* Requires fully patched IE (Inc all DRM) * Requires Win XP, 3.2Ghz Intel or better, 512Mb + , DX9 Graphics card * Requires DRM Hardware + Active X + cookies * Free virus execution * Requires a Microsoft Passport (Or.NET Passport) * Works occasionally * Works slower and strangly lacks a lot of linux links
My mother still uses her 386SX-20Mhz colour 640x480 laptop (Brick). Still using the origional 20Mb Hard disk but the batteries died around 10 years ago but runs off mains with no problems. It sounds like a turbine when switched on (I think the small fan on the rear is getting a bit worn).
Anyway she has used it almost daily since the machine was brand new (Dont know what year we got it I just remember it was the latest model when she got it). running windows 3.11 and a small selection of card games...
SCO: irrevocable doesn't mean forever
By Andrew Orlowski in San Francisco
Posted: 10/10/2003 at 07:31 GMT
Star Letter IBM, and now SGI claim that their UNIX(TM) licenses are irrevocable. Not on your nelly, says SCO - and is there anyone left on the planet who isn't aware of SCO's litigation against Linux and open source?
To:
Subject: Why do these guys keep calling the license irrevocable?
I have read over SGI's licenses and I've found no place where it says it is irrevocable. Why would anyone in their right mind sign over a license to anyone that was not revocable?.....
If the CD doesn't autorun on my computer I *MUST* first run the LaunchCd.exe (or whatever) so that when I then try and copy the disk it won't work (Or will sound crap).
OK. Honest BMG I will always run that program when trying to copy any disks. NOT!
Wouldn't it of just been cheaper for BMG to just place a notice saying "PLEASE DON'T COPY THIS CD"?
They already use windows based ATM's and most of time to local machine always has an error on the screen. (Looks like some kind of panic message from the kernel?!?!?)...
Good job the natwest machine next to it isn't using windows yet:)
The next edition of Office 2003 will include tools that will allow users to remove personal information from a document. It will also include new "information rights management" that will let an author specify who can read or forward a document."
So microsoft are going to add tools to remove what shouldn't be there in the first place? Can't they just fix their software to not include it in a first place! What is next? INTERNET EXPLORER 2008 will have a new feature that allows the user to stop virus's being automatically executed. Order now at $399 to protect your computer from our shoddy software!
SCO announce that Linus doesn't exist and that they actually wrote all of Linux and Apache and Postgresql and.... Someone hacked into your ftp server using their web browser and stole all your IP???.,.
For gods sake SCO give it a rest..
If SCO want us to respect their IP then they should tell us what IP is supposedly theirs so that it can be removed (Although we all know this will not happen for a long time because they are enjoying EXTORTING money out of everyone!) and then stop trying to STEAL/EXTORT our IP.
Does anybody else chuckle whenever they read about how (refering to themselves) SCO have for the last 20 years sold these products?? For fucks sake SCO you have written nothing.. YOU FAILED AT LINUX AND THEN BOUGHT "ORIGIONAL SCO's" IP AND THEN FAILED AT THAT TOO. IF ANYTHING YOU HAVE FAILED ALL OF THE ORIGIONAL SCO PROGRAMMERS AND JUST TO TOP IT OFF YOU ARE RUINING ALL OF UNIX's HISTORY.
Anyway even if SCO do find a judge who can be bought and in-turn ruin the GPL Licence do you really think thats it.. A new licence will be drawn up and all the origional programmers will licence their code under that and SCO will still end up with a ruined business.
And last of all a quick question for all of you.... If SCO destroy the GPL and inturn Linux won't that harm their new Linux Licence fees? Are SCO that STUPID? Or are SCO trying for the worlds best company suicide? (A Company Dawin award!?!!)
I agree with the poster about the fact that the GPL should stand up in court.I just think that SCO want to try and disgrace it with it's apparent loopholes involving other peoples IP. But it doesn't i seem to remember that it does say the other peoples IP is not wanted which is what most of the linux crowd are saying. SCO are just refusing to tell people what that IP is. I am getting sick of the number of times I have seen SCO comments about people not respecting their IP but if they really wanted anyone to respect it then they would of on day 1 shown the code and said "THIS IS OURS PLEASE REMOVE IT" at which point it would of been removed and recoded in days/weeks. SCO are blatently trying to extort money and hopefully any judge will realise this and bitch-slap them into hell..
exactly... Over the years SCO have realised that they cannot produce a good product (I am guessing this from the number of times I haven't seen SCO's unix's suggested for use!) and they were falling behind with their so called implementation of linux.
This was the only obvious way of making their last bit of money before folding. To top this off I suspect that, in order to make even more money, Darl and his mob had a nice pay-off from microsoft to try and do as much damage to linux as possible. Look at their stock report (set?) and it too makes it very clear that the only licences they have sold recently are microsoft and sun (Who again stand to gain by ridding the planet of linux!).. I also noticed from this report that they paid Novell over $1.7m for royalties! for what? I thought they own'd unix so why are they still paying?
Even if it was upto IBM to idemnify its customers I am guessing they won't because they know they will win these cases. Idemnifying their customers would be admitting that they had made changes which is all that SCO wants so that it can go crying to the court.
Mark.
I hope all those Linux users who are gatecrashing the SCO forum 2003 event stock up on rotten eggs/custard pies/rotten tomatoes etc... hehehehe
same here. I recently got a new hard drive and went about reinstalling Linux & Win2000. With 2000 I had to download the lastest video drivers/printer drivers/scanner drivers/soundcard drivers/camera drivers along with the numerous reboots while trying to get it all working.
Then I installed Mandrake 9.1 and it recognised and placed icons on the screen for the camera & scanner. It already knew about my printer & soundcard and set them up. The only thing i needed to install was the NVIDIA drivers which I admit can be a bit of a pain but it is fairly well documented than even the most novice of linux users could install it.
at the end of the day I think the time between a full install of windows was about twice as long as that of installing MDK9.1
its not Intertrust's fault that Microsoft couldn't implement it properly...But then again for all we know microsoft could of nicked their code as no-one would find out without access to the sources.....
and that intertrust have at least been through the courts to prove ownership unlike SCO who are just hoping that no-one finds out that they own nothing... (hopefully anyway!)
Where did the rest of the information go? The title of the section says " Insider & restricted shareholder transactions reported over the last two years" and I know for a fact that there were numerous inside tradings on this screen previously?!?!
this previous post of mine shows that this had been noticed before! which was just about the time that their stock peaked.
Why can't all the programmers that have contributed to the GPL now go after all SCO's customers saying that they are(/Maybe as in SCO's own threat they sent out to AIX/Linux users...) using a product which is in violation of the GPL because of the way SCO are operating and therefore they must pay X thousand $ per line of code per installation. If a great number of people do this then maybe SCO's own customers may complain that SCO stop this stupidity.
Oh well. One day this madness will end and hopfully SCO will be 10 feet under the ground...
I just read this in Linux Format (An UK magazine)..
It is at the end of the article titled "Who is SCO's next target?" on pages 6 and 7
"Former SCO developer Christoph Hellwig said the possibility of 'retrofitting' Unixware code into linux was remote as the kernel internals were so different. 'It might be more interesting to look for stolen linux code in Unixware, I'd suggest with the support for a very well known Linux filesystem in the Linux compat addon product for Unixware' he wrote......
so I wonder.. have SCO copied GPL code into their proprietry code? Maybe the developers of the filesystem code should request that SCO cease and desist all distribution of the code along with all copies with existing customers... A taste of their own medicine for once...
I have been looking around and there doesn't seem to be anything major from any of the big news sites showing overall support for SCO? Is this because NOBODY believes them?
Also found this which has some nice info about SCO's input the linux over the years (And searching on the person named in this document (jan@sco.com) a lot of this input from around the time IBM supposedly introduced this so-called IP into linux!)
oh well... hopfully someone will accidently drop a nuke on SCO in the near future..
Actually if you look a few weeks before SCO filed the lawsuits against IBM (On the 21st Feb 2003) you will see that by pure coincidence a lot of the directors and the VP all bought a few shares for sod all... maybe this is a sign that SCO did plan this just so that the shares would rocket.....
I thought at first that you must of been joking but then I looked here.. I am guessing that they will be doing this for as long as possible and then leave the company to the deep shit that it has dug itself into with full pockets.....
Slashdot Mirror
I wonder what wonderfull features MS will add?
.NET Passport)
* Requires fully patched IE (Inc all DRM)
* Requires Win XP, 3.2Ghz Intel or better, 512Mb + , DX9 Graphics card
* Requires DRM Hardware + Active X + cookies
* Free virus execution
* Requires a Microsoft Passport (Or
* Works occasionally
* Works slower and strangly lacks a lot of linux links
DONT DO IT GOOGLE...
My mother still uses her 386SX-20Mhz colour 640x480 laptop (Brick). Still using the origional 20Mb Hard disk but the batteries died around 10 years ago but runs off mains with no problems. It sounds like a turbine when switched on (I think the small fan on the rear is getting a bit worn).
Anyway she has used it almost daily since the machine was brand new (Dont know what year we got it I just remember it was the latest model when she got it). running windows 3.11 and a small selection of card games...
S.
SCO: irrevocable doesn't mean forever By Andrew Orlowski in San Francisco Posted: 10/10/2003 at 07:31 GMT
.....
Star Letter IBM, and now SGI claim that their UNIX(TM) licenses are irrevocable. Not on your nelly, says SCO - and is there anyone left on the planet who isn't aware of SCO's litigation against Linux and open source?
To: Subject: Why do these guys keep calling the license irrevocable?
I have read over SGI's licenses and I've found no place where it says it is irrevocable. Why would anyone in their right mind sign over a license to anyone that was not revocable?
Read the rest here
If the CD doesn't autorun on my computer I *MUST* first run the LaunchCd.exe (or whatever) so that when I then try and copy the disk it won't work (Or will sound crap).
OK. Honest BMG I will always run that program when trying to copy any disks. NOT!
Wouldn't it of just been cheaper for BMG to just place a notice saying "PLEASE DON'T COPY THIS CD"?
I like how slashdot will post any and all stories that are anti-SCO, but never post any stories that might actually show SCO to be right.
Why is this? Where's the Fair and Balanced coverage? Slashdot will never be more than a joke if it still practices this amateurish kiddie journalism.
Have you actually seen any pro-SCO articles? And I don't mean the FUD paid for by the likes of Microsoft/Sun/SCO/Canopy/Gartner..
If you want pro-SCO FUD then just check out the major press outlets as all they have been supplying for the last 8 months has been pro-sco.
At least this article uses facts to back it's statements unlike ALL the major press rubbish.
They already use windows based ATM's and most of time to local machine always has an error on the screen. (Looks like some kind of panic message from the kernel?!?!?)...
:)
Good job the natwest machine next to it isn't using windows yet
The next edition of Office 2003 will include tools that will allow users to remove personal information from a document. It will also include new "information rights management" that will let an author specify who can read or forward a document."
So microsoft are going to add tools to remove what shouldn't be there in the first place? Can't they just fix their software to not include it in a first place! What is next? INTERNET EXPLORER 2008 will have a new feature that allows the user to stop virus's being automatically executed. Order now at $399 to protect your computer from our shoddy software!
SCO announce that Linus doesn't exist and that they actually wrote all of Linux and Apache and Postgresql and.... Someone hacked into your ftp server using their web browser and stole all your IP???.,.
For gods sake SCO give it a rest..
If SCO want us to respect their IP then they should tell us what IP is supposedly theirs so that it can be removed (Although we all know this will not happen for a long time because they are enjoying EXTORTING money out of everyone!) and then stop trying to STEAL/EXTORT our IP.
Does anybody else chuckle whenever they read about how (refering to themselves) SCO have for the last 20 years sold these products?? For fucks sake SCO you have written nothing.. YOU FAILED AT LINUX AND THEN BOUGHT "ORIGIONAL SCO's" IP AND THEN FAILED AT THAT TOO. IF ANYTHING YOU HAVE FAILED ALL OF THE ORIGIONAL SCO PROGRAMMERS AND JUST TO TOP IT OFF YOU ARE RUINING ALL OF UNIX's HISTORY.
Anyway even if SCO do find a judge who can be bought and in-turn ruin the GPL Licence do you really think thats it.. A new licence will be drawn up and all the origional programmers will licence their code under that and SCO will still end up with a ruined business.
And last of all a quick question for all of you.... If SCO destroy the GPL and inturn Linux won't that harm their new Linux Licence fees? Are SCO that STUPID? Or are SCO trying for the worlds best company suicide? (A Company Dawin award!?!!)
Mark.
I thought Microsoft, like SCO, respected other peoples IP !?!?
I agree with the poster about the fact that the GPL should stand up in court.I just think that SCO want to try and disgrace it with it's apparent loopholes involving other peoples IP. But it doesn't i seem to remember that it does say the other peoples IP is not wanted which is what most of the linux crowd are saying. SCO are just refusing to tell people what that IP is. I am getting sick of the number of times I have seen SCO comments about people not respecting their IP but if they really wanted anyone to respect it then they would of on day 1 shown the code and said "THIS IS OURS PLEASE REMOVE IT" at which point it would of been removed and recoded in days/weeks. SCO are blatently trying to extort money and hopefully any judge will realise this and bitch-slap them into hell..
exactly... Over the years SCO have realised that they cannot produce a good product (I am guessing this from the number of times I haven't seen SCO's unix's suggested for use!) and they were falling behind with their so called implementation of linux.
This was the only obvious way of making their last bit of money before folding. To top this off I suspect that, in order to make even more money, Darl and his mob had a nice pay-off from microsoft to try and do as much damage to linux as possible. Look at their stock report (set?) and it too makes it very clear that the only licences they have sold recently are microsoft and sun (Who again stand to gain by ridding the planet of linux!).. I also noticed from this report that they paid Novell over $1.7m for royalties! for what? I thought they own'd unix so why are they still paying?
Mark
Even if it was upto IBM to idemnify its customers I am guessing they won't because they know they will win these cases. Idemnifying their customers would be admitting that they had made changes which is all that SCO wants so that it can go crying to the court.
Mark.
I hope all those Linux users who are gatecrashing the SCO forum 2003 event stock up on rotten eggs/custard pies/rotten tomatoes etc... hehehehe
same here. I recently got a new hard drive and went about reinstalling Linux & Win2000. With 2000 I had to download the lastest video drivers/printer drivers/scanner drivers/soundcard drivers/camera drivers along with the numerous reboots while trying to get it all working.
Then I installed Mandrake 9.1 and it recognised and placed icons on the screen for the camera & scanner. It already knew about my printer & soundcard and set them up. The only thing i needed to install was the NVIDIA drivers which I admit can be a bit of a pain but it is fairly well documented than even the most novice of linux users could install it.
at the end of the day I think the time between a full install of windows was about twice as long as that of installing MDK9.1
how cool is that. You can download laptops using Bittorrent now?!?
duh...
its not Intertrust's fault that Microsoft couldn't implement it properly...But then again for all we know microsoft could of nicked their code as no-one would find out without access to the sources.....
and that intertrust have at least been through the courts to prove ownership unlike SCO who are just hoping that no-one finds out that they own nothing... (hopefully anyway!)
Watching the simpsons yesterday evening were we?!?!
Where did the rest of the information go? The title of the section says " Insider & restricted shareholder transactions reported over the last two years" and I know for a fact that there were numerous inside tradings on this screen previously?!?!
this previous post of mine shows that this had been noticed before! which was just about the time that their stock peaked.
maybe they have asked yahoo to hide this info.
Why can't all the programmers that have contributed to the GPL now go after all SCO's customers saying that they are(/Maybe as in SCO's own threat they sent out to AIX/Linux users...) using a product which is in violation of the GPL because of the way SCO are operating and therefore they must pay X thousand $ per line of code per installation. If a great number of people do this then maybe SCO's own customers may complain that SCO stop this stupidity.
Oh well. One day this madness will end and hopfully SCO will be 10 feet under the ground...
I just read this in Linux Format (An UK magazine) ..
.....
It is at the end of the article titled "Who is SCO's next target?" on pages 6 and 7
"Former SCO developer Christoph Hellwig said the possibility of 'retrofitting' Unixware code into linux was remote as the kernel internals were so different. 'It might be more interesting to look for stolen linux code in Unixware, I'd suggest with the support for a very well known Linux filesystem in the Linux compat addon product for Unixware' he wrote.
so I wonder.. have SCO copied GPL code into their proprietry code? Maybe the developers of the filesystem code should request that SCO cease and desist all distribution of the code along with all copies with existing customers... A taste of their own medicine for once...
Mark.
I have been looking around and there doesn't seem to be anything major from any of the big news sites showing overall support for SCO? Is this because NOBODY believes them?
Also found this which has some nice info about SCO's input the linux over the years (And searching on the person named in this document (jan@sco.com) a lot of this input from around the time IBM supposedly introduced this so-called IP into linux!)
oh well... hopfully someone will accidently drop a nuke on SCO in the near future..
I guess someone at sco is still playing with linux as according to Netcraft somthing has been updated on their apache server today !
Linux Apache/1.3.14 (Unix) mod_ssl/2.7.1 OpenSSL/0.9.6 PHP/4.3.2-RC 17-Jun-2003 216.250.140.112 NFT
Linux Apache/1.3.14 (Unix) mod_ssl/2.7.1 OpenSSL/0.9.6 PHP/4.0.3pl1 20-Nov-2002 216.250.140.112 NFT
Yawn
Actually if you look a few weeks before SCO filed the lawsuits against IBM (On the 21st Feb 2003) you will see that by pure coincidence a lot of the directors and the VP all bought a few shares for sod all... maybe this is a sign that SCO did plan this just so that the shares would rocket.....
I thought at first that you must of been joking but then I looked here.. I am guessing that they will be doing this for as long as possible and then leave the company to the deep shit that it has dug itself into with full pockets.....