So does just about anything else with any economic value so why bring this up?
I mean, is it just me or is anybody eles sick of all this, what about the terrorists shit, that seems to infest every plan for the future we have?
Frankly I say fuck them, every opportunity we let pass us by because a tiny minority of extremist arseholes might wish to blow it up, is a victory for them.
So lets build our elevator and stop living in fear.
There are a number of small British Island dependencies out there, such as Diego Garcia, which are ideally situated (and well defended) for such a venture.
As it's obvious from the tone of your comments that you didn't read either of them.
I just like to point out that Mr. Keogh applied for his patents to highlight the fact that so many bogus patents are allowed to stand. Not to try and grab royalties from wheel users.
So show him the respect he deserves for standing up for common sense instead of trying to sound righteous about his nefarious act.
Defense of free speech can surely only apply to consensual acts.
In our societies we have judged children incapable of informed consent to sexual acts with adults, and any adult engaging in such acts with children are commiting criminal offenses.
IMHO anybody can write and say what they want, they can make up paedophile stories or post their thoughts on why the law is wrong, but publishing images showing children being abused can not be seen as an expression of free speech due to the lack of consent of the child involved.
And just to point this out, Child Porn is already banned.
"No Mr. Capone shouldn't be charged with forming a Trust, as market realities have to be taken into consideration. Instead we should write into law a permanent exemption for Mr. Capone and his organisation, the Mafia." said Senator Charles Deneen yesterday to the Senate, whilst proposing the text of his new EnFORCE bill, which is designed to reduce crime by making several current crimes legal and preventing legislation against several potential crimes.
I can't imagine this having happened, but I can imagine RIAA getting their way.
Why?
Because the political types of today, even if they in some small numbers do have principals, seem all to willing to sell those priciples down the sewer in exchange for a piece of whatever pie happens to be offered at the table.
People like Orin Hatch are a stench in the nostrils of all decent liberty loving people.
Well...
At least over at Claude Bernard, Lyon 1 University in France, they have demonstrated a data carrier laser system which can penetrate clouds and fog.
I imagine som ecomercial application of that would be useful here.
My favourite is amendment 16 and it's marvelous justification:
Amendment 16
Article 5
Member States shall ensure that the forms of claims in respect of a computer-implemented invention may be made only to the effect that the invention is a product, that is a programmed computer, a programmed computer network or other programmed apparatus, or a technical production process controlled by such a computer, computer network or apparatus through the execution of software.
Justification
The present wording of Article 5 is confusing because a 'process carried out by a computer' could be taken to denote any piece of software if that software were claimed to produce the technical effect of displaying information on a computer screen, which in reality is what a computer is designed to do. A process carried out by computer has no technical effect in itself. The purpose of the changes is to ensure that no computer process can be patentable as such.
So many patents granted in the USA seem to use this evil loophole that it is sincerely gratifying to see it explicitly addressed and defanged.
Whilst i'd prefer no patents at all, it seems that they are inevitable and we must strike the best bargain we can, I'd personally say that these amendments, usefuly serve to tilt the balance in favour of society and away from the Microsoft/BSA drafted original and in many cases provide effects,which I am sure are, entirely contrary to their interests.
As mentioned time and again in the amendment justifications, it now remains to 'reign in' the EPO, which seems to be a simple money making mill for it's unelected unrepresentitive rulers, who have been allowing large numbers of 'computer' related patents through already.
If we are to ever have faith in the EPO and these new patents, the EPO must become publically acountable and cease to benefit financially from the grant or refusal of patents.
Of course the actual code itself could be clean room reimplemented using documented variables and algorythms, possible those from The C Programming Language
Or maybe taken from the V5/6/7/32v code which was found to be no longer protected by copyright and effectively public domain.
Given that the code shown seems to have come from an adaptation designed to allow certain SGI boxen to run linux, and Irix is BSD based.
It's quite likely the code originated with them at some point, and it's entirely possible that SGI have some form of exemption from the Advertising clause negotiated in the dark ages of the early 1990s
Ok your a troll but **They** Didnt write the Linux Kernel.
The only code they've so far shown anybody (2 snippets snapped at their show by Heisse) is from Ancient Unix and is covered by the BSD License from BSD 2.2 Onwards also released from its original 16bit Unix V5 under a BSD license by Caldera / the SCO group a couple of years back.
The license you bought, you can wipe your arse with, it's all its good for.
You don't have to be a zealot to know that this is the code IBM donated from their Sequent division.
What will be interesting is if when the dust settles this is the kernel code that SCaldera have claimed is theirs and has been copied verbatim into the Kernel.
Pretty amusing when you consider that not a single line of this code originated with SCO/Caldera/AT&T or Novell and in fact the SCO group have never owned any of this code and agreements and amendments to the original SYS 5r4 license signed between IBM and AT&T grant IBM full control over any code they create for use with AIX, and that Sequent developed the technology seperate from Unix but implemented it on Unix which disallows claims from SCaldera that the code is a derivative of their work.
our technology a dominant position may, in practice, be shutting U.S. companies out of future marketplaces, as tech customers seek a way around excessive royalties and restrictions.
This is indeed something which I think will happen if the present US laws are allowed to stand and are perhaps extended into Europe.
There is a term for this type of regulatory aid to National Enterprises: Mercantilism
As each Block seeks to protect its own markets with regulation including copyrights and patents which favour companies from within the block versus those from elsewhere, the markets will become increasingly reluctant to innovate and as many innovations will possibly infringe on existing patents, copyrights, national protective legislation etc, overbroad and lacking in utility.
Most innovation will occur in areas where such regulations are slack in comparison.
Perversely these innovations will not benefit the large closed markets for the same reasons, and lacking in the ability to make use of these new innovations by either importing or internal manufacturing due to high Intellectual Property costs making innovations uneconomic in comparison to exisiting products and services.
It could well be that as Large Multi-National corporations take flight to less regulated economies to gain low cost labour and low cost innovation, those jobs lost will not be replaced by new jobs created via the utilisation of new innovations, in effect locking unemployment into the system.
We can follow this up with an examination of how the USPTO has been increasing the number of patents granted for seemingly spurious claims and look at the fact that the EU is considering enacting a similar set of rules, thanks to the tireless lobbying of US Corporations and US led Industry Pressure Groups, and see that if such Laws are made compatible with existing US patents and US issued patents have the same legal status as EU patents within the EU then a financial bonanza will be the reward for the lobbyists and the US economy in general.
This will however be very short-term and will likely result in an enormous amount of cross regulation where the US Coporations will face IP claims from EU Corporations designed to close out US entry to the EU marketplace and vice versa.
And almost certainly an increase in the amount of Industrial Espionage in order to be first to file IP for Patents.
It becomes difficult to see why such measures could be considered useful, but in the short term view which afflicts most corporations worldwide, the opportunity to grab a legal monopoly over entire areas of innovation, potentialy bringing many billions of $ of revenue for little to no outlay, will define how our Governments regulate on these matters.
Or maybe they offered him $80 Million upfront to sign a seven record deal and agree to take a cut of his future non Record label earnings as well as pay record promotional expenses out of their own pockets whilst Robbie agreed to produce the music in his own studio?
None of this changes the fact that Disney selected these very tales because they were in the public domain and he could make free use of them as he willed and keep all the profits.
No offence here, but old Walt died before congress began it's multi generational extention system at the behest of his heirs. We ought not to mistake the man and the company that bears his name.
and in the process, we killed a few thousand more of those self-same people
There is always a hard question when deciding if this type of action is needed.
Should we act? As it always will result in lives lost.
My personal opinion, and I freely admit I could be wrong, is that in circumstances where not only are individuals killed by types like Saddam, but entire groups of people live impoverished half lives, where all doors of opportunity are closed from the outset, then action which results in the death of members of the present generation can be mitigated by the future freedom of their children.
I am the first to admit that things aren't even as simple as that makes out, some nations, Iran as an example, have chosen their own oppressors and persisit in retaining them regardless the suffering and damaged caused. How we choose to deal with these nations is an interesting question. Because to deal fairly we have to understand what causes people to crave Certainty over Liberty and what that means for our societies.
I don't have the answers just opinions, and I believe that a great many people honestly believe that the liberty of others is not worth even one drop of blood particularly when it involes sacrificing our comfortable lifestyle, and I can't help but wonder if Fredrick Douglass, my personal hero, would have agreed with them as he fought his long battle with his own oppressors and watched a Nation rise up in arms to strike them down.
lol, well thats one way of seeing things, but if we only react instead of act then things can get bad. Deciding when to act is the key, as all our opinions on others and events is speculation. Should I stand in the middle of a busy road, are my speculations that I may get hit by a vehicle irrelevant? should I wait and see before acting?
But should I, standing in a field, worry about being struck by a falling comet and hide under my tinfoil hat?
Yes potentially any of us is a threat to others, but not many of us are a threat on the grand scale that Saddam was, and to answer your point, I would have to go through a much longer chain of ifs to become that kind of threat, so much so that we can rule it out as very low possibility.
As for my opinions on whether Saddam would have done anything, I would say he was already doing something, torturing, killing and oppressing many, many of 'his' people, and imho this was reason enough to go after him.
Sic Semper Tyranis was good enough for your rogue States when they formed a Confederacy to continue the enslavement of others, and I believe, as free people we owe it to the oppressed to break their chains.
It's true that politicos make these types of judgements every day, and I for one don't envy them the choices they make, dealing with potential future threats is always going to be controvertial and highly risky.
If you feel they picked the wrong nest of vipers or misled you and others, which I feel is a possibility, then you are free to exercise your vote against them and campaign to convince others that your opinion is correct, and if you feel that there is nobody worth voting for then you have the right to Stand for office yourself on whatever platform you want, for all the derision it entails, we do after all live in Democracies.
If the US had done nothing, and lets say Hans Blix found no more illegal weapons than the Al-Samood Missiles, then our cross channel chums, the French and their Russian and German friends would have begun the clamour for the sanctions against Iraq to be lifted so they could commence rearming Iraq, building Nuclear power plants for Saddam and in the case of the Russians, rebuilding his Airforce, Army, Secret Police services and taking virtual control of Iraq's oil pipelines.
2 years later we have Iraq once again awash with cash, not I admit in the sense that the people of Iraq would see much of it, lots of course would go to paying debts to the Old Europe Troika, but Saddams oil revenues and taxes should total around $110bn per annum. Around half of which would be spent on debt service and what passed for government in Iraq, the rest would be available for Saddam to spend on his new toys.
I imagine that our Russian friends would be eager to sell Saddam any number of T-90 tanks and SU-35 jets etc. our friendly neighbourhood proliferators China would sell Saddam any number of Missiles and lets not forget the Honoured Leader KIM Chong-il is reputed to have around 10 Nuclear warheads stashed away, perhaps he'd trade a few for some ready cash. Or perhaps some of Saddam's nuclear scientist would dig up the Centrifuge parts hidden in their gardens and rebuild his own program.
Then Kindly old Saddam would be quite free to march south again and unite Iraq with Kuwait and probably Saudi Arabia and the Gulf Emirates, whilst our political types argued about whether it would be worth losing London or New York in exchange for saving Riadh, and I suspect that as long as Saddam kept the faucet open he could expect to get away with it.
History has shown us that you can't make deals with Fascists, you cant ask them to be reasonable because they seek power for it's own ends and cannot be satisfied with anything less.
But how will this affect IBM, in the case that SCO does have a right to the code IBM wrote on AIX and distributed in the Linux kernel?
The problem for SCO here is how the courts have continuously viewed 'derivative works.'
Up until now a derivative has to be something which builds upon and expands the original work and devised specifically for that work.
IBM, before implementing JFS, obtained patents on many of the concepts used to build JFS ( see patent nos. 5,201,044, 5,222,217, 5,455,946 for a few examples) and these related to any OS.
They also published many documents studying the concept of journaling file systems.
This means that IBM's JFS is an application separate to the original SVR4 platform and can be implemented on any platform without being considered a derivative.
What SCO are contending is that items like JFS, NUMA &tc. are in fact derivatives of SVR4 due to the fact that IBM, SGI & co. has used these applications to extend the functionality of their licensed SVR4 derivative OSes, in the same way that if IBM used the source code to the find command to extend it's functionality it would be a derivative and therefore covered by the SVR4 license agreement.
SCO conveniently ignore, as part of their legal fiction, the fact that JFS is a separate product implemented on several different OSes and intended to be implemented on several OSes from the get-go, this really is an All your base are belong to us style claim
SCO don't have a hope in hell of pulling this off successfully, to do so requires that the Legal system goes against all prior precedent.
A realistic equivilant would be Apple suing Microsoft for ownership of MS Office because the MAC version is a derivative of the MAC OS by virtue of using MAC OS APIs.
Actually I quite like the Debian installer, but then again I've installed Debian on a large number of machines and love it's speed and simplicity.
As for unstable, I've no doubt that in time it will move to testing and then stable, and all the while my Debian b0x3n will be as solid as ever, whilst others scratch their heads over the latest and greatest buggy packages pushed into the latest and greatest Commercial Distros.
(All that being said I do have a soft spot for Red Hat for my desktop box)
lol,
As the analytical engine would be functionaly similar to an early 1960s chunk of IBM Iron, say an IBM 1401, similar amount of storage space, though nothing like as fast.
I imagine with the correct sequence of punch cards it could run a seriously reduced size Linux port:)
To make any seriously fun use, ie a webserver or more akin to the tech a BBS running on an AE we'd need to add an authentic networking module to the AE, perhaps using 1860s telegraph technology;)
Slashdot Mirror
You can change the name but you cant change the smell, and SCO, whadeva you call it stinks to high heavens.
I mean, is it just me or is anybody eles sick of all this, what about the terrorists shit, that seems to infest every plan for the future we have? Frankly I say fuck them, every opportunity we let pass us by because a tiny minority of extremist arseholes might wish to blow it up, is a victory for them.
So lets build our elevator and stop living in fear.
There are a number of small British Island dependencies out there, such as Diego Garcia, which are ideally situated (and well defended) for such a venture.
I just like to point out that Mr. Keogh applied for his patents to highlight the fact that so many bogus patents are allowed to stand.
Not to try and grab royalties from wheel users.
So show him the respect he deserves for standing up for common sense instead of trying to sound righteous about his nefarious act.
In our societies we have judged children incapable of informed consent to sexual acts with adults, and any adult engaging in such acts with children are commiting criminal offenses.
IMHO anybody can write and say what they want, they can make up paedophile stories or post their thoughts on why the law is wrong, but publishing images showing children being abused can not be seen as an expression of free speech due to the lack of consent of the child involved.
And just to point this out, Child Porn is already banned.
Well... Dictionary.com has the following for confabulate:
#1 To talk casually; chat.
#2 Psychology. To fill in gaps in one's memory with fabrications that one believes to be facts.
I'd say number 2 is without a doubt the correct use for the word. Also Sco can be realistically refered to by the euphemism number two
I can't imagine this having happened, but I can imagine RIAA getting their way.
Why?
Because the political types of today, even if they in some small numbers do have principals, seem all to willing to sell those priciples down the sewer in exchange for a piece of whatever pie happens to be offered at the table.
People like Orin Hatch are a stench in the nostrils of all decent liberty loving people.
Well... At least over at Claude Bernard, Lyon 1 University in France, they have demonstrated a data carrier laser system which can penetrate clouds and fog. I imagine som ecomercial application of that would be useful here.
Amendment 16
Article 5
Member States shall ensure that the forms of claims in respect of a computer-implemented invention may be made only to the effect that the invention is a product, that is a programmed computer, a programmed computer network or other programmed apparatus, or a technical production process controlled by such a computer, computer network or apparatus through the execution of software.
Justification
The present wording of Article 5 is confusing because a 'process carried out by a computer' could be taken to denote any piece of software if that software were claimed to produce the technical effect of displaying information on a computer screen, which in reality is what a computer is designed to do. A process carried out by computer has no technical effect in itself. The purpose of the changes is to ensure that no computer process can be patentable as such.
So many patents granted in the USA seem to use this evil loophole that it is sincerely gratifying to see it explicitly addressed and defanged.
Whilst i'd prefer no patents at all, it seems that they are inevitable and we must strike the best bargain we can, I'd personally say that these amendments, usefuly serve to tilt the balance in favour of society and away from the Microsoft/BSA drafted original and in many cases provide effects ,which I am sure are, entirely contrary to their interests.
As mentioned time and again in the amendment justifications, it now remains to 'reign in' the EPO, which seems to be a simple money making mill for it's unelected unrepresentitive rulers, who have been allowing large numbers of 'computer' related patents through already.
If we are to ever have faith in the EPO and these new patents, the EPO must become publically acountable and cease to benefit financially from the grant or refusal of patents.
Of course the actual code itself could be clean room reimplemented using documented variables and algorythms, possible those from The C Programming Language
Or maybe taken from the V5/6/7/32v code which was found to be no longer protected by copyright and effectively public domain.
Given that the code shown seems to have come from an adaptation designed to allow certain SGI boxen to run linux, and Irix is BSD based.
It's quite likely the code originated with them at some point, and it's entirely possible that SGI have some form of exemption from the Advertising clause negotiated in the dark ages of the early 1990s
The only code they've so far shown anybody (2 snippets snapped at their show by Heisse) is from Ancient Unix and is covered by the BSD License from BSD 2.2 Onwards also released from its original 16bit Unix V5 under a BSD license by Caldera / the SCO group a couple of years back.
The license you bought, you can wipe your arse with, it's all its good for.
Sadly, that sort of thing happens when you wake up as drunk as you were when you went to sleep :..(
What will be interesting is if when the dust settles this is the kernel code that SCaldera have claimed is theirs and has been copied verbatim into the Kernel.
Pretty amusing when you consider that not a single line of this code originated with SCO/Caldera/AT&T or Novell and in fact the SCO group have never owned any of this code and agreements and amendments to the original SYS 5r4 license signed between IBM and AT&T grant IBM full control over any code they create for use with AIX, and that Sequent developed the technology seperate from Unix but implemented it on Unix which disallows claims from SCaldera that the code is a derivative of their work.
This is indeed something which I think will happen if the present US laws are allowed to stand and are perhaps extended into Europe.
There is a term for this type of regulatory aid to National Enterprises: Mercantilism
As each Block seeks to protect its own markets with regulation including copyrights and patents which favour companies from within the block versus those from elsewhere, the markets will become increasingly reluctant to innovate and as many innovations will possibly infringe on existing patents, copyrights, national protective legislation etc, overbroad and lacking in utility.
Most innovation will occur in areas where such regulations are slack in comparison.
Perversely these innovations will not benefit the large closed markets for the same reasons, and lacking in the ability to make use of these new innovations by either importing or internal manufacturing due to high Intellectual Property costs making innovations uneconomic in comparison to exisiting products and services.
It could well be that as Large Multi-National corporations take flight to less regulated economies to gain low cost labour and low cost innovation, those jobs lost will not be replaced by new jobs created via the utilisation of new innovations, in effect locking unemployment into the system.
We can follow this up with an examination of how the USPTO has been increasing the number of patents granted for seemingly spurious claims and look at the fact that the EU is considering enacting a similar set of rules, thanks to the tireless lobbying of US Corporations and US led Industry Pressure Groups, and see that if such Laws are made compatible with existing US patents and US issued patents have the same legal status as EU patents within the EU then a financial bonanza will be the reward for the lobbyists and the US economy in general.
This will however be very short-term and will likely result in an enormous amount of cross regulation where the US Coporations will face IP claims from EU Corporations designed to close out US entry to the EU marketplace and vice versa. And almost certainly an increase in the amount of Industrial Espionage in order to be first to file IP for Patents.
It becomes difficult to see why such measures could be considered useful, but in the short term view which afflicts most corporations worldwide, the opportunity to grab a legal monopoly over entire areas of innovation, potentialy bringing many billions of $ of revenue for little to no outlay, will define how our Governments regulate on these matters.
Or maybe they offered him $80 Million upfront to sign a seven record deal and agree to take a cut of his future non Record label earnings as well as pay record promotional expenses out of their own pockets whilst Robbie agreed to produce the music in his own studio?
No offence here, but old Walt died before congress began it's multi generational extention system at the behest of his heirs. We ought not to mistake the man and the company that bears his name.
There is always a hard question when deciding if this type of action is needed.
Should we act? As it always will result in lives lost.
My personal opinion, and I freely admit I could be wrong, is that in circumstances where not only are individuals killed by types like Saddam, but entire groups of people live impoverished half lives, where all doors of opportunity are closed from the outset, then action which results in the death of members of the present generation can be mitigated by the future freedom of their children.
I am the first to admit that things aren't even as simple as that makes out, some nations, Iran as an example, have chosen their own oppressors and persisit in retaining them regardless the suffering and damaged caused. How we choose to deal with these nations is an interesting question. Because to deal fairly we have to understand what causes people to crave Certainty over Liberty and what that means for our societies.
I don't have the answers just opinions, and I believe that a great many people honestly believe that the liberty of others is not worth even one drop of blood particularly when it involes sacrificing our comfortable lifestyle, and I can't help but wonder if Fredrick Douglass, my personal hero, would have agreed with them as he fought his long battle with his own oppressors and watched a Nation rise up in arms to strike them down.
Should I stand in the middle of a busy road, are my speculations that I may get hit by a vehicle irrelevant? should I wait and see before acting?
But should I, standing in a field, worry about being struck by a falling comet and hide under my tinfoil hat?
Yes potentially any of us is a threat to others, but not many of us are a threat on the grand scale that Saddam was, and to answer your point, I would have to go through a much longer chain of ifs to become that kind of threat, so much so that we can rule it out as very low possibility.
As for my opinions on whether Saddam would have done anything, I would say he was already doing something, torturing, killing and oppressing many, many of 'his' people, and imho this was reason enough to go after him.
Sic Semper Tyranis was good enough for your rogue States when they formed a Confederacy to continue the enslavement of others, and I believe, as free people we owe it to the oppressed to break their chains.
It's true that politicos make these types of judgements every day, and I for one don't envy them the choices they make, dealing with potential future threats is always going to be controvertial and highly risky.
If you feel they picked the wrong nest of vipers or misled you and others, which I feel is a possibility, then you are free to exercise your vote against them and campaign to convince others that your opinion is correct, and if you feel that there is nobody worth voting for then you have the right to Stand for office yourself on whatever platform you want, for all the derision it entails, we do after all live in Democracies.
If the US had done nothing, and lets say Hans Blix found no more illegal weapons than the Al-Samood Missiles, then our cross channel chums, the French and their Russian and German friends would have begun the clamour for the sanctions against Iraq to be lifted so they could commence rearming Iraq, building Nuclear power plants for Saddam and in the case of the Russians, rebuilding his Airforce, Army, Secret Police services and taking virtual control of Iraq's oil pipelines.
2 years later we have Iraq once again awash with cash, not I admit in the sense that the people of Iraq would see much of it, lots of course would go to paying debts to the Old Europe Troika, but Saddams oil revenues and taxes should total around $110bn per annum. Around half of which would be spent on debt service and what passed for government in Iraq, the rest would be available for Saddam to spend on his new toys.
I imagine that our Russian friends would be eager to sell Saddam any number of T-90 tanks and SU-35 jets etc. our friendly neighbourhood proliferators China would sell Saddam any number of Missiles and lets not forget the Honoured Leader KIM Chong-il is reputed to have around 10 Nuclear warheads stashed away, perhaps he'd trade a few for some ready cash. Or perhaps some of Saddam's nuclear scientist would dig up the Centrifuge parts hidden in their gardens and rebuild his own program.
Then Kindly old Saddam would be quite free to march south again and unite Iraq with Kuwait and probably Saudi Arabia and the Gulf Emirates, whilst our political types argued about whether it would be worth losing London or New York in exchange for saving Riadh, and I suspect that as long as Saddam kept the faucet open he could expect to get away with it.
History has shown us that you can't make deals with Fascists, you cant ask them to be reasonable because they seek power for it's own ends and cannot be satisfied with anything less.
Whilst I would have worries about that in some circumstances, I really don't think SCO are in a position to buy law, they don't have the cash.
The problem for SCO here is how the courts have continuously viewed 'derivative works.'
Up until now a derivative has to be something which builds upon and expands the original work and devised specifically for that work.
IBM, before implementing JFS, obtained patents on many of the concepts used to build JFS ( see patent nos. 5,201,044, 5,222,217, 5,455,946 for a few examples) and these related to any OS. They also published many documents studying the concept of journaling file systems.
This means that IBM's JFS is an application separate to the original SVR4 platform and can be implemented on any platform without being considered a derivative.
What SCO are contending is that items like JFS, NUMA &tc. are in fact derivatives of SVR4 due to the fact that IBM, SGI & co. has used these applications to extend the functionality of their licensed SVR4 derivative OSes, in the same way that if IBM used the source code to the find command to extend it's functionality it would be a derivative and therefore covered by the SVR4 license agreement.
SCO conveniently ignore, as part of their legal fiction, the fact that JFS is a separate product implemented on several different OSes and intended to be implemented on several OSes from the get-go, this really is an All your base are belong to us style claim
SCO don't have a hope in hell of pulling this off successfully, to do so requires that the Legal system goes against all prior precedent.
A realistic equivilant would be Apple suing Microsoft for ownership of MS Office because the MAC version is a derivative of the MAC OS by virtue of using MAC OS APIs.
As for unstable, I've no doubt that in time it will move to testing and then stable, and all the while my Debian b0x3n will be as solid as ever, whilst others scratch their heads over the latest and greatest buggy packages pushed into the latest and greatest Commercial Distros. (All that being said I do have a soft spot for Red Hat for my desktop box)
lol, :) ;)
As the analytical engine would be functionaly similar to an early 1960s chunk of IBM Iron, say an IBM 1401, similar amount of storage space, though nothing like as fast.
I imagine with the correct sequence of punch cards it could run a seriously reduced size Linux port
To make any seriously fun use, ie a webserver or more akin to the tech a BBS running on an AE we'd need to add an authentic networking module to the AE, perhaps using 1860s telegraph technology