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.
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$$
feel the wrath of slashdot...
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.
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.
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.
Soccer Goal Plans
stowell - Unix licenses are revokable And this from a company insisting that the GPL is invalid whilst distributing GPL licensed software. Hmmmmmmmmmmmmm
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...
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 -
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
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....
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?
You got that right.
http://zdnet.com.com/2100-1104_2-5057033.html
30% off web hosting. Coupon code "SLASHDOT".
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 -
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..
Oh, what did Delaware, boys? Oh, what did Delaware?
/.ers under the age of 5000 who dont know the song.. :-)
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
"You lied to me! There is a Swansea!"
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
Yea, you must be new here would probably be moderated as "Funny" but I beat you to it.
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.
"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?
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.
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
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
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.
It would largely rely on trust with people not deleting the content, but it would be better than nothing.
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.
/. from cnn or from goatse for that matter.
sure there's those wacko's with bandwidth limitations, but if you put it on the web, it's fair game to link from
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.
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.
That's why most of us don't read the articles!
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.
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.
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
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!
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..."
caching proxies should carry the load if people would only design proper static page!!
while(karma less_than enough_karma){karma++}
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.
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.
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
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!
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
Yesterday SCOX was running more or less straight and even (althought it did finish slightly down).
/. and other such places is getting filtered through to wall street.
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
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.
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.
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
"This is not the end. This is not even the beginning of the end. But it is, perhaps, the end of the beginning." Heh.
referers (ick doesn't look right stop try again)
.htaccess:--
;
/example.com/ )
... Access denied.
use htaccess and perl to deny slashdot refered hits.
specifically
--SNIP:
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} !~
{ 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]
};
$r->print($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
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?
This is very interesting but I have no mod points.
See my journal, I write things there
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.
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.
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)
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.
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.
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
If anything, the more cases there are the longer it will take to get into court.
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.
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.
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.
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.
This is the message I got when trying to demo the monitor using Mozilla 1.4/Linux:
s .html
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_platform
What could happen?
My Linux Command of the Day site : LCOD
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?
..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.
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...
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?
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.
"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
"[...] 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.
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
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.
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.
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?
Thanks. Essentially, this is the core of my argument without all of the excess ranting.
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.
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
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
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?
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.
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.
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
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.
Kai MacTane: Web developer for hire in San Francisco
one or both of these companies might be incorporated there?
Lots of companies incorporate in DE for many reasons..
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.
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
fyi, you forgot an s. btw, thanks for the laugh.
-pyrrho
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.
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.
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.