I know from whence I speak, as it is exactly this kind of thing my wife is going through with her ex right now.
So.. your entire argument boils down to "my wife's ex believes X, SCOX's lawyers might believe Y, so therefore SCOX believes X too!"
Sorry, you don't know "from whence you speak". You are pole-vaulting (not just jumping) to a conclusion based on incorrect presumptions and a personal bias.
given their statements and the chest-thumping they do on a regular basis, it's more likely they have deluded themselves into believing they are in the right
No, given their statements, it's more likely that they have deluded themselves into believing that it's OK to file a bogus lawsuit because "everybody does it".
And don't kid yourself:
I'm not kidding myself. You seem to be raising a straw-man argument here - I never said anything about SCOX's lawyers thinking the case was anything other than a complete bug hunt.
What I did say was that this statement in no way means that SCOX management thinks that the case was strong.
You seem to be jumping into the middle of this - try doing some reading about Boies, and the agreement(s) they have with SCOX. You might be surprised.
Umm, yeah, except for that $16,000,000 cheque that MS wrote them for something MS had already paid for, and the $50,000,000 "gift" from the PIPE fairy, which was brokered by MS.
Bullshit. All you have to back up your assertion is (incorrect) assumtptions and speculation about what the lawyers believe. You provide no proof whatsoever about what SCOX believes.
There are *many* tangible reasons why we should believe that SCOX knows that their case is bogus (Darl and Sontag's outright lies being first and foremost) and nothing but idle speculation to believe otherwise.
While their case is extremely weak, they believed it was very strong.
Umm, no. They never believed their case was strong. It was a (very weak) bluff, designed to encourage IBM to buy them (hence the "buy-out" contingency in their original contract with BSF.)
They've spent years now firing off one motion after another, trying to obfuscate, decalrify,and otherwise muddy a perfectly straightforward situation
Exactly. This proves the point that they didn't believe their case was strong.
If their case was strong, why on earth would they try to delay and obfuscate it?
SCO withdrew all of their allegations of copyright infringement in one of their early amended complaints.
Yes, they did, however they have since apparently changed their mind, and tried inserting copyright claims back in (at the 14th hour*) through "expert" reports filed last month.
I agree with everything you said, but there is one thing about YUI that bugs me: having to include a dozen (or so) separate.js files to make it work.
I wish it was just a single library, rather than one file for each function (which really isn't, because every function I've used doesn't work unless all of the other files are included as well, even if I'm not explicitly using them.)
Mickey Mouse decided he wanted a divorce, so he went to see a lawyer. He ranted and ranted for hours about Minnie, and the lawyer (who was paid by the hour, of course) sat silently until Mickey had finished his tirade.
Once Mickey had calmed down a bit, the lawyer said "Well, Mr. Mouse, while I can certainly sympathize with you, I'm afraid you can't divorce your wife just because you think she's a bit strange."
Mikey became enraged - he jumped up on the lawyer's desk and screamed "You idiot! I didn't say she was strange, I said she was fucking Goofy!"
I maintain an OpenServer box for work only because of a legacy app that requires it. Well, strictly, the app requires Microsoft Xenix to run - it's from 1983 (!!) [...] - which Linux can't satisfy even with the defunct ibcs project
I've just finished moving a company from a similar thing. It required some modifications to x286emul, but it runs flawlessly (and *much* faster) on Linux than on OpenSewer.
I'm sure there are plenty of less-than-ethical developers who wouldn't scoff at the potential of a BMW (note the article says 10-cyclinder whereas the summary says 12-cylinder) or the $100,000.
Yes, and anyone who actually believes that they'll have a chance to "win" it deserves everything they'll get.
The car/money is gonna go to Darl's nephew, and the anyone stupid enough to do real work are gonna get screwed.
I would not be surprised to see Yahoo! instant messenger to integrate with Yahoo! Maps.
Just what the world needs - a tool that makes it even easier for perverts to stalk 14-year old girls!:o) Just think - when your prey IMs you, you can tell at a glance if you need to violate the "within 100 yards of a school" provision of your plea bargain!:o)
In some alternate universe where SCO had a case, they perhaps might wind up with copyright ownership of some small part of the linux kernel.
Actually, that exactly what they've got right now. (Do a grep for caldera on the kernel source tree to find out.)
It's all stuff they've released under the GPL.
Funny though, that the "best case" they could have hoped for (even in said alternate universe) is exactly what they had before they began the lawsuits.
And the worst (or "actual", in the real world) is much, much worse.
I wonder if Darl still thinks the lawsuits were a good idea?:o)
You know, I had to read that twice to understand what you meant... (or at least what it seems you meant - I doubt you're trying to tell us that you do your PhD work while immersed in a puddle of goo.:o)
Slashdot Mirror
engineers from Red Hat, ClusterFS, IBM
OK, hands up - who wants to run ClusterFS so that they can say they needed to do a "clusterfsck"?
Uhh, that has exactly *what* to do with the topic at hand?
remind me to not invest in your company.
Wow, I bet MS is just kicking themselves for not waiting until they got your stellar financial advice!
Can you imagine being in a lesbian relationship?
/.'ers, I think :o)
Yes, regularly! (just like most
I know from whence I speak, as it is exactly this kind of thing my wife is going through with her ex right now.
So.. your entire argument boils down to "my wife's ex believes X, SCOX's lawyers might believe Y, so therefore SCOX believes X too!"
Sorry, you don't know "from whence you speak". You are pole-vaulting (not just jumping) to a conclusion based on incorrect presumptions and a personal bias.
given their statements and the chest-thumping they do on a regular basis, it's more likely they have deluded themselves into believing they are in the right
No, given their statements, it's more likely that they have deluded themselves into believing that it's OK to file a bogus lawsuit because "everybody does it".
And don't kid yourself:
I'm not kidding myself. You seem to be raising a straw-man argument here - I never said anything about SCOX's lawyers thinking the case was anything other than a complete bug hunt.
What I did say was that this statement in no way means that SCOX management thinks that the case was strong.
You seem to be jumping into the middle of this - try doing some reading about Boies, and the agreement(s) they have with SCOX. You might be surprised.
SCO's financial reports show no such income.
Umm, yeah, except for that $16,000,000 cheque that MS wrote them for something MS had already paid for, and the $50,000,000 "gift" from the PIPE fairy, which was brokered by MS.
<sarcasm>
No, no such income at all.
</sarcasm>
Bullshit. All you have to back up your assertion is (incorrect) assumtptions and speculation about what the lawyers believe. You provide no proof whatsoever about what SCOX believes.
There are *many* tangible reasons why we should believe that SCOX knows that their case is bogus (Darl and Sontag's outright lies being first and foremost) and nothing but idle speculation to believe otherwise.
While their case is extremely weak, they believed it was very strong.
Umm, no. They never believed their case was strong. It was a (very weak) bluff, designed to encourage IBM to buy them (hence the "buy-out" contingency in their original contract with BSF.)
They've spent years now firing off one motion after another, trying to obfuscate, decalrify,and otherwise muddy a perfectly straightforward situation
Exactly. This proves the point that they didn't believe their case was strong.
If their case was strong, why on earth would they try to delay and obfuscate it?
I wonder if he read my comment, or if someone emailed him about it?
No, no, no.
He's talking about this guy.
Or possibly this, but I don't imagine Darl's head would go very well on it.
You can see lots of insightful comments in the other story about this.
I wonder how this "treatment" copes with teeth that have been root canal filled.
Saw this on the news last night - they said that it will repair root canals.
About the only thing it won't do is regrow a tooth that's been removed - it needs cells to start with.
SCO withdrew all of their allegations of copyright infringement in one of their early amended complaints.
Yes, they did, however they have since apparently changed their mind, and tried inserting copyright claims back in (at the 14th hour*) through "expert" reports filed last month.
I agree with everything you said, but there is one thing about YUI that bugs me: having to include a dozen (or so) separate .js files to make it work.
I wish it was just a single library, rather than one file for each function (which really isn't, because every function I've used doesn't work unless all of the other files are included as well, even if I'm not explicitly using them.)
There's no place like ::1
There's no place like localhost??!!?!?!?!
Sorry, never heard that one before.
Perhaps you meant "There's no place like ~/"
This was after Goofy and Minnie were rejected.
Mickey Mouse decided he wanted a divorce, so he went to see a lawyer. He ranted and ranted for hours about Minnie, and the lawyer (who was paid by the hour, of course) sat silently until Mickey had finished his tirade.
Once Mickey had calmed down a bit, the lawyer said "Well, Mr. Mouse, while I can certainly sympathize with you, I'm afraid you can't divorce your wife just because you think she's a bit strange."
Mikey became enraged - he jumped up on the lawyer's desk and screamed "You idiot! I didn't say she was strange, I said she was fucking Goofy!"
I maintain an OpenServer box for work only because of a legacy app that requires it. Well, strictly, the app requires Microsoft Xenix to run - it's from 1983 (!!) [...] - which Linux can't satisfy even with the defunct ibcs project
I've just finished moving a company from a similar thing. It required some modifications to x286emul, but it runs flawlessly (and *much* faster) on Linux than on OpenSewer.
I'm sure there are plenty of less-than-ethical developers who wouldn't scoff at the potential of a BMW (note the article says 10-cyclinder whereas the summary says 12-cylinder) or the $100,000.
Yes, and anyone who actually believes that they'll have a chance to "win" it deserves everything they'll get.
The car/money is gonna go to Darl's nephew, and the anyone stupid enough to do real work are gonna get screwed.
does it run with Linux?
Yes.
I would not be surprised to see Yahoo! instant messenger to integrate with Yahoo! Maps.
:o) Just think - when your prey IMs you, you can tell at a glance if you need to violate the "within 100 yards of a school" provision of your plea bargain! :o)
Just what the world needs - a tool that makes it even easier for perverts to stalk 14-year old girls!
In some alternate universe where SCO had a case, they perhaps might wind up with copyright ownership of some small part of the linux kernel.
:o)
Actually, that exactly what they've got right now. (Do a grep for caldera on the kernel source tree to find out.)
It's all stuff they've released under the GPL.
Funny though, that the "best case" they could have hoped for (even in said alternate universe) is exactly what they had before they began the lawsuits.
And the worst (or "actual", in the real world) is much, much worse.
I wonder if Darl still thinks the lawsuits were a good idea?
working on my PhD in soft condensed matter
:o)
You know, I had to read that twice to understand what you meant... (or at least what it seems you meant - I doubt you're trying to tell us that you do your PhD work while immersed in a puddle of goo.
Whether this is true or not, it's meaningless in the context of the current discussion. Here's what started it:
Your irrelevant information doesn't make this statement false.
I believe they are regulated as a bank just like a brick and mortar bank.
You believe incorrectly.
Anyone else have a hard time here reading Slashdot now that it's gone to this new layout/theme?
I used to.
Is there any way I can go back to a Slashdot that values content over style?
Yes. Install Stylish, and then go here or here.
The guy who owns the server, the guy who paid for an account on the server, or the ISP the server colos at or is connected to?
The one with the most money to spend on lawyers.