I installed a nightly build two days ago and it is named 1.5a, not 1.4 somethng.
Anyone know why?
Re:Possible Fatal Blow to SCO from Lindows
on
Today's SCO News
·
· Score: 1
Come on people - how many times has SCO said this now - they didn't file the lawsuit about patents or copyrights - they filed it about contract violations
SCO has been threatening almost everything that moves, so why make this assinine comment. This is not ONLY about the current IBM lawsuit. I guess you knew but somehow "forgot".
Your CIO is clearly not well informed and as someone else suggested "run for the hills"
That being said this might not be so bad for FOOS.
From the attitude of your CIO it looks like there is Zero undertanding and Zero willingness to give anything back, so why should your company benefit from FOOS.
The impact to FOOS of them not using any open source software is zip to the community as a whole, and your employeer puts themselves at a competitive disadvantage which is richly deserved.
FOOS is a long term Quid pro Quo and not a one way street, at least in spirit.
Possible Fatal Blow to SCO from Lindows
on
Today's SCO News
·
· Score: 5, Informative
Posted this last night and I am surprised it has not hit the/. communuty yet.
The oft maligned Distribution Lindows might have dealt a fatal blow to SCO.
Lindows is apparantly in the clear due to contract entered between SCO and Lindows sometime ago. Couple this with the GPL and the Kernel is cleared for ALL even if the SCO allegations is correct.
Lindows is apparantly in the clear due to contract entered between SCO and Lindows sometime ago. Couple this with the GPL and the Kernel is cleared for ALL even if the SCO allegations is correct.
Who would havwe thunk it. Lindows of all distributins.
Apparently Lindows has entered an agreement with SCO sometime ago, This coupled with the GPL may get the Linux kernel in the clear even if some of SCO's allegations are correct.
Read details here
I wouldn't want Oppenheimer to be President, either:
Why not exactly, except for the little problem with being dead. He was well educated, excellent consensus builder, and a humanist despite the bomb effort he agreed to undertake at a time of Real war.
Nick Hornby's How to be Good is excellent. and will make good Summer reading. Not as good as What about a boy, but on par with (Your Sig) High Fidelity.
Heard about it on Charlie Rose last night and bought it via Amazon today. Her prior book Close to the Machineis excellent Ellen Ullman is a former SW engineer and tells a compelling story.
Quote:
Essayist, memoirist (Close to the Machine) and computer industry pioneer Ullman has now produced an illuminating novel about the fate of a programmer, Ethan Levin, who wrestles with an ineradicable bug in the heroic era of computing.
This is really a win-win situation. Regardless of the "real" reason for MS' sudden urge to get religion they will be seen as a party to this suit in the eyes of the IT community meaning they get all the bad press and they can't really contribute much in monetary terms.
Maybe this goes for this whole debacle as well. Some challenges to the GPL were certain to surface sooner or later, so if you accept this precept what better partner to have than IBM.
No money is being drained from Linux efforts from within IBM or from RH, SuSE et al., and the code is being scrutinized and scrubbed for any dubious portions that probably has found it's way into it.
Not SCO related but just bit and pieces that "somehow" got included.
I am surprised that this was offered. Microsoft is not out of the legal woods in Europe and a discount of this magnitude can almost only be construed as an attempt to leverage a monopoly situation. There can be no other rational business reason for this discount.
On an aside this is a huge blow for MS. The knowledge of the offered discount is probably worse than not getting the biz.
No it is not. ESR wants to make that very argument convicingly in court. You have to show the judge that it is so, not just tell him.
It the difference between showing a signed petition with thousands of signatures, vs citing a poll that X% of the constituents is for or against somethng.
To run for office you need signed patitions not just a few pollsters saying you are popular.
Little off topic, but this coud make a huge dent in SCO's Case (if any).
Head over to ESR's No Secrets" home page, if you ever had access to UNIX source code that was not under NDA or NDA not enforced.
Quote:
I want to know if you have ever had read access to proprietary Unix source code (not just binaries and documentation) under circumstances where either no non-disclosure agreement was required or whatever non-disclosure agreement you had was not enforced.
And forcing you to pay for Windows that your are not planning to use is kosher?
If most people put windows on those machines it would actually work to MS' advantage as they thereby manage to maintain the file format lock in.
Good news is that machine is a little underpowered for XP and is has no Cd, meaning it is so not so easy to "switch" for Joe Sixpack or whatever Joe is called in Thailand.
We need to start using the "lots of eyeballs" methodology against SCO. We need to find cases inside Unixware where the lifted code from Linux.
According to latest thread on Kernel List Quoted below this is likely to have happened. Even though the Code is not public available there must be some versions floating around that can be used for "analysis". Once something is found public bug reports can be used as Evidence. Same bugs in SCO binaries as in Linux.
If someone have a copy of the SCO source code maybe make a Torrent file, so we can start analysing if they indeed stole something. A few nuggets will go a long way to quash the FUD from SCO. Anyone know where old SCO bug reports can be found?
Quote:
6. Possible License Violations Within The Kernel Source
Elsewhere, Christoph Hellwig replied to the original post as well, saying:
As somone who walked for SCO (or rather Caldera how it was called at that time) I can tell you this is utter crap. There were very people actually doing Linux kernel work then (and when the German office was closed down all those left the company) and we really had better things to do then trying to retrofit UnixWare code into the linux kenrel. Especially given that the kernel internals are so different that you'd need a big glue layer to actually make it work and you can guess how that would be ripped apart in a usual lkml review:)
It might be more interesting to look for stolen Linux code in Unixware, I'd suggest with the support for a very well known Linux fileystem in the Linux compat addon product for UnixWare..
Jim Nance said, "Wouldnt it be halirous if whatever code SCO is talking about when they say there is Unix code in Linux turns out to be code some SCO employee ripped out of some GPL program and stuck it into Unixware. That is actually far more likely than what they alledge."
Slashdot Mirror
Anyone know why?
SCO has been threatening almost everything that moves, so why make this assinine comment. This is not ONLY about the current IBM lawsuit. I guess you knew but somehow "forgot".
That being said this might not be so bad for FOOS.
From the attitude of your CIO it looks like there is Zero undertanding and Zero willingness to give anything back, so why should your company benefit from FOOS.
The impact to FOOS of them not using any open source software is zip to the community as a whole, and your employeer puts themselves at a competitive disadvantage which is richly deserved.
FOOS is a long term Quid pro Quo and not a one way street, at least in spirit.
The oft maligned Distribution Lindows might have dealt a fatal blow to SCO. Lindows is apparantly in the clear due to contract entered between SCO and Lindows sometime ago. Couple this with the GPL and the Kernel is cleared for ALL even if the SCO allegations is correct.
Lindows is apparantly in the clear due to contract entered between SCO and Lindows sometime ago. Couple this with the GPL and the Kernel is cleared for ALL even if the SCO allegations is correct.
Who would havwe thunk it. Lindows of all distributins.
Apparently Lindows has entered an agreement with SCO sometime ago, This coupled with the GPL may get the Linux kernel in the clear even if some of SCO's allegations are correct. Read details here
No NDA should be needed if they are right since that code is already in the open.
It's only if they are wrong an NDA might be appropiate.
Why not exactly, except for the little problem with being dead. He was well educated, excellent consensus builder, and a humanist despite the bomb effort he agreed to undertake at a time of Real war.
One of my favorite movies, excellent Sig.
Nick Hornby's How to be Good is excellent. and will make good Summer reading. Not as good as What about a boy, but on par with (Your Sig) High Fidelity.
Heard about it on Charlie Rose last night and bought it via Amazon today. Her prior book Close to the Machineis excellent Ellen Ullman is a former SW engineer and tells a compelling story.
Quote: Essayist, memoirist (Close to the Machine) and computer industry pioneer Ullman has now produced an illuminating novel about the fate of a programmer, Ethan Levin, who wrestles with an ineradicable bug in the heroic era of computing.
I have no doubt that Computons will be a Flop so you should be covered.
Enron, Worldcom, HealthSouth to name a few.
This is just a plug for more resources. Do you really believe they would publish this if it was true.
Today Sig at /.
What upsets me is not that you lied to me, but that from now on I can no longer believe you. -- Nietzsche
is uncanny prescient.
Maybe this goes for this whole debacle as well. Some challenges to the GPL were certain to surface sooner or later, so if you accept this precept what better partner to have than IBM.
No money is being drained from Linux efforts from within IBM or from RH, SuSE et al., and the code is being scrutinized and scrubbed for any dubious portions that probably has found it's way into it.
Not SCO related but just bit and pieces that "somehow" got included.
In their dreams. They are a MS shill as sadly thats the only way they can stay in business.
Not a chance, but wish he would. Delay 2.6 and file suit against SCO for damages. It would dwarf the net worth of SCO.
I am surprised that this was offered. Microsoft is not out of the legal woods in Europe and a discount of this magnitude can almost only be construed as an attempt to leverage a monopoly situation. There can be no other rational business reason for this discount.
On an aside this is a huge blow for MS. The knowledge of the offered discount is probably worse than not getting the biz.
The segment with Dragonfly and the missing money is the only time AFAIK that Manuel uses this "explanation" himslef
It the difference between showing a signed petition with thousands of signatures, vs citing a poll that X% of the constituents is for or against somethng.
To run for office you need signed patitions not just a few pollsters saying you are popular.
The legal portion is precisely to answer your question.
I am from Barcelona! ;-)
Head over to ESR's No Secrets" home page, if you ever had access to UNIX source code that was not under NDA or NDA not enforced.
Quote:
I want to know if you have ever had read access to proprietary Unix source code (not just binaries and documentation) under circumstances where either no non-disclosure agreement was required or whatever non-disclosure agreement you had was not enforced.
If most people put windows on those machines it would actually work to MS' advantage as they thereby manage to maintain the file format lock in.
Good news is that machine is a little underpowered for XP and is has no Cd, meaning it is so not so easy to "switch" for Joe Sixpack or whatever Joe is called in Thailand.
Absolutely, I think he reads /. but no harm sending a note,
If you know other developers send them a note too.
According to latest thread on Kernel List Quoted below this is likely to have happened. Even though the Code is not public available there must be some versions floating around that can be used for "analysis". Once something is found public bug reports can be used as Evidence. Same bugs in SCO binaries as in Linux.
If someone have a copy of the SCO source code maybe make a Torrent file, so we can start analysing if they indeed stole something. A few nuggets will go a long way to quash the FUD from SCO. Anyone know where old SCO bug reports can be found?
Quote:
6. Possible License Violations Within The Kernel Source
Elsewhere, Christoph Hellwig replied to the original post as well, saying:
As somone who walked for SCO (or rather Caldera how it was called at that time) I can tell you this is utter crap. There were very people actually doing Linux kernel work then (and when the German office was closed down all those left the company) and we really had better things to do then trying to retrofit UnixWare code into the linux kenrel. Especially given that the kernel internals are so different that you'd need a big glue layer to actually make it work and you can guess how that would be ripped apart in a usual lkml review :)
It might be more interesting to look for stolen Linux code in Unixware, I'd suggest with the support for a very well known Linux fileystem in the Linux compat addon product for UnixWare..
Jim Nance said, "Wouldnt it be halirous if whatever code SCO is talking about when they say there is Unix code in Linux turns out to be code some SCO employee ripped out of some GPL program and stuck it into Unixware. That is actually far more likely than what they alledge."
--