Its a real time OS - people often replace the default memory management by a hand written one which meets their own needs, including possibly protection. IIRC, the last time we replaced malloc by routines which were faster, detected leaks and made efforts to avoid memory fragmentation.
I'm sure there are a couple of VxWorks experts here who'd love to take a crack at this:)
Although the parent comment is (currently) modded as funny, maybe there's an element of truth in it.
Actually, I'm moderately curious to know if NASA would be willing to have an Open Source controlled craft. It would be interesting to see whether problems suffered by Spirit would be foreseen and overcome. It would also be a test of the "given enough eyeballs, all bugs are shallow" principle.
..but if Microsoft, (or even another company owned by Gates or others), invents a licensing issue to ensure SCO gets another $10m or so to pursue this then it could go on forever.
[Actually, I don't really believe Microsoft is behing this, but if you like conspiracy theories the above is a good way to go]
Whilst the First Amendment may exist, PR releases from a company have legal consequences too. They can be sued for making false statements, as it affects investment decisions. Saying that Linux has copyright infringement problems falls under the "yelling fire in a crowded theatre" scenario; what you are saying had better be true or there are consquences.
Even this would not be specific enough, although I grant you it would be a good start.
Just because Linux has JFS, NUMA... and AIX has the same support does not mean the code is the same. However they could possibly get away with what you described above if they accompanied it with reason(s) why they think the Linux and AIX code is the same (even binary comparison would be good).
You said they needed to access IBM code to support their claim, and that is the very problem. You cannot claim if you do not have some evidence in the first place.
Fishing is not allowed. SCO is required to prove there are fish around by putting a mackerel before the court before being allowed to go cast a net to find the whole shoal (through discovery). So far we have not even seen a fin.
SCO have repeatedly claimed that Linux also is guilty of copyright infringement directly on SCO products, not just AIX. In this case they do have both sets of source code (Linux and SCO Unix). One of the interogatories requires SCO to publish reasons and code samples where they believe Linux is also infringing. Here they have no excuse whatsoever for not laying the evidence before the court.
I agree that it is unfair the parent comment was modded down, but I believe it was too far off base to be modded as Insightful, either!
The questions say "with specificity", so the answer cannot be as curt as the one the parent gave.
Code contributions into Linux are generally publicly available in the Linux kernel mailing list. Linux kernel source code (all versions) are available for download. Unless SCO can give even one specific example, they are not allowed to go on a fishing expedition.
All SCO has to do is come up with a few files and line numbers that they believe they have rock solid evidence on, and they are then allowed to go fishing for more.
In order to bring an action, you must have prima facie (first look) evidence before discovery and further examination is allowed. SCO have claimed on several occassions that they have this evidence but have not produced it. They have claimed that mathematicians and engineers have determined that lots of source code is contaminated in this way. If they truly believe this, then they should lay their claims before the court. It is not unfair to let a defendant see what he has to defend against.
I have come under the increasing belief that to be indemnified or insured for something in the legal arena is just an open invitation for a US lawyer to sue you, because you now have enough money to make it worthwhile. Even worse, you probably have enough money for them to construct some form of class action to make it really worth their while and ensure you go out of business anyway.
As many people have pointed out, I'm still not sure why you need to be indemnified. Any copyright/ patent breach is by the original creators of an application, not by the end user.
I have a TiVo but suspect that I will be discontinuing with their service sometime this year. Its not because I dislike my TiVo either; its given good service, but the times they are a changin'
The reason I'm migrating is because I suspect that MythTv and similar Open source projects may offer me the same functionality just for the cost of my net connection
I'm not trying to be rude (especially given the demise of the British lander), but the terrain looks a bit like the Sahara desert - pretty featureless in all directions. What are they going to do for entertainment when they've sampled a few rocks and sand? Looks like you have to to travel miles for any difference in scenery.
If I understand correctly, it seems to depenguinate in a fairly destructive manner. I'm fairly certain that a better depenguinator could operate off the existing filesystem, even if it is Ext2/3 and certainly ensure it didn't stuff vital directories such as/home.
Slashdot Mirror
Technically, I would presume William Gates is an employee of Microsoft in his executive role.
because they wanted a processor that did not guzzle several gazillion watts when running.
I suppose they could avoid any problems with cold by running an Intel/AMD CPU though....
Its a real time OS - people often replace the default memory management by a hand written one which meets their own needs, including possibly protection. IIRC, the last time we replaced malloc by routines which were faster, detected leaks and made efforts to avoid memory fragmentation.
I'm sure there are a couple of VxWorks experts here who'd love to take a crack at this :)
Although the parent comment is (currently) modded as funny, maybe there's an element of truth in it.
Actually, I'm moderately curious to know if NASA would be willing to have an Open Source controlled craft. It would be interesting to see whether problems suffered by Spirit would be foreseen and overcome. It would also be a test of the "given enough eyeballs, all bugs are shallow" principle.
Sometimes lie for self protection. They probably got some IIS servers with the licensing money Microsoft gave them.
..but if Microsoft, (or even another company owned by Gates or others), invents a licensing issue to ensure SCO gets another $10m or so to pursue this then it could go on forever.
[Actually, I don't really believe Microsoft is behing this, but if you like conspiracy theories the above is a good way to go]
Saviour of the Universe!!
[with apologies to 1930s movie serials and Queen]
that it is a site selling web design services i.e. technically a commercial site.
I believe the FSF will only take on cases where you've assigned copyruigth to them. I'm not sure if they will give advice however.
Whilst the First Amendment may exist, PR releases from a company have legal consequences too. They can be sued for making false statements, as it affects investment decisions. Saying that Linux has copyright infringement problems falls under the "yelling fire in a crowded theatre" scenario; what you are saying had better be true or there are consquences.
Slashdot lost (cue Hovis music) and (end Hovis music) tags.
We used to try and build indestructible Lego vehicles, which we would test by ramming our effors against each other in a demolition derby.
Mindstorms could add a whole new level to a form of Robot Wars. Anyone tried using it in this way?
Even this would not be specific enough, although I grant you it would be a good start.
Just because Linux has JFS, NUMA... and AIX has the same support does not mean the code is the same. However they could possibly get away with what you described above if they accompanied it with reason(s) why they think the Linux and AIX code is the same (even binary comparison would be good).
You said they needed to access IBM code to support their claim, and that is the very problem. You cannot claim if you do not have some evidence in the first place.
Fishing is not allowed. SCO is required to prove there are fish around by putting a mackerel before the court before being allowed to go cast a net to find the whole shoal (through discovery). So far we have not even seen a fin.
SCO have repeatedly claimed that Linux also is guilty of copyright infringement directly on SCO products, not just AIX. In this case they do have both sets of source code (Linux and SCO Unix). One of the interogatories requires SCO to publish reasons and code samples where they believe Linux is also infringing. Here they have no excuse whatsoever for not laying the evidence before the court.
I agree that it is unfair the parent comment was modded down, but I believe it was too far off base to be modded as Insightful, either!
The questions say "with specificity", so the answer cannot be as curt as the one the parent gave.
Code contributions into Linux are generally publicly available in the Linux kernel mailing list. Linux kernel source code (all versions) are available for download. Unless SCO can give even one specific example, they are not allowed to go on a fishing expedition.
All SCO has to do is come up with a few files and line numbers that they believe they have rock solid evidence on, and they are then allowed to go fishing for more.
In order to bring an action, you must have prima facie (first look) evidence before discovery and further examination is allowed. SCO have claimed on several occassions that they have this evidence but have not produced it. They have claimed that mathematicians and engineers have determined that lots of source code is contaminated in this way. If they truly believe this, then they should lay their claims before the court. It is not unfair to let a defendant see what he has to defend against.
When they get confident with this thing and have it barrelling across the surface at full speed in the same manner as the Lunar buggies!
I have come under the increasing belief that to be indemnified or insured for something in the legal arena is just an open invitation for a US lawyer to sue you, because you now have enough money to make it worthwhile. Even worse, you probably have enough money for them to construct some form of class action to make it really worth their while and ensure you go out of business anyway.
As many people have pointed out, I'm still not sure why you need to be indemnified. Any copyright/ patent breach is by the original creators of an application, not by the end user.
There's just this minor thing called skin cancer......
I have a TiVo but suspect that I will be discontinuing with their service sometime this year. Its not because I dislike my TiVo either; its given good service, but the times they are a changin'
The reason I'm migrating is because I suspect that MythTv and similar Open source projects may offer me the same functionality just for the cost of my net connection
Looks like someone hasn't been overclocking enough!
I have a suspicion Beagle 2 has been exposed to the flamethrower on the way down...
So very .... red! ....and sandy! .... with rocks!!!
I'm not trying to be rude (especially given the demise of the British lander), but the terrain looks a bit like the Sahara desert - pretty featureless in all directions. What are they going to do for entertainment when they've sampled a few rocks and sand? Looks like you have to to travel miles for any difference in scenery.
Red Sky at night
Flock's alight!!
Is to terminate the SCO licence and install Linux/ BSD/ your favourite OS on the machines.
On how many of its 6,000 licensed customers are going to remain customers after this letter?
I'll set my marker for 1000
If I understand correctly, it seems to depenguinate in a fairly destructive manner. I'm fairly certain that a better depenguinator could operate off the existing filesystem, even if it is Ext2/3 and certainly ensure it didn't stuff vital directories such as /home.