SCO's lawsuit (not their obviously cracked copyright claims) rests on their claim that anything IBM developed for use with UNIX being owned by SCO and thus it's insertion in Linux being a contractual violation.
Do you really think IBM would sign a contract like this? One that would assign ownership of all of their technical advancements that have been used with their UNIX property of another company?
They actually have a rider in their contract w/ AT&T (hence SCO) that explicitly excludes their own development from ownershuip by AT&T, hence SCO. Dynix/Sequent code might be another issue, though.
..because Enderle is a fool and an asshole (and MS does suck), but this time he is right on many points. For example:
Few companies can continue to function if even 30% of their systems fail catastrophically. However, diversity will clearly increase costs sharply for sites that are highly consistent now.
A much better approach is to look at the entire security problem first, including the risks and costs of not doing anything, so that you have a foundation on which you can build alternatives. These alternatives include:
- Accelerated adoption of patches.
- Locking down desktops so users cannot make changes and viruses and worms can't install themselves and run.
- Implementing additional security products, such as virus software and firewalls.
Some of these are obvious, - like, what exactly is the exscuse for not patching a month after MS makes the patches available and getting bit by blaster a/b/c/d/e?
Once again, Enderle is a fool and an asshole, but apparently he's got someone intelligent ghost-writing for him this time. Diversity by itself is not the real answer for most organizations, because "security is a process, not a product". (Was that Schneier I just quoted?)
Re:old version was fine, the new not at all
on
Knoppix 3.3 Is Out
·
· Score: 1
Many of the mirrrors have 3.2 (and lack 3.3). Linuxiso.org stilll has 3.2
All of our source code is out in the open, and we welcome you point to any particular piece you might disagree with.
This is so beautiful because it so totally destroys SCO's "reason" for not disclosing the infringing code: the argument that they can't disclose it becauses it's proprietary (even though, by their own statements, it's already in the publicly available kernel source code).
Characteristically, Linus curts stright to the crux of the matter.
Although you are right in the denotative sense, this expression is seldom if ever used this way. If it were used that wy, then one would say: "That is the exception that disproves the rule", when the speaker is usually trying to somehow say the opposite, in my experience.
your assertion that Darwin is the "exception that proves the rule" is just silly.
Whenever, at any time, someone says "that is the exception that proves the rule", it is always appropriate to translate that to: "I don't have an argument, but I'm too much of a stupid fuckhead to admit it, so I'll just rattle off this complleate nonsensical bullshit and hope nobody notices".
I've always wondered how this expression ever came about. It is nonsense on its face.
Is google good or bad? is kazaa good or bad? are sponsored links good or bad? Is preference for sponsored links good or bad? is preference happening now? did it happen before?
This has got to be the least coherent afrticle I've ever read on slashdot and that's going a ways.
At work, we have about 120 linux servers, all tweaked-out Slackware machines.
How do you handle the steady steam of security patches needed? It's a lot quickler to slap on RPMs than to compile form source, but for that you need a distro with a longer support horizon, which costs more, at least in RedHat land.
I know you only have to do the compile once, then distribute the results, but it can still take a while to make everything work. (e.g. shared libs, non-shared libs, etc.)
We have made fun of such claims, but we haven't seen the contracts.
Their complaint included a side letter amending the contract between IBM and AT&T/SCO/whoever, to the effect that IBM owns what IBM writes. SCO is DOA.
For most people, the problems with windows are really problems with select pieces of commonly used windows software:...IE's security (or lack thereof),
Since the fucks^H^H^H^H^H good folks in Redmond really have integrated IE (or at least key DLLs) into the OS, how do you propose to make this differentiation?
This indicates that the network that the train signaling stations are on is not protected by firewalls, at least to block ports 135 and 444 where the DCOM vulnerability is attacked.
It means no such thing. It is perfectly possible to have machine (such as a laptop) infected on the outside, then brought in and connected to the inter LAN, where it starts infecting machines it can reach.
And sicne when does port 444 have anything to do with it? Once exploited, the victim is running a command shell on port 4444.
port 135 from the internet is not the only vector. Example: joe user takes his laptop home, connects to the another network, gets this. Now he comes in, cannects to your network and now you have this, even though you closed down your connections to the outside.
The lawsuit, filed in Delaware federal court, seeks a declaration that Red Hat is not violating SCO's intellectual property and an injunction that would bar SCO from making untrue claims that harm the Linux business.
Slashdot Mirror
SCO's lawsuit (not their obviously cracked copyright claims) rests on their claim that anything IBM developed for use with UNIX being owned by SCO and thus it's insertion in Linux being a contractual violation.
Do you really think IBM would sign a contract like this? One that would assign ownership of all of their technical advancements that have been used with their UNIX property of another company?
They actually have a rider in their contract w/ AT&T (hence SCO) that explicitly excludes their own development from ownershuip by AT&T, hence SCO. Dynix/Sequent code might be another issue, though.
..because Enderle is a fool and an asshole (and MS does suck), but this time he is right on many points. For example:
Some of these are obvious, - like, what exactly is the exscuse for not patching a month after MS makes the patches available and getting bit by blaster a/b/c/d/e?Once again, Enderle is a fool and an asshole, but apparently he's got someone intelligent ghost-writing for him this time. Diversity by itself is not the real answer for most organizations, because "security is a process, not a product". (Was that Schneier I just quoted?)
Many of the mirrrors have 3.2 (and lack 3.3). Linuxiso.org stilll has 3.2
He was right - 8 or 9 years agao. What a fucking moron.
I doubt that this is the (only) reason that they do not disclose.
That why I had "reason" in quotes - it's the bullshit they're handing out, not the real reason, as you correctly stated.This is so beautiful because it so totally destroys SCO's "reason" for not disclosing the infringing code: the argument that they can't disclose it becauses it's proprietary (even though, by their own statements, it's already in the publicly available kernel source code).
Characteristically, Linus curts stright to the crux of the matter.
It puts the license on its server or else it gets the hose again. Nyaaaah, Precious! -- Darl McBride
Shit! That's the funniest thing I've read in weeks!
Although you are right in the denotative sense, this expression is seldom if ever used this way. If it were used that wy, then one would say: "That is the exception that disproves the rule", when the speaker is usually trying to somehow say the opposite, in my experience.
your assertion that Darwin is the "exception that proves the rule" is just silly.
Whenever, at any time, someone says "that is the exception that proves the rule", it is always appropriate to translate that to: "I don't have an argument, but I'm too much of a stupid fuckhead to admit it, so I'll just rattle off this complleate nonsensical bullshit and hope nobody notices".
I've always wondered how this expression ever came about. It is nonsense on its face.
Is google good or bad? is kazaa good or bad? are sponsored links good or bad? Is preference for sponsored links good or bad? is preference happening now? did it happen before?
This has got to be the least coherent afrticle I've ever read on slashdot and that's going a ways.
Sex, drugs and eunuchs? Doesn't seem to work.
How do you handle the steady steam of security patches needed? It's a lot quickler to slap on RPMs than to compile form source, but for that you need a distro with a longer support horizon, which costs more, at least in RedHat land.
I know you only have to do the compile once, then distribute the results, but it can still take a while to make everything work. (e.g. shared libs, non-shared libs, etc.)
The FCC is run by Michael Powell, a peckerhead with only 2 qualifications:
-
He's a son of the Secretary of State
-
He's not selling out faster to big Business because it's impossible to do so.
God I hate Republicans, even more than I hate the Democrats.Does anyone else think it says: SUCK C*X"
That's an insult to cocksuckers.If SCO were cocksuckers, they'd be good for something, and that is clearly not the case.
We sue
Or we don't
Our stocks rise
I thought haiku was 5 syllables, 7 syllables, 5 syllables.
And the other other question is: If IBM buys Sequent and all their code, then which agreement applies?
http://www.anerispress.com/wltsim/
aka http://welovethescoinformationminister.org
...is to immediately kill anyone who buys anything as the result of receiving spam.
Anyone that fucking stupid doesn't deserve to live.
We have made fun of such claims, but we haven't seen the contracts.
Their complaint included a side letter amending the contract between IBM and AT&T/SCO/whoever, to the effect that IBM owns what IBM writes. SCO is DOA.
Hate to say it, but in this case, vigilante type action seems to have had the desired result.
Hey, whatever works, short of killing their children.
For most people, the problems with windows are really problems with select pieces of commonly used windows software: ...IE's security (or lack thereof),
Since the fucks^H^H^H^H^H good folks in Redmond really have integrated IE (or at least key DLLs) into the OS, how do you propose to make this differentiation?
This indicates that the network that the train signaling stations are on is not protected by firewalls, at least to block ports 135 and 444 where the DCOM vulnerability is attacked.
It means no such thing. It is perfectly possible to have machine (such as a laptop) infected on the outside, then brought in and connected to the inter LAN, where it starts infecting machines it can reach.
And sicne when does port 444 have anything to do with it? Once exploited, the victim is running a command shell on port 4444.
port 135 from the internet is not the only vector. Example: joe user takes his laptop home, connects to the another network, gets this. Now he comes in, cannects to your network and now you have this, even though you closed down your connections to the outside.
This announcement may be crap. DI they wirtes SOC's mama a note? If this were a real complaint, wouldn't they say *where* they filed it?