software. (Really, we have checked and removed the bits we know of. Will they allow us to do the same?)
I started using Open Source software around the Red Hat 5.1 days. It has grown far since then. It has grown more than any other form of software has in a shorter time frame. OSS works and works well.
Today, I run OSS / FS almost everywhere. I no longer pay for the following tasks:
Word processing / general office
e-mail (Both
Blogging because I can...
I had never heard of Citadel. The function list sounds like Lotus Notes without rapid application development, or any development environment for that matter, although the homepage says Citadel can be used as a datastore for applications. And Citadel has native ability for accessing file systems. Thanks for the link. I may install and review it.
Open Source replacements for Lotus Notes try to recreate all the functionality while keeping all the flaws, similar to Linux windows managers trying to become MSWindows, although at least the WMs include improvements like multiple desktops. Citadel is open source and includes most of the functionality of Lotus Notes. If someone created a development environment that followed the patterns used in LN, it might serve as a complete replacement. Of course, I have not installed Citadel yet, so it is possible that the architecture makes it completely inappropriate for this.
Do you have any experience with the Citadel developers? They ask for "small patches". Any chance they would add a major enhancement, or would it be better as a separate project?
---
About the Flamebait:
I probably should have put the first line in parantheses. I thought the parent post was quoting somebody and forgot to turn off the italics. Since it is standard to put quotes from other posts in italics, I thought a gentle reminder would be OK. I was not posting just to complain; I really expected a +1 Funny if it was modded at all.
I changed my sig because my 120th post was the first to be modded down, and I felt it was incredibly funny that the post was modded "flamebait" while talking about sun power. OTOH, I have been getting moderator points 2 or 3 times per week, and I have not received any mod points since that post. Or it could just be that the Slashdot system has been changed, since the "Quote of the Hour" has not changed in 2 days.
I spend my life entertaining my brain.
The Commercial Society of Rumourmongers
Thank you. You saved me some research time.
Yes, the Notes client has always been graphical, even in the 80s. The screen shots you linked do not express the power of Notes in a corporate environment. Today I prefer it for rapid development for web applications, although the client is still useful. Notes has the ability to consistently deploy secure and distributed applications with less than one week from idea to use.
I am designing a new platform, but I am starting by not trying to build a direct replacement for Notes. The new platform will have a superset of the features of Notes. We can write converters that can move Notes applications to the new system, rather than build something that uses the Notes file formats directly.
I sometimes hope to find an open source project that can be used as the base for the new system. From the text list of functions, Notes does everything Citadel does, so Citadel would have filled many of the functions needed for the replacement. I accept that the architecture is too different.
I spend my life entertaining my brain.