Linu[s] himself has written essentially that he never would have written Linux, he just would have used FreeBSD (Net/1 anyway) if it wasn't for the shadow of the lawsuit over it.
That's interesting, do you have a source/url at hand for the quote? (Not questioning you -- only this piqued my curiosity, and the words seem too generic to google.)
Walker sees NAT as encroaching oppression by the "powers that be", whereas Garfinkel seems to take the "powers that be" point of view!
Seems to me that they are saying much the same thing. Walker:
There are powerful forces, including government, large
media organisations, and music publishers who think
this situation is just fine. In essence, every time a
user--they
love the word "consumer"--goes behind a
NAT box, a site which was formerly a peer to their own
sites goes dark, no longer accessible to others on the
Internet, while their privileged sites remain. The
lights are going out all over the Internet.
For all of its apparent utility, NAT is really the devil.
It's a Faustian bargain (...) Getting everybody's home machine out from being a NAT box should make possible a lot of interesting applications that are either very difficult or downright impossible today. And in all likelihood, some of those applications will not be popular with the Recording Industry Association of America or the Motion Picture Association of America
...is the spin they manage to get from journalists. The Reuters wire consists of 8 sentences. Of those, four quote SCO claims with direct attribution -- that's OK. But wouldn't one expect the four others, where the journalist speaks, to provide some balance and context? Well, here they are:
#3 --
Linux (...) is based on the widely-used Unix platform.
Stated as fact. As if no one ever argued that it's only "based" insofar as it reimplements POSIX and other public domain standards and APIs.
#5 --
SCO sued International Business Machines Corp. last year and sent notice to thousands of companies to pay to use Linux.
#6 -- SCO said it now has Unix license agreements with more than 6,000 companies.
Falsely suggests that the 6,000 licenses in #6 (legacy Unixware?) were sold as a result of the notices in #5.
#8 --
Markets are abuzz with increasing speculation that Google will seek an initial public offering sometime this year.
This not-so-subtly concludes that SCO may be about to hit the jackpot. Is this whole argument supposed to be journalism?
The kernel starts/sbin/mach_init, the Mach service naming (bootstrap) daemon. mach_init maintains mappings between service names and the Mach ports that provide access to those services.
From here on, the startup becomes user-level:
mach_init starts/sbin/init, the traditional BSD init process. init determines the runlevel, and runs/etc/rc.boot, which sets up the machine enough to run single-user.
In fact it's the other way around, at least according to top -Xo+pid:
True, we are well past the need to emphasize how ludicrous SCO's behavior is assuming they want to win.
But what if whoever is behind this actually wants SCO to lose? Might an IBM victory actually be engineered to be Pyrrhic for Linux?
Consider that both SCO's case and the GPL revolve around the notion of derived work which is legally up for grabs. Might SCO's claim -- that all things UNIX belong to them as derived works -- get laughed out of court in a way that actually weakens the somewhat similar provisions of the GPL?
What if the goal was to downgrade the GPL to a legal equivalent of LGPL or even BSD? (The GPL hopes to make "linking" a criterion for "derived". Is SCO trying or even in a position to make such a claim and get it struck down? I don't know.)
Yes, I realize the situations are different (contract law here, copyright law there), and this hardly explains the investor frenzy on SCO. Still maybe worth keeping in mind...
We have one more pattern in our parser, which was commited on 2003 July 20, in effect of supporting a new subtitle format, called "ASS". Kiss Tech's files are missing this one, so they must have lifted our code before that date.
So, not only they don't comply, they don't even kiss ass. Pretty damning if you ask me!
If the proof is vetted, the Clay Mathematics Institute may face a difficult choice. Its rules state that any solution must be published two years before being considered for the $1 million prize. Perelman's work remains unpublished and he appears indifferent to the money.
Hats off to Perelman for reminding us that money has never been a mathematician's incentive. The whole Clay thing is a travesty and not the right way to help mathematics.
(Contrast: this sort of snake-oil merchant, who puts money over truth.)
- In Moz on Windows, there is an extra blank line at the top of the right floaty. It's just a gray area there. Neither Konqueror nor the reference image have it, so it looks like a Moz/Win bug.
Same on Mac. Actually that extra grey line comes up when mousing over that floaty in Moz (1.6a, 20031029); everything's fine in Safari (1.1, v100).
Slashdot Mirror
That's interesting, do you have a source/url at hand for the quote? (Not questioning you -- only this piqued my curiosity, and the words seem too generic to google.)
Right... from Reuters again... and they repeat this every day
Two words: Netscape 5.
Whoops, right here we have the first of 10,000 support calls already :-)
Seems to me that they are saying much the same thing. Walker:
Garfinkel:How the hell do they hope to sell any of this stuff if it's all encrypted in some Baltic lingo?!? ;)
Thanks for the explanation, and you're right, I should have checked this.
But what if whoever is behind this actually wants SCO to lose? Might an IBM victory actually be engineered to be Pyrrhic for Linux?
Consider that both SCO's case and the GPL revolve around the notion of derived work which is legally up for grabs. Might SCO's claim -- that all things UNIX belong to them as derived works -- get laughed out of court in a way that actually weakens the somewhat similar provisions of the GPL?
What if the goal was to downgrade the GPL to a legal equivalent of LGPL or even BSD? (The GPL hopes to make "linking" a criterion for "derived". Is SCO trying or even in a position to make such a claim and get it struck down? I don't know.)
Yes, I realize the situations are different (contract law here, copyright law there), and this hardly explains the investor frenzy on SCO. Still maybe worth keeping in mind...
*sigh*
The paper seems quite light on the subject ("ATM" only occurs twice)...
but indeed Marconi sank billions of cash into it.
Not everyone was happy ;-)
So, not only they don't comply, they don't even kiss ass. Pretty damning if you ask me!
Hats off to Perelman for reminding us that money has never been a mathematician's incentive. The whole Clay thing is a travesty and not the right way to help mathematics.
(Contrast: this sort of snake-oil merchant, who puts money over truth.)
Good to see Knighthood now represented at MIT's innermost, by a Midknight Kommander no less!
Let's hope Gnighthood is next for RMS.
;-)
Wow, a kernel hacker among us! Listen everyone, it might be Linus masquerading as "be-fan"!!!
Same on Mac. Actually that extra grey line comes up when mousing over that floaty in Moz (1.6a, 20031029); everything's fine in Safari (1.1, v100).
Inoshiro might want to file a bug.
... of packages.debian.org
*Sigh*... still nothing for the GeForce in 12" PowerBooks.
Come on nVidia, smell the coffee!
Looks like they won't fool everyone this time:
Creator of Linux Defends Its Originality
also:
Novell Registers Unix Copyrights
R. Love: HAL
2. OSNews: (99 words +) BeOS?
R. Love (diplomatic): Yes and no.
3. OSNews: (600 words)?
R. Love: No.
4. OSNews: (20 words)?
R. Love: HAL.
5. OSNews: (19 words +) HAL?
R. Love: Yes, HAL.
6. OSNews: (600 words)?
R. Love: Dunno what you're talking about.
7. OSNews: (100 words)?
R. Love: No.
If only this were true...
Meanwhile, celebratory gunfire is heard from troff and XML-DocBook users the world over!