There's been talk about a screen version of Good Omens on and off for several years now, but the film seems to be more or less dead in the water. Is there any hope that this film will actually get made at some point? If not, are there any chances of you and Pratchett working on a sequel?
My girlfriend called me not 20 minutes before this article went up asking what RPC was and why it was shutting her computer down whenever she got on the Internet. A quick glance at this article's headline followed by a thorough read of symmantec's removal instructions led to me calling her back and another day saved! Thanks, Slashdot! Thanks, Symmantec Security Response Team!
That's a big part of the plan. They also get to try to wrangle out a statement from SCO that says "Only IBM need fear this lawsuit, and not any other linux users or companies" and this problem is relegated down to a business dispute and linux can continue worry-free.
SCO has consistently stated that our UNIX System V source code and derivative UNIX code have been misappropriated into Linux 2.4 and 2.5 kernels. We have been showing a portion of this code since early June. SCO has not been trying to spread fear, uncertainty and doubt to end users. We have been educating end users on the risks of running an operating system that is an unauthorized derivative of UNIX. Linux includes source code that is a verbatim copy of UNIX and carries with it no warranty or indemnification. SCO's claims are true and we look forward to proving them in court.
Recent correspondence from SCO to Red Hat further explains SCO's position.
The first letter is from Bob Bench, CFO of The SCO Group, Inc., to Mark Webbink, Sr. Vice President and General Counsel of Red Hat, Inc., that SCO intended to send to Red Hat. After a conversation between Matthew Szulik and Darl McBride, Red Hat determined that SCO did not need to send this letter.
The second letter is one that was sent to Matthew Szulik today from Darl McBride after Red Hat's lawsuit was filed.
July 31, 2003
Mark Webbink, Esq.
Sr. Vice President and General Counsel
RED HAT, INC.
1801 Varsity Drive
Raleigh, NC 27606
VIA FACSIMILE: (919) 754-3700
Dear Mr. Webbink:
This letter is in response to yours of July 18, 2003 to Darl McBride President and CEO of The SCO Group, Inc. ("SCO").
Before responding to your request, it is important to place your letter in context. Your letter follows on the heels of Red Hat's S-3 filing of July 7, 2003, in which your company revised its risk disclosure statement.[1] In addition, SCO is currently engaged in litigation with International Business Machines Corporation ("IBM") regarding its role in the development of the Linux operating system. At the time of your letter, we had expected the possibility of a global resolution of SCO's intellectual property claims against all Linux-related companies that would have likely included Red Hat. This effort has apparently stalled, through no fault of SCO.
Based on the posture of our litigation and your revised risk disclosures, it is unclear to us the purpose of your July 18, 2003 letter. If you desire to enter good faith discussions to address SCO's intellectual property claims against Linux, either on behalf of a wider consortium of Linux companies or solely on behalf of Red Hat, we are willing to meet with you for that purpose. In any such meeting, we will provide example after example of infringement of our intellectual property found in Linux. Of course, any such demonstration must be pursuant to an acceptable confidentiality agreement and must be intended to further good faith discussions about resolving the differences between us.
If you seek information for the purpose of informal discovery intended to benefit IBM in the pending litigation, or for the purpose of devising
your own litigation plans against SCO related to Linux, we must respectfully decline your request. Therefore, please clarify in writing the purpose for your request. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Robert Bench
Chief Financial Officer
The SCO Group, Inc.
[1] Red Hat states in the revised disclosure that it is "vulnerable to claims that [its] products infringe third-party intellectual property rights particularly because [its] products are comprised of distinct software components many of which are developed by independent parties." The revised risk disclosure continues: "[M]uch of the code in [Red Hat's] products is developed by independent parties over whom we exercise no supervision or control... [and Red Hat's] lack of access to unpublished software patent applications, copyright registrations which fail to adequately disclose source code, and numerous issued software patents that are of dubious validity... Claims of infringement could require us to seek to obtain
>Most Australians struggle to remember the first >verse of the anthem, let alone know the other >three verses, or even that three others exist
Interesting fact about America's anthem, too. It's known so well from ballparks singing the first verse that most people would look at you funny if you implied there was more.
Eh? You say that you want them to make a music site designed exclusively for Windows and then...not spend time and money to make sure it works with Internet Explorer? Eh? You got +3 insightful?
Oh, come on, Escape Velocity is a league above EVE. It may be single player and 2D, but you don't fight things by clicking on the approach other spaceship and attack button. Pirates are SCARY! Missions are FUNNY! This game is just rampant awesome and the first game that actually deserves to be called part sim, part trading game, part fighting game, because it does well at all 3.
I have a problem with people telling their doctors they want a specific drug. If your doctor chooses between two drugs, and he doesn't select the one that works better and has fewer side effects, maybe you need to switch doctors instead of having him write presriptions for drugs he doesn't recommend on his own.
To put it another way: if you hire a programmer and tell him precisely which algorithms to use in exactly which way, you've hired a typist. Likewise, if you let them do what they want and they write awful, buggy code, you get a better programmer instead of telling them exactly how to do it right every time.
This is a job for a desk-bound computer. I'm a senior in college myself, and I've seen too many people get nothing out of a class because they sit there and use instant messenger over the wireless network while the professor drones on. I think if I had one, I'd be very tempted to do the same thing during those long, dull lectures. Worse yet, I might install nethack on it!
Instead, get a PC, set up some sort of display-sharing (be it Windows remote desktop or VNC) and use that from computer labs between classes if you need to. Plus, you can use all that extra computer you got from going the desktop route to host an Enemy Territory server while you're away!
He said it said vendors may be liable. If Mr. Transistor actually RTF summary, he might have noticed that the post did NOT say that vendors would be responsible, but commercial users. That means end-users in companies, not distribution companies.
I feel like a nerd, but I'd like to point out that this is a plot point in Star Trek. Kirk is fighting Khan and realizes that Khan is thinking about the battle in 2D because he's from a long time ago, so Kirk makes sure to make extensive use of all 3 axes.
But I AM on subject, mostly. A key was released, and now there's the option of easily getting a hold of a free copy. As far as I'm concerned, that makes Windows a lot like shareware, whether they want it to be that way or not. My point (amoung other bits of rant) is that if you use Windows XP and you're happy with it, you should probably "register," or purchase a legitimate copy of it, especially if you've got a good discount rate.
You apparently really like Microsoft's operating system and Office suite......but you don't want to pay lots of money for it......but fortunately your school lets you buy it for $30......but you stole it anyway.
So, you must think Windows is a quality product worth having, otherwise you wouldn't've used practically every edition since 98, yet you don't feel that you should have to pay for it, because you're special?
I mean, sure, $200 is way to much to pay, but are you really gonna argue that Windows XP isn't worth $30? For all the slack we give Microsoft, they make a product, and if they want to charge you money for it, you're obliged to pay them, use somebody else's, or write your own.
And now you're bragging about how easy it is for you to use cracks other folks found/leaked for you? Wow, you have much 1e37/V3s5. Go grab a WinZip cracker to get rid of that annoying nag screen. It's way cheaper than paying the shareware registration cost!
Slashdot Mirror
There's been talk about a screen version of Good Omens on and off for several years now, but the film seems to be more or less dead in the water. Is there any hope that this film will actually get made at some point? If not, are there any chances of you and Pratchett working on a sequel?
I don'nt know how long it's been there, but openssh 3.7_p1 is already up. Just emerge sync ; emerge -u openssh. Yay Gentoo!
Reason Windows programmers program: Pay
Reason Linux programmers program: Fun
Chance of love and thoughtfulness put into code: ERROR: DISCREPENCY DETECTED
Hey, you're right, there IS a difference!
Actually...that's a pretty darn smart point. Now I feel stupid for not realizing that one myself.
My girlfriend called me not 20 minutes before this article went up asking what RPC was and why it was shutting her computer down whenever she got on the Internet. A quick glance at this article's headline followed by a thorough read of symmantec's removal instructions led to me calling her back and another day saved! Thanks, Slashdot! Thanks, Symmantec Security Response Team!
That's a big part of the plan. They also get to try to wrangle out a statement from SCO that says "Only IBM need fear this lawsuit, and not any other linux users or companies" and this problem is relegated down to a business dispute and linux can continue worry-free.
SCO has consistently stated that our UNIX System V source code and derivative UNIX code have been misappropriated into Linux 2.4 and 2.5 kernels. We have been showing a portion of this code since early June. SCO has not been trying to spread fear, uncertainty and doubt to end users. We have been educating end users on the risks of running an operating system that is an unauthorized derivative of UNIX. Linux includes source code that is a verbatim copy of UNIX and carries with it no warranty or indemnification. SCO's claims are true and we look forward to proving them in court.
... [and Red Hat's] lack of access to unpublished software patent applications, copyright registrations which fail to adequately disclose source code, and numerous issued software patents that are of dubious validity ... Claims of infringement could require us to seek to obtain
Recent correspondence from SCO to Red Hat further explains SCO's position.
The first letter is from Bob Bench, CFO of The SCO Group, Inc., to Mark Webbink, Sr. Vice President and General Counsel of Red Hat, Inc., that SCO intended to send to Red Hat. After a conversation between Matthew Szulik and Darl McBride, Red Hat determined that SCO did not need to send this letter.
The second letter is one that was sent to Matthew Szulik today from Darl McBride after Red Hat's lawsuit was filed.
July 31, 2003
Mark Webbink, Esq.
Sr. Vice President and General Counsel
RED HAT, INC.
1801 Varsity Drive
Raleigh, NC 27606
VIA FACSIMILE: (919) 754-3700
Dear Mr. Webbink:
This letter is in response to yours of July 18, 2003 to Darl McBride President and CEO of The SCO Group, Inc. ("SCO").
Before responding to your request, it is important to place your letter in context. Your letter follows on the heels of Red Hat's S-3 filing of July 7, 2003, in which your company revised its risk disclosure statement.[1] In addition, SCO is currently engaged in litigation with International Business Machines Corporation ("IBM") regarding its role in the development of the Linux operating system. At the time of your letter, we had expected the possibility of a global resolution of SCO's intellectual property claims against all Linux-related companies that would have likely included Red Hat. This effort has apparently stalled, through no fault of SCO.
Based on the posture of our litigation and your revised risk disclosures, it is unclear to us the purpose of your July 18, 2003 letter. If you desire to enter good faith discussions to address SCO's intellectual property claims against Linux, either on behalf of a wider consortium of Linux companies or solely on behalf of Red Hat, we are willing to meet with you for that purpose. In any such meeting, we will provide example after example of infringement of our intellectual property found in Linux. Of course, any such demonstration must be pursuant to an acceptable confidentiality agreement and must be intended to further good faith discussions about resolving the differences between us.
If you seek information for the purpose of informal discovery intended to benefit IBM in the pending litigation, or for the purpose of devising
your own litigation plans against SCO related to Linux, we must respectfully decline your request. Therefore, please clarify in writing the purpose for your request. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Robert Bench
Chief Financial Officer
The SCO Group, Inc.
[1] Red Hat states in the revised disclosure that it is "vulnerable to claims that [its] products infringe third-party intellectual property rights particularly because [its] products are comprised of distinct software components many of which are developed by independent parties." The revised risk disclosure continues: "[M]uch of the code in [Red Hat's] products is developed by independent parties over whom we exercise no supervision or control
It worked for Representative Dean. It can work for linux.
>Most Australians struggle to remember the first
>verse of the anthem, let alone know the other
>three verses, or even that three others exist
Interesting fact about America's anthem, too. It's known so well from ballparks singing the first verse that most people would look at you funny if you implied there was more.
Eh? You say that you want them to make a music site designed exclusively for Windows and then...not spend time and money to make sure it works with Internet Explorer? Eh? You got +3 insightful?
Oh, come on, Escape Velocity is a league above EVE. It may be single player and 2D, but you don't fight things by clicking on the approach other spaceship and attack button. Pirates are SCARY! Missions are FUNNY! This game is just rampant awesome and the first game that actually deserves to be called part sim, part trading game, part fighting game, because it does well at all 3.
Microsoft's not FAT either. It's mostly NTFS nowadays.
Bah.
I have a problem with people telling their doctors they want a specific drug. If your doctor chooses between two drugs, and he doesn't select the one that works better and has fewer side effects, maybe you need to switch doctors instead of having him write presriptions for drugs he doesn't recommend on his own.
To put it another way: if you hire a programmer and tell him precisely which algorithms to use in exactly which way, you've hired a typist. Likewise, if you let them do what they want and they write awful, buggy code, you get a better programmer instead of telling them exactly how to do it right every time.
Professor Dijkstra can at least spell his name, which is better than can be said about you. Besides, of course he isn't always right. He's not Turing.
This is actually quite standard...
In fact...[it's] somewhat rare.
Dude, make up your mind!
This is a job for a desk-bound computer. I'm a senior in college myself, and I've seen too many people get nothing out of a class because they sit there and use instant messenger over the wireless network while the professor drones on. I think if I had one, I'd be very tempted to do the same thing during those long, dull lectures. Worse yet, I might install nethack on it! Instead, get a PC, set up some sort of display-sharing (be it Windows remote desktop or VNC) and use that from computer labs between classes if you need to. Plus, you can use all that extra computer you got from going the desktop route to host an Enemy Territory server while you're away!
C'mon, it returns an int, so for the love of lint, call it int main()!!
He said it said vendors may be liable. If Mr. Transistor actually RTF summary, he might have noticed that the post did NOT say that vendors would be responsible, but commercial users. That means end-users in companies, not distribution companies.
These two things are not mutually exclusive.
He worshipped the shiny side, and the mighty deity whose image he saw in it.
Wow, his CDs always have my face in the siny side, too? I was starting to think it was just me!
Wow, that would be unbelievably great, but could you condense it down to only a few movies? A dekalogy might have a few too many sequels.
woot! A link to one of Je77's swikis, and now Billy's mentioned specifically if not by name. Neato!
I feel like a nerd, but I'd like to point out that this is a plot point in Star Trek. Kirk is fighting Khan and realizes that Khan is thinking about the battle in 2D because he's from a long time ago, so Kirk makes sure to make extensive use of all 3 axes.
But I AM on subject, mostly. A key was released, and now there's the option of easily getting a hold of a free copy. As far as I'm concerned, that makes Windows a lot like shareware, whether they want it to be that way or not. My point (amoung other bits of rant) is that if you use Windows XP and you're happy with it, you should probably "register," or purchase a legitimate copy of it, especially if you've got a good discount rate.
Let's see here...
...but you don't want to pay lots of money for it... ...but fortunately your school lets you buy it for $30... ...but you stole it anyway.
You apparently really like Microsoft's operating system and Office suite...
So, you must think Windows is a quality product worth having, otherwise you wouldn't've used practically every edition since 98, yet you don't feel that you should have to pay for it, because you're special?
I mean, sure, $200 is way to much to pay, but are you really gonna argue that Windows XP isn't worth $30? For all the slack we give Microsoft, they make a product, and if they want to charge you money for it, you're obliged to pay them, use somebody else's, or write your own.
And now you're bragging about how easy it is for you to use cracks other folks found/leaked for you? Wow, you have much 1e37/V3s5. Go grab a WinZip cracker to get rid of that annoying nag screen. It's way cheaper than paying the shareware registration cost!