I wrote a similar tool to the Stanford Checker called smatch.
I post the bugs and stuff that it finds on kbugs.org. The most recent kernel that I've posted is 2.6.0-test11.
One thing that I was working on a couple weeks ago was invalid uses of spinlocks. Here are my results from that. I found quite a few places that don't unlock their spinlocks on error paths etc.
The letters are just to distract people from their quarterly financials.
The references to the DMCA are meant to provoke discussion and are not meaningful. A true DMCA take notice would make SCO liable if SCO was lying. But everyone knows that geeks hate the DMCA so it doesn't hurt to mention it in your letters.
If you look on the SCOX yahoo page, it has a bunch of recent articles about SCO. Wouldn't the headlines look worse if they just said: "SCO loses $1.6 million; pays $10 million lawyers fees." That's what SCO is afraid of.
Their basic plan is to confuse reporters with extra information that doesn't deal with the $1.6 million loss. It worked too. Here is the headline from one eweek article: "SCO Financials Improve As IP Fights Heat Up" (I really like the author Steven J. Vaughan-Nichols. My guess is someone else may have chosen the headline.)
When SCO initially announced the $10 million dollar lawyers fees they used the same trick. They dragged Boies into the ring. They said they ere ramping up the lawsuits. They threatenned BSD users. They said they were going to sue a major Linux user within "90 days". The whole circus show complete with ladies in sparkly tights...
errno.h is basically just a list of numbers and you can't copyright numbers.
Also lawsuits are really expensive. RedHat and IBM are already suing SCO. SCO is going to go out of business pretty soon so why waste more time on them?
SCO FUD hasn't affected the marketplace at all. The Linux server market was up 50% in the third quarter this year compared to last year which shows that most people see SCO for what it is.
previous pump-n-dump speculation mentioned that there needed to be 4 quarters of profitabliy before Darl got a big bonus kick-in
That wasn't really speculation... That part of Darl's contract was documented in one of SCO's SEC filings. If he made SCO made a profit for four consecutive quarters then Darl would get 150,000 stock options.
If you read the article though, he still gets a ton of options regardless of the four quarters of profitability... It will be interesting to watch when they start to vest.
That's not how onion routing works, actually. With onion routing the "server" is known and the client is unknown. The client creates an "onion" with encrypted routing information.
The communication is passed through a bunch of nodes each of which only know about the one before and after themselves.
In a p2p situation the clients sometimes act as servers so onion routing is a bit pointless by itself.
I think it's pretty clear that until 2003 SCO (previously called Caldera) was a Linux company because that was what they sold. For example, Ransom Love often mentioned Linux in interviews with the press. He _must_ have been aware that his company sold Linux related software including the Linux operating system.
As a Linux company, SCO hired a number of Linux programmers to work on the Linux kernel. SCO even donated the first SMP hardware to Alan Cox so he could add SMP cababilities to the kernel.
Now they are doing a "grep -w smp/usr/src/linux" and claiming all those files infringe SCO trade secrets... What that tells me is that Darl has not been taking his meds.
Perhaps the Microsoft spokesman is lying
on
New IE Holes Discovered
·
· Score: 5, Informative
These security problems were publically known in September.
What was released recently was sample exploit code.
If you are a Microsoft spokesman then, of course, you have to say that, "Hey, if we don't have a fix then it must mean we didn't know about it." So it's not even lying to say that you weren't told. It's the only logical thing.
The spokesman was not aware that Microsoft had released unmarked patches for some of the problems.
it was published in the first place without their permission
The key is that it is being published with their permision. No one is forcing them to distribute the kernel a year after they discoverred the "violations."
SCO is distributing a standard United Linux 2.4 kernel. Someone compared the md5 sum against the same kernel from Suse.
In the last month or two they have started only distributing it to customers. (I believe the logic here is that it's not copyright violation so long as you charge a fee).
But the software _does_ watch every internet related mouse click. I guess that's cool if students don't have to pay for internet access and students can get DSL in your dorm room instead.
This is the kind of nastiness that student government is supposed to fix. I wouldn't go to FU if this is how lame the student life is.
The thing that is special about the NASA computer is that it is a single image system and not really some cluster type thing. Mostly people say that Linux 2.4 scales well up to 8 processors, but this system has 256 processors.
SGI is working on scaling the kernel to even more processors. For example, Erik Jacobson from SGI recently noticed that 'cat/proc/interrupts' doesn't work if you have 512 CPUs in your system. Frankly when I saw that I thought it was a joke, but I guess it must be real if they already have paying customers.
Actually, it was basically all a huge media blitz to distract people from the fact that they just paid Boies a million dollars and gave him 2% of the company.
Their stock would have sufferred if people caught on.
SCO only has around $13 million in revenue each quarter and recently they've been getting $8 million from Microsoft as well. They don't have a lot of cash to throw around.
The parent post argued that statistically the chance of having a head injury was just as high if you drove and higher if you walked. Should we require motorists and pedestrians to wear helments?
You could have either debated his statistics or you could have found faults with his conclusions. Sadly you instead chose to ignore the content of the post all together...
"the defense attorneys will throw pretty much anything they can think of into the "affirmative defenses" list"
A lot of people have said this and I think it must be true to some extent. On the other hand, isn't it weird to compare IBM's defenses to SCO's defenses? IBM use fewer defenses, but I can imagine IBM actually any or all of them. Here is the complete list.
AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
First Defense The complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
Second Defense SCO's claims are barred because IBM has not engaged in any unlawful or unfair business practices, and IBM's conduct was privileged, performed in the exercise of an absolute right, proper and/or justified.
Third Defense SCO lacks standing to pursue its claims against IBM.
Fourth Defense SCO's claims are barred, in whole or in part, by the applicable statutes of limitations.
Fifth Defense SCO's claims are barred, in whole or in part, by the economic-loss doctrine or the independent-duty doctrine.
Sixth Defense SCO's claims are barred by the doctrines of laches and delay.
Seventh Defense SCO's claims are barred by the doctrines of waiver, estoppel and unclean hands.
Eighth Defense SCO's claims are, in whole or in part, pre-empted by federal law.
Ninth Defense SCO's claims are improperly venued in this district.
Tenth Defense SCO has failed, in whole or in part, to mitigate its alleged damages.
Slashdot Mirror
I wrote a similar tool to the Stanford Checker called smatch.
I post the bugs and stuff that it finds on kbugs.org. The most recent kernel that I've posted is 2.6.0-test11.
One thing that I was working on a couple weeks ago was invalid uses of spinlocks. Here are my results from that. I found quite a few places that don't unlock their spinlocks on error paths etc.
The letters are just to distract people from their quarterly financials.
The references to the DMCA are meant to provoke discussion and are not meaningful. A true DMCA take notice would make SCO liable if SCO was lying. But everyone knows that geeks hate the DMCA so it doesn't hurt to mention it in your letters.
If you look on the SCOX yahoo page, it has a bunch of recent articles about SCO. Wouldn't the headlines look worse if they just said: "SCO loses $1.6 million; pays $10 million lawyers fees." That's what SCO is afraid of.
Their basic plan is to confuse reporters with extra information that doesn't deal with the $1.6 million loss. It worked too.
Here is the headline from one eweek article: "SCO Financials Improve As IP Fights Heat Up" (I really like the author Steven J. Vaughan-Nichols. My guess is someone else may have chosen the headline.)
When SCO initially announced the $10 million dollar lawyers fees they used the same trick. They dragged Boies into the ring. They said they ere ramping up the lawsuits. They threatenned BSD users. They said they were going to sue a major Linux user within "90 days". The whole circus show complete with ladies in sparkly tights...
You can't really copyright that stuff.
errno.h is basically just a list of numbers and you can't copyright numbers.
Also lawsuits are really expensive. RedHat and IBM are already suing SCO. SCO is going to go out of business pretty soon so why waste more time on them?
SCO FUD hasn't affected the marketplace at all. The Linux server market was up 50% in the third quarter this year compared to last year which shows that most people see SCO for what it is.
previous pump-n-dump speculation mentioned that there needed to be 4 quarters of profitabliy before Darl got a big bonus kick-in
That wasn't really speculation... That part of Darl's contract was documented in one of SCO's SEC filings. If he made SCO made a profit for four consecutive quarters then Darl would get 150,000 stock options.
If you read the article though, he still gets a ton of options regardless of the four quarters of profitability... It will be interesting to watch when they start to vest.
In one interview someone from SCO (Blake?) said they got part of the list off RedHat's website.
That's not how onion routing works, actually. With onion routing the "server" is known and the client is unknown. The client creates an "onion" with encrypted routing information.
The communication is passed through a bunch of nodes each of which only know about the one before and after themselves.
In a p2p situation the clients sometimes act as servers so onion routing is a bit pointless by itself.
It's actually 7 or 8 letters worse than you described:
apt-get install evolution
apt-get remove evolution
Can anyone else reach the site?
This is kind of ludicrous to me.
/usr/src/linux" and claiming all those files infringe SCO trade secrets... What that tells me is that Darl has not been taking his meds.
I think it's pretty clear that until 2003 SCO (previously called Caldera) was a Linux company because that was what they sold. For example, Ransom Love often mentioned Linux in interviews with the press. He _must_ have been aware that his company sold Linux related software including the Linux operating system.
As a Linux company, SCO hired a number of Linux programmers to work on the Linux kernel. SCO even donated the first SMP hardware to Alan Cox so he could add SMP cababilities to the kernel.
Now they are doing a "grep -w smp
Heh heh. My heart bleeds for you.
These security problems were publically known in September.
What was released recently was sample exploit code.
If you are a Microsoft spokesman then, of course, you have to say that, "Hey, if we don't have a fix then it must mean we didn't know about it." So it's not even lying to say that you weren't told. It's the only logical thing.
The spokesman was not aware that Microsoft had released unmarked patches for some of the problems.
Please list one problem someone has had because of a Mozilla security fix.
it was published in the first place without their permission
The key is that it is being published with their permision. No one is forcing them to distribute the kernel a year after they discoverred the "violations."
SCO is distributing a standard United Linux 2.4 kernel. Someone compared the md5 sum against the same kernel from Suse.
In the last month or two they have started only distributing it to customers. (I believe the logic here is that it's not copyright violation so long as you charge a fee).
But the software _does_ watch every internet related mouse click. I guess that's cool if students don't have to pay for internet access and students can get DSL in your dorm room instead.
This is the kind of nastiness that student government is supposed to fix. I wouldn't go to FU if this is how lame the student life is.
The thing that is special about the NASA computer is that it is a single image system and not really some cluster type thing. Mostly people say that Linux 2.4 scales well up to 8 processors, but this system has 256 processors.
/proc/interrupts' doesn't work if you have 512 CPUs in your system. Frankly when I saw that I thought it was a joke, but I guess it must be real if they already have paying customers.
SGI is working on scaling the kernel to even more processors. For example, Erik Jacobson from SGI recently noticed that 'cat
Actually, it was basically all a huge media blitz to distract people from the fact that they just paid Boies a million dollars and gave him 2% of the company.
Their stock would have sufferred if people caught on.
SCO only has around $13 million in revenue each quarter and recently they've been getting $8 million from Microsoft as well. They don't have a lot of cash to throw around.
I'm sincerely hoping that IBM is subpoening Canopus in order to pierce the corporate veil.
Wish granted.
Here is a copy of the subpoena:
The parent post argued that statistically the chance of having a head injury was just as high if you drove and higher if you walked. Should we require motorists and pedestrians to wear helments?
You could have either debated his statistics or you could have found faults with his conclusions. Sadly you instead chose to ignore the content of the post all together...
Or perhaps you replied to the wrong post?
I think you mean OSDL. The parent company of the OSDN does support the OSDL.
> Didn't IBM also get subpoenaed?
IBM can't be subpoenaed. They're the defendant.
That's not a response to the motion to compel, it's a response the interrogatories.
I once did an automated search of the kernel for cases like this where someone had said:
if (var = constant) {
It surprised me that I didn't find any mistakes.
Not that there aren't other ways to create security bugs...
Only if you want service. If you reject the service (and this includes errata updates) then the license is the same.
"the defense attorneys will throw pretty much anything they can think of into the "affirmative defenses" list"
A lot of people have said this and I think it must be true to some extent. On the other hand, isn't it weird to compare IBM's defenses to SCO's defenses? IBM use fewer defenses, but I can imagine IBM actually any or all of them. Here is the complete list.
AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
First Defense
The complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
Second Defense
SCO's claims are barred because IBM has not engaged in any unlawful or unfair business practices, and IBM's conduct was privileged, performed in the exercise of an absolute right, proper and/or justified.
Third Defense
SCO lacks standing to pursue its claims against IBM.
Fourth Defense
SCO's claims are barred, in whole or in part, by the applicable statutes of limitations.
Fifth Defense
SCO's claims are barred, in whole or in part, by the economic-loss doctrine or the independent-duty doctrine.
Sixth Defense
SCO's claims are barred by the doctrines of laches and delay.
Seventh Defense
SCO's claims are barred by the doctrines of waiver, estoppel and unclean hands.
Eighth Defense
SCO's claims are, in whole or in part, pre-empted by federal law.
Ninth Defense
SCO's claims are improperly venued in this district.
Tenth Defense
SCO has failed, in whole or in part, to mitigate its alleged damages.
It's only libel if it's not true.
I think all reasonable people can agree that SCO executives have lied extensively and stolen millions of dollars from investors.