And the obligatory clueless newbie question "What version of Windows(tm)(C) does it run?"
So who really did the copying?
on
Latest SCO News
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
I can see many ways that SCO could be cheating on this 'under NDA' information.
1. They modified the code (either Linux or SCO base) before showing it to the examiner, to make it look like it was closer than it actually was. Did the examiner bring his own copy of the source trees, or use those supplied by SCO?
2. The code was copied FROM Linux into SCO. Judicious back dating would be used to try to hide this fact.
3. A non-programmer doesn't understand code, and is probably only looking at the comments. In a million lines of code how hard is it to find similiar comments in unrelated sections of code.
4. Both the SCO and Linux programmers read the same books/articles, and the comments are based on what was there, thus giving similiar comments. Do the comments match up to Knuth's books?
5. Both SCO and Linux got the code from the same source. How much of BSD has SCO copied into their kernel?
6. The code in question is similiar to what you do in your beginning programming classes, and most programmers use similiar comments for that kind of thing. How many different ways are there to comment a bubble sort?
7. Someone within SCO supplied the code to Linux. Maybe in preperation for this case.
8. etc.
Until SCO allows someone capable of researching the origins of the code in question, I'll continue to believe that it is SCO that is in the wrong.
The code for both systems is already available to many people. Allowing others to see what they are complaining about won't make the suspect code disappear. If they just pointed at a bit of Linux code, they wouldn't even have to show their own code.
The only reason for not disclosing it before the trial is to gain time to hide their trail, or to deny IBM time to research their wild claims.
b - Just too much installed to where they had 20+ icons in the system tray
So, how many programs are you able to install under Windows before it dies?
Do you mean that you should have seperate computers for each application you use? I can see how that would make Bill happy (selling all those Windows Licenses), but my desk would quickly get buried under all that hardware.
I have hundreds of applications installed under Linux, and that hasn't crashed it. What is wrong with Windows that it dies after 20?
The one question that really shows the difference between "open source" and "shared source", obviously has to be "Can I create my own fork"?
Disagreements with the original author about the direction a software package should go, or the apparent abandonment of some software, are two of the many good reasons for creating a fork. This approach allows for competition, and may the best version win. It may piss off the original author, but it allows for improved evolution of the software.
With 32K games is must be based on something existing. They didn't say good games, so they must have just uploaded a bunch from somewhere, probably freeware sites. They would want games they don't have to pay for, so old ones whose author is unknown. The Commodore 64 matches this quite nicely.
all sorts of wonderful new things can be invented that you and I can't imagine.
I'm guessing that the Anti-Virus groups have finally been able to catch most Word virii, so MicroSoft now needs something new to be able to generate the quanity and quality of this type of software that they demand.
If everyone got rid of their SUV's, then the figure would immediately drop to 17%. Those SUV's are using 83% of all the oil, generate 83% of the pollution, and cause 83% of all the deaths in the world. They use 83% of all the worlds resources to manufacture, and are used by only 1% of the worlds population. And they don't even require drivers to do their evil deeds.
At least that's what I've been hearing in the news lately.
Palladium is all about layers of security. If the hardware's secure, a secure OS can load. If the OS is secure, a secure app can load. If the app is secure, a secure file can load.
Considering MicroSoft's many attempts at making Windows secure, just how long do you think it will take for a virus to be written that will bypass all of their security systems?
I'll bet that someone will have code that bypasses all of their pallidium security before the retail version hits the shelves. MicroSoft wants you to believe that this will fix all of their security problems, but if you believe that then I have a bridge I'll sell you.
Aren't all mummies supposed to have a curse? Where are the mysterious deaths? The economic failures? The horrible diseases? It can't possibly be a real mummy without those!
Make an entire table setting out of this. You pull them out of their box, set the plates, cups, and silverware on the table, and never have to move them again! No more soapy water to deal with, no more looking for a last clean cup under the sofa! Bliss...
WinModem, WinPrinter, WinWifi, Win..., and running on Windows. It's going to be the slowest, most crashprone system around! Maybe this is why Captain Kurk could convince 5 different computers to self destruct, they were all running Windows on Win hardware. I'd also self destruct the first chance I had, if I had to deal with that.
I'm wondering if the "grappling hook" they found could have been attached to the "handles" of the "door" originally. Attach a rope to it and they may have been planning to pull the "door" out after putting the mummy in. If it broke loose from the door, I don't think they would have been able to do anything about it except cover the hole up and pretend it never happened.
Slashdot Mirror
MicroSoft: BOO!
Spammers: BOO!
Suing Spammers: YAY!
MicroSoft sues Spammers: BOO!--no YAY!--no BOO!--no ka-poW!!
I'm so confused...
And the obligatory clueless newbie question "What version of Windows(tm)(C) does it run?"
I can see many ways that SCO could be cheating on this 'under NDA' information.
1. They modified the code (either Linux or SCO base) before showing it to the examiner, to make it look like it was closer than it actually was. Did the examiner bring his own copy of the source trees, or use those supplied by SCO?
2. The code was copied FROM Linux into SCO. Judicious back dating would be used to try to hide this fact.
3. A non-programmer doesn't understand code, and is probably only looking at the comments. In a million lines of code how hard is it to find similiar comments in unrelated sections of code.
4. Both the SCO and Linux programmers read the same books/articles, and the comments are based on what was there, thus giving similiar comments. Do the comments match up to Knuth's books?
5. Both SCO and Linux got the code from the same source. How much of BSD has SCO copied into their kernel?
6. The code in question is similiar to what you do in your beginning programming classes, and most programmers use similiar comments for that kind of thing. How many different ways are there to comment a bubble sort?
7. Someone within SCO supplied the code to Linux. Maybe in preperation for this case.
8. etc.
Until SCO allows someone capable of researching the origins of the code in question, I'll continue to believe that it is SCO that is in the wrong.
The code for both systems is already available to many people. Allowing others to see what they are complaining about won't make the suspect code disappear. If they just pointed at a bit of Linux code, they wouldn't even have to show their own code.
The only reason for not disclosing it before the trial is to gain time to hide their trail, or to deny IBM time to research their wild claims.
That won't work if SCO cheats. They can just fake the dates on when the code was added to their sources.
Manhole covers are round because that's what fits the manhole. Ever try to put a square manhole cover on a round manhole?
They're not going after the spammer, they're going after the person who sent them 46,000 messages.
Imagine a Beowulf cluster of these...
b - Just too much installed to where they had 20+ icons in the system tray
So, how many programs are you able to install under Windows before it dies?
Do you mean that you should have seperate computers for each application you use? I can see how that would make Bill happy (selling all those Windows Licenses), but my desk would quickly get buried under all that hardware.
I have hundreds of applications installed under Linux, and that hasn't crashed it. What is wrong with Windows that it dies after 20?
The one question that really shows the difference between "open source" and "shared source", obviously has to be "Can I create my own fork"?
Disagreements with the original author about the direction a software package should go, or the apparent abandonment of some software, are two of the many good reasons for creating a fork. This approach allows for competition, and may the best version win. It may piss off the original author, but it allows for improved evolution of the software.
Use the fork, luke, use the fork!
With 32K games is must be based on something existing. They didn't say good games, so they must have just uploaded a bunch from somewhere, probably freeware sites. They would want games they don't have to pay for, so old ones whose author is unknown. The Commodore 64 matches this quite nicely.
2. lie - hell, it could even help. make it look like you live someplace glamorous rather than in the basement of your parent's house in Poughkeepsie.
What was the address of that spammer dude again?
Find the 2003 financial statement... ...289384 files match
...289383 files match
...839485 files match
Find the 2003 financal statement for mycompany...
Where the %@*# is the #?$^@ file I just created...
Subscribe them to a lot of snail-mail advertisements going directly to their homes.
Wonder if anyone thought of that one before...
What version of windows does it run?
Favorite quote:
If carpenters built buildings the way programmers write programs, then the first woodpecker to come along would destroy civilization.
We went to the moon??!!? When did that happen? Maybe I ought to get away from this terminal more often!
all sorts of wonderful new things can be invented that you and I can't imagine.
I'm guessing that the Anti-Virus groups have finally been able to catch most Word virii, so MicroSoft now needs something new to be able to generate the quanity and quality of this type of software that they demand.
If everyone got rid of their SUV's, then the figure would immediately drop to 17%. Those SUV's are using 83% of all the oil, generate 83% of the pollution, and cause 83% of all the deaths in the world. They use 83% of all the worlds resources to manufacture, and are used by only 1% of the worlds population. And they don't even require drivers to do their evil deeds.
At least that's what I've been hearing in the news lately.
Palladium is all about layers of security. If the hardware's secure, a secure OS can load. If the OS is secure, a secure app can load. If the app is secure, a secure file can load.
Considering MicroSoft's many attempts at making Windows secure, just how long do you think it will take for a virus to be written that will bypass all of their security systems?
I'll bet that someone will have code that bypasses all of their pallidium security before the retail version hits the shelves. MicroSoft wants you to believe that this will fix all of their security problems, but if you believe that then I have a bridge I'll sell you.
I don't think I could push even a MicroVAX off a table by myself.
A MicroVax 3100 is not much larger (or heavier) than a PC. I've hauled them all over by carrying them under one arm with no trouble.
Aren't all mummies supposed to have a curse? Where are the mysterious deaths? The economic failures? The horrible diseases? It can't possibly be a real mummy without those!
Make an entire table setting out of this. You pull them out of their box, set the plates, cups, and silverware on the table, and never have to move them again! No more soapy water to deal with, no more looking for a last clean cup under the sofa! Bliss...
WinModem, WinPrinter, WinWifi, Win..., and running on Windows. It's going to be the slowest, most crashprone system around! Maybe this is why Captain Kurk could convince 5 different computers to self destruct, they were all running Windows on Win hardware. I'd also self destruct the first chance I had, if I had to deal with that.
I'm wondering if the "grappling hook" they found could have been attached to the "handles" of the "door" originally. Attach a rope to it and they may have been planning to pull the "door" out after putting the mummy in. If it broke loose from the door, I don't think they would have been able to do anything about it except cover the hole up and pretend it never happened.