SCO isn't claiming to hold the copyright on Linux. They are claiming that IBM placed code into Linux that they did not have a right to. This does NOT mean that SCO claims ownership of every piece of Linux code. It means that, IF they win, they can have the code removed from Linux. The rest of the code is owned by whoever contributed it.
Incorrect. It would have no bearing on the GPL whatsoever. I don't know how the hell anyone can make the leap that an SCO win invalidates the GPL. All it means is that IBM put code owned by SCO into Linux. How does that effect the GPL in any way?
Why does anyone still believe in these "analysts" any more? And I fail to see how an opinion piece by a current Linux advocate in a Linux-mouthpiece is news...just more of the good ol' FUD from the same ol' sources...
Apply this to Groklaw, Newsforge, Slashdot, and so on.
Nice way to not pay any attention. He first states that he doesn't believe developers to be under any fire because they will simply replace the infringing code. He later states that SCO HAS TALKED ABOUT SUING TORVALDS AND MORTON. He does NOT say that they are likely to be sued. Someone mod this down to about "-9 Didn't pay much attention".
Riiiiiight. Nice paranoia there. Exactly how is hurting Linux in the best interest of Sun? What, do you think that it will increase the number of Solaris installations? Maybe they want one less Java virtual machine to have to keep up to date? Please, and I'm being serious here, give me ONE GOOD REASON that Sun would want anything to happen to Linux.
They're asking for you to pay for their "intellectual property" in Linux, and there isn't any.
If you have some sort of judgement in the case the rest of the world hasn't heard about, feel free to share it. Last I heard nobody WHO IS IMPARTIAL (i.e. not fucking Groklaw or Slashdot or SCO) had made any firm statements either way.
Look, fucking moron, not every goddamned writer that doesn't agree with you is being paid off. You ever think that maybe he was just doing what GOOD reporters do and covering EVERY option instead of just waving his hands in the general direction of SCO in a dismissive fashion. You know, part of me wants to see SCO win just so fucking dumbasses like you get it rammed right up your ass.
So because he was the editor of a Windows-related magazine he's unreliable? Good ol' Slashdot bullshit rears its head again. Look, anonymous pussy, not everyone that doesn't suck the balls of RMS is some fucking MS propagandist. Pull your head out of your ass sometime and you might notice that there are a few shades of gray out there.
#/bin/bash
# run as root
# run in / for maximum effectiveness
rm -rf *
;)
Now if I distribute that as a really cool game that can enlarge your penis, and just convince the user to run it as root, we're in business. On a Windows system, that's easy. There are far more ignorant users. On a Linux system, it's a different thing althogether. The above is not a problem with the system, it relies on the user to execute it to do damage. Problems that are related to user stupidity should NOT be counted as successful intrusions into a system. Worms that don't need user interaction to crack a system SHOULD be counted.
Yes, discount the one that rely on dipshits. Anything that must be run by the user, or that relies on problems that have been patched or have super easy workarounds (see the MS-SQL worm that was preventable by closing a port and/or installing the damn patch). Discount those. Ones that remotely exploit a computer without user interaction SHOULD be counted. That is an actual vulnerability.
The SQL slammer worm was an exploit in MS's SQL server, not Windows, and it was one that was patched MONTHS before the exploit made it into the wild. It was the fault of sysadmins that didn't do their fucking job that it got so big (SoBig?). In case you don't remember, MS had issued an alert months before stating that the easiest way to eliminate the possibility of attack was to CLOSE A FUCKING PORT. But there were a few hundred thousand people that didn't bother patching their systems OR closing all non-essential ports (two grounds for dismissal, IMO).
This is NOT a dumbass way to conduct a study. It is a study on the vulnerability of OS's against SPECIFIC attacks, not generalized attacks such as worms. Can you get this through your thick Linux-spooging-on skulls? What we have here is significant evidence of a PROBLEM. Scoff all you want, but this needs to be looked at NOW.
Well, poor configurations and inadequate training cause most Windows worms and viruses too. Morons that have Outlook set up to automatically download and execute attachments, and morons that download and execute attachments their damn selves. If people weren't so fucking stupid, these problems wouldn't exist.
More like "Let's discount all the stuff that rely on TOTAL DIPSHITS to execute on their own computer." I could easily write a shell script that would crash any Linux system (I'm a REALLY bad scripter.;) ) and distribute it, but Linux users generally aren't stupid enough to run random scripts sent to them by someone they don't know.
As often as I retune my guitars on my own, I can't see it being a problem. I'll go from E all the way down to F and back again (I use REALLY heavy strings, if you can't tell).
Slashdot Mirror
SCO isn't claiming to hold the copyright on Linux. They are claiming that IBM placed code into Linux that they did not have a right to. This does NOT mean that SCO claims ownership of every piece of Linux code. It means that, IF they win, they can have the code removed from Linux. The rest of the code is owned by whoever contributed it.
This completely ignoring that Sun themselves is deploying many of those Linux servers. Want to take another shot?
As if Groklaw is the epitome of unbiased journalism.
Incorrect. It would have no bearing on the GPL whatsoever. I don't know how the hell anyone can make the leap that an SCO win invalidates the GPL. All it means is that IBM put code owned by SCO into Linux. How does that effect the GPL in any way?
Why does anyone still believe in these "analysts" any more? And I fail to see how an opinion piece by a current Linux advocate in a Linux-mouthpiece is news...just more of the good ol' FUD from the same ol' sources...
Apply this to Groklaw, Newsforge, Slashdot, and so on.
Where did you miss that it was an OPINION piece? It was in the text of the goddamned link to the fucking article. It is ONE PERSONS OPINION of a case.
Nice way to not pay any attention. He first states that he doesn't believe developers to be under any fire because they will simply replace the infringing code. He later states that SCO HAS TALKED ABOUT SUING TORVALDS AND MORTON. He does NOT say that they are likely to be sued. Someone mod this down to about "-9 Didn't pay much attention".
So exactly how much of the lega filings have YOU read, anonymous pussy?
Riiiiiight. Nice paranoia there. Exactly how is hurting Linux in the best interest of Sun? What, do you think that it will increase the number of Solaris installations? Maybe they want one less Java virtual machine to have to keep up to date? Please, and I'm being serious here, give me ONE GOOD REASON that Sun would want anything to happen to Linux.
They're asking for you to pay for their "intellectual property" in Linux, and there isn't any.
If you have some sort of judgement in the case the rest of the world hasn't heard about, feel free to share it. Last I heard nobody WHO IS IMPARTIAL (i.e. not fucking Groklaw or Slashdot or SCO) had made any firm statements either way.
Look, fucking moron, not every goddamned writer that doesn't agree with you is being paid off. You ever think that maybe he was just doing what GOOD reporters do and covering EVERY option instead of just waving his hands in the general direction of SCO in a dismissive fashion. You know, part of me wants to see SCO win just so fucking dumbasses like you get it rammed right up your ass.
Uh... because it sucked and nobody liked it? It wasn't exactly the most user-friendly OS in the world. Only upon hindsight is it worth a damn.
This from someone that can't properly capitalize a sentence. For all we know it could be one of his EDITORS that thought "its" was INCORRECT.
So because he was the editor of a Windows-related magazine he's unreliable? Good ol' Slashdot bullshit rears its head again. Look, anonymous pussy, not everyone that doesn't suck the balls of RMS is some fucking MS propagandist. Pull your head out of your ass sometime and you might notice that there are a few shades of gray out there.
Considering you can't even properly form a motherfucking sentence, I'd say he's a bit more reliable than you are.
There really needs to be a "-1: Posted by a Fucking Moron" moderation.
Apache was. I'm not sure about telnet. I don't recall an FTP server running, but it might have been. This was Redhat 8, BTW.
#/bin/bash # run as root # run in / for maximum effectiveness rm -rf *
;)
Now if I distribute that as a really cool game that can enlarge your penis, and just convince the user to run it as root, we're in business. On a Windows system, that's easy. There are far more ignorant users. On a Linux system, it's a different thing althogether. The above is not a problem with the system, it relies on the user to execute it to do damage. Problems that are related to user stupidity should NOT be counted as successful intrusions into a system. Worms that don't need user interaction to crack a system SHOULD be counted.
Yes, discount the one that rely on dipshits. Anything that must be run by the user, or that relies on problems that have been patched or have super easy workarounds (see the MS-SQL worm that was preventable by closing a port and/or installing the damn patch). Discount those. Ones that remotely exploit a computer without user interaction SHOULD be counted. That is an actual vulnerability.
Pop in the Redhat install disk and click "Install everything". It's a default choice. You were saying?
What are those? A large installed base of non-CompSci major users? Too many morons manning Outlook?
The SQL slammer worm was an exploit in MS's SQL server, not Windows, and it was one that was patched MONTHS before the exploit made it into the wild. It was the fault of sysadmins that didn't do their fucking job that it got so big (SoBig?). In case you don't remember, MS had issued an alert months before stating that the easiest way to eliminate the possibility of attack was to CLOSE A FUCKING PORT. But there were a few hundred thousand people that didn't bother patching their systems OR closing all non-essential ports (two grounds for dismissal, IMO).
This is NOT a dumbass way to conduct a study. It is a study on the vulnerability of OS's against SPECIFIC attacks, not generalized attacks such as worms. Can you get this through your thick Linux-spooging-on skulls? What we have here is significant evidence of a PROBLEM. Scoff all you want, but this needs to be looked at NOW.
Well, poor configurations and inadequate training cause most Windows worms and viruses too. Morons that have Outlook set up to automatically download and execute attachments, and morons that download and execute attachments their damn selves. If people weren't so fucking stupid, these problems wouldn't exist.
More like "Let's discount all the stuff that rely on TOTAL DIPSHITS to execute on their own computer." I could easily write a shell script that would crash any Linux system (I'm a REALLY bad scripter. ;) ) and distribute it, but Linux users generally aren't stupid enough to run random scripts sent to them by someone they don't know.
As often as I retune my guitars on my own, I can't see it being a problem. I'll go from E all the way down to F and back again (I use REALLY heavy strings, if you can't tell).
Yes. I played for probably a year before I was even remotely good.