SCO's McBride Testifies "Linux Is a copy of UNIX"

eldavojohn writes "Here's a short update on the Novell Vs. SCO case we've been following. Our good friend Darl McBride made some interesting comments in court yesterday. He stated (under oath): 'Many Linux contributors were originally UNIX developers... We have evidence System V is in Linux... When you go to the bookstore and look in the UNIX section, there's books on "How to Program UNIX" but when you go to the Linux section and look for "How to Program Linux" you're not gonna find it, because it doesn't exist. Linux is a copy of UNIX, there is no difference [between them]." This flies directly in the face of what SCO found in extensive investigations in 2002 and contradicts what SCO Senior Vice President Chris Sontag had just finished testifying earlier that day (testimony that McBride did not hear)."

Comments

This should be good

[IHawkMike]

Unfolds chair. Grabs popcorn.

Re:This should be good

[Anonymous Coward]

Not Steve Balmer's chair I hope.

Re:This should be good

[Anonymous Coward]

Finders keepers. You know, you can find the darndest things outside his office window.

Re:This should be good

[yog]

God, is this Darl McBride still alive and kicking? You'd think he would have found another job by now. I can't believe that after having essentially bankrupted his company with these ruinous lawsuits, he continues to attract naive investors who keep propping him up. It's like that guy who's running Zimbabwe into the ground--just go already.

Linux is NOT Unix, there's never been shown to be any shared code, and SCO lost the battle years ago. It seems that once the lawyers took over SCO, it became just a litigation machine and lost whatever technological brainpower it once had. This illustrates why most lawyers should NOT be involved in running companies because their natural orientation is not toward creating products but rather toward, well, practicing law, which usually translates into litigation.

Re:This should be good

[doti]

I was expecting the big-foot icon.

Re:This should be good

[doti]

Linux is NOT Unix. You got it wrong. It's GNU that is not Unix.

Re:This should be good

[__aaclcg7560]

I thought that was the tower of babel that he was building outside his office window.

Re:This should be good

[glavenoid]

Hence the pedantic name GNU/Linux...

Re:This should be good

[hostyle]

Hence the whoosh!

Re:This should be good

[X3J11]

Not Steve Balmer's chair I hope.

Ahh dammit, as soon as I read GP's comment, I immediately thought of the infamous monkey boy's flying chair. You beat me to it.

Although since you're posting as an AC, I'm replying instead of moderating you funny. :P

Re:This should be good

[Mister Whirly]

Jesus, what is the statute of limitations on that awful chair joke? Is there any way I can set the filter to not display messages with "Ballmer" and "chair" in them? It wasn't that funny the first million times I saw it, and it is getting un-funnier every additional million times since.

Re:This should be good

[Lord Apathy]

Ahh dammit, as soon as I read GP's comment, I immediately thought of the infamous monkey boy's flying chair. You beat me to it.

Can someone youtube this for me? Every monkey and his dog has seen this but me?

Re:This should be good

[E IS mC(Square)]

>> Linux is NOT Unix.
Only 20%. See this proof - http://uncyclopedia.org/wiki/Image:SCO_proof.png

Re:This should be good

[Gewalt]

ared code, and SCO lost the battle years ago. It seems that once Microsoft hired SCO, it became just a litigation machine and lost whatever technological brainpower it once had. There, fixed that for you.

Re:This should be good

[jandrese]

It's not on youtube, it was a blog post from one of the higher ups at Google. The short version is that he used to be a higher up at Microsoft, when he went to tell Ballmer that he was leaving the company, Ballmer said something like "Tell me it's not fucking Google.", then the guy told Ballmer that "yep, it's Google", at which point Ballmer goes into a fit of rage and starts yelling about how they're going to "fucking crush Google", and throws a chair across the room.

Re:This should be good

[iago-vL]

Yeah, the whole thing reeks of exaggeration, but it's still a fun story. More info

Re:This should be good

[KillerBob]

Linux is NOT Unix

You're right. It isn't. It is, however, Unix-like. And intended to be POSIX compliant. And an awful lot of Unix utilities and abilities have found their way into Linux, starting with the System V-compatible init. X, BASH (and its variants)... you could go on for hours listing programs and commands that have found their way into Linux from the Unix world. Perhaps the most obvious example aside from BASH would be XFCE, which models its interface after the CDE.

I don't think that's grounds for a lawsuit. If anything, Linux developers have a case against SCO for including Linux code in their products. McBride is a nutter, and a really bad manager who thought that he bought the rights to everything included in it when they bought Caldera. But you'd be naive to think that Linux doesn't behave like Unix.

Re:This should be good

[Man On Pink Corner]

The chair thing needs to be kept alive. There are a lot of devs at Microsoft, some of them very good ones, who haven't yet considered who and what they're actually working for.

Re:This should be good

[Simon Brooke]

You're right. It isn't. It is, however, Unix-like. And intended to be POSIX compliant. And an awful lot of Unix utilities and abilities have found their way into Linux, starting with the System V-compatible init. X, BASH (and its variants)... you could go on for hours listing programs and commands that have found their way into Linux from the Unix world. Perhaps the most obvious example aside from BASH would be XFCE, which models its interface after the CDE.

<sigh/>

You expect Slashdot readers to be tech literate, but sadly they ain't. Not these days anyway.

'Linux' is a kernel. Both in fact and in the context of this court case, that's all 'Linux' is. Bash is not part of Linux. Init is not part of Linux. They are programs which can run on top of Linux (or any other POSIX compliant operating system, including UNIX).

Yes, I know we've all got lazy and refer to Ubuntu and Debian and Slackware and RedHat as 'Linux', but they aren't. They are software distributions which use the Linux kernel. The kernel - and only the kernel - is 'Linux'.

Re:This should be good

[superslacker87]

What we need is a chair throwing contest. I can see it now:

Ballmer vs. Knight: The Chair-Off Throwdown

Microsoft's Steve Ballmer and former NCAA Basketball Coach Bob Knight will square off in a fit of rage to see who can throw a chair the furthest. Watch as a Google exec riles up Ballmer while a ref makes yet another bad call against Knight! It all comes to you live, Saturday May 3, 2008 only on Pay-Per-View!

Re:This should be good

[corporatefucker]

so, i hate microsoft as much as the next guy, but in the end i do not care if the makers of my software throw around chairs, murder their wifes, have long beards,... as long as the software does what i want, i will use it.

Re:This should be good

[korbin_dallas]

Doesn't work like you think.

SCO is part of a larger umbrella holding corporation(Canopy). Think of it as a small clique of petty CEOs, and Darl is a member and SCO is just a front company. Even if the company folded, Darl would have a job.

See what would have hit them where it is really painful is if IBM or Novell had gone after Canopy.

Re:This should be good

[pahoran]

Hmm, I wonder how that works in SCO's mind, since they used to peddle Caldera "Linux," which is much more than a kernel.

Re:This should be good

[Foobar of Borg]

Jesus, what is the statute of limitations on that awful chair joke?

In Soviet Russia, Ballmer's chair throws YOU!

1. Throw Chair
2. Fucking kill Google
3. ???
4. Profit!

And last, but not least and certainly more relevant:
You must be new here.

Re:This should be good

[lonesome_coder]

Is that you Steve? Developers, developers, developers?

Sorry man.

Re:This should be good

[KillerBob]

sighs

You expect the so-called intellectuals to understand that languages evolve, and that words take on new meanings over time. The noun Linux refers to both the kernel itself, and the collection of distributions/operating systems centered around said kernel. You can hold out, and sing until you're blue in the face to prevent it from taking on this meaning, but it'll be about as effective as trying to bail back the tide with a thimble.

As for what drives this change: people are fundamentally lazy. It's easier to type either "GNU" or "Linux" than "GNU/Linux", and "Linux" is easier to pronounce, so that's what's found its way into the vernacular.

Re:This should be good

[ORBAT]

You forgot to welcome our new chair-throwing overlords.

Re:This should be good

[Anonymous Coward]

I was wondering how long it would take one of Stallman's drones to whine about the name Linux.

Re:This should be good

[spun]

We are talking about the court case, which only refers to the Linux kernel. You can redefine language all you like, but that won't fool a judge.

Re:This should be good

[geobeck]

so, i hate microsoft as much as the next guy...as long as the software does what i want, i will use it.

Apparently, your software doesn't recognize when you hit the Shift key. :P

Re:This should be good

[Archtech]

Oh goodie! So by analogy the term "Windows", which pedants at Microsoft narrowly define as a mere operating system, also includes VSTS, Office Ultimate, SQL Server, Biztalk Server, and all Microsoft's other products.

Having paid good money for my Windows license, I can therefore download all those other products free of charge! Whoopee.

Thank goodness for progressive linguists. It turns out that words *can* change reality.

Re:This should be good

[Anarke_Incarnate]

This is a qualifier. A qualifier modifies the original and makes it different. Many fast-food companies make "burgers" However when they take that burger, and put it on a 3 layer bun, add special sauce, lettuce, cheese, pickles and onions et al they have a Big Mac Burger.
Linux is a kernel. Red Hat Linux or Ubuntu Linux is their OS built around the kernel. That is how a qualifier works

Re:This should be good

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh come on. It's right there in the name: Linux Is Not UniX.

Re:This should be good

[prisoner-of-enigma]

See what would have hit them where it is really painful is if IBM or Novell had gone after Canopy. You raise an interesting point. I wonder why IBM never tried to do so. Further, I wonder why Novell isn't going after Canopy to get the settlement awarded to it by the court some months ago.

The above isn't a rhetorical question. Does anyone know why IBM never pursued this beyond obliterating SCO? Is there some legal reason Canopy was sheltered from action despite it being the holding company for SCO? Novell doesn't stand much of a chance of collecting what it's owed from the now-bankrupt SCO, so why doesn't it go after Canopy?

I'm sure there's a perfectly good reason why this isn't occurring, because in this lawyer-happy world people are sued for far less. I'd just like to know what the legal principle is that shields a holding company from financial responsibility incurred by one of the companies it holds. Might come in handy one day ;-)

Re:This should be good

[marcosdumay]

And an awful lot of Unix utilities and abilities have found their way into Linux, starting with the System V-compatible init. X, BASH (and its variants)...

I could understand you talking about X... System V-compatible init is simply that, compatible, you won't now say that Open Office uses MS Office code because it opens .doc documents, will you?

Now, "Bash (and its variants)"!?!?! You mean that shell created by Gnu? Sorry, no that wasn't in Unix before Gnu started developing tools.

Re:This should be good

[TekPolitik]

This illustrates why most lawyers should NOT be involved in running companies because their natural orientation is not toward creating products but rather toward, well, practicing law, which usually translates into litigation.

Only bad lawyers reach for the litigation stick all the time. The sign of a good lawyer is that they prevent the litigation from ever arising in the first place. In 90% or more of cases it is quite clear who is in the right from the outset, and if their client is right they should be able to convince the other side (without threats), and if the other side is right they should be able to explain this to their client and persuade their client to STFU (not only can lawyers do this, but they have an obligation to the court to do this).

If litigation starts, the lawyer on one side has usually failed to do their job. There are borderline cases, but it is usually best to settle those without litigation too - the number of cases where litigation is the appropriate response is tiny.

A lawyer who resorts to litigation without exploring other options first is invariably (and yes, I mean "invariably") incompetent.

I'll leave it as an exercise to the reader to figure out he average competency of their local legal profession given those principles.

Re:This should be good

[pionzypher]

No, but you could go download ActiveX, or notepad, or the calculator without worry. I wanted to use the term strawman, but it's mostly just a really poor comparison of apples and oranges that you've used to try to counterpoint. I don't know that Microsoft offers a one box retail version of Windows that includes Office Ultimate for example. I can, however point you to a few distributions that include the GNU tools with them in the box.

Re:This should be good

[spacefrog]

SCO is part of a larger umbrella holding corporation(Canopy)

Nope. Canopy divested itself of SCO in 2005..

Re:This should be good

[cyphercell]

...but does it run linux?

Re:This should be good

[Torvaun]

You mean UNIX, don't you?

Re:This should be good

[BootNinja]

imagine a beowulf cluster of flying chairs

Re:This should be good

[diamondmagic]

Exactly. Think about how RMS sees this though: You take our programs that we wrote, wrap them all around the Linux kernel, and get GNU/Linux.

Personally I don't think it should be called Linux at all, you can have a free software OS without Linux, or without GNU, or both. What do you call it then?

Re:This should be good

[tinkertim]

Not Steve Balmer's chair I hope. Ah, no.. we don't unfold that particular chair or we face patent litigation surrounding the method used to unfold it.

Re:This should be good

[Anonymous Coward]

I just had to log in and say that I have never come across this site before, but I am now hooked. I have tears in my eyes from some of the things on here!

The front page states "On this day in 1242: Jack Thompson rapes his first kitten"

http://uncyclopedia.org/wiki/Jack_Thompson

Comedy gold!

Re:This should be good

[node 3]

Personally I don't think it should be called Linux at all, you can have a free software OS without Linux, or without GNU, or both. What do you call it then? BSD

Re:This should be good

[Lord Flipper]

However when they take that burger, and put it on a 3 layer bun, add special sauce, lettuce, cheese, pickles and onions et al they have a Big Mac Burger. Linux is a kernel. Red Hat Linux or Ubuntu Linux is their OS built around the kernel. That is how a qualifier works

I think I get it now. So, if you take the same Unix-like burger, and graft it onto an outdated bun, and toss in some incompatible file system sauce, with a non-native file manager relish, you just get a regular Mac. It's starting to make sense now.

Re:This should be good

[Archtech]

I object to the characterisation "troll". My analogy is a perfectly clear and simple one.

Linux is, as others have pointed out, a kernel and nothing else. People began by referring to "a Linux distribution" and gradually this became eroded into plain "Linux". But in fact, as we all know quite well, there is a vast gulf between Linux and typical Linux distros such as Ubuntu, SuSE, Red Hat, etc.

I was replying to the contention that, since many people use the name Linux improperly, their use of it has thereby become the correct usage. That's obviously wrong technically, legally, and any other way. To help demonstrate how ridiculous it is to confuse Linux the kernel with a Linux distro, I transferred the domain to Microsoft's products resulting in the ironic and deliberately ludicrous claim that, having paid for the OS alone, I should be entitled to all the other products.

Re:This should be good

[Anonymous Coward]

True, true...

Re:This should be good

[Anonymous Coward]

Also, not all Linux distributions use a system V init, or bash, or even X.

Re:This should be good

[msromike]

For God's sake let it die.

Re:This should be good

[KillerBob]

"utilities and abilities" is just that. Nowhere does that require that actual Unix code find its way in. Just utilities that duplicate or replicate functionality that you find in Unix.

BASH... Bourne Again SHell. It's a clone of the Bourne Shell (SH), specifically to get around distribution and copy issues associated with AT&T Unix. XFCE... again, GPL code from the ground up, but its intention, at the start, was to provide an interface that mimicked the Common Desktop Environment from Unix. Two very simple examples of programs under Linux which were written specifically to clone a similar program under Unix.

McBride may be a troll, but he did speak truthfully when he said that Linux is, at least in part, a copy of Unix. Copy in the sense that it's a reasonable facsimile, not that it's a bitwise perfect clone.

Re:This should be good

[KillerBob]

Words take on new meanings. It happens. Deal with it. Have you ever used the word "gay"? I hope you weren't talking about homosexuals, because the word means "happy". Ever use the word "computer"? I hope you were talking about a person who does addition.

People. Human beings. They use the word "Linux" to refer to a Linux Distribution. Whether you like it or not is irrelevant. It happens. And no amount of bitching and griping about the word being misused is going to prevent the word from evolving if popular culture takes it up that way.

And it's your own damned fault, too... all those years when you told people you didn't use Windows, and that you had Linux on your computer? Well... where do you think they got the idea that "Linux" referred to the complete system?

Languages evolve. That's actually in the definition of a language... they need to be capable of adapting to current needs, and they need to be capable of spontaneous generation of words and phrases.

Re:This should be good

[RockDoctor]

I can't believe that after having essentially bankrupted his company with these ruinous lawsuits, he continues to attract naive investors who keep propping him up.

He hasn't bankrupted "his" company (it's owned by the investors) ; he hasn't lost any of his important investor's money (though he has spent it, and of course the minor investors don't get any significant say ; I don't know if that's legal in the relevant countries) ; his job isn't finished, and he's continuing to do it even on the witness stand (and maybe at the risk of charges of perjury), so one can deduce that he is personally sure of getting paid more.
The only mystery about McBride's past and future behaviour is whether he's been paid to go to jail for his employers, and how much that pay has been/ will be. I doubt that we'll find out the latter because he'll be retired to a safe house on a very quiet little island somewhere.

Much though the things that he and his cow-orkers at SCO have been despicable, they have done their master's bidding faithfully, running a major part of MS's FUD advertising campaign over the last few years. Put in the context of the MS explicit and sub rosa advertising budgets over the same time period, the 40-million-odd bucks that they've spent becomes relatively small beer.

Depressingly, I have to admit that McBride and co have been giving his employers pretty good value for money.

Re:This should be good

[shentino]

Mod parent up as "correct".

I'm glad to FINALLY see someone post sarcasm that passes XML syntax checking.

Show me the money... er... evidence

[Anonymous Coward]

Let's see this precious "evidence that System V is in Linux" that SCO claims they have. Maybe if they put their money where their mouth is, they'd get to keep more of it.

Re:Show me the money... er... evidence

[$RANDOMLUSER]

#include <errno.h>
That's what he thinks.

Re:Show me the money... er... evidence

[peragrin]

errno.h is part of the POSIX standard and is the property of the Open Group.

Re:Show me the money... er... evidence

[Bandman]

Right!

And if there is, they get a hefty percentage of every cent that the linux kernel has ever been sold for...

Re:Show me the money... er... evidence

[Peter Simpson]

No, "errno.h" is a sequence of characters. It's not property of The Open Group.

    The file of the same name contains a series of definitions providing compatibility with the POSIX standard. You don't need to ask anyone's permission to use it in your code. If you want to buy an official copy of the POSIX standard, you may purchase it from The Open Group.

UNIX, however, *is* a trademark, and property of The Open Group.

Re:Show me the money... er... evidence

[gall0ws]

errno.h is C standard (both 89 and 99)

Re:Show me the money... er... evidence

[suitepotato]

Let's see this precious "evidence that System V is in Linux" that SCO claims they have. Maybe if they put their money where their mouth is, they'd get to keep more of it.

This is like asking someone to prove the genius of Uwe Boll.

Re:Show me the money... er... evidence

[Kierthos]

First you must prove intelligence. Only after that condition has been satisfied, can we check for genius.

Re:Show me the money... er... evidence

[bonehead]

From the description:

"When you go to the bookstore and look in the UNIX section, there's books on "How to Program UNIX" but when you go to the Linux section and look for "How to Program Linux" you're not gonna find it, because it doesn't exist"

Taking a quick look at my bookshelf, I see the titles "Beginning Linux Programming", "Professional Linux Programming", and "Linux Application Development". And that's not even counting the boxes and boxes of books I have stored on shelves in my basement.

Perjury charge?

Re:Show me the money... er... evidence

[void*]

Perjury charge?

No. He's an idiot. You can't reasonably expect him to know that he was wrong when he made the statement, therefore, no matter what statements he makes, they're not perjury.

Re:Show me the money... er... evidence

[bonehead]

Well, I would argue that it is patently ridiculous to think that anyone in the software business, particularly in the Unix business, has an honest belief that Linux programming books don't exist. I don't believe for one second that he didn't know it was a bullshit statement, and I doubt that I could be convinced.

And, of course, I know that that's a long way from proving it in a court of law. The perjury charge was mainly a joke (albeit a poor attempt, but hey, we all blow one every now and then).

Re:Show me the money... er... evidence

[Bandman]

My point was that....linux is free. The kernel is not, has never and will probably never be sold. It's given away, source, binary, and all.

Re:Show me the money... er... evidence

[Anonymous Coward]

Not in the early days of Linux... ...but being compatible and work-alike isn't a copyright violation.

IIRC

[The_Wilschon]

Didn't they already bring the evidence, and have it shot down? IBM's "Show us the code"?

Re:IIRC

[Anonymous Coward]

Not exactly. It was more like "its in program X but we won't say which of the many modules of the program or which versions let alone where in the module the alleged violation is".

The fun part of that was when IBM pointed out that earlier in the case SCOG had objected to IBM doing the same by making non specific claims and the judge had ruled in favour of SCOG. Naturally the judge then ruled the same way when IBM made the same objection against SCOG and shot down SCOGs "evidence" as inadequate.

Re:IIRC

[megaditto]

I think using similar logic it could be shown that, say, any BIC pen is a copy of a Parker pen.

Now, a $699 license fee for any BIC user? I smell something big here...

Re:IIRC

[ozmanjusri]

Now, a $699 license fee for any BIC user? I smell something big here.

Probably the cock you're smoking.

Either that or the teabags.

Sorry. Sorry. Sometimes I just can't help myself...

Re:IIRC

[MozeeToby]

"We use the one line of code rule. If you took one line of code from UnixWare and used it in a derivative work, that work would become subject to a UnixWare license," Maciaszek said.

If you follow their philosophy it should be pretty easy to find proof. I refuse to believe that they actually think this, they must be trying to convince poeple that have absolutely no experience in computer science (judge and/or jury). Otherwise, I can garauntee they are guilty of hundreds of cases of copyright infringement of other people's work.

Re:IIRC

[cube135]

Don't tell them about helloworld. Please. I don't think the courts can handle that.

Re:IIRC

[Quattro Vezina]

One line of code:

}

Re:IIRC

[somersault]

int i; Look! They stole our code!

Re:IIRC

[somersault]

Hark.. the computer is trying to talk to us! Get it up in the docks! Now computer, would you call yourself "a copy of UNIX"?

Re:IIRC

[Rich0]

The worst thing is the lengths that open source devs will go to try to obfuscate their copyright-infringement.

I just did a deep dive on the kernel source and found that half of those braces had spaces and tabs pre-pended in an attempt to evade detection.

Re:IIRC

[Anonymous Coward]

This is exactly like saying that if two books share a sentence one must be infringing on the other.

Re:IIRC

[Anonymous Coward]

Now, a $699 license fee for any BIC user? I smell something big here.

Probably the cock you're smoking.

Either that or the teabags. Perhaps I am a pedo, you insensitive clod.

Re:IIRC

[grub]

heh way to bring back a funny troll.

Re:IIRC

[Anonymous Coward]

lmao. I love it.

}

oops, I just took code from Unix.

Re:IIRC

[RyuuzakiTetsuya]

here's some more!

int x = 0;

return 0;

#include

Re:IIRC

[neomunk]

Heh.

-I- thought that was funny. No mod points today though, so you get a 'heh'.

Re:IIRC

[Dun Malg]

If you follow their philosophy it should be pretty easy to find proof. I can't even imagine how much I owe in licensing fees for my derivative works using:
for(int i=0;i<count;i++)

SCO?SCU?GNU?GNO.

[Xacid]

Guess we got to make a new one: SNL: SCO's not Linix.

Kinda takes the fun out of backacronyms though...

Re:SCO?SCU?GNU?GNO.

[sm62704]

Darl McBride and Steve Ballmer* have the same motto:

"No gnus is good gnus".

-mcgrew

*The linked article refers to Steve Ballmer, president of Microsoft and dancing, mentally deficient, foul-mouthed chair-throwing psychopath. For another dangerously unstable person, see "Tom Cruise".

Re:SCO?SCU?GNU?GNO.

[somersault]

SCO: SCO's Cocksmoking Organisation?

Re:SCO?SCU?GNU?GNO.

[maxwell demon]

Darl McBride [uncyclopedia.org] and Steve Ballmer* [uncyclopedia.org] have the same motto:

"No gnus is good gnus".

I don't think they care much about the Emacs newsreader.

So if Novell Owns Unix...

[geoffrobinson]

If Novel Owns Unix and if SCO got money for Linux and its relationship to Unix-rights, McBride basically said "we need to pay Novel the money we got."

The only reason I can think he said this:

1) He actually believes it.
2) He is afraid of fraud charges if he says otherwise. Throw lawsuits into this as well.

Re:So if Novell Owns Unix...

[SatanicPuppy]

Darl's not a technical guy; for all we know he really does believe it.

I'm not sure which is worse; a mindless zealot, or a flaming hypocrite.

Re:So if Novell Owns Unix...

[tiocsti]

Unix has moved from being an operating system, and in modern times is a set of standards, so basically he's right, linux is unix -- it complies to most of the standards people find relevant. There's no shared code with system v though, nor is it certified (it's unix, but not UNIX).

This does not mean that linux is based on sco or novell code, though. Not all UNIXes are; for example, OS X is also unix, although in the case of leopard it is actually certified as being so, but as in linux, does not share any code with system v (that i'm aware of, anyways).

So yes, he's right, linux is an implementation of unix. It's not a copy of the source, though. That's like saying glibc is a copy of microsoft's libc because they both conform to the ansi standard (ok bad example, because microsoft doesn't conform to the standard in various ways).

Re:So if Novell Owns Unix...

[UnknowingFool]

True non-technical people like him might believe Linux is Unix, but to say that there are no books on Linux is complete idiocy. All it takes is to go a bookstore or amazon.com. Either he is completely out of touch with reality or he is desperately lying through his teeth.

Re:So if Novell Owns Unix...

[mabhatter654]

But the Open Group is responsible for licensing the name "Unix" and setting the compatibility standards, not SCO. Basically SCO and Open Group were shell companies so that AT&T, IBM, HP, SUN, Novell and other Unix licensers would not get in trouble for anti-trust violations by holding the other companies hostage for technology they all shared.

Daryl is a classic case of the low-level lackey trying to be the tail wagging the dog. That's why Novell is so quick to put them in their place with extreme malice. They're supposed to be "holding the money" for the much bigger companies and they got a small amount of coin to do so. They just bit the hands that feed them. We need a law against technology companies in Texas or Utah!

Re:So if Novell Owns Unix...

[DaveV1.0]

But, a mindless zealot is often a flaming hypocrite so the point is often moot.

Re:So if Novell Owns Unix...

[mea37]

It seems what he said is that there aren't books on how to program Linux. It might not be so hard to weasle out an interpretation in which he could plausibly believe that to be true.

The only statement I think one might be able to pin him on, is the claim that they have evidence of System V code in Linux (assuming they don't, which seems fair at this point). But even that could be subject to interpretations that favor stupidity over malice.

Re:So if Novell Owns Unix...

[Marillion]

My personal theory is that McBride just doesn't know any better. Just because they work the same way doesn't make Linux a copy of UNIX any more than a Ford is a copy of a Chevy just because they work the same way.

Re:So if Novell Owns Unix...

[geekoid]

Light them both on fire;which every one burns the fastest was the worse one.

Re:So if Novell Owns Unix...

[jc42]

Just because they work the same way doesn't make Linux a copy of UNIX ...

Actually, it's pretty well documented that the original linux was an implementation of the POSIX standard. And POSIX was openly based on Sys/V. So they should work the same way. But is this what "copy" means? If I use a published government standard doc, can I really be charged with "copying" whatever that standard was based on?

Darl's claim does raise an interesting question: Is he claiming that SCO owns everything based on POSIX? If the court supports this, then he has successfully destroyed much of the US system of government standards. Every standard based on previous industrial usage is in immediate danger of being proprietary, and anything based on a US standard can lead to huge royalty payments, if his claim is upheld.

So is it legally safe to use the POSIX standard? Can any actual IP lawyer assure us that we can safely base our work on this or any other US government standard, without fear of retroactive royalties in the future?

Re:So if Novell Owns Unix...

[IntlHarvester]

But the Open Group is responsible for licensing the name "Unix" and setting the compatibility standards, not SCO. Basically SCO and Open Group were shell companies so that AT&T, IBM, HP, SUN, Novell and other Unix licensers would not get in trouble for anti-trust violations by holding the other companies hostage for technology they all shared. Very insightful description.

(Novell in particular always had a very peculiar relationship with UNIX because their main revenue source was/is NetWare. SCO was made the System V frontman largely for PR purposes.)

Re:So if Novell Owns Unix...

[timmarhy]

there's no books on how to program unix either. linux and unix are not programming languages. there is however LOTS of books on how to write programs FOR unix AND linux....

Re:So if Novell Owns Unix...

[capologist]

Wasn't the right to implement compatible systems established with Compaq's clean-room IBM BIOS clone back in the 80's?

Re:So if Novell Owns Unix...

[mea37]

That's beside the point. It doesn't matter if he's technically correct; we were talking about whether he could believe what he said to be true. The most interesting form of the question is, could you prove that he didn't believe it, because if so then those calling for a perjury charge would stand a chance of getting one.

So my comment has nothing to do with what you or I know; it has to do with what he knows. The fact is that the industry around technical books does use the term "programming UNIX" as a shorthand for what we know as "programming with the languages and utilities commonly found in a UNIX environment".

All he would have to do to counter your point that there are no books on "programming UNIX" is point to titles like Advanced Programming in the UNIX Environment, or Advanced UNIX Programming, or The Art of UNIX Programming -- all real titles. Go check Amazon if you think not.

And yes, those of us who know the technologies understand what this really means -- but the question is, can we prove that Darl knows how to draw those distinctions? The fact is, he probably doesn't. Could he plausibly consider these books on how to "program UNIX"? Yes, he could.

Of course, a quick Amazon search shows titles like Professional Linux Programming and Beginning Linux Programming as well. This falsifies his claim that there are no books on programming Linux, but he can easily claim never to have seen such a thing. Maybe he doesn't use Amazon. Maybe his bookstore doesn't happen to have those titles. Maybe when he was browsing the shelf, he overlooked them. Hell, even if he said "I've never been to a bookstore, I was speaking hypothetically about what I believe to be true", that would probably be enough.

So to everyone yelling about lying under oath, be sure you can answer this: What is truth? Don't waste your time on charges that won't stick. If you can't find shadier things he's done than this, then you're not really trying.

Re:So if Novell Owns Unix...

[anothy]

i know replying to sigs is "not done"; whatever, mod me off topic.

Except for ending slavery, the Nazis, communism, & securing American independence, war has never solved anything.

i assume you're asserting the civil war ended slavery. that's not accurate. the civil war ended slavery in some places (as a tactic, not an objective), while leaving it in others. it was reconstruction that ended slavery. oh, and only in the US.
World War II was certainly at least the proximate cause of the Nazi's fall, but it's unclear what the underlying cause was. Hitler's arrogance cost them the war much more than anything the western powers did (the idea that he was going to kick Russia around in a few months was clearly the product of a deranged mind). WWII certainly saved the lives of many of the Holocaust survivors, but with leadership like that it's overwhelmingly likely the Nazi's would've fallen anyway.
i don't know what you're on about with regards to communism. the USSR's fall wasn't the result of military action, nor was the liberalizing of the several other communist regimes. one can make good arguments that at least several were supported by "the west's" war-like stance.
the Revolutionary War obtained American independence, but did very little to secure it. hence the constant struggle for the next century or so. very much of which wasn't military.
regardless, the fact that good things may have come from war (i think they did, you just picked poor, simplistic examples) doesn't in any way justify the cost. good things sometimes happen by accident, but the most reliable result is more war.

Yea right

[Anonymous Coward]

Just like McBride is a copy of McDonald

Eh?

[Harold Halloway]

I have a copy of 'Beginning Linux Programming' from Wrox. Doesn't say UNIX anywhere. Hey guys, if you want me to testify I'd be happy to fly over. All expenses paid of course.

Re:Eh?

[iamacat]

In fact, I challenge Darl to find one book talking about programming UNIX in general written in last 10 years for a dozen dedicated to Linux programming. There are just too many platform-specific libraries and tools (such as Qt, gcc, python) needed to create any useful application. Also, readers of UNIX programming books would do best to practice their skills on a Mac or a Sun workstation, as neither Linux nor SCO are certified against current UNIX standard and entitled to claim that they are selling UNIX.

Re:Eh?

[cbart387]

Also, readers of UNIX programming books would do best to practice their skills on a Mac or a Sun workstation, as neither Linux nor SCO are certified against current UNIX standard and entitled to claim that they are selling UNIX. Or to be more specific, ones that are fully POSIX Compliant and certified. It really does make OpenSolaris tempting...

Re:Eh?

[Anonymous Coward]

Working extensively with multiple platforms, I can say that basically all the platform-specific tools and libraries you mention are not platform specific at all. GCC can be compiled for most any distribution and actually, Sun even offers gcc 3.4.2 (or maybe 3.4.3) as a download in their open-source packages for Solaris. The same goes for freely available install packages of GCC on HP-UX and AIX. Not to mention, I believe you can even build a GCC for Windows and MAC.

I know Python is also not platform specific. My friend did several Python scripts that we used on Windows systems. It looks like Qt is essentially the same way. So, what were all those platform specific tools and libraries again? If think it would be different if you talked about the Sun C Compiler or the standard C compilers provided for HP-UX or AIX. The fact is that a lot of the "UNIX" operating systems are trying to move closer to Linux toolsets because it helps foster compatibility and makes it easier for them to try to entice people to switch to their platforms.

Re:Eh?

[FirstOne]

"Or to be more specific, ones that are fully POSIX Compliant and certified. It really does make OpenSolaris tempting... "

OpenSolaris is contaminated by mulitple criminal copyright violations.. That tidbit of info turned up in the trial testimoney. SCO illegally opened sourced Novell's Unix code with it's new license/contract with SUN microsystems.

Re:Eh?

[X3J11]

I have a copy of 'Beginning Linux Programming' from Wrox. Doesn't say UNIX anywhere. Hey guys, if you want me to testify I'd be happy to fly over. All expenses paid of course.

Oooh, me too, me too!

Somewhere around here (or rather there, since I am here and not there, where there is home), I have a copy of LINUX Programming by Patrick Volkerding and others, dated 1996.

It was a good book, although the content is mostly irrelevant now. I do miss the simplicity that was Linux way back then, y'know, back when it was feasible to fit an entire distribution on a dozen 1.44 MB floppies.

Re:Eh?

[cbart387]

It'll be interesting to see how that plays out. I wish one of the Linux distros were POSIX certified like Redhat. Does anyone know if any of the distros are pursuing certification?

Re:Eh?

[Intron]

It's not clear that's true. There are a lot of license agreements involved going back to the early 80s. You also have to decide whose definition of "derived work" you are going to use.

Re:Eh?

[cmaurand]

http://www.amazon.com/s/103-0810819-1417433?ie=UTF8&tag=mozilla-20&index=blended&link_code=qs&field-keywords=linux%20programming&sourceid=Mozilla-search brings up a list of 16 books from likes of Wrox, Prentice Hall, O'Reilly and even a "For Dummies" book.

Re:Eh?

[jgrahn]

In fact, I challenge Darl to find one book talking about programming UNIX in general written in last 10 years for a dozen dedicated to Linux programming. There are just too many platform-specific libraries and tools (such as Qt, gcc, python) needed to create any useful application.

What do you mean? None of those are Linux-specific. You are just as likely to need them on Solaris, HP-UX, *BSD, ...

Also, readers of UNIX programming books would do best to practice their skills on a Mac or a Sun workstation, as neither Linux nor SCO are certified against current UNIX standard and entitled to claim that they are selling UNIX.

And now you are surely joking. Unix programming has nothing to do with the UNIX brand. Never has, never will. If you say "I learned UNIX programming on a Mac because I needed to learn programming a real, branded UNIX", real programmers will treat you as a kook.

(Of course it is very useful for a Unix programmer to be familiar with various Unixes, on various computer architectures.)

Re:Eh?

[nobaloney]

I believe you've just said you'd pay your own expenses :) .

Contradiction=bad things

[LostCluster]

IANAL, but if I've ever learned anything from Mock Trial in high school, it's that you never want to contradict what you say on the stand with what you've ever said publicly or under oath. See, it tends to give the impression that you're changing your story, and if the court doesn't know which one to think is true, they're just gonna ignore you.

Re:Contradiction=bad things

[TheRealMindChild]

Unless it is under certain circumstances, it is not illegal, in general, to lie. If it were, we would all be doomed.

Re:Contradiction=bad things

[drinkypoo]

Unless it is under certain circumstances, it is not illegal, in general, to lie.

Darl was on the stand under oath. Lying in such a circumstance is a crime, known as perjury. HTH, HAND.

Re:Contradiction=bad things

[Anonymous Coward]

> Darl was on the stand under oath. Lying in such a circumstance is a crime, known as perjury. HTH, HAND.

Jesus Christ, no it is not. It is not a material matter, for one.

I swear, any time I want my perceptions of us geeks as actually smart or anything, or free of ridiculous prejudices, I need only come to slashdot to be educated.

Re:Contradiction=bad things

[Courageous]

I'm afraid that this is a gross simplification, simple minded enough to not be entirely true. There is a great deal of a difference between understanding black letter law and the law as it is practiced...

C//

Re:Contradiction=bad things

[idontgno]

WTF?

Did you just say "This is not the perjury law you're looking for" with a Jedi hand-wave?

Perjury is difficult to prove. This is true. But what conspiracy-theory perspective make you spout pseudo-wisdom like "law as it is practiced"?

Selective prosecution, perhaps. Tactical prosecution, perhaps. But knowingly lying under oath is perjury. Period.

Re:Contradiction=bad things

[drinkypoo]

Jesus Christ, no it is not. It is not a material matter, for one.

You mean because it doesn't have to do with income? The entire case is about who is entitled to what, and whether they're going to get their entitlements. But regardless, 18 U.S.C. Â 1621 disagrees with you. Perhaps you could provide a cite? As the law is written, any lie under oath is perjury.

If your argument is that the individual was making a statement about interpretation of fact, and thus perjury does not apply, it is a stupid argument - because earlier cases have already established that Darl is wrong about this particular issue. But that does not seem to be your argument, so I am willing to believe that you are not an idiot (only a coward) and that there could be a point to what you have said. I am waiting to hear it.

Re:Contradiction=bad things

[Courageous]

As a matter of reduction to practice, it just isn't so, no matter how high and hard you jump up and down. And no, it's not about "difficult to prove," but rather about more pragmatic aspects of what courts actually do "really".

C//

Re:Contradiction=bad things

[AK Marc]

It is not a material matter, for one.

Stating that proof that Linux isn't an operating system (other than a copy of UNIX) is that there exist no books on Linux is a lie. It is a lie that he knowingly made in order to further the facts of his case. If that's not material, what is?

Re:Contradiction=bad things

[Simon Brooke]

Darl was on the stand under oath. Lying in such a circumstance is a crime, known as perjury. HTH, HAND.

--

Don't feed the trolls - when an AC says something stupid, let it slide.

Irony. Like coppery or silvery, only harder.

Re:Contradiction=bad things

[plague3106]

Lying under oath though is perjury.

Re:Contradiction=bad things

[cyphercell]

There's some confusion going around here on this subject, you seem to understand as well as the gp. Yes it's illegal to commit perjury, but it's extremely difficult to prove almost to the point that it's a worthless item to prosecute on. The story reads like they are actually going to push for perjury, what it actually takes to prosecute someone for this I have no idea. I know people lie every day in court, they change their story here and change it there, people are so dishonest prosecuting for perjury basically, amounts to writing someone a ticket for eating ice cream on Sunday.

Re:Contradiction=bad things

[TheRealMindChild]

I can't reply to all of the same-content replies as yours, so I will reply to yours and hope it gets whatever attention it needs.

My reply was directed toward the following part of the parent:

IANAL, but if I've ever learned anything from Mock Trial in high school, it's that you never want to contradict what you say on the stand with what you've ever said publicly or under oath. See, it tends to give the impression that you're changing your story, and if the court doesn't know which one to think is true, they're just gonna ignore you.

Lying to people outside of the courtroom, aside from certain circumstances (defamation/slander/etc) is not against the law. You can tell the woman at the bar that your manhood is 15" long. You can tell your baseball coach that you have been practicing every day, all summer long. You can tell your friends that you had an orgy with 33 women this one time.

My point being is, Darl's testimony doesn't HAVE to reflect what he is saying under oath, so long as what he says under oath is the truth.

Re:Contradiction=bad things

[Lijemo]

Wait-- you're claiming that under-oath testimony about whether source code was stolen "is not a material matter" in a legal case about who owns the source code?

I'm having a really hard time figuring out how you came to that conclusion.

Re:Contradiction=bad things

[plague3106]

Well, if you continue the highlight three more words, you'll see the OP is correct.

While lying outside the court room is not illegal, if it contradicts what you said under oath it could very well be a problem. How do we know which one was the lie?

Testimony is by defintion a statement made under oath, so I'm not even really sure what you're trying to say.

Re:Contradiction=bad things

[onemorechip]

GP is at least half correct and you are completely wrong. Even the link you provided proves perjury only involves "any material matter". So your statement, "any lie under oath is perjury", is false. GP is correct to recognize that it isn't perjury if it isn't material to the case. The half of GP that is (possibly) incorrect is his contention that it is not a material matter. Of course, a judge could decide differently, but I think it is material.

Hopefully

[markov_chain]

Nobody will tell Darl about POSIX, or the poor guy will have a heart attack of litigation-happy joy!

Re:Hopefully

[Goaway]

POSIX, that thing that Linux isn't?

Re:Hopefully

[denttford]

And the thing that Windows is?



[Ok, rather, used to supposed to be when it was NT, but can be with a Cygwin or SFU. download.

Re:Hopefully

[Creepy]

Linux is POSIX compliant, which only means it hasn't been certified. Many free BSDs are POSIX compliant but not certified, as well.

Saying Linux isn't POSIX is like saying Mesa isn't OpenGL - it is a functional work-alike that runs the same code using the same API. It is written from scratch to not require paying for the certification license or per-unit fees (I recall SGI required OpenGL vendors pay a small per-unit fee in the 1990s - I'm not sure if that is how it is licensed today).

Re:Hopefully

[Goaway]

Linux is POSIX compliant, Is it? Or it it mostly POSIX complaint?

lol

[smash]

• one
• two

• should i continue? or is there already abundant proof out there that darl is a lying sack of shit?

There's more Linux books than Unix books

[tjstork]

The thing is, his bookstore argument isn't even right. If you go to a bookstore, there are scores of Linux books and relatively few Unix books. If anything, you would probably find Unix books in the Linux section and not the other way around. Linux is driving Unix and anyone who doesn't see that has a hole in their head the size of JFK's.

The thing is, lawyers and judges are ornery types, and, having heard McBride's bookstore theory, the judge might well take a trip to the computer section at the bookstore and see it for himself. He will see Linux everywhere, and no Unix, and probably conclude that McBride is a liar. You may as well just end the trial at that point, but it will drag on enough for the judge to probably humiliate McBride a bit.

Re:There's more Linux books than Unix books

[ari_j]

"I'm sorry, your honor. I wasn't clear. I was referring to a 1980 bookstore."

Re:There's more Linux books than Unix books

[blind biker]

OK now: I did list two of my Linux programming books, so that shoots McBride's (or at least whoever quoted him) argument. But let's not partisanship blind us - there's more Unix programming books than Linux programming. I'm talking "Programming", not system administration or such.

Re:There's more Linux books than Unix books

[Colonel Korn]

The thing is, lawyers and judges are ornery types, and, having heard McBride's bookstore theory, the judge might well take a trip to the computer section at the bookstore and see it for himself. He will see Linux everywhere, and no Unix, and probably conclude that McBride is a liar. It turns out that most lawyers and judges have very limited imaginations and are terrible at what they do. Most likely this sort of thing would never occur to them. Quite likely, they won't even recognize the contradiction with the recent testimony mentioned in the summary.

Re:There's more Linux books than Unix books

[rbanffy]

Either that or all bookstores in Utah belong to SCO ;-)

Re:There's more Linux books than Unix books

[Cliffy03]

I guess he doesn't count programming books in all those languages that can run on anything?

Re:There's more Linux books than Unix books

[Lord Apathy]

This monkey needs to get his sak out of the fire. I don't know how many people remember Unix before Linux. I do. And I think I can safely say that unix was on the way out before linux came along. Many unix shops where ether packing up or converting to windows nt at that time.

Then out of the fray come a penguin with a mission. Linux put unix in the hand of whole new generation of hackers and programmers. McBride and his monkeys need to be down on their knees sacrificing a goat to the penguin gods for saving their market. They should have adapted not fought. Everyone saw that writing on the wall. Hell, IBM embraced linux. That alone should be enough to tell you something.

So if it wasn't for linux, unix would just be a entry in the hacker jargon file, see VMS, or assigned to a few nitch shops and jobs.

Re:There's more Linux books than Unix books

[sorak]

And of course, there's also the fact that, if his argument were true, it would be meaningless. When's the last time a case decision were decided based on the "facts" provided in a book title?

Book titles are based on marketing, not facts.

This reminds me of how that any device that uses a headphone port is now being marketed as an iPOD accessory. Does that mean that Apple can sue any company that produces a device with a headphone port?

Re:There's more Linux books than Unix books

[ckaminski]

The early 90's death of Unix was mostly attributable to their not being a decent Unix that ran on an Intel platform, which was decimating the CPU manufacturers of the day. Linux just happened to be it. If SGI or DEC had managed to pull their heads out of their asses and MIPS or Alpha were faster at a better price point, we'd probably be running WindowsXP and True64 on AXP right now.

oh, also...

[smash]

... anyone who has administered a Linux machine and/or coded on more than one breed of *nix knows that there's a fuckload of difference as far as programming goes between say, Linux and Solaris or FreeBSD.

Re:oh, also...

[ari_j]

Not just that, but the things that are the same are that way because of language and POSIX standardization, and apply in many instances to operating systems that are not Unix-like.

Re:oh, also...

[BOFHelsinki]

Um, did you mean "a fuckload of" difference or "fuck all" difference? There's a fuckload of difference.

Re:oh, also...

[smash]

erm, given that my post says "there's a fuckload of difference", i would say that means "there's a fuckload of difference"?

Re:lol

[Anonymous Coward]

Is that you Kurt???

"Linux Programming" book

[blind biker]

Well, I actually do have a book on how to program Linux: "Beginning Linux Programming" (Matthew and Stones), in all its red glory here on my shelf. Now I don't know whether the summary quoted McBride very well and I don't have much time to investigate right now, but if he did say what he said, that was pretty silly.

I also have the "Teach yourself Linux Programming in 24 hours, did not read it much, though. However, it exists, and more Linux programming literature exists, too.

Re:"Linux Programming" book

[Lord Kano]

I have those exact same two books. I was thinking of emailing Darl a link to Amazon's pages for them.

LK

Re:"Linux Programming" book

[blind biker]

Check that it wasn't just a journalist's "modification of reality", or perhaps the Slashdot submitter's. Slashdot is not famous for reliable reporting. At all.

Re:"Linux Programming" book

[Fujisawa Sensei]

I have those exact same two books. I was thinking of emailing Darl a link to Amazon's pages for them. LK Forget emailing Daryl, email Novell's Attorney, or just send him a copy. Let him wave a copy in front of the judge and show that Daryl's is either a liar or doesn't know what he's talking about.

Re:"Linux Programming" book

[Lord Kano]

It's not a typo, his name is actually Darl.

LK

Dear Mr. McBride,

[r_jensen11]

I write to inform you that the product you are bullshitting about is not Linux, but GNU/Linux. GNU/Linux, unlike products released by Microsoft (Such as OPENXML), tend to have names which are not doublespeak. This practice of not praciticing doublespeak is also adopted by the Free Software Foundation.

As you are most certainly aware, GNU/Linux stands for GNU is Not Unix. Ergo, Linux is not Unix.

Thank you for your time. My lawyers will send you the bill for mine.

Re:Dear Mr. McBride,

[Anonymous Coward]

Linux is a kernel. GNU is the userland.

We're comparing SYSVX kernel to the Linux kernel. They said they found SYSVX code in OpenSolaris, and that would be in the kernel. Nobody gives a rats ass if someone happens to have a stolen line of code in ls, cd, grep, etc. That would be bad, but that's not really what this case is about.

The kernel is the most important part; the userland is replaceable. We could replace our userland tools with BSD ones and re-license them in a heartbeat.

Re:Dear Mr. McBride,

[vux984]

GNU/Linux, unlike products released by Microsoft (Such as OPENXML), tend to have names which are not doublespeak. This practice of not praciticing doublespeak is also adopted by the Free Software Foundation.

What a load. You tell me which products tell you what they do:

Internet Explorer
SQL Server Management Studio
Photoshop
Windows Mail
Windows Live Messenger
Remote Desktop Connection
Adobe Acrobat Reader

or their FOSS equiv's..

Firefox / Konqueror / IceWeasel...
pgAdmin III / FlameRobin ...
gimp
Thunderbird / Evolution
Pidgin / Gaim
TightVNC / FreeNX
Evince ...

I could go on all day. Sure there are plenty of bad proprietary names, and lots of descriptive OSS names, but suggesting that a characteristic of open source projects is good names is utterly laughable.

Re:Dear Mr. McBride,

[Afecks]

You're the only one that said "good names". The GP said "doublespeak". There is a difference.

Re:Dear Mr. McBride,

[Blakey Rat]

Not to mention it includes GNU which is a recursive acronym, which is about as close you can get to "purposefully confusing speech."

Re:Dear Mr. McBride,

[vux984]

You're the only one that said "good names". The GP said "doublespeak". There is a difference.

Fair comment.

But that just underscores the whole issue that half the oss community explicitly disagrees with calling linux GNU/Linux. A FUD spreading cynic might even think it odd that half the community wants to lose the part about saying its 'not unix'. Hmmmm. :)

But actually, this gets even more deliciously ironic when you realize that "GNU/Linux" really represents the pairing of the 'gnu' userland, and the 'linux' kernel... so all we're claiming is that the GNU userland is 'not unix'... but what about linux?

To put it in the OP's words:

GNU stands for "gnu's not unix". Ergo, linux is not unix.

This is an elementary logical fallacy. Because GNU isn't Linux. And we're not claiming squat about Linux. And indeed, by calling it 'Linux' we are very deliberately associating it with Unix. We could have called it something else... linos, oslin, linKernel, LinK... but no we chose 'Linux'.

Talk about doublespeak. That's at least on par with OOXML if you ask me.

-cheers

Re:Dear Mr. McBride,

[Cajun Hell]

Internet Explorer

That's obviously Microsoft's version of traceroute.

SQL Server Management Studio

It sounds like a paint program of some kind; I think it paints graphs of which managers are in charge of what databases.

Photoshop

An online store who is getting its clock cleaned by free services such as flickr.

Windows Live Messenger

That's obvious a watchdog alert for sysadmins. When your Windows system is not live, this program makes your pager vibrate.

Remote Desktop Connection

That's a device driver for some kind of IR keyboard.

Adobe Acrobat Reader

I have to admit, that one is pretty transparent. Whenever you want to re-experience the time Evel Knieval jumped over a whole pueblo, this software gives a glorious and beautiful multimedia presentation about the feat. Absolutely second to none.

Re:Dear Mr. McBride,

[RobBebop]

gimp

What isn't descriptive about the Graphical Image Manipulation Program?

Re:Dear Mr. McBride,

[Un quebecois]

Maybe we call it LinuX because of LinuS Torvald. Maybe I'm wrong.

Re:Dear Mr. McBride,

[vux984]

Brilliant :)

Internet Explorer: That's obviously Microsoft's version of traceroute.

At least its related to the internet.

As opposed to Konqueror which is a game to take over the world? Or maybe its not a game? And FireFox? A hunting simulator?

SQL Server Management Studio: It sounds like a paint program of some kind; I think it paints graphs of which managers are in charge of what databases

Well at least we're talking about databases.

As opposed to FlameRobin, some sort of automated troll posting system that seeks and flames anyone who talks about birds?

Photoshop: An online store who is getting its clock cleaned by free services such as flickr.

As opposed to gimp? The window manager that randomly hides, moves, and resizes all the various controls on a window. You also mentioned 'flickr' the apparent website to visit if you want to inducing epileptic seizures.

Windows Live Messenger: That's obvious a watchdog alert for sysadmins. When your Windows system is not live, this program makes your pager vibrate.

Meanwhile the foss crowd has pidgin, some sort of Hawaiian slang dictionary?

Remote Desktop Connection: That's a device driver for some kind of IR keyboard.

As opposed to VNC which if we are lucky enough to guess the correct expansion is still 'virtual network computing' which must be some sort of network simulator for when you don't have a real one handy. Fortunately its available in many flavors... depending on whether you need your 'virtual network' to be 'ultra', 'tight', or perhaps the paradoxical 'real'.

cheers.

Re:Dear Mr. McBride,

[vux984]

What isn't descriptive about the Graphical Image Manipulation Program?

The fact that its galled 'gimp'!

And few people know what it expands to, apparently that includes even you:
From the gimp.org website: "GIMP" is the "GNU Image Manipulation Program"
[not "Graphics..."]

Besides most people just see 'gimp' and I assure they are not thinking about manipulating images. gimp means a variety of things... usually with connotations of 'awkward' or 'inept' or 'uncoordinated'. hardly inspiring.

By contrast 'Microsoft Live Messenger' is descriptive, and that's what they call it. If it was called 'MLM' it would be nearly as bad as 'gimp'... and would maybe be mistaken by many to be some sort of multi-level-marketing thing...

Re:Dear Mr. McBride,

[Keybounce]

Internet Explorer -- Must be a tool for exploring the internet. Oh, wait -- it only displays web pages, and doesn't follow the web standards.

SQL Server Management Studio -- Perhaps a program for managing SQL servers.

Photoshop -- Lets you order photos online? You know, shop for photos?

Windows Mail -- Sends mail to and from windows users.

Windows Live Messenger -- No clue. Send messages to "Windows live", whatever that is.

Remote Desktop Connection -- Connect your desktop with another? Oh, so if they put something on their desktop, it appears on my desktop as well? Neat -- sharing files and programs on the desktop. Right?

Adobe Acrobat Reader -- Something that reads acrobatic acts and displays?

Re:Dear Mr. McBride,

[stonemetal]

Photoshop -- A website where I can buy photos? Digital camera software? who knows the name isn't very descriptive.

Adobe Acrobat Reader -- Software that does text to speech? Maybe it displays pictures of the people who make Adobe bricks, performing acrobatics, while reading books. If I had just run across it on the internet I would think it was a program that "acrobatically" handled reading a large number of file types but nope it just does pdf.

or their FOSS equiv's..

pgAdmin III (postgresql Administrator version 3) sounds pretty descriptive to me.

gimp(GNU image manipulation program) Sounds pretty descriptive to me, much more so than photoshop.

Pidgin / Gaim(GNU AIM) a GNU aim replacement sounds pretty descriptive to me if you know what AIM is.

TightVNC (Tight Virtual network computing) ok so tight isn't very descriptive but the rest of the name is good.

Re:Dear Mr. McBride,

[vux984]

Actually, according to most accounts Linux comes from:
"Linus' Minux" = Linux.

Linus is of course Linus Torvalds.
Minix is a 'Unix-like' operating system whose name apparently itself derives from: Minimal Unix.

Of course, Minix isn't "really" unix either... it was written to be a teaching OS, an inexpensive clone of unix.

Re:Dear Mr. McBride,

[Ian Alexander]

You know, I never thought about it, but "Internet Explorer" really is an appropriate name.

It recalls to mind the Age of Exploration- go out into the great unknown (the Internet), catch interesting and horrible diseases, and bring them back home triumphantly along with useless trinkets from far-away lands (lolcats anyone?).

Re:Dear Mr. McBride,

[vux984]

pgAdmin III, gimp, pidgin, tightvnc...

The difference is those ARE the names. Yes they are acronyms or shorthand expansions for something that does mean something but the expansions aren't the names, they are the entymology of the name.
The icon in my application menu and the startup spash, and the title bar, all say: gimp, not 'GNU Image Manipulation Program'. GIMP may stand for GNU Image Manipulation Program. But the name of the program is GIMP.

I'm not saying MS is immune from bad/meaningless names... "windows Vista" springs to mind, for example. (Not that Windows XP was any better.)

If I had just run across it on the internet I would think it was a program that "acrobatically" handled reading a large number of file types but nope it just does pdf.

Unless you knew about Adobe Acrobat. And then it would make perfect sense. Granted Adobe Acrobat isn't the best of names itself, but that's a separate issue.

Sort of like "MP3 Player" or "SQL Server" are a descriptive names for program that plays MP3s or serves sql databases... but it doesn't say much if you don't know what MP3 or SQL is.

Photoshop -- A website where I can buy photos? Digital camera software? who knows the name isn't very descriptive.

At least your in the right application domain. 'Something to do with photos' What application domain is 'gimp'? Something handicapped? Or TightVNC? I'm drawing a complete blank.

iTunes = tunes - music!! hurray
amarok = ???

internet explorer - exploring the internet! hurrah
firefox - maybe a game [like starfox]?

Re:Dear Mr. McBride,

[dstech]

Gods forgive me for posting on slashdot again...

Grandparent post didn't make any argument that the names were good or descriptive, he said they were not doublespeak. "OPENXML" implies it is an open standard where it is not. Doublespeak.

By contrast, "Adobe Acrobat Reader" is an example of a bad name... I, for one, don't really want to read any acrobats, they might find it rude. ;)

In all seriousness, the name "Internet Explorer" has always bothered me. It can only explore the Web and occasionally FTP servers - only a portion of the Internet. But I digress...

Re:Dear Mr. McBride,

[BOFHelsinki]

The GNU ;-)

Re:Dear Mr. McBride,

[Kelson]

The fact that its galled 'gimp'! I've noticed that Fedora has recently started referring to it as the GNU Image Manipulation Program in all its menus. Which is good for discoverability, but bad for me trying to open a file and still looking for a label with 4 letters instead of 4 words.

Re:Dear Mr. McBride,

[vux984]

Grandparent post didn't make any argument that the names were good or descriptive, he said they were not doublespeak. "OPENXML" implies it is an open standard where it is not. Doublespeak.

Actually this was pointed out to me elsewhere in the thread. I think it was in fact the first response to my post. And its a fair point.

That said, and as I mentioned in my reponse to that:

GNU/Linux is not saying Linux is not unix. Its saying GNU is not Unix. The point is the 'GNU' in GNU/Linux is SELF-REFERENTIAL, and applies only to GNU part of the GNU/Linux package. Its not saying anything about the Linux part.

And its ironic because the OP claimed that GNU/Linux is not Unix because "GNU means GNU's not Unix. Ergo. Linux is not Unix. Which is a logical fallacy. GNU is not Linux either. GNU is GNU. Linux is Linux.

To illustrate. What would happen if we setup a GNU/FreeBSD package?

By contrast, "Adobe Acrobat Reader" is an example of a bad name... I, for one, don't really want to read any acrobats, they might find it rude. ;)

Adobe Acrobat is a bad name. But if you know what Adobe Acrobat is/does, then Adobe Acrobat Reader is a good name... sort of like 'mySQL Server' is a bad name if you don't know what SQL is, but a fine name if you do.

In all seriousness, the name "Internet Explorer" has always bothered me. It can only explore the Web and occasionally FTP servers - only a portion of the Internet. But I digress...

FTP does mroe than just transfer files. And http moves a lot more than hypertext... its all relative. Besides, compare 'Internet Explorer' to 'IceWeasel'. There's only so much info you can convey in two words. Internet Explorer is a good hint at its application domain... IceWeasel... not so much.

Re:Dear Mr. McBride,

[Jorophose]

So what the hell, exactly, do you want us to do?

Infringe on another company's trademarks?

How about you just kindly tell ask your distribution to rebrand all of its software with different names. Firefox is now $Distro Web Browser, Opera is now Opera Web Browser, gFTP is now $Distro FTP Client, gimp is now $Distro Artiste, Pidgin is now Instant Messenger, etc.

Not every program can be called "Internet Explorer". If you don't like how programs are managed, bitch to your distribution, and get other people to do the same. It takes what, 5 minutes to change a package's name to something else? And the original name can be kept in most places...

Re:Dear Mr. McBride,

[Anonymous Coward]

It used to support gopher, and Outlook Express used to ship as a component of IE and included mail and usenet.

Re:Dear Mr. McBride,

[colinrichardday]

Microsoft released Photoshop and Adobe Acrobat Reader?

Re:Dear Mr. McBride,

[vux984]

So what the hell, exactly, do you want us to do?

All I ever wanted was to rebutt the OP's assertion that 'FOSS' names are better than proprietary software names because they aren't. And I pointed at some counter examples. I don't really expect anyone to change anything.

Firefox is now $Distro Web Browser, Opera is now Opera Web Browser, gFTP is now $Distro FTP Client, gimp is now $Distro Artiste, Pidgin is now Instant Messenger, etc.

Such a move would probably actually probably really help new users. It should be seriously considered.

Re:Dear Mr. McBride,

[vux984]

Microsoft released Photoshop and Adobe Acrobat Reader?

I was looking for proprietary software names, not Microsoft specifically.

I suppose I could substitute... Microsoft Paint for Photoshop, and Microsoft Word Viewer 2003 for Acrobat Reader if you wanted to keep it purely microsoft. :)

Re:Dear Mr. McBride,

[eloki]

I think it's just meant to be amusing (hence the +5 Funny mod as of writing) not logically convincing at second glance.

Re:Dear Mr. McBride,

[vux984]

I think the 'funny part' was that he based a legal argument on the name of the product, and further considered 'pointing out the obvious' was also worth billing for. I found it pretty funny on that level too.

But at the same time I'm sure he genuinely believed foss names are not misleading, which was ironic as his use of it highlights a non-obvious potential doublespeak gotcha in the very example he chose... GNU/Linux.

Re:Dear Mr. McBride,

[colinrichardday]

In that case, you should not have quoted from the previous post as you did. Also, Adobe Acrobat Reader is available for Linux.

Re:Dear Mr. McBride,

[vux984]

Also, Adobe Acrobat Reader is available for Linux.

However its not an open source product.

Re:Dear Mr. McBride,

[Anonymous Coward]

"but suggesting that a characteristic of open source projects is good names is utterly laughable."

Read your own quote. He didnt suggest that. He suggested that microsoft uses doublespeak in their product names.

Doublespeak = deliberately ambiguous or evasive language

Which FOSS application does that I wonder?

Re:Dear Mr. McBride,

[Anonymous Coward]

Is GIMP, or the Gnu Image Manipulation Program, supposed to be a bad name? it seems pretty clear to me

I figured they would do this

[mlwmohawk]

In a trial, with a jury, they are introducing their opinions as testimony. Even though the facts have been proved this theory to be wrong, this is EXACTLY what they have been waiting for.

Linux and UNIX are very similar. Just as a Toyota is similar to a Ford, 4 wheels, gas powered motor, disk brakes, etc. Hell take a tundra and an F-150 and put them side by side. Besides aesthetic differences, explain to me how one is "clearly" different than the other. Using SCO's logic, the Tundra contains a Ford.

They will use the similarities to confuse the jury who have no clue about the history of "*NIX* beginning with Multics. I certainly hope Novell is ready.

PARANOID FEAR: Novell is working with SCO to establish in a court of law, by losing, that Linux is the property of Novell.

Re:I figured they would do this

[CyberZen]

No worries! This is a bench trial, so there is no jury. Just judge Kimball.

Re:I figured they would do this

[Anarke_Incarnate]

Too many people have taken the deal with MS the wrong way. Novell really tried to make both camps happy by making Linux and Windows play nicely, but people seem to think that even trying to work with MS in any shape or form is a pact with Satan himself.

I understand that there is danger in dancing with the devil, but when you have asbestos underwear and lots of experience under your belt, you are not always foolish for doing so.

Novell contributes SO much to the Linux user experience, and under F/OSS licenses, that to think that they are the devil's gardener are foolish. They are not trying to undermine Linux. They are not trying to OWN Linux any more than Red Hat is trying to "Own" it with their subscription model and additional tools that are not open source at the moment (read: RHN/Satellite server, etc).

Right now, Novell are the good guys. They are developing more for the casual desktop user than Red Hat and even Canonical. They are also not forgetting the big iron guys, as Z series IBM boxes hardly run RHEL but often run SUSE.

Re:I figured they would do this

[Anonymous Coward]

"In a trial, with a jury, they are introducing their opinions as testimony."

There is no jury. It is a bench trial, and Judge Kimball will decide the outcome.

Re:I figured they would do this

[poetmatt]

Not only as mentioned that there is no Jury, but also:

Remember that Novell already got money from MS for their interop deal. Wonder what happens if Novell can now chase after MS and sue them due to the interop deal if something pops up as a result of this trial? Novell has a lot to go after in this case, especially if they force SCO to liquidate and/or take control of SCO.

Huge, enormously huge win for Novell on this case. Not to mention for Linux in general.

This is not Toyota and ford. This is like comparing Unix to Linux, which they are not the same. Get it right. Or perhaps this is similar to comparing two unrelated objects to eachother in an abstract fashion. You can stretch things only so far.

Re:I figured they would do this

[mlwmohawk]

people seem to think that even trying to work with MS in any shape or form is a pact with Satan himself.

I would like to see an example where a "big" company did business with Microsoft and did not end up selling out or going out of business. Even DEC caved into Microsoft,

Re:I figured they would do this

[Anarke_Incarnate]

This is not to say Novell will not somehow implode due to the bad publicity of the deal or perhaps some of the minutia embedded in the legal documents, however Novell has money, experience and a good product. They were/are not trying to scuttle Linux to somehow make MS proud or destroy open source.

Many people on board with Novell drank the kool-aid on Linux and GNU tools. If they lost Linux they would lose a TON. They contribute to OSS projects, and even pay their devs to work on them for a week as part of their main job. A lot of really cool things are coming out of Novell for Linux. The Gnome and KDE projects depend on them for many cool things, including the task bar panel in KDE.

I am not saying that Novell can slay the dragon or that it was the BEST business decision, but that it was not a case of Novell trying to subvert OSS like so many people think.

Re:I figured they would do this

[UnknowingFool]

Also the judge (Judge Kimball) that ruled that Novell owns the copyrights and dismissed SCO's claims is the same judge in this trial so he's heard all this BS before and didn't find it persuasive the first time around.

Re:I figured they would do this

[calebt3]

IBM survived. Kinda.

Re:I figured they would do this

[Anarke_Incarnate]

It made/makes me nervous too. I thought it was extraneous and unnecessary but they did it, perhaps hoping that the "Tier 1" providers like RH and TurboLinux would sign too, maybe keeping the non corporate players out of the enterprise. I have no idea. However, they have made some improvements to SAMBA and now they have a chance to give Exchange a true run for its money. I would rather they signed a deal with IBM to help make Lotus applications more friendly, less bloated and target Linux systems that provided a Lotus/Linux revival.

In that way, they could have given Lotus the feature parity that it lacked against Exchange, while still banking on the features that Lotus/Domino has that Exchange does not.

A full collaboration suite based on Linux and Lotus + OO.o could help remove the entrenched Windows/Exchange/Sharepoint/Active Directory. Using Novell's directory products and Single Sign On tools along with IBM's collaboration software they could provide a near soup to nuts approach. Linux as the OS (Any flavor, really), Novell's Groupware/Directory products, IBM's collaboration suite perhaps friendlied up with OpenExchange and Ximian knowledge, SAMBA for compatibility with windows shares and they would have a full solution to uproot other Windows applications.

Re:I figured they would do this

[drinkypoo]

Novell is a good company

What part of Novell is good? They cruft everything they touch.

Re:I figured they would do this

[mlwmohawk]

IBM is somewhat different, as they did business with MicroSoft before it was "Microsoft." The dirty dealings and underhanded crap that BillG and company did caused IBM to pull away,

Sure, IBM does "business" with Microsoft, but their relation AFAIK is of a standard OEM/ISV. I think OS/2 gave IBM a taste for what is involved with being a Microsoft "partner."

Being a Microsoft "Partner" is akin to playing "cowboy" and always being the horse.

Re:I figured they would do this

[korbin_dallas]

Funny. Even just using M$ software causes companies to decline.

Intergraph used to sell high graphics workstations that ran a unix flavor (CLIX?).

Then taking the 'free' M$ Exchange Server koolaid, they moved all thier systems over to Wintel, and suddenly became
'just another whitebox' seller, and couldn't understand why no one wanted to pay 2x going $$ for a Intergraph box.

If they had instead moved to Linux who knows what might have happened.

BTW Intergraph made tons $$ selling 911 phone systems....that run on NT4.
Still do I guess, its been 10 years since I worked there.

Re:I figured they would do this

[Anonymous Coward]

Microsoft has earned a reputation for engaging in the sharpest of sharp business practices. Very much like "Satan himself".

It isn't so much that you're dealing with evil when you deal with Microsoft, but if it doesn't feel like you have been afterwards you probably weren't paying enough attention. Go back and read the fine print.

Re:I figured they would do this

[sm62704]

No worries! This is a bench trial, so there is no jury. Just judge Kimball.

"And I find the bench guilty as charged!" -Steve Ballmer (throws bench across room)

Re:I figured they would do this

[Anonymous Coward]

This is not a jury trial. It is a bench trial

Re:I figured they would do this

[Bodrius]

Then taking the 'free' M$ Exchange Server koolaid, they moved all thier systems over to Wintel, and suddenly became
'just another whitebox' seller, and couldn't understand why no one wanted to pay 2x going $$ for a Intergraph box.

If they had instead moved to Linux who knows what might have happened. They would have become 'just another linux box' seller, and wouldn't understand why no one wanted to pay 2x $$ for an Intergraph box?

Seriously, the problem you described is that they moved from a specialist market to a commodity market... how on earth would moving to Linux have made a difference?

It's free and has a lower barrier of entry for competitors... if anything, the higher prices would make even less sense.

Re:I figured they would do this

[pak9rabid]

Hell take a tundra and an F-150 and put them side by side. Besides aesthetic differences, explain to me how one is "clearly" different than the other. Easy, one's a great product and one's a piece of shit. Much like Linux vs UnixWare.

Re:I figured they would do this

[Anonymous Coward]

Wrong.
In a trial with NO jury, they are doing this. I'm sure it is the sort of thing that would make a positive impression upon a judge.

Doesn't Mr. McBride hold a JD degree? If so, then he really should know these things.

Re:I figured they would do this

[Anonymous Coward]

Wait a minute...Linux = Unix = Operating System... Windows is also an operating system... OS X is an operating system. SCO owns everyone. SCO was obviously the first company ever to bang two rocks together.

Re:I figured they would do this

[Lord Apathy]

Linux and Windows play nicely, but people seem to think that even trying to work with MS in any shape or form is a pact with Satan himself. You've obvously never heard this. http://www.last.fm/music/Tim+Wilson/_/The+Devil+Was+a+Nerd+in+High+School

Re:I figured they would do this

[BlackSnake112]

I thought DEC was burned by deals with Intel. The alpha chip was designed by DEC and Intel, but Intel own the patents. Intel came out with the pent II and DEC died. Well DEC was bought by Compaq which then merged with HP.

Re:I figured they would do this

[Anonymous Coward]

apple.

Re:I figured they would do this

[mysticgoat]

This is my first sighting of "cruft" used as a verb!

And the context makes it absolutely clear what is meant by "crufting"!

Most excellent!!

I shall pass this along to Marketing right away. I can hear the commercials now: "Ours is the finest Word Processor, deeply crufted with exquisite layers of the very best in bells and whistles."

Re:I figured they would do this

[Anonymous Coward]

Citrix. The got in bed with the devil. The devil showed them the secret kernel code, in 1992! The devil let them modify the kernel code and package/sell it in Citrix Winframe. Citrix and the devil have been distancing themselves ever since but, Citrix lives!

Re:I figured they would do this

[bwcbwc]

Well Novell is still around...They've done deals with Microsoft (and gone to court over them) off and on ever since the DOS/Netware days.

Re:I figured they would do this

[BOFHelsinki]

how on earth would moving to Linux have made a difference?

Consider timing, though. In the 1990s Linux was free and open but far from an off-the-shelf commodity (from the end user's POV). Nobody was selling high-profile Linux PCs, let alone high-end Linux workstations. If they would have developed a kick-ass Intergraph workstation with a comphrehensive production grade software stack based on Linux, they could have taken a leadership position in Linux land and also made Wintel boxes of that time look like toys. (And they had the hardware and software expertise to make that happen or at least give a damn good try -- consider Wildcats and their own Unix distro.) Water under the bridge now, I know... just like Silicon Graphics. Such a sorry end for Intergraph to sell their best product line to 3Dlabs and have it end up fucked up by Creative Labs :-(

Re:I figured they would do this

[Anonymous Coward]

Linux and UNIX are very similar. Just as a Toyota is similar to a Ford, 4 wheels, gas powered motor, disk brakes, etc. Hell take a tundra and an F-150 and put them side by side. Besides aesthetic differences, explain to me how one is "clearly" different than the other. Using SCO's logic, the Tundra contains a Ford.

Bloody car analogies... the problem is that the Tundra /does/ contain a Ford, but only in common inventions that are no longer protected. (Was there a pickup before the Model T ones? I can't think of any.) Unix is much younger and is still largely protected from replication.

To a silly bugger like Darl it may seem a reasonable argument. But as far as I can tell he's just showing he's clueless, which isn't the same as perjury. He can claim they're the same all he wants, and he can believe in Xenu and Creationism, or that car analogies are useful -- daftness isn't a crime.

Re:I figured they would do this

[gnupun]

I would like to see an example where a "big" company did business with Microsoft and did not end up selling out or going out of business. Even DEC caved into Microsoft,

Microsoft is in decline and now OSS has taken over the task of running small proprietary companies out of business. Why is this ok?

Microsoft wiped out many competitors by bundling products into windows or other big products, essentially giving stuff for free (like IE). It's hard to compete with free, which is what OSS is doing. OSS is the new borg... assimilate and clone a free version of any interesting software out there, essentially wiping out or drastically reducing revenues of various innovative companies.

Re:I figured they would do this

[Fujisawa Sensei]

Too many people have taken the deal with MS the wrong way. Novell really tried to make both camps happy by making Linux and Windows play nicely, but people seem to think that even trying to work with MS in any shape or form is a pact with Satan himself.

I have worked with MS, I can assure you that I have never met a group of people so good a being nice to your face while twisting the knife they just put in your back.

Re:I figured they would do this

[Anarke_Incarnate]

I don't disagree that they are evil. I think that the company has many heads. Some tell the truth and the others exploit that to their benefit at everybody else's detriment. However, I do not think that Novell is a bad company, though there are elements that I disagree with (Miguel, that means you).

Re:I figured they would do this

[Fujisawa Sensei]

I don't disagree that they are evil. I think that the company has many heads. Some tell the truth and the others exploit that to their benefit at everybody else's detriment. However, I do not think that Novell is a bad company, though there are elements that I disagree with (Miguel, that means you).

I'm not saying Novel is evil. I'm saying they're foolish for making a deal with the devil.

There's a sucker at every table and if you don't know who the sucker is, guess who it is?

Re:I figured they would do this

[Anarke_Incarnate]

I never meant that Novell was evil. I meant Microsoft. Novell, as a whole, have contributed quite a lot to the F/OSS community in the way of packages, updates/fixes and such.

How to program in Linux

[Anonymous Coward]

OK, I couldn't find a book called exactly "How to Program in Linux", but there are a few books here that might be of interest.

It is not a "copy"... just a clone

[Anonymous Coward]

I do know that slashdot is a place of news for nerds. But those f***ers are misleading the court and the (non-nerds among) public by using the vague word "copy". So please let me state a few obvious things.

Linux is a clone of UNIX. It offers the same interface to applications as what UNIX offered. Not even a single line of code is derived from UNIX's proprietary codebase. So please f*** off.

McBride

[Anonymous Coward]

Supplies a reason as to why drugs should not be legalized.

Re:McBride

[patiodragon]

"McBride supplies a reason why bugs should be euthanized."

There, fixed that for ya.

Re:McBride

[sm62704]

Supplies a reason as to why drugs should not be legalized.

On the contrary, McBride is NOT on drugs, but should in fact be on drugs. A suggested drug he possibly should be on might be Haloperidol (sold under the tradenames Aloperidin, Bioperidolo, Brotopon, Dozic, Duraperidol (Germany), Einalon S, Eukystol, Haldol, Halosten, Keselan, Linton, Peluces, Serenace, Serenase, Sigaperidol).

the girl at McDonald's, on the other hand...

--
Slow Down Cowboy! It's been 6 seconds since you last successfully posted a comment. Wanker.

Re:McBride

[Anonymous Coward]

Ooh, here's another drug he should be taking.

Linux (mostly) follows the open group.

[miffo.swe]

The problem is that its a big difference between being a copy of Unix and being a copy of a specific unix implementation. While linux in many places conforms to the standards making up Unix 93/95/98/2003 its not a verbatim copy of anybody elses implementation of those standards.

This looks very much like an ongoing effort do mislead people about what Unix really is. Somone should sue for slander since its a very rough accusation. That Novell seems to let this slide makes me very worried about their real intentions.

http://www.unix.org/what_is_unix.html

Re:Linux (mostly) follows the open group.

[Megane]

In other words, what he's saying is the equivalent of "Toyota is a copy of Ford. See, they all have four wheels and an engine, and you drive them with a steering wheel and a couple of pedals! And they both have doors and seats, too!"

Re:Linux (mostly) follows the open group.

[Anonymous Coward]

That's one of the bad car analogies that are so common on slashdot... Have you ever tried starting a Ford model T, or worse yet, getting it into second gear? You'd be in for a surprise. A Toyota on the other had, will always have an ignition lock where you expect it, pedals that function as you expect, and a gear leaver that works like any "normal" automobile found on the roads today.

Re:Linux (mostly) follows the open group.

[Megane]

a Ford model T

Darl isn't saying that they copied Unix V7.

Linux IS a copy of UNIX

[Reality Master 201]

But it's not an exact copy, and according to SCO's internal memos, there's no copyright infringement found in the Linux codebase.

Also, I hope something comes from SCO making false corporate filings - it'd be nice to see a few of them get some criminal penalties from this.

Re:Linux IS a copy of UNIX

[Arctech]

I don't think you can technically call something that has been reverse engineered a copy per se, but yeah, no matter what semantics you split it with there's positively no Unix code contained within Linux.

Re:Linux IS a copy of UNIX

[Anonymous Coward]

Exactly. Linux is a work-alike of UNIX, sure. In that sense, it's a copy: just as Windows, for instance, is a copy of the Apple Macintosh which is a copy of Xerox Alto which is a copy of NLS. However, Linux does not incorporate System V code, and so does not violate copyright.

Re:Linux IS a copy of UNIX

[ratboy666]

A COPY?

No. Let go marketroid (them's Darl words): Linux is an independent implementation of an Operating System supporting POSIX compliant applications, the FSF GNU tool chain, Xorg GUI and higher level systems such as GNOME and KDE.

The only commonality that Linux and Unix have in common is 3 letters of the name and the application support. This application support demands certain features of the Operating System (such as the fork() primitive) and certain file system semantics. Linux does support certain binary level conventions for compatibility (such as signal values, and binary UFS file system), but most of these are deprecated (UFS), or forced by header file source compatibility.

In no way is Linux a COPY of Unix. Not only is there no copyright infringement, there is no obvious "design infringement" either. If there were, it would be directed at the FSF for GNU (ls, cp, rm, bash, etc.). And at POSIX for specifying the API (IEEE 1003.1) *and* the command tools (IEEE 1003.2)

Re:Linux IS a copy of Unix

[oahazmatt]

Just like Monster is a copy of Red Bull and Windows is a copy of Mac and Toyota is a copy of Ford and an iPod is a copy of a (cd?)walkman. The fact that Linux shares no code is really the subject. Misleading article title. Actually, the article title is accurate as it's a direct quote from McBride. Slashdot isn't advocating that statement, just quoting what McBride has said, whether he is incorrect or not.

Re:Linux IS a copy of UNIX

[BOFHelsinki]

Apple Macintosh which is a copy of Xerox Alto

Off-topic but... it's likely a bit more complex than that. Jef Raskin who started the Macintosh project at Apple (when Lisa was still firmly getting a CLI) published articles on ergonomic computer interfaces some years before Xerox PARC was even founded. Granted, he knew the guys at PARC and was a frequent visitor. But it's arguable that Mac wasn't just a quick copy of Star/Alto, there was original thinking behind it just as well. (And Steve Jobs was nothing but a liability to the project, contrary to official Apple history.)

Re:Linux IS a copy of Unix

[Jack9]

McBride also testified "the" "on" "book", but these are not the reason the testimony is false on its face.

The article title is misleading, not factually incorrect.

Judge only

[symbolset]

No jury.

The awesome part about this

[WindBourne]

is that McBride really COULD go to prison over this for perjury. And if done right, a deal could be offered to him (1 month or year, instead of 20 years), if he will spill the beans about it. That would have to include MS's and Sun's participation in this. I would guess that McBride is enough of a gutless wonder that he would take the deal. But if he confirms that (Gates and/or Balmer) and McNealy were participants to fleece the companies, what could happen to them? I am guessing nothing.

Re:The awesome part about this

[Anonymous Coward]

is that McBride really COULD go to prison over this for perjury. And if done right, a deal could be offered to him (1 month or year, instead of 20 years), if he will spill the beans about it. I think instead some community service might be appropriate, like maybe having to help teach children in public schools how to use Linux.

Re:The awesome part about this

[secondsun]

I may be misremembering, but Sun's involvement turned out to be Sun buying the IP they had licensed for Java from SCO so the JDK could be legally and unquestionably GPL'd.

Re:The awesome part about this

[Goaway]

I thought the US had laws against cruel and unusual punishments.

Re:The awesome part about this

[hackstraw]

McBride really COULD go to prison over this for perjury

Obviously, you've never been busted, or had much experience with "the system".

Criminal charges come like a tidal wave for larger offenses. Its never, "The state vs McBride on one count of perjury". Its the state vs McBride for a laundry list of ranges of crimes, and odds are one of em will be good enough.

Now with the supposed McBride quote to the supposed jury: "When you go to the bookstore and look in the UNIX section, there's books on "How to Program UNIX" but when you go to the Linux section and look for "How to Program Linux" you're not gonna find it, because it doesn't exist."

That is utter bullshit. At least where I live, if I go to the local Barnes and Noble, and look in their computer section, there is the Linux section, and under it are the books on "UNIX".

Even though McBride is backwards in his evidence collecting, the same result could be said by a nutcase like him. That Linux is so much of a now popular version of UNIX that you can't even find a programming UNIX book, you have to look between the Linux books for a UNIX book.

I simply can't wait until this is over. This has been going on how long now? Like 6-7 years or so. My employers have lost some significant amount of money over this thing while I waste my time commenting/reading on slashdot about this train wreck.

Its also interesting to note that chages against companies take about an order of magnatude longer to try than those against an individual. For business, this is just part of the game of business. Even when you lose. as in theory McBride has done here, he has been able to finacially gain what? What have the lawyers and other people part of the pump and dump scam gained as a result of this?

Re:The awesome part about this

[calebt3]

Especially punishing innocent third parties. Won't someone please think of the children?!?!?!

Re:The awesome part about this

[Bandman]

Yea, but although it would take awhile, the kids would eventually recover

Re:The awesome part about this

[Anonymous Coward]

No, they wanted to open source Solaris which has SVRX code in it.

Re:The awesome part about this

[Anonymous Coward]

> is that McBride really COULD go to prison over this for perjury

It's not perjury to be wrong. Even stubbornly and stupidly wrong in the face of all the evidence. If we took your definition of perjury, every loser of a civil trial would be in the clink.

There's a very specific definition for perjury, and IBM's well-paid lawyers who know it aren't alleging it here.

Re:The awesome part about this

[Lord Apathy]

Now with the supposed McBride quote to the supposed jury: "When you go to the bookstore and look in the UNIX section, there's books on "How to Program UNIX" but when you go to the Linux section and look for "How to Program Linux" you're not gonna find it, because it doesn't exist."

I alway thought this guy was a fucking moron but this pretty much seals the deal.

Linux programming books

Re:The awesome part about this

[DaveV1.0]

I always love it when non-lawyers make comments like this.

First, you have to prove that he was knowingly lying.

Then, he would get a couple of years at most, and probably wouldn't even get that.

Re:The awesome part about this

[SatanicPuppy]

I can just look at the pile of books in my office to call bullshit on that one...I've got 2 O'Reilly's and one "Essential" book that I can see just from where I'm sitting.

Checking my "Safari" account and searching for "Linux" I get 171 books. Searching for "Unix" I get 51.

He really is just nucking futs.

Re:The awesome part about this

[Anonymous Coward]

explain Windows ME, then.

Re:The awesome part about this

[samkass]

"First, you have to prove that he was knowingly lying."

THEN you have to show that the lie was material to the case. If I testify in a copyright suit and blurt out "the Sun doesn't exist!" I'm not going to jail, because that's not material to the case.

Re:The awesome part about this

[sconeu]

He's basically hoisted on a perjury petard, but not for this one.

He testified in court that the MS and Sun Licenses were NOT SCOSource, but just straight up UnixWare licenses. However, the 10-Q they filed with the SEC in 2003 listed them as SCOSource.
Novell's lawyer called him on it.

So either he's perjuring himself now, or he purjured himself when he signed the 10-Q. If the latter, he's in big trouble. The SEC does not like people who do that, plus that's a SOX violation.

Re:The awesome part about this

[Quattro Vezina]

Close. It was for Solaris (which is a SysV derivative), not Java.

Re:The awesome part about this

[DaveV1.0]

True, but I believe the item in question is talking about would be material to the case.

Re:The awesome part about this

[Quattro Vezina]

Heh. I just peeked over my cube wall: my co-worker in the cube next to me has books called "Linux Kernel Development" and "Linux Device Drivers" on the shelf in his cube.

Re:The awesome part about this

[644bd346996]

This is a bench trial, not a jury trial.

Re:The awesome part about this

[extremescholar]

http://xkcd.com/323/The Ballmer Peak!

Re:The awesome part about this

[NekSnappa]

Hell somewhere I've got a book about Linux that's centered around Caldera. It even included a copy of the distro in the back of the book!

Re:The awesome part about this

[somersault]

He meant the special SCO bookstore

Re:The awesome part about this

[Anonymous Coward]

Quit peeking into my cubicle!!

Re:The awesome part about this

[Grishnakh]

It's not perjury to be wrong. Even stubbornly and stupidly wrong in the face of all the evidence. If we took your definition of perjury, every loser of a civil trial would be in the clink.

I'm not sure that would be a bad thing. It would certainly reduce the number of civil trials brought to court.

Re:The awesome part about this

[Svartalf]

This is true. However, he has been caught having either lied on the 10Q in a manner he had to have known about- or he just committed perjury on an item that's very much material and germane to the case- and then stupidly implied that he may have done so before the court right after the act in question.

Re:The awesome part about this

[Lord Apathy]

It does. Do you think remming his ass with a green pinecone would count?

Re:The awesome part about this

[Eli Gottlieb]

That was before the Bush Administration.

Now we often punish children by showing them what Torgo's Powder is made of.

Re:The awesome part about this

[_Sprocket_]

Others have already pointed out that it wasn't Java but Solaris. It should be noted that this is exactly what the whole current case is about (or at the least, one of the points). Novell is claiming that SCOg had no right to provide Sun with a license that would allow them to Open Source SVRX code.

Re:The awesome part about this

[maxwell demon]

If I testify in a copyright suit and blurt out "the Sun doesn't exist!" I'm not going to jail, because that's not material to the case.

Well, if Sun holds the copyright in question, it might be very material to the case :-)

Re:The awesome part about this

[C0vardeAn0nim0]

here on amazon. 1,648 results for linux programming.

someone please introduce mr. mcbride to something al gore invented in early 90's called "the internet".

Re:The awesome part about this

[sabt-pestnu]

> Linux is so much of a now popular version of UNIX

Just thought I'd pick a geek nit here...

Linux is interoperable with many varieties of UNIX, but it is not UNIX. Nor is it based off of UNIX, at least as far as SCO vs IBM declared. (If the Linux kernel includes UNIX code, it isn't from SVRX, at least...)

Note that the big decision in SCO vs Novell was over copyrights and (SCOsource) licenses. SCO vs IBM has been waiting for Novel vs SCO (née SCO vs Novell) to finish before continuing.

Still, given just how very similar they are from the keyboard, command line side, it's understandable.

Re:The awesome part about this

[Anonymous Coward]

And how are MSFT and Sun involved here? McBride is the one who perjured himself. Did Balmer, Gates or McNealy take the stand in this case and lie? Nope.

I know that in the Linux religion, MS is evil and Sun is ... well, I guess quasi-evil. But all they did was agree to licensing rather than a court battle. It's a business decision. Nothing to see here. Move along.

Re:The awesome part about this

[Zantetsuken]

Better make sure you replace those school room chairs with bean-bags! Wait, crap, he can just suffocate the kids with those...

Re:The awesome part about this

[MichaelSmith]

is that McBride really COULD go to prison over this for perjury. He could share a cell with Hans. Oh to be a fly on the wall.

Re:The awesome part about this

[jgrahn]

here on amazon. 1,648 results for linux programming.

Sure, but I bet the majority of them cover what we used to call Unix programming. I cannot think of any programming language or interface (except the kernel) which is Linux-specific. If there is one, it's surely because it sucks so badly that noone has bothered to port it to *BSD and Solaris.

Re:The awesome part about this

[Anonymous Coward]

It _is_ material to the case, because he said it for the purpose of demonstrating/proving that Linux is a copy of Unix.

Why would he bother saying it if it had no relevance?

Was he knowingly lying? That may be hard to prove I guess, but it can be reasonably (which is what matters) assumed that he knew it was false, because he is in the industry. And probably went to a bookstore where he tried that.

Anyway offtopic to this reply: the defense needs to show that there is no Unix book either of that exact same title, but there are tons of Linux programming books.

Re:The awesome part about this

[node 3]

I'm not sure that would be a bad thing. It would certainly reduce the number of civil trials brought to court. Better to have a system which allows frivolous lawsuits than one that discourages legitimate lawsuits for fear of going to jail if one loses.

Re:The awesome part about this

[Grishnakh]

Are you sure about that? 1) Frivolous lawsuits are expensive to defend against. If you can't afford the legal fees associated with defending yourself, then you effectively lose. There's no real punishment for those bringing frivolous lawsuits, so the system rewards those who do, and use the court system to bully people into submission. 2) The societal cost of frivolous lawsuits is enormous. Eventually, it may destroy society in the form of a collapsed economy, takeover by hostile powers, etc.

I think it'd be a good thing to send people to jail for losing frivolous lawsuits, if it can be proved they perjured themselves (which ALWAYS happens when someone loses a lawsuit; if they agreed, and didn't lie about anything, there probably wouldn't be a reason to bring it to court unless it's really a legitimate case where both sides tell the truth but it's a complicated legal matter that requires the expertise of a judge to sort out).

Re:The awesome part about this

[Grishnakh]

What's more, I believe that if we as a society are going to allow frivolous lawsuits, then we should have the government pay for ALL legal expenses associated with lawsuits, on both sides, because that's the only way to make it fair for both parties regardless of how much legal representation they can afford. In addition, the parties shouldn't be stuck with whatever government-appointed lawyers they get, they should be able to choose whatever lawyers they want, regardless of the cost, and the taxpayer should foot the bill.

What? We can't afford that? Too fucking bad. Either we be fair, or we adopt more serious measures to discourage frivolous lawsuits, such as throwing the losers in prison with Bubba. The system we have now is simply a way for the rich to bully everyone else, and is a total farce.

Re:The awesome part about this

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, but the first word ('the') is crucial. Don't forget it :)

Re:The awesome part about this

[Anonymous Coward]

Considering that the case is about Linux (the kernel?)'s supposed copyright infringement of UNIX code, I'd say it's pretty damn "material".

There are plenty of books on how to program Linux

[Alpha830RulZ]

They are right there, next to the books on how to program in Solaris, HP-UX, and, of course, SCO.

What's amazing and sad

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm working at a really hot startup in the storage space. The product is all Linux based, but that's under the hood.

The VP of Marketing made the exact same claim that McBride. In fact, he went far further by repeating all of SCO's main claims. And that Linux stifles innovation, etc., etc.

Honestly, the guy is on crack. And it sounds like Microsoft is feeding these clowns this stuff, because he is basically Microsoft's b*tch.

This Just In

[Skeetskeetskeet]

OS2/Warp is a copy of Windows 3.1.... Film at 11.

Re:This Just In

[Sfing_ter]

actually, you would want to say OS2/Warp is a copy of WINNT,(MS could not get NT out fast enough so they released win 3.1)

hey McBride

[trybywrench]

when you go to the Linux section and look for "How to Program Linux" you're not gonna find it,

um O'Reilly begs to differ http://www.oreilly.com/catalog/9780596009588/

Re:hey McBride

[Jaysyn]

Can we send that link to the judges aides?

Didn't We Settle This Already?

[Cytlid]

I thought we settled this dispute with a precedent. I don't remember particulars, but remember when IBM made "IBM PCs" and tried to sue the pants off of people making "clones"? Comes out you can clone something without "copying" it. If Daryl said something to the tune of "Linux is a Clone of Unix" he *may* have been ever so slightly closer. But saying it's a copy, is showing his ignorance or his idea that most of the world is ignorant and will believe him.

Re:Didn't We Settle This Already?

[tgatliff]

This is the current situation of US business at the moment. Which is that companies want more than anything to use the current patent system to try to hold the industry hostage while they do a "make money for nothing" business model... Meaning if the system worked the way they want it to work, we would still be paying money to the family of the caveman that developed the rolling wheel.... Talk about stupid...

Re:Didn't We Settle This Already?

[Animats]

I don't remember particulars, but remember when IBM made "IBM PCs" and tried to sue the pants off of people making "clones"?

Wrong. IBM did not try to sue "clone" makers, because IBM already lost an antitrust case on that issue over mainframes. There were IBM mainframe clones, from Amdahl, Fujitsu, Hitachi, and National Semiconductor. Hitachi still makes IBM mainframe clones, and they run IBM mainframe software, including IBM's OS/390.

Re:Didn't We Settle This Already?

[drinkypoo]

I don't remember particulars, but remember when IBM made "IBM PCs" and tried to sue the pants off of people making "clones"?

I do remember the particulars, and the suit was over Compaq reverse-engineering the PC BIOS. Their reverse-engineering method, which was AFAIK the first use of the term "clean room" in reverse engineering, was what enabled them to win the lawsuit and what set the precedent for permitting reverse-engineering of PC BIOS, which has had far-reaching repercussions throughout the computer industry and indeed IP law.

IBM was trying to prevent people from making clones, but the lawsuit was over a particular feature, not the fact that the computer was a workalike.

Re:Didn't We Settle This Already?

[Anonymous Coward]

No, you're wrong. IBM did file and got a settlement out of every original clone maker, including the clone market leader at the time, Eagle Computer. Legitimate clones only appeared after they reverse-engineered a "clean room" version of the PC BIOS, thus avoiding the IBM copyright claim.

What he meant...

[mbaGeek]

Mr. McBride obviously meant that there are no Linux books in the SCO company bookstore

My local B&N seems to be full of "Linux" books though ...

Re:What he meant...

[Cliffy03]

I guess they threw all theirs out years ago.

It's like saying a Ford is a Chevrolet...

[bagofbeans]

...because after all, the oparating controls are essentially the same.

How to program Linux

[OhHellWithIt]

I don't know about How to Program Linux, but there's this record in my library's catalog for Linux programming by example, by Kurt Wall (2000), and here's The Linux Kernel Book, by Remy Card, Eric Dumas, and Franck Mevel (1998).

Yes, McBride...

[magus_melchior]

... and you're a "copy" of Warren Buffett.

Re:Yes, McBride...

[mr_mischief]

Not a very good knockoff, if that's what he's supposed to be. Warren Buffet is smart, good at making money on company growth, and doesn't tend to make outlandish claims about vast conspiracies against him by competitors. Must be a copy of Warren Buffett from one of those Naples or Hong Kong handbag factories.

3)...

[Anonymous Coward]

The only reason I can think he said this:

1) He actually believes it.
2) He is afraid of fraud charges if he says otherwise. Throw lawsuits into this as well.

3) Microsoft told him to, and it doesn't matter much anyway, since both SCO and Novel are now MS subsidiaries.

Re:Perjury

[LaminatorX]

The standard for perjury is higher than meerly lying under oath, otherwise every he-said vs she-said case would be followed up with prosecution of the looser. Witnesses lie quite often. Usually all that happens is that opposing counsel trips them up under cross, or introduces evidence that contradicts their testimony. They loose credibility with the judge/jury, but they don't go to jail.

The grand jury rightly refused to indict Clinton because the lie he got caugh in, while crappy and self-serving, wasn't sufficiently germane to the facts of Paula Jones's suite against him. Lying about something that happened years later, in another state, with a different woman had too little bearing on the claims presented in Jones v. Clinton to warrant a perjury charge.

...or Lockjaw is Tetris

[tepples]

If Linux is a copy of Unix, does that make Lockjaw a copy of Tetris?

Re:Really.... OT

[Anonymous Coward]

And war did not end Communism. It's still alive in China.

The obvious solution...

[Vexler]

...is to treat Darl McBridge the same way some people dealt with Alan Ralsky: Send him as many Linux programming books as we can.

Re:The obvious solution...

[Icegryphon]

I rather like this Idea alot. We Someone should post the SCO address and Attention: Darl McBride.

Re:The obvious solution...

[Hillgiant]

According to PinkSheets, their address is:

355 South 520 West
Suite 100
Lindon, Utah 84042 USA
801-765-4999 phone
801-765-1313 fax


This matches the address listed on their website. No luck on his home address (with my lame ass google-fu)

O rly?

[aztektum]

I realize this is a bit redundant now, but Darl, you're a fuckin' idiot.

Re:O rly?

[SatanicPuppy]

You want some real irony? Do the same search with the word Caldera included.

That is one bare-faced lie.

Re:O rly?

[Anonymous Coward]

Okay, but if you try the corresponding search for UNIX, you do get 2768 results, whereas the "programming linux" search gets you "only" 1648 items. Of course, there is probably a large area of overlap between, and it doesn't negate the fact that Darl would be spectacularly wrong for any, oh, post 2000 date.

Re:Really.... OT

[OriginalArlen]

China's no more communist than Tony Blair's a socialist.

Linux Programming Books

[Anonymous Coward]

The lawyers should send one of their clerks to the local technical book store and have them buy every book that says Linux Programming in the title (Amazon shows plenty) or have them overnighted from Amazon, and bring them in tomorrow.

Oblig. Strange Brew Reference

[cvd6262]

Claude Elsinore: And I'd like to point out that these tapes have not been faked, or altered in any way. In fact they have time coding, which is very hard to fake.

The Judge: Would you please explain for the court "time coding."

Claude Elsinore: Well, uh, just because I don't know what it is, it doesn't mean I'm lying.

Re:Oblig. Strange Brew Reference

[plisskin]

Beauty, Clark

Re:Oblig. Strange Brew Reference

[Anonymous Coward]

Personally, I thought the quote was well suited. Also, it made me laugh, and that's what really matters.

Lawyer: Your honour, you can't split pleas like that!

B&D: I'll get 2 bowls of split plea to go!

I guess this book I'm looking at is imaginary.

[MistrBlank]

Seriously, evidence of a section of books at a bookstore is not evidence that something is a copy of something else, it's just evidence that the bookstore only has so much room for headers. Otherwise I would have to complain my local B&N doesn't carry a Ruby Programming section.... or Perl Programming section. Hell, those must be copies of Java programming since there is a Java Programming section. Get real Darl.

Maybe he hasn't been to a book store in a while?

[Reece400]

Like 20 years ago a while?? I think I'd find it hard to believe someone who seems to be making up obviously false 'facts' as he goes...

Re:Perjury

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah it had nothing to do with the fact that he was a popular Democrat President. Nothing at all. Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain!

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Incorrect.

[jrothwell97]

Cross out "copy of", and you get a correct statement:

Linux is a Unix.

As are FreeBSD, Darwin, Solaris and Minix. Most of which borrow at least some concepts from System V, but barely a single line of code. (OK, to be a pedant, they are Unix-like OSes, but they are compatible OSes.)

Does this mean SCO plans on suing for compatibility? Standards, even? Even if SCO did own the Unix copyright, there would be no grounds for suing based on something that works in a similar way.

Re:Incorrect.

[drinkypoo]

As are FreeBSD, Darwin, Solaris and Minix. Most of which borrow at least some concepts from System V, but barely a single line of code. (OK, to be a pedant, they are Unix-like OSes, but they are compatible OSes.)

Actually, as per the definition laid down by the creators of Unix, Linux IS Unix, it is simply not UNIX(tm) (as per the Open Group.) If it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then for our purposes it is a duck. If you go try to carry out the stuff you'll find in The Unix Programming Handbook then you'll find that Linux is Unix. Seriously. Because all that stuff still works, and it works in the same way and for the same reason.

However, this distinction would only have been extremely confusing in court and probably not at all germane to the actual issue of who owns what. And so, Darl's statement is not true because he is not talking about Unix, but about UNIX(tm). When you hear Darl (or anyone else in court relating to this whole SCO thing) refer to "unix", they're actually saying "UNIX(tm)". It's just not clear how to pronounce the (tm)... currently the argument is between a click and a cluck.

Re:Incorrect.

[NiteShaed]

No, Linux is NOT Unix, or UNIX or UnIx or any other weird case-mixing combo that you want to try. You can say it's similar to Unix, or that it's Unix-like but that's about it.
UNIX systems are those that are certified by the Open-Group, and at the moment that's Solaris, AIX, HP-UX and OSX (am I leaving somebody out?).
Since we're on /., I'll give you a car analogy. I am a great mechanic, and something of an artist. I have had lots of time to study Ferraris, so, I build my own, almost from scratch. It looks like a Ferrari, it sounds like a Ferrari, and most people can't tell the difference between my car and a Ferrari. My car is still not a Ferrari though.
(Disclaimer, no, I did not really build a Ferrari-like car. Only a complete lunatic would drive a car that I built from scratch.)

Re:Incorrect.

[Anonymous Coward]

Let's see...Last time I checked, Unix binaries won't run on a Linux distro...

Re:Incorrect.

[drinkypoo]

Let's see...Last time I checked, Unix binaries won't run on a Linux distro...

You're stupid, and you're anonymous, so I shouldn't reply to you, but someone easily led might believe you, so: http://linux-abi.sourceforge.net/

Please try to be correct next time.

Re:Incorrect.

[drinkypoo]

No, Linux is NOT Unix, or UNIX or UnIx or any other weird case-mixing combo that you want to try. You can say it's similar to Unix, or that it's Unix-like but that's about it.

No, that's all you can say, because you're a sheeple that drank the Open Group Kool-Aid. Personally, I rejected it back when it was the OSF Kool-Aid, but I guess it takes all kinds.

FWIW, the Open Group is in court right now to prove they have the right to the name. Which, to any sane person, they do not. Unix is not a particular codebase - no matter what you say you have to admit that at least BSD UNIX (which the Open Group can go fuck themselves over, since their copyrights ostensibly descend from System V) is also UNIX - but since the Open Group now has control of the trademark, you're not allowed to call it that - even if you have one of the many licenses for BSD UNIX 4.3, for example. Well, unless you give them a shitload of money for certification. And for what? To prove what a test suite can prove?

Anyway, just to return to an earlier point, and complete it - Unix is not a codebase, it is a culture. It is a methodology of doing things. And if it behaves like Unix, and if it is designed like Unix, and if it runs Unix programs and scripts, then it must be Unix. And lo and behold, the world was split into two camps: those who believe what they are told by people with money, and those who think for themselves.

Re:Incorrect.

[NiteShaed]

No, that's all you can say, because you're a sheeple that drank the Open Group Kool-Aid.

Yeah maaaaaaan, it's just like, if everyone was like, all enlightened and stuff, it'd be just like that maaaaaaan. Stick it to the maaaaaan and like, take back the name for like the community maaaaaaaan. C'mon, 'Sheeple'? Really?.

The Linux kernel was developed independently of UNIX, following the POSIX standard which gives it great interoperability with UNIX systems. That's all. Warm fuzzy talk about culture doesn't change that.
 

And if it behaves like Unix, and if it is designed like Unix, and if it runs Unix programs and scripts, then it must be Unix.

Wow, so my homebrew Ferrari from the above example really *is* a Ferrari then. Cool.
 

And lo and behold, the world was split into two camps: those who believe what they are told by people with money, and those who think for themselves.

Funny, from this conversation I get the idea it's split into two camps: Those who know what UNIX is, and those who don't. How's life over in the "don't" camp?
They're operating systems, not religions or lifestyle choices. But then again, since you're redefining things based on your own personal definitions, maybe they're actually both. Who am I to argue with such an enlightened, free-thinkin' rebel as you?

Things Never To Say

[RealProgrammer]

To a zombie: Eat Me!

To a loan shark: I'm a little short right now...

To a woman: Yeah, they do make you look a little heavy, why do you ask?

To a lawyer: We have evidence....

All of these have ... consequences.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:Perjury

[Anonymous Coward]

I think you mean Slick Scooter Libby. But hey, a blowjob is just as evil as conspiring to bankrupt the nation and send its best people to their deaths in an unnecessary war, innit?

Yeah, so ...

[mshmgi]

I seem to recall that Windows 3.x was nothing more than a copy of Mac OS 4 ... but you didn't hear anybody complaining about THAT, did you?

Re:Yeah, so ...

[Anonymous Coward]

They were obviously from different codebases entirely so MS couldn't be accused of infringing on it. Look and Feel had already been decided in the courts so MS had made something that looked kinda similar but wasn't based off of or stolen from. Here the idea they are pushing is that Linux "stole" underlaying code so its actually at the base the same program.

Re:Yeah, so ...

[mr_mischief]

Well, Apple sued Microsoft for "look and feel" copyright violations. Does that count?

Is a Chevy a copy of a Ford?

[zerofoo]

Yes they are both automobiles, so according to Darl McBride's logic, one must be a copy of the other?

To claim that Linux is a copy of Unix, and to claim that there are no programming books for Linux as proof, is absolutely absurd.

I'm no attorney, but could this testimony be considered perjury even though the testimony was given at a civil trial and not a criminal trial?

Darl McBride belongs in jail.

-ted

Circular logic

[penguin_dance]

This is from McBride's own website (ego much?)

From 2005: "But since SCO owns the UNIX operating system and it made up 95 percent of our company's revenue, and we were getting strong demand from customers for a next generation version of UNIX, that's where we concentrated our efforts."

Well the courts will decide that. "'Isn't SCO just all about defeating Linux?' Of course we are innovating and we absolutely want to defeat Linux, just as we want to defeat any other competitor."

Following is usual FUD about how Linux costs more in the long run because of (reaches back to pull numbers out of ass) subscription fees. And of course Microsoft has been a great contributor to SCO's fight against Linux.

But here's the kicker:

"SCO Has a Superior Kernel - SCO OpenServer 6 includes the UNIX System V Release 5 (SVR5) kernel, the result of more than 25 years of high-end development work that has created a proven track record of stability and reliability. With our latest release, OpenServer provides support for up to 32 processors, 64 GB of memory, terabyte file sizes, and full support for multi-threaded applications. Linux is still young from an operating system perspective. I would challenge any kernel out there to match us head-to-head. While Linux may appeal to some as the sleek, new "racer" on the track, the experienced IT professional will truly see the real power under the hood when they test the UNIX kernel and the tried and true power of UNIX combined with the new capabilities of SCO OpenServer 6."

Now the obvious: If Linux = UNIX, then how can their kernel be superior? There's NOTHING on this page saying Linux copied UNIX in whole or part.

Then some more FUD--I actually laughed at this figure:

"Unfortunately for Linux, mi2g also confirmed that the Linux operating system has become somewhat of a hacker's paradise. In a study conducted only seven months ago they found that overall, the most vulnerable operating system for manual hacker attacks was Linux, accounting for 65.64% of all hacker breaches reported.

Again, how can you be oh-so superior in security if your product is identical to Linux? You can't have it both ways. BTW, I tried to find this figure in context on mi2g site, but got this error from the search box:

ht://Dig error htsearch detected an error. Please report this to the webmaster of this site. The error message is:

Unable to read word database file
Did you run htmerge?

Hmmm. Maybe they got hacked....

Re:Circular logic

[UnknowingFool]

If you read the original complaint about Linux, SCO often compared the capability of Unix in general with Linux. Much about SCO's own Unix capabilities is laughable compared to Linux and other flavors of Unix. Eric Raymond from OSI released a paper on this back in 2003.

With our latest release, OpenServer provides support for up to 32 processors, 64 GB of memory, terabyte file sizes, and full support for multi-threaded applications. Linux is still young from an operating system perspective. I would challenge any kernel out there to match us head-to-head.

This is a perfect example. While Linux is younger, it has incorporated multiprocessor support in 1996 and scaled up to 32-processor support since 2000. SCO itself didn't offer any multi-processor support much less 32 processors until SCO Openserver 6 (2005) and the only way they did that was to incorporate the Unixware kernel(which was developed separately by Novell until it sold it to SCO).

Re:Circular logic

[hierofalcon]

I'm not sure how far you could scale it, but you could purchase an SMP license with OpenServer 5.0.6 and earlier releases. I know, because we have a legacy box running it still today. Sigh.

Here's a snipped from a current ps

61 R root 4 0 0 36 39 fb117560 0 - Jan-23 ? 00:00:00 CPU1 idle process
61 R root 5 0 0 36 39 fb1176b8 0 - Jan-23 ? 00:00:00 CPU2 idle process

SCO doesn't win any plaudits from me in the advanced technology department. They were forever behind on their porting open source products to their system. But their kernel did support SMP before release 6.

Re:Circular logic

[UnknowingFool]

I misread the paper. 64-bit support was lacking until after 2003. SCO could scale up only to 4 processors until OpenServer 6.

We have absolute proof that .....

[3seas]

....Daryl has a mental deficiency.

The question now is who's been paying for the mental circus of SCO?

Linux books

[tabytomcat]

Well shit, this linux programing book I got sitting on my desk must have been mislabled. I should sue.

Obviously, you need a better lawyer.

[tjstork]

It turns out that most lawyers and judges have very limited imaginations and are terrible at what they do. Most likely this sort of thing would never occur to them. Quite likely, they won't even recognize the contradiction with the recent testimony mentioned in the summary.

I worked once for the law firm that helped invent the class action law suit, helped sue Exxon for billion dollars in Valdez and won, helped police the securities industry when there was no enforcement, brought down Milken...and that was just to start.

There is not a writer for a TV show or a movie that could even accurately depict just how smart these people are. Those lawyers ask those sorts of questions all the time. These are all Ivy Leaguers that came from the likes of U-Penn, Harvard and they do. It wasn't even worth lying to these people because they could just pick you apart like a rotisserie chicken and you wouldn't even know it until they are ready to throw the bones out.

Re:Obviously, you need a better lawyer.

[tjstork]

like, let me put it to you this way. if you were so foolish as to fake an uncle's death, they would remember a year down the road in case you forgot your lie.

Re:Obviously, you need a better lawyer.

[Anonymous Coward]

>>> helped sue Exxon for billion dollars in Valdez and won,

Those dollars that still haven't been paid and look likely to be reduced ? They must be really good lawyers.

The Books Darl Missed

[jfb3]

New Riders - Advanced Linux Programming
No Starch Press - Programming Linux Games
OReilly - Linux System Programming
Prentice Hall - A Practical Guide to Linux Commands Editors and Shell Programming
Prentice Hall - Linux for Programmers and Users
Prentice Hall - The Linux Programmer's Toolbox
Que - Linux Programming by Example
Sams - Linux Programming 2007 UnLeashed
Springer - Guide To Assembly Language Programming In Linux
Wiley - Assembly Language Step-By-Step - Programming With DOS And Linux
Wordware - Advanced Linux 3D Graphics Programming
Wordware - Linux 3D Graphics Programming
Wrox - Beginning Linux Programming
Wrox - Professional Linux Programming

Re:Perjury

[mr_mischief]

You mean committing the felony of perjury, when felonies are listed as impeachable offenses in the Constitution of the United States? Or the fact that this guy who wanted people to believe that placing his hand on a book and swearing to God to uphold the Constitution and defend his country meant something, while placing his hand on the same book and swearing to the same God to tell the truth in court meant nothing?

Yeah, Bush is a warmongering zealot who may be skirting some laws. It was Clinton, though, who admitted to committing a felony of dishonesty. Innocence until guilt is proven is a popular concept, but people seem to hate it in practice. This attitude is especially the case when one already has a distaste for the accused, but is afforded a softer touch when one likes the accused.

Things never to say in court...

[Anonymous Coward]

.. while you're on the witness stand:

1. "The judge is a fucking pussy."

2. "I don't recognize the authority of this court."

3. "Are you calling me a liar??!?!"

Guess which one Darl uttered on Wednesday?

Re:Things never to say in court...

[Svartalf]

Heh... I was cackling for quite a bit when I read the transcript yesterday- co-workers also got a bit of a chuckle when they wondered what in the heck I was ROFLMAO over...

It was bound to happen at some point all the same- but it's very, very stupid to blurt out what Darl did.

In other news...

[sesshomaru]

Windows is a copy of MacOS...

Word is a copy of Wordperfect

Excel is a copy of Visicalc.

penalty free

[Tom]

Unfortunately, lying under oath has become largely penalty free.

I speak from experience. I've just been through this with our lawyer, when in a recent court case someone from the opposite side did lie very obviously under oath. We can prove it beyond any reasonable doubt.

But, according to our lawyer, it's not worth the effort. It's very unlikely he'll actually be punished.

I figure it's the same for McBride.

Linux a copy of Unix? That's cool...

[teamhasnoi]

Darl is a copy of an asshole.

Re:Linux a copy of Unix? That's cool...

[pulse2600]

MOD PARENT UP! +1 Insightful

Re:Linux a copy of Unix? That's cool...

[MZoom]

Darl is a copy of an asshole.

Nope! He is an original asshole.

Re:lol

[sm62704]

Wow, mods. You guys are really good!. I would have never guessed that an anonymous coward could bait users into an emotional response[1] or generally disrupt normal on-topic discussion[2] with two words (three if you count the subject). This has to be the shortest troll ever posted at slashdot.

My hat's off to you! Proof positive that slashdot's moderation system is da verry bestast on earth!

You go, girl!

(Note: I'm stupid, of course. I would have moderated the post as offtopic.)

Serendipity

[Anonymous Coward]

Once again the slashdot fortune cookie under a story sums it up nicely:

"The secret of happiness is total disregard of everybody."

Feeling good Darl?

What a tease!

[sm62704]

I'm not sure which is worse; a mindless zealot, or a flaming hypocrite.

I just had visions of Darl McBride on fire.

Re:What a tease!

[somersault]

Was it better, or worse?

Re:What a tease!

[Drooling Iguana]

His pants already are.

Re:What a tease!

[sm62704]

Somebody please mod that drooling iguana up!

Re:What a tease!

[sm62704]

That's like saying "Who started the war in Iraq, the President, or Bush?"

APIs, languages not copyrightable

[Eravnrekaree]

To say that Linux is a copy of Unix is absurd. Linux is an original code base not derived from Unix. Linux supports Unix conventions for communication with the kernel and apps, but languages, interfaces, protocols and conventions are not copyrightable. Many OSs have adopted Unix conventions. As well in other domains, outside of kernels, there are numerous other instances where conventions are supported by independant software projects. For instance, one obvious case is web browsers which maintain a standard protocol to communicate with servers. Without these conventions, it would be impossible to use any other than one web browser with one type of server. Browsers instead support a common convention so everything can interoperate. The same with human languages as well. You cannot copyright human languages, only the works that are composed with them. No reasonable person would say that Opera is a copyright violation of some other browser because it supports HTTP and HTML. And the same with Linux.

There are no books on Linux!

[nuzak]

There are no troops in Baghdad!

SCO are not idiots, neither is Daryl

[Sleepy]

I think a lot of people in the UNIX/Linux community completely miss the point about SCO.

THIS "SCO" is not the same as the original SCO. The original SCO was bought out by a team of lawyer-investors, and this includes Daryl.

"Plan B"... was to extort money from licensing, but they NEVER expected this to be the end of it! This was never their focus, except for refueling.

"Plan A" was to DRAIN THEIR TREASURY on legal costs, spending it lavishly on THEMSELVES. Another way to put this is, to bilk their investors.

Investors can usually depend on Accounting to oppose any company's attempt to commit suicide. But SCO is MOSTLY the legal team, and no entity within SCO exists to prevent a runaway failed strategy. SCO will not settle, ever, unless it settles in a way that brings fresh money into their gang, and they have a new target. Prolonging the lawsuits IS their objective.

The investors are the stupid folks, who got shares super cheap on huge gamble on a topic they know little about (copyright). These are the kind of folks who read Forbes, have minimal exposure to technology, don't understand copyright (except that it's always supposed to help Goliath), and subscribe to WIRED without reading it. These people look at open source in general with reactionary views: it's ALL theft, and "costing the IT industry billions". They see the money spent on IT, and any improvement that lowers costs is a threat.

Also, there will be no jail time for any perjury committed here. These people are lawyers, not middle class, and need not fear the law.

Re:SCO are not idiots, neither is Daryl

[corcoranp]

Excellent point!

a lot of funny comments so far..

[DragonTHC]

how does this smug bastard walk around not being hated by everyone he comes across?

I personally own several Linux books. some even on Linux programming.

Guess What Darl, you don't even own UNIX! douche bag!

Linux is merely a copy of UNIX...

[Anonymous Coward]

...hell, with his line of thinking, so is Mac OSX! So sue Apple already then go f*ck yourself!

Re:Linux is merely a copy of UNIX...

[Locutus]

the BSD vs UNIX issue was settled a long long time ago. But McBride isn't smart enough to know that so I just thought I'd put it out there so that he doesn't get any bright ideas. That's all Apple needs is SCO suing Apple customers with what's left of the company. And we don't know if Microsoft won't find some other way to throw more millions to SCO to fund such a scam.

FYI, AT&T sued BSD for infringement a long time ago and it turned out that yes there was a little UNIX code in BSD but there was far far more unattributed/copyrighted BSD code in UNIX. AT&T was sent home with their tails between their legs and BSD was cleared of infringement.

LoB

night of the living dead...

[pdwalker]

Won't SCO just die, die, die?

It's never going to end, is it?

Re:Perjury

[nuzak]

> It was Clinton, though, who admitted to committing a felony of dishonesty.

Lesson learned: admit to nothing. Ever.

Darl's brain is a copy of a rock.

[redstar427]

With all the incredibly stupid statements made by Darl McBride, I am starting to wonder if:

"Darl's brain is a copy of a rock."

Is there anybody home inside his head??

At first, I thought he was just a good lier, and perhaps he still is, but some of the words from his mouth are beyond basic lying and stupidity.

Re:Darl's brain is a copy of a rock.

[Locutus]

if he changes his tune now, he just might find himself in court for misrepresentation and lying under oath or a few other things. If he can make sure people believe what he says is what he believes, then he's free to just be called an idiot and escapes with his assets.

But if it comes out that he knew it was a scam then he's in for getting the rug pulled out from not only SCO but from under himself. There are SCO investors who believed the crap he's said over the years and they would want restitution for being scammed. Not to mention the SEC wanting his ass for illegal statements in filings/etc.

A rock can be turned over but if McBride's brain shows any other side, he just might lose much more than his current business. If he walks away from this, he's probably got a job running the Linux Lab at Microsoft and then gets moved into marketing like the rest. He could even go straight into Microsoft marketing exec lineup with all the experience he has at misrepresenting the truth about OSS. IMO ;-)

LoB

OT: Your sig... you still don't get it...

[Gewalt]

I'd rather have someone respond than be modded up. The moderation system is not in place to make you happy, it is there to serve the needs of others. Trolls post comments that attempt to solicit replies. Your sig makes it look like you would rather troll than contribute by posting something insightful or informative (or hell, mayhaps even funny).

error - does not parse

[Anonymous Coward]

But those f***ers are misleading

Feathers?
Fakers?
Farters?
Forebears?
Foresters?
Forresters?
Frankfurthers?
Forkers?
Fokkers?

Please advise.

-simple fucking slashbot (beta)

Sociopath

[Jaysyn]

From day one, Darl's behavior has been that of a textbook sociopath.

And don't forget...

[OmniGeek]

Judge Kimball *also* warned SCO not to try relitigating this stuff, so he won't be at all happy that they're trying to do exactly that. His rulings are going to be a real hoot!

not too often the case of how these go

[Locutus]

but because SCO went after some deep pocketed businesses( IBM, Novell, etc ) they actually got a fight instead of being handed over millions and millions. Usually this is a bully vs weakling type of fight and the weakling must give in. It takes alot of weaklings to make a business plan work though so there are $ in the eyes when someone gets the bright idea to go for the big guys pockets.

Come to think of it, Lindows wasn't really a big-guy but I guess Microsoft had to stop them one way or another. I'm thinking of this case because it is another case where the outcome wasn't what was expected. ie, Microsoft almost lost their "Windows" trademark and the result was that Lindows became Linspire, Lindows got paid millions, and Lindows got 5 years of licensed software.

At least the Lindows vs MSFT case only took a couple years. Had it taken longer and Lindows/Linspire might have had to settle for much much less. They were not rolling in the doe.

This case has been dragging on for over 6 years and in that time, just little me, I've had small business owners mention licensing issues with regard to using Linux and OSS. The exact reason why I feel Microsoft and Sun helped fund SCO and the reason why Microsoft created their own SCO-ish licensing threats against Linux and OSS.

Unfortunately, Microsoft is learning alot from all this and will most likely stay way clear of filing suit against any of the big companies using or backing Linux and OSS. They know that they get more value from threats and little fear of having those threats exposed as long as they stay out of court. Their game is to use the threats to keep the Linux/OSS market contained and then use their wealth to pay off any large business thinking of being a GNU/Linux/OSS poster child. They have the funds to keep down alot of the uprising and the business customers are the ones willing to take short term payola from Microsoft to keep the current course with running Microsoft Windows, Microsoft Office, and Microsoft Server software.

Where this is not in Microsoft's control is in government and the public sector. They've already had a tough time using the BSA to muscle some school districts into longterm licensing contracts when the Linux K12LTSP group showed the way to Microsoft/BSA independence and low cost computing. Recent financial belt tightening is opening the door further and there's little Microsoft can do but deeply discount their software and they are already showing signs of reduced revenues( (24%) this quarter ) from their big money maker, the Windows OS.

SCO is smart to try to devalue the licenses paid by Microsoft and Sun and if they are able to pull it off and get Novell out of the revenue stream, Novell also knows that Microsoft and Sun will not ask for their money back. After all, both Microsoft and Sun got what they paid for and that was not really a license for UNIX. IMO.

One more thing, McBride should get burned for what he's done to SCO, IBM, Novell, AutoZone, and all others involved. It was a scam of epic proportions and took way too long. IMO.

LoB

Re:not too often the case of how these go

[svnt]

They were not rolling in the doe.

Gross. Gross, gross, gross.

Re:not too often the case of how these go

[radio4fan]

You are quite right in everything you say.

One more thing, McBride should get burned for what he's done to SCO, IBM, Novell, AutoZone, and all others involved. It was a scam of epic proportions and took way too long. IMO. Furthermore -- and perhaps more likely -- he should face the music for stripping SCO's assets to give to his lawyer family/friends. This is hardly maximizing shareholder value.

The (admittedly foolhardy) investors have suffered, and are protected by law (I assume: I'm a foreigner).

Re:not too often the case of how these go

[initialE]

Exactly what did Microsoft learn? That tying up the competition in litigation will buy you time to further secure your market position? That it is better to work through shell companies instead of getting personally involved, even if the facade was so thin that anyone who was not actively trying to ignore it couldn't? That spending money on offensive litigation needs to be part of the annual budget?

Re:not too often the case of how these go

[Locutus]

Exactly what did Microsoft learn? That tying up the competition in litigation will buy you time to further secure your market position? That it is better to work through shell companies instead of getting personally involved, even if the facade was so thin that anyone who was not actively trying to ignore it couldn't? That spending money on offensive litigation needs to be part of the annual budget? I believe they already know all that since they've done much of it for years. What I think they may have gleaned from this is that by using the media to propagate vague property rights threats and keeping this out of the courts, they can keep the larger customers away from GNU/Linux and OSS for a longer time. SCO kept the fear of OSS going for over 5 years and Microsoft, with its Novell IP licensing scam is keeping that threat going. SCO's history and Microsoft will try to do what it can to keep out of court on this.

My hope is that something like the lies they publish in say "Get The Facts" are somehow brought to court and exposed for that they are. That businesses and the public realize Microsoft's threats won't stand up in court and they have the balls to test that. That some Linux-only shop gets enough backing to sue Microsoft for defamation or the like and loss of business for false remarks and advertising.

LoB

Re:Really.... OT

[Blakey Rat]

China's no more communist than Tony Blair's a socialist.

As long as you ignore that tricky little "the government owns all property" clause. Until that's gone, China's just letting everybody pretend that they have a free market, while the reality is that the government could step in at any moment and convert all those Barbie factors into munitions plants, and nobody could do anything to stop them. (Legally, at least.)

China's a Communist country that pretends to have a free market.

The bookstore time forgot?

[grapeape]

What bookstore is he shopping in? The bookstores around here have far more "Learn Linux" and Programming Linux books than ones specifying Unix in the title. I have a shelf full of "linux" books on my bookshelf now and only one has Unix in the title its "Programming for Unix/AIX". Unix today is almost an afterthought when it comes to publishing.

Re:The bookstore time forgot?

[jaguth]

I know! Just step into any Barnes-n-Nobles or Borders and look; there are 5 times as many Linux programming books than Unix. I can't believe McBride said that UNDER OATH! What a douche! If he hasn't already been fired from SCO, then he deserves some good time in a "pounding in the ass" prison.

It's official...

[Anonymous Coward]

McBride -- what sniveling little tool.

Re:Really.... OT

[extremescholar]

China's a Communist country that pretends to have a free market.

Couldn't the same be said about the US?

Re:OT: Your sig... you still don't get it...

[Quattro Vezina]

I'd rather spark an intelligent discussion than rack up meaningless points. But maybe that's just me...

Because, you know, having good discussions benefits the whole community, and points just benefit my own karma.

If I stand far enough away, and squint...

[Anonymous Coward]

... then the "Li" at the beginning of "Linux", looks almost like a capital "U." It must be the same.

McBride = Dumb Ass

[Anonymous Coward]

McBride is a dumb ass.

"How to Program UNIX"

[SlashDev]

What the hell does that mean???? The phrase doesn't make any sense. At least not from a programmer's point of view. It could mean any of the following: 1) How to program the UNIX OS? In this case, there are books on how to program the Linux kernel, maybe not at Barnes and Noble. 2) How to write Shell scripts? There are numerous books on that topic.

O RLY DARL?

[Kymermosst]

when you go to the Linux section and look for "How to Program Linux" you're not gonna find it, because it doesn't exist.

That's funny, my copy of Linux System Programming must be a figment of my imagination, then.

Re:Pact with Satan

[Anonymous Coward]

More like a Deevil. If you think you have made a good deal with a Deevil, count your fingers, then your limbs, then your relatives.

/obscure?

Re:Really.... OT

[Blakey Rat]

Couldn't the same be said about the US?

I can't believe I'm even responding to this.

No. The US Constitution does not say that the US government, Federal or State, owns all property. Therefore, the same can not be said about the US. Unless the person saying it was a blatant liar, or possibly a retard.

Linux programming books?

[Anonymous Coward]

"When you go to the bookstore and look in the UNIX section, there's books on 'How to Program UNIX' but when you go to the Linux section and look for 'How to Program Linux' you're not gonna find it, because it doesn't exist."

Yo - McBride: I spent 1 minute searching Amazon and found:

* Programming Linux Games by Loki Software, John Hall, Loki Software Inc, and John R. Hall

* Guide to Assembly Language Programming in Linux by Sivarama P. Dandamudi

* Beginning Linux Programming by Neil Matthew and Richard Stones

* LINUX Programming for Dummies by Jim Keogh

* GNU/Linux Application Programming (Programming Series) by M. Tim Jones ...most of these are at my local Barnes & Nobel and also in the book section at Fry's.

Re:Really.... OT

[msuarezalvarez]

If you read what you were replying to, you'll notice that the question was: cannot one say that the US also pretends to have a free market?

I simply cannot believe you missed that: it must be a new record for poor reading comprehension skills around here!

Redundant, But Here's Another

[Bob9113]

when you go to the Linux section and look for "How to Program Linux" you're not gonna find it, because it doesn't exist.

It did take me about 15 seconds to find a good link for this one: http://www.amazon.com/Linux-Programming-White-Papers-Compilation/dp/1576104737

Although in all fairness, this does not fit in the "can find a post-worthy link in under 15 seconds on the first attempt" category and so may not qualify. Or perhaps this book doesn't count because it is a compilation of many pieces on "How to Program Linux", rather than a single original work.

But then, I tend to look for the simple explanation; he took a few too many shots to the head when playing football in high school.

Oh but they do...

[PortHaven]

The U.S. government taxes all property. If you don't pay, you lose your property.

This shows the true ownership belongs to the government. We are merely "leasing" the land from the government.

Re:Oh but they do...

[BrunoUsesBBEdit]

Throw in Eminent Domain (notice: "or in some cases, economic development") and you realize that not only do you lease land from the government, but the terms of the lease are not binding.

Without personal property rights, there is no freedom. The government claims rights to your property, your money, and your work/effort/skills. What part of that allows for freedom?

Re:Oh but they do...

[Excelsior]

This shows the true ownership belongs to the government. We are merely "leasing" the land from the government.

You make it sound so us vs. the man. I know I'll probably be beat around the neck and shoulders for saying this around here, but last I checked, we are the government in the U.S. We pay taxes on our property to the common "us" so that we get roads to that property, police keep our property safe from criminals, fire departments save our property, and armies protect that property from being invaded by other countries.

Of course, you could always buy property in a third-world country where property taxes are low or non-existent, and see how having none of those benefits works out for you. I know someone who has done just that, and he's paying more for armed guards than I pay for property taxes. He also runs the risk of losing everything the next time the government changes hands.

Re:Oh but they do...

[timmarhy]

sshhh. your making too much sense!

Pretty bad way of stating it

[Andy Dodd]

He's effectively saying that they are the same because their APIs are (mostly) the same.

This is true, but not because Linux is a copy of UNIX, but because Linux and UNIX both conform to a published API standard (POSIX). One can easily implement something that behaves like UNIX without looking at a single line of code, because the API (POSIX) is documented, standardized, and published.

Re:Pretty bad way of stating it

[Anonymous Coward]

Indeed! Wasn't the whole point of the GNU project to develop an 'open' version of UNIX with source code freely available for people to tinker with? Stallman wanted to improve UNIX and couldn't because of the closed source, so he and many others (presumably UNIX developers) duplicated it and made it freely available.
I guess there is also a similar situation with the ReactOS project, where people are developing an open source version of windows from the ground up. Indeed, I believe they have refused to look at any of the leaked windows source code to avoid potential legal issues!

Really simple solution

[jmcwork]

xxdiff (UNIX source tree) (Linux source tree)

Question for Mr. McBride

[nsayer]

So, Daryl, is margarine a copy of butter?

Smoking Gun ... stuff

[OldHawk777]

What if M$, Novel, and SCO are working together to finally fix Linux and GPL?

Is the testimony just formality for the general public, corporate press, and politicians/appointees propaganda?

The darkness of draconian imperial M$, succubus minion Novel, and infectious zombie SCO are on the march to snuff out the light of life.

Beware, Beafraid, Bescared the vaporous void of corporatism approaches USAll.

We have evidence System V is in Linux

[buchner.johannes]

We have evidence System V is in Linux No way! Did you get that from the kernel option? Must have been hard to find.

Linux is clearly a copy of UNIX ...

[AHumbleOpinion]

Linux is NOT Unix, there's never been shown to be any shared code, and SCO lost the battle years ago. It seems that once the lawyers took over SCO, it became just a litigation machine and lost whatever technological brainpower it once had.

Linux is clearly a copy of UNIX in the sense that Windows was a copy of Mac OS, Excel was a copy of Lotus 123, Internet Explorer was a copy of Netscape, ... The word "copy" is entire appropriate in this context. How many Linux advocates dismissed Windows NT as a copy of DEC VMS and even propagated the falsehood that Microsoft was using VMS code? I remember quite a few who embraced this idea. Lawyers are hardly necessary for these types of misrepresentations and technological brainpower does not necessarily immunize people against them. Crap like this happens wherever people have agendas, outside and inside of FOSS. At least inside of FOSS we save money by arguing this crap on slashdot instead of in court with lawyers. ;-)

Re:Linux is clearly a copy of UNIX ...

[timeOday]

The word "copy" is entire appropriate in this context.

It is not appropriate in this context - meaning the context of SCO's lawsuit. Because "copying" of that sort isn't illegal.

Linux IS a copy of Unix

[Jack9]

Just like Monster is a copy of Red Bull and Windows is a copy of Mac and Toyota is a copy of Ford and an iPod is a copy of a (cd?)walkman. The fact that Linux shares no code is really the subject. Misleading article title.

Re:OT: Your sig... you still don't get it...

[Lord Apathy]

I'd rather spark an intelligent discussion than rack up meaningless points. But maybe that's just me...

I prefer to leave them laughing. Nothing does more for my personal satisfaction and well being as coming in and seeing that Funny tag. I really eases my mental state knowing there are fuckers out there just as twisted as I am.

No difference between them?

[Anonymous Coward]

Does UNIX have either KDE or Gnome? I rest my case!

Re:No difference between them?

[gujo-odori]

Why, yes, as a matter of fact it does. However, neither of those are part of Linux, either. Linux is a kernel. It's not X, or any environment built on top of X. It's not userland, which is GNU (although I seem to recall a distro some year ago that was attempting to marry Linux to a BSD userland for political reasons (read, "Some people were sick of hearing GNU/Linux), but AFAIK that effort is dead; someone please correct me if I'm wrong).

There's nothing to stop you from running KDE or Gnome or any other desktop environment or window manager usually found on Linux (or *BSD) on top of the proprietary UNIX of your choice, if that's what floats your boat. There's nothing that says you *must* run CDE on a UNIX system (and CDE isn't part of UNIX any more than KDE is part of Linux). You might have to compile it yourself if no one has ready-made binaries for the UNIX you're using, but it can be done on most or all UNIXes, past or present.

Seems?

[TWX]

It seems that once the lawyers took over SCO, it became just a litigation machine and lost whatever technological brainpower it once had. This illustrates why most lawyers should NOT be involved in running companies because their natural orientation is not toward creating products but rather toward, well, practicing law, which usually translates into litigation.

Seems? Seems? That's not just what seemed to happen, that's exactly what happened, and it was intentional. Lawyers figuring that they could make a lot of money found a weak, struggling Linux company, bought rights to other products and a name from another company, and tried to claim infringement specifically looking for a quick settlement from companies like IBM and Novell, and unfortunately for them, the companies that they targetted had invested enough in Linux and had cojones enough that they fought back. Caldera's fall might not have been planned, but the litigation machine was their principal reason for becoming SCO. Unfortunately for SCO, their lawyers and other interested parties weren't nearly smart enough to follow the whole history, legally documented in court and otherwise, to truly establish the origins of code (BSD vs System V, vs OS/2, or others, or original work), and decided willy-nilly because of lines like #include that they had a case...

In a perfect world they'd find McBride in contempt of court and throw him in jail, or they'd find him legally incompetent and insane and would have him committed to a wonderful place with padded walls where he'd be perfectly allowed to ramble on and on about whatever he thinks is true, but in reality they'll probably just strike his testimony from the record.

Re:Seems?

[prisoner-of-enigma]

Lawyers figuring that they could make a lot of money found a weak, struggling Linux company, bought rights to other products and a name from another company, and tried to claim infringement specifically looking for a quick settlement from companies like IBM and Novell, and unfortunately for them, the companies that they targetted had invested enough in Linux and had cojones enough that they fought back. Holy run-on sentence, Batman! But grammar aside, you bring up something so ironic it's side-splittingly funny.

Everything you say is true. SCO started this whole thing thinking it could extort money out of IBM. The funny part is this: they probably would've had a good chance of getting a settlement had they not asked for an absolutely insane dollar figure in the first place. IBM might've coughed up several million, perhaps even a hundred million, to settle the case. But no! SCO wanted a billion or more. When faced with that, IBM almost had no choice but to gear up for war.

So, in a venture founded on greed, SCO's greed was undone by...SCO's even more egregious greed! Any lawyer who could fog up a mirror should've known that IBM might settle for a hefty-but-reasonable amount just to avoid legal costs and possible bad publicity. SCO's mistake was letting its greed exceed its grasp. IBM would've won no matter what, but SCO could've received a very nice check as go-away-and-don't-bother-us money had it been more reasonable in the first place.

Re:Seems?

[Daengbo]

That was not a run-on sentence. Hand in your GN badge, please. You are suspended until the GNAA (Grammar Nazi Association of the Americas) has finished its investigation of the matter.

Re:Seems?

[kasperd]

specifically looking for a quick settlement from companies like IBM and Novell

If that's their plan, they should have given up a long time ago.

Re:Seems?

[prisoner-of-enigma]

Hold on there, mein freund. I quoth the all-powerful Wikipedia:

A run-on sentence is a sentence in which two or more independent clauses (that is, complete sentences) are joined with no punctuation or conjunction at all. It is generally considered to be a grammatical error. Some grammarians also include a comma splice, in which two independent clauses are joined with only a comma, as a type of run-on sentence [1], while others exclude comma splices from the definition of a run-on sentence. [2] [3]

A run-on sentence is not merely any very long sentence: A properly constructed sentence can be extended almost indefinitely. However, writing such an extended sentence is poor writing style and should be avoided.[citation needed] A recommended rule of thumb would be a maximum of 3 independent clauses contained in one sentence, on the grounds that anything beyond that can cause the reader to lose interest or become frustrated.

At the very least, the fellow is guilty of enough comma splices to be considered a murder. He meets enough of the definition to warrant arrest for Egregious Abuse Of A Sentence Structure.

Re:Seems?

[Daengbo]

"Lawyers ... [independent clause 1], and unfortunately for them, the companies ... [independent clause 2]."
The independent clauses are well formed. There are no comma splices. Give it up.

Re:Seems?

[prisoner-of-enigma]

You are right. I missed the "and" joining the clauses.

Still, the sentence remains an example of bad writing style. A more readable -- and proper -- way of putting it would've been:

"Lawyers figuring that they could make a lot of money found a weak, struggling Linux company, bought rights to other products and a name from another company, and tried to claim infringement. They were specifically looking for a quick settlement from companies like IBM and Novell. Unfortunately for them, the companies that they targetted had invested enough in Linux and had cojones enough that they fought back."

I also would've removed the three uses of "that" and corrected the spelling of "targeted." However, I left them in to show how the sentence could've been improved with nothing more than punctuation.

Re:Perjury

[geminidomino]

> It was Clinton, though, who admitted to committing a felony of dishonesty.

Lesson learned: admit to nothing. Ever. More important lesson learned: Don't marry an emasculating shrew who won't give you a mouth hug!

Well of course it is.

[malevolentjelly]

Of course linux is a copy of unix. It's a sorry excuse for unix. BUT it is a clean room sorry excuse for unix. We all know that linux is too much of a wacky clusterfuck to share any code with the academic System V base.

It's obvious, just check out linux's half-assed "POSIX compliance". Any moron can compare OpenSolaris to linux and see what's wrong with this statement. Linux's DOS-user heritage is everywhere. Everything it does well, it does so in a totally not unixy way. Compare Ubuntu to Plan 9. See any similarities? No?

Linux is sort of a unix "kit car", if you follow my drift. It shares nothing in common except appearance and interface. Up top it's a Shelby Cobra, down below it be a mangled Ford Taurus.

Try again, Darl McBride.

The Passion of McBride

[happyemoticon]

We must believe that Unix is a part of Linux on faith alone. This is what we refer to as a "religious mystery," ala the Holy Trinity. Thus, to ask how can Unix and Linux be one in the same is equivalent to asking how the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit can be one, yet distinct. I, for one, need no other proof than the Divinely Inspired testimony of McBride, and anticipate the coming day of His own Passion.

The Truth...

[RobDude]

It's pretty obvious to anyone who wants to be honest with themselves. In the beginning Linux stole from Unix. Unix was awesome, Linux was just a hobby.

Now, Linux as shifted. It steals from Windows. Pretty much everything Linux does or can do was done by Unix or for modern stuff, Windows before it.

Linux users are just software pirates!

Re:The Truth...

[josepha48]

Actually Linux stole from Minux not UNIX, and UNIX stole from BSD.

Also SCO stole from Linux, and there has been LOTS of code sharing that people wont admit all around. Like network code came from BSD, but everyone uses it, including MS.

I wonder if he'll do jail time for purgery.

THAT won't fool a judge...

[GameboyRMH]

We are talking about the court case, which only refers to the Linux kernel. You can redefine language all you like, but that won't fool a judge. You're right, to fool a judge, you'd have to include something about child pornography or terrorism, or just pile on a bunch of technical jargon until the judge doesn't know WTF he/she is hearing, then the judge goes into safety mode, making it easy to swing the case your way by equating virtual property to real property, copyright infringement to theft etc.

So when is GNU Linux not NEW?

[imyy4u2]

When it's copied from Unix.

My OS

[Mateo_LeFou]

My OS Will be called "GINGL"

It stands for "Gingl Is Not GNU/Linux"

For now, it will just be a rebranded dyne:bolic.

That's a Woooooosh

[Anonymous Coward]

    o     <---- the joke

    o
   /|\    <---- You
   / \

Amazon returns 1,648 results for Linux programming

[llamafirst]

when you go to the Linux section and look for "How to Program Linux" you're not gonna find it, because it doesn't exist.

A quick search on Amazon of the phrase "Linux programming" returns 1,648 results.
http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_ss_b?url=search-alias%3Dstripbooks&field-keywords=linux+programming&x=0&y=0

can someone say "no due diligence?"

I propose that IBM, Novell, or the Slashdot community in general go online and order one of EACH LINUX PROGRAMMING BOOK and send it to the court courtroom/judge on this case shipped directly from Amazon.com. Or maybe have IBM deliver a TRUCKLOAD of books to the court? Someone needs to set up a system to ensure that exactly one of each book (rather than a million duplicates of the first 10 matches on Amazon) gets sent. This will show the pathetic absurdity of this "expert" witness on the non-existence of Linux programming books.

The "Special" SCO Bookstore

[mengel]

With titles like Origins of Software by I. Copy Everything, and Lawsuits for Fun and Profit by Dewey, Cheatem and Howe...

RE: McBride Testifies "Linux Is a copy of UNIX"

[Codifex Maximus]

Mr. McBride's comments excerpted:
"when you go to the Linux section and look for "How to Program Linux" you're not gonna find it, because it doesn't exist. "

Linux Application Development

"Linux is a copy of UNIX, there is no difference [between them]."

POSIX not UNIX and since when does compatibility mean there is no difference?

That phone call you're hearing?

[Chas]

Gary Gnu wants his tagline back.

Re:Perjury

[Anonymous Coward]

Correct. For anyone else.... they also wouldn't have been charged. Which is what your parent said. And which is true - perjury is fairly rare compared to lying in court. For anyone but the president it probably wouldn't have gone further then the judge saying "don't do that again."

Confirms who the main idiot at SCO was

[Anonymous Coward]

McBride has a comprehension gap when it comes to the differences between implementing a workalike system and copying a system, despite being intimately involved in a legal dispute centered on the issue for years. This inability to understand these simple differences has led to the utter destruction of his company. This is just one of several gaps in his understanding of SCO's property rights, the other of course being the rights that Novel retained throughout. It all leaves me with the impression that Daryl McBride is not a very intelligent man, perhaps even below the median.

Re:Perjury

[Anonymous Coward]

You mean treason, when treason is listed as an impeachable offense in the Constitution of the United States? Or the fact that this guy who wanted people to believe that placing his hand on a book and swearing to god to uphold the constitution and defend his country meant something, while endangering his country by pissing off all our allies and wasting our armies on a war of aggression under false pretenses and then using that war as a reason to completely destroy the constitutional system of checks and balances, not to mention ignoring his people's basic rights enshrined in the various amendments to the constitution?

Yes, Clinton lied about his personal life. It was Bush, though, who got the US into a 5+ year long war under false pretenses. Innocence until proven guilty is a proven popular concept, but it's kinda hard to do when the person you're trying to prove guilty refuses to testify and destroys the evidence.

WRONG! 18 USC 1001 makes fibbing a CRIME!

[mikelieman]

Just ask Martha Stewart and Marion Jones!

  1001. Statements or entries generally
How Current is This?
(a) Except as otherwise provided in this section, whoever, in any matter within the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative, or judicial branch of the Government of the United States, knowingly and willfully--
(1) falsifies, conceals, or covers up by any trick, scheme, or device a material fact;
(2) makes any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation; or
(3) makes or uses any false writing or document knowing the same to contain any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or entry;
shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 5 years or, if the offense involves international or domestic terrorism (as defined in section 2331), imprisoned not more than 8 years, or both.

Remake

[mrwolf007]

no more nore less.
In the beginning i was designed to behave like Solaris. Until Linus found the POSIX Standards (and thus, it behaves like UNIX, even a lot more than other "real" unix variants).
No more or less than figuring out that 4 wheels make a good way for transportation.

they never did show any infringment did they?

[timmarhy]

this whole saga has gone on for years now, i can't ever remeber them showing any kind of proof that linux has in fact got unix code in it anyway?

anyway, mcbride has been very entertaining, in the same way funniest home video's is entertaining when some moron gets hit in the nuts.

is MS SFU the next?

[aerton]

I believe Microsoft Services For Unix does contain some of system V API. And it's not unlikely MS has employed some former UNIX contributors.

Can SCO go after MS by that logic?

And yes, in a typical UNIX programming book there is no "How to Program Windows" section.

Oh it's on now...

[Anonymous Coward]

http://www.googlefight.com/index.php?lang=en_GB&word1=Linux+Programming&word2=Unix+Programming

Lock him up I say . . .

[Moe1975]

. . . I can't believe that the SOB thinks he will simply get away with perjuring himself in that manner . . . shows complete contempt and disdain for the court and the legal system . . . I'd have him hung high and short if it were up to me . . .

Is any Unix, Unix ?

[vallef]

Linux has different code from other Unices, so does AIX, so does MACoS, BSD, Solaris and so on. They have lots of common design features. This argument will never end. Too many tribes going to war. Only way to move ahead is for all to back Unix. Some parties outside the Unix (Linux) camp are the only ones to benefit from this. Maybe some large companies that back Linux now, only do so, so they can destroy their competition. Once that is done they will destroy Linux by making it more proprietary. Linux will not rule the world, nor will any other OS. The only OS to rule the market is the one that unites the market. The Linux community has distructive tendancies, in that it must destroy every other OS.

Why do we bother with all this, lets make Linux interoperable and easy to migrate from one kernel to another. Why is it so difficult and costly to migrate from one Linux distribution to another. Why don't Linuxes work together, does the development/community of Linux look and behave similar to the competitors it slanders. You can turn into what you loathe, if you are driven by hatred. Linux could become the next big proprietary lock in. That is what we need to avoid. Lets make Linux into a system that people can use on Laptops & PC's. Throw down this old tribal and aggressive attitude. We saw how fragile leadership and development of open source Reiser FS is, lets hope this never happens to Linux. If we open Linux/Unix to all to be more inclusive it will help a larger group.

Again Darl on CRACK!

[gabrieltss]

"but when you go to the Linux section and look for "How to Program Linux" you're not gonna find it, because it doesn't exist."

Um I have TWO sitting on my shelf NOW!

"Linux Programmer's Reference" By Richard Peterson from Osbourne Press
http://www.amazon.com/Linux-Programmers-Reference-Richard-Petersen/dp/0072123559/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1209819648&sr=1-1

"Beginning Linux Programming" By Neil Matthew & Richard Stones from Wrox Press
http://www.amazon.com/Beginning-Linux-Programming-Neil-Matthew/dp/0470147628/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1209819712&sr=1-1

Care to rephrase that Darl? Or are you taking a chapter out of Hillary Clinton's book?

Re:Perjury

[mr_mischief]

That comparison's fair enough. IF you're really pissed about the war in Iraq, be aware that Bush Sr. had every opportunity to end Hussein's reign the first time, and that Clinton's administration could have kept the oil-for-food campaign from being abused for profit.

Clinton also could have taken care of bin Laden before the WTC was destroyed, since it had been attacked by a truck bomb by al Qaeda before. He could have kept lots of people from dying in Somalia by not pulling our troops out of the UN effort there because of one "failed"* mission.

* It's interesting to call a mission "failed" with the objectives met, but without the expected clean withdrawal.

Neither party is blameless in Iraq. Bush had little choice but to invade Afghanistan, but Clinton could have prevented that. Neither has helped much in the Israeli and Palestinian mess, although both say they tried. Clinton did help in Yugoslavia, but probably could have done more if it wasn't for his issues at home. Neither has dropped the silly and damaging embargo against Cuba. It was under Clinton's watch that US intelligence funding was cut and overseas field agents were pulled, leading to many of the intelligence problems the Bush administration has. Again, neither Clinton nor Bush is blameless in Iraq.

Neither is, AFAICT, Achmadinijad nor was Saddam Hussein. Hussein claimed to have WMD programs, he kicked out inspectors, and he had a history of using WMD. The oil for food program was full of kickbacks and illegal funneling of money, so there's every chance he could have been using that for WMD. Russian and French interests are also not blameless in that scandal. When very few WMD were found (and mostly in disrepair, in no shape to be used), many people were shocked, and not just in the US.

You must remember that the Hussein regime was so crooked and/or ill-connected to their country (or to reality) that their propaganda machine was proclaiming that US troops were being routed at the borders while US tanks were rolling into Baghdad. When dealing with people who make such outrageous claims as that who have a fairly recent history of using chemical weapons, what is one supposed to believe and not believe about their weapons programs?

Being a technical ignoramus....

[jotaeleemeese]

.. is not perjury.

If this was a TV show SCO lawyer's nemesis would go back confidently to his desk, open his briefcase and pull the books you are mentioning to the complete and utter embarrassment of the bad taste joke Mr McBride has become.