Depending on how much your sending your kbps as calculated from the amount of data over the amount of time to arrive could well and truely suck by today's standards.:)
Sun Tzu: Ignore the enemy at your peril...
on
Bill Gates On Linux
·
· Score: 1
It's a good thing that they don't consider GNU/Linux a threat. The moment they do is the moment we start having a hard fight.
Not that I would mind a hard fight, but there is a time and a place for it. GNU/Linux is crossing a threshold right now and is gaining serious momentum. It should be a allowed to do so some more before taking on the 8000 lbs Gorilla.
If I want to buy one song at a time, then I should be able to do so. The market makes the rules. If this is what your customers want, to deny it to them can spell the death of your career.
Artists should take heed. Hollywood and the RIAA seem to think that they're not replacable. They are.
Several thoughts have come to my mind concerning this issue.
Please keep in mind that IBM:
1) backs Linux on a large number of it servers 2) believes that it's license with SCO is perpetual. 3) has spent billions hyping Linux.
IBM will likely take action on Friday or perhaps sooner in a pro-Linux fashion, given the above facts.
Suppose it is shown that in the completion of LKP (Linux Kernel Personality) that SCO did incorporate GPL'd code into it's kernel (as suggested by an article on linuxtoday.com) and it is shown that, according to Eben Moglen, that "SCO gave up rights to the code when the released their version of Linux".
If SCO licensed any of this code to third parties for inclusion in their products, it is possible that *all* of those products will be *required* to be released as Free Software under the terms of the GPL.
This is perhaps why SCO is being so loud about this. Is this the fact that they want to hide under all of this legal rangling? Also, don't forget that Microsoft made a public showing of buying a license from SCO, which according to the recent news from Novell, ONLY covers the copyrights which, if the above is shown, would be subject to the GPL.
The implication here is very clear. Many companies which have incorporated the disputed code would need to release their code under the GPL.
Could the GPL set the industry on it's head?
I, for one, hope so. I am not a lawyer, just an engineer.
Petitions lend weight to political statements when used correctly.
I have written to the Patent Office Commissioner (both the current and previous ones) about the petition, which has approx 6400 signatures, and gotten positive, and personal, responses.
Also, the petition is not anonymous. People who sign are required to give their names and email addresses for signature verification.
If you want to sign, great. It would be a help. If you don't think it will, that's your opinion and you are, of course, welcome to it.
1) SCOs claim on the UNIX codebase is tenuous given:
a) the recent claim made by Novell (despite the recent location of an amendment to that agreement) and
b) the 1993 ruling in the AT&T vs BSD case.
2) In the words of Ransom Love (former CEO), SCO was "Combining Linux and UNIX for business". So, their own advertising campaign suggests that they were doing this themselves.
3) SCO was a Linux Distributor and is still a member of the United Linux Consortium.
4) While acting as a Linux Distributor SCO released this code under the terms of the GPL.
5) SCO has not bothered in years to pursue this, so why now? Obviously to save their own necks due to the fact the SCOs UNIX derivatives have been selling very poorly.
With all of these indisputable facts weighing against them, SCO's case in the court is by no means certain.
What proof have we seen that SCO didn't put the code there themselves? They were, after all, a contributor to Linux. Do they know if one of their developers is responsible for this?
If so could some guy at SCO be cowaring over his computer thinking "Gee I shouldn't have put that code in there. I hope no one figures it out."
Also what proof is there that they code is actually the same? The "analyst" is admittedly not qualified to review the code.
No, he did not. I cannot state that strongly enough. GNU/Linux is completely original.
Also, may I say, it shows something of your character that you would rip someone off like you just described for fame. No wonder you posted Anonymously.
Companies clone one anothers products all the time and there's nothing wrong with creating something compatible or something which competes.
No, he didn't. SCO is scrounging around for anything that they can find to scare the Linux community into submission.
They KNOW that they are going to die and it's obvious that they don't have a case. Their own release of Linux obviates any patent claims they may have.
It's dubious, at best, to claim patent infringement when YOU yourself have profited from the very OS that you claim infringes!! Darl McBride has, singlehandedly, reduced SCO from a respectable company to a laughing stock which provides daily amusement for us.
We should, in fact, applaud him for making us laugh so much recently.
It is obvious and it has been obvious from the beginning that SCO's ENTIRE goal has been to sew FUD and that's EXACTLY what they're doing.
It is extremly obvious to all of us in the Open Source and Free Software communities that SCO's case is without merit. Please see the OSI paper at (http://www.opensource.org/sco-vs-ibm.html). This is only backed up be the fact that SCO has, to date, failed to produce any tangible evidence whatsoever of infringement.
I am certain that if there were infringement then Open Source community would be willing to work with SCO to facilitate it's removal. However, given SCO's refusal to show the offending code, it is obvious to all involved that SCO has no interest in reaching this conculsion, but has every interest in gaining monetarily from this situation.
Given that the case is weak for the reasons stated in the OSI paper, SCO's defeat at the hands of the Linux community and IBM will come in two forms:
1) IBM's legal fight against SCO will undoubtedly drain SCO of whatever money it has left leaving it ill prepared to run it's business.
2) The backlash from the Linux community and the UNIX community at large (UNIX is a trademark of the Open Group) will be massive and has, in fact, already begun in the form of people refusing to buy SCO products due to this lawsuit.
Your legal machinations, it is obvious to all, are really SCO's last chance to stay solvent and viable given the fact that it has been soundly outperformed by its competitors.
a fully functional programming language. Granted the syntax leaves something to be desired. In my NeXT days (I used to do OPENSTEP programming, I now am a major participant in GNUstep) it was well known that you could hack into a machine if the Display Postscript Server was set to "public" (meaning other machines can connect, like xhost + under X).
I even heard that someone wrote a fully functional program to pull ANY file on a machine with DPS set to public.
This happens all the time. I have stopped submitting stories since all it seems to do is give the people who run slashdot fodder to take credit for themselves.
I believe the practice of favoring one's own select group is called nepotism.:)
If I write a program for a particular task and you write a program for a particular task, it's fair to say that some of our code may look similar. Perhaps similar enough for me to say that you copied from me, but "purposefully obfuscated" your code.
When confronted with a task, engineers will sometimes find similar solutions.
SCO is on shaky ground here and they know it. Also, how can they rule their oen developers out of the equation being a Linux distributor themselves?
I can remember the hair standing up on the back of my neck at the thought of the zombies which would fling bits of rotting flesh at you.
GJC
THIS IS NOT THE PROPER WAY TO FIGHT BACK...
on
SCO DOS'ed
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
It only plays into SCO's hands by doing DOS and other attacks against them. Those of you who are doing this are only proving to SCO and to the rest of the world that the Linux community is a bunch of hackers and script kiddies.
Yes, what they are doing is reprehensible and it should be stopped, but not like this.
When you give several engineers a problem to solve you will in many occasions find that the programs they produce are similar because the problem is similar.
My guess is that they are trying to say that since the code does the same thing that it is copied not because it is a verbatim copy. Under normal circumstances, with copyright, you need to prove that a person or entity copied *verbatim* the work in question. If this case hits the courts and SCO wins (which is doubtful, but stranger things have happened) could this mean that this is no longer needed to prove infringement of copyright? If so, could this mean that any OS or FS project could be threatened in this way?
We must fight back against this by making our voices heard by SCO and by letting IBM know that the community is behind them.
Slashdot Mirror
Depending on how much your sending your kbps as calculated from the amount of data over the amount of time to arrive could well and truely suck by today's standards. :)
GJC
I have just one thing to say to that...
h ah ahaahaaaaa!
Bwhahahahahaahahaahahahahaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahaha
FreeBSD alive. What a joke.
GJC
I tried both scenarios described without success.
GJC
It's a good thing that they don't consider GNU/Linux a threat. The moment they do is the moment we start having a hard fight.
Not that I would mind a hard fight, but there is a time and a place for it. GNU/Linux is crossing a threshold right now and is gaining serious momentum. It should be a allowed to do so some more before taking on the 8000 lbs Gorilla.
GJC
If I want to buy one song at a time, then I should be able to do so. The market makes the rules. If this is what your customers want, to deny it to them can spell the death of your career.
Artists should take heed. Hollywood and the RIAA seem to think that they're not replacable. They are.
Later, GJC
Only SuperFags post anonymously. ;)
All,
Several thoughts have come to my mind concerning this issue.
Please keep in mind that IBM:
1) backs Linux on a large number of it servers
2) believes that it's license with SCO is perpetual.
3) has spent billions hyping Linux.
IBM will likely take action on Friday or perhaps sooner in a pro-Linux fashion, given the above facts.
Suppose it is shown that in the completion of LKP (Linux Kernel Personality) that SCO did incorporate GPL'd code into it's kernel (as suggested by an article on linuxtoday.com) and it is shown that, according to Eben Moglen, that "SCO gave up rights to the code when the released their version of Linux".
If SCO licensed any of this code to third parties for inclusion in their products, it is possible that *all* of those products will be *required* to be released as Free Software under the terms of the GPL.
This is perhaps why SCO is being so loud about this. Is this the fact that they want to hide under all of this legal rangling? Also, don't forget that Microsoft made a public showing of buying a license from SCO, which according to the recent news from Novell, ONLY covers the copyrights which, if the above is shown, would be subject to the GPL.
The implication here is very clear. Many companies which have incorporated the disputed code would need to release their code under the GPL.
Could the GPL set the industry on it's head?
I, for one, hope so. I am not a lawyer, just an engineer.
Later, GJC
Sir,
Petitions lend weight to political statements when used correctly.
I have written to the Patent Office Commissioner (both the current and previous ones) about the petition, which has approx 6400 signatures, and gotten positive, and personal, responses.
Also, the petition is not anonymous. People who sign are required to give their names and email addresses for signature verification.
If you want to sign, great. It would be a help. If you don't think it will, that's your opinion and you are, of course, welcome to it.
Good day, GJC
All,
Here are the facts, which are not in dispute:
1) SCOs claim on the UNIX codebase is tenuous given:
a) the recent claim made by Novell (despite the recent location of an amendment to that agreement) and
b) the 1993 ruling in the AT&T vs BSD case.
2) In the words of Ransom Love (former CEO), SCO was "Combining Linux and UNIX for business". So, their own advertising campaign suggests that they were doing this themselves.
3) SCO was a Linux Distributor and is still a member of the United Linux Consortium.
4) While acting as a Linux Distributor SCO released this code under the terms of the GPL.
5) SCO has not bothered in years to pursue this, so why now? Obviously to save their own necks due to the fact the SCOs UNIX derivatives have been selling very poorly.
With all of these indisputable facts weighing against them, SCO's case in the court is by no means certain.
GJC
What proof have we seen that SCO didn't put the code there themselves? They were, after all, a contributor to Linux. Do they know if one of their developers is responsible for this?
If so could some guy at SCO be cowaring over his computer thinking "Gee I shouldn't have put that code in there. I hope no one figures it out."
Also what proof is there that they code is actually the same? The "analyst" is admittedly not qualified to review the code.
Later, GJC
The petition against software patents... URL below...
Now simply standing too close to someone can cause my credit card number to be stolen.
GJC
To know that you have, singlehandedly:
1) Misled your shareholders.
2) Misled your customers.
3) Made your company a laughingstock with your stupid assertions and accusations.
Please enlighten us.
GJC
No, he did not. I cannot state that strongly enough. GNU/Linux is completely original.
Also, may I say, it shows something of your character that you would rip someone off like you just described for fame. No wonder you posted Anonymously.
Companies clone one anothers products all the time and there's nothing wrong with creating something compatible or something which competes.
Later, GJC
No, he didn't. SCO is scrounging around for anything that they can find to scare the Linux community into submission.
They KNOW that they are going to die and it's obvious that they don't have a case. Their own release of Linux obviates any patent claims they may have.
It's dubious, at best, to claim patent infringement when YOU yourself have profited from the very OS that you claim infringes!! Darl McBride has, singlehandedly, reduced SCO from a respectable company to a laughing stock which provides daily amusement for us.
We should, in fact, applaud him for making us laugh so much recently.
It is obvious and it has been obvious from the beginning that SCO's ENTIRE goal has been to sew FUD and that's EXACTLY what they're doing.
Later, GJC
Good Day, GJC
Dear Sirs,
It is extremly obvious to all of us in the Open Source and Free Software communities that SCO's case is without merit. Please see the OSI paper at (http://www.opensource.org/sco-vs-ibm.html). This is only backed up be the fact that SCO has, to date, failed to produce any tangible evidence whatsoever of infringement.
I am certain that if there were infringement then Open Source community would be willing to work with SCO to facilitate it's removal. However, given SCO's refusal to show the offending code, it is obvious to all involved that SCO has no interest in reaching this conculsion, but has every interest in gaining monetarily from this situation.
Given that the case is weak for the reasons stated in the OSI paper, SCO's defeat at the hands of the Linux community and IBM will come in two forms:
1) IBM's legal fight against SCO will undoubtedly drain SCO of whatever money it has left leaving it ill prepared to run it's business.
2) The backlash from the Linux community and the UNIX community at large (UNIX is a trademark of the Open Group) will be massive and has, in fact, already begun in the form of people refusing to buy SCO products due to this lawsuit.
Your legal machinations, it is obvious to all, are really SCO's last chance to stay solvent and viable given the fact that it has been soundly outperformed by its competitors.
Good Day.
Sincerely,
Gregory John Casamento
At least Sony supports Linux and supports, for the most part, the right of its customers to tinker.
What else should we expect from MS except for Fear & Control and all of those things we hate, but when has it been any different?
Thanks, GJC
a fully functional programming language. Granted the syntax leaves something to be desired. In my NeXT days (I used to do OPENSTEP programming, I now am a major participant in GNUstep) it was well known that you could hack into a machine if the Display Postscript Server was set to "public" (meaning other machines can connect, like xhost + under X).
;)
I even heard that someone wrote a fully functional program to pull ANY file on a machine with DPS set to public.
Scary.. and very cool.
Later, GJC
This was an explicit instruction given to programmers at a company I used to work for which will, for the time being, remain anonymous. :)
GJC
Hey, don't feel bad.
:)
This happens all the time. I have stopped submitting stories since all it seems to do is give the people who run slashdot fodder to take credit for themselves.
I believe the practice of favoring one's own select group is called nepotism.
GJC
If I write a program for a particular task and you write a program for a particular task, it's fair to say that some of our code may look similar. Perhaps similar enough for me to say that you copied from me, but "purposefully obfuscated" your code.
When confronted with a task, engineers will sometimes find similar solutions.
SCO is on shaky ground here and they know it. Also, how can they rule their oen developers out of the equation being a Linux distributor themselves?
GJC
I can remember the hair standing up on the back of my neck at the thought of the zombies which would fling bits of rotting flesh at you.
GJC
It only plays into SCO's hands by doing DOS and other attacks against them. Those of you who are doing this are only proving to SCO and to the rest of the world that the Linux community is a bunch of hackers and script kiddies.
Yes, what they are doing is reprehensible and it should be stopped, but not like this.
GJC
When you give several engineers a problem to solve you will in many occasions find that the programs they produce are similar because the problem is similar.
My guess is that they are trying to say that since the code does the same thing that it is copied not because it is a verbatim copy. Under normal circumstances, with copyright, you need to prove that a person or entity copied *verbatim* the work in question. If this case hits the courts and SCO wins (which is doubtful, but stranger things have happened) could this mean that this is no longer needed to prove infringement of copyright? If so, could this mean that any OS or FS project could be threatened in this way?
We must fight back against this by making our voices heard by SCO and by letting IBM know that the community is behind them.
GJC
Why is it that almost all CG characters lack something in the eyes? They look like dolls.
GJC