I thought of that, but in this case, wouldn't it have made more sense for SCO to go after SGI *before* IBM, or at least simultaneously?
Get a quick win, and then use that as a precedent for your case. Might not do much good in a court, but it would be good for press releases.
Suing SGI *after* IBM just looks like stooping to conquer. What's the point, really? From a financial perspective they gain little to nothing -- which may be why they chose to go after IBM; Boies's contingency award from a case against SGI probably wouldn't be worth his time. From a PR perspective, it simple looks petty.
Art, I could be wrong on the popularity of XFS, though I haven't seen much about people adopting it. AS far as your definition or "legacy" goes, we're clearly using them in different senses. I'm using it the sense of something that is inherited from a previous system, no matter whether the code itself is new or old. And I do think, that right now anyway, XFS is generally used by companies migrating from SGI OS's to Linux. If you have information on companies or end-users choosing XFS over the other files systems for technical reasons rather than to ease migration, please post a link to it. Thanks.
And obviously, Ext2 is "legacy" in the sense you mean, old code that is being phased out. But it is still widely used because its been around long enough for people to believe that it is stable at this point.
Looks like SCO (or maybe Center 7) is just pulling its images from other sites. Wouldn't it be great if SCO got sued by Corbis of one of the other photo banks for stealing their intellectual property? Irony, thy name is SCO.
The design or layout of the Novell.com website or any other Novell owned, operated, licensed or controlled site is the property of Novell, Inc. Elements of Novell websites are protected by copyright, trade dress and other laws and may not be copied or imitated in whole or in part. No logo, graphic, sound or image from any Novell website may be copied or retransmitted unless expressly permitted by Novell. Please report any such instances of use to permission@novell.com."
If anyone at Novell is reading this, PLEASE direct notice of this violation of your image to your legal department. I honestly find it hard to believe that anyone at Novell would give SCO permission to use *anything* Novell is in a position to deny.
I've been wondering about this myself. SGI does seem to be a likely target for SCO, given SCO's rhetoric. But SGI doesn't have much, if any, money. So it seems unlikely from that point of view.
Another thing that bothered me in the ZD Net article is that they don't mention the other file systems. Let's face it, JFS and XFS are not the most popular journaling file systems for Linux; they're mostly used by companies that have legacy file systems they need to support. ReiserFS, Ext3, and Ext2, are the most popular file systems. If Linux lost the ability to support XFS and JFS, all it would do is make migration to Linux more difficult for some companies. It probably wouldn't much affect adoption rates.
Anyway, I suspect that SGI should start talking to Red Hat about accessing some of that Open Source Now! fund. Just in case.
No, you're pretty much on target. I'm not sure when he made the comments, but Jackson's decision held up on appeal. It was only the penalties phase that was remanded over Jackson's statements.
More readable, human, translations of various articles and references to this story are available in the comments section of the write-up at Groklaw.
Re:business vs tech presss
on
SCO Roundup
·
· Score: 3, Informative
I can't take credit for the research on this one. It's reported on Groklaw, and the research was a joint effort of a couple of people, but mostly Pam Jones (I think that's her last name, it might be "Johnson").
Anyway, the story is heavily linked to the reference documents and Sec filings, so if you are interested you can easily verify the story for yourself there. Pam, aka pj, runs Groklaw and is a paralegel. She started the site to provide information on news stories from a legal research perspective.
When she started the site, the SCO v. IBM story was just breaking, and it became the site's focus. It's since developed a community of tech. and legal commentators who add to the research. If you're interested in in-depth discussions of the details of this case, Groklaw's probably the best resource for it on the web right now.
"...how do I install this kernel in FreeBSD so I can try it out?"
I have the vague feeling that this is a troll, but, just in case your question is serious, I'll bite.
You can't. Setup a Linux distro on you machine so you can dual boot between it and FreeBSD. Then compile the 2.6.0-test4 kernel in your Linux session and test it there.
You should switch to that luxury car amongst bicycles:
SCO Unixware 7.
Re:This thread is ? SCO sux? SCO is a clown?
on
SCO Roundup
·
· Score: 1
Not quite true. A parenthetical sentence within a sentence should not be punctuated with a full stop. Only parenthetical statements *outside* of a sentence should receive a period.
"It's not about 'free-lunch' and he knows it! This more appropriately equates to 'We don't get the whole free-speech thing.'"
You know, I don't think he does know it. He really does come across as being that stupid. I don't think he gets the free speech thing either.
Re:business vs tech presss
on
SCO Roundup
·
· Score: 2, Informative
For more information, check out Groklaw. Their latest article features a full write-up of Groklaw's research into the ICP affiliations, with links to the relevant documents and SEC filings.
Re:business vs tech presss
on
SCO Roundup
·
· Score: 5, Interesting
"Post the information at stock sites -- wherever. If stock traders know how bogus SCO's claims are, it will hurt the fuckwads at SCO."
They know. Check out the SCOX messages at Yahoo. It's got a high noise to signal ratio, but a lot of people there are shooting down the stock pumpers, and spreading anti-FUD in general.
The reason the stock has been going up is because a company known as Integral Capital Partners has apparently been purchasing a shitload of stock and filed with the SEC that they had over 5% interest in SCO as of 8/22. Interestingly enough, ICP owns the majority of shares in Drugstore.Com, and Melinda Gates (Bill's wife) sits on the board of Drugstore.com.
I wouldn't be at all surprised if the real float on SCOX's stock was less than 25% at this point.
Well, if it was a DOS how could I access machines behind the same routers the website is on?
Such as these routers c7pub-216-250-136-74.center7.com (216.250.136.74) c7pub-216-250-136-98.center7.com (216.250.136.98) c7pub-216-250-136-254.center7.co m (216.250.136.254)
And these machines behind the routers fgw.calderasystems.com (216.250.128.253) mail.sco.com (216.250.130.37) phoenix.ut.caldera.com (216.250.130.1)
These machines were ALL accessable with NO dropped packets and LOW latency. A simple traceroute from 3 parts of the country (OR, WI, CT) produced the same route from "hs-10-1-1.a01.ptldor01.us.ra.verio.net (157.238.26.129)" on to the endpoint.
It cannot be a DOS without disrupting traffic to the other machines behind the final router unless the there is some absurd setup like www.sco.com having a 128KB/s link while the router has a 1GB/s link. I do not think this is the case though.
Besides, you would WANT to attack the Routers instead since they can do something fancy like redirect legitimate HTTP requests to the webserver at a different address while letting the DOS'ing machines continue to think 216.250.140.112 is the correct address.
And again, even SCO says they are doing maintenance and not experiencing DoS attacks.
No problem. I was in fact hoping you were right. Distribution of the 2.4.19 kernel would be somewhat more damaging to SCO's claims, since some of the disputed code wasn't add until then.
Well, I'm not saying he *will* disregard them, just that, in light of the mentioned suit, he might. After all, copyright generally doesn't need to rigorously enforced either.
SCO might be able to make the case that IBM, which has been a consistent reseller of some of their SCO's products for years, has had every opportunity to object to SCO's use of the patented technology and hadn't done so. Such a claim would be similiar to the defense used in the copyright suit mentioned in the article.
Of course, SCO would be negating their own argument about the infringing Linux IP, which would be subject to the same standard. I think that may be why IBM included the patent claims -- to make SCO look stupid and hypocritical, rather than to shut down SCO's distribution of the infringing product.
If I'm not mistaken, IBM has also asked for a temporary injunction against SCO on the patent claims. In order to recieve the injunction, IBM would have to show that SCO's infringement would continue to harm IBM while the case is being adjudicated. Given IBM's revenues, I doubt they'd be able to do that. But, by requesting the temporary injunction, they can point out the hypocritical nature of SCO's claims before the case even goes to trial, which may influence the judge's decision as to whether SCO's case is frivolous or not - and thus thrown out before getting to trial.
Obligatory "I am not a lawyer" disclaimer; this all just my opinion based on educated guessing.
And Mark "Scheisse" Heise has taken over. I wonder what Mark did to earn David's enmity. I mean, as the lead partner of the firm, you wouldn't assign this case to someone you *liked*.
Slashdot Mirror
I thought of that, but in this case, wouldn't it have made more sense for SCO to go after SGI *before* IBM, or at least simultaneously?
Get a quick win, and then use that as a precedent for your case. Might not do much good in a court, but it would be good for press releases.
Suing SGI *after* IBM just looks like stooping to conquer. What's the point, really? From a financial perspective they gain little to nothing -- which may be why they chose to go after IBM; Boies's contingency award from a case against SGI probably wouldn't be worth his time. From a PR perspective, it simple looks petty.
Art, I could be wrong on the popularity of XFS, though I haven't seen much about people adopting it. AS far as your definition or "legacy" goes, we're clearly using them in different senses. I'm using it the sense of something that is inherited from a previous system, no matter whether the code itself is new or old. And I do think, that right now anyway, XFS is generally used by companies migrating from SGI OS's to Linux. If you have information on companies or end-users choosing XFS over the other files systems for technical reasons rather than to ease migration, please post a link to it. Thanks.
And obviously, Ext2 is "legacy" in the sense you mean, old code that is being phased out. But it is still widely used because its been around long enough for people to believe that it is stable at this point.
Is there anyway we can convince Al Qaeda that SCO is an integral part of our national security infrastructure?
I mean, why not? According to Darl, all the other terrorists are after them.
Looks like SCO (or maybe Center 7) is just pulling its images from other sites. Wouldn't it be great if SCO got sued by Corbis of one of the other photo banks for stealing their intellectual property? Irony, thy name is SCO.
BTW, here is a quote from Novell's legal page:
"Design/Layout
The design or layout of the Novell.com website or any other Novell owned, operated, licensed or controlled site is the property of Novell, Inc. Elements of Novell websites are protected by copyright, trade dress and other laws and may not be copied or imitated in whole or in part. No logo, graphic, sound or image from any Novell website may be copied or retransmitted unless expressly permitted by Novell. Please report any such instances of use to permission@novell.com."
If anyone at Novell is reading this, PLEASE direct notice of this violation of your image to your legal department. I honestly find it hard to believe that anyone at Novell would give SCO permission to use *anything* Novell is in a position to deny.
Interesting. SCO must be reading
Let us know when you get your invoices, editors.
We should plan a party.
I've been wondering about this myself. SGI does seem to be a likely target for SCO, given SCO's rhetoric. But SGI doesn't have much, if any, money. So it seems unlikely from that point of view.
Another thing that bothered me in the ZD Net article is that they don't mention the other file systems. Let's face it, JFS and XFS are not the most popular journaling file systems for Linux; they're mostly used by companies that have legacy file systems they need to support. ReiserFS, Ext3, and Ext2, are the most popular file systems. If Linux lost the ability to support XFS and JFS, all it would do is make migration to Linux more difficult for some companies. It probably wouldn't much affect adoption rates.
Anyway, I suspect that SGI should start talking to Red Hat about accessing some of that Open Source Now! fund. Just in case.
And now he's an expert in Slashcode too.
No, you're pretty much on target. I'm not sure when he made the comments, but Jackson's decision held up on appeal. It was only the penalties phase that was remanded over Jackson's statements.
More readable, human, translations of various articles and references to this story are available in the comments section of the write-up at Groklaw.
I can't take credit for the research on this one. It's reported on Groklaw, and the research was a joint effort of a couple of people, but mostly Pam Jones (I think that's her last name, it might be "Johnson").
Anyway, the story is heavily linked to the reference documents and Sec filings, so if you are interested you can easily verify the story for yourself there. Pam, aka pj, runs Groklaw and is a paralegel. She started the site to provide information on news stories from a legal research perspective.
When she started the site, the SCO v. IBM story was just breaking, and it became the site's focus. It's since developed a community of tech. and legal commentators who add to the research. If you're interested in in-depth discussions of the details of this case, Groklaw's probably the best resource for it on the web right now.
Please provide more details, if you can. Such as which version of the Radeon you're using, etc.
I've got a Radeon 9700, and would like to know what kind of video problems to expect before testing.
Right now it's slow, but not timing out. This is two hours after your post however, so maybe it's just recovering from
"...how do I install this kernel in FreeBSD so I can try it out?"
I have the vague feeling that this is a troll, but, just in case your question is serious, I'll bite.
You can't. Setup a Linux distro on you machine so you can dual boot between it and FreeBSD. Then compile the 2.6.0-test4 kernel in your Linux session and test it there.
No, no, no.
You should switch to that luxury car amongst bicycles:
SCO Unixware 7.
Not quite true. A parenthetical sentence within a sentence should not be punctuated with a full stop. Only parenthetical statements *outside* of a sentence should receive a period.
Otherwise, you are correct.
Nah, they'll just leave the server down for the weekend. It's cheaper than paying overtime for a tech. They need the money for lawyers.
If they even know they've been cracked.
"It's not about 'free-lunch' and he knows it! This more appropriately equates to 'We don't get the whole free-speech thing.'"
You know, I don't think he does know it. He really does come across as being that stupid. I don't think he gets the free speech thing either.
For more information, check out Groklaw. Their latest article features a full write-up of Groklaw's research into the ICP affiliations, with links to the relevant documents and SEC filings.
"Post the information at stock sites -- wherever. If stock traders know how bogus SCO's claims are, it will hurt the fuckwads at SCO."
They know. Check out the SCOX messages at Yahoo. It's got a high noise to signal ratio, but a lot of people there are shooting down the stock pumpers, and spreading anti-FUD in general.
The reason the stock has been going up is because a company known as Integral Capital Partners has apparently been purchasing a shitload of stock and filed with the SEC that they had over 5% interest in SCO as of 8/22. Interestingly enough, ICP owns the majority of shares in Drugstore.Com, and Melinda Gates (Bill's wife) sits on the board of Drugstore.com.
I wouldn't be at all surprised if the real float on SCOX's stock was less than 25% at this point.
"Slashdot is not, however, even though some have requested it be taken down for the day..."
Well, someone has to be up to let people know what is going on.
My bad. Please apologize to Fred on my behalf.
Do you mean something like this? Someone at Newforge has posted that they have done traceroutes to routers on Center 7's network and it tends to confirm the suspicion that SCO isn't experiencing any DoS attacks:
m (216.250.136.98)o m (216.250.136.254)
Well, if it was a DOS how could I access machines behind the same routers the website is on?
Such as these routers
c7pub-216-250-136-74.center7.com (216.250.136.74)
c7pub-216-250-136-98.center7.co
c7pub-216-250-136-254.center7.c
And these machines behind the routers
fgw.calderasystems.com (216.250.128.253)
mail.sco.com (216.250.130.37)
phoenix.ut.caldera.com (216.250.130.1)
These machines were ALL accessable with NO dropped packets and LOW latency. A simple traceroute from 3 parts of the country (OR, WI, CT) produced the same route from "hs-10-1-1.a01.ptldor01.us.ra.verio.net (157.238.26.129)" on to the endpoint.
It cannot be a DOS without disrupting traffic to the other machines behind the final router unless the there is some absurd setup like www.sco.com having a 128KB/s link while the router has a 1GB/s link. I do not think this is the case though.
Besides, you would WANT to attack the Routers instead since they can do something fancy like redirect legitimate HTTP requests to the webserver at a different address while letting the DOS'ing machines continue to think 216.250.140.112 is the correct address.
And again, even SCO says they are doing maintenance and not experiencing DoS attacks.
No problem. I was in fact hoping you were right. Distribution of the 2.4.19 kernel would be somewhat more damaging to SCO's claims, since some of the disputed code wasn't add until then.
Well, I'm not saying he *will* disregard them, just that, in light of the mentioned suit, he might. After all, copyright generally doesn't need to rigorously enforced either.
SCO might be able to make the case that IBM, which has been a consistent reseller of some of their SCO's products for years, has had every opportunity to object to SCO's use of the patented technology and hadn't done so. Such a claim would be similiar to the defense used in the copyright suit mentioned in the article.
Of course, SCO would be negating their own argument about the infringing Linux IP, which would be subject to the same standard. I think that may be why IBM included the patent claims -- to make SCO look stupid and hypocritical, rather than to shut down SCO's distribution of the infringing product.
If I'm not mistaken, IBM has also asked for a temporary injunction against SCO on the patent claims. In order to recieve the injunction, IBM would have to show that SCO's infringement would continue to harm IBM while the case is being adjudicated. Given IBM's revenues, I doubt they'd be able to do that. But, by requesting the temporary injunction, they can point out the hypocritical nature of SCO's claims before the case even goes to trial, which may influence the judge's decision as to whether SCO's case is frivolous or not - and thus thrown out before getting to trial.
Obligatory "I am not a lawyer" disclaimer; this all just my opinion based on educated guessing.
I agree. Totally.
And Mark "Scheisse" Heise has taken over. I wonder what Mark did to earn David's enmity. I mean, as the lead partner of the firm, you wouldn't assign this case to someone you *liked*.