If (note that word) this pans out and the accused did indeed release one of the variants, his teen ass needs to rot in a jail cell for an extended length of time, and his bank account, if any, needs to be reset to a very large negative number.
If (again, note that word) he did it, I have absolutely no sympathy what so ever.
I've seen several comments to the effect of SCO is not consistent in their actions.
I'm sorry to say that yes they are very consistant. Their statements consistently look like the ramblings of a bunch of inbred morons who have no concept of what is right or the truth. They also consistently lie to their stock holders in order to inflate the price of their otherwise worthless company. SCO Unix was irrelevant when it was the original SCO. It is even less relevant now. My two dogs taking a dump contribute more to Linux, free software, and the General Good of the World than SCO Unix ever will. Instead of "Santa Cruz Operation", SCO should change its name to something more realistic and honest, like maybe "Some Crummy Obsolete Unix". If Darl McButtmonkey and his fellow retards (I started to call them stooges, but that is insulting to all the other stooges in the world) would spend some time actually working on a decent product they would not have to turn to lies and baseless threats to pump up their stock values.
Hey McButtmonkey, I use Linux commercially, and I've got a hundred bucks that says you don't have the balls to sue me for it...especially since eunuchs like you don't have balls.
Since such blatant advertising is now allowed...
on
Mandrake 9.2 RC1
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
...I'm sure that the powers that be at Slashdot will not mind it at all if I mention that I have also been making discs of the betas available for sale at http://www.getlinuxcheap.us.
In reality, I highly object to such blatant advertising disguised as a supposed "news" story. But I'm posting my url here because, simply stated, if Slashdot sees nothing wrong with plugging that site, then as a loyal Slashdot member for many years I expect to be accorded the same treatment.
Unfortunately Darl McBride has shown he is, for lack of a better phrase, a friggin' nut case. This means it will be impossible to reason with him. He won't realize what a laughing stock he is until SCO lies in ruins and the stockholders have nothing left of value.
Like others have said, if the evidence shown so far is their best evidence, we don't have a damned thing to worry about, and in fact SCO will be found guilty of violating the BSD license.
Now, if you'll pardon me, I need to run to the bank and cash my check from IBM...
You are, of course, entitled to your opinion. That's what makes this a great place. But let me throw this at you...
I like Linux. I am booted in to Mandrake 9.1 and running Mozilla Firebird (or what ever they are calling it this week) as we speak. I have also run various installs of Slackware and Redhat, and have run Linux at least part time since about 1994. I'm not tell you this because I want an award, I just want you to be aware that I am certainly not a starry eyed newbie, nor am I a Bill Gates fanboy.
Last night I installed Mandrake 9.1 on a different machine, using the images provided on Mandrake's web site.
Now, if Linux is so damned much more secure, why did I need to follow that install up by downloading almost 200 meg of "security updates"?
Notice that I did not, however, say that Linux is less secure than Windows. While I am typing this reply I am also working on installing a Windows XP image on this same machine using VMware. And as soon as the initial install was done, I am now following that up by downloading MANY megabytes of "critical updates".
My contention is that neither OS is 100% secure, both have their security problems, neither one is necessarily more or less secure than the other, and neither one will ever be 100% secure. Windows, by virtue of its market share, is simply a more popular target.
While Microsoft certainly has its problems, this attitude is pretty much, in my opinion, bullshit. If the statistics were reversed and Apple or Linux had 95% of the market you'd see just as much trashing on those systems as you see now on Windows. Script kiddies are going to attack what ever gets them the most attention. And attacking something that only has 3% of the market does not get them that attention.
Its the same philosophy of why more Corvettes get stolen than Yugos. Nobody wants a Yugo.
Yes, Windows has internal problems. All OSes do. Its a fact of life.
He calculated the number of supporters in the "silent majority" using the same new math he used to determine that there were over a million lines of copied code in the Linux kernel.
I have started printing out SCOs press releases so I can save them and spread them on my garden for next year. Normally I would have to pay top dollar for bullshit that rich and strong.
This is a perfect example of why I maintain a good relationship, both on a social and business level, with a friend who is a certified electrician. I take care of his computer needs, he takes care of my electrical needs. I have a similar relationship with my attorney.
If the obviously brain damaged shitheads at SCO wants to play like that, fine, let them. It can work to our advantage.
Since SCO claims the GPL is invalid and therefore SCO is not bound by it, then that works both ways. Authors of the software are not bound by it either. Therefore, everyone who has ever written a line of code that is used anywhere in GNU/Linux should now inform SCO that their rights to distribute the author's code has been withdrawn, royalties for any future distribution will be required, and royalties for past distribution are now due...just like SCO is wanting to do to IBM. If they want to play games, then dammit we can play games too. Batter up!
Keep in mind also that, since SCO did not name the supposed Fortune 500 sucke^H^H^H^H^Hcompany, they could simply being lying out their ass, spreading even more FUD than they currently are. SCO has been so full of fecal matter thus far, I refuse to believe anything they have to say until such time as they present proof of their claims in the form of a release of infringing source code (and I mean enough to prove their point, not 80 fucking lines) with no NDA attached. I will now continue to ignore SCO, and continue running Linux any damned way I please. And if SCO doesn't like it, they can kiss my ass.
First we spent years of time and hundreds of man-hours debating whether it was pronounced lie-nucks, lee-nuks, or li-nuks.
Now this.
If we all spent this time coding and debugging instead of debating crap like this that simply does not matter, Linux would be the first totally error and bug free OS on the planet.
Ya know, I could *almost* (note that word "almost") buy SCO's argument of "we didn't realize what we were GPLing" if it weren't for one simple thing...they're still making the damned thing available for unrestricted download from THEIR OWN FUCKING WEB SITE *after* they know for a fact what they are GPLing. For being that stupid alone they deserve to be sued in to oblivion.
For a limited time, for $29.99 I will offer all employees and officers of SCO a perpetual license to kiss my ass. After October, the price rises to $59.99. This license entitles said SCO employee the right to kiss my left butt cheek one time. For the rights to kiss multiple times, or for the use of both butt cheeks, please contact me for additional fees.
At first I was going to ask, as others have, how many times we need to hear that SCO is full of shit before we finally believe it.
But then I realized the more proper question is how many times does SCO have to hear they're full of shit before they finally believe it. Of course, some executives at SCO have already realized this, hence the large number of 'insider' shares already sold.
I love the way all of the telemarketing companies and associations claim they do not want to call people who do not want to be called, yet they fight lists that do exactly that as hard as they can.
Yes, the RIAA needs to adjust its business plan to get it in to the 21st century (hell, I could argue it needs to update them to the 20th century). But even if they decide to do absolutely nothing, that still does not give you the right to steal their music.
Let's say I have a car to sell. I decide to sit it in my back yard where no one can see it, and put a "for sale" sign on it. You come along and state your opinion that I should adjust my business plan if I really want to sell that car. Even though you are correct, that still does not give you the right to steal the car.
And I don't want to hear that "apples and oranges, a car is a thing, music is not" crap. Music is a product of some individual, group, or company every bit as much as my car is a product of GMC. The fact that the GMC weighs a couple of tons and the music technically does not have physical form is totally irrelevant to this conversation.
Again, theft is theft. If you disagree with how the RIAA minions sell their product, you have the right to protest. You have the right to not buy their product. You have the right to campaign against their product. You have the right to form a music group and market your own product in your own way. But at no time do you have the right to steal their product.
And downloading entire songs and albums on Kazaa and sharing them with the world is not "fair use". And those who distribute music that they do not have the right to be distributing should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law, regardless of it being some kid and his life savings.
Of course you're welcome to speak out about the Copyright Gestapo, and on some points I'd probably even agree with you.
But as for the kid losing his life savings, if he's genuinly making copyrighted works available that he does not have permission to be distributing (as opposed to the three kids that merely had set up an index and search engine), then he deserves to lose his life savings. If ya can't do the time, don't do the crime. And you're right, there is no middle ground...theft is theft.
But see, this is Slashdot, and in the Slashdot world you're not allowed to blame anything and copyright does not exist. And no, this comment is not a troll, and those who mod it as such only prove my point further.
Here is what I base this comment on.
The RIAA started out by going after the makers of P2P software. Everyone here yelled "Its not the technology, stupid, is the file traders, go after them instead!" Then recently when the RIAA announced they were going to do precisely that, the same group that was yelling "go after the traders" all of a sudden got their panties in a twist and started crying about how the RIAA shouldn't do that.
No, Slashdot shouldn't do that (besides, they already do...its called "subscription").
As I have said before, what they should do is temporarily host the site, so that the "real" server does not get slashdotted, and the owner of the real site does not get either cut off or get a massive bandwidth bill. The current system is every bit as effective at shutting down a server as is a DoS attack. If I had something neat up on a website, the LAST thing I would want now is for it to get noticed by the Slashdot crowd.
At the very least, the Powers That Be at Slashdot should email the site owner with a short "your site has been submitted to us for a story...do you really want that to happen?" type note.
Instead, we show our appreciation to the site author by locking up his server, getting his account closed, or making him pay hundreds of dollars for bandwidth. I'd hate to see what we do to people we don't appreciate...
I agree with a lot of what you say...but that is dampened by this line here.
The article does not state whether the teen was an innocent or not, it merely says he was "known to the police". I can't say as to elsewhere, but where I live in the central US, "known to the police" is a polite way of saying "we suspect he is involved in one or more crimes we are investigating".
Its hard for one to call this a privacy issue, and its equally hard for me to call it NOT a privacy issue, when the article was actually rather short on details.
Read the damned article people
on
Twist on DNA Privacy
·
· Score: 4, Informative
Its obvious from a couple or three replies already up that some of you are not reading the article first.
The dude was not convicted on the DNA evidence alone. In fact, there apparently was no trial. The DNA only lead to a suspect...who then CONFESSED AND PLEADED GUILTY.
I fail to see where there is a privacy implication here. All I see is good police work (which makes up for the initial very bad police work).
No, the courts have not so ruled. I cannot find even one reference of Bill Gates having been charged with a crime, much less convicted of one. Has the man ever even had a speeding ticket?
Microsoft was charged and convicted of a crime. However, like him or not and asshole or not, Bill Gates the individual is NOT Microsoft. And a whole lot of people reading/. need to learn that.
Slashdot Mirror
If (note that word) this pans out and the accused did indeed release one of the variants, his teen ass needs to rot in a jail cell for an extended length of time, and his bank account, if any, needs to be reset to a very large negative number.
If (again, note that word) he did it, I have absolutely no sympathy what so ever.
I've seen several comments to the effect of SCO is not consistent in their actions.
I'm sorry to say that yes they are very consistant. Their statements consistently look like the ramblings of a bunch of inbred morons who have no concept of what is right or the truth. They also consistently lie to their stock holders in order to inflate the price of their otherwise worthless company. SCO Unix was irrelevant when it was the original SCO. It is even less relevant now. My two dogs taking a dump contribute more to Linux, free software, and the General Good of the World than SCO Unix ever will. Instead of "Santa Cruz Operation", SCO should change its name to something more realistic and honest, like maybe "Some Crummy Obsolete Unix". If Darl McButtmonkey and his fellow retards (I started to call them stooges, but that is insulting to all the other stooges in the world) would spend some time actually working on a decent product they would not have to turn to lies and baseless threats to pump up their stock values.
Hey McButtmonkey, I use Linux commercially, and I've got a hundred bucks that says you don't have the balls to sue me for it...especially since eunuchs like you don't have balls.
...I'm sure that the powers that be at Slashdot will not mind it at all if I mention that I have also been making discs of the betas available for sale at http://www.getlinuxcheap.us.
In reality, I highly object to such blatant advertising disguised as a supposed "news" story. But I'm posting my url here because, simply stated, if Slashdot sees nothing wrong with plugging that site, then as a loyal Slashdot member for many years I expect to be accorded the same treatment.
Unfortunately Darl McBride has shown he is, for lack of a better phrase, a friggin' nut case. This means it will be impossible to reason with him. He won't realize what a laughing stock he is until SCO lies in ruins and the stockholders have nothing left of value.
Like others have said, if the evidence shown so far is their best evidence, we don't have a damned thing to worry about, and in fact SCO will be found guilty of violating the BSD license.
Now, if you'll pardon me, I need to run to the bank and cash my check from IBM...
You are, of course, entitled to your opinion. That's what makes this a great place. But let me throw this at you...
I like Linux. I am booted in to Mandrake 9.1 and running Mozilla Firebird (or what ever they are calling it this week) as we speak. I have also run various installs of Slackware and Redhat, and have run Linux at least part time since about 1994. I'm not tell you this because I want an award, I just want you to be aware that I am certainly not a starry eyed newbie, nor am I a Bill Gates fanboy.
Last night I installed Mandrake 9.1 on a different machine, using the images provided on Mandrake's web site.
Now, if Linux is so damned much more secure, why did I need to follow that install up by downloading almost 200 meg of "security updates"?
Notice that I did not, however, say that Linux is less secure than Windows. While I am typing this reply I am also working on installing a Windows XP image on this same machine using VMware. And as soon as the initial install was done, I am now following that up by downloading MANY megabytes of "critical updates".
My contention is that neither OS is 100% secure, both have their security problems, neither one is necessarily more or less secure than the other, and neither one will ever be 100% secure. Windows, by virtue of its market share, is simply a more popular target.
While Microsoft certainly has its problems, this attitude is pretty much, in my opinion, bullshit. If the statistics were reversed and Apple or Linux had 95% of the market you'd see just as much trashing on those systems as you see now on Windows. Script kiddies are going to attack what ever gets them the most attention. And attacking something that only has 3% of the market does not get them that attention.
Its the same philosophy of why more Corvettes get stolen than Yugos. Nobody wants a Yugo.
Yes, Windows has internal problems. All OSes do. Its a fact of life.
He calculated the number of supporters in the "silent majority" using the same new math he used to determine that there were over a million lines of copied code in the Linux kernel.
I have started printing out SCOs press releases so I can save them and spread them on my garden for next year. Normally I would have to pay top dollar for bullshit that rich and strong.
This is a perfect example of why I maintain a good relationship, both on a social and business level, with a friend who is a certified electrician. I take care of his computer needs, he takes care of my electrical needs. I have a similar relationship with my attorney.
If the obviously brain damaged shitheads at SCO wants to play like that, fine, let them. It can work to our advantage.
Since SCO claims the GPL is invalid and therefore SCO is not bound by it, then that works both ways. Authors of the software are not bound by it either. Therefore, everyone who has ever written a line of code that is used anywhere in GNU/Linux should now inform SCO that their rights to distribute the author's code has been withdrawn, royalties for any future distribution will be required, and royalties for past distribution are now due...just like SCO is wanting to do to IBM. If they want to play games, then dammit we can play games too. Batter up!
Keep in mind also that, since SCO did not name the supposed Fortune 500 sucke^H^H^H^H^Hcompany, they could simply being lying out their ass, spreading even more FUD than they currently are. SCO has been so full of fecal matter thus far, I refuse to believe anything they have to say until such time as they present proof of their claims in the form of a release of infringing source code (and I mean enough to prove their point, not 80 fucking lines) with no NDA attached. I will now continue to ignore SCO, and continue running Linux any damned way I please. And if SCO doesn't like it, they can kiss my ass.
First we spent years of time and hundreds of man-hours debating whether it was pronounced lie-nucks, lee-nuks, or li-nuks.
Now this.
If we all spent this time coding and debugging instead of debating crap like this that simply does not matter, Linux would be the first totally error and bug free OS on the planet.
Ya know, I could *almost* (note that word "almost") buy SCO's argument of "we didn't realize what we were GPLing" if it weren't for one simple thing...they're still making the damned thing available for unrestricted download from THEIR OWN FUCKING WEB SITE *after* they know for a fact what they are GPLing. For being that stupid alone they deserve to be sued in to oblivion.
For a limited time, for $29.99 I will offer all employees and officers of SCO a perpetual license to kiss my ass. After October, the price rises to $59.99. This license entitles said SCO employee the right to kiss my left butt cheek one time. For the rights to kiss multiple times, or for the use of both butt cheeks, please contact me for additional fees.
At first I was going to ask, as others have, how many times we need to hear that SCO is full of shit before we finally believe it.
But then I realized the more proper question is how many times does SCO have to hear they're full of shit before they finally believe it. Of course, some executives at SCO have already realized this, hence the large number of 'insider' shares already sold.
I love the way all of the telemarketing companies and associations claim they do not want to call people who do not want to be called, yet they fight lists that do exactly that as hard as they can.
For a mere 10 bucks, I'll send them a photo of me giving them the finger. Until SCO produces real evidence, fuck SCO.
But in this case, yes it does.
Yes, the RIAA needs to adjust its business plan to get it in to the 21st century (hell, I could argue it needs to update them to the 20th century). But even if they decide to do absolutely nothing, that still does not give you the right to steal their music.
Let's say I have a car to sell. I decide to sit it in my back yard where no one can see it, and put a "for sale" sign on it. You come along and state your opinion that I should adjust my business plan if I really want to sell that car. Even though you are correct, that still does not give you the right to steal the car.
And I don't want to hear that "apples and oranges, a car is a thing, music is not" crap. Music is a product of some individual, group, or company every bit as much as my car is a product of GMC. The fact that the GMC weighs a couple of tons and the music technically does not have physical form is totally irrelevant to this conversation.
Again, theft is theft. If you disagree with how the RIAA minions sell their product, you have the right to protest. You have the right to not buy their product. You have the right to campaign against their product. You have the right to form a music group and market your own product in your own way. But at no time do you have the right to steal their product.
And downloading entire songs and albums on Kazaa and sharing them with the world is not "fair use". And those who distribute music that they do not have the right to be distributing should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law, regardless of it being some kid and his life savings.
Of course you're welcome to speak out about the Copyright Gestapo, and on some points I'd probably even agree with you.
But as for the kid losing his life savings, if he's genuinly making copyrighted works available that he does not have permission to be distributing (as opposed to the three kids that merely had set up an index and search engine), then he deserves to lose his life savings. If ya can't do the time, don't do the crime. And you're right, there is no middle ground...theft is theft.
"You don't blame FTP, you blame the site."
But see, this is Slashdot, and in the Slashdot world you're not allowed to blame anything and copyright does not exist. And no, this comment is not a troll, and those who mod it as such only prove my point further.
Here is what I base this comment on.
The RIAA started out by going after the makers of P2P software. Everyone here yelled "Its not the technology, stupid, is the file traders, go after them instead!" Then recently when the RIAA announced they were going to do precisely that, the same group that was yelling "go after the traders" all of a sudden got their panties in a twist and started crying about how the RIAA shouldn't do that.
No, Slashdot shouldn't do that (besides, they already do...its called "subscription").
As I have said before, what they should do is temporarily host the site, so that the "real" server does not get slashdotted, and the owner of the real site does not get either cut off or get a massive bandwidth bill. The current system is every bit as effective at shutting down a server as is a DoS attack. If I had something neat up on a website, the LAST thing I would want now is for it to get noticed by the Slashdot crowd.
At the very least, the Powers That Be at Slashdot should email the site owner with a short "your site has been submitted to us for a story...do you really want that to happen?" type note.
Instead, we show our appreciation to the site author by locking up his server, getting his account closed, or making him pay hundreds of dollars for bandwidth. I'd hate to see what we do to people we don't appreciate...
Yeah, I know, I've been here longer than dirt and I should be used to the "Slashdot Slant" by now, but I can always hope :-)
They used the DNA profile of an innocent person
I agree with a lot of what you say...but that is dampened by this line here.
The article does not state whether the teen was an innocent or not, it merely says he was "known to the police". I can't say as to elsewhere, but where I live in the central US, "known to the police" is a polite way of saying "we suspect he is involved in one or more crimes we are investigating".
Its hard for one to call this a privacy issue, and its equally hard for me to call it NOT a privacy issue, when the article was actually rather short on details.
Its obvious from a couple or three replies already up that some of you are not reading the article first.
The dude was not convicted on the DNA evidence alone. In fact, there apparently was no trial. The DNA only lead to a suspect...who then CONFESSED AND PLEADED GUILTY.
I fail to see where there is a privacy implication here. All I see is good police work (which makes up for the initial very bad police work).
No, the courts have not so ruled. I cannot find even one reference of Bill Gates having been charged with a crime, much less convicted of one. Has the man ever even had a speeding ticket?
/. need to learn that.
Microsoft was charged and convicted of a crime. However, like him or not and asshole or not, Bill Gates the individual is NOT Microsoft. And a whole lot of people reading