This is also one of the best ways to reck your economy and tell everyone `we're a desparate government with practically no credit and few options'. IOW, it's a really bad idea.
Netcraft mentioned this in their latest monthly newsletter:
One site that has not changed is www.sco.com, where people continue to delight in the irony of SCO using the operating system whose deployment they are seeking to restrict.
When even Netcraft is having fun with it, you know it's real.
Not only do they make noises, they will rear back and wildly attack you if you come too close, beating their wings and trying to bite you, while hissing like a cat.
So what you're telling me is that it is credible for Zeus to rape what's-her-name in the form of a swan?
No, partly because we don't have the power to collect taxes from anyone (nor do we wish to). This is what differentiates us from the Spanish left-`anarchists', btw.
when it was originally written, it was a polemic against the 'Cathederal' method of software development being practiced by the GNU Emacs development team.
Which the GNU Emacs development team promptly lept into action and ignored.
Consider literature. Two books start with "once upon a time". Doesn't mean they are copied. And non-programmers wouldn't assume it either.
This is not the same. Here's why: most non-programmers have read more than enough books (or other sources of common knowledge) to realize that ``once upon a time'' is a pretty common opening line. OTOH, they haven't read much (if any) software, so they don't know what kind of things are common. You can't always tell what's common, and what isn't, without actual knowledge of the space within which the things are to be common.
Re:didn't read the article did ya'?
on
Latest SCO News
·
· Score: 1
One doesn't. One does have to be a non-programmer to tell the difference between a programmer's individual analysis of a hard problem, and standard documentation which is guaranteed to be very similar between the two kernels.
IBM can't have contributed SCO code from Project Monterey, because SCO's only contribution to Project Monterey was i386 support---something Linux already had before IBM showed up.
If there are identical comments (and SCO isn't just copying Linux code for the `UnixWare' corner of the evidence), that's probably about the way of it, really.
Slashdot Mirror
If their vision were ever creative, I'd be more concerned about this.
The problem with sex and nudity is that those are things you do in private, not in public---and movies are public.
Killing people, OTOH, is perfeclty natural and done in public. That's the difference.
Lucent (not ATT) doesn't (any more) require you not to export Plan 9. They just want you to agree that if you do, they aren't liable.
Or perhaps the NT team couldn't stand working on i386en, so they had a compat. layer to work on their beloved Alphas.
s/German/Anglo-Saxon, and the reasoning is that Vaxes sounds silly.
Problem is, as detailed in ESR's position paper, JFS comes from OS/2, not anything Unix, while Linus rejected IBM's NUMA approach and wrote his own.
Don't know about RCU, but I'm sure it's a similar deal there.
Who's Shnnn?
This is also one of the best ways to reck your economy and tell everyone `we're a desparate government with practically no credit and few options'. IOW, it's a really bad idea.
I (vaguely) remember that. INTERCAL designed by people who didn't know it was a joke, IIRC.
That's GWBasic.
What, you mean you don't have your obsolete useless languages memorized? Shame on you.
You got to start in QBasic? You don't know how lucky you are. Back when I started, we had to line-number our programs. And we were grateful!
Assuming, of course, that there is still ancestral SysV code in AIX.
When even Netcraft is having fun with it, you know it's real.
Lemme guess---your good friend is ESR, right?
So what you're telling me is that it is credible for Zeus to rape what's-her-name in the form of a swan?
No, partly because we don't have the power to collect taxes from anyone (nor do we wish to). This is what differentiates us from the Spanish left-`anarchists', btw.
Which the GNU Emacs development team promptly lept into action and ignored.
Maybe I'm just prejudiced, but I don't think his finger is on the trigger.
So, what's SCO's P/E ratio now? It's got to be sky-high.
This is not the same. Here's why: most non-programmers have read more than enough books (or other sources of common knowledge) to realize that ``once upon a time'' is a pretty common opening line. OTOH, they haven't read much (if any) software, so they don't know what kind of things are common. You can't always tell what's common, and what isn't, without actual knowledge of the space within which the things are to be common.
One doesn't. One does have to be a non-programmer to tell the difference between a programmer's individual analysis of a hard problem, and standard documentation which is guaranteed to be very similar between the two kernels.
IBM can't have contributed SCO code from Project Monterey, because SCO's only contribution to Project Monterey was i386 support---something Linux already had before IBM showed up.
No no no no no. /* SUS 2 requires this */
If there are identical comments (and SCO isn't just copying Linux code for the `UnixWare' corner of the evidence), that's probably about the way of it, really.
It's either that or /* SUS x.y requires this */.