Slashdot Mirror
SCO Says 'Linux Doesn't Exist'
4A6F656C writes "In an article on LinuxWorld.com.au, Kieren O'Shaughnessy, director of SCO Australia and New Zealand, details SCO's plans for Australia, stating that they have 'prepared a hit list' and "would approach Australian Linux users to ensure they had an IP licence." In closing, he adds 'Linux doesn't exist. Everyone knows Linux is an unlicensed version of Unix'." UnknowingFool writes "IBM's lawyers have been busy the last few days. Groklaw has reported a number of different filings. On the heels of last week's motions (1) and (2) for summary judgement, they have filed more documents. First, IBM wants large portions of SCO's testimonies striken (removed) on multiple grounds. Deep in the motion, they call out SCO to produce the 'experts' that did the code comparison analysis. If IBM wins on most of these points, SCO will have very little left in the way of legal evidence. SCO answers on IBMs 10th counterclaim. IANAL but from I understand SCO says this copyright infringment that SCO has allegedly committed on one of IBM's patents is irrelevant to the case and the court doesn't need to decide on it. So SCO is saying that they can sue IBM for infringing on their Unix copyrights and patents but IBM can't counter sue on a specific patent. IBM also filed another memo to support summary judgement. As a matter of law, SCO has to produce evidence to backup its claims. This mountain of evidence SCO has claimed all this time: If they don't produce it, the court has to rule in IBM's favor."
SCO must figure if we can't own them or buy them then they must not exist!
...ever downwards.
The Army reading list
These lines are the kicker (and send exactly the opposite message from the summary here on
Can anyone seriously say that they are really committed to victory in the courts if they have backpedaled that far on enforcing "their violated rights" down under?
Sig under construction since 1998.
"SCO doesn't exist"!
I've been thinking this same thing. It's all relative, really. Just coneceptual ideals and data floating around in the aether, aspiring to the ideal form of Unix.
And for that matter, you guys don't exist when I close my eyes! Neener neener neener!
Dragging people kicking and screaming into reality since 1996.
Here's a question. IBM seems to be willing to go to the mat to defend open source and/or free software. Does this buy loyalty from you linux developers? Do you think they are getting more "good will" than they are spending in lawyers fees?
Waltz, nymph, for quick jigs vex Bud.
What in the world have I been running over the last few years. Was the penguin just a figment of my imagination? Slashdot doesn't actually exist either? And Google?
They should have gone with denial before, not after hate.
Nothing to see here, move along
Edit: they fixed the link. Nevermind. ... like the body or the subject!)
Edit: No they didn't, I'm still getting weird errors
Cat got your tongue? (something important seems to be missing from your comment
Snickersnee3: Build your own 3-watt Luxeon Star headlamp from scratch
SCO: Do not try and use Linux. That's impossible. Instead only try to realize the truth.
IBM: What truth?
SCO: There is no Linux.
IBM: There is no Linux?
SCO: Then you'll see that it is not Linux that you're using, it is only SCO Unix Openserver v. 5. And that will be $699 per CPU please or else you'll be hearing from our lawyers.
Up 0.02 (0.56%)! I'm rich!
is SCO even allowed to orperate as a business anymore? This drama becomes more absurd each week. We'll see geeks dancing in sthe streets when thee numbnuts go under in the next year or so.
IANAL but from I understand SCO
You don't appear to be a writer either.
Also, it's a trademark, just like any other. I'm sure SCO wishes it didn't exist so they could sell their outclassed and outdated stone age Unix software.
Once again they prove they need to be contraversial and down right laughable to gain as much publicity as possible.
Hell, he did wonderful things for saddam ;-)
Iraqi Information Minister
[move
Starts to talk nonsense..
"The only reason we are [pursuing a lawsuit against IBM] is to defend our Unix business; we are not a litigation company, we are about Unix on Intel," he said.
Accelerates..
"IBM has transformed Linux from a bicycle to a Rolls-Royce, making it almost an enterprise-class operating system.
Goes into overdrive..
"It took us 25 years to build our business and it took [IBM] four years simply by stealing code and then giving it away free."
and ofcourse finally..
"Linux doesn't exist. Everyone knows Linux is an unlicensed version of Unix,"
I wish more people like this existed to make my day.
Also, if Linux doesn't exist, will my computer still work when I get home? I've got important stuff on there, and I'd like it to not be a figment of my imagination, as I haven't backed it up lately.
---
"I did nothing. I did absolutely nothing and it was everything that I thought it could be."
'Linux Doesn't Exist'
Cause from the first glimpse, i wonder "then what the hell are over 1000 servers doing back work if Linux doest exist...i must be dreaming the past few years"
The lunatic is in my head
I have seen proof that SCO (Utah) is insane. But the insanity is spreading to other SCO outfits! Is the head nut so convincing? I don't get it.
Showing a graph of 3 months is worthless, since this whole thing has been going on for years now. If you look at the 2 year chart, you will see that they still have quite a bit to dip before they even hit the low point.
Is that why my computer wouldn't boot this morning?
That O'Shaughnessy bloke sure is one heck of a solipsist.
I hear there's rumors on the Slashdots
A philosophy professor walks in to give his class their final. Placing his chair on his desk the professor instructs the class, "Using every applicable thing you've learned in this course, prove to me that this chair DOES NOT EXIST."
So, pencils are writing and erasers are erasing, students are preparing to embark on novels proving that this chair doesn't exist, except for one student. He spends thirty seconds writing his answer, then turns his final in to the astonishment of his peers.
Time goes by, and the day comes when all the students get their final grades...and to the amazment of the class, the student who wrote for thirty seconds gets the highest grade in the class.
His answer to the question: "What chair?"
Well, to put this in context, since Kieren O'Shaughnessy says Linux doesn't exist, IBM lawyers should respond to all the lawsuits as 'What Linux?'
Free XBox, PS2
It sounds like they're engagaing in tactics that the late Soviet Union was accused of. I mean, in their world it may make sense, but out here in reality Linux does exist; they can't claim it's an "Unlicensed" version because they haven't proven anything in this massive Pump and Dump scheme.
After saying that Linux doesn't exist, O'Shaughnessy then ran around the room with his fingers in his ears, yelling "lalalalalalalalalalalala... I can't hear you!"
Afterwards, he went on to discuss SCO's legal strategy of, "I am rubber, you are glue, what bounces off me sticks to you".
Stop by my site where I write about ERP systems & more
Seriously, go to groklaw and read the latest 4-5 files from IBM. Yes they are each ~100 pages but very interesting. Basically IBM has nailed SCO in a box that they can't get out of. In fact IBM is so confident that the language in their filings has gotten beyond the normal angry lawyer comments as they point out how insane SCO's arguements are.
A lot of things SCO does reminds me of a child's behaviour, and this is one of them. Kids often dwell on things that please them, and act as if problems don't exist.
When I was a little boy I came home from school and asked my mom if we could skip Thursday. She was puzzled and said "no". She later found out that I had gotten in trouble at school, and the teacher had scheduled a disciplinary meeting on Thursday afternoon.
Thursday doesn't exist.
Slashdot Syndrome: the sudden, extreme urge to correct someone in order to validate one's self.
Well the real surprise will hit SCO when they find out australia doesn't exist.
this is the most important sig ever! In your face 446154!
"Breaking the duck" is a term used in cricket. Basically, it means getting your score above 0, so we can see that SCO has sold at least 1 SCOExtor.....er, SCOSource licence.
Their legal evidence evaporating the only thing they know how to do is manufacture FUD, the bigger, uglier, and more ridiculous now they're in the corner.
Then How am i posting this message with this browser that doesn't exist? Wait, where am I? Who ARE you people!
Reminds me of rambus.
If Linux doesn't exist, then Darl shouldn't object to the shoving of the aforementioned inexistent printed source code up his ass, right?
-- It's always darker before it goes pitch black.
How can something that does not exist infringe on SCO's properties?
Quote: "Absurdism is a theory that was carried over into the dramatic art form as "Theatre of the Absurd." In the Theatre of the Absurd, there was an attempt to convey the concept of the absurd through deliberate distortions and violations of conventional forms, to undermine the ordinary expectations of continuity and rationality. This avant-garde dramatic convention emphasized the illogical and purposeless nature of existence. It was often violent, grotesque and outrageously funny, conveying meaning through masks, ritual, sounds, gestures, costumes or stylized actions."
loc. cit.
CC.
TaijiQuan (Huang, 5 loosenings)
It's a dupe!!
It's a dupe!!
This is the same thing we've being hearing for more than a year
There is no Linux!
It's GNU/Liunx!!!!!!!
When will you people learn?
Regards,
RS
So it was said to be in the hundreds of thousands...
Then it was in the thousands... then the hundreds, then the dozens...
Now all of a sudden its the whole damn thing? I would love to hear SCO explain how someone could have the complete code to an unlicensed version of Unix and have gotten away with it until now.
Crack must be real cheap in Utah these days...
can't sleep slashdot will eat me
Is this the forecasted meltdown of the Internet. Tell all the world that Linux doesn't exist, and whamo, no more Internet?
This is not the software you are looking for.
We can go about our business.
Move along.
There you have it. Linux doesn't exist. No need for a law suit then, right?
Now that Darl has kinda been bitch slapped and doesn't really give us much juicy stuff in the press anymore, it appears that this dude is the new mouse that roars.
What happens to SCO Australia after SCO USA is pulverized? Do they and the rest of the SCO's go away too? Anybody know?
I know SCO doesn't have much (if any!) credibility with geeks on Slashdot, but when you want to win a court case you have to maintain credibility in your claims.
Using terms like "hit list" is not a good way of gaining credibility with investors and with judges. Claiming that something doesn't exist and then trying to sue people for using it doesn't help your credibility with anyone.
The legal system isn't deaf or blind to the media; SCO's ridiculous actions will affect the outcome of subsequent court cases. As we've seen with IBM's increasing success in court, SCO just hasn't learned these lessons.
Not that I mind at all.
I think, therefore I am.
Linux computes, therefore it is.
But if SCO falls in a forest of futile legal filings, did it really make a sound or was that just wind breaking?
TLR
A man no more knows his destiny than a tea leaf knows the history of the East India Company
SCO (to everyone): "La La La La...I can't hear you, I can't hear you!"
Linux (to SCO): "Stop hitting yourself! Stop hitting yourself!"
SCO (to AT&T): "Mom, Linux is poking me! Make him stop! Make him stop!"
They certainly would have gotten away with it too, if it wasn't for those meddling kids
Me neither.
I really hope the individuals behind this disgraceful farce get blacklisted by every tech company on the planet, they deserve nothing less.
Can... not... resist... Must... corrupt... HHGTTG quote...
"I refuse that Linux exists," says SCO, "for Linux denies Copyrights, and without Copyrights I am nothing."
"But," says Torvalds, "Open Source copyrights are a dead giveaway, aren't they? They could not have evolved by chance. In Linux they exist, and so therefore, by your own arguments, you don't. QED."
"Oh dear," says SCO, "I hadn't thought of that," and promptly vanishes in a puff of logic.
"Oh, that was easy," says Torvalds, and for an encore goes on to prove that black is white and gets himself killed at the next zebra crossing.
Most leading software developers claim that this argument is a load of dingo's kidneys, but that didn't stop Oolon Colluphid making a small fortune when he used it as the central theme of his best-selling book, 'Well That About Wraps It Up for SCO.'
+1 Insightful, -1 Troll. What can I say, I'm an Insightful Troll.
... ceci n'est pas une pipe
Linux doesn't exist. Everyone knows Linux is an unlicensed version of Unix
-1 Troll
At some point, when a company's stock price drops low enough for long enough, it gets delisted, right?
So SCOX is now down to 3.64, the last time I checked:
http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bc?s=SCOX&quicken=2
Does anyone know at what point they will be delisted?
Cricket page
It says If a batsman gets out without scoring any runs, he is said to be out for a duck.
Does breaking the duck means not being skunked, finally getting some scores on the board?
Infuriate left and right
Thankfully, the whole SCO mess had kind of faded away into a bland hum of claims, counterclaims, and posturing by SCO. It's still annoying, but you know in the end they'll be ground into dust.
...) on us.
On the other hand, these guys are such clowns it's no surprise IBM is wiping the floor with them. We'll have something to worry about when a well-funded, smart foe springs a well-conceived trap (.net/mono, Sun/Java,
Small correction: It's GNU/Linux. And GNU's Not Unix.
Computers are useless. They can only give you answers.
-- Pablo Picasso
Well, considering that they were once the "bad guy" company, not unlike the Microsoft of today to many here, I'd say they've turned things around quite well.
As long as they're defending open source with their lawyers, I can't imagine a sane person wanting to attack it--I've read the legal briefs, they don't miss a thing.
Today SCO on acid realized that all matter is merely energy condensed to a slow vibration, that we are all one conciousness experiencing itself subjectively, there is no such thing as Linux, life is only dream, and we're the imagination of ourselves. Here's Tom with the weather
SCO concluded by saying the "moon doesn't even exist", "everybody knows it is just an unlicenced copy of the Earth" which SCO claim was stolen when a large Mars sized body crashed into Earth some years ago.
"A lie is a way to tell the truth to someone who doesn't know."
We knew this would eventually happen. Hell, SCO knew they would end up in this type of hot water. The whole problem with this mess is that they don't care if they lose.
The connection between themselves and Microsoft is firmly established now. I guess it is still open to debate if Microsoft was the company that came up with the idea of using SCO as a massive FUD machine against Linux, or if they simply started backing SCO once they realised what potential that would have. My personal guess would be that you could probably trace the very idea back to Redmond, but that's really irrelvant here.
For all the time this has been going on, there has been a blanket of FUD over Linux. Most people here saw through it, but even on Slashdot you could find posts along the lines of "...but what if SCO is actually right and their IP is in Linux..." The business world, getting their news from sources like Forbes, had a far different perception. To them, Linux suddenly became a poison pill that no IT manager would touch. You may believe Linux's reputation will eventually recover, but SCO was able to plant seeds of doubt in so many minds in the mean time.
The real trajedy here is that this type of tactic has made SCO management and board members rich, SCO employees unemployed, Linux tarnished in the eyes of the businessman, and most likely nothing will ever be done to punish those responsible for the lies.
"The market alone cannot provide sufficient constraints on corporation's penchant to cause harm." -- Joel Bakan
Hmm, the stink of fraud is certainly filling up the room now...
Man I love this graph!
SCO is officially well under the $4 mark on their one-artificially-healthy stock.
Slashdot Syndrome: the sudden, extreme urge to correct someone in order to validate one's self.
My friend Jay and I were hanging out one day, and he started saying all sorts of nutty things. So I looked him square in the eye and said, "You're crazy."
Just seemed kind of relevant.He looked back at me with eyes so horribly deep and said, "I'm not crazy. You're crazy. I'm not even here!"
http://mediagoblin.org/
No they are attacking Linux with zen. "What is the sound of one hand?" "What is the sound of Linux Running on my server?" LOL
This all started as a gamble for SCO. They thought for sure IBM would have just bought them to make them shut up.
That didn't happen then SCO thought maybe they could extort lots of money from Linux users.
That didn't happen so then they thought they could sue other companies to scare people into buying.
That didn't happen and now they are walking the Mile. Expect lots of sound and fury but in the end it will signify nothing.
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=200408252 24344827
these last days, such redundancies have become quite frequent. My guess is that cowboyneal is on a vacation.
War doesn't prove who's right, just who's left.
OH....
MY.....
GOD......
So what you are saying, in reality, is that Computers do not exist? We ARE in the Matrix! Nooooooooo!
If Linux doesn't actually exit, doesn't that pretty much negate their complaint?
It's good to use your head, but not as a battering ram.
In the late 1970's Microsoft licensed UNIX source code from AT&T which at the time was not licensing the name UNIX. Therefore Microsoft created the name Xenix. Microsoft did not sell Xenix to end-users but instead licensed the software to software OEMs such as Intel, Tandy, Altos and SCO who then provided a finished version of their own Xenix to the end-users or other customers. SCO introduced its first version of Xenix named SCO Xenix System V for the Intel 8086 and 8088 in 1983. Today SCO Xenix is one of the more commonly used and found versions of Xenix.
Linux was based on Minix. A UnixLite OS designed to run on PCs. However, it was really only a teaching tool. Andrew Tanenbaum repeatedly refused to add the new (legitimate) features the users and even developers asked for. Linus Torvalds set out simply to add functionality to his own version of Minix (the copyright allows use to do so for your own personal use, but you cannot sell or distibute it).
Over time, in adding functionality to Minix, Linus Torvalds found that he had created an entirely new kernel. I was very similar to Minix but used none of the Minix source code. Torvalds had originally called it freax, for "`free' + `freak' + the obligatory `-x'. The operator of the FTP server where Linus' new kernel made its debut didn't like the name and simply called it Linux (Linus + Unix). People seemed to like the name so it stuck.
...it's nice to see that Baghdad Bob has gotten himself a new gig.
/. If the government wants us to respect the law, it should set a better example.
I'm continually amazed by how much SCO leadership reminds me of guys like Kim Jong Il. Cut off from the rest of the world and entirely impervious to reason. I don't know much about Darl as a person, but I wouldn't be surprised if he lived in a bunker 200 feet below the surface with a horde of castrated slaves that spend their days chanting "Your stock is up!" and "There is no linux!".
Even blind squirrels find nuts now and then.
"Linux doesn't exist." --Sco
Does anyone find this last quote vaguely reminiscent of the writings of the atheist philosopher Nietzsche? This reminds me alot of the popular quote made by him that goes, "God is dead."
"God is dead." --Nietzsche.
"Nietzsche is dead." -- God
Likewise:
"Linux doesn't exist. Everyone knows Linux is an unlicensed version of Unix. " --Sco
"Sco doesn't exist. Everyone knows OpenServer is an unlicensed version of Unix." --Tux
I guess there are a lot of drivers on the road that aren't driving on the road, if you mean that licence to drive means that you are a driver.
I have to wonder what measures of desperation SCO will try now. I wish the courts would do a put-up-or-shut-up deal, allowing the case to drag on. Then again, I wish the SEC would take action.
What about Linus? Please don't tell me he doesn't exist either *sob*.
An Indian-American Hindu committed to non-violent thought/speech/action alarmed by the global explosion of radical Islam
According to Descarte, a philosopher from 1595-1650,
cognito ergo sum -- I think, therefore I am
Since quoting an old philosopher in debate is nothing short of having Jesus himself back your argument. So Descarte is right. By this school of logic, we can reasonably conclude that it is not Linux that doesn't exist, rather it is SCO.
Of course, by this reasoning, our President doesn't exist, which sadly isn't true.
(If you thought of this before me, reward yourself with a hit of the bong)
...and the Holocost never happened.
And the Easter Bunny *is* real.
No - seriously.
Torvalds = Dostoevsky
It must be the "You must understand there is no spoon" kid talking. But it is only he that bends.
Boy: Do not try and bend the spoon. That's impossible. Instead only try to realize the truth.
Neo: What truth?
Boy: There is no GNU/Linux.
Neo: There is no GNU/Linux?
Boy: Then you'll see that it is not the GNU/Linux that bends, it is only yourself.
Coherant is one. I have the software and the book for this non-existant OS that I bought in the early 90s. Minix is another but has been used to "prove" that the first Linux kernel couldn't have been written by one person. So perhaps Minix exists after all.
Then there is Xenix. SCO sold that for years after Microsoft sent it their way. Bill Gates hasn't mentioned Xenix in a long time so it must not exist either.
But if Linux doesn't exist, what was Caldera selling all those years (before it became SCO)?
No one ever had to evacuate a city because the solar panels broke!
Not to be outdone by SCO, IBM quickly came back with
I'm rubber, you're glue. Whatever you say bounces off of me and sticks to you.
SCO lawyers:
Yeah, well you're all stupid.
IBM lawyers:
I know you are... but what am I.
SCO laywers(amongst themselves):
Damn, that was good one. Do we have anything else? (shuffle through papers) How 'bout "Our dads can beat up your dads"? No. Try this.
SCO laywers(to IBM):
You're mom!
Slashdot Syndrome: the sudden, extreme urge to correct someone in order to validate one's self.
Linux Is Not Unlicensed Xenix...or something like that...
But unfortunately, the stock market does. SCO was $3 and change this morning.
"Eve of Destruction", it's not just for old hippies anymore...
Linux doesn't exist, and were not even sure in 'Finland' is a real place.
Actually this is more SCO fud. Its funny how in thier court documents SCO swears that linux does not infringe SCO copyrights, this is just about IBM and its contracts with SCO. In court SCO sats that they haven't started to compare UNIX and Linux in any real way, and that it would take 25,000 man years to do it anyway.
In the press they say the opposite!
Its nice that IBM points this out to the court as well.
"Linux doesn't exist?" What can we expect from SCO next? How do these people have enough funds to continue their insane legal proceedings? Why won't SCO just wither and die?
I just don't understand how a company with an outdated, proprietary UNIX, ever-decreasing customer base, and an increasingly expensive and insane legal campaign can hang on and fight for as long as SCO has. I look forward to IBM's fatal blows in the courtroom so that maybe this thing can finally go away.
There is only zuul
Sean.OutaHere()
...SCO executives announce that, "There is no spoon."
ME:
SCO:
ME: You can go about you're business...
SCO: You can go about you're business...
ME: Move along...
SCO: Move along, move along...
Does it hurt your shoulder to pull your small dictionary off the shelf and check?
Gosh, I was wondering where the Iraqi Information Minister went...
"There is no Linux here!! It is LIES, from the mouth of the evil Stallman!! It is all a Zionist conspiracy against the brave people of Utah! The people are united undet the benevolent and loving rule of Darl McBride, who shall lead us to glorious victory against the heathen penguins!! The infidels shall commit suicide against the walls of our bullshit!!
Every man and boy in Utah is ready to resist the invading horde of penguins with his life! We have held them off, and are slaughtering them like sheep on the shores of our Greeat Salt Lake! There are no Linuxes within Salt Lake City, as we defeat the avian aggressors and drive them from their homes! Our lawyers are mercilessly cutting them down as we speak, any reports of Novell or IBM winning are lies! LIES!!!
SCO is great! Praise be to SCO! There is no UNIX but SCO!!"
What's going on today? "SCO's case is over!" and "Flying cars in 10 years!" Now all we need is a story that claims Apple is going out of business or that scientists are about to figure out EVERYTHING any minute now, and we'll have a hat-trick of "Things people keep claiming are about to happen but never do."
He went to work for SCO and changed his name to Kieren O'Shaughnessy.
That is, if the price/share is <$1 for >30 days, it gets delisted.
Best Slashdot Co
This means there's hope for me yet! I filed a law suit against Microsoft, since they stole a lot of my source code, but I'm not going to show it to them, or they'll take the rest and finally get Windows working. I'm going to win so much money!
---
Those who can, do
Those who can't, teach
Those who don't know how, supervise
SCO cries "wolf" again and the media falls for it. Again!
IBM has ALREADY dragged their claims about "stolen" code into court. IBM is trying to get the judge to rule on it.
SCO says that they shouldn't be forced to present evidence in court to support their claims of stolen code because SCO didn't file a case about it and IBM's request for judgement isn't about the case that SCO did file.
So now this idiot is out there spewing MORE of the same crap.
Isn't this just helping IBM's request for judgement on that matter?
You mean the perceived market value before they started this pump and dump exercise? What exactly will that tell you? What the three month dive means to me is that even Wall Street realizes that there is no SCO case, there will be no further buyouts and SCO is worthless. People who bought into SCO are sorry they did, including Baystar who recommend that SCO fire their remaining technical staff and become a full time IP scam house.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
The Blue one or the Red one? "What is the Linux? No one can be told that! You have too se it for yourself!"
Another supposedly true story - heard it a LONG time ago (1982, I think.)
The philosophy professor issues an exam with only one question: "Why?"
One student simply writes "Why not?", and hands in his paper.
He passes.
Out for a duck is out for no runs, breaking your duck is actually getting somewhere (i.e. making some runs).
Well, if you meant getting off the schneid, why didn't you say so?Some mornings it's hardly worth chewing through the restraints to get out of bed.
So, I guess MINIX doesn't exist, either.
"Let's just say this: he spelled 'Yale' with a '6'."
SCO accuse IBM of illegally contributing code to Linux, then tell us Linux doesn't exist?
... but Netcraft confirms it: Linux is dying. ;-)
I think Darl read too much in Linus' announcement, a while ago, that Santa Claus invented Linux...
If Santa Claus does not exist, he cannot have possibly invented Linux! I can't wait to submit this new evidence in court!
SCO (to IBM, DC, Autozone, and Novell): "Stop suing yourself! Stop suing yourself!"
When SCO finally does lose this case... There is going to be this big press conference. All the SCO big wigs will be there along with all their lawyers... and Chris Sontag will step up to the podium.
Press member: What statements does the SCO Group have about losing this case today?
Sontag: Our offical statement is this. "Umm... Our Bad"
-- http://www.vle.org
When SCO talks about Unix, what, exactly, are they talking about? Is there a "Unix" anymore? I know of AIX, Solaris, and the BSDs as the last remaining operating systems that are, I believe, Unix-derived (some of the AT&T code, some of the BSD stuff). I don't think even SCO's own products (Unixware, SCO) are so close to SysV that they can truly say to be the true "Unix" operating system.
:)
So when they say Linux is an unauthorized Unix, what Unix are they talking about? Besides, doesn't the original email from Linux talk about how Linux is a "Minix" clone, which in turn is a much scaled down version of Unix? Why doesn't SCO go after Minix too while they're at it. Or Plan9...that's very Unix-like.
Or Windows...oops, no, not that one. Besides, that's more VMS than Unix.
A need for more than 640k
a Windows Monopoly
HTTP 404 errors
Huh?
I still asking what type of grass that they smoke?.
Hopefully this ends soon. I hate this crap.
What sco?
Remember, SCO has to put up the front that they really believe that they own all the IP in linux. Otherwise their legal case falls apart. If they anywhere anyhow admit that they don't own all of everything in linux, then their broad claims in their legal actions instantly lose all credibility.
"IANAL but from I understand SCO says this copyright infringment that SCO has allegedly committed on one of IBM's patents is irrelevant to the case and the court doesn't need to decide on it."
IANAL either, but even I know that sentence is utter nonsense and has nothing to do with anything IBM or SCO has said in their filings. It's just so wrong in so many ways.
I personally favor putting the SCO logo inside a set of crosshairs.
"It is a greater offense to steal men's labor, than their clothes"
I haven't seen IBM do one single thing that would adversely affect their bottom line.
Now, if IBM would fund a drive to eliminate software patents in the US, THAT would show they were a friend.
They are an "ally" only because they see Linux (and Open Source) as useful and profitable and an alternative to being second to Microsoft.
The Darl: - Humph. /root, it is the quintessential human delusion, simultaneously the source of your greatest strength, and your greatest weakness.
Tux: If I were you, I would hope that we don't meet again.
Hmm. I hadn't heard anything about SCO hiring Muhammed Saeed al-Sahaf as its PR guy.
"It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine"
Things are about to change. SCO is about to disappear.
Has Comcast disconnected your Internet account? Same here. You can read about it at http://comcastissue.blogspot.com
ATTN: link in parent post is not for office. and very disgusting too.
#
#\ @ ? Colonize Mars
#
Man, now I totally want a bumper sticker which reads, "Everyone knows Linux is an unlicensed version of Unix." That's too damn funny. Perhaps thinkgeek will come out with one.
Al Qaeda has ninjas!
If we each buy shares of SCO, could we vote SCO out of existence?
The parent is poo-poo-porn and goatse.cx
Nobody can show you the Penguin. You must see it for yourself.
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
# ping linux.org
linux.org is alive
# ping sco.com
I'll let you know when I get the answer -- if I ever!
"Linux is dead" - SCO
"SCO is dead" - Linux
"SCO is Linux" - the dead
... it probably will.
If you read them, SCO is betting the farm on a diversion tactic to answer IBM's request for summary judgement.
Basically, they're feigning surprise that this is an issue, complaining that they need more discovery, and trying to say that they haven't had time to properly prepare for this because it could take 25,000 man hours.
Unfortunately for them, IBM responds that it's been hammering SCO on this question for over a year now (in spite of SCO sticking their heads in the sand to avoid it). Also, IBM's experts say that SCO's characterization of the times involved is ridiculous and SCO has already claimed in the media *many* times to have made these comparisons already (even though it refuses to provide them to IBM).
Worse, SCO's "experts" haven't been properly qualified, they're testifying about things they would appear to have no personal knowledge of, and as such IBM is moving to strike our large portions of their declarations, meaning that SCO wouldn't have much of an arguement left. This is especially true because SCO's Samir Gupta, the only "expert" who appears to have done any code comparisons (and I say "expert" because they give no credentials for him other than him being in the employ of SCO), has completely ignored the abstraction & filtration required by the case law (whereas IBM's properly qualified MIT professor has done one refuting theirs, which respects the case law in question).
Lastly, they point out via copious amounts of case law that SCO does *not* need any more discovery. They show that the only thing which matters for a judgement in terms of *copyright infringement* is the two final works. SCO surely has its own product line, and IBM points them to every version of Linux since 1.0, which is available online.
Taken in sum, unless SCO can pull off one hell of a miracle to convince the judge in the oral arguments, I would tend to think that SCO is screwed here. SCO's tactic of sticking its head in the sand to try and duck IBM's arguement doesn't seem very persuasive, and *SCO* has the burden of proof to show that there are material facts in dispute. Given how IBM so carefully destroys all the testamony SCO relies on, it's hard to see how SCO could prevail in any meaningful way when these motions are resolved.
supporting the previously stated question by Mr.Torvalds:
"Are they smoking crack?"
There are no atheists when recovering from tape backup.
[musa@atharee musa]$ uname -a Linux atharee 2.6.6-1.435.2.3 #1 Thu Jul 1 08:25:29 EDT 2004 i686 i686 i386 GNU/Linux it doesn't exist? Say it ain't so, ma. SAY IT AIN'T SO!!!!!!
"Linux does not exist" --SCO
"SCO's case does not exist" --IBM
Coming soon...
"SCO does not exist" --Wall Street
--GrouchoMarx
Card-carrying member of the EFF, FSF, and ACLU. Are you?
i mean if it was more popularly know as GNU/Linux
then everyone wud know....that GNU/Linux is not UNIX
so hows it an unlicensed version of UNIX
I'm running Natalie Portman naked and petrified.. with hot grits down my pants??
I know... in Soviet Russia, the hot grits down my pants run me!
It's a plot. If everyone actually believed LINUX was UNIX they would stop using it out of utter disgust for SCO.
It's a tribute. TSG're stuck at the physical level, we've been virtual for some time now, so far transcendent above mere hardware that it's as if we don't exist. (-:
I wrote IDG a nastygram about the article. A copy of it's on the GrokLaw page.
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
"...you learn how to close your eyes and tell yourself that this just isn't happening to me..."
but I just can't shove my head up my butt that far.
try { do() || do_not(); } catch (JediException err) { yoda(err); }
If they tell themselves 12 times a day:
"Linux doesn't exist. Linux doesn't exist...."
It's bound to come true.
...the SCO suits' suit is as moot as gun-hugging Utah rednecks.
Everybody knows it's the evil mini-me version of a bigger evil company.
So now let's sue IBM for..... ONE MILLION DOLLARS!!!
Privacy is terrorism.
root@honningsvag root # uname -a
an unlicensed version of Unix honningsvag 2.6.7-gentoo-r7 #1 Mon Jul 12 18:45:05 CEST 2004 i686 Intel(R) Pentium(R) 4 Mobile CPU 1.80GHz GenuineIntel GNU/an unlicensed version of Unix
THIS THING CAN TURN ON A DIME, MACROSSZERO STYLE ALSO FUCK BETA, ~NYORON
For a while by now I keep reading on /.
Australia to Get Software Patents and Anti-Circumvention Laws
Australia to Vote on Extending IP Laws
Australia-U.S. Trade Agreement Contains DMCA-like Provisions etc. and now "would approach Australian Linux users to ensure they had an IP licence"
What is happening with Australia? It looks like a backyard testing garrage for corporations, which reduce humans to consumers! Isn't Australia a democracy governed for the good of the people? Or it is a private lab where consumers must eat all the crap the big corporation is testing on them?
You know they're done when their last option is the Jedi Mind Trick.
br
It's already done.
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
It's already done.
Double the irony, no extra charge.
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
Linux distro X is really just a lot of software put together, GNU (set of tools) Linux (the kernel) X (graphics server) KDE (pretty picture drawer via X) Opera (closed source wetdream of a webbrowser) etc etc etc.
In the same way the say a Supermarine Spitfire is just a load of airfoils, rolls royce engine, fuel tank, big fucking guns, wires etc etc. Not very intresting seen seperatly but put together. WOW.
You don't run linux anymore then you drive your engine.
When people talk about linux they either talk about linux the kernel OR about the whatever Linus Torvalds did that somehow managed to get it altogether. That last bit is most intresting. There are plenty of kernels. Very few Linus Torvalds.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
...when the last of the debris stops bouncing. (-:
Maybe TSG used to have an office on Mars? It would certainly explain how those meteorites got here.
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
I think they're going to go out, not with a bang, but a whimper. Their ability to construct a case is just going to wither away and die. We'll quit hearing about them (thankfully); then, 20 years from now, we'll hear a "Whatever happened to SCO" retrospective?
This is a little unfortunate. I was counting on their legal shenannigans to destroy them in a publicly enjoyable way.
Secession is the right of all sentient beings.
Victims of 9/11: <3000. Traffic in the US: >30,000/y
Early this year, O'Shaughnessy warned that SCO had prepared a hit list and would approach Australian Linux users to ensure they had an IP license, but this urgency has dissipated with O'Shaughnessy pointing out that he had enough on his plate and would simply sell licenses as the opportunity arose.
there would have been no mistake.
In SCO's case, they seem to hire people with no logic. Want to work for SCO? Can you make illogical jumps in your thinking? Do the following statements make sense to you?
Linux does not exist, so let's sue people for using it.
IBM stole our source code and we are going to prove it--without showing the stolen source code to anyone (even the courts) unless they sign this NDA.
Consider the following:
-Alice releases her hit song "Foo"
-Two years later, Bob releases his hit song "Bar"
-"Bar" is a song, and so is "Foo"
-Alice sues Bob
-Alice claims "Bar doesn't exist"
huh?
When you look at the state of the world, how can you not become a radical, liberal anarchist?
Ammassing his undead army of lawyers our buddy Darl uttered "Linux doesn't exist" To which Linus Tourvalds replied "SCO doesn't exist" With that, Darl disappeared in a puff of smoke, to return in many legal sequels, including the box-office flop "Darl vs. Kieren."
...whom we all love!
"Linux doesn't exist!"
"If you mess with us, we're going to take you on, even to our utter destruction, whatever occurs." - Ralph Yarro (SCO)
I love it!
You sly dog: you got me monologuing! - Syndrome
It took us 25 years to build our business and it took [IBM] four years simply by stealing code and then giving it away free. (emphasis mine).
This sounds an awful lot like slander or libel. And Mr. O'Shaughnessy has done it in a place with UK style libel laws. Not very bright, IMNALO (in my not-a-lawyer opinion).
The only reason we have the rights we have is that people just like us died to gain those rights. -- Cheerio Boy
This seems a lot like the situation DivX (the codec, not the video discs) was in when it was using the reverse engineered M$ MPEG codec. I guess that was somewhat of a legit case of copyright infringement (arguably), and this is just a case of a washed up company in a last ditch effort to generate revenues from litigation.
:-)
Anyways, remember what happened when M$ cracked down on DivX? It was re-written in a way that didn't use any of the (allegedly) infringing code and now it has become fairly well accepted as a fully legitimate commercial product.
I'm not saying that Linux should have to remove the code SCO is bitching about and I really don't believe there is even a legit copyright infringement case here, but just think if the Linux developers re-wrote a few pieces of code anyways and SCO truly had no case beyond any shadow of a doubt. This would alleviate the fear SCO has instilled in companies like EV1 (who caved in to buying SCO licenses) and yet others who are afraid to even give Linux a chance in commercial applications because of this SCO nonsense looming over Linux.
There is no doubt that whether SCO has a case or not they are damaging the Linux market share potential. This would be a good solution IMO, and I wouldn't be surprised if Linux developers already had something like this up their sleeves!
Someone has probably already made this DivX analogy, sorry if I missed it and please disregard this rant if so!
"It seems that when people become desperate they consult the gods, and when the gods become desperate they tell lies." -
"It took us 25 years to build our business . . ."
This is odd. The current SCO is, what, 7 years old? If you count its Caldera years, I mean, when it was a... um.... Linux company.
Microsoft is to software what Budweiser is to beer.
Dang! You beat me to it.. I was thinking along the lines of.. "You can't bend Linux to your will until you realize one thing.. There is no Linux (The Dish stole it when it ran away with the spoon).
It is important to keep the facts straight in an argument especially when one half of the debate is of its rocker.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
Because Linux Is Not UNIX. and GNU is Not UNIX either.
I think these SCO clowns took notes from Swift Boat Veterans for Half-truths. I'm really getting tired of buisnessmen and politicians who make their living by spreading rumors via the Big Lie method.
It doesn't matter how correct your evidence is these days. Even our president has proven that if you present a mountain of B.S. in the right way, anyone will believe you.
What a tiresome waste of the mind.
The RIAA owes a lot to the community:
An apology.
Microsoft is to software what Budweiser is to beer.
Linux does not exist.
In the universe, there may be an infinite number of stars which may yield an infinite number of galaxies which may yield an infinite number of solar systems which may yield an infinite number of planets which may yield an infinite number of planets with an infinite number of life-forms.
Since infinity does not exist [in the context of a number system], then we do not exist.
Since we do not exist then Unix was never invented.
Since Humans invented Unix and humans do not exist, Unix was never invented and Linux was never invented.
Therefore, Linux does not exist, as was to be shown.
If you do what you always did, you get what you always got.
"In closing, he adds 'Linux doesn't exist."
Ummm... Kieren, pal... I hate to be the one to point this out but SCO once again has it wrong...
FIRST they ignore you... Not this late in the game!
The race isn't always to the swift... but that's the way to bet!
Some moderator somewhere is seriously needing to watch a movie every year or so.
THIS THING CAN TURN ON A DIME, MACROSSZERO STYLE ALSO FUCK BETA, ~NYORON
RAMBUS indeed. And what's worse is RAMBUS had some actual IP to protect.
THIS THING CAN TURN ON A DIME, MACROSSZERO STYLE ALSO FUCK BETA, ~NYORON
if it does not exist how can they sell licenses?
-- Tim
TKrabec Pahh
Someone tell this *censored* to stop drinking (and quit drugs too).
I can't stop laughing my ass off with these declarations.
Even if I get clever?
And write about the year US and the Vatican established full diplomatic relations? Or the year when Apple released a computer with the humorous name "Macintosh?" Or make an aside mention of the Los Angeles Olympics? Or talk about the publication of "Neuromancer?"
Eloi, Eloi, lema sabachtani?
www.fogbound.net
SCOsblatter beast... if it can't see Linux, then hopefully neither will you.
-QTone
They must think those playing cards in the spokes make a very convincing engine noise.
include $sig;
1;
looks like IBM may have the key to clearing up all this SCO stuff...who'd have thought? Oh well, we all knew that superior technology would eventually win (or at least survive :))
CB#$@
free ipod and free gmail!
I don't trust any of those companies until they make a big public push to eliminate software patenting. That means, IBM, HP, Sun, Microsoft, Apple, you name it. That they AREN'T says a lot about their long term goals, and in particular linux "friend" IBM.
I think one day we are going to be discussing what happened to linux when it turns out 7/8ths of it is pwn3dz by a handful of large companies. A *small* handful. And they will have done it right in front of everyone's noses,they will have sucked in billions in free work, and people will be whining THEY CAN'T DO THAT after the fact of them "doing that".
And IBM is certainly big enough to get the ball rolling on eliminating software patents all by themselves, to boot. All you need is a couple of senators and a couple of house reps to start a bill that gets noticed.
SCO Says: "Evidence does not exist!"
Visit Phrite's Tech News/Security Tools
IBM is supposed to be the boring suit company yet they have a suprising amount of fun headlines on /. Running quake on clusters with super high graphics. Porting their mainframe OS to playstation. Linux watches. Commercials to rival apple. (the 1984 apple one was not aimed at Microsoft but at Big Blue). Producing the chip in all three upcoming game consoles. Making their own game machine (deep blue).
Compare that with news from Redmond and you might get the idea that IBM is either re-inventing or it never was the company we thought it was.
A lot of people claim that IBM is just behind Linux for the money. I think these people have no idea how real business works. If you seriously believe that none of the top people at IBM want to take a little revenge on Microsoft then you don't know people very well.
Companies are not run by droids, they are run by people who hopefully are good enough not to be blinded by personal desires but are not imune to them either. IBM been screwed over by Microsoft and been denied the desktop. Linux offers them a chance to get back. It is about more then good business. After all IBM makes plenty just selling windows and AIX. Why should they risk on supporting Linux? Not purely for business reasons.
Anyway that is what I like to think. Makes the world a more intresting place to live in.
I am a sucker for those humor pictures like asking can a penquin fly? Answer: picture of tux strapped to a big blue boeing.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
you need to print that on a shirt. Now I can sound even MORE condescending!!
If thou see a fair woman pay court to her, for thus thou wilt obtain love
This article should be modded as +5 funny as default!
Ricardo da Silva Lima
I'm amused at:
FUD is now a legal term! :D
What I find to be most disturbing is that a corporate entity with a rather large legal fund can put together a legal brief to tie up courts and raise a challenge to a company the likes of IBM when the long and short of the case is an unfounded claim of,"We owned it first and they copied us!"
Can you imagine if a company of any size would do this to a private citizen? RIAA? MPAA? Harassment? There'd be no chance for the private citizen.
That we've been reading about this for such a long period of time is nothing short than IRREFUTABLE PROOF that the current system of Americah courts and politics is horrendously in favor of those with the most money to spend and has very little to do with truth or justice.
Revolt? It's not worth the effort. But keep in mind that _EVERYTHING_ which you think is right, good, and true about your government can be manipulated in this very same manner.
+++ATHZ 99:5:80
Bank of Sri Lanka is their biggest success ???????????????
Are these folks for real ?
http://www.sco.com/company/success/
Gee life is a bunch of disappointments. First I found out Santa was really daddy and now SCO tells me Linux doesn't exist!
I think I'm gonna take a nap. Wake me when this is over.
Nice to have some company.
Dawn of the Dead
A log scale chart is more meaningful when it comes to the real value of the company - a share price drop from $5 to $4/share means they've lost 20% of their value, while going from $15 to $14 is only about a 7% drop. The log scale graph comes a little closer to representing how serious each day's change is to SCO (and their investors).
What is the robbing of a bank, compared to the founding of a bank? -- Bertolt Brecht
I'm just amazed you can get it partway! (sorry, couldn't resist the jibe)
The world is made by those who show up for the job.
I just dont get it
So SCO's real talent is for theatrics.
Figures; they don't seem to amount to anything off the stage, in the real world.
I don't know the meaning of the word 'don't' - J
SCO won't exist.
LK
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
Why not? See: "Darl McBride said Linux is evil."
Oh, you said "But", not "Butt". Never mind.
Desperation is an ugly thing.
This whole thing is a textbook example ..........
So Long and Thanks for all the Fish.
"What is the sound of one hand?"
/. :o)
fap-fap-fap-fap
Seriously dude, you should know better than to post a question like that to
Maybe they should just eat some yellow fungus, read a scroll of fire, and enjoy the little time they have less watching the the show.
I, for one, welcome our non-existent overlords.
In other news..."hats" and the color "red" have been confirmed as elaborate hoaxes.
and show some expert witnesses IBM showed their mit witness that said there was no code - why don't they show theirs. just shut up and show some god dam evidence - otherwise just go away.
Pretty soon though...well, just read the subject.
This sig no verb.
The current price is roughly consistent with their cash position, now that they've paid off BayStar. There's an earnings call on August 31, and then we'll know how well, or badly, SCO did this quarter. SCO has lately been issuing press releases for many minor events, and none of them mention substantial revenue. So there probably isn't any new income.
Meanwhile, many of the various motions in SCO vs IBM will be heard in September. If IBM wins any of them, SCO is toast. If IBM doesn't win any of them, IBM is no worse off.
I can sell several of my own internal organs, and possibly some very important external ones to raise the funds to buy a license from SCO for a product which doesn't exist.
And I think to myself, what a wonderful world.
Do you see what I did there?
is that, like any good capitalist system, it positively leverages greed by putting the public good in the self-interest of moneyed entities.
IBM's doing what they're doing out of self-interest, but the entanglement created by the GPL means that in order to act in self-interest they must indirectly act in the interests of the community as well.
Irritable, left-wing and possibly humorous bumper stickers and t-shirts
The SCO spokespeople are starting to sound like Baghdad Bob.
Rediculous.
SCO has yet to hire Fran Tarkenton as spokesperson. That should give them one last spike in perceived value.
If linux doesn't exist, then what the hell am I running right now?
And what did LINUS write?
= Grow a brain...
Exactly the first thing I thought. Brilliant!
SCO: 'Linux doesn't exist. Everyone knows Linux is an unlicensed version of Unix'
eventhorizon5: 'Linux exists (see www.kernel.org if in doubt). Everyone knows Linux is a GPL licensed clone of Unix'
Maybe they should claim Minix doesn't exist. Or BSD (i'd love to see them try to tackle that lol). Maybe they can even get Microsoft to claim that FreeDOS is an unlicensed version of DOS (even though it's in C, instead of assembly which MS-DOS is mostly in), or claim that the ReactOS is an unlicensed version of Windows NT.
Or even better. We should claim that Ken Brown's viewpoints are an unlicensed version of SCO's viewpoints lol:
Ken Brown to Dennis Richie (real quote): 'In my opinion, you wrote Unix'
Dennis Richie (made up quote): 'According to the code, Thompson wrote Unix. I wrote C you insensitive clod.'
#Secret Windows Source Code, in MS C% - if (uptime >= "24 hours") then bsod() else print "Windows License Violation!"
I wonder what happens if there's a 'freak accident" at SCO headquarters, and someone steals the 'critical evidence', or the buidling is possibly burned to the ground?
Seems suspicous to me. I'd not put it past them.
~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
Just about every day this week (including today) SCO's stock price pushes the 52 week low price ever lower. The low price so far today is 3.59. Over the past few months SCO had been buying stock to boost the price, it seems that they may have given up on that. Maybe SCO will start buying stock again when it gets down to about a dollar.
The fact that SCO still exists and thinks that suing random companies that use Linux is a valid business model is mind-boggling.
All the torrents you could want.
I thought we all settled that McBride and company _was_ a litigious company. That's what their history (the pricipals) was. They have made big business out of litigation.
INSERT INTO comment VALUE('Doh!') WHERE user='you';
...or is the Iraq Information Minister the first person to come to mind when you read this?
Haha! Well if Linux doesn't exist, then how am I typing thi
+++ATH
NO CARRIER
A duck egg seems to be what we call a goose egg in the US. A goose egg is a big round thing just like a zero.
The government which is strong enough to protect you from everything is strong enough to take everything from you.
Anyone know what the laws in Australia are on slander?
"IBM has transformed Linux from a bicycle to a Rolls-Royce, making it almost an enterprise-class operating system.
It took us 25 years to build our business and it took [IBM] four years simply by stealing code and then giving it away free."
This seems like a statement that could put one in jail. Claiming that someone stole from you without proof seems a risky move at best.
Yes SCO everyone does hate you. No one will ever want to business with you ever again. Suing customers is not the way to make people want to do business with you. By your actions you have made IBM look like a warm, friendly, and even cool company and the hero of the IT world. Yes the former evil empire now looks like Santa Claus while SCO's image is that of the Iraq information minister. I would say that SCO hasn't reached the level of the Anti-Christ. Frankly most people would expect the Anti-Christ to not be as incompetent as SCO. No not even level of Hitler. SCOs level of evil is about at the level of a pimple faced Neo-Nazi skinhead publishing newsletter out of his bedroom. Full of lies, stupid ranting, and a false sense of injustice.
Yes SCO you have sunk so low that you are not even really hated anymore. SCO you have sunk to the level of disgust. SCO has sunk to level of a guest on Jerry Springer.
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
Wait... why haven't they posted any news since May? ...
SCO is to Microsoft as the SwiftVets are to Bush.
like IBM's legal team is preparing to launch an assault reminiscent of the company's own name....but with a C somewhere in between the I and the B.
--
step
1. collect underpants
2. hmmmm i don;t know
3. profit
What PR war? What IBM spin on events? I haven't heard or seen anything from IBM about this case outside of their smashing legal documents.
t m
How is "Linux is an unlicensed version of Unix"? Linux is licensed under the GPL and related licenses. Linux never claimed to be certified as being UNIX, so there is no need to license it with The Open Group. The Open Group does not seem to have any sort of heartburn about Linux, especially since they sell a Linux license plate (with proper credit to Linus Torvolds). http://www.opengroup.org/bookstore/catalog/n910.h
the Operating System behind the curtain
I think a group should be formed to burn down the SCO headquarters building.
Would that make all the claims from IMB with SCO and licenses, voided (meaning that if linux was considered a ripped off version of unix).
TruePunk | Games
It would probably Linus who would say "SCO doesn't exist anymore".
Specific if you are looking the way IBM is dealing with SCO.
Unless someone overthere decides to change gears..
You never know.
It seems to me that the only way to settle this is to get a THIRD PARTY to compare the code... If this were to be done I'm sure everyone would realise that Liunx contains little or no SCO code.
If nessasary the affected code can be swaped out, or the entire kernal could even be rewritten without too much difficulty.
SCO has lost this battle, as we all knew from the beginning... Microsoft has more chance of being awarded ownership of *nix and India.
Besides... If Linux dosen't exist, why has SCO tried so hard to kill it? Thats like a little kid throwing a grenade under his bed to kill the monsters.
I was always told there were no monsters.
The high point is 20, the low point is about 2, and they're about 4. A fifty percent drop will take them below the low point, and they've dropped more than 50% since the last high in May.
And that high of 20 is still about 1/6th of their historical high.
Just because God has not spoken to you, does not mean that: 1) God does not exist and 2) God does not speak. I can only say that I have heard Him, He didn't tell me to take over the world or some bull like that, but His Words were relevant to my life at the time. At tough points in my life as I have struggled with belief - the times that He did speak to me have been the only things that maintained my faith. Besides all of that, you are being way to analytical here - the poster was simply making a joke that you have taken too seriously.
This is Slashdot. For you, we'll implement the policy. However, I warn you, policies are like standards. Everyone gets to choose five or so they adhere to.
So while one subset of the modifiers will be busily modding down the pyramid-scheme guys, the conflicting group of moderators will be modding them up in the belief that anarchy is just fun.
The number of moderators going in either direction is somehow related to the ln(x), where x is undefined, and I can't remember exactly how as it's a long proof.
Dude, you're talking about something that is receiving the simultaneous inputs of a large amount of people of different backgrounds, experience, and opinions. Welcome to the machine.
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
If people are to respect the law, perhaps the law should begin by respecting the people.
"So, pencils are writing and erasers are erasing..."
your talking about philosophy students, right?
there are no erasers in said academic department.
"...prove that black is white and gets himself killed at the next zebra crossing."
gets run over by a bus.
...stuff this funny! You're gonna kill this old man.
SCO, give it UP!
Best,
Mal the Elder
Sco sez Linux doesn't exist. Crap, what has my servers been running for all this time?
I enjoy large posteriors and I cannot prevaricate.
"Our allies are simply those who interests align with ours."
That's a good enough working definition. Although I would put "temporary" and "current" in there. Today's "ally" can be tomorrow's enemy.
"Stop asking companies to do more than act in their own interests: it will never happen."
I guess that depends upon how you view software patents. I believe it would be in their best interest LONG TERM to get rid of software patents. Particularly the way our patent system is currently going.
"The advance of open source in the corporate world has been because it offers real value, not because of ideals."
Which is the point. They are NOT our allies. They do NOT share our ideals. It is just that both of our interests, in this specific matter, at this specific time, coincide.
"Linux doesn't exist. Everyone knows Linux is an unlicensed version of Unix."
He's right. Deep down we all know its just a copy of Unix. Maybe not the innovations of the last couple years, but we all know the rest is just a blatant rip-off.
You'll never admit it, but I think even you know it to be true.
>10 out of 10 Terrorists agree - Anybody but Bush in 2004
Not even true. From The Economist, June 3 issue:
"A communiqué from a Saudi jihadi group expresses the hope that George Bush will be re-elected because his 'haste to use force, his lack of wisdom and religious fanaticism have roused the Islamic nation'."
P.S. Thanks for stomping on a good joke.
Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
And in other news, SCO, today, claimed the world was indeed flat.
Off-brand "crispy puffed rice" does not exist, as it is an unlicensed version of "Rice Crispies(tm)".
Blessed are the pessimists, for they have made backups.
This reminds me a lot of Clinton's testimony about Monica Lewinsky, where his questions become more and more surreal as the questioning got deeper and deeper:
1. Could you define, for me, what you mean by the phrase "sexual intercourse"?
2. Could you define, for me, what you mean by the word "alone"?
3. Could you define, for me, what you mean by the word "is"?
So let me get this straight... Santa Cruz Operation buys some of the UNIX rights from Novell, Caldera sells Linux, Caldera buys Santa Cruz Operation, Caldera continues distributing Linux code (including the UNIX parts of it), meaning that they protected the right to give the UNIX code to the community by gaining ownership of Santa Cruz Operation's IP, then Caldera becomes SCO Group, SCO Group then starts suing its own customers (using SCO UNIX and Linux). Miraculously, this drives the stock price up, and in one fell swoop, SCO (Caldera) announces that before it acquired Santa Cruz Operation it started off being in the business of selling pirated UNIX (which it claims is Linux). Do I have that about right? Okay, just wanted to be sure.
Did anyone bother to ask the customers what they want?
From a thread on the Yahoo SCOX board where the challenge is to come up with the best joke that starts with "Darl, Chris and Blake walk into a bar. . ."
Darl, Chris and Blake walk into a bar.
The waitress says, "Darl, you have a telegram waiting, its the quarter-end results." Darl happily takes the telegram and tosses it on to the bar's grill, where it bursts into flames.
The waitress comes back and says, "Darl, you have a phone call. Its an industry analyst." Darls walks over to the phone, and while talking, he pivots in a circle until the call is complete, then returns.
Finally, the waitress announces, Darl, you have a fax coming in. Darl gets up, and backs slowly toward the machine, rips off the page, and returns to the booth.
Blake looks at Chris and says, "I understand the part where Darl habitually cooks the numbers and spins a tale, but what was that last thing?" Chris says, "Oh that? He'll never ever face the fax."
(:) 2004, the Tubby Nuisance Network.
"All wrongs preserved."
The calm, cool, confident, and respectful manner in which IBM is handling itself in court is admirable; IMHO, this puts them head-and-shoulders above SCO's legal team.
We may not imagine how our lives could be more frustrating and complex—but Congress can. – Cullen Hightower
Wow God spoke to you? Awsome. According to the bible he has only spoken a handful of people in the entire history of the world. You must be super special to him.
You should have recorded him though. That would have been super awsome. Then everybody could have heard what God sounds like. Not only that but then you could have proven once and for all that he does exist. It looks like you missed a golden opportunity there.
evil is as evil does
The idea is you send in some Special Forces, train the rebels, then let THEM fight the war.
I think Baystar is right. Let companies pay SCOX to bring Intellectual Property suits against all the different companies that are causing market volitility (i.e. an idea that disturbs the establishment). SCOX's public opinion is basically fucked at this point, and this truely does show in the stock market where the COMMONERS do a bit of research into a company before they invest in it. It would just be good Public Relations for companies like Sony, Ford, Boeing, Phillips, and Dolly-Madison, to bring all their dirty and underhanded market-shaping deals to SCOX and let them take the bad relations for it.
Always make it look like it's the neighbor's kids that are worthless. Your's are angels; his are dirtbags...
Do you know what a googly is? I used to be a webmaster for googly.org and was asked if it had something to do with cricket.
The whole SCO vs IBM case is beginning to feel and sound like the lengthy Microsoft vs DOJ antitrust case.
In the MS vs DOJ case, Microsoft clearly had a monopoly, they used it illegally, and they lost every round in court in displays of legal ineptitude. Remember Bill Gates terrible videotaped deposition? I used to wonder how Microsoft planned to win. And then...Microsoft got a new judge, a new Attorney General, a settlement agreement, etc. etc. and the who thing just vanished in a puff of legal smoke and Microsoft carried on as usual.
Now, we have SCO seemingly out on a long limb and IBM holding the saw and yet...the news today has the city of Turku in Finland abandoning their plans to switch to Linux in favor of Windows XP. SCO is losing every legal battle just as Microsoft did but perhaps they are winning the war which is all that really matters.
Good one SCO! I haven't laughed that much since you declared the GPL invalid. XD
The Iraqi Information Minister will be handling all of SCO's public relations from now on.
Can you prove it? If you can't, then you're engaged in the fallacy Argumentum ad Ignorantiam.
Thanks for letting your dogmatic agenda stomp on a good joke. I have a mod point, but there is no "Lame - No sense of humor" option, so I didn't mod you. That was REALLY stupid and irrelevant. No one was arguing for the proposition of God's existance. Honestly, I probably should have modded you flamebait, but I prefer to save my mod points to mod good posts up. STUPID STUPID STUPID.
That's because terrorists don't like competition, and Bush is the biggest terrorist in the world.
Bush - making America deserve terrorist attacks since 2000.
This seems more like an endurance race than anything else.
-- I ignore anonymous replies to my comments and postings.
The open source community should use the good old MS strategy to buy whichever company that it has legal issues with. SCO's Market Cap is 60m$. Lets assume we have 6 million active linux geeks worldwide. 10 bucks per person, problem solved okok, propably not that easy, but i would love to see Darl`s face when he is told :"All your base are belong to us"
So Linux doesn't exist, right? With a little bastardisation of propositional logic one could soundly reason that Darl McBride doesn't exist either, because of ego cogito, ergo sum.
Funny jokes aside, if SCO Says "Linux Doesn't Exist" it is almost by definition impossible for Linux not to exist, therefore Linux exists.
It will be a cold day in Santa Cruz, Utah, before SCO says anything even remotely intelligent. Actually, I would be kind of surprised if SCO said that Linux exists.
Sincerely,
Pan Tarhei Hosé, PhD.
"Homo sum et cogito ergo odi profanum vulgus et libido."
over 500 comments to sift through, and it doesn't look like anyone has pointed this out yet:
Can not Linus Torvalds now sue for defamation?
If opportunity came disguised as temptation, one knock would be enough.
3^2 * 67^1 * 977^1
just have to say that the agnostic was probably just as apalled at a slashdotter's inability to recognize the lack of logic in that joke.
Now these are funny:
A scientist was riding around with his wife in a steamer trunk when he stops at a police roadblock. The policeman comes over and explains to the scientist that they are searching all buggies because of a recent theft. The policeman asks him if he would mind opening the trunk. the scientist complies and immediately the policeman draws his weapon and screams, "Sir, you have a dead woman in your trunk!" Schrodinger replies back, "Well, *now* she is."
------
and in juxtaposition to the Nieztsche joke:
What do you call a man chewing on his palms?
Jesus biting his nails.
(it's better done visually)
- if this doesn't get posted I ask why is it ok to make fun of atheists or agnostics (Nietzsche joke) and not to make fun of christians?
answer: because christians kill people over jokes.
woo hoo that was funny.
God has never spoken to anybody about Nietzsche or anybody else for that matter. He may very well be dead too.
God was an abortion.
Or vote Bush and hand over your sovereignty to the government.
Democrats and Republicans = The reason things are so fucked up.
Linux is a development branch. Only when the kernel stablies at 2.8 would they have to worry about licencing up until then the kernel is not stable enought(too many patchs) to pass licence tests from current data. Basicly everyone is part of the global development team.
Note Development versions of UNIX don't have to be licenced. So stop claiming money under fake pretence. Linux is free suport is not hiring programmers to fix faults in a development tree is not free.
Sorry Sco Linus is not happy with it he is our lead developer.
And it is unlikely for linux to complete development anytime soon.
And how dare you clam the high ground UNIX is a clone of what XEROX did. Basicly history is repeating itself. You have not paid XEROX for cloning there work why should we.
There is nothing to force users to licence we are just a clone based on a clone.
Hey Microsoft you will love this logic.
So since dos was a clone of cp/m just poorly writen you own the creaters of cp/m big money lets say 90% of all you profts. And cp/m was a clone of UNIX so you have to pay SCO too and UNIX was a clone of XEROXS work so you have to pay them too and some UNIX nicked stuff from BSD so UNIX has BSD IP contained so you have to pay bsd too. Now each developer decides you are using clones of his source code so you have to pay him too. Basicly this is how to nuke the software companys to the ground.
Same logic as SCO Microsoft about time you protect linux to protect you own tail. You are funding the wrong side and may open the biggest can of whip tail you have ever seen(You are the one of the most hated companys and I don't think SUN will miss a chance). Don't worry if linux dies we will just have to make a GPL version of OpenBSD and keep on going.
Cannot hurt opensource simple you will have to fight up hill even if you do win we can start over. The question is can you.
Looks like he was on to something!
We know from the FSF that Linux = GNU/Linux
Multiplying both terms by Linux: Linux x Linux = Linux * GNU/Linux
Simplifying: Linux^2 = GNU
Since Linux is a kernel, it stands to reason: (Linux Kernel)^2 = GNU Kernel
or: Linux Kernel = SQRT(GNU Kernel)
Since the GNU Kernel is vaporware, the Linux Kernel cannot exist!
I'm Erwin Schrodinger and I approve of this message, and I do not approve of this message!
Had he been a true agnostic, he would have read it, laughed, and moved on. You can be an agnostic theist. And agnostic admits that God's definite existence can not be known. The agnostic can still, however, believe that God exists or does not. An atheist, on the other hand, Says nothing about existence, but does say something about the belief in God - namely that the individual atheist does not believe in the existence of God, and is without God. It's a truth vs idea issue. At least, that's how I understand it. I could be wrong.
Agnostic
Atheist
Cool, I've never used a nonexistant OS before.
Is this like the Zen of SCO?
Now you know why The Darl uses Astroglide for hair gel.
If they come looking for me i'll deny i know anything about linux and tell them i use debian.
Giving IE users a taste of their own medicine since 2005 - http://pods.-is-a-geek.net/
From the article Tired of being portrayed as the bad guys of IT...
How about stopping being the bad guys of IT? Then people might stop portraying you as the bad guys. Deal?
meh
That's an interesting definition of everyone.
Agnostics are intellectual cowards. Reason tells you that there is no god.
Take evolution for example....
If you've ever taken a college biology class, you would be able to see that evolution occurs. Comparative Morphology, predictible genetic mutation, etc. etc. It's backed by years of scientific research.
Then you have the Genesis Myth. God created the earth in seven days, and the whole thing is ohh, about six thousand years old.
The agnostic, by his refusal to choose, gives each equal creedance. It's insanity, really. But it's a convienient position for armchair philosophers to take, because it placates people. Think of it as the John Kerry position.
I am an atheist. Period. To steal a phrase, I want to believe. A mountain of evidence prevents me from doing so. Douglas Adams had a rather compelling piece on it in his final book. Some of Ayn Rand's writings on the subject are also interesting.
It got a little inflammatory at the end but both jokes were rather amusing. Also, I've never heard of a Christian killing someone over a joke. But blashphemy is another story. uC
Sig? No, thanks. I don't smoke.
One final tip that may save you lawyer fees: I don't think you can claim any IP over the process of deep fat frying or cooking ground beef.
Logical reasoning can not say either way whether God exists or not. Care to take a stab at it, here's my invitation.
Bringing up how evolution "disproves" genesis is a weak argument, as it is based on the flawed premise that the existance of God is dependent upon a single piece of religious text being accurate.
Indeed, aside from that, there is the weakness of your own arguments:
"If you've ever taken a college biology class, you would be able to see that evolution occurs."
Are you sure about the accuracy of this statement? What does that have to do with the existance of God? Further, did you see evolution occur in your class? I haven't. What I have seen, is extremely strong and compelling evidence that it does occur and for that reason, I tend to believe it.
"It's backed by years of scientific research."
Have you read it all? We were once told that scientific research backed the proposition that Tabacco was safe. We are being told know that many prescription drugs are safe because of "years of scientific research". How many things have we believed in the past because they were backed by "years of scientific research"?
"The agnostic, by his refusal to choose, gives each equal credence."
Which logically speaking, they deserve. You can not disprove God, and while this statement is a fallacious argument for the existance of God, using it as I am by itself, it is not. Neither can you prove God, and while this statement is a fallacious argument against the existance of God, using it as I am by itself, it is not.
Your choice to be an athiest is a choice to believe(have faith) that something is true, despite the inability to logically reason that it is true. No "wink wink nod" arguments are going to prove you're being logical either. But, if you care to logically explain how there is no God, I'm open to hearing it.
Oh, and calling me an armchair philosopher or someother name calling, is not reason. Logic is the key. Logic alone gives us the keys to determine truth. If a thing can not be logically demonstrated to be true, yet we choose to believe it, then we are exercising faith based on illogical reasoning.
But some of the best religion jokes are blasphemous!
Think for yourself, destroy your television.
Everybody knows that it's a well known fact that people who use one of those two phrases are pulling their "facts" out of their dark, warm, smelly, and very personal place called personal opinion.
From Fallacious equation of opinion with fact on epinions:
A good way to see an opinion that is fallaciously being represented as a fact is when somebody prefaces a thought with "It is a well known fact that" or " Everybody knows". Well known and incontrovertible facts do not need to be prefaced by "everybody knows". Everybody just knows them, or they are easily verifiable.
--- Hindsight is 20/20, but walking backwards is not the answer.
SCO has other problems with Australian law as well. In essence, if they demand money (licence fees) from Australian Linux users without being able to demonstrate a valid reason, they may end up being charged with extortion.
I've sent several emails to SCO stating that I and my company (I own it) use Linux extensively, and asking them how much we owe them. They have not responded to any of the requests, and I believe the reason for their avoidance of the issue is that they are aware of the potential for charges to be broughtd against them.
"I've got more toys than Teruhisa Kitahara."
Agnostics are intellectually honest, all of the above proves the fact that the evidence is *highly slanted* away from the existence of a deity, but such a thing cannot be conclusively proven in the negative with 100% certainty, so the correct answer is and for the foreseeable future always will be "We do not know".
Atheists are not as faithful as their religious counterparts, but nevertheless, they *do* have *faith* in the absence of god as the religious have faith in the presence of god, only the Agnostic is factually correct in recognising the question as the problem rather than trying to answer it.
As an atheism-leaning agnostic I have to take issue with this.
Reson is based on empirical data coupled with logic. We formulate models of the physcial universe and verify them by testing them against new phenomena. This process is by definition incremental and limited by our modelling/information processing capability. While I agree that none of the various wacky deities people believe in can possibly exists (just out of sheer ridiculousnens, illogic and political expedience of their supposed teachings) there are theoretical possiblilities of super-intelligent beings to exist. Limits of such intelligence and powers associated with it we havent foggiest clue about. While they might not exist at all, one cannot out of hand dismiss it. So it all bails down to what you mean by "God"? Is it possible that universe is a result of some pan-dimentional super-intelligence? Who knows. Is it likely that timeless and powerful beyond measure being would show up for conversation with some dude on evils of pork and adultery? Not bloody likely.
But one has to be intellectually honest and answer as any scientist would in absence of definitive data: we just dont know.
For those of you who aren't Brits, a zebra crossing is a crosswalk. I say that, because I didn't get the joke the first time.
-- Political fascism requires a Fuhrer.
>>What in the world have I been running over the last few years.
UNIX. And scox is the sole owner of all UNIX. Linux is just stolen UNIX code renamed. That is scox's story. And it must be true because scox said it.
Those guys need to read up on different methods of ritual suicide so they can decide which one they prefer once they lose their collective asses in the court systems.
Steve's Computer Service, Hobbs, NM
Mod parent up; how did GP get informative??
So why did you bring it up?
Actually, terrorists want bush to stay in as it gives them an excuse.
...what about the poor scare-D-cats that actually bought licenses? If SCO loses, do these linux users get back the money SCO extorted from them?
-C
"P.S. Thanks for stomping on a good joke."
HAR HAR HAR. Wow that was a zinger of a joke. When I heard it 20 years ago. It didn't get any funnier the next 5000 times I heard it though.
evil is as evil does
" but such a thing cannot be conclusively proven in the negative with 100% certainty"
You can't prove a negative. Back to school for you.
evil is as evil does
Evolution doesn't disprove anything. The Pope himself has said that, yes, creationism in that manner is incorrect. God didn't just make us out of mud. Not that I'm Catholic or anything, but seriously, you're making some grevious logical errors here.
Slashdot is proof that Sturgeon's Law applies to mankind.
Perhaps they'll start practising Zen law where they'll sue by not suing.
(I don't know, it's zen. It's not meant to make sense).
That's what I said.
Back to school for you.
- A does not exist
- A is a type of B
Therefore, types of B that would otherwise correspond to A do not exist.So if Linux does not exist, and Linux is an unlicensed copy of Unix, then unlicensed copies of Unix that Linux would otherwise correspond to do not exist either. Thus, there are no unlicensed copies of Unix that correspond to anything called Linux. Therefore, Linux does not infringe.
QED
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
OK, OK, Wall Street thinks SCO is worth less than the sum of their assets. This is because SCO is busy racking up legal bills instead of selling anything real, and Wall Street understands that investors will not be first in line when the bills come due. If you want a small fraction of SCO, I suggest you go work for Boils.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
A tourist walks up to a praying man at the Wailing Wall: ... nothing!"
"Excuse me.What are you doing here?"
"I'm talking with God."
"And do you do that often?"
"Oh yes. Nearly every day I walk up here and talk to Him."
"And what do you talk about?"
"Well when I was a kid, my parents brought me here. When I was a student I talked about my school problems, then I talked about my 1st job and later about my wife and family."
"Well. That's interesting. And what does the God tell to you?"
The man bursts in tears: "Nothing! 30 years of prayers and
Stupid call maybe, but I'm just throwing it out there anyway.
I'm trying to only look at the beneficiaries of a situation, and it seems like IBM is getting some of the best publicity in years for a very simply legal suit.
Tinfoil hat or not? idunno, what you guys think? maybe after this IBM'll come out with their own version linux and everyone'll buy it because:
1) It's big blue
2) They're now a linux hero
PHB's happy because of 1), tech geeks happy cuz of 2)
Yah? Or nah?
You missed it completely didn't you?
evil is as evil does
Have you read it all? We were once told that scientific research backed the proposition that Tabacco was safe. We are being told know that many prescription drugs are safe because of "years of scientific research". How many things have we believed in the past because they were backed by "years of scientific research"?
The good thing about science is that we can get smarter, falsify hypotheses, find out we were wrong about something or at least not entirely right, even learn new stuff. Religious people can't, as they think they already know the truth (=believe in a god.) So they remain stupid.
Someone who believes he can't be wrong, always is. Someone who believes he can be wrong, sometimes isn't.
"Truth can never be told so as to be understood, and not be believ'd." -W. Blake
(Whereas blind faith is beyond any understanding.)
It is meaningless to "logically explain how there is no God". Just as it is meaningless to logically explain how there is no Santa. Santa, as a concept exists. But in reality, everytime you see a Santa, it's some guy with a fake beard and a red coat with a pillow underneath. Same thing with God. God is a lie (fiction is too weak a word), invented by some stoneage guy with a wild imagination, and rewritten and rephrased over and over by malicious priests to suit their needs. I don't know about you, but I don't want my children, or anyone else for that matter, fucked - in the head or elsewhere - by any malicious priest.
Regarding logic, you are wrong too. Logic alone is void. It is a tool to operate on statements, which may have meaning attached to them or not. Apply logic to nonsense, and you get just more nonsense. Apply logic to facts (measurements, observations) and you get science.
-Lasse Hillerøe Petersen
Look back at what you did yesterday. Doesn't it seem like a dream now?
:-)
If life is a dream, why is it impossible for someone to "meet" God, or for anything to exist? We like to impose restrictions on our reality, but Quantum Physics and Relative Theory tells us reality can be pretty counter-intuitive sometimes.
Maybe the only limitation is in our creativity and perception of the reality? Good luck proving that though
If you set out your search believing in particles, atoms and general physical reality, I believe you will miss the whole show.. When you go out searching for apples, you miss the delicious oranges.
I know I cannot PROVE god does not exist: let's forget about the God of the bible, but any kind of all mighty entity that exist outside time and space, and outside cause and effect. Some kind of entity that does not need a beginning, but that can begin the Universe.
Now: I don't believe in it. But I know I cannot prove it does not exist: because it can just modify the world the way it wants. It can create the proof of evolution, it can (could?) do whatever it wants: I cannot use its world to speak about it.
So: I behave like god did not exist. I am, for all purposes, atheistic. BUT I wont discuss about the existence: I'll just discuss about the behaviour, in THIS life. This means I just don't want to do anything BECAUSE of a god I don't believe into. I don't really think it's being coward: it's just choosing your field for the fight. I want to fight about life, not hypothetical gods.
"You can't prove a negative" is one of those silly, sixth-form sayings that people who ought to know better trot out.
> Agnostics are intellectual cowards. Reason tells you that there is no god.
> Take evolution for example....
You are assuming that agnostics refuse to rule out a specifically Christian God. Reason may tell you that evolution happens and that the Bible is illogical and inconsistent but it does _not_ prove that there is no supreme being (or God, for want of a better term). Atheism is nothing more than a different kind of faith. Whether it is better to have faith in reason or faith in God is another argument altogether.
Agnosticism does not give equal credence to religion over scientific proof. Evolution happens and those who say otherwise are misguided, but this is proof against a literal Christian Bible God, not proof against any God.
Agnosticism is the sole logical position. It is simply _not possible_ to prove or disprove the existence of God through anything other than philisophical tricks and faith. Sure, you can show that the Bible is not literal, but try proving that there is no god of any kind. Agnosticism, for me, is simply the acceptance that this is impossible, at the moment.
Personally, as an agnostic, I see that the balance of evidence is against the existence of God and live according to the theory that there is no God, but I do not have enough faith to say that this is so without doubt. Really, I don't understand what the issue is, I don't believe in a specific God but I don't see any need to refuse to accept one might exist. When there is a lack of proof on both sides, there is no reason that one or the other must be chosen. Whatever I do, or anyone else does, it can't prove that God exists or doesn't, and allegations of intellectual cowardice are not going to change that fact.
.... but in essence that is true.
Kuwait was an invention of the british, very adept of pulling such things in many different places.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
Proof, please?
You're heartlessly advocating the loss of jobs for people who really have little choice in the matter.
Is indentured servitude now replacing outsourcing?
It's not offtopic, dumbass. It's orthogonal.
god believes in you even if you don't believe in him... and linux believes in you even if you don't believe in it.
--A witty sig proves nothing.--
Or, as his grandfather said to the judge "That loaf of bread I was running away from the bakery with doesn't exist. Everybody knows it was an unlicenced version of a cake"
At the bottom of the
Agnostics are intellectual cowards. Reason tells you that there is no god.
Reason says on the balance of probabilities their isn't a god. If this is all that is required to be atheist then I too am an atheist. However, I take atheism to be the belief that the evidence of non-existance is beyond reasonable doubt. This is a tricky proposition considering the fact that the generally accepted notion of God is meant to have unlimited powers.
To illustrate this point, God may well have created the universe 6000 years ago but faked all the evidence to make it look like it really started billions of years ago. God may have faked the appearence of evolution and Adam and Eve may indeed be the truth. Nobody likes the idea of a God that lies but in the Bible it says God created Man in his own image right? Man lies, is it not possible that God does too?
Scientific reason is useless against the proposition of God because by definition God can make the universe look anyway it wants too.
The agnostic, by his refusal to choose, gives each equal creedance.
Interesting point but I disagree. A strong agnostic would simply refuse to give any other point of view creedance because it's impossible to ever know the motive behind the creation of the universe. In my example where God's out to trick humanity is there any scientifc way to evalute the truth of that propostion? In many religions it should be a more plausible notion because a lying God is required to square science against faith. Perhaps God lied to the infidels from the true believers?
The existance of God is an undecidable decision problem because depending on which assumptions you choose to accept you will get a different answer to the question of God?
On a personal note, I couldn't give a shit about God. If it does exist and I do meet it after death then there's (hopefully) quite a while before I meet it. In the mean time I want to work with the real people, that I know exist, to make this world better for all of us. Idealistic? Hell yeah. Better than wasting your precious life in Church on a Sunday? Absolutely.
Simon.
your imaginary friend talks to you and he does exist?
I would like to say that because you hear voices this couls well mean, 1) You are crazy, 2) you are hearing voices, 3) you should be allowed to hold public office.
M0571y H@rml355.
Hardware is still up their -what- ?
Reason says on the balance of probabilities their isn't a god.
But it doesn't. After all, you later say, "Scientific reason is useless against the proposition of God because by definition God can make the universe look anyway it wants too."
We can't set a probability of the existence of a god. After all, we'd have to consider the probability of the existence of two gods, three gods, etc. So either gods exist or they don't. If a god does exist, he may very well send the faithful to hell and make boring people drive minivans in the afterlife. Or he might force us to take harp lessons with old wrinkly women in smelly homes.
To illustrate this point, God may well have created the universe 6000 years ago but faked all the evidence to make it look like it really started billions of years ago.
The universe may also have been created three seconds ago! You just _think_ it was created before you were born because you were created with pre-installed memories.
God may have faked the appearence of evolution and Adam and Eve may indeed be the truth. Nobody likes the idea of a God that lies but in the Bible it says God created Man in his own image right? Man lies, is it not possible that God does too?
I always imagined that if I were God of some universe and had a sense of irony, I'd build up a loony religion and then send all the faithful to hell.