Slashdot Mirror


Red Hat Cornering SCO in Delaware

LordNite writes "There is a great article over at Groklaw on the latest motion in the RedHat's Delaware suit. RedHat has filed for the start of discovery. Looking at the list of documents RH is requesting it looks like SCO will finally have to come clean. Naturally SCO is trying to stall. It looks like the beginning of the end of this whole mess." The faster this can get into court and be over, the better.

356 comments

  1. Linux Lottery? by taviso · · Score: 4, Interesting

    45. All documents concerning a Linux Lottery or the phrase the "Linux Lottery'.

    Thats a new one on me, anyone have any clue where this phrase comes from or what it means..why are RH interested in it?

    --
    ex$$
    1. Re:Linux Lottery? by taviso · · Score: 4, Informative

      Ahh, Found the answer in a court transcript, here.

      In sum, SCO's campaign is designed both to slow the growth of
      LINUX, and to reverse its failing fortunes by convincing LINUX users
      that they need to pay SCO a license fee to use the lower-cost LINUX
      operating system. As SCO's own representatives have proclaimed, if SCO
      is successful at this effort, it can add "billions" of dollars in
      undeserved revenues to its declining bottom line. Additionally, SCO's
      campaign is designed to further what, upon information and belief, has
      been referred to as the "LINUX Lottery" -- the ability to reap personal
      profit by carefully timed purchases of SCO stock.

      --
      ex$$
    2. Re:Linux Lottery? by TechnoVooDooDaddy · · Score: 1

      wooo... SCO's toast... the judge is certain to frown on stuff like "Linux Lottery"

    3. Re:Linux Lottery? by Gzip+Christ · · Score: 3, Funny
      Ahh, Found the answer in a court transcript, here.
      Damn. I was hoping it was this type of lottery. Oh well - in that case, I'm no longer rooting for Darl to win.


      --------
      The fake Gzip Christ isn't not user number ~0xA6CA7

    4. Re:Linux Lottery? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      SCO won't give away any such documents, lest they be wanting to avoid dropping their soaps for a while (Or am I wrong?).

      Oh, and: In Delaware USA, Red Hat corners SCO!
      /me is shot by downmodding /. power monkeys

    5. Re:Linux Lottery? by hey · · Score: 2, Funny

      There's a new Slashdot trick.
      Pose and interesting question (+5 interesting)
      then answer it (+5 informative).

    6. Re:Linux Lottery? by BOFHelsinki · · Score: 0

      Are those the MD5 checksums?

    7. Re:Linux Lottery? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      hmm, now i found that funny

    8. Re:Linux Lottery? by LarsWestergren · · Score: 1

      Here is hoping they all win the grand prize: jailtime for fraud!

      --

      Being bitter is drinking poison and hoping someone else will die

    9. Re:Linux Lottery? by Cpt_Kirks · · Score: 1

      Ah, yes.

      Karma Whoring at it's finest!

    10. Re:Linux Lottery? by Bombcar · · Score: 1

      You know, that link made me think..... they should have Karma for Anonymous Coward. You could use it to gauge the troll activity at any given time, perhaps.......

      Karma Whores for AC!

    11. Re:Linux Lottery? by lawpoop · · Score: 1

      How did RH find out about the "linux lottery"?

      --
      Computers are useless. They can only give you answers.
      -- Pablo Picasso
    12. Re:Linux Lottery? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Cool idea!

    13. Re:Linux Lottery? by QuackQuack · · Score: 1

      What are the chances that SCO would actually fork over any such "Linux Lottery" documents even if they do exist? They would show criminal intent, much worse than the civil charges they currently face.

      --
      By reading this sig, you agree to the terms of my sig license.
    14. Re:Linux Lottery? by coolgeek · · Score: 1

      I'd invest some dollars in ensuring that outcome.

      --

      cat /dev/null >sig
    15. Re:Linux Lottery? by cdrudge · · Score: 1

      I had a teacher that made us read that story in the 6th grade. She was a weird one.

      For those who are to lazy to read the story, every head of house draws a slip of paper from a box. All the slips are blank with the exception of one that has a black dot. The family that chose the paper with the black dot all have to draw slips of paper, one of which also has a black dot. The one who gets the black dot gets stoned to death by the rest of the town.

    16. Re:Linux Lottery? by BOFHelsinki · · Score: 0

      Too bad you didn't have a spare mod point to help me out of the "Score: 0" purgatory where my obscure sense of humour has taken me ;-)

  2. it's happening again.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    feel the wrath of slashdot...

  3. SCO does'nt seem to be in a hurry by gokulpod · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The article mentions that SCO is trying to stall as much as possible. Probably the executives at Santa Clara have'nt sold off all their shares yet. Once that is done, you can be sure to see the cases flying off the shelves.

    --
    My mom never taught me to sign.
    1. Re:SCO does'nt seem to be in a hurry by mst76 · · Score: 3, Insightful
      The article mentions that SCO is trying to stall as much as possible. Probably the executives at Santa Clara have'nt sold off all their shares yet. Once that is done, you can be sure to see the cases flying off the shelves.
      Also, McBride will get a large payoff if he manages to get 4 consecutive profitable quarters. He only has 2 more to go.
    2. Re:SCO does'nt seem to be in a hurry by Frodo420024 · · Score: 1
      Also, McBride will get a large payoff if he manages to get 4 consecutive profitable quarters. He only has 2 more to go.

      In stock options, that is. He'll need a bit more time to excercise those and then sell the resulting stock. Another 2Q's, I guess.

      --
      I'm in a Unix state of mind.
    3. Re:SCO does'nt seem to be in a hurry by Arker · · Score: 1

      Santa Clara? I can see someone hasn't been keeping up with the soap opera very well.

      TSG (The SCO Group) is based in Utah. The real SCO was the Santa Cruz Organisation, but they sold the name, along with their crusty ancient Unix branch, to Caldera Linux, which then changed their name to TSG and took to referring to themselves as SCO. These are the morons we're talking about. The Santa Cruz Organisation then renamed themselves Tarantella and concentrated on the remaining parts of their business - the ones that still produce products people will actually buy without being threatened.

      --
      =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
      Friends don't let friends enable ecmascript.
    4. Re:SCO does'nt seem to be in a hurry by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Probably the executives at Santa Clara

      Ummm...you meant Lindon, right? SCO sold the operating systems divisons to Caldera (and presumably the SCO moniker), and changed their name to Tarantella in 2001.

      Tarantella History

    5. Re:SCO does'nt seem to be in a hurry by BOFHelsinki · · Score: 0

      Wasn't the "O" for "Operation", not "Organisation"?

    6. Re:SCO does'nt seem to be in a hurry by Rogerborg · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      Oh hush, don't bring tedious old facts into this. Next you'll be claiming that BSODs only happen once in a blue moon in WinXP, you crazy man!

      --
      If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
    7. Re:SCO does'nt seem to be in a hurry by dubious9 · · Score: 1

      Actually, I don't think SCO stock is going to collapse immediately. Many of the people who bought SCO stock in the past few month were shorting it. The idea is somebody promises you the right to sell a stock at a the current price. If the price falls, you short it and pocket the difference.

      But if the stock is saturated with shorts because everybody thinks it will go down, then poeple won't sell because they are waiting for the price to go down.

      Then all it takes is one big sell, like one of the execs selling offs. Then shorts all see the downward movement and dump all at once. But basically stock price gets very unpredicable when a stock is extremely overvalued.

      --
      Why, o why must the sky fall when I've learned to fly?
    8. Re:SCO does'nt seem to be in a hurry by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And who'll buy those shares?

    9. Re:SCO does'nt seem to be in a hurry by -tji · · Score: 1

      Santa Clara? Do you mean Santa Cruz?

      If so, SCO bears little resemblance to "The Santa Cruz Operation". That group lives on as Tarantella. What is now called SCO is mostly the former Caldera, and is based out of Utah.

    10. Re:SCO does'nt seem to be in a hurry by rifter · · Score: 1

      Santa Clara? I can see someone hasn't been keeping up with the soap opera very well.

      TSG (The SCO Group) is based in Utah. The real SCO was the Santa Cruz Organisation, but they sold the name, along with their crusty ancient Unix branch, to Caldera Linux, which then changed their name to TSG and took to referring to themselves as SCO. These are the morons we're talking about. The Santa Cruz Organisation then renamed themselves Tarantella and concentrated on the remaining parts of their business - the ones that still produce products people will actually buy without being threatened.

      I think you left out the part where a bunch of lawyers from Canopy took over Caldera. Ransom Love was the last Linux-friendly CEO there, and even then he and prior management of Caldera had a very odd view of Linux. Cladera has always been the "proprietary Linux," and even under his watch the GPL was violated by trying to charge per seat connection licenses to connect to a Linux server. It was also during Love's administration that the Linux Kernel Personality came about and he publicly said they were trying to merge UNIX and Linux together.

      Nevertheless, the current round of execs are all very new and by their own admission when they first took over they began looking for ways to "maximise the value of their Intellectual Property holdings" eg look for ways to sue the crap out of people. That is the sole purpose of Darl McBride and company. They have no idea about the actual technology involved, or the traditions, nor do they care. They are only interested in performing some cheap tricks so they can get a rise out of the stock, dump all they can and sail away in a golden parachute when it is all done. They are the epitomy of the evil corporate exec that is the real source of ruin in our economy.

    11. Re:SCO does'nt seem to be in a hurry by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      yeah..thats what i meant..sorry for the confusion.

      gokul

  4. Red Hat by micaiah · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Sure, Red Hat has a vested interest in defending Linux, however, there are more companies like Suse, who could take up the fight, but aren't. Kudos to Red Hat. This is one reason why I still buy and support Red Hat.

    1. Re:Red Hat by Xanthian · · Score: 3, Informative

      Suse has already openly supported RH's direction. I'm sure one of the reasons they're not more active in the fight is that SCO has already been stopped in Germany.

    2. Re:Red Hat by nutshell42 · · Score: 3, Insightful
      SuSE's a European company and afaik in most countries here there are injunctions in effect preventing SCO from FUD-spamming like they do in the US.

      Why should SuSE do the work for Red Hat when Red Hat's twice as big and much more dependant on the American market (also afaik =)

      jm2

      --
      Don't think of it as a flame---it's more like an argument that does 3d6 fire damage
    3. Re:Red Hat by micaiah · · Score: 4, Informative

      "Why should SuSE do the work for Red Hat when Red Hat's twice as big and much more dependant on the American market (also afaik =)" Because Suse would be defending Linux as a whole e.g. the kernel, which is under attack. It has nothing to do with Red Hat's distro.

    4. Re:Red Hat by SlashDread · · Score: 1

      Yeah,

      thats why SCO has such a big mouth in Germany? Or maybe SUSE helped Linuxtag shutting SCO up in Germany before eh?

      "/Dread"

    5. Re:Red Hat by bmj · · Score: 1

      Because Suse would be defending Linux as a whole e.g. the kernel, which is under attack. It has nothing to do with Red Hat's distro.

      Amen. If SCO would somehow be able to pull this off in the States, it certainly wouldn't be a ringing endorsement of Linux, regardless of what the rest of the world thinks of the American legal system. And sure, Suse is a German company, but don't think you think their business plan depends heavily on purchases made in the United States?

      --
      Whereof we cannot speak, thereof we must be silent. --Ludwig Wittgenstein
    6. Re:Red Hat by MadMoses · · Score: 5, Informative

      SUSE has already successfully filed a suit against SCO Germany a long time ago, with the result that SCO Germany is not allowed to say that Linux includes code that infringes on SCO's copyrights.

      Here's Suse's press release (german).

      --

      Do not be alarmed. This is only a test.
    7. Re:Red Hat by stephenbooth · · Score: 0

      I suspect that a non-US company attempting to sue a US company in the US would fair rather poorly in the current environment. Unless of course they could prove that the Ba'ath party and Al-Queada payroll servers ran on SCO. :-)

      Stephen

      --
      "Don't write down to your readers, the only people less intelligent than you can't read" - Sign on Newspaper Office Wall
    8. Re:Red Hat by Czernobog · · Score: 2, Funny

      Because SuSE can depend on the German law system to stop SCO's bogus claims, whereas RedHat have to play the nonsensical, imbecillic system you Yanks got.

      --
      /. Where the truth
    9. Re:Red Hat by LightSail · · Score: 1

      Suse has the cross licensing agreement with SCO via UnitedLinux. That cross licensing may end up as a back up legal defense if both Red Hat and IBM both lose in court. Suse may have the right to open source any SCO code by this cross licensing.

    10. Re:Red Hat by Dashing+Leech · · Score: 0

      Mod the parent up. SuSE actually attacked faster than Red Hat, so the grandparent poster was wrong. Following their reasoning for using Red Hat, perhaps now they should switch to SuSE, like me. (=

    11. Re:Red Hat by MKalus · · Score: 2, Insightful
      And sure, Suse is a German company, but don't think you think their business plan depends heavily on purchases made in the United States?


      I am replying here to what I think you were asking:

      No, I don't think SuSE relies heavily on the US market, they do a lot better in Europe then they do in the US (and most likely will for some time), sure they have deals with IBM and such, but I have a hard time finding SuSE in North America, that's a nieche market for them.

      In the States right now you have RedHat and IBM, bringing SuSE into the mix won't make a chance, they're better off defending their home turf.
      --
      If you want to e-mail me, use my PGP Key.
    12. Re:Red Hat by TalksInMath · · Score: 1

      SuSE is a German company and very effectively got a judge order telling SCO to 'shut up or put up'. SCO even had to pay a fine in Germany after re-voicing their claims without proving them. So, SuSE is doing their part against SCO - in Germany, where they are based.

    13. Re:Red Hat by Zocalo · · Score: 3, Interesting
      SUSE has already successfully filed a suit against SCO Germany a long time ago

      Indeed, and unlike Red Hat, SUSE didn't wait for a lawsuit to arrive before sucessfully going to court for their injunction. I guess that lends further credence to the maxim that the best defense is a good offense, so let's hope that the strategy pays off for the ACCC down in Oz too. ;) Still, every little bit helps with bleeding them dry. The more court cases SCO has to deal with the less chance that Darl will get his Golden Parachute for four profitable quarters in succession.

      --
      UNIX? They're not even circumcised! Savages!
    14. Re:Red Hat by TheCrazyFinn · · Score: 1

      I can call you a damnyankie all I want. Since damnyankee is the insult.

      --
      "You've got an invalid haircut" -Warren Zevon - Life'll Kill Ya
    15. Re:Red Hat by epiphani · · Score: 1

      Suse did take up the fight - in their area, germany. SCO has been told to shut up there, that their claims have no basis and they cannot harrass Suse/Linux customers.

      --
      .
    16. Re:Red Hat by rutledjw · · Score: 1
      But didn't a German court slap SCO with a $20,000 fine (peanuts to those guys, granted) and tell them to STFU until they PROVED something in court? SuSE hasn't been challenged much I don't think.

      Either way, the timing was perfect (for Europe) what with the talk about Software Patent law... We're still screwed here, but good for them...

      --

      Computer Science is Applied Philosophy
    17. Re:Red Hat by gmkeegan · · Score: 4, Funny

      ... but I have a hard time finding SuSE in North America, that's a nieche market for them.

      I think you mean Nietzche market. (That which does not kill -9 me, makes me stronger?)

    18. Re:Red Hat by Anonym0us+Cow+Herd · · Score: 2, Informative

      and unlike Red Hat, SUSE didn't wait for a lawsuit to arrive before sucessfully going to court for their injunction.

      Please clarify what you are saying? What lawsuit did Red Hat wait for to arrive before RH sued? RH is the plaintif in their suit.

      Not relevant to my question above, but FYI, I buy and run SuSE, and don't particularly care for RH's distro -- in fact, I almost gave up on Linux after installing RH 5.2 having been a longtime Mac user, no KDE, etc. After trying SuSE 5.x in 1999 I was immediately able to use it. My Point: I'm not one to favor RH over SuSE. But in fairness, I think RH deserves real credit here for what they have done vs. SuSE. Maybe they've just done the same thing, and SuSE's is over sooner due to a saner legal system. But RH's fight will cost more, and is likely to accomplish more, given that RH is making other claims about their business being damaged, etc. not just the "put up or shut up" argument.

      --
      The price of freedom is eternal litigation.
    19. Re:Red Hat by canajin56 · · Score: 1

      They were told to be quiet, yes. But no fine. They got fined because it turned out they missed some stuff on their German site when getting rid of the allegations. If it hadn't be accidental, the fines would have been much heavier.

      --
      ASCII stupid question, get a stupid ANSI
    20. Re:Red Hat by antiMStroll · · Score: 2, Funny

      Given Nietzche's military style of writing, kill -HUP makes morre sense. :)

  5. SCOX by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

    If I owned any sco stock and was waiting for it to top off, I think I'd be selling it right now.

    1. Re:SCOX by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah that stock will be hitting the floor soon. I didn't get in on SCOX, but I have had my RMBS stock for a little over a year of loss and she's finally taking off :)

  6. Only 1 +2 post...and.... by peterdaly · · Score: 1, Informative

    The GrokLaw site has been slashdotted and is cooling off. Please check again in a few minutes or try the "old" site at Radio or the Google cache.

    Our apologies for this interruption of service, the Webmaster.

    1. Re:Only 1 +2 post...and.... by gbjbaanb · · Score: 1

      He means: try the google cache site.

    2. Re:Only 1 +2 post...and.... by Danathar · · Score: 1

      Somebody needs to make a Bittorrent like software that works with ENTIRE websites!

      Is this impossible or doable?

    3. Re:Only 1 +2 post...and.... by flend · · Score: 1

      I guess that HOWTO you mention might come in handy in future :)

    4. Re:Only 1 +2 post...and.... by simcop2387 · · Score: 0

      should be fairly easy,

      wget --mirror http://blah.blah.com
      then tarball it up as blah.blah.tar.bz2
      and make a bittorent of it

    5. Re:Only 1 +2 post...and.... by Lussarn · · Score: 1

      It's name is freenet.

    6. Re:Only 1 +2 post...and.... by gsdali · · Score: 1

      Agreed, this would be the number one legitimate use of p2p if it was done. I'm sure it would not be too difficult to engineer. A couple of architectures spring to mind without much trying.

    7. Re:Only 1 +2 post...and.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thats nice and all, but lets face it now; Freenet simply doesn't work. I'm not talking some wishy-washy ideological "work" here, either, I mean honest, in your face, technically and in practice, does not work. It is unusable and broken.

      As for its reputation as being a bastion of freedom where Chinese Political Disidents and Child Ponographers use it to hide from "The Man", thats the biggest joke of this century. Even if you manage to find anything on Freenet, and even if you then manage to even retrieve that something, 99% of the entire contect of Freenet is comprised of out of date Linux HOWTO's and badly scanned soft porn, all of which is available in huge abundence on the working, real world, hey fancy that Internet.

      You'd be more productive shoving a needle in your forehead than installing Freenet.

    8. Re:Only 1 +2 post...and.... by Danathar · · Score: 1

      yea, I use it. But freenet is SLOW. Bittorrent's purpose is speed and not anominity. Also, the tracking information for peers is centralized in Bittorrent, it's not in Freenet.

    9. Re:Only 1 +2 post...and.... by Danathar · · Score: 1

      Hey....I've got it! On the day that you know your website is to be slashdotted. Screenshot the page that is popular...make it a jpeg or something. Then redirect users to a bittorrent link to get the jpeg of the page....

      cludgy...and inconvienient...but it could work!

    10. Re:Only 1 +2 post...and.... by Drantin · · Score: 1

      If everyone from Slashdot was running freenet to get to slashdotted site, it would no longer be slow...

      --
      Actio personalis moritur cum persona. (Dead men don't sue)
    11. Re:Only 1 +2 post...and.... by AKAImBatman · · Score: 1

      You do realize that bittorrents can contain multiple files/directories?

    12. Re:Only 1 +2 post...and.... by Danathar · · Score: 1

      Yes, that IS a good point!

  7. ok by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The faster this can get into court and be over, the better.

    IBM, Red Hat, and others have done a lot to fight this. I'm grateful for the sympathetic coverage on Slashdot, but why couldn't VA launch some court action as well?

    1. Re:ok by PhuCknuT · · Score: 1

      If anything, the more cases there are the longer it will take to get into court.

  8. Re:Mozilla and KDE crash on Redhat 7.1 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ~... if I only had a brain... ~

  9. OT: Stowell unix licenses are revokable! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    stowell - Unix licenses are revokable And this from a company insisting that the GPL is invalid whilst distributing GPL licensed software. Hmmmmmmmmmmmmm

    1. Re:OT: Stowell unix licenses are revokable! by ninthwave · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Note in the quote of the license by nice SCO people it says

      If LICENSEE fails to fulfill one or more of its obligations under this Agreement, AT&T-IS (AT&T Information Systems) may, upon its election and in addition to any other rememdies that it may have, at any time terminate all the rights granted by it hereunder by not less than two(2) months' written notice to LICENSEE specifying any such breach, unless within the period of such notice all breaches specified therein shall have been remedied; upon such termination LICENSEE shall immediately discontinue use of and return or destroy all copies of SOFTWARE PRODUCTS subject to this Agreement.

      I think there is an argument on the phrase in bold I added. SGI says they have remedied the breaches SCO says it is not enough.

      --
      I was thinking of the immortal words of Socrates, who said: "I drank what?" - Chris Knight (Val Kilmer)- Real Genius
    2. Re:OT: Stowell unix licenses are revokable! by gvc · · Score: 0

      IBM's "Amendment X" agreement with USL specifically overrides this clause, making IBM's license perpetual and irrevokable.

      I understand that SGI has a similar amendment, but I haven't seen it.

    3. Re:OT: Stowell unix licenses are revokable! by wes33 · · Score: 1

      Don't forget "Exhibit D", an amendment to the contract Stowell mentions:
      Exhibit D is an agreement between IBM and SCO, signed on 2/5/[19]98.

      1. No Additional Royalty. Upon payment to SCO of the consideration in the section entitled "Consideration", IBM will have the irrevocable, fully paid-up, perpetual right to exercise all of its rights under the Related Agreements beginning January 1, 1996 at no additional royalty fee. However, if IBM requests delivery of additional copies of source code of the Software Product, IBM will pay the fees listed under Section 1(b) of Soft-00015 [exhibit A] Supplement No. 170. Notwithstanding the above, the irrevocable nature of the above rights will in no way be construed to limit Novell's or SCO's rights to enjoin or otherwise prohibit IBM from violating any and all of Novell's or SCO's rights under this Admendment No. X, the Related Agreements, or under general patent, copyright, or trademark law.

      So IBM have an irrevocable license, but SCO can stop IBM from infringing SCO's patents, copyright or trademarks.

      Someone should tell Stowell to tell the "whole truth and nothing but the truth" -- and maybe -- soon -- someone will!

      (btw, found the above info at http://steve-parker.org/articles/sco/)

    4. Re:OT: Stowell unix licenses are revokable! by HiThere · · Score: 1

      OK. What has AT&T-IS said?

      If they are going to ignore the alterations and ammendments, then so can I.

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    5. Re:OT: Stowell unix licenses are revokable! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yup. IIRC, SGI has the same type of fully paid up license (although I'm not sure that by the time they got a fully paid up license, AT&T was still the other party to the licensing agreement).

      Which, of course, explains why SCO are suing *these* licensees -- they're no longer cash cows, as none of them is ever likely to be requesting newer source code from SCO ;).

      Of course, the folk at SCO have made a habit of not reading even the documents they file in court fully (including some interesting amendments to the IBM contracts), so I'm not surprised at this stint.

      OTOH, the style of the alleged e-mail from Blake S. is very unprofessional, so I have my doubts as to the authenticity. Unless he was expecting the author to transmogrify it into something politically correct but got wrongfooted by the journalist.

      [Of course, it also contains the blatant lies about XFS being "derived" from SysV -- these guys certainly have read their Voltaire]

  10. Re:Mozilla and KDE crash on Redhat 7.1 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Did you try upgrading KDE/Mozilla? The versions shipped with Redhat 7.1 are outdated... with mozilla probably pre-1.0

  11. Redhat Roadshow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I can't wait 'til Redhat and IBM team up to do a roadshow and meet all the Linux fans -- so they can all gloat together after they rip SCO to shreds (and reveal the MS and SUN fists shoved up McBride's puppet ass.

  12. Keep the bad news coming by sjbe · · Score: 1

    Alright! Keep the bad press on SCO coming! The more bad news the faster their stock price drops and the faster my short sale makes money. Buy on rumor, sell on news is the old saying and there has been a lot more rumor than news lately. Outside of /. that is...

    1. Re:Keep the bad news coming by ZeLonewolf · · Score: 1

      hear hear! And I thought $14.25 was a good price to jump in on a short...

      --
      "If at first you don't succeed, lower your standards."
    2. Re:Keep the bad news coming by sjbe · · Score: 1

      hear hear! And I thought $14.25 was a good price to jump in on a short...

      It will be. Just be patient. $14.25 is a P/E of about 80/1. The market is just being (stupidly) speculative right now. I love it when a stock gets unreasonably inflated like this.

    3. Re:Keep the bad news coming by walterbyrd · · Score: 1

      Hate to break it to you, but more often than not scox goes up on bad news. Remember SCOForum, when scox showed the code, and it was debunked within an hour? Scox share price went up 50%, to about $15/share, in the next trhee sessions. Then the share price went up another 50% to about $20/share in the two weeks or so.

    4. Re:Keep the bad news coming by sjbe · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Hate to break it to you, but more often than not scox goes up on bad news. Remember SCOForum, when scox showed the code, and it was debunked within an hour? Scox share price went up 50%, to about $15/share, in the next trhee sessions. Then the share price went up another 50% to about $20/share in the two weeks or so.

      And on September 26 when IBM announced their countersuit SCOX dropped from around $17 to $13.8 a few days later. The difference? The debunking of the code didn't show up on Reuters which investors are far more likely to read than Slashdot. The crowd driving SCOX's price are not likely to be techies and won't be hanging out here. If "news" doesn't show up on the newsfeeds they check, it may as well not have happened. Besides, the only "debunking" that really matters is the one IBM (and RHAT) will do in the courtroom.

    5. Re:Keep the bad news coming by watzinaneihm · · Score: 1

      Yeah right!! Those bloody idiots on wallstreet are still buying those stocks. (SCO up .011 % now).

      --
      .ACMD setaloiv siht gnidaeR
    6. Re:Keep the bad news coming by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I am not sure just who is buying. This could very well be a case of Canopy buying and selling the shares among it's own little bunch of evildoers. My guess is that when the SEC starts sifting through the rubble, they will discover most of the pumpers & dumpers have "protected" their stock profits (Cayman Islands, Switzerland, Walmart gift certificates in a safe deposit box). The SEC should prosecute those who would pump and dump. On the other hand, this situation is the investment equivalent of giving your credit card number to the anonymous telemarketer who says you have just won a free vacation.

      When IBM decided to defend itself instead of buying out SCO, that was the first clue to mainstream investors that SCO had made a fatal miscalculation. Following the James Bond theme of SCOForum, it sure looks like "A View to a Kill".

    7. Re:Keep the bad news coming by sjbe · · Score: 1

      One more thing, short interest is at about 12% of the float. That's a LOT of short interest. Days to cover is something near 30. That means that there are a lot of people convinced the stock will go down but they aren't the ones actually selling. We'll have to wait for the buyers to come to their senses which might take a little while. Normally I wouldn't short a stock with this much short interest but SCO's case is so weak IMO that it's worth the gamble.

      It is possible that if the stock price were to spike up dramatically we could see a short squeeze. But it's pretty high IMO already so it doesn't seem too likely.

    8. Re:Keep the bad news coming by ZeLonewolf · · Score: 1

      Hehe, a squeeze already happened, when it peaked near $21. That was scary...

      --
      "If at first you don't succeed, lower your standards."
    9. Re:Keep the bad news coming by sjbe · · Score: 1

      Hehe, a squeeze already happened, when it peaked near $21. That was scary...

      Yeah I noticed. Wish I'd bought then... :-) Squeeze risk is why I'm keeping some extra cash on the sidelines. I'm confident this will be a profitable short but don't want to get nailed because some idiots can't do research. If it really gets out of hand, I'll hedge but I'd rather not if I don't have to.

    10. Re:Keep the bad news coming by TrombaMarina · · Score: 1

      It's nice for us RedHat stock owners too. I don't have the guts to risk accidentally supporting those clowns by buying their stock.

      I've been pretty nervous about this case up until now. SCO filing a motion to dismiss is the first thing that made me feel reassured. They painted a BIG target on themselves, now it's time for... "Bummer of a birthmark, Hal!" (remember the Far-Side cartoon)

  13. Re:Mozilla and KDE crash on Redhat 7.1 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I added a Linux partition to my WindowsXP box, and installed Redhat 7.1.
    When I try to close one window in Mozilla, ALL of my open mozilla windows
    crash. When I try to move my mouse in KDE, it freezes up and I have to
    telnet into the machine from my XP box to shut it down.


    so you boot off of linux, and then telnet from xp to shut the linux OS down. But how to boot XP without inherently killing Linux? You muppet. At least make a proper troll post :)

  14. So much for GrokLaw... by Cooper_007 · · Score: 1, Funny
    The GrokLaw site has been slashdotted and is cooling off. Please check again in a few minutes or try the "old" site at Radio or the Google cache.

    Our apologies for this interruption of service, the Webmaster.

    I love webmasters with a sense of humor :)

    Cooper
    --
    I don't need a pass to pass this pass!
    - Groo The Wanderer -

    1. Re:So much for GrokLaw... by ddimas · · Score: 0, Funny
      The barbarians are at the gates!

      Don't worry we have Groo.

      Groo the Wanderer? OPEN THE GATES, OPEN THE GATES!!!!

    2. Re:So much for GrokLaw... by MathFox · · Score: 1
      As a webmaster of a site that's regulary mentioned here I know that i need to take some protective measures to prevent a meltdown. (I have seen the groklaw.com server suffer from previous Slashdot attacks.)

      You got me working hard this afternoon, moving the whole site to Ibiblio. (The move was planned for the weekend). Say hello to groklaw.net.

      --
      extern warranty;
      main()
      {
      (void)warranty;
      }
  15. Re:Mozilla and KDE crash on Redhat 7.1 by out+of+control · · Score: 1

    Thank you!

    Linux really doesn't need users such as yourself. Linux is an advanced operating system. Please feel free to stick with your kindergarten operating system and save the rest of us having to offer to help you.

    There is a reason that most hardware states that it requires WinXP or "better". They start with the lowest common denominator (WinXP), and then let you know that it will also work with "better" operating systems - ala *Nix

    Now go away

  16. Darl here... by Mr.+Darl+McBride · · Score: 2, Funny
    As this thing unravels, there's really only one question left unanswered:

    Does anyone know of a country with no extradition treaties? Chris wants to go to the South Pacific, but as a speaker of Asian languages, I was more thinking....

    1. Re:Darl here... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hi Darl,

      As prommised you can head up our Asian assimilation department after you've got me TUX's head.

      Your greatest fan,

      Bill G.

    2. Re:Darl here... by Dragoon · · Score: 1

      Darl! Sweetie.. I've been looking for you, care to go out for drinks to talk about this silly lawsuit?

      BTW, would you like to meet in my dark alley or yours? Oh, and baseball bar or crowbar, your choice..

      *evil grin*

      --
      Welcome to the End
    3. Re:Darl here... by 16K+Ram+Pack · · Score: 1
      You think if Red Hat paid Bush enough that you'd be safe anywhere?

      You'd be aligned with Cuba, Iran and Libya.

    4. Re:Darl here... by Dragoon · · Score: 0

      My crowbar has a name. Trogdor, the Smashinator

      --
      Welcome to the End
    5. Re:Darl here... by clearcache · · Score: 0

      Excellent Silence of the Lambs reference! Laughed my ass off...good way to start the morning...

    6. Re:Darl here... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh yes, we need to treat our criminals like normal people. I am sorry, these are *murderers* people who have killed other people without state sanction. I guess we can just say screw the people who they killed, no need for just punishment. An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth is good enough for me (and please don't quote gandi on me). As for the very rare innocent person who is executed for a crime they didn't commit? Well thats a pretty small price to pay for justice, and yes I would feel the same way if I were one of those 'innocents'.

    7. Re:Darl here... by Spunk · · Score: 1

      Jon Johansen would be surprised to hear that.

    8. Re:Darl here... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth is good enough for me (and please don't quote gandi on me).

      First, it's Ghandi. It's pretty rude to mis-spell and fail to capitalize someone's name.

      Second, would you prefer that I quote Jesus Christ?
      Turn the other cheek?
      Love your enemy?

      Do either of those ring a bell with you, Mr. Bible-Thumper? I thought not.

    9. Re:Darl here... by ENOENT · · Score: 1

      Another good question is, "Are you going to a white collar resort prison?"

      --
      That's "Mr. Soulless Automaton" to you, Bub.
  17. Dude, you are so fucking full of shit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "shorted" stock, dumbass...

  18. Can the judge tell if SCO is trying to stall? by tehanu · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I am not a lawyer so maybe some people with more experience can tell me - is it usually obvious to a judge (it may be obvious to us in the case of SCO, but that's an entirely different matter) if someone is trying to stall for time, how do judges usually look upon this sort of behaviour (do they shrug their shoulders or get pissed off?) and if they do get annoyed what can they do to the stalling party?

    1. Re:Can the judge tell if SCO is trying to stall? by Entrope · · Score: 5, Informative

      The court and representation for each side talk and negotiate deadlines for particular stages of the trial. I imagine that there are common standards for each stage. The judge and Red Hat have interests in seeing Red Hat's case executed in a timely manner, so it would be somewhat difficult for SCO to extend the deadlines greatly.

      It is possible to file motions or amended actions later to delay or reset the clock. If the judge believes they have merit, it will go through[1]. If a party to a lawsuit submits many such motions and they are largely frivolous or unwarranted, it may count as vexatious litigation. If a judge considers something vexatious litigation, he or she will generally sanction the offending party. Sanctions can many forms[2].

      IANAL, etc.

      [1]- For example, SCO recently got a delay in its trial versus IBM so that it could perform due diligence and research in their counter-defense.
      [2]- Monetary fines are common, but others are possible. The US prosecutors in the Zacarias Moussaoui were barred from seeking the death penalty or introducing broad classes of evidence when the government refused to comply with a court order to give him direct access to certain terrorist suspect-detainees.

    2. Re:Can the judge tell if SCO is trying to stall? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How could anyone ever think that your name was pronounced en-troep

    3. Re:Can the judge tell if SCO is trying to stall? by MinutiaeMan · · Score: 1

      Nahh, Delaware only has one decent golf course, up at the DuPont Country Club. At any rate, seeing as how Delaware has a lot of companies incorporated here (tax incentives, and so forth), the corporate judges are pretty experienced with handling this sort of thing. I've been reading about all sorts of corporate wrangling in the courts over the years. It's about the only thing that really puts my home state on the map. ;-)

    4. Re:Can the judge tell if SCO is trying to stall? by kilgortrout · · Score: 1

      Stalling is pretty much par for the course in civil litigation. You send out your written discovery, interrogatories and document production requests.The other side says they need more time and that is negotiated. You finally get your responses which are generally not responsive at all; you argue about that with the other side; if you can't resolve it you file a motion to compel and argue the motion in court; the judge sets a time for the other side to comply. You get further responses from the other side but not full compliance; more negotiations, back to court again for further motions to compel. The judge finally gets fed up with the other side's intansigence and reads them the riot act. It goes on forever and you eventually get what you need. Are judges aware of this game? Sure but judicial tempermant varies greatly on how much they will put up with and their time is limited. They have hundreds of cases to administer and can't really micromanage discovery disputes. Usual disputes for written discovery revolve around vague generalities given in responses and the proponent's desire to have a more specific response. At some point the judge determines that the responses are specific enough and that if you want more specific info you should take the depositons of the opposing party's witnesses which launches another round of evasive answers during questioning of the witnesses. You just have to keep pushing to get what you want and eventually you will but nobody gives it to you; it's generally like pulling teeth. This dance will go on for a long time IMHO.

    5. Re:Can the judge tell if SCO is trying to stall? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I had an uncle who presided over a worker's compensation case. The case was drawing to a close on the afternoon of Good Friday. The corporate lawyers asked for an early recess since they wouldn't be able to wrap things up before the day was over anyway. My uncle realized that they were just trying to:

      1. Get an early start on the holiday.
      2. Get more billable hours by dragging the case out until Monday.

      So, he said, "fine - we'll reconvene Sunday afternoon". The lawyers of course responded "you mean on Easter?" His response, "well, it isn't a state holiday..." Their response "your honor - maybe we can try to finish this off this afternoon..."

      Not all judges give in to lawers dragging things out...

    6. Re:Can the judge tell if SCO is trying to stall? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The whole delay part of this is a little blown out of proportion. They only asked for 30 days to come up with a serious (and very ingenious) list of items from Redhat. Read the list of stuff redhat asked for and think of what it would take to come up with all of that even if you were trying to comply.

      Beyond that, asking the judge to delay the discovery until after he has ruled on the motion to dismiss only makes common sense, and would not be looked on as stalling.

      To answer your second question, sure a judge can tell when someone is just stalling and if it is done with no good reason, of course she would get pissed. But there are a lot of ways to drag out a case with legitimate looking motions and briefs, without raising the ire of the judge.

      So while stalling in court may not be their biggest offense, they certainly are on shaky legal ground with what they have revealed so far, and with no evidence, shifting story, differing legal case vs what they try in the media, and insider selling, they could easily be (and should be) tried on securities fraud if they lose the case. Problem is, when they lose the stock will be worthless and there will be nothing to collect on.

      Except maybe that Broughton guy, and if he has half a brain, he has stashed some of the ill gotten gains from his sale of SCOX stock in an offshore account somewhere.

      So if you really want to do something file a complaint against SCO and the insiders that have sold with the SEC at http://www.sec.gov/complaint.shtml

    7. Re:Can the judge tell if SCO is trying to stall? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      IAAL, and SCO's ability to stall will greatly depend on the case management plan they are operating under.

      I can tell you that under local rules in most Federal District Courts, it is VERY difficult to delay matters beyond a certain point. U.S. Magistrate Judges are real hardcases when it comes to enforcing deadlines. If a District Judge has to take a personal hand, things go south quickly. You can try to drag out the commencement of discovery by filing 12(b)(6) motions, but that only buys you so much grace.

      I am not a Delaware attorney, so I will leave it to some practitioner from Delaware to tell us what deadlines SCO is operating under, but once discovery has commenced, SCO probably has at best 60-75 days (that's with an extension) to respond. If they choose to withhold and try to fight on some spurious privilege basis, they could drag it out a little longer, but at the cost of getting tagged with attorney's fees and costs when the motion to compel is inevitably granted. Those can add up fast, and sanctions for failure to make discovery once a judge orders it get severe quickly. Dismissal and defaults against the obstructing party can and do happen.

      I'm thinking that SCO can hold out for 4 months at best, if Red Hat's attorneys are under instructions to be aggressive in discovery. It wouldn't make sense for them not to be, so I assume they will take it to SCO over discovery issues if necessary.

      Discovery is part of the process of civil litigation. Failure to comply in a timely fashion simply irritates court officials and ultimately accomplishes nothing. I expect that SCO will have to pony up.

      For me, the real question is how many articles have to appear in the media about SCOs increasingly obvious pump-and-dump scheme before someone at SEC things that they should be doing a little investigating themselves.

  19. SCO execs cash in on suit spotlight by Solokron · · Score: 5, Informative
    --
    30% off web hosting. Coupon code "SLASHDOT".
    1. Re:SCO execs cash in on suit spotlight by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative
      I've been repeatedly pointing out the listing of SCOX insider transactions over on Yahoo Finance for the past couple of months. The actual number of shares held by the insiders at the time of their latest transactions can be found . Let me point out the highlights of the current data (since June 20th):

      • The only purchases have been through the exercise of options. Other than that, the insiders are selling. That indicates that they think their own company's stock is overvalued. They are cutting their holdings.
      • Reginald Broughton, Senior Vice President has sold 70,000 shares in that time. He had 95,000 left. That netted him $937,700. I have ignored planned sales.
      • Michael Olson, listed both as Vice President and Controller, has exercised options to purchase 5,000 shares for $10,349. He has sold 20,000 shares for $256,000. He has 48,830.
      • Jeff Hunsaker, Vice President, has exercised options on 5,000 shares for $5,600. He has sold 20,000 shares for $235,000. As of the last transaction, he held 20,494 shares.
      • Robert Bench, Chief Financial Officer, has sold 14,000 shares for $153,000. He still has 221,043 shares.
      • Michael Sean Wilson, Senior Vice President, has exercised 6,000 options for $3,960. He has sold 6,000 shares for $64,000.
      • I am ignoring transactions on 6,000 options and the sale of 6,000 shares by Michael Wilson that may be duplicate reporting of the same transactions.


      This gives us a grand total of options exercised on 16,000 shares by 5 insiders at a total cost of $19,909. They sold 130,000 shares for $1,646,000. Between them, they held 385,367 at the time of their last transactions. They've sold roughly a third of their shares in the past three months.

      Interestingly, if you drop the CFO from the calculations, the numbers are 16,000 options exercised for $19,909. No change there. 116,000 shares sold for $1,492,700. Not much of a decrease there. But the four who are left were only holding 164,324 shares as of their last transactions. This looks like massive dumping by some of the insiders.
    2. Re:SCO execs cash in on suit spotlight by WNight · · Score: 1

      Don't ignore the planned sales. Some of SCO's statements indicate that they were planning this pump and dump since at least the beginning of last year. Those "planned" sales were to roughly coincide with the announcements.

      In fact, perhaps there's fraud in that as well...

  20. Legalese to english babelfish requested... by Cooper_007 · · Score: 1
    From the "Old" Radio site:
    10/3/03 16 STIPULATION to extend time for deft. to file reply brief in support of Motion to Dismiss; with proposed order (ft)

    10/6/03 -- So Ordered granting [16-1] stipulation reset Reply Brief Deadline to 10/10/03 re: [8-1] motion to Dismiss ( signed by Judge Sue L. Robinson ) Notice to all parties. (rd)

    Hoookay. Could somebody tell me in plain english just what this bit means??

    Cooper
    --
    I just didn't want to be a loser anymore.
    - Mitsuko Souma, Battle Royale -

    1. Re:Legalese to english babelfish requested... by rongage · · Score: 1

      Stipulation - both sides (plaintiff and defendant) agree to the following.

      Motion - a request to the court regarding the case

      Deft - defendant

      So Ordered - the judge reviewed the "stipulated motion" and agreed with it. The changed Reply Brief (answer) due date is now 10/10/03...

      Before anyone accuses me otherwise, I am not a lawyer, nor do I play one on TV...

      --
      Ron Gage - Westland, MI
    2. Re:Legalese to english babelfish requested... by Fiver-rah · · Score: 1

      The defendant (SCO) made a motion to dismiss RedHat's case. But then they asked for more time to file a brief which would explain the reasons they think the case should be dismissed. The judge gave them until today to file that brief.

      --
      Read Bujold. Free (as in
    3. Re:Legalese to english babelfish requested... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Close.

      SCO had already filed a brief explaining why the case should be dismissed. Red Hat filed a response, explaining why it shouldn't be. As the moving party, SCO gets to respond once more, explaining why it should be, after all. It's that third brief that they got until today to file.

  21. Re:Unwilling To Prove Claims? by simcop2387 · · Score: 0

    the problem they keep claiming is that if they tell anyone what they've done wrong is that they'll just fix it and move on.

  22. That's funny by A_Non_Moose · · Score: 0, Redundant

    I suppose this this could be considered a (ahem) "Legal DoS'ing".

    The GrokLaw site has been slashdotted and is cooling off. Please check again in a few minutes or try the "old" site at Radio or the Google cache.

    Our apologies for this interruption of service, the Webmaster.


    Oopsie.

    I knew I should have kept the reference of a funny quote from one Slashdotter who said "...and I stupidly posted a link to my site on ./ and 20 minutes later the router melted down..."

    Heh.

    And this, is classic (and taken out of context, naturally):
    I think we may assume that if IBM's internal review had shown that, they'd have folded by now. I have no inside info, I hasten to add. Just a brain.

    Don't laugh. Not everyone gives evidence of having one.


    /snort.

    Hahahahaha

    --
    Have you read the moderator guidelines? Well, have you, PUNK? (and I want a Karma: Gnarly option)
  23. the end? my ass! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It looks like the beginning of the end of this whole mess.

    Someone used nearly the same quote in another slashdot entry about SCO. The SCO mess is just not going to end any time soon. I give it 2 to 4 years before SCO is done with us.

    Hopefully RedHat can get a publicist to spin it somehow to get some media attention and hopefully some fresh Linux meat. I say we should sew little Tuxes into Tommy Hilfiger or FUBU clothes and have the kids start using linux as a hot new west coast trend.

    1. Re:the end? my ass! by MinutiaeMan · · Score: 1

      "This is not the end. This is not even the beginning of the end. But it is, perhaps, the end of the beginning." Heh.

  24. Could this massively implode on SCO? by swb · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Is there a chance that this could massively implode on SCO?

    I'd wager there must have been some "UNIX" code in Linux at one time, albeit not intentionally and perhaps only small chunks for SCO to have made any claim at all.

    But let's presume that RH's discovery finds the code was relatively small, inserted accidentally or under false pretenses, and not part of the current development of Linux.

    Could SCO then be shown to be grossly misrepresenting their claims and mooting any licensing claims they made and perhaps open SCO's executives to claims of fraud, stock maniplation, or at least highly vulnerable to civil action from companies who could claim their misrepresentation had a chilling effect on their business?

    If someone can get the man behind the curtain exposed, this could all come crashing down around the SCO guys..

    1. Re:Could this massively implode on SCO? by adeyadey · · Score: 1

      I suppose, in their view, they may not mind if it did. For a relatively small investment they have pumped up SCO stock, and have a (admittedly small) chance of aquiring the IP rights to a system, Linux, that could be worth $Millions/Billions in licences. Even if that was only a small % chance, they are calculating its worth a gamble for such a big prize..

      The worse that could happen is that they fold, maybe less of a loss to these guys than you think..

      --
      "You lied to me! There is a Swansea!"
    2. Re:Could this massively implode on SCO? by Mostly+a+lurker · · Score: 1
      I'd wager there must have been some "UNIX" code in Linux at one time, albeit not intentionally and perhaps only small chunks for SCO to have made any claim at all.

      You could be right, but I personally think their entire case is built on fantasy. They may have assumed they would find something to justify the case as it went forward. One reason they are stalling is that they are desperately trying to find something, anything to prevent the case just being declared frivolous.

    3. Re:Could this massively implode on SCO? by peragrin · · Score: 1

      That is the dream. To reaptedly watch chris & darl dragged off in handcuffs for committing crimes, both by the SEC & FBI

      --
      i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
    4. Re:Could this massively implode on SCO? by LiquidCoooled · · Score: 1

      Sounds similar to the illusive WMD search from the US and British gov'ts :)

      --
      liqbase :: faster than paper
    5. Re:Could this massively implode on SCO? by badasscat · · Score: 3, Interesting

      The worse that could happen is that they fold, maybe less of a loss to these guys than you think..

      No, the "worst" that can happen is they get busted for running a pump and dump scheme by the SEC. Not to mention corporate fraud, insider trading and god knows what else; I'm sure there are a variety of charges that could be leveled if it turns out they were intentionally misleading investors for personal gain. This is serious stuff; this is not just slap on the wrist territory. We're talking some real prison time here.

      If these allegations by SCO do all turn out to be completely false (as is likely), and it does turn out that SCO knew it (50/50 - I think it's just as likely they're just totally clueless), then the SEC will have to get involved in order to send a message to the rest of the corporate world that this sort of thing cannot be tolerated. If SCO execs actually succeed in taking a failing company and turning it into a personal gain for them through fraud, there will be no end to these sorts of actions by other executives at other failing companies in the future.

    6. Re:Could this massively implode on SCO? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think it is really unlikely that there is any 'old' unix code illegally in Linux. There are some header files needed for source compatibility that were ruled as fair use in other circumstances long ago. The ironic thing here is that one of the big reasons for Linux's popularity is that at the time it was emerging, BSDI was being sued by AT&T over exactly this issue, clouding the future for the *bsd alternatives. While there was no court decision on that case it was clear that much more copying had gone the other direction without giving credit. But meanwhile everyone involved in Linux development was very aware of this lawsuit and suitably careful about what they included.

    7. Re:Could this massively implode on SCO? by RobNich · · Score: 1

      Only if SCO's code had been found repeatedly in Linux by inspectors before Linus kicked them out. :)

      --
      Hello little man. I will destroy you!
    8. Re:Could this massively implode on SCO? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      According to CNN, the US "Kicked" out the inspectors. The US was threatening to bomb Iraq, and told the UN weapons inspectors to get out, to avoid being used as human shields.

    9. Re:Could this massively implode on SCO? by crawling_chaos · · Score: 2
      then the SEC will have to get involved in order to send a message to the rest of the corporate world that this sort of thing cannot be tolerated.

      What planet are you from, and what color is the sky there? All Darl and company need to do is make sure their contributions to the major political parties are up to date.

      Is Ken Lay in jail yet? How about Bernie Ebbers?

      --
      You can only drink 30 or 40 glasses of beer a day, no matter how rich you are.
      -- Colonel Adolphus Busch
    10. Re:Could this massively implode on SCO? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      If someone can get the man behind the curtain exposed, this could all come crashing down around the SCO guys..

      Don't forget that RH has asked to see the source code for SCO's Linux Personality Kernel. If that contains GPL code, well, yeah, the whole thing comes crashing down ala USL v. University of California.

    11. Re:Could this massively implode on SCO? by platypus · · Score: 1

      o, the "worst" that can happen is they get busted for running a pump and dump scheme by the SEC. Not to mention corporate fraud, insider trading and god knows what else; I'm sure there are a variety of charges that could be leveled if it turns out they were intentionally misleading investors for personal gain. This is serious stuff; this is not just slap on the wrist territory. We're talking some real prison time here.

      Add to that what everybody seems to forgetting here. This is a Canopy manouver!
      And IBM knows it (as can be seen by some documents they already submitted to the court).
      So, this could not only get bad for SCO, or the managers there, an even worse outcome for Canopy would be if IBM went after them. Even out of court, like starting a patent war on Canopy's other companies, etc..

      And /me hopes big blue will feel like making an example out of Canopy.

    12. Re:Could this massively implode on SCO? by WindBourne · · Score: 1

      Yes, they could be sued. The answer will be immeadiat bankruptcy. Upon doing that they will declare default on a 1 million dollar loan to canopy group. At that point all of SCO's IP and legal assets transfer to the canopy group. Who wants to bet that caldera is waiting in in the wings for this.
      As to Darl himself, well, at this point an SEC/FTC investigation should have already started. But it has not. If darl has "pierced the corporate veil", then criminal charges could be filed against him personally. But, in light of Ken lay/Enron and SEC/FTC non-investiagtion, I would guess that neither UTAH, nor the current US administration, will be doing.

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    13. Re:Could this massively implode on SCO? by swb · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The difference being that Ken Lay and his company are from Texas, where the current President is from and who was Governor. Lay and Enron were big contributers to the GOP and Bush for a long time, and likely circulated in the same social circle as the Bush family (oil/energy, Texas, wealthy, politics, the overlap is massive).

      The Enron prosecution isn't done and Lay isn't out of the woods yet. There was just recently a news blurb about Lay refusing to hand over documents in his possession, citing the 5th Ammendment.

      Darl is probably the only "name" exec at SCO and is a "name" only for creating this fiasco. While probably "connected" politically in the same way all wealthy CEO types are, I highly doubt he has or can even buy the juice that Lay had with the GOP pre-Enron. Not from the same state or industry as many Bush insiders, nor does he have the non-business political standing.

      Furthermore, he's created enemies at bigger businesses like IBM that have heavier hitters than him, with longer, deeper political connections and from bigger states, mitigating any potential political advantage he *might* have had.

      And remember, Sam Waksal from Imclone is *already* in the can, Martha Stewart faces a fraud trial that could land her in the can, too, and the guy from Tyco I believe will likely enjoy the a nice long membership at the Orange Jumpsuit Country Club.

      Overall, I think McBride is *just* the kind of sacrificial lamb that the Justice department and SEC would like to see turning on a spit over an open fire. Not politically connected enough to be a threat to them and reaping major political benefits for the overly-pro-corporate Bush administration when he gets a public hanging.

    14. Re:Could this massively implode on SCO? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Copywrite unlike patents allows for individual discovery. If code that is identical is in both and it can be shown that the author of the Linux code had never seen the Unix code it is free and clear. They have to show that it is substantially similar, AND that the person who did the Linux code was basing it off of code they saw in Unix. Being identical is not enough, just look at the reverse engineering of the PC BIOS and the fact there was lots of identical code to prove this one.

    15. Re:Could this massively implode on SCO? by Rogerborg · · Score: 1

      You miss an important point: nobody but us geeks really cares about SCO and lunix. No, really, it's true. All our sound and fury signifies nothing, and the SEC will get no kudos for busting SCO, because nobody who matters cares.

      Sorry to interrupt. Normal self aggrandising and cognitive dissonance may now commence.

      --
      If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
    16. Re:Could this massively implode on SCO? by Rogerborg · · Score: 1

      You mean that SCO's case is going to end up relying on showing that linux developers had the intention to include SCO copy righted source in the kernel? That they wanted to start a program of massive source inclusion, but only SCO's constant vigilence stopped them?

      Heck, the White House and Downing Street seem to be getting away with that argument, so why not SCO?

      --
      If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
    17. Re:Could this massively implode on SCO? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've already taken the numbers off the Yahoo Finance web site for insider transactions and crunched them in this comment. I'm not willing to take a stand on pump-and-dump or insider trading. What I am willing to say is that the insiders are selling off huge portions of their own holdings. That doesn't indicate long term confidence.

    18. Re:Could this massively implode on SCO? by crawling_chaos · · Score: 1
      Every day that goes by is another day that Lay gets closer to getting off scot-free. The longer the investigation, the greater the cost, and the greater the incentive to just end it, because "nobody cares anymore."

      Actually, I think McBride is too small a fish for the SEC to get their panties in a knot over. Couple that with the fact that he's fighting those "Linux hippies" that the *IAA are so incensed with, and I bet nothing happens under the current administration.

      --
      You can only drink 30 or 40 glasses of beer a day, no matter how rich you are.
      -- Colonel Adolphus Busch
    19. Re:Could this massively implode on SCO? by badasscat · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Actually, I think McBride is too small a fish for the SEC to get their panties in a knot over. Couple that with the fact that he's fighting those "Linux hippies" that the *IAA are so incensed with,

      I'm not sure why people here seem to think the SEC and states' attorneys general (like good old Eliot Spitzer here in NY) will not get involved here. SCO is not fighting "Linux hippies", SCO is fighting IBM, one of the largest companies in the world, one of the Dow 30, #9 on the Fortune 500. You think any self-respecting regulator is going to allow one of the drivers of our economy to be bullied by a crap little company like SCO through fraudulent means? You're right - nobody in government cares about SCO, but they sure as hell care about IBM.

      If it takes one of Spitzer's independent probes to prod the SEC along, great. Once small-time investors get screwed (as will happen once SCO's stock tanks), and IBM starts complaining to the government that they've been wrongly accused and have the court documents to back that assertion up (in the form of either a victory by IBM or capitulation by SCO that we're all sure is coming), then I fully expect to see things happen.

    20. Re:Could this massively implode on SCO? by Anonym0us+Cow+Herd · · Score: 1

      I think the "economic value" of copied portions matter at least as much as the "amount of copied material" in a copyright infringement.

      I could write a review of a book. In it, I could copy a few very small portions of text. Normally this would be "fair use". But suppose the portions I copied completely destroyed the economic value. One possible example of many would include that I copied a portion that gave away the surprise ending, or revealed the major unexpected plot twist.

      One of the the four criteria that the Judge considers is the economic harm that 200 copied lines or an atoi() function causes. I don't remember the other criteria that are used to determine whether copyright infringement vs. "fair use" occured, or what the damages are. But I know there are four criteria. After all, I read it on slashdot, so it must be right.

      --
      The price of freedom is eternal litigation.
    21. Re:Could this massively implode on SCO? by Ktulu_03 · · Score: 1

      They were also large contributors to Democrats and Clinton as well.

    22. Re:Could this massively implode on SCO? by mdielmann · · Score: 1

      I'd wager there must have been some "UNIX" code in Linux at one time, albeit not intentionally and perhaps only small chunks for SCO to have made any claim at all.

      Your basic premise that human behaviour is rational is flawed. To use the classic Nazi extreme (well-favoured here), how exactly were Aryans (if there was such a thing) better than Jews? Nor would this be the first time a company has told an outright lie before the courts...

      --
      Sure I'm paranoid, but am I paranoid enough?
    23. Re:Could this massively implode on SCO? by ksheff · · Score: 1

      At that point all of SCO's IP and legal assets transfer to the canopy group. Who wants to bet that caldera is waiting in in the wings for this.

      Um..The SCO Group is Caldera. They changed the name after Caldera bought the Unix biz from the old SCO company (which changed its name to Tarantella). This was probably after Love and the other old Caldera people left to form UnitedLinux. I'm not sure, but someone here probably has the timeline.

      --
      the good ground has been paved over by suicidal maniacs
    24. Re:Could this massively implode on SCO? by QuackQuack · · Score: 1

      "Pump and Dump" usually refers to a third party loading up on a cheap, low volume stock (hence easily manipulated). Then hyping it, often on internet message boards, if successful, he then dumps his stock at the higher price.

      If you go to any internet microcap stock board, there always seems to be one insane individual posting essentially the same colorful message day in and day out telling people to "load up now, this stock is about to go to the moon". These are the pump-and-dump artists.

      That's not exactly the same thing SCO is running here (If you're a company officer, you can't hype up your stock and just cash out, letting it crash. The other investors will have your head, if the SEC doesn't get it first.)

      But "Insider Trading" and "Securities Fraud", yes. Especially if these documents about a "Linux Lottery" exist, that RHAT is looking for.

      --
      By reading this sig, you agree to the terms of my sig license.
    25. Re:Could this massively implode on SCO? by HiThere · · Score: 1

      One interesting way that it could implode is if the Linux code that SCO imported comes to light. Judging by their past selection of code, they won't have kept track of where it came from, but Linux has a full trail, and can prove who contributed it when. If something crucial to SCO has the GPL on it, SCO will be out of business immediately. (I doubt that they still have the programmers to fix things, and who would want *THAT* on their resume.)

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    26. Re:Could this massively implode on SCO? by Cecil · · Score: 1

      Yeah. IBM doesn't matter. They're only one of the largest technology companies in the entire world, designing and producing 90% of the microchips in the world.

      Admittedly in most cases slashdot cares about something, no one else important does.

      This is not one of those cases. Go away, troll.

    27. Re:Could this massively implode on SCO? by locker1776 · · Score: 1

      If it turns out that there really is no infringing code, this is what would happen.

      1. Red Hat would win it's motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. You have to at least say what the other person did wrong for a law suit to continue. If SCO has no code to point to, then there is nothing to argue about, and the case is dismissed.

      2. Red Hat then could file a Section 11 sanctions against SCO. SCO would have to then show why it sued Red Hat when it had no proof that Red Hat did anything. The cool thing about a section 11 is that SCO's lawyers would be on the hook for filing a frivolous lawsuit.

      Either way, if SCO can't produce any code, then the case gets thrown out. That is why SCO wants to make discovery as long as possible. The longer they don't have to show anyone anything, the longer they can make the cases run in the courts.

    28. Re:Could this massively implode on SCO? by WindBourne · · Score: 1

      INAL.
      No, The SCO group is NOT technically caldera. It is the same group, the same set of a**es, etc, but Caldera is considered a different company. All assests were transfered, but still seperate companies.
      I have the timeline somewhere, but....

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    29. Re:Could this massively implode on SCO? by Rogerborg · · Score: 1

      > Yeah. IBM doesn't matter.

      No, IBM doesn't care. You think they're actually bothered by SCO's yapping? They've probably got their interns and co-op paralegals dealing with this minor annoyance.

      Never mind me though, you just go ahead and surrender to the cognitive dissonance.

      --
      If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
    30. Re:Could this massively implode on SCO? by RobNich · · Score: 1

      In 1998, UN inspectors found evidence and in fact found biological agents in Iraq. They were shortly after ordered by the UN to leave Iraq because the Iraqi government had stopped "cooperating" with them (according to the inspectors) and the US was going to bomb Iraq in response.

      Shortly after this, the head of the inspectors (Richard Butler) gave an account of the "incident" where they came to a base to inspect and saw trucks leaving through the rear gates. Some googling turned up this article:
      http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/printpage/0,5 942,6545273,00.html

      Although his conclusion is odd, considering the content, this is what it comes down to: If there are not currently WMDs in Iraq, where are they? We know that they had them, and all Iraq needed to do was prove that they had destroyed them. There would be witnesses, evidence that the destruction had taken place. But Hussein's government was not willing (or able) to fulfill this requirement.

      Also, here is an article from the History Channel: http://boards.historychannel.com/threadedout.jsp?f orum=73&thread=8608

      To top it off, the nearly 18 months of delay caused by the UN gave the Iraqis plenty of time to either hide, destroy, or give away their weapons. Had the US not essentially forced the inspectors out, they would have continued to "inspect" forever. In 1998, Iraqi intelligence had infiltrated the UN inspectors, according to Richard Butler. The fact that the inspectors were not turning anything up in 2002-2003 is not surprising in the least.

      Anyway, the cease-fire agreement with Iraq simply stated that they had to show exactly what they had and that they had destroyed it. Iraq did not provide the list, and when they finally did, it was missing many things that were already known about. In short, the Iraqis lied repeatedly about what they had. Even if they did destroy all of the items (which is doubtful) they could have shown evidence of it. But they did not even show what they had, much less suggest they had destroyed it.

      --
      Hello little man. I will destroy you!
  25. Who would invest in this? by twbecker · · Score: 0

    I can't beleive anyone would actually want to own SCO right now, let alone buy into it. You'd think that even non-techies could spot this act of desparation a mile away. Why initiate a scheme like this that has the potential to get SCO such bad publicity? Could it be because they have NO future? Sheesh.

    --
    "The problem with internet quotations is that many are not genuine" -Abraham Lincoln
  26. Oh, what did Delaware, boys? by adeyadey · · Score: 1, Funny

    Oh, what did Delaware, boys? Oh, what did Delaware?
    Oh, what did Delaware, boys? Oh, what did Delaware?
    Oh, what did Delaware, boys? Oh, what did Delaware?
    I ask you now as a personal friend, what did Delaware?

    She wore her new Red hat, boys. She wore her new Red hat.
    She wore her new Red hat, boys. She wore her new Red hat.
    She wore her new Red hat, boys. She wore her new Red hat.
    I tell you now as a personal friend, she wore her new Red hat.

    (Apologies to /.ers under the age of 5000 who dont know the song.. :-)

    --
    "You lied to me! There is a Swansea!"
    1. Re:Oh, what did Delaware, boys? by On+Lawn · · Score: 1

      Apologies to /.ers under the age of 5000 who dont know the song..

      Mmmmyess, I thought your translation from Babylonian was quite aprapoe.

    2. Re:Oh, what did Delaware, boys? by stevesliva · · Score: 1
      (Apologies to /.ers under the age of 5000 who dont know the song.. :-)
      I'm 5002 and I don't know what you're talking about.
      --
      Who do you get to be an expert to tell you something's not obvious? The least insightful person you can find? -J Roberts
    3. Re:Oh, what did Delaware, boys? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What did Delaware?

      Idaho, but Alaska!

    4. Re:Oh, what did Delaware, boys? by technomom · · Score: 1

      Oh, I wish I hadn't read that. Now that damned song is going to be in my head all day!

      JoAnn
      (only 2500 but it was on one of those darned kids' CDs)

    5. Re:Oh, what did Delaware, boys? by adeyadey · · Score: 1

      HeHeHeHeHe..

      I knew a guy who would phone up his mates late at night, and hum a really annoying song down the phone. Sure enough, they would have the wretched tune running through theirs heads all the next day..

      --
      "You lied to me! There is a Swansea!"
  27. SCO news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I was almost missing SCO news.

    I hope RedHat finishes off w SCO as fast as possible (i.e before HL2 gets released)

    I for one, welcome the idea of sending McBride to help w the reconstruction of Iraq, as a concrete block...

  28. Linux is going to come out smiling by heironymouscoward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    When SCO get trashed in court and The Darly Gang get sent to jail for a nine-month reaming, Linux is going to hit the headlines like never before:

    - LINUX WINS

    - LINUX BEATS OFF THE INCUMBENTS

    - LINUX... THE NEXT TERMINATOR?

    I predict that the small slowdown in Linux installations over the last months will reverse into an explosion when this happens.

    Overall, quite a weak showing from the Darly Gang and their friends the Redmond Boys. One would really have expected a little better.

    --
    Ceci n'est pas une signature
    1. Re:Linux is going to come out smiling by rkhalloran · · Score: 1

      If SCO is lucky, the judge will simply look over the USL v BSD history and declare the SysV codebase public-domain, making SCO's claims legally moot. If they're unlucky, the SEC and a swarm of shareholder lawsuits will be waiting for them outside the Delaware courtroom, leading to a group perp-walk, some cozy Federal accomodations and a executive's name change to "Darlene, Mac's bride".

    2. Re:Linux is going to come out smiling by aderuwe · · Score: 1

      Hehehe :)

    3. Re:Linux is going to come out smiling by guacamolefoo · · Score: 1

      - LINUX BEATS OFF THE INCUMBENTS

      That would make anyone smile...

      GF.

    4. Re:Linux is going to come out smiling by radixvir · · Score: 1

      doesnt anyone find it funny that the company sco bought (vultus.com/) has a slashdot monitor which must always have sco bashing articles on it? demo site

    5. Re:Linux is going to come out smiling by Vengie · · Score: 1
      - LINUX... THE NEXT TERMINATOR?


      -Linux...BEATS GRAY DAVIS IN RECALL ELECTION
      err....wait....
      We *have* elected dead senators [and live movie stars] in this country....
      --
      When in doubt, parenthesize. At the very least it will let some poor schmuck bounce on the % key in vi. (Larry Wall)
    6. Re:Linux is going to come out smiling by Java+Pimp · · Score: 1

      ...Linux is going to hit the headlines like never before... ...I predict that the small slowdown in Linux installations over the last months will reverse into an explosion when this happens...

      This is actually a really good point. Linux is already hitting the headlines like never before. With all this SCO noise, I don't think there is anyone left that hasn't heard of Linux! There's no such thing as bad press!

      I have to agree, once this is over there will be a huge leap forward for Linux.

      --
      Ascalante: Your bride is over 3,000 years old.
      Kull: She told me she was 19!
  29. I want to RTFA by Mostly+a+lurker · · Score: 1
    Can someone post it here since Groklaw is down for the count.

    Yea, you must be new here would probably be moderated as "Funny" but I beat you to it.

    1. Re:I want to RTFA by !Squalus · · Score: 0, Funny

      See, it is "weapons of Mass Browsing". So, did you ever decide on a T-shirt design Cowboy?

      Groklaw rocks. They found the Renaissance Papers, and have all of the court docs. PJ is a goddess.

      --
      All Ad hominem replies happily ignored as the sender shall be deemed to lack the faculties to comprehend the equation.
  30. Protecting trade secrets by sjbe · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I think it is also funny that they are concerned about "trade secrets" when everyone knows how Unix works. There is no big mystery.

    Disclosure IANAL...

    Don't be quite so quick to jump on this one. While I agree with you completely in principle, SCO does need to be careful in reality. Trade secrets are just that, secrets. Once they are discovered, they are no longer entitled to trade secret protection, meaning they cannot sue the releasing party if they were released illegally. Typically if there is a real trade secret, most reasonable judges will (rightly) make some accomodations for that fact.

    Presumably SCO has a few trade secrets even though you are right that we basically know how all their stuff works. Just because we can figure it out, doesn't necessarily mean it isn't protected as a trade secret. So it's not surprising that they would be careful about trying to ensure they aren't unecessarily made public. Any company with proprietary assets in a legal battle would do the same. You can argue that they don't deserve such protection anymore because of what they are sueing for (and I wouldn't argue with you over it) but you should not be surprised that they are seeking trade secret protection. It's just a normal part of the legal proceedings.

    1. Re:Protecting trade secrets by schon · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Once they are discovered, they are no longer entitled to trade secret protection, meaning they cannot sue the releasing party if they were released illegally.

      The thing is - anything that's in the Linux code base by definition is not a secret.

      Nobody's telling SCO "show all of your code" - they're saying "which lines of the Linux source do you believe is infringing?"

      The only reason not to answer that question is that there is no infringing code.

    2. Re:Protecting trade secrets by sjbe · · Score: 1

      .The only reason not to answer that question is that there is no infringing code.

      Right... Which is why I wrote "You can argue that they don't deserve such protection anymore because of what they are sueing for (and I wouldn't argue with you over it)..." Apparently that wasn't clear enough. I didn't say it was a logical arguement on SCO's part, just that we shouldn't be surprised that it is happening.

    3. Re:Protecting trade secrets by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Once they are discovered, they are no longer entitled to trade secret protection, meaning they cannot sue the releasing party if they were released illegally.

      Yes and no. You can sue the releasing party if they, presumably like IBM and SGI, knowingly published your trade secret. If they violated your NDA, you go after them for contract violation and trade secret violations.

      Yes, once it's public, it's no longer protected as a secret. That means millions of Linux users are legally allowed to use any SCO trade secrets that are published in the Linux kernel, since they're obviously not secret anymore.

    4. Re:Protecting trade secrets by bizcoach · · Score: 1
      Nobody's telling SCO "show all of your code"

      Actually, "show all of your code" is a good description of part of what RedHat is aking for:

      20. A copy of the source code of each and every version of UNIX software in which SCO claims to own any intellectual property rights or have any other legal interest, and a copy of the source code of each and every version of Linux software in SCO's possession custody, or control that was created on or after January 1, 2000, whether or not released for public use, licensing or sale, and a copy of the source code of each and every version of UNIX software that SCO has sold, offered for sale, licensed, and offered to license.
      21. The source code of any SCO Linux product and any third party Linux product identified in response to Interrogatory No. 6.
      22. A copy of the source code for each version of the following: UnixWare, UnixWare 7, UnixWare 7.1.2, UnixWare 7.1.3, Open UNIX, Open UNIX 8, Reliant HA, NeTraverse Merge, Merge, Merge 5, SCO OpenServer, SCO OpenServer Release 5.0.5, SCO OpenServer Release 5.0.6, SCO OpenServer Release 5.0.6, SCO OpenServer Release 5.0.7, OpenServer Kernel Personality, OpenServer Kernel Personality for UnixWare 7.1.3, SCO Linux, SCO Linux 4.0 Server for the Itanium Processor Family, SCO Linux 4, OpenLinux, OpenLinux 3.1, OpenLinux 3.1.1, OpenLinux 64, UnitedLinux, UnitedLinux1.0, UnitedLinux 1.0 Service Pack 2, UnitedLinux 1.0 ServicePack 1.
  31. Re:Mozilla and KDE crash on Redhat 7.1 by knewman_1971 · · Score: 1

    "Linux really doesn't need users such as yourself. Linux is an advanced operating system. Please feel free to stick with your kindergarten operating system and save the rest of us having to offer to help you"

    Why do you think most people never bother trying to use Linux?

    The day that the open source community strips itself of that very attitude, Linux will have a shot at the masses. I, for one, can't wait.

    --
    where is the "I feel for ya, but that's some funny ass shit" moderation?
  32. Re:Mozilla and KDE crash on Redhat 7.1 by DaveV1.0 · · Score: 1

    The next time a MS worm hits, remember you made this post and don't whine about how everyone should use Linux. Also, don't complain about the lack of H/W or S/W support, because you advocate keeping Linux out of the hands of average users.

    Thank you for making the point of everyone who says Linux user are intolerant and condesending to newbies.

    --
    There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.
  33. What I'm looking forward to... by moonboy · · Score: 1

    I'm certainly looking forward to this whole mess being over so Linux can continue on the road to "World Domination" (remember that? :-) But what I'm really looking forward to is the trials afterward when Darl and Co. will go before a grand jury to be indicted on federal charges leveled by the SEC for commision of fraud in an effort to artificially inflate stock prices. But then again, that's just me.

    ...or is it?

    --

    Co-founder and designer at Music Nearby: http://musicnearby.com
    1. Re:What I'm looking forward to... by DataCannibal · · Score: 1

      Actually it's "Total World Domination" and I've still got the Think-Geek t-shirt to prove it :-)

      --
      No but, yeah but, no but...
    2. Re:What I'm looking forward to... by sdcharle · · Score: 1

      I want to see Darl sweat too, but probably all we'll get is him invoking the 5th amendment on the advice of his council...

  34. Anyone seen this? by shades66 · · Score: 1

    SCO: irrevocable doesn't mean forever By Andrew Orlowski in San Francisco Posted: 10/10/2003 at 07:31 GMT

    Star Letter IBM, and now SGI claim that their UNIX(TM) licenses are irrevocable. Not on your nelly, says SCO - and is there anyone left on the planet who isn't aware of SCO's litigation against Linux and open source?

    To: Subject: Why do these guys keep calling the license irrevocable?
    I have read over SGI's licenses and I've found no place where it says it is irrevocable. Why would anyone in their right mind sign over a license to anyone that was not revocable? .....

    Read the rest here

    --
    ---- There are 10 types of people in the world. Those that understand binary and those that don't
    1. Re:Anyone seen this? by larien · · Score: 1
      Yeah, saw it this morning. However, they have to be able to prove breaches of the licensees obligations (i.e. IBM & SGI) and let them know the details. If, after two months of advising IBM/SGI of the breach, they haven't fixed it, they can pull the plug.

      Vague threats of "you're breaching our IP, but we're not telling you which part of our IP you're breaching" are not, IMHO, notifying them of a breach.

      As for "all your code are belong to us" (regarding SCO's claim that XFS, JFS et al are "derivative works) really depends on the wording in the rest of the agreement.

    2. Re:Anyone seen this? by dipipanone · · Score: 1

      Why would anyone in their right mind sign over a license to anyone that was not revocable?

      For money, of course. If the price is right, most things are for sale.

      And I'm pretty sure ATT or whoever sold IBM their license before it was as clear as it is today that the IP in an OS can be a license to print money. I mean, how much do you suppose an irrevocable licence to CP/M is worth today? Twopence? Threepence?

    3. Re:Anyone seen this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      You can?t take code based on a license you signed, change it a little and then give it away for free (as in the case of XFS from SGI).

      This is wishful thinking. First, SCO must find a judge who agrees that XFS is a derivative of System V, as they claim. Then, perhaps, the judge will also allow SCO to terminate the SGI license. Until that happens, SGI's license is valid, no matter what SCO claims.

      One problem is that judges have, in the past, thrown out perpetual contracts on the basis that, after a while, they've become unfair. The 1985 contracts about Unix code had value back then because the AT&T Unix code itself had value. Today, the AT&T Unix code has little value left; what has value is the Unix code written by IBM, SGI, HP, SUN, etc.

    4. Re:Anyone seen this? by wes33 · · Score: 1

      the scumbag from SCO neglects to mention exhibit D, the amendment to the contract with IBM that makes the license irrevocable (of course SCO can still sue for various damages ...)

  35. Oh, that won't be the end. by Viqsi · · Score: 1

    Oh, it's not going to be over after SCO gets exposed. Because then you can be sure all the folks SCO's been going after are going to go right back after them.

    And I'm sure The Revenge Of IBM is going to make headlines around here.

    --

    --
    viqsi - See "vixen"
    If we do not change our direction we are likely to end up where we are headed.
    1. Re:Oh, that won't be the end. by wizkid · · Score: 1

      It won't be the end, but it won't last long after that. Sco has no money. I figure that there will be about 3 months fighting over what's left of sco's money after they loose the case, And only 3 months cause that's about when they'll go chapter 7.

      McBribe will probably be somewhere outside of the US and Europe by then, with all his cashed out stock profits. Unless, of course the fed's pick him up and throw him in with Bubba. I think McScum needs to spend some Quality time being Bubbas new Bo!

      --
      I take no responsibility for what I say. Even though I'm never wrong :)
    2. Re:Oh, that won't be the end. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's spelled beau ;P

      Anonymous Spellchecker

  36. Re:What it is to be /.'tted by 16K+Ram+Pack · · Score: 1
    I've been wondering if there's any way of creating a webserver that works like BitTorrent - when you download files, you share your home bandwidth to help deliver the cached pages.

    It would largely rely on trust with people not deleting the content, but it would be better than nothing.

  37. Re:Mozilla and KDE crash on Redhat 7.1 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You know what? It's funny 'cause it's true. Most of it is true, anyway.

  38. Re:What it is to be /.'tted by mark_lybarger · · Score: 1

    a crashed server doesn't directly cost money, it costs someone's time to bring it up and fix the problem. that person is already on staff and is getting paid to write perl scripts to sniff thier own logs.

    sure there's those wacko's with bandwidth limitations, but if you put it on the web, it's fair game to link from /. from cnn or from goatse for that matter.

  39. Re:Mozilla and KDE crash on Redhat 7.1 by ddimas · · Score: 1
    I run Redhat 7.1. I never had any of these problems. Sounds like your system is either grossley misconfigured, or hardware incompatible with Linux.

    Check your hardware for Linux compatibility. I tried to get X to run with an incompatible video card and recieved no joy. I finally gave up and bought a Linux compatible video card and viola, runs like a dream.

    Once you get your system properly configured, that includes using the Redhat Update Agent (in the System submenu), it will reveal NT for the unreliable OS that it is.

  40. Re:What it is to be /.'tted by warpSpeed · · Score: 1
    They put up an interesting web page for people to view it, and man many people did. If they are concerend about a /.ing they should not put up articles that a prone to attracting attention.

    Blaming /. for taking someones site down is like blaming a newspaper for publishing a positive critique on a new (but small) resutraunt, and the owners compaining about all the "unwanted" traffic that suddednly comes through the door.

    You published something on the web, it is public and freely avaiable, get over it.

  41. Re:What it is to be /.'tted by Skater · · Score: 2, Funny

    That's why most of us don't read the articles!

  42. discovery is meaningless by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Lawyers can ask for anything in the discovery phases and frequently do. This info from Red Hat is meaningless and will have little bearing on a final case, if it ever comes to that. PJ from Groklaw is showing his essential ignorance of the legal system by his breathless reporting of discovery requests; they are pretty worthless in and of themselves.

    1. Re:discovery is meaningless by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative
      "PJ from Groklaw is showing his essential ignorance of the legal system by his breathless reporting of discovery requests; they are pretty worthless in and of themselves."

      ROFL! Your ignorance of both the law and Groklaw is appalling. PJ (a she, not a he) is a paralegal. I'll take her word on the law over yours any day of the week. Legal research is what she does for a living. Besides, if you've been reading Groklaw, you'd understand the significance of discovery and why what Red Hat just did is so important.

  43. To borrow from Snow White by overbyj · · Score: 1, Funny

    The SCO situation is best summarized in a little ditty popularized by the seven dwarves.

    (sung to the tune of Hi-ho)

    SCO, SCO
    Off to court we go
    They have no bucks and are out of luck
    SCO, SCO

    --
    No trees were harmed in the composition of this; however, numerous electrons were inconvenienced.
  44. Re:What it is to be /.'tted by Sir_Stinksalot · · Score: 1

    Ever think that maybe the slashdot effect is a result of lots of people with a common interest, not some conspiricy to take down small servers? If you have a public website and have something worth seeing and have a limited bandwidth or pay mass more bux then you have to be willing to suffer the consequences.

    --
    "We can no longer live as rats... we know too much." -Secret of NIMH
  45. Re:Mozilla and KDE crash on Redhat 7.1 by Richard_J_N · · Score: 1

    The simple answer, which may be of most help is this: RHH 7.1 is ancient, and the bug you have is probably fixed by now. Get a modern distro (eg RH 9) and have another go (you can download it for free, or buy the CDs for a few $). Or if you want something just to test, try www.knoppix.net (no install required). 2 year old versions of wine aren't so great either!

  46. That one little irritating line... by Chordonblue · · Score: 1

    Ah, beat me to that bold print! Yes I think there's more then enough proof of SCO's intent to do harm rather than honor the original license.

    That one line is the reason why IBM and SGI and others seem unconcerned. SGI and IBM have offered to remedy the situation - and it truly can be said that SGI has done everything possible to do so (with out SCO's help of course), and that's the kicker. SCO has yet to be specific about ANY of their charges. What this request in Deleware means is that for once, they will have to say just what it is they're suing people over.

    Funny, you'd think this would be a pretty basic requirement for this sort of thing. Oh well, IANAL.

    --
    "...Well, there's egg and bacon; egg sausage and bacon; egg and spam; egg bacon and spam; egg bacon sausage and spam..."
    1. Re:That one little irritating line... by Arker · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Actually they have several lines of defense.

      First, no actual breach has been demonstrated, and TSG seems to be working overtime to avoid demonstrating any breach. IBM has been saying from day 1 "show us the breach" but TSG won't.

      Second, in the case of the SGI code in particular, even if it was a breach (which it clearly wasn't,) even the appearance of a breach was remedied as soon as it came to light. No thanks to TSG, btw.

      Finally, there are many amendments to that original contract signed later which override that clause. There's nothing illegal about that. McBride and co. like to trot out the main contract but ignore all the sidebars and amendments. A court is not likely to do the same.

      --
      =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
      Friends don't let friends enable ecmascript.
    2. Re:That one little irritating line... by avidday · · Score: 1

      Actually the SGI "breach" was remedied before it came to light. The usual LKML review hacked that crufty malloc and the other contentious stuff out of the IA64 tree several months before SCO showed that code at their roadshow in Las Vegas and it was identified as being an SGI contribution to the IA64 port.

    3. Re:That one little irritating line... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > The usual LKML review ...

      That's not what happened. A slashdot poster found the code by doing an automatic comparison between Linux and Solaris (I think), and identifed the segement. Once the copyright issue was raised on the kernel list, the code was removed for technical reasons.

  47. The faster this can get into court by VEGETA_GT · · Score: 0

    the faster this can get into court and be over, the better.

    O crap
    what well I read now in the morning over coffiee

  48. Re:What it is to be /.'tted by the_archivist · · Score: 1

    caching proxies should carry the load if people would only design proper static page!!

    --
    while(karma less_than enough_karma){karma++}
  49. Re:Mozilla and KDE crash on Redhat 7.1 by luther349 · · Score: 1

    lemmie get this straght your running a old ass version of redhat with outdated softwhere and a old beta ver of mozilla and wondering why your having problems. well first off upgrade to redhat 9. second linux is stable as hell never crashes but then again im running the latest ver im shure that has alot to do with it. btw if mozzila does freez up on your old 7.1 box its ctrl alt backspace to kill x. unfrezzing your system. linx lacks the ease of use of windows and im shure we all had issues with linux some time or another but onceyougot linux tweaked the way you whant it its smooth sailing. oh and kde sucks ass anyways i have no idea why people like the worlds slowest most bloted windowmanager.

  50. Not true by Tuckdogg · · Score: 2, Informative

    Discovery is usually the most important part of a legal case, and it's especially important in this one. SCO, thus far, has offered tons of wild accusations about IP violations, misappropriation, drunken debauchery, etc. against IBM and the Linux community generally. They have offered almost nothing to back it up with, and what little has leaked out has proved to cut heavily against their court cases.

    The fact that Red Hat and IBM are both filing motions to compel discovery is proof that SCO taking the same track in their legal battles. They are trying to stall because they don't want to show the code; they don't have anything to show. They're just praying that IBM will put them out of their misery and buy them out. And, by the way, one more indication for the non-legal world that, in case you didn't already know, SCO is full of shit and going to lose. Badly.

    --
    Tuck
    Tuck's Journal.
    1. Re:Not true by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > SCO, thus far, has offered tons of wild accusations about IP violations, misappropriation, drunken debauchery, etc. against IBM and the Linux community generally

      But not in front of a court, and specifically not in front of this court. Which is why this motion re: discovery is utterly meaningless. You can make all the emotional arguments you want about SCO, but in this narrow instance they are all meaningless. SCO's motion to dismiss takes precendence over everything else, which is why the court is almost certain not to grant the motion re: discovery. Red Hat is working hard to avoid the motion to dismiss, which ought to make you sit up and wonder how strong their case is.

      This is just grandstanding from Red Hat and ultimately meaningless. If SCO's motion to dismiss is rejected, then discovery will proceed.

      Oh, and IBM never filed a motion to compel discovery. You're confusing your legal terms. IBM sent SCO a discovery request, which is what happens in civil actions like this. The way the system works is simple: a discovery request is sent. The other side then has so many weeks to respond, either with the documents or a rationale as to why the request was rejected. The original party can then argue before the court why discovery should indeed happen, while the rejecting party can defend itself. We're not even to that point yet; IBM has merely served SCO with its discovery request.

      Justice is a slow process in this country. Trying to read ANYTHING into these first actions is a waste of time, and to argue that the slow nature of the court system shows SCO is stalling is really misguided. I personally don't think SCO has a leg to stand on, either, but not because discovery is taking a normal amount of time.

    2. Re:Not true by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > SCO, thus far, has offered tons of wild accusations about IP violations, misappropriation, drunken debauchery, etc. against IBM and the Linux community generally

      But not in front of a court, and specifically not in front of this court. Which is why this motion re: discovery is utterly meaningless.


      Which is why this discovery is especially important, because Red Hat is now forcing SCO to explain and justify their claims regarding linux in court.

      SCO's motion to dismiss takes precendence over everything else, which is why the court is almost certain not to grant the motion re: discovery.

      You mean the court is almost certain not to grant Red Hat's motion until they dismiss SCO's motion to dismiss, which seems likely.

      Red Hat is working hard to avoid the motion to dismiss, which ought to make you sit up and wonder how strong their case is.

      You mean SCO filed a motion to dismiss and Red Hat filed a counter-motion not to dismiss? Duh, I should hope so!

      This is just grandstanding from Red Hat and ultimately meaningless.

      Following standard legal procedure is grandstanding? I'm glad you're not Red Hat's lawyer.

      If SCO's motion to dismiss is rejected, then discovery will proceed.

      Which is what Red Hat is doing. I don't get your point.

  51. Article text by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative
    There has been quite a lot of activity in the Red Hat case.

    SCO filed a Motion to Dismiss the action in its entirety, as you know, and Red Hat filed its answering brief. But since we last reported on this case, Red Hat initiated discovery. They asked SCO for documents and for answers to some pointed questions. IBM is forcing SCO into a corner in Utah, and Red Hat is forcefully and aggressively trying to do the same in Delaware. You'll see, I think, that we haven't been wasting our time telling the world the details of this story. The big picture is that Red Hat is telling SCO to prove their allegations with specificity. They also want all their source code, and I'm sure you can figure out what they want to do with it, when I tell you that they asked for the complete Linux Kernel Personality source code, among the other products for which they have requested source code.

    They also want to hear some details about the relationship between Canopy and SCO, including any stock or intellectual property transfers. They want SCO to "identify by title, version, module(s) and line(s)" what they think is misappropriated in any way or in violation of any of its rights. They ask for the details of Microsoft and Sun's licensing arrangement with SCO. They want to know who those 1500 companies were that got the letter, and what happened next. They want to know exactly what SCO has filed a copyright on. They want all the details of SCOsource, including all the folks who have seen the code SCO has been showing under the NDA and what they saw, and any other contact with any Linux users about supposed liability. They want to know how they compared the UNIX and Linux code to determine infringement. They want to know if they've done any comparisons of the two and what the results were. They want to know all the stock or industry analysts SCO has met with or talked to and what was said. In short, it's like the kind of fantasy a guy might have about a bully getting his at last, because they asked them everything we wanted somebody to finally ask SCO and make them answer.

    SCO responded to Red Hat's discovery requests by filing a new motion, and it has told the judge, in a Motion to Stay Discovery Pending Resolution of Motion to Dismiss, it would like a delay until after the first motion, the Motion to Dismiss, is ruled on. They surely don't seem in any hurry to get this matter resolved. They argue that because they are simultaneously providing discovery to IBM (of course IBM says they aren't seeing anything, as I recall), they can't possibly do both, and anyway, if they win their motion, it'd be moot. In short, they would very much like not to have to do this, presumably so that if they win the Motion to Dismiss they can continue to refuse to give any particulars about their case. If the judge doesn't grant their Motion to Dismiss, they'd like the judge to give them 30 days to provide all the discovery items.

    Both of Red Hat's discovery documents are attached to this SCO Motion to Stay Discovery, and they begin with definitions, like what is "intellectual property" within the context of the document, and instructions, like how to identify the writers of documents, etc.. The first document begins on page 7 of the pdf, but we find out what Red Hat is asking for on page 12, where the list begins.

    Red Hat in its "First Request for the Production of Documents and Things" asks SCO to produce the following documents:

    1. All documents concerning the subject matter of the Complaint.
    2. All documents concerning any customer, or potential customer, of Red Hat.
    3. All communications between SCO and Red Hat or any employee of Red Hat.
    4. All communications between SCO and any user or potential user of a Linux product, including Red Hat LINUX product, concerning any rights to Linux, or UNIX that SCO claims to have or concerning any actions by Red Hat that SCO claims are w

    1. Re:Article text by physick · · Score: 1

      I just checked SCO's stock price and their p/e is 137: this means it would take 137 YEARS of their earnings to get back their stock market valuation.

      Microsoft, for comparison, trades with a p/e of 31 or so.

      Either a lot of people REALLY believe SCO is going to produce a lot of money in the future, or they believe someone is going to buy them out.

    2. Re:Article text by walterbyrd · · Score: 1

      >>Either a lot of people REALLY believe SCO is going to produce a lot of money in the future, or they believe someone is going to buy them out.

      Or the air hasn't been let out of the tech bubble. Check the valuations on AMZN or YHOO. The market still hasn't learned it's lesson. They may be good companies, but there is no way those companies can grow fast enough to justify their insane valuations. The market is still very much in love with over-valued tech.

  52. Re:Mozilla and KDE crash on Redhat 7.1 by ideatrack · · Score: 0

    I'm new to Linux and find this to be an all to common response if I use anything other than the paid for support lines.

    If you want to know why people don't move across to Linux, then you could do with looking a little harder at yourself.

    But this is off topic.

  53. Re:Mozilla and KDE crash on Redhat 7.1 by beady · · Score: 1

    Wow, where do I start?
    Linux DOES crash, running the latest version (assuming mean the ACTUAL latest version, not the latest stable version) is more likely to do more harm than good regarding stability issues.
    And the spelling, I mean, I'm not really a grammar, or spelling nazi (I can't afford to be!), even mine is typically better than yours!

  54. Re:What it is to be /.'tted by ninthwave · · Score: 1

    But how does it determine if it gets slashdotted or not. Not all articles are popular and get the brunt of the users here. So there is no big or clever idea or motive going on, just people post infomation, others find it interesting. The only out is not to post interesting information. Or to deny slashdot refers but that is another story.

    --
    I was thinking of the immortal words of Socrates, who said: "I drank what?" - Chris Knight (Val Kilmer)- Real Genius
  55. Groklaw Article by Mostly+a+lurker · · Score: 5, Informative
    I found a backdoor to this (sorry about the formatting):

    SCO Files 2nd Motion Asking the Red Hat Judge for a Delay on Discovery

    Thursday, October 09 2003 @ 04:25 AM EDT

    There has been quite a lot of activity in the Red Hat case.

    SCO filed a Motion to Dismiss the action in its entirety, as you know, and Red Hat filed its answering brief. But since we last reported on this case, Red Hat initiated discovery. They asked SCO for documents and for answers to some pointed questions. IBM is forcing SCO into a corner in Utah, and Red Hat is forcefully and aggressively trying to do the same in Delaware. You'll see, I think, that we haven't been wasting our time telling the world the details of this story. The big picture is that Red Hat is telling SCO to prove their allegations with specificity. They also want all their source code, and I'm sure you can figure out what they want to do with it, when I tell you that they asked for the complete Linux Kernel Personality source code, among the other products for which they have requested source code.

    They also want to hear some details about the relationship between Canopy and SCO, including any stock or intellectual property transfers. They want SCO to "identify by title, version, module(s) and line(s)" what they think is misappropriated in any way or in violation of any of its rights. They ask for the details of Microsoft and Sun's licensing arrangement with SCO. They want to know who those 1500 companies were that got the letter, and what happened next. They want to know exactly what SCO has filed a copyright on. They want all the details of SCOsource, including all the folks who have seen the code SCO has been showing under the NDA and what they saw, and any other contact with any Linux users about supposed liability. They want to know how they compared the UNIX and Linux code to determine infringement. They want to know if they've done any comparisons of the two and what the results were. They want to know all the stock or industry analysts SCO has met with or talked to and what was said. In short, it's like the kind of fantasy a guy might have about a bully getting his at last, because they asked them everything we wanted somebody to finally ask SCO and make them answer.

    SCO responded to Red Hat's discovery requests by filing a new motion, and it has told the judge, in a Motion to Stay Discovery Pending Resolution of Motion to Dismiss, it would like a delay until after the first motion, the Motion to Dismiss, is ruled on. They surely don't seem in any hurry to get this matter resolved. They argue that because they are simultaneously providing discovery to IBM (of course IBM says they aren't seeing anything, as I recall), they can't possibly do both, and anyway, if they win their motion, it'd be moot. In short, they would very much like not to have to do this, presumably so that if they win the Motion to Dismiss they can continue to refuse to give any particulars about their case. If the judge doesn't grant their Motion to Dismiss, they'd like the judge to give them 30 days to provide all the discovery items.

    Both of Red Hat's discovery documents are attached to this SCO Motion to Stay Discovery, and they begin with definitions, like what is "intellectual property" within the context of the document, and instructions, like how to identify the writers of documents, etc.. The first document begins on page 7 of the pdf, but we find out what Red Hat is asking for on page 12, where the list begins.

    Red Hat in its "First Request for the Production of Documents and Things" asks SCO to produce the following documents:

    1. All documents concerning the subject matter of the Complaint.
    2. All documents concerning any customer, or potential customer, of Red Hat.
    3. All communications between SCO and Red Hat or any employee of Red Hat.
    4. All communications between SCO and any user or potential user of a Linux product, including Red Hat LINUX product, concerning any rights to Linux, or UNIX th

  56. Scox yesterday.... by reality-bytes · · Score: 1

    Yesterday SCOX was running more or less straight and even (althought it did finish slightly down).

    The markets open again in 10 minutes (ish) from the time of this post so It'll be interesting to see what happens today.

    I predict that today the stock value will mirror yesterday, it may even end slightly up. This is because little or none of the news read here at /. and other such places is getting filtered through to wall street.

    It would seem that Wall Street founds its trust on press releases rather than actual 'news'. (Nobody said trading was a safe game!)

    --
    Ripping an new rectum in the fabric of spacetime.
    1. Re:Scox yesterday.... by nelsonal · · Score: 1

      There are a few wall street types who catch the alternative media outlets. I think /. was the only place that had the MS settlement before the market closed, and MS started moving up quite a bit at the end of the trading period. It picked up a few minutes after the story was posted, so someone is looking. It is likely that the relativly few investors who bought SCO on this news would never have heard of /. so that stock doesn't move.

      --
      Degaussing scares the bad magnetism out of the monitor and fills it with good karma.
    2. Re:Scox yesterday.... by Rogerborg · · Score: 3, Insightful

      > I predict that today the stock value will mirror yesterday, it may even end slightly up. This is because little or none of the news read here at /. and other such places is getting filtered through to wall street.

      Actually, the reason is that you buy stock like SCOX as a speculation, not an investment. It's a simple theory that boils down to this: no matter how dumb it is for you to own the stock, someone dumberer will buy it off you for more.

      So far, that seems to be a pretty accurate assessment.

      --
      If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
    3. Re:Scox yesterday.... by epiphani · · Score: 1

      I have an question about stocks, as I'm completely financially inept.

      I've heard of 'put' options, basically betting that a specific stock is going to fall through the floor. Is it possible for me to buy put options on SCOX and make a shitload of money when their stock drops through the floor?

      --
      .
    4. Re:Scox yesterday.... by ShavenYak · · Score: 1

      Sure, but if you're actually financially inept, options trading might not be such a great idea. Besides, you'll have to send in a bunch of forms to your broker and then meet their criteria to be "allowed" to buy/sell options. You'd probably have a much easier time just short-selling the stock. Oh, and you might consider buying Red Hat as well, since SCO's allegation is a burden on them and its resolution should be good for their stock.

      --

      Hey kids, there's only 5 days left 'til Yak Shaving Day!
    5. Re:Scox yesterday.... by johnnyb · · Score: 1

      There are two ways to bet a company is going down: put options and selling short.

      When you sell short, what you are doing is borrowing the company's stock. You immediately sell it. Later, you have to buy the stock to repay it, so if it went down, you have a net gain.

      With put options, you are buying the opportunity to sell someone stock at a given price on a given day. You don't have to do so, but you can. For instance, if I were able to buy a put option for SCO today for $13 for $2 (just making up numbers here), then no matter what SCO falls to, I can sell the person SCO stock for $13. So, if I didn't own any SCO stock, I could buy an option for $2, and then if SCO fell to, say, $5, I could then buy SCO for $5 and have a guaranteed sell for $13.

    6. Re:Scox yesterday.... by sdcharle · · Score: 1
      Agreed, options trading is not for the novice or faint of heart.

      It's worth noting that theoretically, there's no upper limit on your losses if short-selling goes wrong (although, when was the last time a stock went to infinity?).

    7. Re:Scox yesterday.... by bkweber · · Score: 1

      Others have reported during past SCOX discussions that there are no SCOX options, either put or call. Using what others have replied (namely that selling short exposes you to unlimited downside whereas a put bounds downside to 100% of value), if you were so inclined to make a bet against SCOX I would recommend puts over going short. Going short is really not something for anyone other than professional (really institutional) investors. It can be very painful, and in the case of SCOX has been very painful. Stay away.

    8. Re:Scox yesterday.... by ShavenYak · · Score: 1

      True, but I think it's pretty safe to say that SCOX is not going to be the stock that has Wall Street struggling to figure out how to quote a price of aleph-null.

      --

      Hey kids, there's only 5 days left 'til Yak Shaving Day!
    9. Re:Scox yesterday.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're right it it pure speculation for the most part, except perhaps the insiders. For them it could be considered pump and dump, which is punishable.

      As to the speculation, it's a reasonable gamble that could pay off at between 5:1 and 15:1 odds, using extremely simplistic math. SCOX market cap is around 227million. If they win just 1/3 of the damages they claim from IBM, thats $1 billion, or almost 5 times their entire market cap. The full $3 billion is in the range of a 15:1 payoff.

      But if they really win, and are judged to own all derivative works of UNIX as they claim, then their future revenue would be even bigger, for an even greater payoff.

      Of course the miniscule chances that they will win are keeping their stock price from getting even more astronomically out of line with what they are worth than it already is.

    10. Re:Scox yesterday.... by thanjee · · Score: 1

      no matter how dumb it is for you to own the stock, someone dumber will buy it off you for more.

      That is well and good until you realize you were the dumbass who shouldn't have bought stock which now no one wants to buy :)

      --
      Saying your OS is the best because more people use it is like saying MacDonalds make the best food
  57. Legal Reason for Delay by judmarc · · Score: 2, Informative

    SCO has asked the judge to rule on their Motion to Dismiss first, which is fair, and is almost certainly what will happen. The Motion to Dismiss says that even if everything Red Hat says is true, it still doesn't amount to an infringement of Red Hat's legal rights. So the judge has to rule on whether Red Hat's case will amount to anything *even if they prove everything they say* before giving Red Hat a chance to get that proof through discovery.

    1. Re:Legal Reason for Delay by WatchMaster · · Score: 1

      We all like a good SCO bashing, but this is almost certainly true. There is no legal point in carrying out discovery if the case could be dismissed; the motion to dismiss should be ruled on first, then if it not dismissed the discovery would proceed.

    2. Re:Legal Reason for Delay by Prior+Restraint · · Score: 1

      The Motion to Dismiss says that even if everything Red Hat says is true, it still doesn't amount to an infringement of Red Hat's legal rights.

      I thought that was what happened in a motion for summary judgment. I always took a motion for dismissal to mean that (in this case) Red Hat's claims aren't legally valid, i.e., the legal theory underpinning the case was wrong.

    3. Re:Legal Reason for Delay by Dav3K · · Score: 1

      And that is just what is happening. Red Hat filed, SCO filed a motion to dismiss. Red Hat filed for discovery, SCO filed a motion to stay pending the decision on the motion to dismiss.

      Bad news for SCO is their executives keep making damning press releases, thereby strengthening Red Hat's case and increasing chances of it going to court.

    4. Re:Legal Reason for Delay by judmarc · · Score: 1

      On a motion for summary judgment, evidence (though not as extensive as at a trial) may be presented and evaluated. A motion to dismiss evaluates no evidence. It simply considers everything the plaintiff says to be true and then determines under those assumptions if the plaintiff could possibly prevail.

      If the plaintiff could not possibly prevail even if everything it alleges is true, then that *does* amount to the legal theory underpinning the case being wrong. (Simple - if you're right on all the facts but you still can't win, what did you get wrong? The law.)

  58. Re:What it is to be /.'tted by stephenbooth · · Score: 1

    Static pages! Come on!! That's so 1997!!! Dynamic content is where it's at!!!! PHP, CGI, server side VB^H^HJavaScript!!!!!

    In case it's not obvious the above is irony.

    Stephen

    --
    "Don't write down to your readers, the only people less intelligent than you can't read" - Sign on Newspaper Office Wall
  59. article text by 010011101_(thats+me) · · Score: 0

    There is an interview with IBM's Jim Stallings on Red Hat's site, and I thought you'd be interested in what he has to say about Linux in the enterprise going forward: "Q4: We touched on this a little bit earlier, but where does IBM see Linux evolving in the enterprise? "A4: In the enterprise, we see Linux continuing to grow into spaces that have been traditionally occupied by UNIX, until the differences are indistinguishable. As I said earlier, we see Red Hat Enterprise Linux 3 as being a big step in that direction. As Linux continues down this path, we can rely on the open source community to ensure that Linux both continues to improve, and remains rooted in open standards. That's important from our point of view. "Customers know that businesses can change very quickly -- because of the economy; changing security requirements, corporate consolidation, new business models or products (or competitors with new business models or products) -- and customers have to respond to that. Closed, inflexible 'one size fits all' business models and IT solutions are just not consistent with the business realities customers deal with in the real world. "The openness of Linux and our commitment to open standards will ensure that Linux continues to evolve in a way that meets customer's needs, so they can flex and adapt to changing circumstances. We call that being an 'On Demand' business. "Q5: Can you comment on the coexistence of open source and proprietary alternatives, given that IBM has solutions to offer in both worlds? "A5: It's not about open source versus proprietary solutions. It's about open source and proprietary solutions, which are based on open standards and so are working together. This way, the customer has choice. "As I've learned from customers in the past year, TCO means 'take cost out.' We have a global economy with slow growth, and in some geographies, no growth. So value is the killer app right now. Open source solutions can help customers get there. Increasingly, it's helping governments get there. So it's not going to be one or the other; it's going to be both. "We have a cohabitation strategy, not an exclusionary strategy built on proprietary software. There's no way you can remove open source from the picture at this point, and those who think you can are just fooling themselves. It's not going to be a proprietary-only world ever again." SCO Files 2nd Motion Asking the Red Hat Judge for a Delay on Discovery Thursday, October 09 2003 @ 04:25 AM EDT There has been quite a lot of activity in the Red Hat case. SCO filed a Motion to Dismiss the action in its entirety, as you know, and Red Hat filed its answering brief. But since we last reported on this case, Red Hat initiated discovery. They asked SCO for documents and for answers to some pointed questions. IBM is forcing SCO into a corner in Utah, and Red Hat is forcefully and aggressively trying to do the same in Delaware. You'll see, I think, that we haven't been wasting our time telling the world the details of this story. The big picture is that Red Hat is telling SCO to prove their allegations with specificity. They also want all their source code, and I'm sure you can figure out what they want to do with it, when I tell you that they asked for the complete Linux Kernel Personality source code, among the other products for which they have requested source code. They also want to hear some details about the relationship between Canopy and SCO, including any stock or intellectual property transfers. They want SCO to "identify by title, version, module(s) and line(s)" what they think is misappropriated in any way or in violation of any of its rights. They ask for the details of Microsoft and Sun's licensing arrangement with SCO. They want to know who those 1500 companies were that got the letter, and what happened next. They want to know exactly what SCO has filed a copyright on. They want all the details of SCOsource, including all the folks who have seen the code SCO has been showing under the NDA and what they saw, and any other contact with any

    --
    (A)bort, (R)etry, (P)retend this never happened...
  60. Re:Mozilla and KDE crash on Redhat 7.1 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I would beware of phrasing a question in that particular tone in future, since it is very likely to be interpreted as a troll. Just on the offchance that you really want to do something sensible with Linux, ditch Red Hat - especially a version that old! - and use Mandrake instead. Mandrake basically is Red Hat, just with different graphics. Same file structure, same RPM package management system and so forth. IMLE anything that says it will work with Red Hat will work with Mandrake. Also, Mandrake does not contain any non-Free software.

    I have noticed clashes between GPM and KDE with certain mice. If you mostly use KDE, you can just stop GPM in runlevel 5. To do this, open a root Xterm and enter
    mv /etc/rc.d/rc5.d/S85gpm /etc/rc.d/rc5.d/K85gpm
    Then press ctrl-alt-F1 for a text mode console, login as root and enter
    init 3 {this will kill X}
    init 5 {this will restart X with the modified runcontrol sequence}
    If it doesn't work {possibly no mouse movement at all} you need to reverse the procedure. Press ctrl-alt-F1 again {your root login should still be there} then
    mv /etc/rc.d/rc5.d/K85gpm /etc/rc.d/rc5.d/S85gpm
    init 3
    init 5


    Alternatively, if you really feel up to it, go for Slackware. I used to recommend Debian, but can no longer do so with as much enthusiasm after experiencing a Slackware install. Debian's "stable" incarnation is still using KDE2, and the "unstable" incarnation {with KDE3} is a bit ropey to say the least.

    With Windows, installing software or hardware is usually outwardly straightforward; but in practice, you'll still do some cursing and swearing and gnashing of teeth and punching the monitor every time you use it. Whereas with Linux, all the frustration is got out of your system in one go. You curse, grind your teeth, punch the monitor, eventually get it to work - and after that, it just works, forever.

  61. Re:What it is to be /.'tted by ninthwave · · Score: 1

    referers (ick doesn't look right stop try again)

    use htaccess and perl to deny slashdot refered hits.

    specifically

    --SNIP: .htaccess:--
    PerlHandler ChkSite Apache::Registry
    --SNIP--

    Next, write the handler itself.It looks like this:
    --SNIP: ChkSite.pm
    use strict;
    use Apache::Constants ;

    sub handler
    {
    if ( $ENV{HTTP_REFERER} !~ /example.com/ )
    { return DECLINED; } #ok... go to next handler

    #send error page
    my $r = shift;
    $r->content_type("text/html");
    $r->send_http_header;
    my $content = qq{

    You come from $ENV{HTTP_REFERER}: [slashdot.org] ... Access denied.

    };
    $r->print($content);
    DONE;
    }

    1;
    --SNIP--

    From Sonam Chauhan

    You could even modify that to point slashdot referrer to the google cache.

    And the nice thing is you can add domains to it as you find your site getting referenced by different forums and discussions.

    --
    I was thinking of the immortal words of Socrates, who said: "I drank what?" - Chris Knight (Val Kilmer)- Real Genius
  62. Is the Public Footing the Bill? by jimcooncat · · Score: 1

    How much of our tax money is being used for this nonsense? Is the loser going to be made to reimburse the court system? If so, will it really cover all the costs? Or is Red Hat saving the people money by getting this into the court system, so the FTC and SEC don't have to?

    1. Re:Is the Public Footing the Bill? by rootofevil · · Score: 1

      court costs would be about it, since this is one entity suing another. and those costs will be passed on anyway, so really we arent losing anything at all.

      and we get this 3-ring circus that SCO is putting out. even if we were paying for it, id say its pretty much worth it to watch someone get the legal smack-down.

      --
      turn up the jukebox and tell me a lie
  63. Mod Parent Up by hughk · · Score: 1

    This is very interesting but I have no mod points.

    --
    See my journal, I write things there
  64. Don't hold your breath by tube013 · · Score: 1

    I'm involved in a lawsuit in Chancery Court here in Delaware, and we have a motion from a year ago still waiting for the judge to rule on, also the motion for summary of judgement was finished in April still with no ruling.

    granted our judge got moved to the state supreme court, and then the replacement got postponed as some other judge died.... still seems like an awful long time.

    1. Re:Don't hold your breath by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This wouldn't be Jarndyce v. Jarndyce, would it?

  65. Delaware, Good Choice by acherrington · · Score: 1

    If I recall the laws in delaware really will favor RH in this case. Of course this is the reason why all your credit agencies and credit cards come from deleware as well.

    --


    Victory is gained, not in knowing your opponents next move, but in preempting them.
    1. Re:Delaware, Good Choice by Medievalist · · Score: 1

      Well, it's kind of a mixed bag.

      Delaware is a "business-friendly" state. Fiscally conservative, socially liberal, with low taxes for large corporations, low filing fees to license corporations, and best of all the Delaware Chancery Court.

      The Chancery handles cases like this, and while in most states corporate lawsuits can drag on for years (if not decades) the Chancery is organized and motivated to resolve the issues in the absolute minimum amount of time. Businesses, especially banks and insurance companies for whom time really is money, love that.

      So it's good that this is being resolved in Delaware, because it will be quick (by corporate legal standards, that is). It's bad in that the Chancery will not necessarily be morally outraged by SCO's shenanigans, because they probably see old-school stock-market profiteering (which is what this is really all about) as a very minor sin, not something worth getting all upset about.

      I'd be suprised if Red Hat is not a Delaware corporation. Most US businesses are.

  66. What we all know... by djeaux · · Score: 1
    Darl McBride learned a while back that litigation can produce money faster than real work. But that doesn't work if the opponent has more resources (IBM) or believes it is right (Red Hat).

    What we've been seeing is McBride's worst nightmare: SCO files suit & the opponent files a countersuit. The opponent doesn't want to settle; the opponent wants to go to court a.s.a.p. Things are not going according to plan.

    McBride still might be able to make some money out of this by printing SCO stock in rolls on "cushy" paper & selling it in one of the gag gift catalogs...

    --
    "Obviously, I'm not an IBM computer any more than I'm an ashtray" (Bob Dylan)
    1. Re:What we all know... by rkhalloran · · Score: 1
      Darl expected a quiet buyout from Armonk after which he could open his golden parachute and take up residence somewhere offshore where he couldn't be extradited back to the States.

      He didn't realize dangling a case like this in front of IBM's legal department was like dangling raw meat in front of a pack of tigers. At this point, the attention could also bring in the SEC for potential stock manipulation, and a raft of shareholder suits for mis-representation of the company's situation.

      So they've adopted the predictable tactic of dodge-and-delay and hoping they can keep the stock pumped up long enough to cash out their options. The MSFT & SUNW 'royalties' if applied at the right times may just let them get away with it...

  67. Re:What it is to be /.'tted by IIRCAFAIKIANAL · · Score: 1

    A restaurant has a physical limit that dictates it can serve the first N customers, but >N customers will simply be turned away (which won't cost the restaurant owner a thing, unless they riot :). When a webserver is slashdotted, damn near *nobody* gets served and the bandwidth costs go through the roof.

    I don't necessarily disagree with your point, I just think your analogy is flawed.

    --
    Robots are everywhere, and they eat old people's medicine for fuel.
  68. More threats from SCOX by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's funny, the sco execs just can't keep their big mouths shut. I suspect brain damage.

  69. You have it wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    In SCO v IBM:

    IBM *have* filled a motion to compel discovery. They have requested oral argument on this motion. They have presented a memo, addendum to memo, and a whole bunch of exhibits supporting their motion.

    IBM have in their discovery requests and interrogatories asked SCO to explain the basis of their complaint with *specifivity* regarding the trade secret, unfair practises, tortious interference etc. that SCO alledge. SCO have not done so - they simply say the evidence is somewhere in 900,000 pages of code, Sys V licenses, UNIX and Linux code - and their answers to the interrogatories are in some cases in more vague than those they alledge in the complaint.

    One of IBM's exhibits is the SCO slide show. SCO did not provide this to IBM. The slide show has far more specifics, and implies the existence of more specifics in SCO's possession. Yet SCO presented none of this.

    IBM is entitled to know the basis and specific details of SCO's complaint. Even SCO accepts that! Yet SCO refuse to provide it.

    So IBM filed the motion to compel. I think the motion will be granted. SCO will then either have to respond with the specifics or drop the case against IBM (but IBM's countersuit will continue)

    SCO will not get away with simply saying "You did some bad stuff, we can't tell you precisely what, but we think it's somewhere in these truckloads of documents". IBM cites numerous cases to support this, as well as federal rules of procedure. Even if SCO could, the documents/questions they have provided, can not possibly answer some of IBM's questions about the very basic elements of SCO's case against IBM.

    Red Hat v SCO

    I believe SCO's motion to dismiss (RH v SCO) will be denied, as it argues many facts about Red Hat's complaint (it should only argue law) and even introduces new facts, an unrelated case, and cites a case which actually undermines their argument. Furthermore, SCO's motion to dismiss, does not even really attempt to address any of Red Hat's state law claims! Red Hat's response to the motion to dismiss is quite compelling with lots of citations of relevant cases, and good legal arguments.

    The Red Hat case is at a much earlier stage.

    That said, I do think discovery in RH v SCO may be delayed. The discovery may be delayed until after the SCO motion is ruled on.

    Assuming SCO's motion to dismiss is denied in this case, SCO will eventually have to provide the judge with how it contends that Red Hat infringes. If SCO merely tell the judge, it's somewhere in these 46 CDs and 900,000 pages of docs, but we can't tell you where, then Red Hat will win the declarative judgements.

  70. Re:Mozilla and KDE crash on Redhat 7.1 by luther349 · · Score: 1

    heh well latest stable yep. xfree crashes not linux shure xfree is part of the deal but im making a point hear. 90% of the time xfree can be killed and the freez unfrozen. of everyones favret M$ powerd ps has a error its reboot time

  71. Sorry, I just cannot help myself.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Bullshit!

    I guess we can just say screw the people who they killed, no need for just punishment.

    Uh, death is not punishment, it's death -- and in no way offers real vindication for the survivors. Having known a surviving family who lived through this process, they still felt cheated even after capital punishment was imposed.

    An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth is good enough for me (and please don't quote gandi on me).

    Please don't quote the bible to me. It's just as silly and pointless to me as quoting peaceful philosophies is to you.

    As for the very rare innocent person who is executed for a crime they didn't commit? Well thats a pretty small price to pay for justice,

    No, it's murder. Exactly what you are railing against.

    and yes I would feel the same way if I were one of those 'innocents'.

    No, you are lying -- or compelely self delusional. You would be wetting your bed screaming about how you are innocent and wondering how the system has failed you. Don't pretend to be brave when you have no idea of what you are talking about.

  72. IBM did file a motion to compel discovery by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No, you are WRONG

    IBM have filled a motion to compel discovery!!!

    In SCO v IBM:

    IBM *have* filled a motion to compel discovery. They have requested oral argument on this motion. They have presented a memo, addendum to memo, and a whole bunch of exhibits supporting their motion.

    IBM have in their discovery requests and interrogatories asked SCO to explain the basis of their complaint with *specifivity* regarding the trade secret, unfair practises, tortious interference etc. that SCO alledge. SCO have not done so - they simply say the evidence is somewhere in 900,000 pages of code, Sys V licenses, UNIX and Linux code - and their answers to the interrogatories are in some cases in more vague than those they alledge in the complaint.

    One of IBM's exhibits is the SCO slide show. SCO did not provide this to IBM. The slide show has far more specifics, and implies the existence of more specifics in SCO's possession. Yet SCO presented none of this.

    IBM is entitled to know the basis and specific details of SCO's complaint. Even SCO accepts that! Yet SCO refuse to provide it.

    So IBM filed the motion to compel. I think the motion will be granted. SCO will then either have to respond with the specifics or drop the case against IBM (but IBM's countersuit will continue)

    SCO will not get away with simply saying "You did some bad stuff, we can't tell you precisely what, but we think it's somewhere in these truckloads of documents". IBM cites numerous cases to support this, as well as federal rules of procedure. Even if SCO could, the documents/questions they have provided, can not possibly answer some of IBM's questions about the very basic elements of SCO's case against IBM.

    Red Hat v SCO

    I believe SCO's motion to dismiss (RH v SCO) will be denied, as it argues many facts about Red Hat's complaint (it should only argue law) and even introduces new facts, an unrelated case, and cites a case which actually undermines their argument. Furthermore, SCO's motion to dismiss, does not even really attempt to address any of Red Hat's state law claims! Red Hat's response to the motion to dismiss is quite compelling with lots of citations of relevant cases, and good legal arguments.

    The Red Hat case is at a much earlier stage.

    That said, I do think discovery in RH v SCO may be delayed. The discovery may be delayed until after the SCO motion is ruled on.

    Assuming SCO's motion to dismiss is denied in this case, SCO will eventually have to provide the judge with how it contends that Red Hat infringes. If SCO merely tell the judge, it's somewhere in these 46 CDs and 900,000 pages of docs, but we can't tell you where, then Red Hat will win the declarative judgements.

  73. Re:Mozilla and KDE crash on Redhat 7.1 by StenD · · Score: 1

    I'm sorry that you had problems with your Linux configuration, but this is not a support forum for Linux. While you may not have "had any problems with a windows OS crashing", I can assure you that is not the typical experience, and even most Windows experts will tell you that.

  74. Right about now by Rogerborg · · Score: 1

    Is when Darl and the other SCO execs will be realising that the game is up. That gnawing sound you can hear is them hollowing out the shell of SCO from the inside.

    When a judge in either the IBM or Red Hat suits finally says "Enough stalling, provide the source or be in contempt", they'll simply file for chapter 7 (or straight to 11), throw up their arms and say "Gosh, we'd like to prove our case, but we seem to have inexplicably spent all of our money on buying beach front property which we then accidentally sold to our relatives for ten cents an acre. There would be a little left over, but it turn out that we all have these golden parachute clauses in our contracts that kick in about now! How about that?"

    Then they'll scurry off to new jobs that match their talents. Darl will find a home in Syria, North Korea or Iran as their new Information Minister.

    But look on the bright side. Before that happens, a lot of lawyers will be able to buy a lot of new Mercedes and BMW cars, and that's got to be good for the economy. Specifically, Germany's economy.

    --
    If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
    1. Re:Right about now by BBird · · Score: 1

      "...Darl will find a home in Syria, North Korea or Iran as their new Information Minister..." his skills are maybe better suited for the WH or the Pentagon

    2. Re:Right about now by Rogerborg · · Score: 1

      >[Darl's] skills are maybe better suited for the WH or the Pentagon

      Hmm, I think I get your point.

      "Well, we haven't actually found any evidence of our source in linux, but that just shows that our constant vigilance was working. Plus we've pretty sure that they would have put it there if we hadn't destroyed them."

      Sounds eerily familiar.

      --
      If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
  75. Go to the new site: www.groklaw.net by FunWithHeadlines · · Score: 1
    Groklaw has just moved due to the high volume. New address is www.groklaw.net.

  76. Even though you're modded troll... by IANAAC · · Score: 1

    I have to say, the RedHat version you have is really pretty old (think Win98 equivalent). You also don't mention what kind of hardware you're using.

    True story: I recently purchased on of the new emachine wide-screen laptops (I love it, BTW). It came pre-installed with WinXP Home edition. After booting it up once in WinXP, I wiped the disk clean and installed RedHat 9 (not Pro - I downloaded the ISO images and burned to CD). RH9 did a pretty good job of detecting all the hardware, with the exception of the internal 802.11G Wifi. There's a scroll 'ribbon' that I was afraid wouldn't get recognized, but did. I had to fiddle with the XF86Config file to get the proper widesscreen resolution, but it initially worked fine with the default 800x600 resolution.

    Once I finished the install, out of curiosity, I wiped the drive clean again and did a full WinXP (Pro) install - not from the OEM supplied disk, but from a full XP install disk. Let me tell you, the install barfed all over the place. I couldn't get the display beyond 640x480 256 colors, mouse was hosed, no networking - ethernet or otherwise.

    At this point, I grabbed the OEM disk and installed from that. That disk had all the correct drivers.

    The point, I guess is that a full install, whether WinXP or RedHat 9 takes some work. Unfortunately, Manufacturers don't ship OEM Linux disks (yet). I truly believe that they will at some point in the future though.
    If you really are interested in trying out Linux (RedHat in particular), I would recommend RH9. You have a unified desktop that you would most likely adjust to quite easily, not to mention a much more recent kernel.

  77. [OT] Living in the U.S. by Jimithing+DMB · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    How convenient for you to sit across the pond and judge the U.S. based on what little information you hear through your news media and special interest groups.

    I realize that it's now fashionable to bitch about the U.S. (and has been for decades now) but this is getting out of hand. How many black people do you have in Norway? Do they generally tend to act like the rest of the population?

    You have NO idea about what is really going on in the U.S. Why don't you come here and live in the scum of the earth parts of town? Then tell me that putting cop killers away is bad.

    Not all black people in the U.S. are bad and that is true regardless of their economic status. However, there is this growing amount of people who are stupid, unmotivated, extremely poor, and have no desire to ever do anything with their lives. Once they realize they fucked up by dropping out back in 8th grade they turn to illegal activities as a source of income since no one in their right mind would hire them for a real job.

    Here's a story I heard from my best friend (who lives in a different state): His wife is in her last year of college and is now student teaching. The kids were being rowdy the other day so she told them that anyone who didn't want to learn should move to the back of the room and turn the desk around to face the wall. The white kids, the asian kids, the hispanic kids, and all of the other kids except for the black kids knew she meant business and paid attention. But the black kids in the class went to the back of the room and thus admitted freely that they weren't interested in learning.

    That time she let them do whatever they wanted (homework from another class, sleep, whatever). Next time she does it she is planning on making anyone who decides not to learn write an essay on why they don't want to learn.

    Why is it that a country founded on the principle of hard work for great rewards has an ever increasing segment of the population that wants nothing more than to lay back and eek out a living doing the absolute minimum amount of work? Could it be because people like you bitch and scream any time "poor black people" who are just misunderstood "innocent 'criminals'" go to prison for their crimes?

    Could it be because an entire political party (the Democratic party) aligns themselves behind nearly every cause relating to black people regardless of how asinine it is simply so they can get the "black vote" and the votes of bleeding hearts? What exactly is the black vote anyway? What motivates almost an entire race to vote in lock step for the same party regardless of how screwed up their social policies are?

    There's a growing number of hard working people of all races in this country who are fed up with this shit. My only hope is that we can restore sanity to this country without turning back the clock 40 years on civil rights. Sadly, if more black people don't wake up out of their democratic party induced coma, it's not going to be pretty.

    So, how are things in Norway? Are you living next to a slum? No? Oh. Well surely you've got a fair number of perfectly healthy people in your country who refuse to go to school and get decent jobs? No? Well surely you have ethnic tensions in Norway? Oh, your population is almost entirely nordic. I guess you wouldn't have any fucking clue then. Would you?

    1. Re:[OT] Living in the U.S. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Excellent points. Just remember, the same sort of rant could probably be written by other folks when Americans start bitching and moaning because, for instance, France, Germany and Russia don't want to follow Fuhrer Bush into war with Iraq....

    2. Re:[OT] Living in the U.S. by MochaMan · · Score: 1

      Wow...
      And with rants like yours, you wonder why the rest of the world is so disgusted with the US? Having lived there myself in the past, at least I can find hope in the fact that most Americans aren't raving racist lunatics...
      Tell me, your neighbours to the north in Canada don't seem to half half the problems you do... yet have a similar racial composition. Why is that?

    3. Re:[OT] Living in the U.S. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      You have NO idea about what is really going on in the U.S. Why don't you come here and live in the scum of the earth parts of town? Then tell me that putting cop killers away is bad.

      I've no problem with jailing the killers of police officers. Executing people who didn't commit any crime at all apart from being near a murder and not being able to afford a competent lawyer, on the other hand, isn't. Remember, it was only a couple of years ago that the governor of Illinois commuted ALL death sentences in that state as 13 of the 25 convictions had been found to be faulty. Norway probably also has a problem with the US executing juvenile offenders and the mentally impaired.

      But you think foreigners have no idea. So let's try this guy...
      Twenty years have passed since this Court declared that the death penalty must be imposed fairly, and with reasonable consistency or not at all, and despite the effort of the states and the courts to devise legal formulas and procedural rules to meet this daunting challenge, the death penalty remains fraught with arbitrariness, discrimination, caprice and mistake... I feel morally and intellectually obligated simply to concede that the death penalty experiment has failed."

      That's the verdict of Justice Blackmun of the US Supreme Court...

    4. Re:[OT] Living in the U.S. by Jimithing+DMB · · Score: 1

      "[...] at least I can find hope in the fact that most Americans aren't raving racist lunatics"

      Yes, you're right, and neither am I a "raving racist lunatic." If anything, I hate the white trash Neo-Nazi shit even more. I did speciifcally mention that I'd like to see some balance restored without turning back the clock 40 years on civil rights.

      Of course, you wouldn't bother to read it very carefully because you've apparently made up your mind well ahead of time that Europe's ideas for how the world should be run should be forced upon the entire world, especially the U.S.

      Most of Europe seems too busy goose stepping to the beat of the E.U. to realize that there's a world beyond Europe. Ironically, the U.S. has traditionally been the union with the most short-sighted international policies, but it now seems we've passed that buck to the E.U.

      The good news is that we still have the bombs.

    5. Re:[OT] Living in the U.S. by Atzanteol · · Score: 1

      Probably because the minorities in Canada aren't being told that they
      deserve "reparations" for things done to their ancestors centuries ago.
      Seriously. The civil rights movement was a wonderful thing, but it's
      gotten that the pendulum has swung too far.

      Why is it that Europeans feel free to intelligibly comment on things in the
      U.S. they willingly admit they don't understand? I thought the OP rant was
      pretty good. Some of us are very frustrated by the "rest of the wold"
      being so haughty and pretentious. Tell me, were the Scotts treated any
      better in the U.K. than the blacks in the U.S.? How about the Jews in
      Germany? The Jews in the former Soviet Union? The arabs by the european
      catholics?

      The U.S. isn't the only country that has had racial issues in the past.

      --
      "Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge"

      - Charles Darwin
    6. Re:[OT] Living in the U.S. by Jimithing+DMB · · Score: 1

      I too have mixed feelings about the death penalty. On the one hand, it sickens me to think that some cases do get shuffled through the court system without proper trials and because of that innocent people are put to death.

      On the other hand, there are some people who just deserve to die. Serial killers are firmly in that category for me. Some people just need to be gone. The D.C. area snipers? They confessed, it's admissable, and yes, they probably are crazy, but that's really not an excuse unless they REALLY didn't appreciate the consequences of their actions. Considering they made quite an effort to allude police, I really don't buy that argument. They had to know damn well what the consequences of their actions were in order to do what they did. Hang 'em.

      I wonder what will happen. Chances are they won't wind up being executed because it's a high profile case and the lawyers trying to make a name for themselves are already coming to their rescue.

    7. Re:[OT] Living in the U.S. by Jimithing+DMB · · Score: 1

      Thanks. Essentially, this is the core of my argument without all of the excess ranting.

    8. Re:[OT] Living in the U.S. by pommiekiwifruit · · Score: 1
      Could it be because an entire political party (the Democratic party) aligns themselves behind nearly every cause...

      Considering that Bustamante, from your supposedly left-leaning "democratic" party, expressed that he would be in favour of executing 13 year olds (in a debate with Pete Wilson who wanted to execute 14 year olds), I don't really think you have a left wing (or even a centre) in your country. It's just right wing and extreme right wing.

      Many Europeans consider your obsession with violence and killing to be not very nice.

    9. Re:[OT] Living in the U.S. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Damn good response to a know it all jerk fool.

    10. Re:[OT] Living in the U.S. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It started when LBJ changed the welfare laws & "grew" an entire generation of black voters.

    11. Re:[OT] Living in the U.S. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I just hope the firing squad is available for those two fucks.

    12. Re:[OT] Living in the U.S. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Many Europeans consider your obsession with violence and killing to be not very nice.

      That's funny considering that War has been the official sport of Europe for a couple thousand years.

    13. Re:[OT] Living in the U.S. by Ella+the+Cat · · Score: 1

      The good news is that we still have the bombs.

      I was prepared to walk a mile in your shoes, I was even prepared to overlook the goose stepping remark, but you lost all credibility with that last sentence. You're not a racist raving lunatic, because there's nothing racist about bombing the species back to the Stone Age with no means to bootstrap ourselves out of it next time around.

  78. Hilarious. by IANAAC · · Score: 1

    This is the message I got when trying to demo the monitor using Mozilla 1.4/Linux:

    We are unable to run this WebFace application. The Web Browser and/or Operating System that you are running does not support the latest Web Standards used by Vultus WebFace. Click here for a list of supported browsers.

    The list of supported browsers, you ask?

    http://www.vultus.com/products/supported_platforms .html

    1. Re:Hilarious. by radixvir · · Score: 1

      weird i am using firebird 0.6.1 on windows and it seems to work.

      but dont worry netscape 7 support "will be availabe in Q1 of 2003"

  79. What about these Unix license revocations? by dougnaka · · Score: 1
    It strikes me that large companies aren't sweating the Unix licensing issue enough. SCO seems to have full legal right to terminate IBM & SGI's Unix licenses, and they have done so.

    What could happen?

    --
    My Linux Command of the Day site : LCOD
  80. What a joke. by zroth · · Score: 1

    This is such a joke. When is a decendant of the guy that wrote the alphabet going to come forward and sue everyone that speaks english?

    1. Re:What a joke. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Didn't an american guy patent the letters used in Norwegian but not in english?

  81. Speculators and Bubbles by joshsnow · · Score: 1

    ..no not Michael Jacksons chimp..:)

    Actually, the reason is that you buy stock like SCOX as a speculation, not an investment. It's a simple theory that boils down to this: no matter how dumb it is for you to own the stock, someone dumberer will buy it off you for more.

    Yes and those dumber people are speculators. It's called a bubble and it bursts when there is nobody left who is willing to continue speculating.

    1. Re:Speculators and Bubbles by Rogerborg · · Score: 2, Funny

      > Yes and those dumber people are speculators. It's called a bubble and it bursts when there is nobody left who is willing to continue speculating

      Sure, but the market is rising right now, so it will continue to rise for ever, right? I mean, we'll never have another of those annoying bursts, surely?

      --
      If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
    2. Re:Speculators and Bubbles by joshsnow · · Score: 1

      Sure, but the market is rising right now, so it will continue to rise for ever, right? I mean, we'll never have another of those annoying bursts, surely?

      Of course it will rise forever! How can it not?
      1) Al Gore (re)invents the internet
      2) Millions of websites created to sell "something"
      3) ???
      4) PROFIT!


      On a more serious note however, I was referring to people willing to speculate in SCO stock, rather than the market generally.

    3. Re:Speculators and Bubbles by Rogerborg · · Score: 1

      > I was referring to people willing to speculate in SCO stock,

      P.T. Barnum might suggest that there's a potential SCO investor born every minute.

      --
      If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
  82. You Got to Know... by Esion+Modnar · · Score: 2, Funny
    ...when to hold them, know when to fold them, know when to walk away, know when to run. (from Kenny Rogers, The Gambler)

    OK, SCO. Enough talk. Let's see your cards.

    --

    They say the first thing to go is your penis. Well, it's either that or your brain. I forget which...
  83. Discovery will take a long time by endeavour31 · · Score: 1

    Complex corporate litigation has long discovery phases. There is a lot at stake and a lot of investigation is necessary to ready the case for trial.

    Discovery can also be used to harass and often is... so don't get wishful re: motions to delay or limit discovery. Discovery rules are very broad unlike evidentiary rules used at trial and the discovery phase is where attorneys bill most of their time. Much factual evidence must be assessed before any big decisions are made. Right now is just tactical posturing.

    This is nowhere near over unless settlement or dismissal happens. This is very unlikely this early in discovery.

    1. Re:Discovery will take a long time by gnutechguy · · Score: 1

      Good point. DO you have a idea of how much time we are looking at? Are we looking weeks, months or years until SCO has to actually show?

      --

      ... and beyond them a far green country under a swift sunrise
  84. OT: ObDaveBarry by red+floyd · · Score: 1

    "Elected Dead Senators" would be a good name for a rock band.

    --
    The only reason we have the rights we have is that people just like us died to gain those rights. -- Cheerio Boy
  85. Red Hat going away by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The word on the street is, Red Hat is going away and going to open source all their software. Don't believe me huh!

  86. Are you trolling? by Population · · Score: 1

    How can they seem "to have full legal right to terminate IBM & SGI's Unix licenses" when they haven't shown the complete contracts?

    All you're basing that statement on is SCO's claims.

    SCO's claims don't carry much weight. Particularly since the episode where both their examples of stolen code were quickly shown to be legally used.

    If SCO did have the "full legal right to terminate" those licenses, SCO should be pushing to get that case through the courts as quickly as possible. Instead, SCO is dragging it out.

    1. Re:Are you trolling? by smitty45 · · Score: 1

      I think that there is a fundamental understanding of SCO's abilities with respect to Unix licenses.

      They do have "have full legal right to BRING TO COURT a termination of IBM & SGI's Unix licenses".

      Whether the contract has been breached is for the courts to decide.

    2. Re:Are you trolling? by dougnaka · · Score: 1
      late answer, but I'm basing this on public statements made by Novell about SCO's claims. First they said, you don't have the rights to do half of what you claim, then they retracted that and said, we think, based on our contract review, that you do. Now, it wasn't specifically about SCO's rights to terminate licenses, it was about SCO's ownership of the Unix IP. But if they've reviewed it, and said, 'yeah, looks like you own the IP', then it sounds to me like they have full right to terminate Unix licenses.

      --
      My Linux Command of the Day site : LCOD
  87. Why in Delaware? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    why are they suing them in delaware? neither company is based in delaware, is there some kind of legal advantage? or whats the reason?

  88. Attacking IBM by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Plane crashes outside of the Canadian IBM headquarters. SCO was not available for comment.

  89. Bible by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    USians prefer the old testament, because its got all the fun things in it like justifying genocide and ethnic cleansing if you define yourselves as the "good guys".

  90. yeah for RedHat! by josepha48 · · Score: 1
    People complain about redhat being to like Microsoft of Linux, but this is another case where Redhat has shown that they believe in Linux, Open Source and the community. Yes they have a vested interest, but I'm sure if slashdot had a ask Redhat what questions you'd like answered in this lawsuit, the probably would respond.

    I hope SCO goes down in flames and those 'enron' type managers there at SCO get put in jail for fraud or something and get f***ed up the a** but bubba!

    --

    Only 'flamers' flame!
    Does slashdot hate my posts?

  91. German Legal System by steve_l · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Is this the same legal system that let the Asterix cartoon get an injunction on Mobilix. And something to stop people linking to the .nl site that showed people how to sabotage railway lines?

    All legal systems have flaws, they are just in different places :(

  92. If SCO dies... by marcus · · Score: 1

    Who will own Unix?

    Has anybody considered the possibility that Red Hat will end up owning Unix?

    Wouldn't that be a twist! ;-)

    --
    Good judgement comes from experience, and experience comes from bad judgement.
    - W. Wriston, former Citibank CEO
    1. Re:If SCO dies... by Bull999999 · · Score: 1

      Then we can have GNU/UNIX = GNU's Not UNIX/UNIX. Now that'll be an interesting version of UNIX.

      --
      1f u c4n r34d th1s u r34lly n33d t0 g37 l41d
  93. Nobody knows.. the trouble geeks see.... by moebius206 · · Score: 1

    I've often wondered about the same thing myself. My mother, wife of a geek and mother of 3 geeks - yet not a geek herself - has had trouble understanding our frustration and pessimism regarding events such as this one, and beyond. Patent wars, legislation (DMCA, et al), and just your everyday bad business habits.

    You know, I bet that most of us geeks were led here by sheer curiosity. Once we learned the potentials of technology, I bet that most of us would love to see it bring people together, and (scuse the cliche'd naivety) used for good (TO TAKE OVER THE WORLD! - heh). But we all know that just isn't going to happen. I believe this is why many of us choose not to invite other people into our 'little world', but rather let them discover it on their own, as we did -- and only then do we welcome them with open arms.

    I would like to know what many of you (realistically) think it would take to make things start turning in a positive direction -- IE, legislation that is in favor of the individual vs the business; businesses that are in favor of being fair; and technology being advocated in a non-abusive way.

    DO you think it can ever happen? Personally, I don't. I have hope that the world will eventually sway over to the ideas that make up things like the GPL, etc... but I know that, when they do, it will simply become another act of devious manipulation and molestation by the corps/government(s).

    BTW, I do not exclude the rest of the world from this. It exists everywhere.

    I have tried to just sum up all of my personal feelings to 'waking up' (being a new father and becoming more responsible and aware of surroundings, etc)... but I don't know... Its probably too trite and obvious to speak about. thoughts?

    1. Re:Nobody knows.. the trouble geeks see.... by dreamchaser · · Score: 1

      Speak for yourself. I don't want technology to bring people together. I simply want it to give me the means to become an Evil Overlord. You can beat the rush and send your tribute to me now, in the form of gold and virgin's if you don't mind.

  94. I know what they can do. by maximum_high · · Score: 0

    Why not give this whole case over to Judge Judy?

    1) The case will be finished within thirty minutes.

    2) No lawyers.

    3) When Judge Judy asks Darl McBride whether or not "He [McBridge] believes IBM knowningly appropriated Unix System V code?"

    Darl McBridge pauses a moment and answers "Umm, well.."

    Judy interrupts him and says "'Umm' is not an answer, Mr. McBride."

    4) In the background, audience members fall asleep after they can't figure out what is this thing is called 'Unix'.

    5) Judge Judy has to remind Darl McBride a second time that "'Umm' is not an answer."

    6) We get to see Judge Judy call Darl McBride an IDIOT.

  95. A crude options primer by sjbe · · Score: 1
    I have an question about stocks, as I'm completely financially inept.

    I've heard of 'put' options, basically betting that a specific stock is going to fall through the floor. Is it possible for me to buy put options on SCOX and make a shitload of money when their stock drops through the floor?


    Several things. I'm not going to try to say everything about options, just answer your question.

    First, options aren't stocks. I don't say this to be rude and it seems obvious but people forget it sometimes. Related, yes but they are a completely different animal as far as investing goes.

    Second, yes it is possible to make a ton of money with options. It is much more likely that you will lose money on them however. Why? Let me see if I can explain.

    A put option is the right, but not the obligation, to sell a stock at a future date for a fixed price. You purchase the option and if the stock moves sufficiently in the correct direction (down in this case), you make a lot of money. Sounds great but it isn't that easy.

    What makes it complicated is two things.
    1. Options are a "time-wasting" asset, meaning that they are only valuable until their expiration date. You have to not only be right about the direction the stock moves, but it has to move before the option expires.
    2. The option costs money to buy. Other folks know that there is a value to holding that option and you are charged a price for it based on how likely it is to become profitable. You can buy a put and lo-and-behold the price moves in the right direction but if you pay too much for the option you lose money anyway. This means that you have to be right and someone else (who is probably pretty smart) has to be wrong. Think you know more about this than a professional who does options for a living? Unlikely.


    So you have to be right about the direction of the move, the timing of the move, the magnitude of the move, and other investors have to be wrong for you to make money on an option. That's a lot of stuff to get right. For stocks, all you have to do is be right about direction. Most people should stay far away from options unless they work with them professionally or have a lot of experience.
  96. valid delaying request by silicon+not+in+the+v · · Score: 1

    I think SCO has a very valid request for delaying this discovery request from RH. They do have a motion for complete dismissal in the pipe, and doing the discovery work would be a total waste of time and expense for them if they whole thing ends up being dismissed. From a rational point of view, I think it makes sense to wait for the dismissal request to be decided first and then to the discovery.
    That being said, though, I think the dismissal request should be denied in a heartbeat by the judge so the discovery process can go forward. It just seems unreasonable to point the finger at SCO already for "obvious delaying tactics" when they have a valid point of what needs to be decided first.

    --
    We may experience some slight turbulence and then...explode. -Capt. Mal Reynolds
  97. Why pick Delaware? by netglen · · Score: 0

    I'm guessing that RedHat went court shopping and decided on using Delaware. Does anybody know the advantages of using Delaware compared to the other states?

    1. Re:Why pick Delaware? by otis+wildflower · · Score: 1

      one or both of these companies might be incorporated there?

      Lots of companies incorporate in DE for many reasons..

  98. Need to Buy Some RH Products by kmactane · · Score: 1

    I need to go out and actually buy some of Red Hat's stuff, some day when I'm not unemployed. The list of questions they're asking SCO is fabulous. They're really sticking it to SCO hard, just the way all of us want to see it done.

    In effect, they're out there defending Linux like an aggressive pit-bull. While I don't use their distro any more, I wish I could do somehting to support them the way they're supporting the community.

    1. Re:Need to Buy Some RH Products by 16K+Ram+Pack · · Score: 1
      I need to go out and actually buy some of Red Hat's stuff, some day when I'm not unemployed.

      That's a good attitude to take.

      I'm not flush at the moment (in work, but not well paid). I like to give something less tangible back to the Open Source community, like helping Mozilla users out with bugs.

  99. Surprisingly accurate name, coming from SCO by JonnyElvis42 · · Score: 1

    As SCO's own representatives have proclaimed, if SCO is successful at this effort, it can add "billions" of dollars in undeserved revenues to its declining bottom line.

    They could win "billions" and have a one in several hundred million chance of actually doing so. That seems very lottery-like, but the fact that the phrase is so accurate makes me wonder if anyone from SCO actually said it.

  100. Finally, some real news by ManoMarks · · Score: 1

    For months it seems that all we read about is SCO's bizzare ramblings and failure to come clean about what they're really doing.

    --

    That's gotta fit into your schema somewhere

  101. Re:What it is to be /.'tted by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    ...sniff thier own logs.

    I once had a dog that used to do that...

  102. Nietzsche by pyrrho · · Score: 1

    fyi, you forgot an s. btw, thanks for the laugh.

    --

    -pyrrho

  103. A minor nit by MarkusQ · · Score: 1

    making SCO's claims legally moot

    A claim is moot if you could make a plausible case for either side. I think the term you are looking for is "irrelevant."

    Other than that, I agree with all you said.

    -- MarkusQ

    P.S. AFAIK, the confusion about moot started from the practice of holding "moot courts" where sudents would act out historical cases of interest (w. students as judge, concerned parties, etc.) to hone their skills. What made the cases interesting was that they were moot; but since the mock-retrials didn't matter, people started mistaking the meaning.

  104. Hey, Darl, this one's for you... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Find a head hunter, will you?

    http://www.lyrics.pl/teksty/zagraniczne/the offspring/whydontyougetajob.htm

    Cheers.

  105. Re:Mozilla and KDE crash on Redhat 7.1 by JoeZeppy · · Score: 1

    I've been supporting MS since 1993, and although win 3.1 and 95/98 sucked, and NT4 had it's share of issues, I honestly cannot remember the last time I saw a BSOD on Win2k or XP *in the user environment*. Application errors happen, but are usually recoverable without a reboot. My main reason for rebooting is usually a hung app that won't die, or is hogging CPU cycles, but the OS is almost always still usable. BSOD's happen on startup when boot or registry files become corrupt, but rarely from a misbehaving app or driver. You guys really need to update your shtick, it's not relevant anymore. It's like your still complaining about horse crap on the streets. Look out the window, it's the 21st century.

  106. SCO vs Redhat, round 2 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Redhat comes out of the corner swinging, but SCO won't stop dancing and ducking. With the GNU GPL on the line in this prize fight, this is one to watch folks.

    Now this whole SCO thing is coming way to close to home, I live but a five min. drive from Delaware, just to the west of the state. Now my only question is what city is this in?