SCO doesn't give a rat's ass about IBM. They only sued IBM hoping for a quick, yet precedent-setting settlement in which IBM would acknowledge SCO's "ownership" of Linux, of course failing to specify which parts of Linux SCO "owned". SCO would then use that to claim "ownership" of all Linux and try to put RedHat, SuSe, and all of the others out of business, leaving them as the sole Linux distributor on the planet, and immediately making Linux closed source.
Of course, SCO was also banking on IBM not giving a shit about OSS or the developers, or about their supposedly small linux server business.
Ummm... WRONG. Now SCO is up the shit creek without a paddle. Instead of getting slapped with a little of IBM's chump change, they got slapped with a death warrant.
Nice going. I can't wait until the stock crashes, although I can't fathom how it went up 33% this week.. but you know what they say, there's a sucker born every minute.
And with that, their P/E ratio is an astonishing 115+!
Do what you will with that information - I don't want to sound like I'm offering any kind of advice because next thing you know, SCO will be suing me for making their stock go down. I wouldn't put anything past those fuckers now...
I think they must be - I was fully expecting a "Troll" rating on this one:) There was definitely a karma battle going on, but since they wienered out and changed to percentages, I don't know how many points were expended on each side.
That said, I still think benchmarks are complete BS. When they start "optimizing" things for benchmarks, their credibility and technical relevance are GONE.
I want them optimizing their stuff for MY APPLICATIONS, not the damn benchmarks.
Plain and simple. It's wrong to steal things from people.
Lojack "phones home" when your car is stolen, what's wrong with that? Absolutely nothing, because everyone wants to see a car thief get caught.
Why shouldn't someone's software phone home when it is stolen? How is a software thief any different than a car thief?
If I spent a couple of years of my life writing a piece of software, you can bet your ass it'll phone home whenever it's installed, uninstalled, started, and every hour while it's running...
Thank you so much! I will appreciate that very much. I submitted it as a comment on your website as well, so it's poking around somewhere on there. -EH
Dear Mr. Ball, I read the recent article posted on Slashdot and CNET about your transition to Linux after being harassed by the BSA. As a musician, Linux user, and businessman, I was very pleased to read about it. I'm very happy that you've had a good experience with the transition to Linux and wholeheartedly agree with you that the FUD campaign about TCO is a complete farse. Thank you so much for speaking out in favor of Linux and Free Software. Your glowing testimonial will go far in opening peoples' eyes to the benefits of Linux and also toward dispelling the fears surrounding the transitions to Free Software. Sincerely Eric Hidle ehidle@ie-ap.org
I would rephrase that letter more in terms of the legal allegations rather than their motives. I would not speculate as to their motive - only to the fact that they are demanding payment for a violation that they have so far refused to prove or support. They are demanding payment for something that there is no reasonable or prudent common knowledge evidence that they own; something that isn't theirs; under threat of lawsuit.
Ham Radio has possibly been polished in some peoples' eyes - namely the ones who have been saved by it. But, Ham Radio is far from safe, especially in this administration.
Ham Radio has allocated to it lots of very valuable spectrum, especially in the microwave and VHF bands. These frequency allotments have been desired by the corporate sector for decades as a vehicle for profit. We're constantly in danger of losing allocation to corporate interests, especially in an administration that looks at ham radio as a "free" "non-profit" and therefore "useless" activity.
Not that I like the ARRL, but they really are the only voice for Hams in congress. It also doesn't help that Radio Shack will sell a radio to any unlicensed idiot that walks through the door. "Oh yeah, it's kinda like CB."
I responded to another guy who didn't understand what I was trying to say before.
SCO *will* "prove" their case - by presenting their code which has a prior date. My point was that, for a jury, _that will be enough_. Once the plaintiff makes their case, the defendant has the opportunity to refute their evidence, and that is what I was talking about.
Of course the burden of proof is on the accuser - but what SCO is going to do is present THEIR FILES that have a date preceding the linux kernel. That would probably be sufficient proof in a civil case because the jury will buy it.
That is what they are going to offer as proof, and it will be the responsibility of the linux community to refute that proof.
You do make a valid point about the suit against IBM. They have not (yet) filed a copyright suit because that would require them to furnish the code during the discovery phase of the trial - and also immediately notify everyone of the infringing code in exercise of their due diligence to stop the infringement.
However, what they are doing to USERS now is directly related to the copyright claims. They are using the claim of copyright (an unproven assertion) to intimidate people into giving them money (extortion). They are also artificially inflating their stock price so they can profit from the propagation of wilfully false information. So, there is indeed an immediate copyright issue to deal with - and it will have to be dealt with at some point or another.
You know, I've seen some good ideas before, but I think this one takes the cake. This would be a fantastic way for the IBM lawyers to rack up the billable hours and give a little $$ back to the community.
Paralegals get billed out at around $50/hr I think, and get paid about $20/hr... I'd be happy to do research for $20/hr and let IBM make some money off of me - if it meant pummeling SCO into a green ooze...
It is so great that everyone here in the/. community is so on top of this. It's great that so many of you know where to look to find the true origins of the "stolen" code, that by today's evidence, is obviously not stolen.
However, this is not yet the time to celebrate. SCO is claiming 829,000 lines of code was "stolen" from SMP code alone. Of course this is probably ridiculous, but a screen shot of some comments from the late 70's only shows that those particular comments were not stolen.
There is still a lot of work to do. Mr. McBride is creating so much work because for each claim of copyright, the onus is going to be on the linux community to find the origins and prove the allegations wrong. SCO is only going to present SCO code that was supposedly 'written' before the linux code. Their entire offense is going to rest solely upon the fact that they have a plaintext file with an earlier date than the linux kernel's corresponding code file.
The work is going to be on our backs to locate even older code that SCO's predecessors used to write SYS V. I would raise the bar as well and go so far as to attempt to show that SCO's code was itself misappropriated.
We are just now starting to see how much work we have in front of us, and believe me, that mountain of work is only going to get larger. But, as with the development of linux itself, there are millions of developers across the globe that will be able to find evidence to refute each and every one of their fraudulent and baseless claims.
You shouldn't be going anywhere near mains wiring unless you're a licensed and bonded electrician.
If you're not, and you fsck something up, you (or your estate, as the case may be) will not only be liable for damage to your equipment, but also to damage to any of the power company's equipment you might destroy in the process...
Slashdot Mirror
Well, it's official, 14 moderator points used on my post. It's a record. In the past, I have only been able to garner 11.
:)
Insightful: 7
Funny : 1 (oddly, the original intent)
Troll : 4
Overrated : 2
Looks like I win this round
... from day 1.
SCO doesn't give a rat's ass about IBM. They only sued IBM hoping for a quick, yet precedent-setting settlement in which IBM would acknowledge SCO's "ownership" of Linux, of course failing to specify which parts of Linux SCO "owned". SCO would then use that to claim "ownership" of all Linux and try to put RedHat, SuSe, and all of the others out of business, leaving them as the sole Linux distributor on the planet, and immediately making Linux closed source.
Of course, SCO was also banking on IBM not giving a shit about OSS or the developers, or about their supposedly small linux server business.
Ummm... WRONG. Now SCO is up the shit creek without a paddle. Instead of getting slapped with a little of IBM's chump change, they got slapped with a death warrant.
Nice going. I can't wait until the stock crashes, although I can't fathom how it went up 33% this week.. but you know what they say, there's a sucker born every minute.
And with that, their P/E ratio is an astonishing 115+!
Do what you will with that information - I don't want to sound like I'm offering any kind of advice because next thing you know, SCO will be suing me for making their stock go down. I wouldn't put anything past those fuckers now...
First the time server
/.)
Then the e-mail server (from the helpdesk requests)
Then the webserver (from
What next?
Well of course they are. The Linux kernel "belongs to them." It's "their code" that was surreptitiously stolen by IBM.
I can't believe SCO is claiming ownership to the entire Linux kernel now (don't ask me to cite it, but I read it somewhere recently).
Also, to say someone can't give their code away even if they want to is bullshit.
Yet still, this nagging pull in the back of my brain keeps telling me not to underestimate the power of a jury packed with stupid people.
On slashdot, it's hard to piss away karma, even when you want to :)
"are you insane?"
:) There was definitely a karma battle going on, but since they wienered out and changed to percentages, I don't know how many points were expended on each side.
Nope, not in the least
"are the people that modded you up insane?"
I think they must be - I was fully expecting a "Troll" rating on this one
That said, I still think benchmarks are complete BS. When they start "optimizing" things for benchmarks, their credibility and technical relevance are GONE.
I want them optimizing their stuff for MY APPLICATIONS, not the damn benchmarks.
And when are comparisons of two cards ever different by more than +/- 10% in the benchmarks?
Didn't have to.
Do I trust benchmarks? No.
Will I ever trust benchmarks? No.
Are benchmarks meaningful in any way? No.
Do benchmarks have any credibility whatsoever? No.
'nuff said
Plain and simple. It's wrong to steal things from people.
Lojack "phones home" when your car is stolen, what's wrong with that? Absolutely nothing, because everyone wants to see a car thief get caught.
Why shouldn't someone's software phone home when it is stolen? How is a software thief any different than a car thief?
If I spent a couple of years of my life writing a piece of software, you can bet your ass it'll phone home whenever it's installed, uninstalled, started, and every hour while it's running...
Thank you so much! I will appreciate that very much. I submitted it as a comment on your website as well, so it's poking around somewhere on there.
-EH
A note for Sterling:
Dear Mr. Ball, I read the recent article posted on Slashdot and CNET about your transition to Linux after being harassed by the BSA. As a musician, Linux user, and businessman, I was very pleased to read about it. I'm very happy that you've had a good experience with the transition to Linux and wholeheartedly agree with you that the FUD campaign about TCO is a complete farse. Thank you so much for speaking out in favor of Linux and Free Software. Your glowing testimonial will go far in opening peoples' eyes to the benefits of Linux and also toward dispelling the fears surrounding the transitions to Free Software.
Sincerely
Eric Hidle
ehidle@ie-ap.org
I would rephrase that letter more in terms of the legal allegations rather than their motives. I would not speculate as to their motive - only to the fact that they are demanding payment for a violation that they have so far refused to prove or support. They are demanding payment for something that there is no reasonable or prudent common knowledge evidence that they own; something that isn't theirs; under threat of lawsuit.
I'd also run it through a spell checker...
They are going to try to settle out of court to set precendent that they do indeed own the code..
It's the same concept that PanIP is using. Sue a couple of little guys, get settlements, use that as precedent in suits against bigger fish, profit...
This idea occur to anyone else? What could be better than an HF net where everyone just talks about linux all the time? :)))
No, I have to disagree whole-heatedly with you.
Ham Radio has possibly been polished in some peoples' eyes - namely the ones who have been saved by it. But, Ham Radio is far from safe, especially in this administration.
Ham Radio has allocated to it lots of very valuable spectrum, especially in the microwave and VHF bands. These frequency allotments have been desired by the corporate sector for decades as a vehicle for profit. We're constantly in danger of losing allocation to corporate interests, especially in an administration that looks at ham radio as a "free" "non-profit" and therefore "useless" activity.
Not that I like the ARRL, but they really are the only voice for Hams in congress. It also doesn't help that Radio Shack will sell a radio to any unlicensed idiot that walks through the door. "Oh yeah, it's kinda like CB."
heh...
I responded to another guy who didn't understand what I was trying to say before.
SCO *will* "prove" their case - by presenting their code which has a prior date. My point was that, for a jury, _that will be enough_. Once the plaintiff makes their case, the defendant has the opportunity to refute their evidence, and that is what I was talking about.
Sorry if I was unclear..
You missed my point.
Of course the burden of proof is on the accuser - but what SCO is going to do is present THEIR FILES that have a date preceding the linux kernel. That would probably be sufficient proof in a civil case because the jury will buy it.
That is what they are going to offer as proof, and it will be the responsibility of the linux community to refute that proof.
You do make a valid point about the suit against IBM. They have not (yet) filed a copyright suit because that would require them to furnish the code during the discovery phase of the trial - and also immediately notify everyone of the infringing code in exercise of their due diligence to stop the infringement.
However, what they are doing to USERS now is directly related to the copyright claims. They are using the claim of copyright (an unproven assertion) to intimidate people into giving them money (extortion). They are also artificially inflating their stock price so they can profit from the propagation of wilfully false information. So, there is indeed an immediate copyright issue to deal with - and it will have to be dealt with at some point or another.
You know, I've seen some good ideas before, but I think this one takes the cake. This would be a fantastic way for the IBM lawyers to rack up the billable hours and give a little $$ back to the community.
Paralegals get billed out at around $50/hr I think, and get paid about $20/hr... I'd be happy to do research for $20/hr and let IBM make some money off of me - if it meant pummeling SCO into a green ooze...
I guess the next time a recall is issued for my car, they'll just come and tow it away to be fixed regardless of where I am or what I'm doing..
Maybe the cops will pull me over and force me to take my car in to be fixed right there on the spot...
Maybe the government will start forcing me to do things "for my own good" because they know what's good for me better than I do...
Where the fsck does this look like we're going?
The first time M$ tries to connect to my computer, I'm going to consider it CyberTerrorism(TM) and press charges...
It is so great that everyone here in the /. community is so on top of this. It's great that so many of you know where to look to find the true origins of the "stolen" code, that by today's evidence, is obviously not stolen.
However, this is not yet the time to celebrate. SCO is claiming 829,000 lines of code was "stolen" from SMP code alone. Of course this is probably ridiculous, but a screen shot of some comments from the late 70's only shows that those particular comments were not stolen.
There is still a lot of work to do. Mr. McBride is creating so much work because for each claim of copyright, the onus is going to be on the linux community to find the origins and prove the allegations wrong. SCO is only going to present SCO code that was supposedly 'written' before the linux code. Their entire offense is going to rest solely upon the fact that they have a plaintext file with an earlier date than the linux kernel's corresponding code file.
The work is going to be on our backs to locate even older code that SCO's predecessors used to write SYS V. I would raise the bar as well and go so far as to attempt to show that SCO's code was itself misappropriated.
We are just now starting to see how much work we have in front of us, and believe me, that mountain of work is only going to get larger. But, as with the development of linux itself, there are millions of developers across the globe that will be able to find evidence to refute each and every one of their fraudulent and baseless claims.
You are a Darwin award waiting to happen...
You shouldn't be going anywhere near mains wiring unless you're a licensed and bonded electrician.
If you're not, and you fsck something up, you (or your estate, as the case may be) will not only be liable for damage to your equipment, but also to damage to any of the power company's equipment you might destroy in the process...
Are you sure YOU weren't the cause of the blackout of 2003?
"'ll listen to the radio until they find a way to shut that down too (or make people pay to listen)."
or until they make it so crappy you can't stand to listen....
oh wait...
nevermind...
I pay $2.20 on my bill for "number portability."
I called to let them know that I am dropping them for another carrier at the end of this month, and that I planned on taking my number with me...
They said, and this was a real gas, "We don't offer that service. You'll have to give up your phone numbers if you leave Sprint."
"But you're charging me for number portability!"
"I'm sorry, sir, but you won't be able to keep your numbers"
"Then why are you charging me for number portability"
"Sir, Federal regulations require that we charge the number portability fee"
"..."
I couldn't believe my ears..
Anyone else with Sprint heard the same story? I think that charging a fee for a service one can't utilize comes down to, oh I dunno, fraud...