Slashdot Mirror
IBM Tells SCO Court It Can't Find AIX-on-Power Code
Ghostx13 writes "A story over at Linuxworld states that IBM has been less than forthcoming with its bits and pieces of source code SCO is demanding. SCO is alleging in its 3rd Amended Complaint that 'IBM put SCO-owned SVR4 code in System 3-based AIX for its proprietary Power chip architecture.' The problem? IBM 'can't find' that source code. Does IBM have something to hide?"
the same game SCO is just to mock them.
Because it never existed in the first place. They are just making things up now, and there is no reason to believe anything they say, especially with all the egg coating on their integrity.
*De gozaru!*
Groklaw's IBM-dazzled observers
I don't know, but your article loses all credibility when it includes this statement in the first paragraph. Most of the Groklaw readers aren't pro-IBM, they are anti-SCO.
This is the second or third journalist to repeat this pseudo-meme, and that doesn't make it any more true. In fact, I think this has become so-called "LinuxWorld"'s party line.
People hate SCO because of what SCO has done, period. There is nothing more to say about it.
This article is a troll, plain and simple. I don't know anything about the disposition of AIX source code re: IBM and SCO's contractual relationships
in the past, but I certainly won't take any source seriously that is so broken in their understanding of the basic underlying facts.
Who is behind LinuxWorld? Why the ridiculous pro-SCO equivocation and anti-IBM attacks? Regardless of how you feel about IBM, how can anybody else associated with the software industry support a company that has made IP-lawsuits its first and only business priority?
If IBM really had something to hide, don't you think they would have come up with a better excuse then: "Uh... I can't find it"
The fact is, until the Novell case gets cleared up, none of this IBM source code stuff really matters; the Novell case has the (very good) possibility of making SCO's claim on the source code of Unix null and void anyway.
IBM has document retention policies specifically to limit liabilities. Or more like document destruction policies. All emails have to be wiped after two years. They probably truly don't have the code anymore.
Recently I had the misfortune of Microsoft trying to find some include files from an Embedded Win CE V3 platform builder (don't ask, it wasn't my decision to use that crap) for me for an older single board computer. They no longer had the source, either. And it would have been very *good* for them if they'd been able to come up with it. They literally didn't have it anymore.
Throwing company materials away as early as possible is the newest predefensive corporate legal maneuver. If tobacco companies had done that, they'd have saved a lot of money. Probably watching the tobacco companies is what gave other companies the idea.
Not that I have any reason to trust IBM but I have all the reasons not to trust SCO: What if a corrupt IBM employee made that code disappear? SCO cannot do that? What about another company who already helped SCO out?
It's SCO's *third* claim, so maybe they devised a better FUD tactic this time? These questions and similar ones I would have dismissed as too unlikely, but in this case I believe IBM is innocent until SCO proves otherwise.
---- MISSING MISCELLANEOUS DATA SEGMENT --- [sigdash] trolololol
LinuxWorld indeed has "Linux" in its name/URL. Likewise, hypothetical sites like AOLsux.com or microsoftsux.com have "AOL" or "microsoft", respectively, in their names. Generally you would not expect the sites I mention to be pro-X, despite containing X in the name.
Likewise, LinuxWorld is by no means anything close to a pro-Linux site. It may or may not be a covert MS project; but in either event, it AIN'T a good source of Linux information.
Buy Text Processing in Python
Right in front of my eyes, some of the comments left on that site have disappeared, it went down from 8 to 5 comments in just a second.
So, the truth hurts, and the truth in this case is - everyone who goes to read this article hates what is written there but most likely does not understand the entire issue at hand about the SVR4, leaves a comment of this sort: "This site is ugly and ad-ridden, and Maureen is a SCO shill" and the editor removes the comment. The entire issue is like that SCO was allright with this move by IBM and there is a story to support this at groklaw. The story goes like this: there was a document on the SCO's site for a while that talked about how great it will be that IBM will have SVR4 code in their Power design... But the article was remove from SCO site.
You can't handle the truth.
IBM has nothing to hide, they just don't want to give up the code.
I think that this is right, reading the prior court documents at Groklaw.
Or maybe they can't find it because it doesn't exist and SCO is making a false claim.
AIX runs on Power..... So this is not it.....
More likely, I think. SCO is saying " Show us the code. IBM has been saying "Here is the general source code for AIX. The rest you need a court order for."
I think SCO is making false claims about IBM's non-compliance. Nothing new.
Of course we can't read the third ammended complaint yet nor do we have IBM's response. So this is all one-sourced, one-sided at this time.
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
I am amazed that Slashdot would lend credibility to a story by Maureen O'Gara. She's nothing more than a hack with an obvious anti-Linux bias.
I had been considering subscribing to Slashdot. I have now decided that I'll spend my money where the editors have better sense.
Well, they have at least a few technical people left. Otherwise, who'd be bundling the new version of Samba and other OSS packages with their crummy UNIX?
CUR ALLOC 20195.....5804M
Well, after reading that article, I have to *seriously* wonder if this isn't part of a SCO plot. Or, if not a plot per se, they would seem to be opportunistic about the court sealing the transcript of the last hearing.
Think about it--read a priviledged document to get the court to seal the transcript so we can't very easily comment on it (hard when you don't have the exact words to start researching things) and use that to spread FUD.
Maureen O'Gara? Funny, I could swear she's on the list of SCO schills. Or at least the short list of people they talk about pending litigation with (something you're not *supposed* to do).
Call my cynical, but it's not like *any* of SCO's claims have panned out thus far. That's why they seem to come up with new ones every few days...
because they never got it to compile (it was for another architecture, right?) and decided to just delete it instead. This brings up a question: does a software developer have a legal duty to keep copies of all revisions and attempts he makes with his code, even those that don't work or turn out to be useless?
I don't understand. How on earth do these people get jobs as reporters with so little integrity, not to mention such poor writing and cognition skills? Who is going to read this article and not see right through the bias?
They're basically cheerleaders. They're not going to change anybody's mind with their 'new information' but they're going to make people who already share their viewpoint happy about them. And since even losing sides need cheerleaders, they still have jobs.
Same as 'debate' shows like Crossfire. They're not debating to come to a conclusion. Each side's arguments are so extremist to their viewpoints, they couldn't possibly change anybody's mind. They're just cheerleaders, to make the people already on their own side feel even more righteous.
Punctanym: alternate spelling of words using punctuation or numerals in place of some or all of its letters; see 'leet'
Except that slashdot doesn't pretend to be something it isn't. If LinuxWorld really has that kind of "integrity"... then it's right up there with LinuxInsider.
Is LinuxWorld the site affiliated with LinuxWorld the show? The magazine? (I've found the magazine so useless that I've dropped my free subscription, but I never found it violently anti-Linux. Or maybe I just didn't notice because I didn't find it worth reading.)
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
Here is an example of why I maintain that LinuxWorld is dangerous.
They have posted what is obviously a bogus critical secrurity bulletin purportedly from Red Hat, linking to a "patch" located at stanford.edu.
Since when does RH deliver errata via random sites. More likely is that this is an attempt to compromise systems.
And the stars at LinuxWorld exercised no editorial judgement at all, no common sense; they just ran it.
If I were trying to undermine Linux, this is exactly the kind of thing I would do.
He that breaks a thing to find out what it is has left the path of wisdom.
-- J.R.R. Tolkien
If you think that /. posting links to incredibly poorly written articles by half-illiterate SCO shills is *helping* SCO, then you're not seeing the whole picture.
When crayon-drawn spewings (such as the linked article) of "journalists" who are obviously less skilled in writing than the average message board troll are ALL the possitive press that SCO can get, it's a sort of cruel fun to post verbatim what the pro-SCO trolls write.
I mean come on, put up an article by Maureen O'Gara or Laura Didio, or Rob Enderle... and then put a Groklaw article next to it. Who comes off looking like a retard (um, I mean "specially abled journalist"), and who comes off looking like an intelligent human being?
Giving the writings of shills like O'Gara wide exposure simply makes everyone aware of thier illiteracy, and therefore contemptuous.
Heh, might as well give the pro-SCO folks plenty of opportunities to explain their position... it's fun to watch not-too-bright people try to explain the inexplicable.
IBM uses CMVC internally.
CMVC is on its last legs. Some of the zseries folks have started to use CVS. The rest of zseries people are starting to investigate their options. The pseries people in pok are too busy working on HPS to have time to change their source control software. But the general consensus is that the rational tools will eventually replace everything.
Read this:
I have not provided a link deliberately. If you wish to read her article, you can find it, I'm sure by a Google search or off of Slashdot, since they made what I consider the unfortunate editorial decision to give the story more widespread readership than it otherwise would have received.
You have missed the entire point. All the eye witness reports so far of the court hearing indicate that IBM has said no such thing. SCO is only now just trying to change the case to be about AIX on PPC so I doubt they have even asked IBM for the code. The whole artical is a big fat lie. That site has always been anti linux and as such I have always assumed it is another attempt by certain commercial software companies to save their asses.
Hettar.
Sexual harassment involving a female boss is not necessarily far from reality. See this article. (Notice the responses that the man received from supervisors.)