Make sure that you open the Chess application from Terminal.app. You can't set the environment variable and then double click on Chess.app, you need to issue the "open/Applications/Chess.app/" command from the Terminal to do it.
After taking a look at the source I found out that the floating window can be activated without making any modifications to the application. Here's how to enable the transparent window:
Open Terminal.app and set MBC_DEBUG as an environment variable to 16:
With bash:
set MBC_DEBUG=16
with tcsh:
setenv MBC_DEBUG 16
Now, open Chess.app from the Terminal:
open/Applications/Chess.app/
There will be a new menu item (Floating Board) under the "Game" menu. Selecting this menu item will toggle the floating board on and off.
There seems to be a bug with the mouse behavior (I can't move any pieces) and I assume this is why this feature was removed. I found that you can get around this bug by doing the following:
Start a game with the normal window. Play at least one move. Switch to the floating board. Select "Take Back Move" from the "Moves" window. You should now be able to move the pieces as normal.
Yes, this article is both misleading and old news. You can find this from CA on Newsforge:
CA senior VP of product development Mark Barrenechea says that Bench's claim is nonsense. CA has not paid SCO any Linux taxes, he said.
Drawing up short of calling SCO a liar, Barrenechea claims that SCO has twisted a $40 million breach-of-contract settlement that CA paid last summer to the Canopy Group, SCO's biggest stockholder, and Center 7, another Canopy company, and has turned it into a purported Linux license.
As a "small part" of that settlement, Barrenechea said, CA got a bunch of UnixWare licenses that it needed to support its UnixWare customers. SCO, he said, had just attached a transparent Linux indemnification to all UnixWare licenses and that is how SCO comes off calling CA a Linux licensee.
Computer Associates, which has begun making its management software available on Linux, acknowledged it had the license, but took pains to distance itself from SCO's methods.
"CA disagrees with SCO's tactics, which are intended to intimidate and threaten customers. CA's license for Linux technology is part of a larger settlement with the Canopy Group. It has nothing to do with SCO's strategy of intimidation," said a statement from Sam Greenblatt, senior vice president and chief architect of CA's Linux Technology Group.
Greenblatt has been an outspoken Linux fan. "The whole world is going to unite around a single operating system, and it's going to be Linux," he said in a keynote address at the LinuxWorld Conference and Expo in January.
Basically Canopy threw in the licenses as part of a settlement with Canopy's Center7 company. I wonder if SCO broke any confidentiality agreements regarding the settlement by announcing that CA was a Linux IP Licensee.;)
SCO brings a "sharpshooter" to a Darlnote...
on
Darl Goes to Harvard
·
· Score: 5, Interesting
You'll find this about 2/3 of the way through the article:
When SCO Group chief executive officer Darl McBride appeared at the Mandalay Bay Convention Center in Las Vegas in November to deliver a keynote speech at CD Expo, the company brought a sharpshooter along for protection.
Where 32-bit chips are limited to addressing only 2 gigabytes of memory, 64-bit chips can theoretically address thousands of gigabytes of memory, though Apple's G5 boxes are limited to 8 gigabytes. Secondly 64-bit chips can perform complex calculations in fewer steps than 32-bit chips.
So far Apple's machines can see all the memory, they can't yet do 64-bit calculations. Present it with a 64-bit calculation, and a Mac with a G5 chip still breaks it into two 32-bit pieces.
First of all 32-bit chips can access 4 GB of memory, not 2 GB. And second, he's got it backwards. Apple's machines CAN do 64-bit calculations, but they can't do 64-bit addressing.
As others have mentioned, there's no great benefit in changing from 32-bit pointers to 64-bit. The optimizations for the G5 that you see in today's apps are from handling complex 64-bit calculations. In this regard Mac OS X is fully up to speed.
Padilla was designated a military combatant which means he might just as well be the enemy. This guy is a former gang member and was arrested while entering the country on his way back from Pakistan. In times of war the President is allowed to detain citizens as "military combatants" for the duration of the conflict.
This policy is not new and goes back to the founding of our country. FDR did it during WWII, Abraham Lincoln during the Civil War, and i believe even George Washington used this power. There is a difference between an ordinary criminal, such as "Joe Blow the convenience store robber," and someone that tries to overthrow the government. The former are tried as civilians in civil court while the latter are tried as military combatants in military court.
This decision strips the president of powers that he was given since the founding of our nation and weakens his ability to protect this country as Commander in Chief. It will be an extremely sad day if this country is attacked again as a result of this court decision.
It's not like the government is going around the country and rounding up people as military combatants. So far there have been only two people arrested as military combatants, Padilla and John Walker, the guy they caught fighting with the Taliban in Afghanistan. Should Walker, a man that was fighting against our troops, be released as well? Or should he be held as a prisoner of war, which is what he is? We have declared war on terrorists and these people should be held as prisoners of war, regardless of their citizenship.
After reading Darl's wonderful letter of ignorance and greed I'd have to conclude that it was largely written by David Boies or one of his minions. Though it's been mentioned that the author, as indicated from the doc's headers, was not McBride, or one of the lawyers, my guess is that it was just composed by the authors mentioned, but the actual text originated with a lawyer.
First of all it doesn't sound like the Darl we know and love. I've read enough of his BS and listened to him enough to know his style and this letter just doesn't have it. It tries to show some hint of intelligence which we all know McBride is devoid of. Second, the information about the Supreme Court rulings, the constitution, and the DMCA all read like a lawyer wrote them. It reads like it came from the world's most ignorant and incompetent lawyer, but it was definitely from a lawyer.
It's too bad for Boies that his name is being put on such utter trash. He did have a good reputation once, but it'll be ruined before this case is over.
Dog tags would have been cool, all I got at the SOHO Apple Store (downtown NYC) was some "designer" wrapping paper for Christmas. But then again there was easily over 1000 people trying to get in. I was stupid and tried to get there right at 8:00, but I was met with a line that went around the block.
There were tons of people there, that's for sure. I at least got entered to win a new Mac, but other than that the wrapping paper kinda sucks. I was hoping for free T-shirts as well. I didn't even get a copy of Panther either. That will have to wait until I get a job. Anyone out there looking for a Mac programer in the New York City area?
I did get to play with Panther though, and it is very cool.;)
eWeek has an interview with Ransome Love, the former CEO of Caldera/SCO where he comments on SCO's current lawsuit and what Caldera's intentions were when they purchased the Unix source from the original SCO.
Some interesting bits of information are that Caldera originally wanted to open source the Unix code they had purchased and that Ransom Love sold all of his shares in SCO when they announced the lawsuit with IBM.
Here's a nice quote from Love: "I don't believe that the suit is good for the company or Linux."
Basically their spin is that HP has recognized that there is a problem with Linux and that "HP's actions are driving the Linux industry towards a licensing program. In other words, Linux is not free."
Yet again, SCO has missed the point of "free" software where they are thinking free as in price, not free as in freedom of the code. Anyone can charge whatever they want for Linux. Whether they provide support, indemnification, or beer for that charge is up to them as long as the code remains free.
They're also trying to put a good spin on the Bitch-slap that HP just gave to their stock price.
Basically their spin is that HP has recognized that there is a problem with Linux and that "HP's actions are driving the Linux industry towards a licensing program. In other words, Linux is not free."
Yet again, SCO has missed the point of "free" software where they are thinking free as in price, not free as in freedom of the code. Anyone can charge whatever they want for Linux. Whether they provide support, indemnification, or beer for that charge is up to them as long as the code remains free.
They're also trying to put a good spin on the Bitch-slap that HP just gave to their stock price.
Basically their spin is that HP has recognized that there is a problem with Linux and that "HP's actions are driving the Linux industry towards a licensing program. In other words, Linux is not free."
Yet again, SCO has missed the point of "free" software where they are thinking free as in price, not free as in freedom of the code. Anyone can charge whatever they want for Linux. Whether they provide support, indemnification, or beer for that charge is up to them as long as the code remains free.
They're also trying to put a good spin on the Bitch-slap that HP just gave to their stock price.
I'm afraid this is a hardware issue and can't be easily resolved.
This is most definitely NOT the case. I've used every version of Mac OS X, since pre-10.0 (DP 3) up to Panther, on my Lombard PowerBook and there has NEVER been an issue with having two RAM modules installed and I've had two RAM modules (384 MB) installed since I've owned the PowerBook.
Also, you say that the problem "...only shows up when using OS X..." This, then, by definition is not a hardware problem, but a software one. If it was a hardware problem then it would show up on Mac OS 9, Linux, or any other operating system you installed.
To get back to my original post, I did remove one of my DIMMs and have not experienced a crash since. So it is definitely a problem with memory access that they've introduced in 10.2.8. I'm going to try to install the 10.2.6 combo update to see if I can revert back to 10.2.6 that way (where the problem has never occurred). Otherwise I may have to reinstall 10.2 from CD and then update to 10.2.6.
I'll report what I find in case anyone else is interested.
A lot of PowerBook G3 "Lombard" owners (myself included) have been having problems with frequent crashing that causes the display to become garbled. I first thought the problem was with Unsanity's Application Enhancer (APE), but after removing it I still keep crashing.
Some have suggested repairing disk permissions via Disk Utility (which I'm in the process of doing) while others have suggested removing 1 of your 2 RAM modules (assuming you have two installed)
I think that the problem has to do with having 2 RAM modules installed. I was monitoring my memory usage leading up to the crashes and whenever the RAM in use goes over 256 MB (meaning it's now using both RAM modules) then a crash will not be far away. The laptop was stable and never crashed if the RAM used was under 256 MB.
So once my permissions repair is complete I'll probably remove one of my DIMMs to see if the problem really lies with the RAM.
The best part of the pearl script is the copyright notice:
# Coyprgiht (C) 2003 Jamie Zawinski # # Premssioin to use, cpoy, mdoify, drusbiitte, and slel this stafowre and its # docneimuatton for any prsopue is hrbeey ganrted wuihott fee, prveodid taht # the avobe cprgyioht noicte appaer in all coipes and that both taht # cohgrypit noitce and tihs premssioin noitce aeppar in suppriotng # dcoumetioantn. No rpeersneatiotns are made about the siuatbliity of tihs # srofawte for any puorpse. It is provedid "as is" wiuotht exerpss or # ilmpied waanrrty.
I believe I'm getting a glimpse at what SCO's bigger picture is. I believe their next step will be to announce some kind of SCO-sponsored Linux development process. Notice that their UnixWare license is "binary, run-time-only" license. This leaves the question of what to do for Linux development. SCO has repeatedly stated, and does so in the LinuxWorld article, that the Open Source development model is flawed because there is no one to ensure the validity of contributed code.
I bet the SCO's next move (or one of their next moves) will be to try and create a "valid" Open Source development model. It will be something that they control, you'll probably have to pay a fee to become a member. They don't want just a $3 Billion settlement from IBM, or $699 from everyone who runs Linux, they want it all. They want to control all of Linux, sales, the community, the development process, everything! It's like when Neo first runs into Smith in Reloaded:
Neo: "What do you want Smith?"
Smith: "You haven't figured that out? Still using all the muscles except the one that matters. I want exactly what you want--I want everything."
SCO's already lost their operating systems. UnixWare and SCO OpenServer are already dead. What they're doing now is trying to take control of a new operating system without having to buy it or develop it.
Well, sort of anyway. Center 7 is actually their hosting company, but Center 7 is one of Canopy's main companies, in fact it may be one of the only ones that really makes money which Canopy then uses to fund all the other ones.
So while Centershift may want to change ISPs, Canopy will probably sue them if they do. Hell, they may even sue them if they don't. That's what seems to happen to anyone that has a contract with a Canopy company.
Here's my theory, SCO doesn't even have a copy of the code they claim infringes. Think about it, the million lines bullshit is from them adding up all contributions to Linux from any UNIX vendor (IBM, Silicon Graphics, etc.). My guess is all they're doing is looking for contributions or copyrights in code that contain a UNIX vendor. If a certain section of Code was touched by a UNIX vendor then it becomes infringing and under the control of SCO.
Does SCO really have access to the complete source of AIX? My guess is that IBM wouldn't want that and that they probably don't. It's possible that they do, but I would think that IBM wouldn't want to give up the crown jewels to SCO or anyone else.
This is why they've been requiring an NDA to view the code and have only shown small code snippets. I bet that what they have shown is similar to what was already debunked, that is, code available through BSD or so old that it's been published and studied for 30 years. They haven't shown any of IBM's infringing code because they don't have it! Think about it.
Of course I have no proof or evidence of this, but that makes me no different from SCO on the matter.
We, as an IT community, need to come up with a term appropriate for SCO and McBride's stupidity. Something that the community can use on a large scale that will hopefully become mainstream in our language.
I'm not sure what it should be, anybody have any suggestions? (Mine kinda suck)
Darl You! Darl it! Darl you to SCO! Darlhole! Darlass! Darlhead!
There's another story here that has more details, including:
In its 45-page complaint, IBM claims SCO Group's products violate four IBM patents and claims SCO Group doesn't have the right to revoke IBM's Unix license. IBM also claims SCO Group has violated the general public license, or the GNU GPL, under which Linux is distributed.
The Armonk, N.Y., computer giant seeks unspecified monetary damages and an injunction requiring SCO Group to stop violating IBM patents and refrain from misrepresenting its intellectual-property rights.
It also says that a spokesman for SCO wasn't immediately available to comment, I guess they haven't recovered from being bitch-slapped yet. I suppose that this means we'll also have the obligatory conference call tomorrow, or soon after, where Darl will blow some more hot air out of that ass that sits on his neck.
Slashdot Mirror
Make sure that you open the Chess application from Terminal.app. You can't set the environment variable and then double click on Chess.app, you need to issue the "open /Applications/Chess.app/" command from the Terminal to do it.
After taking a look at the source I found out that the floating window can be activated without making any modifications to the application. Here's how to enable the transparent window:
/Applications/Chess.app/
Open Terminal.app and set MBC_DEBUG as an environment variable to 16:
With bash:
set MBC_DEBUG=16
with tcsh:
setenv MBC_DEBUG 16
Now, open Chess.app from the Terminal:
open
There will be a new menu item (Floating Board) under the "Game" menu. Selecting this menu item will toggle the floating board on and off.
There seems to be a bug with the mouse behavior (I can't move any pieces) and I assume this is why this feature was removed. I found that you can get around this bug by doing the following:
Start a game with the normal window.
Play at least one move.
Switch to the floating board.
Select "Take Back Move" from the "Moves" window.
You should now be able to move the pieces as normal.
Yes, this article is both misleading and old news. You can find this from CA on Newsforge:
You'll also find this on news.com.com.com.com:
Basically Canopy threw in the licenses as part of a settlement with Canopy's Center7 company. I wonder if SCO broke any confidentiality agreements regarding the settlement by announcing that CA was a Linux IP Licensee. ;)
I got this off of the SCOX yahoo board:
'Electronic terror' in Linux's shadow
You'll find this about 2/3 of the way through the article:
And they call the Linux community fanatical! :)
From the article:
Where 32-bit chips are limited to addressing only 2 gigabytes of memory, 64-bit chips can theoretically address thousands of gigabytes of memory, though Apple's G5 boxes are limited to 8 gigabytes. Secondly 64-bit chips can perform complex calculations in fewer steps than 32-bit chips.
So far Apple's machines can see all the memory, they can't yet do 64-bit calculations. Present it with a 64-bit calculation, and a Mac with a G5 chip still breaks it into two 32-bit pieces.
First of all 32-bit chips can access 4 GB of memory, not 2 GB. And second, he's got it backwards. Apple's machines CAN do 64-bit calculations, but they can't do 64-bit addressing.
As others have mentioned, there's no great benefit in changing from 32-bit pointers to 64-bit. The optimizations for the G5 that you see in today's apps are from handling complex 64-bit calculations. In this regard Mac OS X is fully up to speed.
Padilla was designated a military combatant which means he might just as well be the enemy. This guy is a former gang member and was arrested while entering the country on his way back from Pakistan. In times of war the President is allowed to detain citizens as "military combatants" for the duration of the conflict.
This policy is not new and goes back to the founding of our country. FDR did it during WWII, Abraham Lincoln during the Civil War, and i believe even George Washington used this power. There is a difference between an ordinary criminal, such as "Joe Blow the convenience store robber," and someone that tries to overthrow the government. The former are tried as civilians in civil court while the latter are tried as military combatants in military court.
This decision strips the president of powers that he was given since the founding of our nation and weakens his ability to protect this country as Commander in Chief. It will be an extremely sad day if this country is attacked again as a result of this court decision.
It's not like the government is going around the country and rounding up people as military combatants. So far there have been only two people arrested as military combatants, Padilla and John Walker, the guy they caught fighting with the Taliban in Afghanistan. Should Walker, a man that was fighting against our troops, be released as well? Or should he be held as a prisoner of war, which is what he is? We have declared war on terrorists and these people should be held as prisoners of war, regardless of their citizenship.
After reading Darl's wonderful letter of ignorance and greed I'd have to conclude that it was largely written by David Boies or one of his minions. Though it's been mentioned that the author, as indicated from the doc's headers, was not McBride, or one of the lawyers, my guess is that it was just composed by the authors mentioned, but the actual text originated with a lawyer.
First of all it doesn't sound like the Darl we know and love. I've read enough of his BS and listened to him enough to know his style and this letter just doesn't have it. It tries to show some hint of intelligence which we all know McBride is devoid of. Second, the information about the Supreme Court rulings, the constitution, and the DMCA all read like a lawyer wrote them. It reads like it came from the world's most ignorant and incompetent lawyer, but it was definitely from a lawyer.
It's too bad for Boies that his name is being put on such utter trash. He did have a good reputation once, but it'll be ruined before this case is over.
This just in... Someone claming to be on the inside is saying that SCO will make Google its next target.
Source Claims SCO Will Sue GoogleIf you didn't notice the subtitle: Industry wags are saying that God invented SCO to give people a company to hate more than Microsoft.
Let the Microsoft conspiracy theories fly.
Dog tags would have been cool, all I got at the SOHO Apple Store (downtown NYC) was some "designer" wrapping paper for Christmas. But then again there was easily over 1000 people trying to get in. I was stupid and tried to get there right at 8:00, but I was met with a line that went around the block.
;)
There were tons of people there, that's for sure. I at least got entered to win a new Mac, but other than that the wrapping paper kinda sucks. I was hoping for free T-shirts as well. I didn't even get a copy of Panther either. That will have to wait until I get a job. Anyone out there looking for a Mac programer in the New York City area?
I did get to play with Panther though, and it is very cool.
How 'bout these:
What's your Karma?
How often do you post to Slashdot?
How many stories have you successfully submitted to Slashdot?
eWeek has an interview with Ransome Love, the former CEO of Caldera/SCO where he comments on SCO's current lawsuit and what Caldera's intentions were when they purchased the Unix source from the original SCO.
Some interesting bits of information are that Caldera originally wanted to open source the Unix code they had purchased and that Ransom Love sold all of his shares in SCO when they announced the lawsuit with IBM.
Here's a nice quote from Love: "I don't believe that the suit is good for the company or Linux."
I just saw SCO's spin on the story. You can find it here:
HP's Actions Support SCO's Position That Linux is not Free
Basically their spin is that HP has recognized that there is a problem with Linux and that "HP's actions are driving the Linux industry towards a licensing program. In other words, Linux is not free."
Yet again, SCO has missed the point of "free" software where they are thinking free as in price, not free as in freedom of the code. Anyone can charge whatever they want for Linux. Whether they provide support, indemnification, or beer for that charge is up to them as long as the code remains free.
They're also trying to put a good spin on the Bitch-slap that HP just gave to their stock price.
I just saw SCO's spin on the story. You can find it here:
HP's Actions Support SCO's Position That Linux is not Free
Basically their spin is that HP has recognized that there is a problem with Linux and that "HP's actions are driving the Linux industry towards a licensing program. In other words, Linux is not free."
Yet again, SCO has missed the point of "free" software where they are thinking free as in price, not free as in freedom of the code. Anyone can charge whatever they want for Linux. Whether they provide support, indemnification, or beer for that charge is up to them as long as the code remains free.
They're also trying to put a good spin on the Bitch-slap that HP just gave to their stock price.
I just saw SCO's spin on the story. You can find it here:
HP's Actions Support SCO's Position That Linux is not Free
Basically their spin is that HP has recognized that there is a problem with Linux and that "HP's actions are driving the Linux industry towards a licensing program. In other words, Linux is not free."
Yet again, SCO has missed the point of "free" software where they are thinking free as in price, not free as in freedom of the code. Anyone can charge whatever they want for Linux. Whether they provide support, indemnification, or beer for that charge is up to them as long as the code remains free.
They're also trying to put a good spin on the Bitch-slap that HP just gave to their stock price.
I'm afraid this is a hardware issue and can't be easily resolved.
This is most definitely NOT the case. I've used every version of Mac OS X, since pre-10.0 (DP 3) up to Panther, on my Lombard PowerBook and there has NEVER been an issue with having two RAM modules installed and I've had two RAM modules (384 MB) installed since I've owned the PowerBook.
Also, you say that the problem "...only shows up when using OS X..." This, then, by definition is not a hardware problem, but a software one. If it was a hardware problem then it would show up on Mac OS 9, Linux, or any other operating system you installed.
To get back to my original post, I did remove one of my DIMMs and have not experienced a crash since. So it is definitely a problem with memory access that they've introduced in 10.2.8. I'm going to try to install the 10.2.6 combo update to see if I can revert back to 10.2.6 that way (where the problem has never occurred). Otherwise I may have to reinstall 10.2 from CD and then update to 10.2.6.
I'll report what I find in case anyone else is interested.
A lot of PowerBook G3 "Lombard" owners (myself included) have been having problems with frequent crashing that causes the display to become garbled. I first thought the problem was with Unsanity's Application Enhancer (APE), but after removing it I still keep crashing.
Some have suggested repairing disk permissions via Disk Utility (which I'm in the process of doing) while others have suggested removing 1 of your 2 RAM modules (assuming you have two installed)
I think that the problem has to do with having 2 RAM modules installed. I was monitoring my memory usage leading up to the crashes and whenever the RAM in use goes over 256 MB (meaning it's now using both RAM modules) then a crash will not be far away. The laptop was stable and never crashed if the RAM used was under 256 MB.
So once my permissions repair is complete I'll probably remove one of my DIMMs to see if the problem really lies with the RAM.
The best part of the pearl script is the copyright notice:
# Coyprgiht (C) 2003 Jamie Zawinski
#
# Premssioin to use, cpoy, mdoify, drusbiitte, and slel this stafowre and its
# docneimuatton for any prsopue is hrbeey ganrted wuihott fee, prveodid taht
# the avobe cprgyioht noicte appaer in all coipes and that both taht
# cohgrypit noitce and tihs premssioin noitce aeppar in suppriotng
# dcoumetioantn. No rpeersneatiotns are made about the siuatbliity of tihs
# srofawte for any puorpse. It is provedid "as is" wiuotht exerpss or
# ilmpied waanrrty.
I believe I'm getting a glimpse at what SCO's bigger picture is. I believe their next step will be to announce some kind of SCO-sponsored Linux development process. Notice that their UnixWare license is "binary, run-time-only" license. This leaves the question of what to do for Linux development. SCO has repeatedly stated, and does so in the LinuxWorld article, that the Open Source development model is flawed because there is no one to ensure the validity of contributed code.
I bet the SCO's next move (or one of their next moves) will be to try and create a "valid" Open Source development model. It will be something that they control, you'll probably have to pay a fee to become a member. They don't want just a $3 Billion settlement from IBM, or $699 from everyone who runs Linux, they want it all. They want to control all of Linux, sales, the community, the development process, everything! It's like when Neo first runs into Smith in Reloaded:
Neo: "What do you want Smith?"
Smith: "You haven't figured that out? Still using all the muscles except the one that matters. I want exactly what you want--I want everything."
SCO's already lost their operating systems. UnixWare and SCO OpenServer are already dead. What they're doing now is trying to take control of a new operating system without having to buy it or develop it.
No, we all owe Ozzy Osbourne $699 per eye because we all read the comment.
Well, sort of anyway. Center 7 is actually their hosting company, but Center 7 is one of Canopy's main companies, in fact it may be one of the only ones that really makes money which Canopy then uses to fund all the other ones.
So while Centershift may want to change ISPs, Canopy will probably sue them if they do. Hell, they may even sue them if they don't. That's what seems to happen to anyone that has a contract with a Canopy company.
Here's my theory, SCO doesn't even have a copy of the code they claim infringes. Think about it, the million lines bullshit is from them adding up all contributions to Linux from any UNIX vendor (IBM, Silicon Graphics, etc.). My guess is all they're doing is looking for contributions or copyrights in code that contain a UNIX vendor. If a certain section of Code was touched by a UNIX vendor then it becomes infringing and under the control of SCO.
Does SCO really have access to the complete source of AIX? My guess is that IBM wouldn't want that and that they probably don't. It's possible that they do, but I would think that IBM wouldn't want to give up the crown jewels to SCO or anyone else.
This is why they've been requiring an NDA to view the code and have only shown small code snippets. I bet that what they have shown is similar to what was already debunked, that is, code available through BSD or so old that it's been published and studied for 30 years. They haven't shown any of IBM's infringing code because they don't have it! Think about it.
Of course I have no proof or evidence of this, but that makes me no different from SCO on the matter.
We, as an IT community, need to come up with a term appropriate for SCO and McBride's stupidity. Something that the community can use on a large scale that will hopefully become mainstream in our language.
I'm not sure what it should be, anybody have any suggestions? (Mine kinda suck)
Darl You!
Darl it!
Darl you to SCO!
Darlhole!
Darlass!
Darlhead!
Don't pull a Darl McBitch on me!
There's another story here that has more details, including:
In its 45-page complaint, IBM claims SCO Group's products violate four IBM patents and claims SCO Group doesn't have the right to revoke IBM's Unix license. IBM also claims SCO Group has violated the general public license, or the GNU GPL, under which Linux is distributed.
The Armonk, N.Y., computer giant seeks unspecified monetary damages and an injunction requiring SCO Group to stop violating IBM patents and refrain from misrepresenting its intellectual-property rights.
It also says that a spokesman for SCO wasn't immediately available to comment, I guess they haven't recovered from being bitch-slapped yet. I suppose that this means we'll also have the obligatory conference call tomorrow, or soon after, where Darl will blow some more hot air out of that ass that sits on his neck.
I just saw this press release from SCO. Pricing starts at $699 per CPU until October 15th, 2003!
Unbelievable!
As disgusting as it may sound, I will deliver it for you (as long as it's packaged well).
I work across the street and would be happy to deliver your "payment."