Just for the record, Catholics do not believe the pope is infallible. He can make mistakes, and does, just like anyone else. There is a doctrine called Papal Infallibility which the pope can use if he is divinely instructed on a matter which changes or adds to the doctrine of the Catholic Church. He can declare papal infallibility on this matter. It is a doctrine which has only been used a few times in the last 1000 years
So, the Pope is not always infallible, just infallible when he declares himself infallible.
SUN is starting a campaign to capitalize on SCO's claims against IBM by running an ad to encourge AIX to Solaris migration: Sun targets AIX with new campaign.
This, along with Sontag giving ONLY SUN a "clean bill of health" and thereby telegraphing Sun to be the "unnamed" Co-conspirator^W^W^Wlicensee of SCOSource, is starting to make Sun look damnably guilty by association.
Sun -- you better stand against SCO in this or face the same wrath SCO is receiving.
Crazy drunk or like my three year old testing his limits. Their claims are so egregious and far-reaching that they're threatening everyone except Sun (wonder who that "mystery licensee" was?) -- including a not-so-veiled threat against Microsoft for Windows. And I did see that Cringley (at Infoworld) is rumor-porting AT&T may weigh in against SCO.
My [large hardware company] rep who is supplying me with neat technology including handhelds, laptops, tablets and Linux server appliances, is also the rep for SCO. He tells me he doesn't even want to touch SCO now that they've pulled their shenanigans. He even referenced McBride's comment that contracts are strong bases for lawsuits as a real chiller. Imagine being so reviled that sales people don't want your money...
I wonder if employees of SCO have any pride left, or any intention on working with the tech industry again? They may not be the source of SCO's vitrol and venom, but as long as they sit quietly and let the day traders pimp and pump the stock they are one and the same as McBride/Sontag/et al. We need a hacker revolt from within SCO -- if any are left.... Until proven otherwise, no friends of tech or Open Source remain in SCO.
If you work for SCO you better cut your ties with Sontag/McBride or lie on your resume for your next position. Pretending to be unemployed since Caldera brought on McBride will get you further than admitting you sat idly by while your company pulled the crap that it is pulling.
OSDL is dedicated to enabling Linux and Linux-based applications for data center and carrier-class deployment. We provide the crucial hardware for testing and development at this level, giving open source developers around the world the resources needed to bring Linux further into telecommunications and the enterprise. We are an independently governed, non-profit organization supported by 21 industry leaders.
Sounds like hackers (in the proper since) have come full-circle: IIRC, the Levy book chronicles early hackers learning their skills on the telecom system (phreakers, some). Now the hackers are making their hack work for the telecom industry. Sounds like a proper "Thank you" to me.
Dunce Mcbribe was quoted as saying "The letters 'S' and 'O' are our intellectual property and we believe that they occur in the names of many businesses".
My [large, well known hardware vendor] rep is also SCO's representative. His company sells Linux server solutions, BTW. Anyway, he told me even as a vendor he didn't want to do business with SCO. Talk about a tech industry pariah...when the vendors hate your guts...
Specifically, SCO's Sontag let's Sun go, but threatens SGI and Microsoft! HA! Imagine Microsoft's reaction to that news after paying some where between $1 and $8.3 million for their "application interface layer" license. HA! (See byte.com's article for more on this).
The companies had engaged in brief but unfruitful discussions, SCO said last week.
The call, intercepted by an unnamed source, went like this:
Operator: Thank you for calling IBM. How may I direct your call? SCO: Mr. Palmisano, please. Operator: May I tell him who's calling? SCO: Darl McBride, CEO of SCO Operator: Oh, you again. *pause* He is still not taking your call. Would you like his voice mail? SCO: *sigh* Sure. [Flush][laughter]*click*
The most productive times for me at work are during the holidays between christmas and New Years- no one is in the office. Also, during Saturday and Sunday- again- no one is in the office.
Coming in a couple hours before everyone else and/or staying a couple hours after they leave is a good way to keep those productivity hours going year round. For me, when the wife and kids are asleep, a little work b4 I pass out is very productive -- unless I get stuck posting to Slashdot...oops.
English translation (by hand)
on
Settling SCOres
·
· Score: 5, Informative
I received the following in my Inbox this morning:
THIS IS ONLY A WORKING TRANSLATION; I DO NOT TAKE RESPONSIBILITY AS TO POSSIBLE MISTAKES OR ERRORS. I WILL NOT TAKE ANY RESPONSIBILITY CONCERNING THE CONTENT OF THE ORIGINAL TEXT.
Today, I had the possibility to have a look at the incriminating code passages.
Due to a mistake on the part of the representing lawyer's office, my colleague and I - as opposed to the 7 other representatives that were allowed to look at things today - did not have to sign a Non Disclosure Agreement. This was in full contrast to the examiners of Microsoft corp., who apparently had to maintain silence even towards their own superiors and may only give notice to the internal company audit department.
Now for the code itself:
Under the supervision of a notary public, 46 pages were shown, each containing, by one half, code from Linux (for the most part, print-outs of posts taken directly from the Linux-Kernel-Mailing List) and, by the other half, listings of SCO. Whether these are indeed sources of SysV is not comprehensible that way, as they are taken out of their context. Another interesting thing is that all date and time details have been removed from both, even from the comments. The comments themselves are really identical here and there, even some jokes are the same on both sides. It is, however, conspicuous that in the places that correspond most, the source code that can be found in front of the comments is quite dissimilar after all. The fundamental construction of the queried functions is similar; however, the concrete implementation is quite different. Variables and names of functions are different, loops are structured differently, conditions work via chain queries (?) (Kettenabfrage) or bit patterns (?) (Bitmuster). All in all, only one thing can be said for certain: The functions offered by the respective code passages are often equal, which, however, was to be expected from the start anyway.
In the concrete implementation, there are, however, so many differences, that a proof of the origin being the same will be difficult, even though certainly not impossible.
The crunch, however, is a function of the scheduler, which is, over a length of about 60 lines, indeed identical except for slight differences. In this section, there is also a whole lot of corresponding comments.
Comparable similarity can only be found in one routine of the memory management, which is, however, only in the Linux version accompanied by comments.
Whether a competent proof can be made out of these two correspondences can only be estimated with certainty by a lawyer. I consider the vague similarities in other passages to be insufficient, as the same standards were the basis for both and therefore, a certain correspondence is to be expected.
Concerning the same comments to different source passages, I can see no rhyme or reason in it. This would in any case have to be investigated in again meticulously, in particular with the date and time details provided. Because only with these could a breach of copyright be proved at all.
Concerning the discussion about the part of Linux sold under the GPL by SCO/Caldera, it must be stated that up to the present, no court has had to decide on the legal validity of the GPL. Should this, however, be ascertained, which is not certain, SCO can use only those parts of Linux by way of comparison that were not published by SCO and in the development or co-development SCO did not take part. I consider this, too, a difficulty in the proceedings to come.
As the original, unpatched Linux-sources were not touched but only modifications that had been inserted by different distributors, it has to be clarified in any case whether these might have rights to the queried passages, be it directly or indirectly, e.g. through company mergers, take-overs, "all-inclusive"-deals etc. The chances for proceedings to open are not especially good, as in most comparable
NDA? Ha. Read this, recently translated from German:
THIS IS ONLY A WORKING TRANSLATION; I DO NOT TAKE RESPONSIBILITY AS TO
POSSIBLE MISTAKES OR ERRORS. I WILL NOT TAKE ANY RESPONSIBILITY CONCERNING
THE CONTENT OF THE ORIGINAL TEXT.
Today, I had the possibility to have a look at the incriminating code
passages.
Due to a mistake on the part of the representing lawyer's office, my
colleague and I - as opposed to the 7 other representatives that were
allowed to look at things today - did not have to sign a Non Disclosure
Agreement. This was in full contrast to the examiners of Microsoft corp.,
who apparently had to maintain silence even towards their own superiors and
may only give notice to the internal company audit department.
Now for the code itself:
Under the supervision of a notary public, 46 pages were shown, each
containing, by one half, code from Linux (for the most part, print-outs of
posts taken directly from the Linux-Kernel-Mailing List) and, by the other
half, listings of SCO. Whether these are indeed sources of SysV is not
comprehensible that way, as they are taken out of their context. Another
interesting thing is that all date and time details have been removed from
both, even from the comments.
The comments themselves are really identical here and there, even some jokes
are the same on both sides. It is, however, conspicuous that in the places
that correspond most, the source code that can be found in front of the
comments is quite dissimilar after all. The fundamental construction of the
queried functions is similar; however, the concrete implementation is quite
different. Variables and names of functions are different, loops are
structured differently, conditions work via chain queries (?)
(Kettenabfrage) or bit patterns (?) (Bitmuster). All in all, only one thing
can be said for certain: The functions offered by the respective code
passages are often equal, which, however, was to be expected from the start
anyway.
In the concrete implementation, there are, however, so many differences,
that a proof of the origin being the same will be difficult, even though
certainly not impossible.
The crunch, however, is a function of the scheduler, which is, over a length
of about 60 lines, indeed identical except for slight differences. In this
section, there is also a whole lot of corresponding comments.
Comparable similarity can only be found in one routine of the memory
management, which is, however, only in the Linux version accompanied by
comments.
Whether a competent proof can be made out of these two correspondences can
only be estimated with certainty by a lawyer. I consider the vague
similarities in other passages to be insufficient, as the same standards
were the basis for both and therefore, a certain correspondence is to be
expected.
Concerning the same comments to different source passages, I can see no
rhyme or reason in it. This would in any case have to be investigated in
again meticulously, in particular with the date and time details provided.
Because only with these could a breach of copyright be proved at all.
Concerning the discussion about the part of Linux sold under the GPL by
SCO/Caldera, it must be stated that up to the present, no court has had to
decide on the legal validity of the GPL. Should this, however, be
ascertained, which is not certain, SCO can use only those parts of Linux by
way of comparison that were not published by SCO and in the development or
co-development SCO did not take part. I consider this, too, a difficulty in
the proceedings to come.
As the original, unpatched Linux-sources were not touched but only
modifications that had been inserted by different distributors, it has to be
clarified in any case whether these might have rights to the queried
passages, be it directly or indirectly, e.g. through company mergers,
take-overs, "all-inclusive"-deals etc.
The chances for proceedings to open a
In the USL vs BSDi case the court specifically determined that copied comments were not infringements BECAUSE they did not add any significant value to the copyrighted material, in that code is only usable when compiled and COMMENTS DON'T COMPILE. Guess what - if comments are the case, there IS NO CASE!
Another interesting comment of the good Dr refers again to Microsoft representatives. Is that a mistake, does he work for Microsoft, or was Microsoft involved in the showing of the code??
On the last contract job I had, I was contractually limited to working no more than 40 hours a week.
That's usually stipulated as a limit on hours billed but spoken with the raised eyebrow from the contractee indicating that non-billed hours in excess of 40/week are Okee Dokee.
When you make it to salaried position...or worse, senior management, you get 40 hours a week -- for sleep!
You suddenly find yourself working 50-60 hour weeks, put on call with no compensation, given unreasonable amounts of work and generally treated like dirt
How did you manage to get your hours reduced in a financial crunch?
Or were you only slummin' and putting in 30 to 40 hours per week before?
Are there successful tech jobs that offer 40 hours per week limits? My wife would be so happy if I could work only 50 to 60 hours per week.
While it is entirely possible that MSFT purchased RAV to make a statement to Linux users, it is not likely unless Bill woke up on the wrong side of the bed one day
How is the parent post "Off-Topic?" Does some moderator not realize that RAV is the topic of the story? Did the Moderator realize that non-MS OSes will be impacted by this acquisition?
Or did some moderator not like the senitment expressed in the.SIG?
Slashdot Mirror
- Just for the record, Catholics do not believe the pope is infallible. He can make mistakes, and does, just like anyone else. There is a doctrine called Papal Infallibility which the pope can use if he is divinely instructed on a matter which changes or adds to the doctrine of the Catholic Church. He can declare papal infallibility on this matter. It is a doctrine which has only been used a few times in the last 1000 years
So, the Pope is not always infallible, just infallible when he declares himself infallible.Now THAT is convoluted.
This, along with Sontag giving ONLY SUN a "clean bill of health" and thereby telegraphing Sun to be the "unnamed" Co-conspirator^W^W^Wlicensee of SCOSource, is starting to make Sun look damnably guilty by association.
Sun -- you better stand against SCO in this or face the same wrath SCO is receiving.
My [large hardware company] rep who is supplying me with neat technology including handhelds, laptops, tablets and Linux server appliances, is also the rep for SCO. He tells me he doesn't even want to touch SCO now that they've pulled their shenanigans. He even referenced McBride's comment that contracts are strong bases for lawsuits as a real chiller. Imagine being so reviled that sales people don't want your money...
I wonder if employees of SCO have any pride left, or any intention on working with the tech industry again? They may not be the source of SCO's vitrol and venom, but as long as they sit quietly and let the day traders pimp and pump the stock they are one and the same as McBride/Sontag/et al. We need a hacker revolt from within SCO -- if any are left. ... Until proven otherwise, no friends of tech or Open Source remain in SCO.
If you work for SCO you better cut your ties with Sontag/McBride or lie on your resume for your next position. Pretending to be unemployed since Caldera brought on McBride will get you further than admitting you sat idly by while your company pulled the crap that it is pulling.
- OSDL is dedicated to enabling Linux and Linux-based applications for data center and carrier-class deployment. We provide the crucial hardware for testing and development at this level, giving open source developers around the world the resources needed to bring Linux further into telecommunications and the enterprise. We are an independently governed, non-profit organization supported by 21 industry leaders.
Sounds like hackers (in the proper since) have come full-circle: IIRC, the Levy book chronicles early hackers learning their skills on the telecom system (phreakers, some). Now the hackers are making their hack work for the telecom industry. Sounds like a proper "Thank you" to me.- Dunce Mcbribe was quoted as saying "The letters 'S' and 'O' are our intellectual property and we believe that they occur in the names of many businesses".
SO what?My [large, well known hardware vendor] rep is also SCO's representative. His company sells Linux server solutions, BTW. Anyway, he told me even as a vendor he didn't want to do business with SCO. Talk about a tech industry pariah...when the vendors hate your guts...
thanks, enemy ;)
Specifically, SCO's Sontag let's Sun go, but threatens SGI and Microsoft! HA! Imagine Microsoft's reaction to that news after paying some where between $1 and $8.3 million for their "application interface layer" license. HA! (See byte.com's article for more on this).
- I must admit, I used to not think SCO had a case, but now it's starting to look like they do have a very good one.
I hope you don't change answers on multiple choice tests -- you demonstrate an uncanny ability to think yourself out of a correct answer.- The companies had engaged in brief but unfruitful discussions, SCO said last week.
The call, intercepted by an unnamed source, went like this:SCO: Mr. Palmisano, please.
Operator: May I tell him who's calling?
SCO: Darl McBride, CEO of SCO
Operator: Oh, you again. *pause* He is still not taking your call. Would you like his voice mail?
SCO: *sigh* Sure.
[Flush][laughter]*click*
Coming in a couple hours before everyone else and/or staying a couple hours after they leave is a good way to keep those productivity hours going year round. For me, when the wife and kids are asleep, a little work b4 I pass out is very productive -- unless I get stuck posting to Slashdot...oops.
I received the following in my Inbox this morning:
THIS IS ONLY A WORKING TRANSLATION; I DO NOT TAKE RESPONSIBILITY AS TO POSSIBLE MISTAKES OR ERRORS. I WILL NOT TAKE ANY RESPONSIBILITY CONCERNING THE CONTENT OF THE ORIGINAL TEXT.
Today, I had the possibility to have a look at the incriminating code passages.
Due to a mistake on the part of the representing lawyer's office, my colleague and I - as opposed to the 7 other representatives that were allowed to look at things today - did not have to sign a Non Disclosure Agreement. This was in full contrast to the examiners of Microsoft corp., who apparently had to maintain silence even towards their own superiors and may only give notice to the internal company audit department.
Now for the code itself:
Under the supervision of a notary public, 46 pages were shown, each containing, by one half, code from Linux (for the most part, print-outs of posts taken directly from the Linux-Kernel-Mailing List) and, by the other half, listings of SCO. Whether these are indeed sources of SysV is not comprehensible that way, as they are taken out of their context. Another interesting thing is that all date and time details have been removed from both, even from the comments. The comments themselves are really identical here and there, even some jokes are the same on both sides. It is, however, conspicuous that in the places that correspond most, the source code that can be found in front of the comments is quite dissimilar after all. The fundamental construction of the queried functions is similar; however, the concrete implementation is quite different. Variables and names of functions are different, loops are structured differently, conditions work via chain queries (?) (Kettenabfrage) or bit patterns (?) (Bitmuster). All in all, only one thing can be said for certain: The functions offered by the respective code passages are often equal, which, however, was to be expected from the start anyway.
In the concrete implementation, there are, however, so many differences, that a proof of the origin being the same will be difficult, even though certainly not impossible.
The crunch, however, is a function of the scheduler, which is, over a length of about 60 lines, indeed identical except for slight differences. In this section, there is also a whole lot of corresponding comments.
Comparable similarity can only be found in one routine of the memory management, which is, however, only in the Linux version accompanied by comments.
Whether a competent proof can be made out of these two correspondences can only be estimated with certainty by a lawyer. I consider the vague similarities in other passages to be insufficient, as the same standards were the basis for both and therefore, a certain correspondence is to be expected.
Concerning the same comments to different source passages, I can see no rhyme or reason in it. This would in any case have to be investigated in again meticulously, in particular with the date and time details provided. Because only with these could a breach of copyright be proved at all.
Concerning the discussion about the part of Linux sold under the GPL by SCO/Caldera, it must be stated that up to the present, no court has had to decide on the legal validity of the GPL. Should this, however, be ascertained, which is not certain, SCO can use only those parts of Linux by way of comparison that were not published by SCO and in the development or co-development SCO did not take part. I consider this, too, a difficulty in the proceedings to come.
As the original, unpatched Linux-sources were not touched but only modifications that had been inserted by different distributors, it has to be clarified in any case whether these might have rights to the queried passages, be it directly or indirectly, e.g. through company mergers, take-overs, "all-inclusive"-deals etc. The chances for proceedings to open are not especially good, as in most comparable
In the USL vs BSDi case the court specifically determined that copied comments were not infringements BECAUSE they did not add any significant value to the copyrighted material, in that code is only usable when compiled and COMMENTS DON'T COMPILE. Guess what - if comments are the case, there IS NO CASE!
They've been dead 160,000 years -- what's another couple days?
Thanks for the recommendation. It works beautifully. I'll be installing this for all users in our office.
- On the last contract job I had, I was contractually limited to working no more than 40 hours a week.
That's usually stipulated as a limit on hours billed but spoken with the raised eyebrow from the contractee indicating that non-billed hours in excess of 40/week are Okee Dokee.When you make it to salaried position...or worse, senior management, you get 40 hours a week -- for sleep!
- You suddenly find yourself working 50-60 hour weeks, put on call with no compensation, given unreasonable amounts of work and generally treated like dirt
How did you manage to get your hours reduced in a financial crunch? Or were you only slummin' and putting in 30 to 40 hours per week before?Are there successful tech jobs that offer 40 hours per week limits? My wife would be so happy if I could work only 50 to 60 hours per week.
How scaleable is this (obviously, a 50 person email system is not why I'm asking!)?
- rav-msft-acquisition.pdf
The gem:heh. Sucks to be you! :)
Or did some moderator not like the senitment expressed in the .SIG?
Stupid...or politically averse? Probably stupid.